Backup Documents 02/08/2011 Item # 8ECOLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA
REQUEST FOR LEGAL ADVERTISING OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
To: Clerk to the Board: Please place the following as a:
❑ Normal legal Advertisement
(Display Adv., location, etc.)
❑ Other:
1P
[T
Originating Dept/ Div: Comprehensive Planning Section Person: Marcia R. Kendall/Senior Planner Date: 1/14/2011
Petition No. (If none, give brief description): CP- 2006 -11 DRI- Related GMP Amendment (Hacienda Lakes)
Petitioner: (Name & Address): David Torres, Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC, 12600 Biscayne Court, Naples, FL 34105.
Name & Address of any person(s) to be notified by Clerk's Office: (If more space is needed, attach separate sheet) N/A
Hearing before: X BCC BZA Other
Requested Hearing date: February 08, 2011. Based on advertisement appearing 15 days before hearing.
Newspaper(s) to be used: (Complete only if important):
x Naples Daily News ❑ Other ❑ Legally Required
Proposed Text: (Include legal description & common location & Size: See Attached
Companion petition(s), if any & proposed hearing date: Separate cover
Does Petition Fee include advertising cost? x Yes ❑ No If Yes, what account should be charged for advertising costs: 111- 138317-
649100 -00000
Reviewed by:
Division Administrator or Designee
t-1q -11
Date
List Attachments: Advertisement Request and copy of "Draft" Resolution
DISTRIBUTION INSTRUCTIONS
A. For hearings before BCC or BZA: Initiating person to complete one coy and obtain Division Head approval before
submitting to County Manager. Note: If legal document is involved, be sure that any necessary legal review, or request
for same, is submitted to County Attorney before submitting to County Manager. The Manager's office will distribute
copies:
❑ County Manager agenda file: to ❑ Requesting Division
Clerk's Office
❑ Original
B. Other hearings: Initiating Division head to approve and submit original to Clerk's Office, retaining a copy for file.
FOR CLERK'S OFFICE USE NLY: . + "
Date Received: _�_I_ I !-1 _ I. 1 L Date of Public hearing: OC O / Date Advertised:`C (
February 8 2011 Board of Count Commissioners Public Hearin BE
rY Y 9
Advertising Requirements
Please publish the following Advertisement and Map on Monday, January 24, 2011, and
furnish proof of publication to the attention of Marcia Kendall in the Land Development Services
Department, Comprehensive Planning Section, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida
34104. The advertisement must be a "1/4" page ad, and the headline in the advertisement
must be in a type no smaller than 18 point. The advertisement must not be placed in that
portion of the newspaper where legal notices and classified advertisements appear.
Please reference the following on ALL Invoices:
DEPARTMENT: LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
[Comprehensive Planning Section]
FUND & COST CENTER: 111 - 138317 - 649100 -00000
PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER: 4500122420
ACCOUNT NUMBER: 068778
1
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND BE
NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER RESOLUTION
Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Board of County Commissioners will hold a public
hearing on February 08, 2011 in the Board of County Commissioners chamber, third floor,
Collier County Government Center, 3299 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples Florida, to consider the
Transmittal of the following County Resolution, for amendments to the Collier County Growth
Management Plan. The meeting will commence at 9:00 A.M.
The purpose of the hearing is to consider a recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners on an amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map
and Map Series; for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. The
RESOLUTION title is as follows:
RESOLUTION NO. 11-
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS PROPOSING AMENDMENT TO THE
COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN,
ORDINANCE 89 -05, AS AMENDED, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING
THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, AND FUTURE LAND USE
MAP AND MAP SERIES AND THE CONSERVATION AND
COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT TO ADD ACREAGE TO
THE URBAN MIXED USE ACTIVITY CENTER #7; TO ALLOW
ACCESS TO A BUSINESS PARK SUBDISTRICT THROUGH
LORD'S WAY; TO INCREASE DENSITY IN THE URBAN
RESIDENTIAL FRINGE SUBDISTRICT AND TO ALLOW FOR
THE TRANSFER OF NATIVE VEGETATIVE RETENTION FROM
THE URBAN AREA TO THE SENDING AREA AND INCREASE
THE 60% CAP ON NATIVE VEGETATION IN THE TOTAL
PROJECT AREA DESIGNATED AS SENDING AREAS AND
FURTHERMORE RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THE
AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS.
➢ Petition CP- 2006 -11, a petition requesting amendments to the Conservation and
Coastal Management Element, Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and
Map Series of the Growth Management Plan, to Reconfigure the boundary and size of
the Southeast Quadrant of Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 (Rattlesnake Hammock
Road and Collier Boulevard); Increase the maximum allowable density that may be
achieved within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict (URF) portion of a Project lying
in more than one Future Land Use designation through enhanced utilization of eligible
Transferable Development Rights (TDRs); Provide a definitive access provision for a
Business Park located in the URF portion of a Project; and, Allow for Native Vegetation
Preservation in the URF portion of a Project to be shifted to the RFMUD Sending Lands
portion of the proiect when the Required Amount of Native Vegetation Preservation is
proportionally increased in the Sending Lands portion of the Project — as they relate to
proposed Hacienda Lakes Development of Regional Impact (DRI) and Mixed Use
Planned Unit Development (MPUD) Requests. The property is located in Sections 11,
12, 13, 14, 23, 24, and 25, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, and Sections 19 and 30,
2
MN
Township 50 South, Range 27 East, consisting of ±2,262 acres. [Transmittal Hearing]
Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposed Growth
Management Plan Amendment will be made available for inspection at the Land Development
Services Dept., Comprehensive Planning Section, 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr., Naples, FL. between
the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday. Furthermore the materials will be
made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's Office, fourth floor, suite 401, Collier
County Government Center, East Tamiami Trail, Naples, one week prior to the scheduled
hearing. Any questions pertaining to the documents should be directed to the Comprehensive
Planning Section. Written comments filed with the Clerk to the Board's Office prior to February
08, 2011, will be read and considered at the public hearing.
If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need
a record of that proceeding, and for such purpose he may need to ensure that a verbatim record
of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the
appeal is to be based.
If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this
proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please
contact the Collier County Facilities Management Department, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail
East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112 -5356, (239) 252 -8380, at least two days prior to the
meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of
County Commissioners Office.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
FRED W. COYLE, CHAIRMAN
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
By: /s /Patricia Morgan
Deputy Clerk (SEAL)
3
T 46—s—F
T47S
T48S
T49S
T50S I
T 51 S-1
T52S
T53S
uNno3 4aYM0a6
uNI10O 30VU
W
'*
m
s
C
�
I
W
O
m
M
m
m
.�
rc
L
0
7
W
—
s
�
p
Ly
N
O
x
cn
u
41
7
F
W
�
j
U
O
uNnoo aaaNaN
7
w
Q
M
N
O
m
¢
z
z
sa —'HS
sz -'as
F
W a
w
� V
U
r
o
\
C
N
z
x W
a
R -'U'S
o
�
7
�
m
m
�
np
W
W
OD
m
ti
I
N
ti
-
8�
m
vi
Q
W
AMOO 331
n
N
fD
CD
9
ac
Q
N
a
m
U
J 2g
ti
V
�
�.
bj
w
r
196 -'a"o
i
~m
o
W k
<
0
o
C4
N
00
196 --8-S
F
J
2
Z
a
a
<o
b<
W
"Oa
dalV
X10.
0 N
3
Div
p
LO
U
1I+pL1
I
N
if =S "0
a
v
a
<ws
goi
z
=
O
Me
co
.5
Of
Gulf
o
mho
e7°
ado
Mamp
Teresa L. Polaski
From:
KendallMarcia [MarciaKendall @colliergov.net]
Sent:
Friday, January 14, 2011 2:52 PM
To:
Minutes and Records
Cc:
Patricia L. Morgan; Bosi, Michael; Weeks, David; SchmidtCorby; NeetVirginia;
RodriguezWanda; Lorenz, William; Brock, Mary
Subject:
BCC Hearing Advertisement Request - CP- 2006 -11 DR[-Related Growth Management Plan
Amendment Transmittal
Attachments:
Ad Route Sheet_signed_CP- 2006 -11 GMP Trans_Ad.pdf; CP- 2006 -11 BCC GMP Transmittal
Legal Ad 20_Day.docx; CP- 2006 -11 Ad_Map.pdf
Please process the attached and forward confirmation for approval at your earliest convenience. As noted within, this is for BCC
Hearing to be held on Tuesday, February o8, 2011.
Cordially,
Marcia
Marcia R. Kendall, Senior Planner
Growth Management Division
Land Development Services Department
Comprehensive Planning Section
Phone: 239.252.2387
EFax: 239.252.6675
Email: marciakendall(a)colliergov.net
Under Florida Law, e -mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a
public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing.
Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send
electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing.
Acct. #068778
January 14, 2011
Attn: Legals
Naples News Media Group
1100 Immokalee Road
Naples, Florida 34110
Re: (Display Ad) CP- 2006 -11, Hacienda Lakes
Dear Legals:
BE
Please advertise the above referenced notice on Monday, January 24, 2011. Please
send the Affidavit of Publication in triplicate, together with charges involved to
this office.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Teresa Polaski,
Deputy Clerk
P.O. #4500122420
January 14, 2011
ATTN: Legals
Naples Media Group
1100 Immokalee Road
Naples, FL 34110
February 08, 2011 Board of County Commissioners Public Hearing
Advertising Requirements
Please publish the following Advertisement and Map on Monday, January 24, 2011, and
provide the Affidavit of Publication, in TRIPLICATE, together with charges involved to
the Boards Minutes and Records Department. The advertisement must be a "1/4"
page ad, and the headline in the advertisement must be in a type no smaller than 18
point. The advertisement must not be placed in that portion of the newspaper where
legal notices and classified advertisements appear.
Please reference the following on ALL Invoices:
DEPARTMENT: LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
[Comprehensive Planning Section]
FUND & COST CENTER: 111 - 138317 - 649100 -00000
PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER: 4500122420
ACCOUNT NUMBER: 068778
1
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND
NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER RESOLUTION
Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Board of County Commissioners will hold a public
hearing on February 08, 2011 in the Board of County Commissioners chamber, third floor,
Collier County Government Center, 3299 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples Florida, to consider the
Transmittal of the following County Resolution, for amendments to the Collier County Growth
Management Plan. The meeting will commence at 9:00 A.M.
The purpose of the hearing is to consider a recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners on an amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map
and Map Series; for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. The
RESOLUTION title is as follows:
RESOLUTION NO. 11-
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS PROPOSING AMENDMENT TO THE
COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN,
ORDINANCE 89 -05, AS AMENDED, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING
THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, AND FUTURE LAND USE
MAP AND MAP SERIES AND THE CONSERVATION AND
COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT TO ADD ACREAGE TO
THE URBAN MIXED USE ACTIVITY CENTER #7; TO ALLOW
ACCESS TO A BUSINESS PARK SUBDISTRICT THROUGH
LORD'S WAY; TO INCREASE DENSITY IN THE URBAN
RESIDENTIAL FRINGE SUBDISTRICT AND TO ALLOW FOR
THE TRANSFER OF NATIVE VEGETATIVE RETENTION FROM
THE URBAN AREA TO THE SENDING AREA AND INCREASE
THE 60% CAP ON NATIVE VEGETATION IN THE TOTAL
PROJECT AREA DESIGNATED AS SENDING AREAS AND
FURTHERMORE RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THE
AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS.
➢ Petition CP- 2006 -11, a petition requesting amendments to the Conservation and
Coastal Management Element, Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and
Map Series of the Growth Management Plan, to Reconfigure the boundary and size of
the Southeast Quadrant of Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 (Rattlesnake Hammock
Road and Collier Boulevard); Increase the maximum allowable density that may be
achieved within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict (URF) portion of a Project lying
in more than one Future Land Use designation through enhanced utilization of eligible
Transferable Development Rights (TDRs); Provide a definitive access provision for a
Business Park located in the URF portion of a Project; and, Allow for Native Vegetation
Preservation in the URF portion of a Project to be shifted to the RFMUD Sending Lands
portion of the proiect when the Required Amount of Native Vegetation Preservation is
proportionally increased in the Sending Lands portion of the Project — as they relate to
proposed Hacienda Lakes Development of Regional Impact (DR[) and Mixed Use
Planned Unit Development (MPUD) Requests. The property is located in Sections 11,
12, 13, 14, 23, 24, and 25, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, and Sections 19 and 30,
2
�L■
Township 50 South, Range 27 East, consisting of ±2,262 acres. [Transmittal Hearing]
Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposed Growth
Management Plan Amendment will be made available for inspection at the Land Development
Services Dept., Comprehensive Planning Section, 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr., Naples, FL. between
the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday. Furthermore the materials will be
made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's Office, fourth floor, suite 401, Collier
County Government Center, East Tamiami Trail, Naples, one week prior to the scheduled
hearing. Any questions pertaining to the documents should be directed to the Comprehensive
Planning Section. Written comments filed with the Clerk to the Board's Office prior to February
08, 2011, will be read and considered at the public hearing.
If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need
a record of that proceeding, and for such purpose he may need to ensure that a verbatim record
of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the
appeal is to be based.
If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this
proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please
contact the Collier County Facilities Management Department, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail
East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112 -5356, (239) 252 -8380, at least two days prior to the
meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of
County Commissioners Office.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
FRED W. COYLE, CHAIRMAN
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
By: /s /Patricia Morgan
Deputy Clerk (SEAL)
3
8E
T46S
T47S
T48S
T49S
T50S
T51S
T52S
T53S
ALNnoJ aavMoa6
LLNnO3 Sava
W
.r
C-3
C
I
W
M
m
m
<
m
1
V
�-
vi
¢
`
O
0
W
O
W
N
m
O
x
¢
V
Y
1
VI
7
F
W
m
V
¢
•
O
Z
ALNnOO AaaN3H
W
O
m
W
p
v
¢
m
m
�
st _as
6z —a'S
wII
W
O V
V
�
Q)
Z
W
x
N
W
a
¢
6z —,8s
o
�
m
�
GJ
W
co
H
Y
m
ti
^
4
N
ti
-
¢
a
m
I
W
ALNMD 331
vi
N
{D
N
9
¢
IL
M
Q
U
Jy
ti
26
W
i
z
ti
z
co
N
V m
¢
<
O O
I96 —•a•s
,
W
O
p
S
SL -I
d
V r
S
o
p
W
'aa aodalV���
s
vdz
z
W
U o
of
N
Li _ 6'❑
S
a
p�mo
¢
+ v
azpN
m
�LLZ
O
O
U
G f Of
o
Oo
<
WO¢�
6V0
CLERK OF THE CI1
Dwight E. Brock COLLIER 3301 TAMICOUNTY
AMI ;
Clerk of Courts P.O. BOX 4
NAPLES, FLORIDA
January 18, 2011
David Torres
Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC
12600 Biscayne Court
Naples, FL 34105
Re: CP- 2006 -11 (including Map)
Dear Petitioner:
Hier 8E
TIT COURT
Clerk of Courts
Accountant
Auditor
Custodian of County Funds
Please be advised that the above referenced petitions will be considered
by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, February 8, 2011,
as indicated on the enclosed notice. The legal display notice pertaining
to this petition will be published in the Naples Daily News on Monday,
January 24, 2011.
You are invited to attend this public hearing.
Sincerely,
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
eresa Polaski, Deputy Clerk
Enclosure
Phone (239) 252 -2646 Fax (239) 252 -2755
Website: www.collierelerk.com Email: collierclerk @collierclerk.com
dE
Teresa L. Polaski
To: Naples Daily News Legals
Subject: CP- 2006 -11 (Display Ad)
Attachments: CP- 2006 -11 Hacienda Lakes.doc; CP- 2006 -11 DR[-GMP Amendment.doc; CP- 2006 -11
Ad_Map.pdf
Legals,
Please advertise the attached Display Ad on Monday, January 24, 2011. Thanks
(Map will need to be opened in Adobe)
Teresa L. Polaski, BMR Clerk III
Minutes and Records Department
239 - 252 -8411
239 - 252 -8408 fax
( Teresa .Polaski @collierclerk.com)
Teresa L. Polaski '
From: Pagan, Emely [EPagan @Naplesnews.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 9:42 AM
To: Teresa L. Polaski
Subject: RE: CP- 2006 -11 (Display Ad)
It was received Friday after I left & Blanca called me & I told her to send you the "OK ".
Sorry if she didn't, but I started working on it today. As soon as I get the proof, I will forward it to you.
Thanks,
Em ly'Pagan
Gega[ Dept.
Napfes Daily News
1100 Immokaree Wpad
%apfes, EL. 34110
Legal Line: 239 - 213 -6061
Email: legals @naplesnews.com
From: Teresa L. Polaski [mailto: Teresa .Polaski(5)collierclerk.com]
Sent. Tuesday, January 18, 20119:41 AM
To: Legals NDN
Cc: Pagan, Emely
Subject: RE: CP- 2006 -11 (Display Ad)
I sent this late Friday and wanted to make sure you received it. If there are any problems with it let me know. Thanks
From. Teresa L. Polaski
Sent: Friday, January 14, 20114:36 PM
To: Naples Daily News Legals
Subject: CP- 2006 -11 (Display Ad)
Legals,
Please advertise the attached Display Ad on Monday, January 24, 2011. Thanks
(Map will need to be opened in Adobe)
1
Teresa L. Polaski
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments
TK #: 231 - 188477
P.O. #: 4500122420
SIZE: Y Page
COST: $1,265.40
Legals NDN [legals @naplesnews.com]
Tuesday, January 18, 2011 10:33 AM
Teresa L. Polaski
RE: CP- 2006 -11 (Display Ad)
231188477.pdf
8E
ATTACHED please REVIEW notice & send your APPROVAL via EMAIL.
Should you have any questions, changes or corrections, please contact me
via EMAIL.
No verbal changes or approvals accepted by phone, via email ONLY.
Emely Pagan
Legaf Dept.
Naples Daily Xews
1100 Immokafee Wpad
%apres, TL. 34110
Legal Line: 239 - 213 -6061
Email: legals @naplesnews.com
From: Teresa L. Polaski jmailto: Teresa .Polaski(�i)collierclerk.com]
Sent: Friday, January 14, 20114:36 PM
To: Legals NDN
Subject: CP- 2006 -11 (Display Ad)
Legals,
Please advertise the attached Display Ad on Monday, January 24, 2011. Thanks
1
(Map will need to be opened in Adobe) Q E
V
Teresa L. Polaski, BMR Clerk III
Minutes and Records Department
239 - 252 -8411
239 - 252 -8408 fax
( Teresa .Polaski @colliercierk.com)
Please visit us on the web at www.collierclerk.com
This electronic communication is confidential and may contain privileged information intended solely for the named addressee(s). It may not
be used or disclosed except for the purpose for which it has been sent. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or
take any action induced by or in reliance on information contained in this message.
Unless expressly stated, opinions in this message are those of the individual sender and not of the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of
Collier County. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the Clerk's Office by emailing helodeskc@collierclerk.com
quoting the sender and delete the message and any attached documents. The Collier County Clerk's Office accepts no liability or responsibility
for any onward transmission or use of emails and attachments having left the CollierClerk.com domain.
Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to
a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing.
C N 0110E
OTICE PUBLI
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND
NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER RESOLUTION
Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Board of County Commissioners will hold a public hearing on
February 08, 2011 in the Board of County Commissioners chamber, third floor, Collier County Government
Center, 3299 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples Florida, to consider the Transmittal of the following County Resolution,
for amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan. The meeting will commence at 9:00 A.M.
The purpose of the hearing is to consider a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners on an
amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series; for transmittal to the
Florida Department of Community Affairs. The RESOLUTION title is as follows:
RESOLUTION NO. 11-
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROPOSING AMENDMENT
TO THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, ORDINANCE 89 -05, AS AMENDED,
SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP
AND MAP SERIES AND THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT TO ADD
ACREAGE TO THE URBAN MIXED USE ACTIVITY CENTER #7; TO ALLOW ACCESS TO A BUSI-
NESS PARK SUBDISTRICT THROUGH LORD'S WAY; TO INCREASE DENSITY IN THE URBAN
RESIDENTIAL FRINGE SUBDISTRICT AND TO ALLOW FOR THE TRANSFER OF NATIVE VEGETA-
TIVE RETENTION FROM THE URBAN AREA TO THE SENDING AREA AND INCREASE THE 60%
CAP ON NATIVE VEGETATION IN THE TOTAL PROJECT AREA DESIGNATED AS SENDING AREAS
AND FURTHERMORE RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THE AMENDMENTTO THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS.
O Petition CP- 2006 -11, a petition requesting amendments to the Conservation and Coastal Management
Element, Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Mao and Map Series of the Growth Manage-
ment Plan, to Reconfigure the boundary and size of the Southeast Quadrant of Mixed Use Activity Center
No. 7 (Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard); Increase the maximum allowable density that
may be achieved within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict (URF) portion of a Project lying in more
than one Future Land Use designation through enhanced utilization of eligible Transferable Development
Rights (TDRs); Provide a definitive access provision for a Business Park located in the URF portion of
a Project; and, Allow for Native Vegetation Preservation in the URF portion of a Project to be shifted
to the RFMUD Sending Lands portion of the project when the Required Amount of Native Vegetation
Preservation is proportionally increased in the Sending Lands portion of the Project — as they relate to
proposed Hacienda Lakes Development of Regional Impact (DRI) and Mixed Use Planned Unit Develop-
ment (MPUD) Requests. The property is located in Sections 11, 12, 13, 14, 23, 24, and 25, Township 50
South, Range 26 East, and Sections 19 and 30, Township 50 South, Range 27 East, consisting of ±2,262
acres. [Transmittal Hearing] Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
S.R.- 84 1 -75
DAMS BLVD.
r
aTy
OF V-200P
NAPLES
0
� GSA
O N
0 �b
All interested parties are invited to appear
and be heard. Copies of the proposed
Growth Management Plan Amendment
will be made available for inspection at
the Land Development Services Dept.,
Comprehensive Planning Section, 2800 N.
Horseshoe Dr., Naples, FL. between the
hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., Monday
through Friday. Furthermore the materials
will be made available for inspection at the
Collier County Clerk's Office, fourth floor,
suite 401, Collier County Government
Center, East Tamiami Trail, Naples, one
week prior to the scheduled hearing. Any
questions pertaining to the documents
should be directed to the Comprehensive
Planning Section. Written comments filed
with the Clerk to the Board's Office prior
to February 08, 2011, will be read and
considered at the public hearing.
If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners with
respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of that proceeding, and for
such purpose he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes
the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding,
you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County
Facilities Management Department, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112 -5356,
(239) 252 -8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are
available in the Board of County Commissioners Office.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS - COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
FRED W. COYLE, CHAIRMAN - WIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
By: /s /Patricia Morgan - Deputy Clerk (SEAL)
No. 231188477 January 24 2011
. 8E
Teresa L. Polaski i 8E
From: KendallMarcia [MarciaKendall @colliergov.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 11:27 AM
To: Teresa L. Polaski
Subject: RE: CP- 2006 -11 (Display Ad)
The advertisement is good to go. Thank you!
Cordially,
Marcia
Marcia R. Kendall, Senior Planner
Growth Management Division
Land Development Services Department
Comprehensive Planning Section
Phone: 239.252.2387
EFax: 239.252.6675
Email: marciakendallna colliergov.net
Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records
request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing.
From: Teresa L. Polaski Imailto:Teresa.Polaski(a collierclerk.coml
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 201110:35 AM
To: KendallMarcia
Subject: FW: CP- 2006 -11 (Display Ad)
Here is your ad confirmation.
From: Legals NDN jmailto:IegalsC&naplesnews.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 201110:33 AM
To: Teresa L. Polaski
Subject: RE: CP- 2006 -11 (Display Ad)
TK #: 231 - 188477
P.O. #: 4500122420
SIZE: % Page
COST: $1,265.40
ATTACHED please REVIEW notice & send your APPROVAL via EMAIL.
Should you have any questions, changes or corrections, please contact me
via EMAIL.
No verbal changes or approvals accepted by phone, via email ONLY.
4-, $
•t
kir P.
Emefy Pagan
Lega[Dept.
Wapfes Daify X ws
1100 Immokafee mad
Xapfes, FL. 34110
Legal Line: 239 - 213 -6061
Email: legals @naplesnews.com
From: Teresa L. Polaski jmailto: Teresa .PolaskiCabcollierclerk.coml
Sent: Friday, January 14, 20114:36 PM
To: Legals NDN
Subject: CP- 2006 -11 (Display Ad)
Legals,
Please advertise the attached Display Ad on Monday, January 24, 2011. Thanks
(Map will need to be opened in Adobe)
Teresa L. Polaski, BMR Clerk III
Minutes and Records Department
239 - 252 -8411
239 - 252 -8408 fax
( Teresa .Polaski @colliercierk.com)
Please visit us on the web at www.collierelerk.com
This electronic communication is confidential and may contain privileged information intended solely for the named addressee(s). It may not
be used or disclosed except for the purpose for which it has been sent. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or
take any action induced by or in reliance on information contained in this message.
Unless expressly stated, opinions in this message are those of the individual sender and not of the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of
Collier County. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the Clerk's Office by emailing helodesk0)collierclerk.com
quoting the sender and delete the message and any attached documents. The Collier County Clerk's Office accepts no liability or responsibility
for any onward transmission or use of emails and attachments having left the CollierClerk.com domain.
Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to
a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing.
[L
NAPLES DAILY NEWS
Published Daily
�, y
OTIC OF PO I': ` R1N
Naples, FL 34110
NOTICE OF INTENT Tt3 C HSIDEA RESOL U`f ION
• • .
Affidavit Publlcatl(
f'64M l hereby gjtien that the CoVer County Board of County Commissioner$ will hold a putat[c hearing on
of
+201, to the Board of Count Commiseianers ctiarnber, third floor, Collier Courtly Government
State of Florida
Center; 3299 E. Twhlami 11ra11, Naples Florida, to consider the Transmittal of the following County Resolution,
fair amendments to the Collier.Courtty Growth Management Plan. The meeting will oommence at 9,M A.M.
Counties of Collier and Lee
The purpose of the hearing is to consider a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners on an
atroximedtto the Future Land tfae Element and Future Land -use Map and Map Series; for• tmnwnittal to the
1
PO* P90rtrtt®nt0fCAmmun9ty Affairs. The RESOLUTiOi!l t* is as follow
Before the undersigned they serve as the autf.
RESOLLM.0 46.11 -'
appeared Debbie Landreth, who on oath say`'
the Controller of the Naples Daily News, a
A fiESOLUTi01 OF THE BOARD OF MM18810NEf PROPOSING AMENDMENT
ENT
TQTHE7eE
published at Naples, in Collier County. Fla
_ ER`GOtJNTY (iROWTi+Mti Wt�4N, ORDiNIwc.� �-os, AS AMENDED,
fiECIFI Aif1ENDING THE FUTURE LAND UsE ELEMENT, AND F�NRE l AND USE MAP
AND I1riAIES ANp TtiE CONSER VgTION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT
in Collier and Lee counties of Florida; that
EltdENT TO App
ACrREAGTHE URBAN M)XED.U$E ACTNRY CENTER IF7; fO.ALLOW ACCESS TO A BUSI-
of the advertising, being a
NESS PARK SUBDISTRICT THROUGH LORD'S WAY; TO INCREASE DENSITY IN THE URBAN
RESIDENTIAL FRINGESUBDiSTRICTAND TO ALLOW FOR THETRANSFER OF NATIVE VEGETA-
PUBLIC NOTICE
TiVE RETENTION FROM THE URBAN AREA TO ,THE SENDING AREA AND INCREASE-THE 80%
CAPON NATIVE VEGETAMON. iN THE PROJ €CTAREADESIGNATED AS SENDINIaMEAS
ANp;PUEiiHEfiMORE RECf?MMENDIt FG TRANsivirmL OF THE AMENDMENT To THE FLORIDA,
in the matter of PUBLIC NOTICE
I 5EFARTM&I'i'OFCOMMUNUAFFAIRS." .
it Reemm CP- 2005 -11, a Petition requesting amendma* to the CQnsenartlan and Coastal MaifagoinKIL
was published in said newspaper 1 time it
on January 24, 2011
0L rage Land Use Element and Future, Land Use Map and M41 Sedes of the Growth Mariam
mentpis_ n. to_ ReeonflguretheboundaryandatzeofthevcuttV, QusdruttofMixedUssAottvriyCenter
No.
7 (Rattlesnake Hammook Road and Collier Boulevard); frame" the maximum aliowabla density that
may be achieved wiiftin this Urban Residential Fringe Subdistriot (U" portion of 's, Project lying In more
Affiant further save that the said Na
than one Future Land Use designation 'through enhanced utilization of eligible -itahaferable Development
y p es r y ews is
published at Naples, in said Collier County. Florida, and
newspaper has heretofore been continuously published it
County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties (
each day and has been entered as second class trail matt(
office in Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, for a
year next preceding the first publication of the attach .
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neith
promised any person, fum or corporation any discos; .
commission or refund for the purpose of securing this ad,
publication in the said newspaper.,
( Signature of affiant)
Sworn to and subscribed before me
This 27th day of January, 2011
(Signature of notary public)
NIIII,
v�O °�- KAROL E KAHGAS
* A Notary Public - State of Florid;
o. My Comm. Expires Jul 29, 201
Commission # DO 912237
ptaposed Hacienda t
'mertt (MPUD) Reque;
South, Rangs 21l Eras
acres. [Transmittal He
aiy L
ki
0 i
c-1t
0
0
e -a deffnitive•access provision, for a Busigeeg. Park located hi the URF portion of
for Native Vegetation Preservatim in the •URF portion of a Project to be ;shifted
Ig I ii-in nortlon of the project when the Required Amount of Native Vegetation
tionsllyy increased In the.Sending lands portion of the Pro*4 - as they relate tb,
rkeaDevelopmentof Regional impact (DRQ and Mixed Use Planned Unit Develop -
x The property Io located 1n Sections 11,12,13,14, 23, 24, and 25, ToWnship 50
and Sections 19 and 30, Township 50 South, Range 27 East, consisting oft2,262
uiing) Coordinator. Corby Schmidt, Principal - Planner -
All Interested parties are invited to apps
aye and bey heard. Copies of'the proposed
- Orowth Management Plan Amendment
(A,%Mj1 will be•made available for inspection at
/ the Land Development Sdrvices Dept.,
Co[prehensive Planning Sentton.2800 N.
•1 Horseshoe Dr., Naples, FL between the
hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 PM., Monday
C
•^n
- through Friday. Furthermore the materials
Will be made avatiabfefor inspection at the
Collier County Clerk's Office, fourth floor,
suite 401, Collier County Government
Centel, East Tamiamf ThA Naples, one
Week prior to the scheduled hearing. Any
{� questions pertaining to the documents
should be directed to the Comprehensive
Planning Section: Written comments filed
with the Clerk to the Boards Office prior
to February 08, 2011, will be road and
a considered at the pubft hearing.
If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners with
respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of that proceeding, and for
such purpose he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record Includes
the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. .
If yori are a person wf th a disability who needs any acoortxriodation in order to participate in this proceeding,
you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of- certain easlatance. Please contact the Collier County
Facilities Management Department, located. at 3335 Tamlaml,Ul East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 341123358,
(239) 252 -8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted Ifster6ig devices for thq hearing impaired are
avatiable in the Board of County Commliiskirters`Office.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS - COWER COUNTi; FLORIDA
FRED W. COYLE, CHAIRMAN - WIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
By: /s/Paficia Morgan - Deputy ,Clark (SEAL),-,'
No.231198477
MEMORANDUM 84
bate: February 11, 2011
To: Marcia Kendall, Senior Planner
Comprehensive Planning
From: Teresa Polaski, Deputy Clerk
Minutes & Records Department
Re: Resolution 2011 -32
Enclosed please f ind one certified (1) copy of the above
referenced documents approved by the Board of County
Commissioners on Tuesday, February 8, 2011.
If you have any questions, please call me at 252 -8411.
Thank you.
Enclosure
RESOLUTION NO. 11- 32
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS PROPOSING AMENDMENT TO THE
COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN,
ORDINANCE 89 -05, AS AMENDED, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING
THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, AND FUTURE LAND USE
MAP AND MAP SERIES AND THE CONSERVATION AND
COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT TO ADD ACREAGE TO
THE URBAN MIXED USE ACTIVITY CENTER #7; TO ALLOW
ACCESS TO A BUSINESS PARK SUBDISTRICT THROUGH
LORD'S WAY; TO INCREASE DENSITY IN THE URBAN
RESIDENTIAL FRINGE SUBDISTRICT AND TO ALLOW FOR
THE TRANSFER OF NATIVE VEGETATIVE RETENTION FROM
THE URBAN AREA TO THE SENDING AREA AND INCREASE
THE 60% CAP ON NATIVE VEGETATION IN THE TOTAL
PROJECT AREA DESIGNATED AS SENDING AREAS AND
FURTHERMORE RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THE
AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS.
WHEREAS, Collier County, pursuant to Section 163.3161, et. seq., Florida Statutes, the
Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act,
was required to prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan; and
WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners adopted the Collier
County Growth Management Plan on January 10, 1989; and
WHEREAS, the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development
Regulation Act of 1985 provides authority for local governments to amend their respective
comprehensive plans and outlines certain procedures to amend adopted comprehensive plans
pursuant to Sections 163.3184 and 163.3187, Florida Statutes; and
WHEREAS, Collier County has prepared plan amendments to the following elements of
its Growth Management Plan:
Future Land Use Element, including the Future Land Use Map and Map Series, and
Conservation and Coastal Management Element; and
WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) on January 20, 2011
considered the proposed amendment to the Growth Management Plan pursuant to the authority
granted to it by Section 163.3174, Florida Statutes, and recommended approval of said
amendment to the Board of County Commissioners; and
WHEREAS, upon receipt of Collier County's proposed Growth Management Plan
amendment, various State agencies and the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) have
ninety (90) days to review the proposed amendment and DCA must transmit, in writing, to
Collier County, its comments along with any objections and /or recommendations for
modification, within said ninety (90) days pursuant to Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes; and
CP- 2006 -11 GMP Transmittal Resolution per 10 -CMP -00788
1 of 2
WHEREAS, Collier County, upon receipt of the written comments from DCA must adopt,
adopt with changes or not adopt the proposed Growth Management Plan amendment, within
sixty (60) days of such receipt pursuant to Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes; and
WHEREAS, the DCA, within forty -five (45) days of receipt of Collier County's adopted
Growth Management Plan amendment, must review and determine if the Plan amendment is in
compliance with the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Act of
1985, the State Comprehensive Plan, the appropriate Regional Policy Plan and Rule 9J -5,
Florida Administrative Code, pursuant to Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves the proposed Growth
Management Plan amendment, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference
herein, for the purpose of transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs thereby initiating
the required State evaluation of the Growth Management Plan amendment, prior to final
adoption and State determination of compliance with the Local Government Comprehensive
Planning and Land Development Regulation Act of 1985 and Rule 9J -5, Florida Administrative
Code, Minimum Criteria for Review of Local Government Comprehensive Plans and
Determination of Compliance.
THIS RESOLUTION ADOPTED after motion, second and majority vote this 8th day of
February, 2011.
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E- ,BRQCK, CLERK
t _
-Al�:;r
uly- `Clerk
Approved as to form
and legal sufficiency:
H idi Ashton -Cicko
Assistant County Attorney
Section Chief, Land Use/Transportation
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
FRED W. COYLE, Chairman
CP- 2006 -11 GMP Transmittal Resolution per 10 -CMP -00788
2 of 2
Item# —�3L
Agenda
Date
Date `
Rec'
Deputy Clerk
•
Exhibit A
PART ONE of SIX:
Future Land Use Element
URBAN DESIGNATION
A. Urban Mixed Use District
2. Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict:
I. 8k
CP- 2006 -11
[Insert new language — FLUE Page 29]
The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide transitional densities between the Urban Designated Area
and the Agricultural /Rural Area and comprises approximately 5,500 acres and 5% of the Urban Mixed
Use District. Residential land uses may be allowed at a maximum base density of 1.5 units per gross
acre, plus any density bonus that may be achieved via CCME Policy 6.2.5 (6) b.1., of and either "a" or
"b" below:
a. Up to 2L.5 1_0 units per gross acre via the transfer of up to one 1.0 dwelling unit (transferable
development right) per acre from lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary and
designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands, except in the case of properties
that straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands
designations, and meet the other Density Blending criteria provided for in subsection 5.2 of the
Density Rating System, which may achieve an additional maximum density of up to 1.3 units
per gross acre via the transfer of up to 1.3 dwelling units (transferable development rights) per
acre from lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary and designated as Rural Fringe
Mixed Use District Sending Lands: or, +4
b. In the case of properties specifically identified below, a density bonus of up to 6.0 additional
units per gross acre may be requested for projects providing affordable- workforce housing
(home ownership only) for low and moderate income residents of Collier County, pursuant to
Section 2.06.00 of the Land Development Code, or its successor ordinance, except as
provided for in pares " " below. WithiR the UFban Residential FFinge,
Within the Urban Residential Fringe, rezone requests are not subject to the density rating system,
except as specifically provided below for the Affordable- workforce Housing Density Bonus. All
rezones are encouraged to be in the form of a planned unit development. Proposed development in
the Subdistrict shall be fully responsible for all necessary water management improvements, including
the routing of all on -site and appropriate off -site water through the project's water management
system, and a fair share cost of necessary improvements to the CR 951 canal /out -fall system made
necessary by new development in the Subdistrict.
-1-
Words underlined are added, words stFusk t#reug# are deleted.
Row of asterisks ( ** * ** * * ** * ** ** ) denotes breaks in text.
CP- 2006 -1 P C
Properties eligible for the Affordable- workforce Housing Density Bonus (home ownership only) will
be specifically identified herein. The actual number of bonus units per gross acre shall be reviewed
and approved in accordance with the conditions and procedures set forth in Section 2.06.00 of the
Land Development Code, except that, Section 2.06.03 shall not apply, and the number of dwelling
units required to be sold to buyers earning 80% or less of Collier County's median income, as
calculated annually by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), shall be at least
thirty percent (30 %).
The following properties are eligible for an Affordable- workforce Housing Density Bonus (home
ownership only) of up to 6.0 additional dwelling units per acre.
1. Property located on the East side of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), approximately ...
PART TWO of SIX:
URBAN DESIGNATION
[Insert new language — FLUE Pages 51 — 53]
B. DENSITY RATING SYSTEM
5. Density Blending:
This provision is intended to encourage unified plans of development and to preserve wetlands,
wildlife habitat, and other natural features that exist within properties that straddle the Urban Mixed
Use and Rural Fringe Mixed Use Districts or that straddle Receiving and Neutral Lands within the
Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. In the case of such properties, which were in existence and under
unified control (owned, or under contract to purchase, by the applicant(s)) as of June 19, 2002, the
allowable gross density for such properties in aggregate may be distributed throughout the project,
regardless of whether or not the density allowable for a portion of the project exceeds that which is
otherwise permitted, when the following conditions are met:
2. Density Blending Conditions and Limitations for Properties Straddling the Urban Residential
Fringe Sub - District and Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending lands:
(a) . The project must straddle the Urban Residential Fringe Sub - District and the Rural
Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands;
(b) The project in aggregate must be a minimum of 400 acres;
(c) At least 25% of the project must be located within the Urban Residential Fringe Sub -
District. The project must extend central water and sewef wastewater treatment
facilities (from the urban designated portion of the project) to serve the entire project,
-2-
Words underlined are added, words stF6lGk thFeugh are deleted.
Row of asterisks ( ** * ** * * ** *** ** ) denotes breaks in text.
CP- 2006 -1 8E 1
unless alternative interim s°`��a water and wastewater treatment provisions are
authorized by Collier County;
(d) The Project is currently zoned or will be zoned PUD;
(e) The density to be shifted to the Sending Lands from the Urban Residential Fringe is to
be located on impacted or disturbed lands, or it is demonstrated that the development
on the site is to be located so as to preserve and protect the highest quality native
vegetation and /or habitat on -site and to maximize the connectivity of such native
vegetation and /or wildlife habitat with adjacent preservation and /or habitat areas;
(f) Native vegetation shall be preserved as follows:
The Urban portion of the project shall comply with the native vegetation
requirements identified in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element
(for Urban designated lands), or in the case of proiects where the native
vegetation requirement for the Sending Lands portion of the project is the
maximum required 60 percent of the total Sending Land area, in order to
promote greater preservation of the highest quality wetlands and listed species
habitat, the required native vegetation for the Urban portion of the project may
be shifted by providing native vegetation preservation in the Sending Lands
portion of the proiect exceeding the 60% maximum preservation requirement as
set forth in subsection (2) below. The ratio for such native vegetation
preservation shall be two acres of Sending Lands (exceeding the 60%
maximum preservation requirement) for each acre below the required amount
of native vegetation for the Urban portion of the protect. In no instance shall
less than 10 percent of the required amount of native vegetation be retained in
the Urban portion of the project. Significant Archeological Sites identified by the
State of Florida Division of Historic Resources shall be preserved and cannot
be mitigated for. For those lands within the nroient designated as Sending, the
Rat+ve --ve vegetation i rem i t shall ho 90 of the native
Q 8 F�� F28ef�atr9�� ccjurF2R�Glflr-- �rrcm— nc—�v� 9�i-- crrc��rarrrc
0 of the total pFejeGt area designated as Sending.
vegetation, not to eXGeed Fesult in eRhanGed wetland fui;rtien, iAGluding habitat andler flowways, shall be
ere f the nature ire etati n reg it t set forth in this
sei}si cr-c crt�rr�c- vc�c�avcrer��ccfi�Trei�ierir —.r s
aP d .1e;rfl9 •A"s Fnay be used f^vF water ° St .^Fagge— prr6V'rde't-- that the watef
discharged in these areas is are _treated
For those lands within the project designated as Sending, the native vegetation
preservation requirement shall be 90% of the native vegetation, not to exceed
60% of the total project area designated as Sending, unless the provisions
found in subsection (1) above are met.
Wetland areas that are impacted through the development process, but which
result in enhanced wetland function, including habitat and /or flowways, shall be
considered as part of the native vegetation requirement set forth in this
provision and shall not be considered as impacted areas. These wetland areas
and /or flowways may be used for water storage provided that the water
discharged in these areas is pre- treated.
-3-
Words underlined are added, words stFuGk through are deleted.
Row of asterisks ( ** * ** * * ** * ** ** ) denotes breaks in text.
CP_2006-Q E
(g) Permitted uses for density blending under this provision include residential
development and associated amenities, including golf courses meeting the criteria for
golf courses within the Neutral area. This provision is not intended to eliminate any
uses permitted within the applicable underlying land use designation.
PART THREE of SIX:
B. DENSITY RATING SYSTEM:
[Insert new language — FLUE Page 50]
2. Density Bonuses
Consistency with the following characteristics may add to the base density. Density bonuses
are discretionary, not entitlements, and are dependent upon meeting the criteria for each
bonus provision and compatibility with surrounding properties, as well as the rezone criteria in
the Land Development Code.
f. Transfer of Development Rights Bonus
To encourage preservation /conservation of natural resources, density transfers are permitted
as follows:
(c) From Sending Lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary into lands
designated Urban Residential Fringe, at a maximum density increase of one (1) unit
per gross acre, except for properties that straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the
Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands designations, and meet the other Density
Blending criteria provided for in subsection 5.2 of the Density Rating System, which
may transfer TDRs from Sending Lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary
into lands designated Urban Residential Fringe, at a maximum density increase of 1.3
units per gross acre.
PART FOUR of SIX:
URBAN DESIGNATION
[amend language — FLUE Pages 56 -57]
C. Urban Commercial Subdistrict
1. Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict
2. The allowable land uses for a Master Planned Activity Center shall be the same as for
other designated Activity Centers; however, a Master Planned Activity Center
encompassing the majority of the property in two or more quadrants shall be afforded
the flexibility to redistribute a part or all of the allocation from one quadrant to another,
to the extent of the unified control. The maximum amount of commercial uses allowed
-4-
Words underlined are added, words stFuek througli are deleted.
Row of asterisks ( ** * ** * * ** *** ** ) denotes breaks in text.
CP_2006_� E
at Activity Center #3 (Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard) is 40 acres per quadrant
for a total of 160 acres maximum in the entire Activity Center; the balance of the land
area shall be limited to non - commercial uses as allowed in Mixed Use Activity Centers.
The maximum amount of commercial uses allowed at Activity Center #7 (Rattlesnake
Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard) is 40 acres per quadrant, except that the
northeast quadrant may have a total of 59 acres and the southeast quadrant may have
a total of 49.2 acres, for a total of 47-9 188.2 acres maximum in the entire Activity
Center;
FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES
[amend in order]
Activity Center No. 7 — Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard Mixed Use Activity Center
• amend inset map depicting new MUAC boundary, instead of revision to the Future Land Use
Element Countywide FLUM.
PART FIVE of SIX:
URBAN DESIGNATION
[Insert new language — FLUE Pages 31 -32]
A. Urban Mixed Use District
4. Business Park Subdistrict
The Business Park Subdistrict is intended to provide for a mix of industrial uses and non - industrial
uses, designed in an attractive park -like environment with low structural density where building
coverage ranges between 25% to 45% and where landscaped areas provide for buffering and
enjoyment by the employees and patrons of the park. Business Parks shall be allowed as a
Subdistrict in the Urban -Mixed Use District, Urban Commercial District and Urban Industrial District
and may include the general uses allowed within each District, the specific uses set forth below, and
shall comply with the following general conditions:
* ** * ** * * ** * ** * * * ** * ** * * ** * ** ** *
h. When located in a District other than the Urban Industrial District, the Business Park must have
direct access to a road classified as an arterial in the Transportation Element, except that a
Business Park in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East may have access to an arterial
road via The Lords Way.
-5-
Words underlined are added, words StFUGk are deleted.
Row of asterisks ( ** * ** * * ** * ** ** ) denotes breaks in text.
CP- 2006 -11 8E
PART SIX of SIX:
Conservation and Coastal Management Element
[Insert new language — CCME Pages 18-21]
GOAL 6:
OBJECTIVE 6.1:
Policy 6.1.1:
For the County's Urban Designated Area, Estates Designated Area, Conservation Designated Area,
and Agricultural /Rural Mixed Use District, Rural- Industrial District and Rural- Settlement Area District
as designated on the FLUM, native vegetation shall be preserved through the application of the
following preservation and vegetation retention standards and criteria, unless the development occurs
within the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) where the ACSC standards referenced in the Future
Land Use Element shall apply. Notwithstanding the ACSC requirements, this policy shall apply to all
non - agricultural development except for single - family dwelling units situated on individual parcels that
are not located within a watershed management conservation area identified in a Watershed
Management Plan developed pursuant to policies supporting Objective 2.1 of this Element.
The following standards and criteria shall apply to the vegetation retention requirements referenced
above.
* ** * ** * * ** * ** * * * ** * ** * * ** * ** ** *
In order to promote greater preservation of the highest quality wetlands and listed species
habitat the required native vegetation for the Urban portion of the project may be shifted by
providing native vegetation preservation in the Sending Lands portion of the project exceeding
the 60% maximum preservation requirement found in Density Blending provisions of the FLUE
for proiects that:
I�
Words underlined are added, words stFuGk tkFsag# are deleted.
Row of asterisks ( ** * ** * * ** *** ** ) denotes breaks in text.
Coastal High Hazard
Non - Coastal High Hazard Area
Area
Residential and Mixed
Less than 2.5 acres 10%
Less than 5 acres. 10%
Use Development
Equal to or greater
Equal to or greater than 5 acres
than 2.5 acres 25%
and less than 20 acres. 15%
Equal to or
greater than 20 ac. 25%
Golf Course
35%
35%
Commercial and
Less than 5 acres. 10%
Less than 5 acres. 10%
Industrial
Equal to or greater
Equal to or
Development
than 5 acres. 15%
greater than 5 acres. 15%
Industrial
50 %, not to exceed 25%
50 %, not to exceed 25% of the
Development (Rural-
of the project site.
project site.
Industrial District only)
The following standards and criteria shall apply to the vegetation retention requirements referenced
above.
* ** * ** * * ** * ** * * * ** * ** * * ** * ** ** *
In order to promote greater preservation of the highest quality wetlands and listed species
habitat the required native vegetation for the Urban portion of the project may be shifted by
providing native vegetation preservation in the Sending Lands portion of the project exceeding
the 60% maximum preservation requirement found in Density Blending provisions of the FLUE
for proiects that:
I�
Words underlined are added, words stFuGk tkFsag# are deleted.
Row of asterisks ( ** * ** * * ** *** ** ) denotes breaks in text.
8E
CP- 2006 -11
a) Are under unified control,
b) Straddle the Urban Residential Frinae and the Rural Frinae Mixed Use Sendina Lands
designations, and,
(c) Meet the maximum required 60 percent preservation requirement for the Sending
Lands portion of the project.
The preservation ratio shall be two acres of Sending Lands (exceeding the 60% maximum
preservation requirement) for each acre below the required amount of native vegetation for the Urban
portion of the protect. In no instance shall less than 10 percent of the required amount of native
vegetation be retained in the Urban portion of the project. Significant Archeological Sites identified by
the State of Florida Division of Historic Resources shall be preserved and cannot be mitigated for.
GACDES Planning ServiceslComprehensive\COMP PLANNING GMP DATA1Comp Plan Amendments\2006 Cycle PetitionslCP- 2006 -11 FLUE -CCME Hacienda Lakes of
NapleslExhibitNs\CP -06 -11 BCC Transmittal Exhibit A.docx
-7-
Words underlined are added, words stFUsL through are deleted.
Row of asterisks ( ** * ** * * ** * ** ** ) denotes breaks in text.
N
IL
U
O
wa
m
S
W
n �
w;
w;
Q �
P �\
0
7
U O O
IL
IL
a. I
I
8E
Q
w
N�
O
f O
Uo
W N
I and
3
Y
5
ao' F
$tl 3E ~
C' 8
1
I tl 1
I w
1 I 3
a+va �y
------- _-----
! d
� $ e
a�
ye' � e
� 8
"a $
31
e
1 , tle
I � t ¢b
u I - - - - - -- - - -- 1__ -- - - - - -! uW J
a
mg:
a�
g7
8
u,rnm�
a
a
r
O
I i
a�
a
e
D�
a:
V
Y
E
t
a� y
P
6
M
O
O
€
O
�
N
a
w 6
( ) Z
ja
W
J
a
o
c U
Z
v N
g
8#
a
s�<
oa
w n
e=
Z
w
�
m1
Q
w
N�
O
f O
Uo
W N
I and
3
Y
5
ao' F
$tl 3E ~
C' 8
1
I tl 1
I w
1 I 3
a+va �y
------- _-----
! d
� $ e
a�
ye' � e
� 8
"a $
31
e
1 , tle
I � t ¢b
u I - - - - - -- - - -- 1__ -- - - - - -! uW J
a
mg:
a�
g7
8
u,rnm�
a
a
r
O
I i
a�
a
e
D�
a:
V
Y
E
t
a� y
P
6
COLLIER COUNTY
DRI- RELATED
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
AMENDMENT
(TRANSMITTAL HEARINGS)
C
ti
K
F f! [ Il a! F !) E ��--E !F ! 1 4 L! ■ 9E L F ff E E ]L E E D[ a y! E
0
Petition: CP- 2006 -11
CCPC: January 20, 2011
BCC: February 08, 2011
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners 8E
• Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB)
Airport Authority
AGENDA
Board of County Commission Chambers
Collier County Government Center
3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor
Naples FL 34112
February 08, 2011
9:00 AM
Fred W. Coyle - BCC Chairman; Commissioner, District 4
Jim Coletta - BCC Vice - Chairman; Commissioner, District 5; CRAB Vice - Chairman
• Donna Fiala - BCC Commissioner, District 1; CRAB Chairman
Georgia Hiller - BCC Commissioner, District 2
Tom Henning - BCC Commissioner, District 3
NOTICE: All persons wishing to speak on Agenda items must register prior to speaking.
Speakers must register with the County Manager prior to presentation of the Agenda item to be
addressed. All registered speakers will receive up to three (3) minutes unless the time is
adjusted by the chairman.
Collier County Ordinance No. 2003 -53 as amended by ordinance 2004 -05 and 2007 -24,
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." Public petitions are limited to the presenter, with a
maximum time of ten minutes.
Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the proceeding
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.
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, the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the
Collier County Facilities Management Department located at 3335 East Tamiami Trail, Suite 1,
• Naples, Florida, 34112 -5356, (239) 252 -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
L - INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE •
A. Reverend Don Treglown - Faith Lutheran Church Pg. 1 -1
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended (Ex Parte
Disclosure provided by Commission members for consent and summary agenda.)
B. • June 23, 2010 - BCC /IAMP Meeting
C. July 28, 2010 - BCC /GMP Hearing
D. November 10, 2010 - BCC /AUIR Hearing
E. January 11, 2011- BCC /Regular Meeting
3. SERVICE AWARDS
4. PROCLAMATIONS
S. PRESENTATIONS
A. Recommendation to recognize Pamela Libby, Operations Manager, Water Pg. 2 - 4 •
Department as the Supervisor of the Year for 2010.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Recommendation to adopt a Resolution adjusting the Collier County Water -Sewer Pg. 5 - 45
District Bulk Services Water Rates within the Hammock Bay Service Area, as
authorized by the Potable Water Bulk Services Agreement between the Collier
County Water -Sewer District and The City of Marco Island, dated May 9, 2006.
B. Recommendation to adopt a Resolution amending the Collier County Water -Sewer Pg. 46 - 62
District Impact Fee Rates, established by Ordinance No. 2007 -57, as amended, by
reducing the water impact fee by $285 ( -8 %) to $3,290 per Equivalent Residential
Connection, and the wastewater impact fee by $250 ( -7.2 %) to $3,245 per Equivalent
Residential Connection, for a total reduction of $535 (- 7.6 %), with an effective date of
February 14, 2011.
C. Recommendation to adopt a Resolution amending Schedules One, Two, Three, Six, Pg. 63 -101 •
and Seven of AppendixAto Section Four of Collier County Ordinance No. 2001 -73, as
2
amended, the Collier County Water -Sewer District Uniform Billing, Operating and
Regulatory Standards Ordinance. These amendments include proposed rates for
• water and wastewater services with effective dates of October 1, 2011, and October 1,
2012, for Schedules One, Three, and Six; provides effective dates of April 1, 2011,
October 1, 2011, and October 1, 2012, for Schedule Two; and provides an effective
date of March 1, 2011, for Schedule Seven.
D. Recommendation to adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County
Code of Laws and Ordinances (The Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee
Ordinance) by amending the Road Impact Fee rate schedule, which is Schedule One of
Appendix A, to reflect the Phase II rate schedule as set forth in the "Collier County
Transportation Impact Fee Cost and Credit Update Study" adopted on September 28,
2010, which provides for a reduction in rates; and providing for a delayed effective
date of February 14, 2011
Pg. 102 -117
bhc +earingfor Growth Nia��ge ienr_plan t mendmentPetrhon.CP- _ _0611, David Pg. 118 -145
T, ores, for._ Haciendalakes "ref Nables„ i.LO �raasmitfal He
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of members to the Land Acquisition Advisory Committee Pg. 146 -163
B. Appointment of members to the Pelican Bay Services Division Board. Pg. 164 -185
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
• A. Recommendation to review the proposed legislation created to provide a process for Pg. 186 - 226
consolidation of the independent fire control and rescue districts in Collier County.
(Debbie Wight, Legislative Affairs Coordinator)
B. This item continued from the January 25, 2011 BCC Meeting. Recommendation to Pg. 227 - 238
approve the annual five percent (5 %) increase in Consultant Fees for the Medical
Director of Emergency Medical Services as described in the Emergency Medical
Services Medical Consultant Contract for a total of $110,775 for FY11. (Dan Summers,
Director, Emergency Services)
11. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
12. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
13. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND /OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
A. AIRPORT
1. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners, acting as the Pg. 239 - 252
Airport Authority, approves and authorizes the Chairman to execute Change
Order No.1 to DeAngelis Diamond Construction, Inc. Contract No. 09 -5234 in
• the amount of $104,797.20 for the construction of a 20,000 Square Foot
• TABLE OF CONTENTS
BCC - Transmittal of DRI- Related GMT Amendment
CP- 2006 -11 Hacienda Lakes
r�
LJ
•
1)
TAB:
BCC Advertisement.
2)
TAB:
CCPC Advertisements.
3)
TAB.
Executive Summary
4)
TAB:
CCPC Staff Report.
5)
TAB:
EAC Staff Report.
6)
TAB:
CP- 2006- 11Resolution.
7)
TAB:
CP- 2006 -11 Exhibit "A" Text Alt 1.
8)
TAB:
CP- 2006 -11 Exhibit "A" Text Alt 2.
9) TAB: CP- 2006 -11 Exhibit "A" Map
10) TAB: CP- 2006 -11 Petition.
DOCUMENT: Transmittal Legal Advertisement
DOCUMENT: Transmittal Legal Advertisement
DOCUMENT: Transmittal Executive Summary
DOCUMENT: CCPC Transmittal Staff Report
DOCUMENT: EAC Transmittal Staff Report
DOCUMENT: Transmittal Resolution
DOCUMENT: Exhibit "A" Text per CCPC 1/20/11
DOCUMENT: Exhibit "A" Text post CCPC Consent
w /further Staff Recommendation
DOCUMENT: Exhibit "A" Map
DOCUMENT: Transmittal Application/Petition
1�
•
•
•
DATE: January 31, 2011
TO: Collier County Board of County Commissioners (and others)
FROM: Comprehensive Planning Section of Land Development Services Dept.
SUBJECT: Growth Management Plan CP- 2006 -1 Hacienda Lakes BCC Advertisement
BCC Hearing — February 08, 2011
Due to the timing of the Board of County Commissioners meeting, the above referenced
advertisement affidavit is not available for distribution at this time.
The advertisement appeared in the Naples Daily News on Friday, January 28, 2011 (or 20
days prior to hearing).
As soon as the advertisements `official affidavit' has been received, it will be included in the
distribution packets to the Florida Department of Community Affairs, as proof of advertisement.
2006 Cycle Petition CP- 2006 -11 Hacienda Lakes Transmittal Hearings
BCC February 08, 2011 /CCPC January 20, 2011
Comprehensive Planning Section
Land Development Services Department
•
Y
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND � 1
NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER RESOLUTIO
Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Board of County Commissioners will hold a public hearing on
February 08, 2011 in the Board of County Commissioners chamber, third floor, Collier County Government
Center, 3299 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples Florida, to consider the Transmittal of the following County Resolution,
for amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan. The meeting -will commence at 9:00 A.M.
The purpose of the hearing is to consider a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners on an
amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series; for transmittal to the
Florida Department of Community Affairs. The RESOLUTION title is as follows:
RESOLUTION NO: 11-
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROPOSING AMENDMENT
TO THE COWER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, ORDINANCE 89 -05, AS AMENDED,
SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, AND- FUTURE LAND USE MAP
AND MAP SERIES AND THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT TO ADD
ACREAGE TO THE URBAN MIXED USE ACTIVITY CENTER_ #7; TO ALLOW ACCESS TO A BUSI-
NESS PARK SUBDISTRICT THROUGH LORD'S WAY; TO INCREASE DENSITY IN THE URBAN
RESIDENTIAL FRINGE SUBDISTRICT AND TO ALLOW FOR THE TRANSFER OF NATIVE VEGETA-
TIVE RETENTION FROM THE URBAN AREA TO THE SENDING AREA AND INCREASE THE 60%
CAPON NATIVE VEGETATION IN THE TOTAL PROJECT AREA DESIGNATED AS SENDING AREAS
AND FURTHERMORE RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS.
Petition CP- 2006 -11, a petition requesting amendments to the Conservation-and Coastal Management
Element. Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Mao and Mao Series of the Growth Manage-
ment Plan to Reconfigure the boundary and size of the Southeast Quadrant of Mixed Use Activity Center
No. 7 (Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard); Increase the maximum allowable density that
may be achieved within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict (URF) portion of a Project lying'in more
than one Future Land Use designation through enhanced utilization of eligible Transferable Development
Rights (TDRs); Provide a definitive access provision for a Business Park located in the URF portion of
a Project; and, Allow. for Native Vegetation Preservation in the URF portion of a Project to be shifted
to the RFMUD Sending Lands oortion of the oroiect when the Required Amount of Native Vegetation
Preservation is proportionally increased in the Sending Lands portion of the Project - as they relate to
proposed Hacienda Lakes Development of Regional Impact (DRO and Mixed Use Planned Unit Develop-
ment (MPUD) Requests. The property is located in Sections 11, 12, 13, 14, 23, 24, and 25, Township 50
South, Range 26 East, and Sections 19 and 30, Township 50 South, Range 27 East, consisting of *2,262
acres. [Transmittal Hearing] Coordinator. -Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
SR- 84 175
I DAM 8.19,
c� 11
' try I� CP•2006.11
J
i
0
d VI
0
All interested parties are invited to appear
and be heard. Copies of the proposed
Growth Management -Plan Amendment
will be made available for inspection at-
the Land Development Services Dept.,
Comprehensive Planning Section, 2800 N.
Horseshoe Dr., Naples, FL between the
hour's of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., Monday
through Friday. Furthermore the materials
will be made available for inspection at the
Collier County Clerk's Office, fourth floor,
suite 40.1, Collier County Government
Center, -East Tamiami Trail, Naples, one
week prior to the scheduled hearing, Any
questions pertaining to the documents
should be directed to the Comprehensive
Planning Section. Written comments filed
with the Clerk to the Board's Office prior
to February 08, 2011, will be read and
considered-at the public hearing.
If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners with.
respect to any matter considered at such meetirig or hearing, he will need a record of that proceeding, and for
such purpose he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes
the testimony avid evidence upon'which the appeal is to be based.
If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding,
you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County
Facilities Management Department, located at 3335 Tamiaml Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112 -5356,
(239) 252 -8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. • Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are
available in the Board of County Commissioners Office.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS - COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA
FRED W. COYLE, CHAIRMAN - WIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
By: /s/Patricla Morgan - Deputy Clerk (SEAL)
No. 231188477 January 24 2011
K =�
?kr
• NAPLES DAILY NEWS
Published Daily
Naples, FL 34110
Affidavit of Publication
State of Florida
Counties of Collier and Lee
Before the undersigned they serve as the authority, personally
appeared Kim Pokarney, who on oath says that she serves as
the Accounting Manager of the Naples Daily News, a daily
newspaper published at Naples, in Collier County, Florida;
distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida; that the
attached copy of the advertising, being a
PUBLIC NOTICE
in the matter of PUBLIC NOTICE
was published in said newspaper 1 time in the issue
on December 16'' 2010.
Affiant finther says that the said Naples Daily News is a newspaper
published at Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, and that the said
newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Collier
County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida,
• each day and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post
office in Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, for a period of 1
year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor
promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate,
commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for
publication in the said wspaper.
AWW
( Si afore of affiant)
Sworn to and subscribed before me
This 20th day of December, 2010
(Signature of notary public)
` >>v; CHANEL A.10DONALD
Commission DD 650475
5zpires June 29, 2011
Ballad ThorTmy Fain kwm=8003857019
is
t TO -CON
purpose he may to ensure that a
testimony and evidence upon which th
If you area person with a disability Qi
you are entitled, at no cost to you, to
Facilities_ Management Department, to
(239) 252 =8360, at least two -days prior
available 16 the Board of County Collin
Mark P. Strain; Chairman
Collier County Planning Commission
8E
TG,
rvs
f Publication
a
ier and Lee
. they serve as the authority, personally
:y, who on oath says that she serves as
-r of the Naples Daily News, a daily
.t Naples, in Collier County, Florida;
id Lee counties of Florida; that the
advertising, being a
IC NOTICE
.ewspaper 1 time in the issue
10.
said Naples Daily News is a newspaper
Collier County, Florida, and that the said
-en continuously published in said Collier
in Collier and Lee counties of Florida,
:d as second class mail matter at the post
dlier County, Florida, for a period of 1
rst publication of the attached copy of
further says that he has neither paid nor
r or corporation any discount, rebate,
: purpose of securing this advertisement for
gaper.
:d before me
❑ber, 2010
bhc)
CHANEL A. NICDONALD
Commission DD 650475
Eii;pires June 29, 2011
13mdedTlruTray Fain timarmmWO.3 7019
ouce rs_neregy
Thursday, Japu;
GovemmentPer
�; 74e pure se'oftl
- the Flonda Di
amendment toll
title isas'follows:
'
A -REST
t, * , MENT:
'.LAND -I
TAU OF
t ❑Petitiiiif - CP-
m�t"Fuu jre
NOTICE OF INTENT
CONSIDER: RESOLUTION
a public hearing will beheld by ihe, Collier County Planning Commission on
-at 8 30 A.M in the Board of County Commissioners chamber third floor, County.'.,
ast Tamiami Trail Naples ' : vt i
It o consider recom� endatition tot e Board of County Commissloners to trarism -h ,Y
of Community Affairs the?ansm "Ittal of CP- 2006 -11: Growth Management Plan
and Use Element and the Future Land Use Map and Map "Series The resolution',
RESOLUTION NO.
)FTHE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROPOSING AMEND
ILOER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT I? IAN; ORDINANCE 89 -05, AS:
IFICALLYAMENDING THE FUTURE LAND'USE ELEMENT, AND FUTUREIC' •= .
WD MAP'SERIES. AND FORTFIERMORE RECOMMENDING TRANS'
MIT
i�
NDMENTTO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNffYAFFAIRS
Iehhon- requesting amendments to the Conservation and Coasfal Management Ele
:bent and Future LandUse Mao and Mao Series ofthe Growth Management Plan, to.
;�• Reconfigure th6 boundary and Sae of the Southeast Quadrant of- lulixed UseActniAy Center No. 7 (Rattlesnake
Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard)-, Increase the rnai mum allowable density that may be achieved w l5j3 l
s` the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict (URF) portion of a Project fying in more than one Future Land Use :-
,,ry :designation t}irough enhanced util'aation, of eligible TrE rhsferable Deveico .ment Rights (mm's); Provide a definitive • 1 Y
L
N r, access provision for a Buslness Park located un the URF portion of a :Project and Allow for Native Vegetation' r.
h < Preservation -in 'the URF portion oT: a Project to be shifted to the RFMUD Sending Lands 'portion of the project'}
whE the Req`u6d Amount of Native Vegetation Preservation is proportionally increased in the Sending Lands'
portion of the Project- _zas they relateao proposed Hacienda Lakes Development of Regional fmpact PRI) and ti
Moved Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) Requesi§., properly is located in Sections 11 12;13,14 23
!' 24; and 25 Tdivnship 50 South Range 26tEast; and Sections 19 and 30, Township 50 Sdutht Range27 East k�.
consisUngoff2, 262acres. OlansmittalHearing]. Coordmat_ orCorbySchmidt ,- PnncipalPlenneri 1 t'
I It
r -
ti-
L
y�'• ; , i f tr %1K f_s
,' All interested parties are invited fo appear and tie heard: Copies ofthe proposed Growth Management Plan
Amendment will tie' made available for inspection at the Land Development Services - Dept., Comprehensive
Plan "Wing Section; 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr -, Naples, between the Hours of 8:00 AM. and 5 OQP.M., Monday
`througb Fri ay, Furthermore the matenais will be made availablefor inspection atihe Collier Couhly ClerWs Of-
five: fourth flooj Collier County GoVemment Ceriter, 3299 EastTamami Trail, suite 401- Naples; one week poor+
rto thescheduled hearing Ariy questions pertaining to the documents should be directed to the Comprehen
save PJanrnng Section; NVntten comments filed'with the Clerk to the Board's Office prior to Thursday, January
x.._ „-
S, 2017,'will be read and considered atthe`public hearing: s� '
! ..lf�a person decides tdi appeal any decision made by tFie Collier County Planning Commission with respect -
,r •to any :matter, considered at -such meeting or hearing; tie will need a record of that proceeding, and for such
purpose he may,need,to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings i_s made, which record includes the
testimony and evidence upon which the appeal islo be based.
If you are a person.with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding,
you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certairi assistance: Please contact the Collier County
Facilities Managemeni Department; located at 3335 Tam'iami Trail East; Suite 101, Naples, F1 34112 -5356,
(239) 252 -8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. - Assisted listening_ devices for the hearing impaired are
available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. '
Mark P" Strain; Chairman -
Collier County Planning Commission
No. 231188470 December 16 2010
•
•
•
0
•
•
PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE OF INTENT
TO CONSIDER RESOLUTION
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County Planning Commission on
Thursday, January 6, 2011 at 8:30 A.M. in the Board of County Commissioners chamber, third floor, County
Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples.
The purpose of the hearing is to consider recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to transmit
to the Florida Department of Community Affairs the Transmittal of CP- 2006 -11 Growth Management Plan
amendment to the Future Land Use Element and the Future Land Use Map and Map Series. The resolution
title is as follows:
RESOLUTION NO. 11-
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROPOSING AMEND -
MENTTO THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, ORDINANCE 89 -05, AS
AMENDED, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, AND FUTURE
LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES, AND FURTHERMORE RECOMMENDING TRANSMIT-
TAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS.
❑Petition CP- 2006 -11, a petition requesting amendments to the Conservation and Coastal Management Ele-
ment Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series of the Growth Management Plan, to
Reconfigure the boundary and size of the Southeast Quadrant of Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 (Rattlesnake
Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard); Increase the maximum allowable density that may be achieved within
the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict (URF) portion of a Project lying in more than one Future Land Use
designation through enhanced utilization of eligible Transferable Development Rights (TDRs); Provide a definitive
access provision for a Business Park located in the URF portion of a Project; and, Allow for Native Vegetation
Preservation in the URF portion of a Project to be shifted to the RFMUD Sending Lands portion of the project
when the Required Amount of Native Vegetation Preservation is proportionally increased in the Sending Lands
portion of the Project - as they relate to proposed Hacienda Lakes Development of Regional Impact (DRI) and
Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) Requests. The property is located in Sections 11, 12,13,14, 23,
24, and 25, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, and Sections 19 and 30, Township 50 South, Range 27 East,
consisting of ±2,262 acres. (Transmittal Hearing] Coordinator. Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
i
E!
. n3
17 -
I
�w Mr�is � GP- TD0611
—w
t0
O 8r
All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposed Growth Management Plan
Amendment will be made available for inspection at the Land Development Services Dept., Comprehensive
Planning Section, 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr., Naples, between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., Monday
through Friday. Furthermore the materials will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's Of-
fice, fourth floor, Collier County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, suite 401 Naples, one week prior
to the scheduled hearing. Any questions pertaining to the documents should be directed to the Comprehen-
sive Planning Section. Written comments filed with the Clerk to the Board's Office prior to Thursday, January
6, 2011, will be read and considered at the public hearing.
If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Collier County Planning Commission with respect
to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of that proceeding, and for such
purpose he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the
testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding,
you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County
Facilities Management Department, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112 -5356,
(239) 252 -8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are
available in the Board of County Commissioners Office.
Mark P. Strain, Chairman
Collier County Planning Commission
No.231188470 December 16 2010
rilz
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 8E
is Public Hearing for Growth Management Plan Amendment Petition CP- 2006 -11, David Torres,
for Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC (Transmittal Hearing)
OBJECTIVE:
To review the proposed amendment to the Collier County Growth Management Plan and consider
approving said proposal for Transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs.
CONSIDERATIONS:
• Chapter 163, FS., provides for an amendment process for a local government's adopted Growth
Management Plan.
• Petition CP- 2006 -11 relates to the proposed [eventual and subsequent companion] Hacienda
Lakes Development of Regional Impact (DRI) and Mixed Use Planned Unit Development
(MPUD) requests [DRI- 2006 -AR -10147 and PUDZ- 2006 -AR- 10146] and is, under Rule 9J-
11.006(1)(a)7a, F.A. C., exempt from the twice per calendar year Plan amendment limitation.
• The CCPC, sitting as the "local planning agency" under Chapter 163.3174, F.S., held their
Transmittal hearing for this petition on January 20, 2011.
• This Transmittal hearing for the last petition filed in 2006 involves amendments to the following
Elements of the Plan:
• Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and Future Land Use Map Series; and,
■ Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME)
Note: Because support materials for this petition are voluminous, and certain exhibits are
oversized, the Agenda Central system is not used. The entire Executive Summary package,
including all support materials, is included in the binders provided to the BCC and is
available for review in the Comprehensive Planning Section office, 2800 North Horseshoe
Drive, Naples.
This petition seeks to amend the Conservation and Coastal Management Element Future Land Use
Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series of the Growth Management Plan, to:
• Increase the size and reconfigure the boundary of the Southeast Quadrant of Mixed Use Activity
Center No. 7 (Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard) — This part of CP- 2006 -11
expands the size of the Southeast Quadrant of Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 by 9.16 acres in
order to develop a greater intensity of commercial uses;
• Increase the maximum allowable density that may be achieved within the Urban Residential
Fringe Subdistrict (URF) portion of a project lying in more than one Future Land Use designation
through enhanced utilization of eligible Transferable Development Rights (TDRs) — This two -part
portion of CP- 2006 -11 lifts the FLUE's 1.0 unit- per -acre maximum transferred TDR density to 1.3
units per acre and the 2.5 unit- per -acre maximum achievable density to 2.8 units per acre to use all
qualifying TDRs within the Hacienda Lakes project;
-1-
8t
• Provide a definitive access provision for a Business Park located in the URF portion of a project —
This part of CP- 2006 -11 allows The Lord's Way to serve as access to a Business Park as well as to
[a] predominantly residential area[s] within the Hacienda Lakes project; and,
• Allow for Native Vegetation Preservation in the URF portion of a project to be shifted to the •
RFMUD Sending Lands portion of the project when the Required Amount of Native Vegetation
Preservation is proportionally increased in the Sending Lands portion of the project — This two -
part portion of CP- 2006 -11 shifts a portion of the FLUE's native vegetation preservation from
Urban lands to RFMUD Sending Lands to protect the highest quality wetlands and habitat within
the Hacienda Lakes project.
Needs Analysis
Included in the CCPC Staff Report and specifically identified in this Executive Summary is an
informational summary prepared by Comprehensive Planning staff of the Florida Senate Interim
Report 2010 -107, October 2009 titled "Population Need as a Criterion for Changes to a Local
Government's Future Land Use Map." The Report identifies the necessity of preparing a needs
analysis for any GMP amendment proposing to increase density or use intensity; indicates that such an
analysis must be based upon the supply /demand ratio for the proposed use category (residential,
commercial or industrial) — a numerical analysis; and, notes that even if the numerical analysis fails to
demonstrate need, other factors may be considered.
CP- 2006 -11 demonstrates an over - supply, or over - allocation, of developed commercial space and
developable commercial land by a factor of six (6). The supply of commercially available acreage
exceeds demand by more than six times, even at buildout. Faced with this inability to demonstrate
need, the application team presented other factors, including a short history of MUAC No. 7 and the •
opportunities rising from development of the Collier Regional Medical Center.
FISCAL INTACT:
There are no fiscal impacts to Collier County because of this proposal. This proposed amendment is
not being considered for adoption at this hearing, and final action is not being taken at this time. If
approved for Transmittal, this proposal will subsequently be considered for adoption at hearings to be
held later in 2011. The costs incurred to process, review and advertise CP- 2006 -11 for Transmittal are
borne by the petitioner via the application fee.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:
This Executive Summary has been reviewed by the Office of the County Attorney. The County
Attorney provided observations and comments on the legal aspects of CP- 2006 -11 planning
considerations. These observations and comments were used to update the Staff Report in preparation
for January 20 consideration before the CCPC.
Other observations and comments on legal aspects of CP- 2006 -11 were provided to the CCPC during
their consideration and are reflected in the versions of Resolution Exhibit provided to the Board.
•
-2-
8�
The proposed Growth Management Plan amendment is authorized for consideration by local
government, and subject to the procedures established, in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, The
Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, and by local
is Resolution No. 97 -431, as amended. A majority vote of the Board is necessary for Transmittal to
DCA. WAC]
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT:
The practicalities of the petitioner's proposed amendments are established, in part, through an
evaluation of relevant and appropriate data for population growth, commercial inventory, infrastructure
development and other considerations in the surrounding geographic area.
Certain parts of the CP- 2006 -11 proposal introduce new provisions allowing for the use of TDRs in
manners exclusive to the subject property. Residential development is currently planned and limited to
certain transitional densities, achievable with TDRs transferred into the Urban Fringe. The
appropriateness of changing the FLUE and CCME was evaluated for allowing additional TDRs to be
used for residential development.
Other parts of the proposal introduce an additional amount of acreage specifically for commercial and
office development, uses and activities by increasing the size of the Mixed Use Activity Center on the
subject property. Commercial development is currently planned and limited to certain acreages and
floor areas based on the allocation and spatial arrangement of Activity Centers throughout the planning
area. The evaluation addressed the appropriateness of expanding the site for additional commercial
and office development.
• Certain parts of the proposal offer to preserve native vegetation and habitat in Sending Lands in a
proportional substitution for preserving less native vegetation and habitat in the Urban portion of the
project. Preservation of these Sending Lands is a requirement under other provisions of the GMT from
which TDR program benefits are derived. The appropriateness of changing the FLUE and CCME to
derive dual benefits from preserving a portion of the same land area was evaluated.
Still other parts of the proposal introduce new provisions allowing another means of vehicular access
to a Business Park proposed at a certain location inside the project. The evaluation addressed the
appropriateness of allowing The Lord's Way for both residential and nonresidential traffic.
Approval of these proposed amendments by the Board of County Commissioners for Transmittal to the
Florida Department of Community Affairs will commence the Department's sixty -day (60) review
process and ultimately return this amendment to the Planning Commission and the Board of County
Commissioners for final Adoption hearings to be held later in 2011.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:
The environmental report submitted by Passarella and Associates with [the eventual and subsequent]
companion petition [as Exhibit "M" in PUDZ materials] was updated in August 2009. This report
states that the vegetation surveys and habitat mapping were done in 2003, 2005, 2007 and 2009. The
• substantive review of this document was done by the Stormwater and Environmental Services Section
and a staff report was brought before the Environmental Advisory Council for their review. The
-3-
1 characteristics of native eve B i� and habitat
environmental report confirms the environments g
reported at the time the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District was established.
The applicant is proposing to be able to shift the native vegetation retention requirement from the •
portion of a project designated Urban to the portion of a project designated NRPA Sending lands, if the
maximum native vegetation retention requirement within the Sending lands portion of the project is
met. In keeping with the intent of the GMP to retain as much native vegetation as possible within
Sending lands, Stormwater and Environmental Planning Section staff recommends allowing the native
vegetation retention requirement to be shifted from the Urban designated portion of a project to the
portion of a project designated Sending lands and not just NRPA Sending lands as proposed by the
applicant.
HISTORICAL /ARCHAEOLOGICAL EWFACT:
The historical and archaeological report submitted by the Archaeological and Historical Conservancy,
Inc. dates to August 2009. This report states that archaeological resources have been identified as
present on the 2,262 -acre subject property, based on reference to the Collier County Index of
Historic /Archaeological Maps, and the sites are identified on County Historical and Archaeological
Probability Maps. Application materials illustrate the location and arrangement of these sites on
Exhibit "O ". These sites are predominantly hammock formations and are protected as such. They are
not located in areas of the subject property where actual development is proposed. Provisions
proposed by parts of CP- 2006 -11 require that these sites be preserved and cannot be mitigated for.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION: •
The Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) heard the proposed amendment at their hearing of
December 1, 2010. EAC considerations were limited to the parts of CP- 2006 -11 with environmental
significance. The four environmental aspects of the Hacienda Lakes of Naples proposal may be
simplified into just two paired changes — one pair of proposals would allow all eligible TDRs
generated from adjacent RFMUD Sending Lands to be used in the Urban portion of the project for a
greater maximum density [the "lift"]; while the other pair of proposals would allow less native
vegetation preservation in the Urban portion of the project if a proportionally greater amount is
preserved in RFMUD Sending Lands [the "shift"].
EAC members discussed the nature of the 187 additional TDRs that would be used to increase the
density above the existing 2.5 residential units per acre, and staff's recommendation to limit further
participation in the TDR program in some manner. The applicant's agent argued how no such
restrictions should be placed on TDR use that would inhibit full participation in the TDR program.
Speakers present agreed with the idea to make full use of the TDR program.
Members discussed the proposal to relax preservation/retention requirements with the intent to
preserve the higher quality habitat on the large property while not preserving lower quality habitat —
regardless of location. The applicant's agent explained how approximately 25 acres of Urban preserve
lands would equate to approximately 50 acres of additional preservation in the Rural portion of the
project. EAC members reached consensus that the better habitat on the subject property would be
preserved. •
-4-
8
Members also discussed how subsequent zoning activity would include the redemption and use o
TDRs severed and transferred from adjacent RFMUD Sending Lands.
• EAC members recognized that no objections were raised by Night Information Meeting (NIM)
attendees. The EAC recommended (vote: 3/0) to approve CP- 2006 -11 for transmittal, without staff's
recommendations but with one EAC stipulation, to the DCA. The recommended stipulation requires
that all Transferable Development Rights be severed from all Sending Lands to be preserved — whether
the TDRs are utilized in the development of the Hacienda Lakes of Naples project or they are held
until used elsewhere in the County through the TDR program.
The EAC also provided direction for modifying the GMP provisions, as proposed by CP- 2006 -11.
Members recommended that the FLUE and CCME language should not identify or include reference
to the Hacienda Lakes Development of Regional Impact (DRl) and Mixed Use Planned Unit
Development (MPUD) by name. Staff concurred, and explained that FLUE and CCME provisions
being prepared for recommendation to the CCPC were drafted with the same idea for removing or
modifying the applicant's proposed provisions in this manner.
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION FROM CCPC STAFF
REPORT:
Staff Recommendation: In consideration of the reviews and analyses provided within the Staff Report
to the CCPC, staff recommended that the CCPC forward this petition to the Board of County
Commissioners with a recommendation to Transmit/Not Transmit to the Florida Department of
Community Affairs corresponding with the individual parts of the proposal as shown in the table
• following the narrative portion of this Summary.
Staff recommended that consideration for Transmittal include an understanding that the following
requirements /conditions, or something similar, be placed in the eventual and subsequent companion
PUD rezone (to be heard concurrently at the Adoption hearings):
• Prior to the issuance of the first residential Development Order in the Hacienda Lakes MPUD,
the Base TDR Credits and Early Entry TDR Bonus Credits shall be severed and redeemed from
all Sending Lands to be preserved within one mile of the Urban Residential Fringe and the
filing of executed Limitation of Development Rights Agreement(s) shall occur for these same
lands.
• A permanent conservation mechanism, including Limitation of Development Rights
Agreement(s), [shall] be attached/applied to all Sending Lands to be preserved beyond one mile
of the Urban Residential Fringe prior to final approval of the first Site Development Plan (SDP)
for the Hacienda Lakes project.
Staff - recommended modifications to this set of Growth Management Plan amendments shows the
FLUE and CCME language proposed in six parts, as shown in CCPC Staff Report ATTACHMENT
HL -2.
Note: Staff also prepared text revisions to the petitioner's proposed text to provide clarity,
• proper format, correct grammar, etc.
-5-
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMIIMNDATION: BE
The Collier County Planning Commission held their required Transmittal public hearing on January
20, 2011. •
The CCPC recommended that the BCC approve each of the six parts proposed in petition CP- 2006 -11
for Transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (vote: 9/0), subject to staff alternative
text (reflected in the Resolution Exhibit A).
The CCPC also directed the following requirements /stipulations, shall be met before a
recommendation is proffered or action is taken on the Adoption of CP- 2006 -11:
1. Prior to, or at the time of Adoption hearing before the CCPC, documentation shall be presented
to show and confirm accessibility to those parcels located within project boundaries that may
be owned by other parties and otherwise landlocked.
2. Prior to, or at the time of Adoption hearing before the CCPC, cross - sections and other design
information for The Lord's Way shall be presented to show and confirm preliminary plans for
the types of improvements needed to ensure accessibility to the proposed location for the
Business Park by business, semi - industrial and industrial vehicles and traffic.
3. Prior to, or at the time of Adoption hearing before the CCPC, documentation shall be presented
to show and confirm accessibility, by easement or other access and development rights, to those
parcels comprising the privately owned rights -of -way located within project boundaries, and
west of the project boundaries that may be owned by other parties.
The CCPC further directed the following requirements /conditions, or something similar, shall be •
placed in the eventual and subsequent companion PUD rezone and/or in the eventual and subsequent
companion DRI, whichever is deemed more appropriate:
1. Prior to the issuance of the first residential Development Order in the Hacienda Lakes MPUD,
the Base TDR Credits and Early Entry TDR Bonus Credits shall be severed and redeemed from
all Sending Lands to be preserved within one mile of the Urban Residential Fringe and the
filing of executed Limitation of Development Rights Agreement(s) shall occur for these same
lands.
2. A permanent conservation mechanism, including Limitation of Development Rights
Agreement(s), [shall] be attached/applied to all Sending Lands to be preserved beyond one mile
of the Urban Residential Fringe prior to final approval of the first Site Development Plan (SDP)
for the Hacienda Lakes project.
3. The land uses that are expressly allowed by Ordinance No. 84 -26 for the Swamp Buggy Days
"PUD for Recreation and Sports Park" shall be superseded and otherwise incorporated into the
Hacienda Lakes PUD and use of the shooting range or "target range" currently on -site shall be
discontinued and replaced by an indoor facility for rifles, pistols, shotguns, and any other
firearms. The outdoor facility shall cease use or operation no later than the time when any
development or construction activity begins to occur within range or trajectory of such target
range. The indoor facility shall begin use and operation prior to occupancy permits being •
issued for habitable buildings located within range or trajectory of said target range.
Although- all six (6) of the above stipulations are appropriate to include during CCPC Adoption
consideration or subsequent development order approval, and not within the GMT as part of this
proposed amendment, they are helpful in making the petitioner aware of the County's concerns and
is position.
Speakers: There was one speaker, who spoke in favor of the petition. The speaker represented The
Conservancy of Southwest Florida and endorsed the environmental and preservation aspects proposed
in CP- 2006 -11. Additional native vegetation will be preserved and maintained in the project's
RFMUD Sending Lands, and every eligible Development Right will be utilized, in furtherance of the
County's TDR program.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is requesting that the BCC provide a motion to Transmit to the Department of Community Affairs
(DCA) one of the three discussed alternates for CP- 2006 -11.
1. The staff recommendation from the CCPC Staff Report, which supports all requested
amendments except the proposed expansion of the Mixed Use Activity Center;
2. The Exhibit A, reflecting the CCPC recommendation, approved by the CCPC and confirmed at
their advertised public hearing. The version of Exhibit A is labeled in each page's footer, in part
as, proposed by CCPC; or,
3. The ExhibitA that reflects the CCPC recommendation, with additional staff - proposed revisions
to provide "housekeeping" measures for the purposes of clarity and proper formatting. This
is staff alternative version is labeled in each page's footer in part as, revised further post -CCPC.
•
PREPARED BY: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner
Comprehensive Planning Section
Growth Management Division — Planning and Regulation
Attachments within Agenda Central:
1) Executive Summary
2) Transmittal Resolution
3) Exhibit `A' Text per CCPC consent 1/20/2011
4) Exhibit `A' Text post consent — further staff recommendation
5) Exhibit `A' Map [Mixed Use Activity Center (MUAC)]
-7-
t t
f ��Y
Attachment: Table showing Proposals. Remarks and Staff Recommendations
IF1061M
PROVISION
EXISTING
PROPOSED
REMARKS
RECOMMENDATION
Just 507.8 ac
Maximum
2.5 DU /acre
2.8 DU /acre
would be
To Transmit
Residential
- eligible to
- eligible to receive
developed
with Modification
Density (utilizing
receive in URF
in URF with
residentially
TDRs)
receiving "lift'
• 432.4 in
residential tracts
• 36.6 MUAC
residential
• 38.8 in
residential/
medical uses
tract
Native Vegetation/
25% NV in Urban
Under 25% NV —
• 25% of Urban
Habitat
portion
Urban portion
Preserve is 72.4
To Transmit
Retention /
60% NV in Rural
100% NV —
ac. of 289.7 NV
with Modification
Preservation
portion
Undeveloped Rural
. 60% of
FLUE
- Required
portion -
Rural
Preservation Area
Preservation Area
Preserve is
with "shift'
847.2 ac. of
1,412 NV
1.0 DU/TDR per
1.3 DUs/TDRs per
Maximum Use of
acre
acre
Overall Density
To Transmit
TDRs
- eligible to transfer
- eligible to
would be 0.78
with Modification
into URF from
transfer into URF
DUs /acre (gross)
Sending Lands
from Sending
within 1 mile of
Lands
URF boundary
within 1 mile of
URF boundary,
with "lift"
Supply of 887,962
Acreage Allowed
27.5 acres
36.6 acres
sq. ft. / Demand
NOT
for Southeast
for 143,645 sq. ft.
TO
Quadrant of
= Market factor of
TRANSMIT
MUAC No. 7
6.18
(Supply = 618 %
of Demand)
Provides additional
Direct Access for
The Lord's Way
The Lord's Way
benefits for access
To Transmit
Business Park onto
does not provide
would provide
to both Collier
Selected
Arterial Roadway
such access by
such access with
Boulevard and the
Alternative
FLUE provisions
new provision
future Benfield
Road
Native Vegetation/
25% NV in Urban
25% — X = Urban
• Urban Preserve
To Transmit
Habitat
portion
NV
would be 47.2
with Modification
Retention /
60% NV in Rural
60% + 2X =Rural
ac.
Preservation
portion
NV
• Rural Preserve
CCME
- Preserved
- Preserved with
would be 1,342
"shift"
ac.
G -XDES Planning ServiceslComprehensivelCOMP PLANNING GMP DATA1Comp Plan AmendmentsVZUUb cycle PeLUonm;F, zuub -11 rLUt -UL;Mt naaenaa Lakes of
NapleslCP -WW1 Hacienda Lakes EX SUM Tmnsrni tal_rev2.docx
IF-10
is
•
•
•
•
•
Agenda Item 9A
STAFF REPORT
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION,
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION
DATE: JANUARY 06, 2011 UPDATED FOR JANUARY 20, 2011 CONSIDERATION
RE: PETITION No. CP- 2006 -11, GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT
[TRANSMITTAL HEARING]
AGENT /APPLICANT /OWNERS:
Agent: Dwight H. Nadeau
for Emilio Robau, PE
RWA Consultants, Inc.
6610 Willow Park Drive, Suite 200
Naples, FL 34109
Attorney: Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq.
Goodlette, Yovanovich & Koester, RA
4001 North Tamiami Trail, Suite 300
Naples, FL 34103
Applicant: David Torres
for Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC
12600 Biscayne Court
Naples, FL 34105
Owners
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
Wilton Land Company, LLC Swamp Buggy Days, Inc.
206 Dudley Road PO Box 990010
Wilton, CT 06897 Naples, FL 34116
Collier County Junior Deputy League, Inc.
PO Box 1833
Naples, FL 34106
CP- 2006 -11 pertains to a particular subject property, consisting of approximately 2,262 acres located
east of Collier Boulevard (CR 951), with frontages on Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock
Road Extension (a.k.a., entrance to Swamp Buggy Days PUD's Florida Sports Park), in Sections 11,
12, 13, 14, 23, 24, and 25, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, and Sections 19 and 30, Township 50
South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. The property lies within the Royal Fakapalm Planning
Community.
Ise
REQUESTED ACTION:
Agenda Item 9A
This petition seeks to amend the Conservation and Coastal Management Element, Future Land Use
Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series of the Growth Management Plan, to Reconfigure
the boundary and Increase the size of the Southeast Quadrant of Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7
(Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard); Increase the maximum allowable density that
may be achieved within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict (URF) portion of a Project lying in
more than one Future Land Use designation through enhanced utilization of eligible Transferable
Development Rights (TDRs); Provide a definitive access provision for a Business Park located in the
URF portion of a Project; and, Allow for Native Vegetation Preservation in the URF portion of a Project
to be Shifted to the RFMUD Sending Lands portion of the Project when the Required Amount of
Native Vegetation Preservation is proportionally increased in the Sending Lands portion of the Project
— as they relate to the proposed Hacienda Lakes Development of Regional Impact (DRI) and Mixed
Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) Requests [Transmittal Hearing]
This set of Growth Management Plan amendments is proposed in six parts, as shown in
ATTACHMENT HL -1.
PURPOSE / DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
This petition seeks to amend the FLUE Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 (Rattlesnake Hammock Road
and Collier Boulevard) Map of the FLUE Map Series — along with correlating text changes — to re-
designate acreage from the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict of the Urban Mixed Use District, to
the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict of the Urban Commercial District. That portion of MUAC No.
7 lying within the Hacienda Lakes development area would increase by 9.16 acres via a Subdistrict-
to-Subdistrict redesignation.
• Without adoption of this part of the GMPA, the Hacienda Lakes of Naples project is currently
able to develop 27.5 acres of MUAC No. 7. With the adoption of the GMPA, the Hacienda
Lakes of Naples project would be able to develop MUAC acreage of 36.6.
The specific revisions proposed by this part of the GMP amendment appear as Part Four in Attachment
HL -1.
PROVISION
EXISTING
PROPOSED
Acreage Allowed for Southeast
Quadrant of MUAC No. 7
27.5 acres
36.6 acres
This petition seeks to amend Business Park Subdistrict provisions under the FLUE Urban Mixed Use
District to provide a definitive access provision for a business park proposed to be located in the
Urban Residential Fringe portion of the proposed Hacienda Lakes development. Such amendment
would serve to validate the usefulness of The Lord's Way as access to a business park that may
develop on the north side of this thoroughfare.
• Without adoption of this part of the GMPA, the Hacienda Lakes of Naples project is currently
unable to develop a business park situated adjacent to a street providing next -to- immediate
egress to and ingress from both Collier Boulevard (CR 951) and the future Benfield Road.
The specific revisions proposed by this part of the GMP amendment appear as Part Five in Attachment
HL -1.
-2-
r�
r�
�J
•
8E
Agenda Item 9A
PROVISION
EXISTING
PROPOSED
Direct Access for Business Park onto
Arterial Roadway
The Lord's Way does not provide
such access by FLUE rovisions
The Lord's Way would provide such
access with new provision
This petition seeks to amend Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict provisions under the FLUE Urban
Mixed Use District by introducing a different higher achievable density exclusive to the proposed
Hacienda Lakes development. Overall, maximum density increases from 1.5 dwelling units per acre
to 2.5 per acre are allowed when development rights are transferred from RFMU Sending Lands
within a project under unified control. Maximum achievable density would further "lift", or increase,
from 2.5 dwelling units per acre to 2.8 with this part of the proposed text amendment.
Companion PUD application materials summarize that without adoption of the GMPA, the
Hacienda Lakes of Naples project is currently able to develop 9, 662 dwelling units using all
eligible TDRs and other available density. With the adoption of this part of the GMPA, the
Hacienda Lakes of Naples project would be able to develop up to 1,850 dwelling units using
newly transferable TDRs — for a 187 unit gain — and make use of all available TDRs generated
by the 1,016 acres lying within one mile of the Urban portion of the project. The applicant
further explains, the project area is unique in that the land area within one mile of the URF
boundary, from which TDRs must be generated from for sending into the URF, generates187
more TDR credits than the URF is capable of receiving under current FLUE provisions; and,
that the "lift" will have no measurable impact on the URF's "transitional" nature, nor will it affect
its surrounding lands.
The applicant explains further that by allowing the use of these additional TDRs within the
• developable portion of this project, the property owner is actually compensated for losing
development rights instead of hoping they will be compensated in the future; and, that this is a
more effective utilization of those eligible TDRs.
The specific revisions proposed by this part of the GMP amendment appear as Part One in Attachment
HL -1.
PROVISION
EXISTING
PROPOSED
Maximum Residential Density
2.5 DU /acre
2.8 DU /acre
(utilizing TDRs)
- eligible to receive in URF
- eligible to receive in URF with
receiving "lift"
The 06 -11 application seeks to amend Native Vegetation Preservation provisions of the Density
Rating System, Density Blending section under the FLUE Urban Designation to preserve less native
vegetation than is otherwise required in the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict portion of the project
if more native vegetation is preserved in adjacent RFMUD Sending Lands. This arrangement would
preserve two (2) acres of vegetation in areas designated as RFMUD Sending Lands [above the 60%
maximum preservation requirement] for every one (1) acre cleared in the Urban Residential Fringe.
This text change, if approved, would affect lands designated in both the Urban Residential Fringe
Subdistrict and RFMUD Sending Lands developed as projects under unified control.
• Without adoption of the GMPA, the Hacienda Lakes of Naples project would preserve 25% of
native vegetation in the URF and 60% of native vegetation in RFMUD Sending Lands. With
the adoption of this part of the GMPA, the Hacienda Lakes of Naples project would preserve
•
-3-
«- T �•
.8t
Agenda Item 9A
less than the required amount of native vegetation and habitat in the URF, and proportionally •
more of RFMUD Sending Lands acreage.
Under current GMP provisions, the Rural designated portion of the project would demonstrate
compliance with the preservation standard of Rural Fringe Sending Lands - preserving ninety
percent (90 %) of native vegetation present, not to exceed sixty percent (60 %) of the total
project area designated Sending. However, more preserve is offered than the required 60% of
the total project area designated Sending - in return for permission to preserve less native
vegetation present in the Urban portion of the project.
The applicant explains, the proposal to protect higher quality native vegetative communities in
the Rural lands portion of the project [provides these vegetative communities] a greater
opportunity to function naturally as opposed to protecting Urban native vegetative areas that
would be of lesser functional value.
Application materials have previously explained how "the density blending provision in the GMP was,
in part, specifically developed to apply to this property ". One specific blending provision presently
provides the density boost from 1.5 du /ac. to 2.5 du /ac. The current provisions were adopted by the
County with density capped, or limited, to 2.5 du /ac. to satisfy the need for an acceptable transition
balanced between the dense Urban and sparse Rural areas.
The specific revisions proposed by this part of the GMP amendment appear as Part Two in Attachment
HL -1.
PROVISION
EXISTING
PROPOSED
Native Vegetation/ Habitat
25% NV in Urban portion
Under 25% NV — Urban portion
Retention / Preservation
60% NV in Rural portion
100% NV — Undeveloped Rural
FLUE
- Required Preservation Area
portion - Preservation Area with
within I mile of URF boundary
"shift"
This petition seeks to amend Transfer of Development Rights Bonus provisions of the Density Rating
System, Density Bonuses section under the FLUE Urban Designation. This part of the proposed
amendment would "lift" the maximum density increase [of 1.0 DU /ac.] achieved by transferring
development rights from adjacent RFMUD Sending Lands by a greater amount [of 1.3 DU /ac.].
The applicant explains, the proposal [does not ask to increase] the overall number of units
presently allowed, [but to] utilize the additional TDR credits generated from [the] project
Sending Lands within one mile of the Urban Boundary.
The specific revisions proposed by this part of the GMP amendment appear as Part Three in
Attachment HL -1.
PROVISION
EXISTING
PROPOSED
Maximum Use of TDRs
1.0 DU/TDR per acre
1.3 DUs/TDRs per acre
- eligible to transfer into URF from
- eligible to transfer into URF from
Sending Lands
Sending Lands
within I mile of URF boundary
within 1 mile of URF boundary,
with "lift"
-4-
•
Agenda Item 9A
is Lastly, the 06 -11 application seeks to amend Native Vegetation Preservation provisions under the
CCME to preserve more native vegetation than is otherwise required in RFMUD Sending Lands and
preserve less native vegetation than is otherwise required in adjacent lands designated Urban.
• The applicant explains there is greater value in preservation of additional Rural Lands rather
than the lands within the Urban Fringe.
The specific revisions proposed by this part of the GMP amendment appear as Part Six in Attachment
HL -t.
PROVISION
EXISTING
PROPOSED
Native Vegetation/ Habitat
25% NV in Urban portion
25 %— X = Urban NV
Retention / Preservation
60% NV in Rural portion
60% + 2X =Rural NV
CCME
- Preserved
- Preserved with "shift"
SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING LAND USE. ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE
DESIGNATION:
Subiect Site:
The subject site is in part, zoned A, Rural Agricultural [approximately 2,133 acres] and lies
undeveloped within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use (RFMU) Sending Lands [zoning] Overlay.
Another 129 acres is zoned Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) for, and developed with,
the Swamp Buggy Days' Florida Sports Park. A portion of this CPUD acreage is used for the Collier
• County Junior Deputy League's Camp Discovery.
The land uses that are expressly allowed by Ordinance No. 84 -26 for the Swamp Buggy Days "PUD
for Recreation and Sports Park" are:
•
• Swamp Buggy Race Track and related facilities.
• Stock Car Race Track and related facilities.
• Motocross Race Track and related facilities (including bicycle and motorcycle).
• Target Ranges, including archery.
• Fairgrounds Area for expositions similar to the County Fair, including circuses, carnivals, and
other recreation /entertainment activities.
• Multi- purpose Use Areas (Picnic, Sports Fields, Unpaved Parking, etc.) including picnicking
and playground areas; amateur soccer, softball, and similar outdoor recreational sports and
activities; stadium, training and practice facilities for professional baseball.
• Onsite Roadways.
• Related Structures to house offices (including administrative offices and supportive service
facilities as Permitted Principal Uses and Structures), ticketing (including concessions,
ticketing, bleachers, and other spectator- related facilities as Permitted Accessory Uses and
Structures), exhibition activities (including exhibition hall /convention center), spectator and
user conveniences and facilities management.
The Future Land Use Map designates [approximately 1,637 acres] of the subject site as Rural Fringe
Mixed Use District ( RFMUD) Sending Lands, Belle Meade Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA)
Overlay.
1114121
s - `
i
8L
Agenda Item 9A
The present RFMUD Sending Lands designation currently allows: participation in the Transfer of •
Development Rights (TDR) program; agricultural uses consistent with the Florida Right to Farm Act;
habitat preservation and conservation; single - family residences at a 1 dwelling unit per 40 acres or
legally nonconforming parcel density; non - residential uses (e.g. passive recreation, essential services,
sports and recreation camps, oil and gas exploration, development and production); and limited
accessory commercial uses.
Another [approximately 588 acre] portion of the subject site is designated as the Urban Residential
Fringe Subdistrict.
The land uses that are generally allowed by the Urban Residential Fringe (URF) Subdistrict
designation include a variety of residential and non - residential land uses, including mixed -use
development via PUDs. Residential development in the URF is typified by a "transitional" density
between the County's Urban designated area and the Agricultural /Rural area of a maximum of up to
1.5 units per gross acre, or up to 2.5 units per gross acre via the transfer of one dwelling unit per acre
from lands designated Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) Sending Lands. Certain industrial
and commercial uses may also be allowed, including:
• Essential services;
• Parks, open space and recreational uses;
• Water - dependent and water - related uses;
• Child care centers;
• Community facilities, and their co- location with other public facilities;
• Safety service facilities;
• Utility and communication facilities;
• Earth mining, oil extraction, and related processing;
• Agriculture;
is
• Travel trailer and recreational vehicle (TTRV) parks;
• Commercial uses per criteria identified for certain Subdistricts or other FLUE policies, including
hotels and motels;
• Certain accessory commercial uses;
• Industrial uses per criteria identified for certain Districts, Subdistricts or other FLUE policies;
• Business Park uses per criteria identified for certain Districts and Subdistricts; and,
• Research and Technology Park uses per criteria identified for certain Districts and Subdistricts.
An approximately 37 acre area is designated as the southeast quadrant of Mixed Use Activity Center
No. 7 (Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard) within the Urban Commercial District. The
land uses that are generally allowed by the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict designation include
concentrations of commercial uses in mixed -use settings, designed and developed at a human - scale,
pedestrian- oriented and interconnected with abutting properties, and allowing:
• Commercial uses;
• Residential uses;
• Institutional uses;
• Hotel and motel uses at a maximum density of up to 26 units per acre; and,
• Community facilities,
Residential density in MUAC No. 7 mixed -use developments is the same as that allowed by the Urban
Residential Fringe (URF) Subdistrict — a maximum of up to 1.5 units per gross acre, or up to 2.5 units
per gross acre via the transfer of one dwelling unit per acre from RFMUD Sending Lands. If density is
to be distributed outside the Activity Center boundary, then certain stipulations apply, as follows:
is
ME
Agenda Item 9A
• Thirty percent (30 %) of Activity Center - accumulated density must be located within the Activity
Center [in this instance, it is 37 southeast quadrant acres applied to the 1.5 units per gross
acre (for 55.5 units'Activity Center - accumulated density); or, 37 acres applied to the 2.5 units
per gross acre via the transfer of one dwelling unit per acre from RFMUD Sending Lands (for
92.5 units' Activity Center - accumulated density).] This allocation works out to 17 residential
units located within the Activity Center of 55 accumulated (with the 1.5 factor) or, 28 residential
units located within the Activity Center of 92 accumulated (with the 2.5 factor).
With regard to the subject property's proximity to the Physicians Regional Medical Center — Collier
Boulevard facility, certain GMP and LDC provisions allow for additional special land uses that include:
Support medical facilities, such as physicians' offices, medical clinics, medical treatment,
research and rehabilitative centers, and pharmacies located within one - quarter mile of the
medical center.
Surrounding Lands:
The 2,262 acre subject site is an unusually- shaped area, appearing somewhat like the State of
Louisiana with irregular edges. Describing its surrounding lands may be best accomplished with a
virtual walk - around.
Beginning our description with land lying adjacently to the north, or at the 12 o'clock position, is the
Willow Run commercial extraction operation (including quarry excavation lakes, concrete plant and
asphalt plant activities) zoned A, Rural Agricultural district with a Provisional Use (PU); Red Cockaded
Woodpecker (RCW) mitigation area. The current Future Land Use designation is predominantly
Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict (URF), along with areas of Rural Fringe Mixed Use District
• (RFMUD) Sending Lands, Belle Meade Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) Overlay. Further
north lies the San Marino RPUD.
Located generally north, northeast, at the 1 o'clock position, are rural residential uses and equestrian
facilities in the area where Benfield Road, Barton Gilba Drive and Stable Way have their terminal
ends. This area is zoned A, Rural Agricultural. The current Future Land Use Designation is Rural
Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) Sending Lands, Belle Meade Natural Resource Protection Area
(NRPA) Overlay.
Located generally northeast and east, at the 2 and 3 o'clock positions, is undeveloped land zoned A,
Rural Agricultural. The current Future Land Use Designation is Rural Fringe Mixed Use District
(RFMUD) Sending Lands, Belle Meade Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) Overlay. Further
east lie Picayune Strand State Forest lands.
Located generally southeast, at the 4 o'clock position, is a citrus growing operation, with on -site sales
facilities on Saba[ Palm Road, zoned A, Rural Agricultural district with a Conditional Use (CU). The
subject property surrounds some lands in this area; these properties include State of Florida owned
lands and a few privately owned parcels.
Located generally south, southeast, at the 5 o'clock position, are undeveloped lands, zoned A, Rural
Agricultural. The current Future Land Use Designation is Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD)
Sending Lands, Belle Meade Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) Overlay.
Located generally south, along a lengthy meandering southerly border, are multiple designations.
North of Sabal Palm Road, at the 6 o'clock position, is an area of low- density residential
development, zoned A, Rural Agricultural. The current Future Land Use Designation is Rural Fringe
-7-
8E
Agenda Item 9A
Mixed Use District (RFMUD) Sending Lands, Belle Meade Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) •
Overlay. Located across Sabal Palm Road, south, at the 6 o'clock position, and south, southwest, at
the 7 o'clock position, is the Veronawalk Mixed -Use Planned Unit Development, zoned as part of the
Winding Cypress DRI. The current Future Land Use Designation is Urban Residential Fringe
Subdistrict (URF).
Located generally southwest, at the 8 o'clock position, is an area of multi - family residential
development zoned as the Rockedge RPUD; FPL Easement; and, the main N -S canal abutting CR
951. North of John's Road is the "Kountree Kampin° RV Resort, zoned Travel Trailer and
Recreational Vehicle Campground (TTRVC); and, the Physicians Regional Medical Center, zoned
PUD. The current Future Land Use Designation is Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict (URF).
Across Collier Boulevard (CR 951) near its intersection with Rattlesnake Hammock Road, is an area
of partially developed land zoned Sierra Meadows PUD containing an office building and Edison
Village PUD. The current Future Land Use Designation is Urban Mixed Use District and SW quadrant
of the Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 (Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard).
Located generally west, at the 9 o'clock position, north of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and east of
CR 951, is an area of undeveloped land zoned for the Hammock Park Commerce Center CPUD, the
McMullen MPUD, the Good Turn Center MPUD and other CR 951 - fronting parcels zoned for C -3
through C -5 commercial uses, and tracts zoned A, Rural agricultural; and, FPL Easement. The
current Future Land Use Designations are Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict (URF) and NE
quadrant of the Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 (Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard);
and, the main N -S canal abutting CR 951.
Across Collier Boulevard (CR 951), is the Naples Lakes Village Center commercial development, part •
of Naples Lakes Country Club MPUD. The current Future Land Use Designations are Urban Mixed
Use District and NW quadrant of the Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 (Rattlesnake Hammock Road
and Collier Boulevard).
Located generally northwest, at the 10 o'clock position, is a place of worship with community
services, zoned First Assembly Ministries Education and Rehabilitation Campus MPUD. Across
Collier Boulevard (CR 951) near its intersection with The Lord's Way, is the [Lely Area Stormwater
Improvement Project] LASIP Conservation Area PUD; further north lie the Homes of Islandia and
Naples National Golf Club PUDs. The current Future Land Use Designation is Urban Mixed Use
District
Located generally north, northwest, at the 11 o'clock position, is undeveloped land fronting CR 951
zoned A, Rural Agricultural, as part of the commercial extraction operation lying to the north. The
current Future Land Use Designation is Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict (URF).
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Appropriateness of Changes:
The practicalities of the petitioner's proposed amendments are established, in part, through an
evaluation of relevant and appropriate data for population growth, commercial inventory, infrastructure
development and other considerations in the surrounding geographic area.
Certain amendments introduce new provisions allowing for the use of TDRs in manners exclusive to
the subject property. Residential development is currently planned and limited to certain transitional is
-8-
'8
9
A enda Item 9f
is densities, achievable with TDRs transferred into the Urban Fringe. The appropriateness of changing
the FLUE and CCME for allowing additional TDRS to be used for residential development is
addressed herein.
Other amendments introduce an additional amount of commercial and office development, uses and
activities to an expanded Mixed Use Activity Center on the subject property. Commercial
development is currently planned and limited to certain acreages and floor areas based on the
allocation and spatial arrangement of Activity Centers throughout the planning area. The
appropriateness of expanding the site for additional commercial and office development is addressed
herein.
Certain amendments offer to preserve native vegetation and habitat in Sending Lands in a
proportional substitution for preserving less native vegetation and habitat in the Urban portion of the
project. Preservation of these Sending Lands is a requirement under other provisions of the GMP
from which TDR program benefits are derived. The appropriateness of changing the FLUE and
CCME to derive dual benefits from preserving a portion of the same land area is addressed herein.
Still other amendments introduce new provisions allowing another means of vehicular access to a
Business Park proposed at a certain location inside the project. The appropriateness of allowing The
Lord's Way for both residential and nonresidential traffic is addressed herein. The compatibility of a
Business Park with its surrounding land uses is an issue addressed in consideration of the
companion Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) request.
Commercial Development:
The Mixed Use Activity Center concept is designed to concentrate almost all 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.
•
A trend toward commercial development is evident in the area adjacent to the Mixed Use Activity
Center proposed by CP- 2006 -11 for expansion. This development is evidenced within the original
MUAC No. 7 and in areas where the MUAC has previously expanded.
Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7's nearest activity center neighbors are MUAC No. 9 (1 -75 and Collier
Boulevard and Davis Boulevard) located approximately 3.1 miles directly north on CR951 [as an
Interchange Activity Center], and MUAC No. 18 (US 41 and Collier Boulevard) located approximately
3.4 miles directly south on CR951. MUAC No. 6 (Davis Boulevard and Santa Barbara Boulevard)
lies northwest, separated from MUAC No. 7 by approximately four (4) road miles.
Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7's nearest non - activity center, non - residential neighbor is the Collier
Regional Medical Center facilities located immediately south — both inside and outside the MUAC
boundaries. The next nearest non - residential neighbor is the College Park office complex located
approximately 0.9 miles directly west on Rattlesnake Hammock Road.
Generally, Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 has no competing general commercial land uses closer
than 3.1 miles.
The need for an additional 9.16 acres of commercially developable land via a MUAC expansion is
evaluated within a "Study Area" described in the Market and Needs Evaluation submitted with this
petition [extending two and one -half (2.5) radial miles from the center point of Mixed Use Activity
Center No. 7], including the following approved projects:
-9-
8E
Agenda Item 9A
Located within Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 are a number of Planned Unit Developments and •
commercially zoned properties, as follows:
❖ North of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and east of CR 951 — the Northeast Quadrant — is an
approximately 64.5 acre (gross) area of undeveloped land zoned for the Hammock Park
Commerce Center CPUD, the McMullen MPUD, the Good Turn Center MPUD and other CR
951 - fronting parcels zoned for C -3 through C -5 commercial uses. This quadrant has more
than 445,000 developable sq. ft. on 56.5 acres (net) available for Mixed Use Activity Center
Uses.
❖ North of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and west of CR 951 — the Northwest Quadrant — is an
approximately 39.9 acre (gross) area of land zoned, and part of, Naples Lakes Country Club
MPUD developed with the Naples Lakes Village [shopping] Center. This quadrant has
approximately 75,865 sq. ft. developed of 260,000 developable sq. ft. on 15.3 acres (net)
available for Mixed Use Activity Center Uses.
❖ South of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and west of CR 951 — the Southwest Quadrant — is an
approximately 38.9 acre (gross) area of land zoned Sierra Meadows PUD, a commercial node
adjacent to Lely Resort project. This quadrant has approximately 3,900 sq. ft. developed on
30.1 acres (net) available for Mixed Use Activity Center Uses.
❖ South of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and east of CR 951 — the Southeast Quadrant — is an
approximately 41.4 acre (gross) area of land zoned and developed as the Collier Regional
Medical Center. Undeveloped land and the commercial component of the Hacienda Lakes of
Naples project proposed for expansion also comprise this quadrant. This quadrant has
approximately 35.0 acres (net) available for Mixed Use Activity Center Uses. •
South of the Southwest Quadrant of MUAC No. 7, fronting CR 951 — is an approximately 5.7 acre
area of land zoned and developed as the Edison Village PUD. The (7,100 sq. ft.) 21st Century
Oncology and (6,700 sq. ft.) Anchor Health Urgent Care professional and medical facilities are
located here.
The above - listed sites are located within the project's Study Area, and currently provide approximately
93,520 sq. ft. of commercial use opportunities. Source: March, 2008 Planned Unit Development (PUD) Masterlist
(prepared and maintained by the Collier County Transportation Planning Section) and the Collier County Interactive Growth Model
(CTGM).
Residential Demand Analysis:
An assessment of the area establishes that residential land uses may be allowed at a maximum
density of 1.5 units per gross acre, or up to 2.5 units per gross acre via the transfer of up to one
dwelling unit per acre from lands designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands, with
the exception of a site specific property comprising 55 acres located within the Urban Residential
Fringe to include a density bonus of up to 6.0 additional units per gross acre for affordable home
ownership for low and moderate income residents.
A further assessment of approved developments within this area revealed that the developments
included large amounts of environmentally sensitive lands. As a result, the residential components of
these developments have been concentrated on smaller tracts of land within the development
resulting in net densities greater than the maximum allowable gross density of 1.5 du /ac. The
following PUD's are examples of this type of development: 0
-10-
8E
Agenda Item 9A
is 1. Forest Glen of Naples is a 614 -acre PUD approved for 1.26 units per acre or 799 dwelling units.
Due to environmentally sensitive land within the project, the 799 residential units are
concentrated within Tract "R° of the development comprising 170 acres that equate to 4.7 units
per acre net density. [Section 2, Township 50 South, Range 26 East.]
2. San Marino is a 235 -acre PUD approved for 1.5 units per acre or 352 dwelling units. However,
the total 352 dwelling units are to be constructed on a 21 acre site within the PUD equating to
a net residential density of 16.77 dwelling units per acre. [Section 11, Township 50 South,
Range 26 East.]
3. Winding Cypress is a 1,928 -acre PUD approved for 1.2 units per acre or 2,300 dwelling units
for the overall development. The residential component of this PUD will comprise 2,300
dwelling units being developed on 448 acres equating to 5.14 dwelling units per acre net.
[Sections 24, 34, & 35, Township 50 South, Range 26 East.]
The Hacienda Lakes of Naples project is being proposed as a 2,262 acre DRI /PUD planned for 0.78
units per acre or 1,760 dwelling units. However, the 1,760 units are to be constructed on
approximately 652 acres equating to 2.8 units per acre net density.
In addition to these examples of developments with higher net densities, certain projects are approved
in the Urban Residential Fringe that allow greater intensities than the typical 1.5 du /ac. scenario.
1. First Assembly Ministries Education & Rehabilitation Campus is a 79.1 -acre PUD. First
Assembly is approved for a mixture of land uses for religious, community social services and
residential uses in a campus -type setting, including: 1800 seat auditorium, 600 seat chapel,
300 student school, 450 child /adult care facility, 400 bed care unit facility, 120 travel trailer or
• park model lots, adult living facility for 400 group housing units, and 57 multi-family units along
with numerous inside and outside recreational facilities and accessory uses. [Section 14,
Township 50 South, Range 26 East.]
2. The Swamp Buggy Days' Florida Sports Park is a 129 -acre PUD. The Swamp Buggy PUD is
approved for intense outdoor sports and recreational activities, including swamp buggy races
and a gun shooting range [on portion of subject property].
3. Growth Management Plan Amendment CP- 2002 -1 was approved (site of the McMullen PUD)
to expand the northeast quadrant of Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7. The area added
comprises approximately 18.5 acres and is immediately contiguous to the eastern limit of the
original activity center boundary. The approved uses are limited to: "personal indoor self -
storage facilities offices for various contractor /builder construction trade specialists inclusive of
the offices of related professional disciplines and services, warehouse space for various
contractor /builder construction trade occupants and related businesses including but not
limited to lumber and other building materials dealers, paint, glass, and wallpaper stores,
garden supply stores as accessory uses only." [Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26
East.]
4. The Urban Designation allows for support medical facilities (such as physicians' offices,
medical clinics, treatment, research and rehabilitative centers, and pharmacies provided the
dominate use is medically related) to locate within '/< mile of existing or approved hospitals or
medical centers which offer primary and urgent care treatment for all types of injuries and
traumas. Accordingly, the surrounding lands within one - quarter mile of a hospital can
potentially be zoned and developed with support medical uses [affecting a portion of subject
• property].
-11-
8E
Agenda Item 9A
5. Rezone application PUDZ- 2003 -AR -4674 was approved in May 2004 to permit up to 260,000 •
square feet of hospital and related uses. Pursuant to the aforementioned provision, the site
was also approved for 80,000 square feet of medical office and related uses. The entire
property is known as the Collier Regional Medical Center. This property is located on the east
side of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) adjacently south of Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7.
[Section 23, Township 50 South, Range 26 East.]
ComRrehensive Plan Amendment — Statutory Data and Analysis Requirement
Chapter 9J -5, Florida Administrative Code, "Minimum Criteria for Review of Local
Government Comprehensive Plans and Plan Amendments, Evaluation and Appraisal
Reports, Land Development Regulations and Determinations of Compliance" sets forth
the minimum data and analysis requirement for comprehensive plan amendments.
More specifically, Section 9J -5.005 "General Requirements" delineates criteria for plan
amendments in sub - section 9J -5.005 (2) "Data and Analysis Requirements."
Sub - section 9J- 5.005(2) states in part that "All goals, objectives, standards, findings and
conclusions within the comprehensive plan and its support documents, and within plan
amendments and its support documents, shall be based upon relevant and appropriate
data and analysis applicable to each element. To be based upon data means to react to
it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on
that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue...
the Department will review each comprehensive plan [amendment] for the purpose of
determining whether the plan [amendment] is based on data and analyses described in
this Chapter and whether data were collected and applied in a professionally acceptable •
manner."
It is incumbent upon all applicants requesting comprehensive plan amendments to
provide supporting data and analyses in conjunction with any relevant support
documents. It is not the responsibility of Collier County staff to generate data and
analysis for the applicant, rather it is staff's responsibility to review and analyze the
petitioner's data and analysis for accuracy, applicability, professional acceptability,
sound methodology, etc. Any outstanding deficiencies or other issues with respect to
data and analyses that may remain at the time of any requisite public hearing are the
responsibility of the applicant. An evaluation of the adequacy of the data and analysis
for the subject plan amendment is set forth herein.
In preparation for Growth Management Plan amendment petitions, Collier County
was provided the October 2009 Florida Senate Interim Report 2010 -107 entitled
"POPULATION NEED AS A CRITERIA FOR CHANGES TO A LOCAL GOVERNMENT'S
FUTURE LAND USE MAP." In addition to the Interim Report, a draft rule to amend the
Florida Administrative Code was provided.
The Interim Report identified a primary issue of a "Needs Assessment" in determining
whether a comprehensive plan amendment as submitted by a local government
provides more land than is needed to accommodate anticipated population growth.
Population growth is utilized in the context of projected population during the 5 and 10
year planning time horizons
is
-12-
8 k.
Agenda Item 9A
The genesis for the Interim Report was a land use decision in Marion County where the
• Governor and Cabinet upheld a decision of an administrative law judge (AU) that a
proposed comprehensive plan amendment would, if adopted, allow more than five
times the residential units needed in Marion County's 10 year planning horizon. The
finding of the AU was that the applicant's methodology was not professionally
acceptable because it did not demonstrate the need within the adopted planning time
horizon.
The Report identified several proposed comprehensive plan amendments that were
found not in compliance based upon needs criteria, that is, because need was not
demonstrated by the applicant. However, the Report also identifies some instances
where comprehensive plan amendments were found in compliance despite failing to
meet the needs assessment criteria; more about this later in this summary. One
amendment highlighted in the Report not meeting the needs assessment involved the
re- designation of land for industrial development in Putnam County; another such
amendment was for the creation of the Clear Springs Sector Plan that re- designated
17,000+ acres to allow uses that included over 11,000 dwelling units, 6.8 million square
feet of Research /Corporate Park /Commercial, and 21.8 million square feet of Industrial
uses.
The needs analysis is a useful planning tool to ascertain whether a proposed plan
amendment will result in a local government's over - allocation of land in a specific land
use category. One of the biggest problems identified with the over - allocation of certain
land uses is urban sprawl, which causes increased infrastructure costs, a depleted urban
core, and the premature development of agricultural lands and natural areas.
• The needs analysis explained in the Interim Report includes a market factor, planning
time horizon, and population projections. As previously noted, the planning horizon
for Collier County is presently out to 10 years (2020). The County utilizes medium
range population projections as provided annually by the University of Florida's Bureau
of Economic and Business Research. The market factor is a numerical tool used to
determine the amount of land use supply needed to accommodate anticipated growth.
The Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) uses a market factor of 1.25, or
25 percent greater than the anticipated need of land use supply necessary for the
population projected in the 110 year] planning time horizon. The additional 250/0 is
designed to allow for market flexibility.
•
Market factor is calculated by dividing the supply of land use by the demand for that
land use. The supply could be dwelling unit capacity (all built units plus all units
allowed based on existing zoning and future land use designation), commercial capacity
(all built commercial square feet plus all commercial square feet allowed based on
existing zoning and future land use designation [land converted to building square
feet]), or industrial capacity (all built industrial square feet plus all industrial square feet
allowed based on existing zoning and future land use designation [land converted to
building square feet]). The demand could be dwelling unit demand, commercial square
feet demand, or industrial square feet demand — all based upon population projections
within the 10 -year planning horizon.
-13-
-, 8E
Agenda Item 9A
Below are fictitious examples of commercial market factors for three different GMP •
amendments within three different geographic areas, all at the 10 -year planning
horizon:
1) supply of 1.25 million SF /demand for 1 million SF = market factor of 1.25 (supply
= 125% of demand)
2) supply of 950,000 SF /demand for 800,000 SF = market factor of 1.19 (supply
= 119% of demand)
3) supply of 1.5 million SF /demand for 1 million SF = market factor of 1.50 (supply
= 150% of demand)
In the above examples, based on market factor considerations only, there is a
demonstrated need for the first two amendments as the market factor is at or below
1.25, but there is no demonstrated need for the third amendment as the market factor
exceeds the recommended 1.25.
The Interim Report also notes that the numerical needs assessment (market factor),
while a significant factor in determining need, is not the only consideration. Case law
indicates commercial or industrial land use need may also be demonstrated by other
factors such as suitability of the property for change, locational criteria, and community
desires. In the Report's Findings and /or Conclusions section, it states:
The needs assessment is a fundamental part of land use planning. Specifically, the
numerical needs assessment is a useful tool to determine whether the amendment will
cause an area to become over - allocated or exacerbate existing over - allocation. It is also •
a key indicator of urban sprawl. However, the numerical needs assessment is only one
factor to consider when conducting a needs assessment. It is also important to consider
other policy factors such as job creation potential, urban infill, form of development, or
the promotion of development in areas where it is most efficient for the local
government to promote growth."
When the numerical needs assessment exceeds the 1.25 market factor, the above
additional factors should be addressed, with specificity, in the proposed GMP
amendment petition as part of the data and analysis. The local government can then
consider whether the overall needs assessment for a certain land use supersedes the
numerical needs assessment and, if so, would need to cite with specificity the policy
factors that were relied upon in making that determination. During the Transmittal
stage, DCA would make a determination in its Objections, Recommendations and
Comments Report as to whether the policy factors articulated provide the rational
nexus to exceed the 1.25 market factor; during the Adoption stage, DCA would do that
as part of its determination of compliance with state law.
As a point of emphasis, the provisions of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J -5, Florida
Administrative Code require that appropriate data and analysis be provided to demonstrate an
allocation of additional commercial acreage is needed.
Commercial Demand Analysis:
The firm of Real Estate Research Consultants, Inc. conducted the Market and Needs Evaluation,
which analyzed market conditions within the South Naples and Royal Fakapalm Planning •
Communities. This analysis provided an overall context for assessing the basic goods and services
-14-
8 E
Agenda Item 9A
• requirements of the emerging population within the County's easternmost urban area and exurban
fringe. The residential figures utilized in the study are as follows:
Growth in the eastern fringe of urban Collier County is projected to increase the population of
the Planning Communities during the period 2010 to 2030. This area is projected to grow 36.5
percent from 12,447 persons in 2010, to 15,409 persons in 2015, to 17,000 persons in 2030 —
an increase of approximately 4,550 persons, according to June, 2010 estimates provided by
the County's Comprehensive Planning Section. [An ambitious development schedule
indicates about 4,000 of these 4,550 persons will have the opportunity to reside in the
Hacienda Lakes of Naples project by 2020.] It is questionable whether there will be 4,000
persons in this development, even at buildout, based on the persons per household, and
occupancy /vacancy rates from the 2000 Census.
The Research Consultants' Evaluation has faults, particularly in its attempt to dismiss the relevance
of, or contribution from, existing and potential commercial lands within the same market area, claiming
°[w]e see only a limited relevance for competing lands in the context of this analysis" and "other lands
that might also be available to accommodate opportunities generated by the population of Hacienda
Lakes are of no material importance in evaluating development options" Comprehensive Planning
staff respectfully disagrees with these assertions — which effectually separate the Evaluation further
from its geographical setting and market realities — and considers characteristics of the surrounding
market area to be wholly relevant and appropriate.
To the extent that the analysis provided by the Evaluation is made insubstantial by these claims, the
data provided has been useful in staffs evaluation of this part of the proposed GMP amendment,
especially for extrapolating a more - accurate analysis.
• Collier Interactive Growth Model
The East of County Road 951 Infrastructure and Services Horizon Study was a two phase planning
effort to assess the County's ability to accommodate growth within the County east of Collier
Boulevard (CR 951). Included in the second phase of the study was the development of a Collier
County Interactive Growth Model (CIGM). The Board adopted the CIGM as a planning tool at its
advertised public hearing in February 2009. This model was developed to assist in projecting
population and its spatial distribution over time to build -out in all areas lying east of CR 951. The
interactive growth model is also utilized to approximate the timing and location of commercial and
industrial centers, school facilities, parks and recreational facilities, fire stations, etc. The commercial
sub -model is designed to project the demand for neighborhood, community and regional centers that
include retail and other commercial uses. This sub -model helps to spatially allocate the optimal
locations for these commercial centers required as functions of time and population, and as a result of
disposable incomes of the population. The CIGM could not be fully utilized in evaluating the Hacienda
Lakes of Naples project proposal, as approximately one -half of the area studied lies west of Collier
Boulevard (CR 951).
Guidelines for Commercial Development used in the CIGM remain relevant, however, as bases for
further computations, as categorized below:
• Number of Persons per Neighborhood Center: 13,110
• Number of Persons per Community Center: 34,464
• Number of Persons per Regional Center: 157,324
-15-
t
8E
Agenda Item 9A
• Number of Acres per Neighborhood Center: 11 •
• Number of Acres per Community Center: 28
• Number of Acres per Regional Center: 100
• Square Feet Building Area per Neighborhood Center. 110,734 (8.45 sq. ft. per Capita)
• Square Feet Building Area per Community Center. 257,668 (7.48 sq. ft. per Capita)
• Square Feet Building Area per Regional Center: 1,000,000 (6.36 sq. ft. per Capita)
The above floor area figures are the average sizes of Neighborhood, Community and Regional
Centers in existence (built) in Collier County. This means some Centers are larger, and some smaller,
than these countywide averages; that is, there is a range in size of each type of Center. Each type of
Center is classified based upon size as well as uses.
Based on the population thresholds provided by the Real Estate Research Consultants' Market and
Needs Evaluation extrapolated by the CIGM Guidelines, staff has developed commercial analysis for
petition CP- 2006 -11 as follows (with the referenced map attached and made part of this Staff Report):
• Existinq and Potential Commercial sq. ft.
Within the petition's defined Study Area, there are 93,522 sq. ft. of existing commercial
development and 794,440 sq. ft. of potential commercial development (vacant land designated
as commercial & vacant land zoned commercial). A total supply of existing and potential
commercial space within the Study Area is 887,962 sq. ft.
• Population
Based on the CIGM, the total population in the Study Area are /will be: 2010 — 14,069 persons; •
2015 — 17,416 persons; and, 2030 — 19,204 persons.
• Square Footage Demand for a Community Center
The total existing /projected population within the Study Area translates into an
existing /projected demand for commercial space within the Study Area as follows: 2010 —
14,069 persons yields demand for 105,236 sq. ft.; 2015 - 17,416 persons yields demand for
130,272 sq. ft.; and, 2030 — 19,204 persons yields demand for 143,645 sq. ft.
• Square Footage Demand for a Regional Center
The total existing /projected population within the Study Area translates into an
existing /projected demand for commercial space within the Study Area as follows: 2010 -
14,069 persons yields demand for 89,478 sq. ft.; 2015 - 17,416 persons yields demand for
110,766 sq. ft.; and, 2030 — 19,204 persons in 2030 translate to 122,138 sq. ft. demand for
commercial space.
Data Sources.
The QG111 analysis for this petition ud ,&.Zed.• (1) the 2007 Commercial Inventory prepared by the Collier County
Comprehensive Planning Department; (2) present GAP designations that allow commercial caning; (3) population pr jections
prepared by the applicant's consultant. There is a minor discrepancy between the QGM population prig coons and those
prepared by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research at the University of Florida (BEBR).
Environmental Impacts:
The environmental report submitted by Passarella and Associates with a companion petition [as
Exhibit "M" in PUDZ materials] was updated in August 2009. This report states that the vegetation •
surveys and habitat mapping were done in 2003, 2005, 2007 and 2009. The substantive review of
-16-
L�
Agenda Item 9A
• this document was done by the Stormwater and Environmental Services Section and a staff report
was brought before the Environmental Advisory Council for their review. The environmental report
confirms the environmental characteristics of native vegetation and habitat reported at the time the
Rural Fringe Mixed Use District was established.
Stormwater and Environmental Planning Section — Staff Remarks
Stormwater and Environmental Planning Section review staff has reviewed the above referenced
amendments to the FLUE and CCME, and their review comments are provided below.
Future Land Use Element
Density Rating System
d. Density Blending
Stormwater and Environmental Planning Section staff recommends replacing the word "mitigation"
with either "preservation" or "retention" since the requirement in the GMP is a native vegetation
retention requirement and not a mitigation requirement. Similarly, replace the words "mitigated for'
with the word "shifted" in the same paragraph.
The applicant is proposing to be able to shift the native vegetation retention requirement from the
Urban designated portion of a project to the portion of a project designated NRPA Sending lands, if
the maximum native vegetation retention requirement within the Sending lands portion of the project is
met. In keeping with the intent of the GMP to retain as much native vegetation as possible within
Sending lands, Stormwater and Environmental Planning Section staff recommends allowing the native
vegetation retention requirement to be shifted from the Urban designated portion of a project to the
portion of a project designated Sending lands and not just NRPA Sending lands as proposed by the
• applicant.
Proposed changes with regard to archeological sites will not be reviewed by Stormwater and
Environmental Planning Section staff, but [from within] the Zoning Services Section.
[Stephen Lenberger, Senior Environmental Specialist
Stormwater and Environmental Planning Section]
Traffic Capacity/Traffic Circulation Analysis:
The traffic study submitted by Tindale- Oliver and Associates is dated August 2010. The substantive
review of this document was done by the Transportation Planning Section, and their review comments
are provided below. Although these comments primarily address aspects of the proposed companion
Hacienda Lakes Development of Regional Impact (DRI) and Mixed Use Planned Unit Development
(MPUD) requests, they are included here in supplement, as shown in ATTACHMENT HL -3.
Historical and Archaeological Impacts:
The historical and archaeological report submitted by the Archaeological and Historical Conservancy,
Inc. dates to August 2009. This report states that archaeological resources have been identified as
present on the 2,262 acre subject property, based on reference to the Collier County Index of
Historic/Archaeological Maps, and the sites are identified on County Historical and Archaeological
Probability Maps. Application materials illustrate the location and arrangement of these sites on
• Exhibit "O ". These sites are predominantly hammock formations and are protected as such. They are
-17-
•
Agenda Item 9A
not located in areas of the subject property where actual development is proposed. Provisions •
proposed by parts of CP- 2006 -11 require that these sites be preserved and cannot be mitigated for.
Public Facilities Impact:
The Hacienda Lakes project, if developed as proposed by these amendments, is expected to result in
increased impacts upon certain Category A public facilities besides roads (evaluated separately), but
these impacts will not be "significant' (generating potential for increased Countywide population
greater than 2% of the population projections for Parks and Recreation, Solid Waste Disposal, Potable
Water, Wastewater Treatment and Stormwater Management facilities, as defined in Policy 1.2 of the
CIE and other applicable GMP Elements). For potable water and wastewater treatment services, the
proposed development will demand (as net increases) more than 660,650 gallons per day and
414,250 gallons per day, respectively. Utilizing the level of service standards identified in the CIE, the
proposed uses will not result in a significant impact on Category A public facilities.
The demand for potable water and wastewater treatment was calculated based on the development of
the 1,760 residential units, 375,000 sq. ft. commercial space, 75,000 sq. ft. office space and a 135
room hotel. Absent from the petitioner's impact analysis are other proposed land uses such as a
business park with 140,000 sq. ft. use area, specialty residential and medical uses proximate to the
Medical Center, and up to two (2) schools.
Petition materials indicate the property is located within the Urban Designated area and adjacent
Rural Fringe Sending Lands, proximate to more than adequate existing or planned public facilities.
The project will not result in a failing LOS of a public facility, except as residential development
approaches buildout and inadequate Community Park facilities will be evidenced.
It should be noted that the applicant's public facilities impact analysis used residential figures varying •
persons per household (PPH) numbers of 2.0, 2.05 and 2.5 depending on the specific facility or
service analyzed. The County has adopted the PPH figure of 2.39 in this location. However,
occupancy /vacancy rates must also be accounted for. The public facilities impact analysis may
necessitate re- calculating and adjustments based on this figure, providing different results.
2008 Legislation - HB 697:
This legislation, which pertains to energy conservation and efficiency, went into effect on July 1, 2008.
Some key phrases in the legislation include: "discouragement of urban sprawl "; "greenhouse gas
reduction strategies'; "transportation strategies to address reduction in greenhouse gas emissions
from the transportation sector." Among other things, House Bill 697 requires certain amendments to
the Growth Management Plan (Future Land Use Element and map, Housing Element, Transportation
Element, Conservation and Coastal Management Element) which would be initiated by Collier County.
However, in the interim (and perhaps beyond), each GMP amendment petition should include data
and analysis to demonstrate how it discourages urban sprawl and reduces greenhouse gas
emissions. The Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) reviews GMP amendments for
compliance with this legislation.
This application has been reviewed for adequacy of data and analysis to demonstrate how the project
would discourage or not contribute to urban sprawl, and reduce or not elevate greenhouse gas
emissions.
•
-18-
A
Agenda Item 9A
is Especially because the 06 -11 application predicates a mixed use development of regional impact, the
HB 697 response affords an excellent opportunity to include plans for committing to sustainable, or
"green" construction techniques and building designs; establishing commercial recycling programs;
providing dedicated parking area(s) to park -n -ride or ride -share vehicles; providing bus stop(s);
providing electric vehicle preferred parking and charging stations; committing that service stations
dispense more than one alternative fuel; providing pedestrian and bicycle paths interconnecting with
neighboring communities, extra bike racks and public seating areas, and community -wide bike share
programs; or other energy - conserving ideas.
The applicant explains the project will provide opportunities for public schools within the boundaries of
the project, and a mix of land uses that provides for a live /work community. Residences will be
developed to provide for multiple types of ownership and housing options to serve diverse household
incomes.
Companion Development of Regional Impact (DRI) application materials address HB 697 energy efficiency
measures, and they appear here in part, to reflect developer commitments.
• Project preserves some 1,543 acres of land while limiting development footprint to about 700
acres;
• The most - intense land uses are oriented adjacent to existing development;
• Mix of residential uses, medical and commercial uses, an existing attraction, and a centrally -
located elementary school;
• A jobs -to- housing balance, reducing automobile trips and minimizing vehicle miles traveled;
• Neighborhoods developed with a multi -modal street system, promoting alternative modes of
transportation and reducing GHG emissions;
■ Energy conservation features, incorporating a bicycle and pedestrian system connecting all
• land uses, bike racks and storage facilities in recreational, commercial and multi- family areas,
select energy - efficient indoor and outdoor building features, prohibition of covenants or deed
restrictions that would hamper or prevent energy conservation, vegetative choices and
landscape design features that reduce need for water and maintenance, energy efficient
lighting in public areas, and others.
•
The connection of this legislation with the actual project design is stronger in the proposed companion
Hacienda Lakes Development of Regional Impact (DRI) and Mixed Use Planned Unit Development
(MPUD) requests. Staff reserves the bulk of its evaluation of HB 697 related issues to the review of
these development proposals.
Other Consider6tions:
The County's ability to manage growth in accordance with its adopted Growth Management Plan is
tested by requests to expand or allow commercial development outside Neighborhood Centers, Mixed
Use Activity Centers and other planned locations. These planned locations are purposely sized,
spatially arranged and separated to encourage and support a healthy business environment County-
wide and, discourage and avoid over commercialization and strip development.
The petitioner's argument is premised on the unusual idea that regional medical facilities should be
discounted from calculations for uses and acres in Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 because they are
not typical commercial uses. This premise is faulted however, as numerous non - retail uses are found
and encouraged in Mixed Use Activity Centers generally — and none are discounted elsewhere.
-19-
Agenda Item 9A
Acquiescing to this idea would compensate the petitioner for MUAC acreage used for land uses other •
than those in the plans of the Hacienda Lakes of Naples project.
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM) SYNOPSIS:
A Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) was [duly advertised, noticed and] held on Thursday,
September 30, 2010, 5:15 p.m. at Edison College Campus Auditorium B -101, located at 7007 Lely
Cultural Parkway, Naples. Approximately twenty -eight people other than the applicant's team and
County staff attended. Dwight Nadeau, AICP, the applicant's agent provided a full description of the
proposed amendments, including developed areas and preserved areas, roads involved and
proposed accesses, and the residential density and commercial and office use intensity. Developing
the subject property would incorporate the Swamp Buggy Days and Junior Deputy sites at their
present locations.
Mr. Nadeau explained the GMPA Transmittal process to the group in attendance indicating how if
these GMPAs were approved in Transmittal, subsequent GMPA Adoption processes would be
required along with the DRI and PUD rezone procedures. The rezone would also be preceded by the
holding of another Neighborhood Information Meeting and set of public hearings.
The part of this GMPA relating to Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 would allow the development of
additional commercial and professional office space on these approximately 37 acres.
Mr. Nadeau provided an overview of the County's Transfer of Development Rights program, and how
certain limitations leave the development of the project site with un -used, or surplus TDRs. The part
of this GMPA relating to the TDR program would allow more TDRs to be shifted to the urban part of •
the property for increased density there.
Questions generated during the subsequent discussion focused on the nature of the proposed
development, traffic and localized road conditions. One person asked about the Swamp Buggy facility
and the potential for compatibility issues with nearby residential land uses. The applicant's team
explained how the proposed Business Park would serve as a transition to buffer noise and other
impacts between the facility and residential land uses. Land uses allowed at the Swamp Buggy
facility will remain the same, where redevelopment into a business park or school site is not planned.
Another attendee asked for clarification regarding main vehicular access to the new development.
The team explained that The Lord's Way and Rattlesnake Hammock Road would be
extended /improved to serve as the main access points with CR 951. A right -of -way corridor is being
reserved at this time for the eventual development of, and connection to, Benfield Road. Their
development plans do not include the actual construction of Benfield Road.
An attendee asked about the nature of the residential development. The applicant indicated a variety
of single - family and multi- family housing options are planned, without age or income restrictions.
Another attendee asked for clarification regarding plans for the area located east of the Verona Walk
community. The team explained that this area is to be part of the larger preserve acreage. Except for
the Benfield Road corridor, these lands are protected from development in perpetuity. In order to
derive certain benefits from the TDR program, these preserve lands are conveyed to a public agency
responsible for restoration and maintenance.
•
-20-
8EAgenda Item 9A
No one in attendance expressed opposition to the project. No major issues or contentions were
• raised or discussed. No statements of commitment were made by the agent, applicant or developer.
The meeting was completed by 6:15 p.m.
(Synopsis prepared by C. Schmidt, A/CP, Principal Planner]
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
Approximately 493.2 acres [with the potential to produce 394.5 TDRs] lie east, beyond 1 mile of the
URF boundary, and are identified as an "Area not qualified for Sending" TDR credits into the URF.
[This acreage however, is qualfed for sending TDR credits into other receiving areas of the County.]
PART ONE of SIX: This part of CP- 2006 -11 lifts the FLUE's 2.5 unit - per -acre maximum achievable
density to 2.8 units per acre to use all qualifying TDRs within the Hacienda Lakes project.
The property's present designation as Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict currently
allows residential land uses at a maximum density of 1.5 units per gross acre or via
Transfer of Development Rights program up to 2.5 units per gross acre for a maximum
of 1.662 dwelling units.
The Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict is designed to provide a clear transition
between the Urban Residential Subdistrict on the west side of CR 951 and the
Agricultural /Rural lands to the east as envisioned when the Urban Residential Fringe
Subdistrict was established in 1989.
• Because of this amendment, there are no significant impacts to public facilities, as
defined in the CIE, with respect to Potable Water, Wastewater Treatment, Stormwater
Management, Solid Waste Disposal, Parks and Recreation facilities.
C7
PROVISION
EXISTING
PROPOSED
REMARKS
Maximum Residential
2.5 DU /acre
2.8 DU /acre
Just 507.8 ac would be
Density (utilizing TDRs)
- eligible to receive in URF
- eligible to receive in URF
developed residentially
Retention / Preservation
- Required Preservation
with receiving "lift"
• 432.4 in rsdntl tracts
FLUE
Area
Rural portion -
• 36.6 MUAC residential
Preservation Area with
• 38.8 in residential/
"shift"
medical uses tract
PART TWO of SIX: This part of CP- 2006 -11 shifts a portion of the FLUE's native vegetation
preservation from Urban lands to RFMUD Sending Lands to protect the highest quality wetlands and
habitat within the Hacienda Lakes project.
PROVISION
EXISTING
PROPOSED
REMARKS
Native Vegetation/
25% NV in Urban portion
Under 25% NV — Urban
. 25% of Urban Preserve
Habitat
60% NV in Rural portion
portion
is 72.4 ac. of 289.7 NV
Retention / Preservation
- Required Preservation
100% NV — Undeveloped
a 60% of Rural Preserve
FLUE
Area
Rural portion -
is 847.2 ac. of 1,412 NV
Preservation Area with
"shift"
-21-
8EAgenda Item 9A
PART THREE of SIX: This part of CP- 2006 -11 lifts the FLUE's 1.0 unit - per -acre maximum transferred
TDR density to 1.3 units per acre to use all qualifying TDRs within the Hacienda Lakes project
PROVISION
EXISTING
PROPOSED
REMARKS
Maximum Use of TDRs
1.0 DU/TDR per acre
1.3 DUs/TDRs per acre
Overall Density would be
Acreage Allowed for
- eligible to transfer into
- eligible to transfer into
0.78 DUs /acre (gross)
Southeast Quadrant of
URF from Sending Lands
URF from Sending Lands
ft. = Market factor of 6.18
MUAC No. 7
within I mile of URF
within 1 mile of URF
(Supply = 618 % of
boundary
boundary, with "lift"
Demand)
PART FOUR of SIX: This part of CP- 2006 -11 expands the size of the Southeast Quadrant of Mixed
Use Activity Center No. 7 by 9.16 acres in order to develop a greater intensity of commercial uses.
The magnitude of this project (approximately 37 gross acres; 28 net acres) is similar to a
Community Center commercial development at the upper limits of size — and
approximately one - quarter of a Regional Center commercial development of average
size.
The Market Area studied has 93,522 sq. ft. commercial floor area, on approximately 17.6
acres described as existing or "developed ".
Located within Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 are a number of Planned Unit
Developments and commercially zoned properties, totaling approximately 713,962 sq. ft.
commercial floor area and more than 136 acres — developed and undeveloped.
Approval of this expansion to MUAC No. 7, along with residential development and other
proposed land uses for the Hacienda Lakes project, will require intersection
improvements at more than one intersection with Collier Boulevard among various road
improvements.
Based upon total existing commercial inventory in the market study area, additional need
for commercial uses to serve the surrounding market area cannot be ascertained. There
is an excess of commercial development and commercially developable property in the
market area.
PROVISION
EXISTING
PROPOSED
REMARKS
Supply of 887,962 sq. ft. /
Acreage Allowed for
27.5 acres
36.6 acres
Demand for 143,645 sq.
Southeast Quadrant of
ft. = Market factor of 6.18
MUAC No. 7
(Supply = 618 % of
Demand)
-22-
•
•
•
f
Agenda Item 9A
PART FIVE of SIX: This part of CP- 2006 -11 allows The Lord's Way to serve as access to a Business
• Park as well as to [a] predominantly residential area[s] within the Hacienda Lakes project.
Approval of Business Park access via The Lord's Way also has the effect of preliminarily
endorsing a Business park at the proposed location within the Hacienda Lakes project.
Approval of Business Park access via The Lord's Way may contribute to requirements
for eventual various road improvements and intersection improvements at the
intersection with Collier Boulevard.
Particular considerations should be given to minimizing impacts on other land uses
along The Lord's Way and other streets from the Business Park and Business Park
access.
PROVISION
EXISTING
PROPOSED
REMARKS
Direct Access for Business
The Lord's Way does not
The Lord's Way would
Provides additional
Park onto Arterial
provide such access by
provide such access with
benefits for access to both
Roadway
FLUE provisions
new provision
Collier Boulevard and the
CCME
future Benfield Road
PART SIX of SIX: This part of CP- 2006 -11 shifts a portion of the CCME's native vegetation
preservation from Urban lands to RFMUD Sending Lands to protect the highest quality wetlands and
habitat within the Hacienda Lakes project.
• Certain amendments will result with deriving additional benefits from preserving native
vegetation and habitat, whose preservation is already a requirement under other
provisions of the GMP, from which benefits will also be derived based on the 2:1
preservation factor guaranteed in the "shift" from the Urban designated portion of the
project.
PROVISION
EXISTING
PROPOSED
REMARKS
Native Vegetation/
25% NV in Urban portion
25 %— X = Urban NV
• Urban Preserve would
Habitat
60% NV in Rural portion
60% + 2X =Rural NV
be 47.2 ac.
Retention / Preservation
- Preserved
- Preserved with "shift"
. Rural Preserve would
CCME
be 1,342 ac.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION:
The Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) heard the proposed amendment at their December 1,
2010 hearing. EAC considerations were limited to the parts of CP- 2006 -11 with environmental
significance (parts 1, 2, 3 & 6). These four aspects of the Hacienda Lakes of Naples proposal may be
simplified into just two paired changes — one pair of amendments would allow all eligible TDRs
generated from adjacent RFMUD Sending Lands to be used in the Urban portion of the project for a
greater maximum density [the "lift',; while the other pair of amendments would allow less native
vegetation preservation in the Urban portion of the project if a proportionally greater amount is
preserved in RFMUD Sending Lands [the "shift',.
EAC members discussed the nature of the 187 additional TDRs that would be used to increase the
• density above the existing 2.5 residential units per acre, and staffs recommendation to limit further
participation in the TDR program in some manner. The applicant's agent argued how no such
-23-
! c
BEAgenda Item 9A
restrictions should be placed on TDR use that would inhibit full participation in the TDR program. •
Speakers present agreed with the idea to make full use of TDR program.
Members discussed the proposal to relax preservation /retention requirements with the intent to
preserve the higher quality habitat on the large property while not preserving lower quality habitat —
regardless of location. The applicant's agent explained how approximately 25 acres of Urban
preserve lands would equate to approximately 50 acres of additional preservation in the Rural portion
of the project. EAC members reached consensus that the better habitat on the subject property
would be preserved.
Members also discussed how subsequent zoning activity would include the redemption and use of
TDRs severed and transferred from adjacent RFMUD Sending Lands.
EAC members recognized that no objections were raised by NIM attendees. The EAC recommended
to the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners to transmit CP- 2006 -11,
without staffs recommendations but with one EAC stipulation, to the DCA on a 3 -0 vote. The
recommended stipulation requires that all Transferable Development Rights be severed from all
Sending Lands to be preserved — whether the TDRs are utilized in the development of the Hacienda
Lakes of Naples project or they are held until used elsewhere in the County through the TDR
program.
The EAC also provided direction for modifying the GMP provisions, as proposed by CP- 2006 -11.
Members recommended that the FLUE and CCME language should not identify or include reference
to the Hacienda Lakes Development of Regional Impact (DRI) and Mixed Use Planned Unit
Development (MPUD) by name. Staff concurred, and explained that FLUE and CCME provisions
being prepared for recommendation to the CCPC were drafted with the same idea for removing or •
modifying the applicant's proposed provisions in this manner.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:
The Office of the County Attorney's review of this Staff Report provided observations and comments
on the legal aspects of CP- 2006 -11 planning considerations. These observations and comments
were used to update this Staff Report in preparation for January 20 consideration before the CCPC.
[REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
-24-
i 8E Agenda Item 9A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
• In consideration of the reviews and analyses provided within this Report, staff recommends that the
Planning Commission forward Petition CP- 2006 -11 to the Board of County Commissioners
corresponding with the individual parts of the proposal as shown in the figure below.
•
PROVISION
EXISTING
PROPOSED
REMARKS
RECOMMENDATION
Just 507.8 ac
Maximum
2.5 DU /acre
2.8 DU /acre
would be
To Transmit
Residential Density
- eligible to receive
- eligible to receive
developed
with Modification
(utilizing TDRs)
in URF
in URF with
residentially
receiving "lift"
• 432.4 in
residential tracts
• 36.6 MUAC
residential
• 38.8 in residential/
medical uses tract
Native Vegetation/
25% NV in Urban
Under 25% NV —
• 25% of Urban
Habitat
portion
Urban portion
Preserve is 72.4
To Transmit
Retention /
60% NV in Rural
100% NV —
ac. of 289.7 NV
with Modification
Preservation
portion
Undeveloped Rural
• 60% of Rural
FLUE
- Required
portion -
Preserve is
Preservation Area
Preservation Area
847.2 ac. of
with "shift"
1.412 NV
1.0 DU/TDR per
1.3 DUsjTDRs per
Maximum Use of
acre
acre
Overall Density
To Transmit
TDRs
- eligible to transfer
- eligible to transfer
would be 0.78
with Modification
into URF from
into URF from
DUs /acre (gross)
Sending Lands
Sending Lands
within 1 mile of
within 1 mile of
URF boundary
URF boundary,
with "lift"
Supply of 887,962
Acreage Allowed
27.5 acres
36.6 acres
sq. ft. / Demand for
NOT
for Southeast
143,645 sq. ft. =
TO
Quadrant of MUAC
Market factor of
TRANSMIT
No. 7
6.18
(Supply = 618 %
of Demand)
Provides additional
Direct Access for
The Lord's Way
The Lord's Way
benefits for access
To Transmit
Business Park onto
does not provide
would provide such
to both Collier
Selected
Arterial Roadway
such access by FLUE
access with new
Boulevard and the
Alternative
provisions
provision
future Benfield
Road
Native Vegetation/
25% NV in Urban
25 %— X = Urban
a Urban Preserve
To Transmit
Habitat
portion
NV
would be 47.2
with Modification
Retention /
60% NV in Rural
60% + 2X =Rural
ac.
Preservation
portion
NV
. Rural Preserve
CCME
- Preserved
- Preserved with
would be 1,342
"shift"
ac.
• Staff recommends that consideration for transmittal include an understanding that the following
requirements /conditions, or something similar, be placed in the companion PUD rezone:
-25-
8E
Agenda Item 9A
■ The Base Tr1D GFedits , Eady En#ni TID R rBan us Credits, En'viFermental Resteratien and •
Mixed Use e PlaMerd 1 Rit Development (MP III). [previously recommended language]
■ Prior to the issuance of the first residential Development Order in the Hacienda Lakes MPUD,
the Base TDR Credits and Early Entry TDR Bonus Credits shall be severed and redeemed
from all Sending Lands to be preserved within one mile of the Urban Residential Fringe and
the filing of executed Limitation of Development Rights Agreement(s) (County Form "TDR2 ")
shall occur for these same lands. [currently recommended replacement language]
■ A permanent conservation mechanism, including Limitation of Development Rights
Agreement(s), [shall] be attached /applied to all Sending Lands to be preserved beyond one
mile of the Urban Residential Fringe prior to final approval of the first Site Development Plan
(SDP) for the Hacienda Lakes project.
Staff - recommended modifications to this set of Growth Management Plan amendments shows the FLUE
and CCME language proposed in six parts, as shown in ATTACHMENT HL -2.
Closing Remarks:
Issues raised by the Transportation Planning review staff are of concern but do not affect CP- 2006 -11
directly. These issues will be thoroughly addressed in the evaluations of the companion Hacienda
Lakes Development of Regional Impact (DRI) and Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) •
requests.
Still other issues surrounding CP- 2006 -11 are more appropriate to be considered during review of the
companion DRI or PUD rezone processes, and will be addressed at that time.
[REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
-26-
• PREPARED BY.
Corby Schmi t, AICP, Principal Planner
Comprehenstve Planning Section
REVIEWED
David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager
Comprehensive Planning Section
Michael Bosi, AICP, Director
Comprehensive Planning Section
m D. Lorenz, Jr -P.E., 1AF6ctor
and Development Services Department
APPROVED BY.
Nick Casalanguida, Depu t r
Growth Management Services Division Planning and Regulation
PETITION NO.: CP- 2006 -11
Staff Report for the January 6, 2011 CCPC Meeting.
T(2 112. lo
Date
Date
IZ-
Date
Date
Date
NOTE: This petition has been advertised for the February 22, 2011 BCC Meeting.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION:
Mark P. Strain, Chairman
•
� 5
ATTACHMENT HL -1
�- 8
Agenda Item 9A
The Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC proposed Growth Management Plan amendments — CP 2006 -11 —
are shown below in single strike- through /single underline format, in six parts, as follows:
PART ONE of SIX:
Future Land Use Element
[insert new language — FLUE Page 29]
I. URBAN DESIGNATION
A. Urban Mixed Use District
2. Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict:
The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide transitional densities between the Urban Designated Area
and the Agricultural /Rural Area and comprises approximately 5,500 acres and 5% of the Urban Mixed
Use District. Residential land uses may be allowed at a maximum density of 1.5 units per gross acre.,
exclusive of density bonus that may be achieved via CCME Policy 6.2.5 (6) b.1., or higher through the
use of the following:
a. Up to 2.5 units per gross acre via the transfer of up to one LI.OLdwelling unit (transferable
development right) per acre from lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary and
designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending, except in the case of the Hacienda
Lakes PUD /DRI, which may achieve a maximum density of up to 2.80 units per gross acre via
the transfer of up to 1.30 dwelling units (transferable development rights) per acre from lands
designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending: and,
b. In the case of properties specifically identified below, a density bonus of up to 6.0 additional
units per gross acre may be requested for projects providing affordable - workforce housing
(home ownership only) for low and moderate income residents of Collier County, pursuant to
Section 2.06.00 of the Land Development Code, or its successor ordinance, except as
provided for in paragraph V below. Within the Urban Residential Fringe, rezone requests are
not subject to the density rating system, except as specifically provided in c. below, but are
subject to the following conditions:
PART TWO of SIX:
I. URBAN DESIGNATION
[insert new language — FLUE Pages 51 — 53]
B. DENSITY RATING SYSTEM
5. Density Blending:
This provision is intended to encourage unified plans of development and to preserve wetlands,
wildlife habitat, and other natural features that exist within properties that straddle the Urban Mixed
Use and Rural Fringe Mixed Use Districts or that straddle Receiving and Neutral Lands within the
Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. In the case of such properties, which were in existence and under
unified control (owned, or under contract to purchase, by the applicant(s)) as of June 19, 2002, the
allowable gross density for such properties in aggregate may be distributed throughout the project,
regardless of whether or not the density allowable for a portion of the project exceeds that which is
otherwise permitted, when the following conditions are met:
-1-
•
•
8E
Agenda Item 9A
• 2. Density Blending Conditions and Limitations for Properties Straddling the Urban Residential
Fringe
Sub - District and Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending lands:
(a)
The project must straddle the Urban Residential Fringe Sub - District and the Rural
Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands;
(b)
The project in aggregate must be a minimum of 400 acres;
(c)
At least 25% of the project must be located within the Urban Residential Fringe Sub -
District. The project must extend central water and sewer (from the urban designated
portion of the project) to serve the entire project, unless alternative interim sewer and
water provisions are authorized by Collier County;
(d)
The Project is currently zoned or will be zoned PUD;
(e)
The density to be shifted to the Sending Lands from the Urban Residential Fringe is to
be located on impacted or disturbed lands, or it is demonstrated that the development
on the site is to be located so as to preserve and protect the highest quality native
vegetation and /or habitat on -site and to maximize the connectivity of such native
vegetation and /or wildlife habitat with adjacent preservation and /or habitat areas;
(f)
Native vegetation shall be preserved as follows:
a. The Urban portion of the project shall comply with the native vegetation
requirements identified in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element
(for Urban designated lands), or in the case of projects where the native
vegetation requirement for the Sending Lands portion of the proiect is the
maximum required 60 percent of the Sending Land area in order to promote
greater preservation of the highest quality wetlands and listed species habitat
the required native vegetation for the Urban portion of the proiect may be
shifted by providing native vegetation preservation in the Sending Lands portion
•
of the project exceeding the 60% maximum preservation requirement as set
forth in b. below. The ratio for such native vegetation preservation shall be two
acres of Sending Lands (exceeding the 60% maximum preservation
requirement) for each acre below the required amount of native vegetation for
the Urban portion of the protect. Significant Archeological Sites identified by the
State of Florida Division of Historic Resources shall be preserved and cannot
be mitigated for.
b. For those lands within the project designated as Sending, the native vegetation
preservation requirement shall be 90% of the native vegetation, not to exceed
60% of the total project area designated as Sending.
C. Wetland areas that are impacted through the development process, but which
result in enhanced wetland function, including habitat and /or flowways, shall be
considered as part of the native vegetation requirement set forth in this
provision and shall not be considered as impacted areas. These wetland areas
and /or flowways may be used for water storage provided that the water
discharged in these areas is pre - treated.
(g) Permitted uses for density blending under this provision include residential
development and associated amenities, including golf courses meeting the criteria for
golf courses within the Neutral area. This provision is not intended to eliminate any
uses permitted within the applicable underlying land use designation.
-2-
L
Agenda Item 9A
PART THREE of SIX:
B. DENSITY RATING SYSTEM:
[insert new language — FLUE Pages 47 -50]
2. Density Bonuses
Consistency with the following characteristics may add to the base density. Density bonuses
are discretionary, not entitlements, and are dependent upon meeting the criteria for each
bonus provision and compatibility with surrounding properties, as well as the rezone criteria in
the Land Development Code.
Transfer of Development Rights Bonus
To encourage preservation /conservation of natural resources, density transfers are permitted
as follows:
(c) From Sending Lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary into lands
designated Urban Residential Fringe, at a maximum density increase of one (1) unit
per gross acre, except for the Hacienda Lakes PUD /DRI, which may transfer TDRs
from Sending Lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary into lands
designated Urban Residential Fringe, at a maximum density increase of 1.30 units per
gross acre.
PART FOUR of SIX:
I URBAN DESIGNATION
C. Urban Commercial Subdistrict
1. Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict
[amend language — FLUE Pages 56 -57]
2. The allowable land uses for a Master Planned Activity Center shall be the same as for
other designated Activity Centers; however, a Master Planned Activity Center
encompassing the majority of the property in two or more quadrants shall be afforded
the flexibility to redistribute a part or all of the allocation from one quadrant to another,
to the extent of the unified control. The maximum amount of commercial uses allowed
at Activity Center # 3 (Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard) is 40 acres per quadrant
for a total of 160 acres maximum in the entire Activity Center; the balance of the land
area shall be limited to non - commercial uses as allowed in Mixed Use Activity Centers.
The maximum amount of commercial uses allowed at Activity Center #7 (Rattlesnake
Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard) is 40 acres per quadrant, except that the
northeast quadrant may have a total of 59 acres and the southeast quadrant may have
a total of 50, for a total of 47-3 189 acres maximum in the entire Activity Center; the
balance of the land area shall be limited to non - commercial uses as allowed in Mixed
Use Activity Centers.
Note: The Activity Center #7 inset map within the FLUE is to be amended to reflect the
proposed boundary change. It is not the intent of this amendment request to modify the
Future Land Use Map to depict the boundary change.
-3-
•
•
•
•
PART FIVE of SIX:
I URBAN DESIGNATION
A. Urban Mixed Use District
4. Business Park Subdistrict
I�
Agenda Item 9A
[insert new language — FLUE Pages 31 -32]
The Business Park Subdistrict is intended to provide for a mix of industrial uses and non - industrial
uses, designed in an attractive park -like environment with low structural density where building
coverage ranges between 25% to 45% and where landscaped areas provide for buffering and
enjoyment by the employees and patrons of the park. Business Parks shall be allowed as a
Subdistrict in the Urban -Mixed Use District, Urban Commercial District and Urban Industrial District
and may include the general uses allowed within each District, the specific uses set forth below, and
shall comply with the following general conditions:
* ** *** **** *** UNAFFECTED PROVISIONS ARE SKIPPED *** **** *** ** *
h. When located in a District other than the Urban Industrial District, the Business Park must have
direct access to a road classified as an arterial in the Transportation Element.
[Alternative amendment language 91 The Lords Way shall be considered direct access to Collier
Boulevard (CR 951) for Business Parks within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict.
(Alternative amendment language 21 Direct access is defined as a driveway and /or local roadway
connection to the arterial road, provided the portion of the local roadway intended to provide
access to the Business Park is not within a residential neighborhood and does not service a
predominantly residential area.
PART SIX of SIX:
Conservation and Coastal Management Element
[insert new language — CCME Pages 18 -21 ]
GOAL 6:
OBJECTIVE 6.1:
Policy 6.1.1:
For the County's Urban Designated Area, Estates Designated Area, Conservation Designated Area,
and Agricultural /Rural Mixed Use District, Rural - Industrial District and Rural - Settlement Area District
as designated on the FLUM, native vegetation shall be preserved through the application of the
following preservation and vegetation retention standards and criteria, unless the development occurs
within the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) where the ACSC standards referenced in the Future
Land Use Element shall apply. Notwithstanding the ACSC requirements, this policy shall apply to all
non - agricultural development except for single - family dwelling units situated on individual parcels that
are not located within a watershed management conservation area identified in a Watershed
Management Plan developed pursuant to policies supporting Objective 2.1 of this Element.
-4-
8E
Agenda Item 9A
The following standards and criteria shall apply to the vegetation retention requirements referenced
above.
* ** *** **** *** UNAFFECTED PROVISIONS ARE SKIPPED *** **** *** ** *
•
14. In order to promote greater preservation of the highest quality wetlands and listed species
habitat the required native vegetation for the Urban portion of the project may be shifted by
providing native vegetation preservation in the Sending Lands portion of the project exceeding
the 60% maximum preservation requirement for protects that:
(a) Are under unified control;
.(b) Straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending is
designations;
(c) Meet the maximum required 60 percent preservation requirement for the Sending
Lands portion of the project.
The preservation ratio shall be two acres of Sending Lands (exceeding the 60% maximum
preservation requirement) for each acre below the required amount of native vegetation for the Urban
portion of the project. Significant Archeological Sites identified by the State of Florida Division of
Historic Resources shall be preserved and cannot be mitigated for.
[END OF HL -1 GMP AMENDMENT ENTRIES]
•
Mil
Coastal High Hazard
Non - Coastal High Hazard Area
Area
Residential and Mixed
Less than 2.5 acres 10%
Less than 5 acres. 10%
Use Development
Equal to or greater
Equal to or greater than 5 acres
than 2.5 acres 25%
and less than 20 acres. 15%
Equal to or
greater than 20 ac. 25%
Golf Course
35%
35%
Commercial and
Less than 5 acres. 10%
Less than 5 acres. 10%
Industrial
Equal to or greater
Equal to or
Development
than 5 acres. 15%
greater than 5 acres. 15%
Industrial
50 %, not to exceed 25%
50 %, not to exceed 25% of the
Development (Rural-
of the project site.
project site.
Industrial District only)
The following standards and criteria shall apply to the vegetation retention requirements referenced
above.
* ** *** **** *** UNAFFECTED PROVISIONS ARE SKIPPED *** **** *** ** *
•
14. In order to promote greater preservation of the highest quality wetlands and listed species
habitat the required native vegetation for the Urban portion of the project may be shifted by
providing native vegetation preservation in the Sending Lands portion of the project exceeding
the 60% maximum preservation requirement for protects that:
(a) Are under unified control;
.(b) Straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending is
designations;
(c) Meet the maximum required 60 percent preservation requirement for the Sending
Lands portion of the project.
The preservation ratio shall be two acres of Sending Lands (exceeding the 60% maximum
preservation requirement) for each acre below the required amount of native vegetation for the Urban
portion of the project. Significant Archeological Sites identified by the State of Florida Division of
Historic Resources shall be preserved and cannot be mitigated for.
[END OF HL -1 GMP AMENDMENT ENTRIES]
•
Mil
8E
Agenda Item 9A
is ATTACHMENT HL -2
Staff - recommended modifications to The Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC proposed Growth
Management Plan amendments — CP- 2006 -11 — are shown below in double strike - through /double
underline format, as follows:
These modifications are generally recommended for proper format, use of code language, succinctness,
and clarity, except for Part Four -of -Six provisions related to the proposed expansion of Mixed Use
Activity Center No. 7. (Note. single underline text is added, and single � }�e ffir-eugh text is deleted, as
proposed by petitioner; double underline text is added, and double text is deleted, as
proposed by staff.)
PART ONE of SIX:
Future Land Use Element
I. URBAN DESIGNATION
A. Urban Mixed Use District
2. Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict:
[Insert new language — FLUE Page 29]
The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide transitional densities between the Urban Designated Area
and the Agdcultural /Rural Area and comprises approximately 5,500 acres and 5% of the Urban Mixed
• Use District. Residential land uses may be allowed at a maximum density of 1.5 units per gross acre.,
exclusive of density bonus that may be achieved via CCME Policy 6.2.5 (6) b.1., or higher through the
use of the following:
•
a. Up to 2.5 units per gross acre via the transfer of up to one LLOLdwelling unit (transferable
development right) per acre from lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary and
designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands, except in the case of the
properties that straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural
Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands designations, and meet the other Density Blending criteria
provided for in subsection 5.2 of the Density Rating System, which may achieve a maximum
density of up to 2.80 units per gross acre via the transfer of up to 1.30 dwelling units
(transferable development rights) per acre from lands located within one mile of the Urban
Boundary and designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands-. apdf or, +n
b. In the case of properties specifically identified below, a density bonus of up to 6.0 additional
units per gross acre may be requested for projects providing affordable- workforce housing
(home ownership only) for low and moderate income residents of Collier County, pursuant to
Section 2.06.00 of the Land Development Code, or its successor ordinance, except as
provided for in paragraph °c" below. Within the Urban Residential Fringe, rezone requests are
not subject to the density rating system, except as specifically provided in c. below, but are
subject to the following conditions:
-1-
PART TWO of SIX:
URBAN DESIGNATION
B. DENSITY RATING SYSTEM
�gkma Item 9A
[Insert new language — FLUE Pages 51 — 53]
5. Density Blending:
This provision is intended to encourage unified plans of development and to preserve wetlands,
wildlife habitat, and other natural features that exist within properties that straddle the Urban Mixed
Use and Rural Fringe Mixed Use Districts or that straddle Receiving and Neutral Lands within the
Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. In the case of such properties, which were in existence and under
unified control (owned, or under contract to purchase, by the applicant(s)) as of June 19, 2002, the
allowable gross density for such properties in aggregate may be distributed throughout the project,
regardless of whether or not the density allowable for a portion of the project exceeds that which is
otherwise permitted, when the following conditions are met:
2. Density Blending Conditions and Limitations for Properties Straddling the Urban Residential
Fringe Sub - District and Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending lands:
(a) The project must straddle the Urban Residential Fringe Sub - District and the Rural
Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands;
(b) The project in aggregate must be a minimum of 400 acres;
(c) At least 25% of the project must be located within the Urban Residential Fringe Sub -
District. The project must extend central water and wastewater treatment
facilities (from the urban designated portion of the project) to serve the entire project,
unless alternative interim water and wastewater treatment provisions are
authorized by Collier County;
(d) The Project is currently zoned or will be zoned PUD;
(e) The density to be shifted to the Sending Lands from the Urban Residential Fringe is to
be located on impacted or disturbed lands, or it is demonstrated that the development
on the site is to be located so as to preserve and protect the highest quality native
vegetation and /or habitat on -site and to maximize the connectivity of such native
vegetation and /or wildlife habitat with adjacent preservation and /or habitat areas;
(f) Native vegetation shall be preserved as follows:
a. The Urban portion of the project shall comply with the native vegetation
requirements identified in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element
(for Urban designated lands), or in the case of proiects where the native
vegetation requirement for the Sending Lands portion of the project is the
maximum required 60 percent of the total Sending Land area, in order to
promote greater preservation of the highest quality wetlands and listed species
habitat, the required native vegetation for the Urban portion of the project may
be shifted by providing native vegetation preservation in the Sending Lands
portion of the proiect exceeding the 60% maximum preservation requirement as
set forth in subsection °b"= below. The ratio for such native vegetation
preservation shall be two acres of Sending Lands (exceeding the 60%
maximum preservation requirement) for each acre below the required amount
of native vegetation for the Urban portion of the project. In no instance shall the
amount of native vegetation for the Urban portion of the project be fully
removed. or shifted entirely to Sending Lands. Significant Archeological Sites
identified by the State of Florida Division of Historic Resources shall be
preserved and cannot be mitigated for. For these IRRE45; WithiR
-2-
•
1
Agenda Item 9A
b. For those lands within the project designated as Sending. the native vegetation
preservation requirement shall be 90% of the native vegetation. not to exceed
60% of the total project area designated as Sending. unless the provisions
found in subsection "a° above are met.
C. Wetland areas that are impacted through the development process. but which
result in enhanced wetland function, including habitat and /or flowways, shall be
considered as part of the native vegetation requirement set forth in thjs
provision and shall not be considered as impacted areas These wetland areas
and /or flowways may be used for water storage provided that the water
discharged in these areas is pre - treated. [provision relocated only]
(g) Permitted uses for density blending under this provision include residential
development and associated amenities, including golf courses meeting the criteria for
golf courses within the Neutral area. This provision is not intended to eliminate any
uses permitted within the applicable underlying land use designation.
• PART THREE of SIX:
•
B. DENSITY RATING SYSTEM:
[Insert new language - FLUE Pages-47-50]
2. Density Bonuses
Consistency with the following characteristics may add to the base density. Density bonuses
are discretionary, not entitlements, and are dependent upon meeting the criteria for each
bonus provision and compatibility with surrounding properties, as well as the rezone criteria in
the Land Development Code.
f. Transfer of Development Rights Bonus
To encourage preservation /conservation of natural resources, density transfers are permitted
as follows:
(c) From Sending Lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary into lands
designated Urban Residential Fringe, at a maximum density increase of one (1) unit
per gross acre, except for properties that straddle the
Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands designations_
and meet the other Density Blending criteria provided for in subsection 5.2 of the
Density Rating System, which may transfer TDRs from Sending Lands located within
one mile of the Urban Boundary into lands designated Urban Residential Fringe at a
maximum density increase of 1.30 units per gross acre.
-3-
PART FOUR of SIX:
I URBAN DESIGNATION
C. Urban Commercial Subdistrict
1. Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict
Agenda Item 9A
[amend language — FLUE Pages 56 -57]
2. The allowable land uses for a Master Planned Activity Center shall be the same as for
other designated Activity Centers; however, a Master Planned Activity Center
encompassing the majority of the property in two or more quadrants shall be afforded
the flexibility to redistribute a part or all of the allocation from one quadrant to another,
to the extent of the unified control. The maximum amount of commercial uses allowed
at Activity Center# 3 (Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard) is 40 acres per quadrant
for a total of 160 acres maximum in the entire Activity Center; the balance of the land
area shall be limited to non - commercial uses as allowed in Mixed Use Activity Centers.
The maximum amount of commercial uses allowed at Activity Center #7 (Rattlesnake
Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard) is 40 acres per quadrant, except that the
northeast quadrant may have a total of 59 acres
a4&t@4=�, for a total of 47-9 489 acres maximum in the entire Activity Center, the
balance of the land area shall be limited to non - commercial uses as allowed in Mixed
Use Activity Centers.
is
...The maximum amount of commercial uses allowed at Activity Center #7 (Rattlesnake
Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard) is 40 acres per quadrant, except that the
northeast quadrant may have a total of 59 acres and the southeast Quadrant may have •
a total of 59 49.2, for a total of 479 4Z9 188.2 acres maximum in the entire Activity
Center;
[alternate language, i r MUAC expansion approved for Transmittal)
PART FIVE of SIX:
I URBAN DESIGNATION
[Insert new language — FLUE Pages 31 -32]
A. Urban Mixed Use District
4. Business Park Subdistrict
-4-
•
BE
Agenda Item 9A
The Business Park Subdistrict is intended to provide for a mix of industrial uses and non - industrial
•
uses, designed in an attractive park -like environment with low structural density where building
coverage ranges between 25% to 45% and where landscaped areas provide for buffering and
enjoyment by the employees and patrons of the park. Business Parks shall be allowed as a
Subdistrict in the Urban -Mixed Use District, Urban Commercial District and Urban Industrial District
and may include the general uses allowed within each District, the specific uses set forth below, and
shall comply with the following general conditions:
* ** *** **** *** UNAFFECTED PROVISIONS ARE SKIPPED *** **** *** **
h. When located in a District other than the Urban Industrial District, the Business Park must have
direct access to a road classified as an arterial in the Transportation Element. except that a
Business Park in Section 14 Township 50 South Range 26 East may have access to an arterial
road via The Lords Way if the design and construction of new roadways and improvements or
extensions to existing roadways providing said access are commensurate with standards for
accommodating industrial and non - industrial traffic. and consistent with other applicable Policies of
the Transportation Element.
• PART SIX of SIX:
•
Conservation and Coastal Management Element
[Insert new language — CCME Pages 18 -21]
GOAL 6:
OBJECTIVE 6.1:
Policy 6.1.1:
For the County's Urban Designated Area, Estates Designated Area, Conservation Designated Area,
and Agricultural /Rural Mixed Use District, Rural - Industrial District and Rural - Settlement Area District
as designated on the FLUM, native vegetation shall be preserved through the application of the
following preservation and vegetation retention standards and criteria, unless the development occurs
within the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) where the ACSC standards referenced in the Future
Land Use Element shall apply. Notwithstanding the ACSC requirements, this policy shall apply to all
non - agricultural development except for single - family dwelling units situated on individual parcels that
are not located within a watershed management conservation area identified in a Watershed
Management Plan developed pursuant to policies supporting Objective 2.1 of this Element.
-5-
8E
Agenda Item 9A
The following standards and criteria shall apply to the vegetation retention requirements referenced
above.
* ** *** **** *** UNAFFECTED PROVISIONS ARE SKIPPED *** **** *** ** *
•
1l4)= In order to promote greater preservation of the highest quality wetlands and listed species
habitat the required native vegetation for the Urban portion of the proiect may be shifted by
providing native vegetation preservation in the Sending Lands portion of the proiect exceeding •
the 60% maximum preservation requirement found in Density Blending provisions of the FLUE
for proiects that:
(a) Are under unified controks
(b) Straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands
designations=. and
(c) Meet the maximum required 60 percent preservation requirement for the Sending
Lands portion of the project.
The preservation ratio_ _shall be two acres of Sendinq Lands (exceeding the 60% maximum
preservation requirement) for each acre below the required amount of native vegetation for the Urban
portion of the proiect. In no instance shall the amount of native vegetation for the Urban portion of the
proiect be fully removed. or shifted entirely to Sending Lands. Significant Archeological Sites
identified by the State of Florida Division of Historic Resources shall be preserved and cannot be
mitigated for.
[END OF HL -2 GMP AMENDMENT ENTRIES]
902
•
Coastal High Hazard
Non - Coastal High Hazard Area
Area
Residential and Mixed
Less than 2.5 acres 10%
Less than 5 acres. 10%
Use Development
Equal to or greater
Equal to or greater than 5 acres
than 2.5 acres 25%
and less than 20 acres. 15%
Equal to or
greater than 20 ac. 25%
Golf Course
35%
35%
Commercial and
Less than 5 acres. 10%
Less than 5 acres. 10%
Industrial
Equal to or greater
Equal to or
Development
than 5 acres. 15%
greater than 5 acres. 15%
Industrial
50 %, not to exceed 25%
50 %, not to exceed 25% of the
Development (Rural-
of the project site.
project site.
Industrial District only)
The following standards and criteria shall apply to the vegetation retention requirements referenced
above.
* ** *** **** *** UNAFFECTED PROVISIONS ARE SKIPPED *** **** *** ** *
•
1l4)= In order to promote greater preservation of the highest quality wetlands and listed species
habitat the required native vegetation for the Urban portion of the proiect may be shifted by
providing native vegetation preservation in the Sending Lands portion of the proiect exceeding •
the 60% maximum preservation requirement found in Density Blending provisions of the FLUE
for proiects that:
(a) Are under unified controks
(b) Straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands
designations=. and
(c) Meet the maximum required 60 percent preservation requirement for the Sending
Lands portion of the project.
The preservation ratio_ _shall be two acres of Sendinq Lands (exceeding the 60% maximum
preservation requirement) for each acre below the required amount of native vegetation for the Urban
portion of the proiect. In no instance shall the amount of native vegetation for the Urban portion of the
proiect be fully removed. or shifted entirely to Sending Lands. Significant Archeological Sites
identified by the State of Florida Division of Historic Resources shall be preserved and cannot be
mitigated for.
[END OF HL -2 GMP AMENDMENT ENTRIES]
902
•
8E
Agenda Item 9A
• ATTACHMENT HL -3
Transportation Planning Section — Staff Remarks
The Collier County Transportation Planning Section review staff would reject CP- 2006 -11 based on
the present proposal; and provide the following comments:
1. Traffic Study Comments:
A.
Appendix is not attached to Traffic Study, no CD is found with appendix (same for DRI).
B.
Does not include analysis of future Benfield, future Rattlesnake Hammock Extension, The
Lords Way, Sabal Palm, etc. The analysis is not consistent with LRTP, in that these
roadways are not shown in the TIS. (see next comment)
C.
(Staff note: No TIS review fees are required.)
D.
The traffic study, dated 7/2/10 in the PUD and GMPA, is not consistent with the Question
21 responses dated 7/23/10 in the DRI. All of these documents MUST be consistent with
one another. (See also DRI - specific comments in the DRI response)
E.
No mention of the East Central TCMA is made in this traffic study. However, significant
impacts on many of the TCMA's are noted. Please revise the analysis to include review of
TCMA impacts.
F.
Table 1- Reconcile all trip generation outputs with the accompanying DRI and PUDZ.
Additionally, reconcile the proposed development rights (units /square footage /Uses)
between all three documents.
G.
Analysis of the E +C network requires revision of the Collier Boulevard link from Golden
Gate Blvd to 1 -75. Construction is not anticipated to be funded until 2013 (not 2010 as
shown). Also - Collier Boulevard improvements due in 2010 (From Davis Blvd to US -41)
•
are complete, as are Santa Barbara Blvd Extension improvements. Please include these
as 'existing' segments in the revised traffic study.
H.
Tables 2a, 2b, and 2c- Comments are withheld at this time until the trip generation and
proposed land uses are reconciled. Upon reconciliation of the trip generation outputs
between the DRI, PUD, and GMPA, staff anticipates re- calculation of the internal capture
and pass -by rates to accurately reflect the final scenario.
I.
Page 13,second paragraph; the growth rate proposed does not match the DRI and PUD
application(s). Please reconcile all documents.
J.
Table 5- Why were some of the historical growth rates omitted? These rates can be
established using previous AUIR documentation. Previous years are available and should
be employed.
K.
Staff disagrees that buildout of all commercial square footage and residential units will
occur by 2019. Analysis of this buildout date attempts to sever the development from its
respective responsibility towards the future Benfield Road corridor, as well as other
improvements demonstrated as 'needs' in the LRTP. The study must analyze the [internal]
growth rate of the project, and must discuss any phasing that will be proposed. With
consideration for the study that has been presented, Staff requires revision of the buildout
dates to better approximate a more feasible buildout date on a less aggressive schedule.
This revision necessitates direct comparison to the actual buildout rates experienced by
nearby comparable developments such as Lely, Fiddlers Creek, and possibly Verona Walk.
L.
Table 6- Show two additional columns demonstrating the [PM Peak Hr, peak direction]
remaining capacity both with- and without- the project. Calculation should focus on the
revised build -out year as per the previous comment (K).
M.
Page 16 and Tables 7a,7b, 7c; Tables 8a, 8b; Tables 9a and 9b- Staff recommends at this
time that all detailed synchro analyses for intersection capacity be omitted from
•
-9-
8L
Agenda Item 9A
resubmittals until the future roadway network that is analyzed complies with both the LRTP •
and the County's or FDOT's scheduled improvement plans.
N. Page 16/17, CR -951 at US-41 is anticipated to become a failing intersection. Also- Any
analysis of potential future improvements must first comply with the county's existing or
ongoing plans. Please incorporate the corridor improvement plans for Collier Boulevard
from the vicinity of Golden Gate Main Canal at CR -951 South to Davis Boulevard in this
traffic study (lane configurations must be adhered to, no reduction to through -lane capacity
will be considered).
O. A new signalized intersection North of Lords Way on CR -951 shall not be permitted.
Please remove this from the analysis and adjust Lords Way intersection to assume future
signalization, if warrants are met.
2. Mitigation
A. Policy 5.1 mitigation is not appropriately discussed in the proposed GMP amendment. All
mitigation pertaining to policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth
Management Plan must be listed in the GMP amendment, the PUD, and the DRI
applications alike. All proposed mitigation must be consistent throughout the three
submittals, with the only exception being those items that may be required solely for
approval of the GMPA in order to allow commencement of either the DRI and /or the PUD
applications as subsequent approvals to the GMPA.
3. Pedestrian and Transit Facilities
A. A pedestrian facilities map is required in the Growth Management Plan Amendment
Application, just as in the accompanying DRI and PUDZ applications.
B. A transit master plan must be developed for this application that is consistent with the
PUDZ and DRI applications (as amended). •
Hacienda Lakes DRI Review Comments
The applicant has not satisfactorily answered companion DRI item Question 21. Although a
corridor is shown for Benfield Road that is consistent with the County's corridor study results, the
County does not feel that the corridor is adequately protected so as to allow for future
development as a parallel reliever to CR 951. At the time of the initial corridor study, the potential
alignment(s) of Benfield Road that were established only a cursory alignment, pending further
detailed analyses. The Developer has contributed a significant amount of assistance toward the
establishment of the potential future alignment(s) through demonstration of the wetland /preserve
limits. These newly established boundaries effectively update the alignment(s) proposed by the
County's preliminary study, by identifying the incompatibility of the County's conceptual
alignment(s) in contrast to the Developer's newly identified preserve boundary.
In essence, the additional information from the Developer that has come to light demonstrates that
the corridor alignments shown in the County study are infeasible within the boundaries of this
development.
As a result of recognizing the refinement in the available data, the County has requested revision
of the Benfield alignment to a more palatable Westerly alignment (in Rev. 5); to be determined at
the Developers discretion, but inclusive of minimum roadway design and engineering criteria.
However, the Developer's insistence on considering only the conceptual alignment shown in the
County's study is in stark contrast to the Developer's responsibility to maintain a contiguous
preserve area.
•
-2-
8E
Agenda Item 9A
Furthermore, the Developer states that the roadway 'twill be designed and permitted, for the most
• part, by the County." The County does not agree, as the County is unable to accept such a
financial burden that would be indigenous to the applicant's proposed terms. The network
demand for this corridor is not identified sooner than 2030 in the LRTP, yet the applicant's
proposed increase in density is anticipated to accelerate the demand for this parallel- relief
roadway. This accelerated demand is not accommodated by the Developer in a manner that the
County considers to be 'financially feasible', in light of the additional information the Developer has
provided.
As such, the County continues to insist that a less impactful alternative alignment must be shown
by the Developer in an effort to maintain financial feasibility of the proposed roadway corridor. Re-
alignment of the proposed corridor is warranted in order to achieve compliance with requirements
being stated by the multiple environmental reviewing agencies.
Further negotiation and discussion with regard to mitigation and proportionate share are
anticipated.
2. The companion DRI item Question 21 is insufficiently answered. The pedestrian facilities that are
proposed are no greater than what is required by the current LDC, and serve to provide no
significant benefit to the non - motorized public. Additionally, the internal design and site planning
of this development creates unnecessary segregation of land uses, such that the residential area
is not considered to be a reasonable distance from commercial areas in order to promote
pedestrian movement.
Furthermore, proposed transit amenities are wholly inadequate to serve a development of this size
and make -up. The introduction of a single proposed bus stop that is greater than one mile from
• the nearest residential area cannot be considered a reasonable attempt at employing the Transit
network in this area.
is
3. With comments 1 and 2 stated, Transportation Planning Section review staff do not feel that this
development attempts to address the requirements of House Bill 697 adequately.
Staff recommends the following in an effort to address the reduction of VMT's that are
necessitated by HB 697:
A. Relocation of the Benfield corridor top a westerly alignment as previously suggested. The
arrangement of this roadway further to the West will result in fewer VMT within the
development.
B. Revision of the development layout to reduce segregation of land uses within the
development; with the intent to create demand for non - vehicular movement of the population
throughout the development.
C. Creation of comprehensive pedestrian infrastructure facilitating non - vehicular modes of
transportation.
D. Expansion of the transit facilities to better integrate with the different nodes of this
development.
-3-
Itlp
Agenda Item 9A
TIS Review Comments •
1. With respect to the 2019 proportionate share analyses of intersections such as SR -951 @ US-41,
the County reminds the applicant that State roadways are not allowed to adopt a minimum LOS of
°E". Table 2 of the applicant's response indicated that three movements at this intersection reach
LOS "E" in 2019 (inclusive of the project). However, the analysis does not clarify the extent to
which the development causes these degradations in LOS. Staff recommends demonstrating the
2019 buildout with, and without, the project for instances where the County is seeking
proportionate share commitments from the Developer for any improvements (such as the example
given above).
2. No other significant rejection comments are noted by staff at this time regarding the Traffic Impact
Study /Q21 response. However, staff reserves the right to add future commentary based on any
changes effected by forthcoming negotiations and discussions intended to finalize mitigation
provisions. Some of these improvements, as they become further defined and as the
proportionate share is assigned, may necessitate revisions within the TIS analyses.
is
-4-
8E
Agenda Item 9C
STAFF REPORT
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
• TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION,
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION
DATE: JANUARY 06, 2011
RE: PETITION No. CP- 2006 -11, GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT
[TRANSMITTAL HEARING]
AGENT /APPLICANT /OWNERS:
Agent: Dwight H. Nadeau
for Emilio Robau, PE
RWA Consultants, Inc.
6610 Willow Park Drive, Suite 200
Naples, FL 34109
Attorney: Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq.
Goodlette, Yovanovich & Koester, RA
4001 North Tamiami Trail, Suite 300
Naples, FL 34103
• Applicant: David Torres
for Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC
12600 Biscayne Court
Naples, FL 34105
•
Owners: Wilton Land Company, LLC Swamp Buggy Days, Inc.
206 Dudley Road PO Box 990010
Wilton, CT 06897 Naples, FL 34116
Collier County Junior Deputy League, Inc.
PO Box 1833
Naples, FL 34106
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
CP- 2006 -11 pertains to a particular subject property, consisting of approximately 2,262 acres located
east of Collier Boulevard (CR 951), with frontages on Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock
Road Extension (a.k.a., entrance to Swamp Buggy Days PUD's Florida Sports Park), in Sections 11,
12, 13, 14, 23, 24, and 25, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, and Sections 19 and 30, Township 50
South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. The property lies within the Royal Fakapalm Planning
Community.
-1-
Agen a Item 9C
REQUESTED ACTION:
This petition seeks to amend the Conservation and Coastal Management Element, Future Land Use •
Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series of the Growth Management Plan, to Reconfigure
the boundary and size of the Southeast Quadrant of Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 (Rattlesnake
Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard); Increase the maximum allowable density that may be
achieved within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict (URF) portion of a Project lying in more than
one Future Land Use designation through enhanced utilization of eligible Transferable Development
Rights (TDRs); Provide a definitive access provision for a Business Park located in the URF portion of
a Project; and, Allow for Native Vegetation Preservation in the URF portion of a Project to be Shifted
to the RFMUD Sending Lands portion of the Project when the Required Amount of Native Vegetation
Preservation is proportionally increased in the Sending Lands portion of the Project — as they relate to
proposed Hacienda Lakes Development of Regional Impact (DRI) and Mixed Use Planned Unit
Development (MPUD) Requests [Transmittal Hearing]
This set of Growth Management Plan amendments is proposed in six parts, as shown in
ATTACHMENT HL -1.
PURPOSE / DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
This petition seeks to amend the FLUE Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 (Rattlesnake Hammock Road
and Collier Boulevard) Map of the FLUE Map Series — along with correlating text changes — to re-
designate acreage from the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict of the Urban Mixed Use District, to
the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict of the Urban Commercial District. That portion of MUAC No.
7 lying within the Hacienda Lakes development area would increase by 9.16 acres via a Subdistrict-
to-Subdistrict redesignation.
• Without adoption of this part of the GMPA, the Hacienda Lakes of Naples project is currently
able to develop 27.5 acres of MUAC No. 7. With the adoption of the GMPA, the Hacienda
Lakes of Naples project would be able to develop MUAC acreage of 36.6.
The specific revisions proposed by this part of the GMP amendment appear as Part Four in Attachment
HL -1.
PROVISION
EXISTING
PROPOSED
Acreage Allowed for Southeast
Quadrant of MUAC No. 7
27.5 acres
36.6 acres
This petition seeks to amend Business Park Subdistrict provisions under the FLUE Urban Mixed Use
District to provide a definitive access provision for a business park located in the Urban Residential
Fringe portion of the proposed Hacienda Lakes development. Such amendment would serve to
validate the usefulness of The Lord's Way as access to a business park that may develop on the north
side of this thoroughfare.
• Krithout adoption of this part of the GMPA, the Hacienda Lakes of Naples project is currently
unable to develop a business park situated adjacent to a street providing next -to- immediate
egress to and ingress from both Collier Boulevard (CR 951) and the future Benfield Road.
The specific revisions proposed by this part of the GMP amendment appear as Part Five in Attachment •
HL -1.
-2-
1�1
•
Agenda Item 9C
PROVISION
EXISTING
- PROPOSED
Direct Access for Business Park onto
Arterial Roadway
The Lord's Way does not provide
such access by FLUE provisions
The Lord's Way would provide such
access with new provision
This petition seeks to amend Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict provisions under the FLUE Urban
Mixed Use District by introducing a different higher achievable density exclusive to the proposed
Hacienda Lakes development. Overall, maximum density increases from 1.5 dwelling units per acre
to 2.5 per acre are allowed when development rights are transferred from RFMU Sending Lands
within a project under unified control. Maximum achievable density would further "lift', or increase,
from 2.5 dwelling units per acre to 2.8 with this part of the proposed text amendment.
Companion PUD application materials summarize that without adoption of the GMPA, the
Hacienda Lakes of Naples project is currently able to develop 1,662 dwelling units using all
eligible TDRs and other available density. With the adoption of this part of the GMPA, the
Hacienda Lakes of Naples project would be able to develop up to 1,850 dwelling units using
newly transferable TDRs — for a 187 unit gain — and make use of all available TDRs generated
by the 1,016 acres lying within one mile of the Urban portion of the project. The applicant
further explains, the project area is unique in that the land area within one mile of the URF
boundary, from which TDRs must be generated from for sending into the URF, generates187
more TDR credits than the URF is capable of receiving under current FLUE provisions; and,
that the "lift' will have no measurable impact on the URF's "transitional" nature, nor will it affect
its surrounding lands.
The applicant explains further that by allowing the use of these additional TDRs within the
• developable portion- of this project, the property owner is actually compensated for losing
development rights instead of hoping they will be compensated in the future; and, that this is a
more effective utilization of those eligible TDRs.
The specific revisions proposed by this part of the GMP amendment appear as Part One in Attachment
HL -1.
PROVISION
EXISTING
PROPOSED
Maximum Residential Density
2.5 DU /acre
2.8 DU /acre
(utilizing TDRs)
- eligible to receive in URF
- eligible to receive in URF with
receiving "lift"
The 06 -11 application seeks to amend Native Vegetation Preservation provisions of the Density
Rating System, Density Blending section under the FLUE Urban Designation to preserve less native
vegetation than is otherwise required in the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict portion of the project
if more native vegetation is preserved in adjacent RFMUD Sending Lands. This arrangement would
preserve two (2) acres of vegetation in areas designated as RFMUD Sending Lands [above the 60%
maximum preservation requirement] for every one (1) acre cleared in the Urban Residential Fringe.
This text change, if approved, would affect lands designated in both the Urban Residential Fringe
Subdistrict and RFMUD Sending Lands developed as projects under unified control.
• Krithout adoption of the GMPA, the Hacienda Lakes of Naples project would preserve 25% of
native vegetation in the URF, and 60% of native vegetation in RFMUD Sending Lands. With
the adoption of this part of the GMPA, the Hacienda Lakes of Naples project would preserve
•
-3-
8E
Agenda Item 9C
less than the required amount of native vegetation and habitat in the URF, and proportionally •
more of RFMUD Sending Lands acreage.
Under current GMP provisions, the Rural designated portion of the project would demonstrate
compliance with the preservation standard of Rural Fringe Sending Lands — preserving ninety
percent (90 %) of native vegetation present, not to exceed sixty percent (60 %) of the total
project area designated Sending. However, more preserve is offered than the required 60% of
the total project area designated Sending — in return for permission to preserve less native
vegetation present in the Urban portion of the project.
The applicant explains, the proposal to protect higher quality native vegetative communities in
the Rural lands portion of the project [provides these vegetative communities] a greater
opportunity to function naturally as opposed to protecting Urban native vegetative areas that
would be of lesser functional value.
Application materials have previously explained how "the density blending provision in the GMP was,
in part, specifically developed to apply to this property". One specific blending provision presently
provides the density boost from 1.5 du /ac. to 2.5 du/ac. The current provisions were adopted by the
County with density capped, or limited, to 2.5 du /ac. to satisfy the need for an acceptable transition
balanced between the dense Urban and sparse Rural areas.
The specific revisions proposed by this part of the GMP amendment appear as Part Two in Attachment
HL -1.
PROVISION
EXISTING
PROPOSED
Native Vegetation/ Habitat
25% NV in Urban portion
Under 25% NV — Urban portion
Retention / Preservation
60% NV in Rural portion
100% NV — Rural portion
FLUE
- Required Preservation Area
- Preservation Area with "shift"
This petition seeks to amend Transfer of Development Rights Bonus provisions of the Density Rating
System, Density Bonuses section under the FLUE Urban Designation. This part of the proposed
amendment would "lift" the maximum density increase [of 1.0 DU /ac.] achieved by transferring
development rights from adjacent RFMUD Sending Lands by a greater amount [of 1.3 DU /ac.].
The applicant explains, the proposal [does not ask to increase] the overall number of units
presently allowed, [but to] utilize the additional TDR credits generated from [the] project
Sending Lands within one mile of the Urban Boundary.
The specific revisions proposed by this part of the GMP amendment appear as Part Three in
Attachment HL -1.
PROVISION
EXISTING
PROPOSED
Maximum Use of TDRs
1.0 DU/TDR per acre
1.3 DUs/rDRs per acre
- eligible to transfer into URF from
- eligible to transfer into URF from
Sending Lands
Sending Lands
within 1 mile
within 1 mile, with "lift"
•
Lastly, the 06 -11 application seeks to amend Native Vegetation Preservation provisions under the
CCME to preserve more native vegetation than is otherwise required in RFMUD Sending Lands and
preserve less native vegetation than is otherwise required in adjacent lands designated Urban. •
-4-
[Ia
Agenda Item 9C
• The applicant explains there is greater value in preservation of additional Rural Lands rather
• than the lands within the Urban Fringe.
The specific revisions proposed by this part of the GMP amendment appear as Part Six in Attachment
HL-1.
PROVISION
EXISTING
PROPOSED
Native Vegetation/ Habitat
25% NV in Urban portion
25 %— X = Urban NV
Retention / Preservation
60% NV in Rural portion
60% + 2X =Rural NV
CCME
- Preserved
- Preserved with "shift"
SUBJECT_ SITE AND SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE
DESIGNATION:
Subiect Site:
The subject site is in part, zoned A, Rural Agricultural [approximately 2,133 acres] and lies
undeveloped within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use (RFMU) Sending Lands [zoning] Overlay.
Another 129 acres is zoned Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) for, and developed with,
the Swamp Buggy Days' Florida Sports Park. A portion of this CPUD acreage is used for the Collier
County Junior Deputy League's Camp Discovery.
The land uses that are expressly allowed by the Swamp Buggy Days PUD are:
• Swamp Buggy Race Track and related facilities.
■ Stock Car Race Track and related facilities.
■ Motocross Race Track and related facilities (including bicycle and motorcycle).
■ Target Ranges, including archery.
■ Fairgrounds Area for expositions similar to the County Fair, including circuses, carnivals, and
other recreation /entertainment activities.
■ Multi- purpose Use Areas (Picnic, Sports Fields, Unpaved Parking, etc.) including picnicking
and playground areas; amateur soccer, softball, and similar outdoor recreational sports and
activities; stadium, training and practice facilities for professional baseball.
■ Onsite Roadways.
■ Related Structures to house offices (including administrative offices and supportive service
facilities as Permitted Principal Uses and Structures), ticketing (including concessions,
ticketing, bleachers, and other spectator - related facilities as Permitted Accessory Uses and
Structures), exhibition activities (including exhibition hall /convention center), spectator and
user conveniences and facilities management.
The Future Land Use Map designates [approximately 1,637 acres] of the subject site as Rural Fringe
Mixed Use District ( RFMUD) Sending Lands, Belle Meade Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA)
Overlay.
The present RFMUD Sending Lands designation currently allows: participation in the Transfer of
Development Rights (TDR) program; agricultural uses consistent with the Florida Right to Farm Act;
habitat preservation and conservation; single - family residences at a 1 dwelling unit per 40 acres or
legally nonconforming parcel density; non - residential uses (e.g. passive recreation, essential services,
sports and recreation camps, oil and gas exploration, development and production); and limited
• accessory commercial uses.
-5-
I�
Agenda Item 9C
Another [approximately 588 acre] portion of the subject site is designated as the Urban Residential •
Fringe Subdistrict.
The land uses that are generally allowed by the Urban Residential Fringe (URF) Subdistrict
designation include a variety of residential and non - residential land uses, including mixed -use
development via PUDs. Residential development in the URF is typified by a "transitional" density
between the County's Urban designated area and the AgriculturaVRural area of a maximum of up to
1.5 units per gross acre, or up to 2.5 units per gross acre via the transfer of one dwelling unit per acre
from lands designated Rural Fringe Mixed Use District ( RFMUD) Sending Lands. Certain industrial
and commercial uses may also be allowed, including:
• Essential services;
• Parks, open space and recreational uses;
• Water - dependent and water - related uses;
• Child care centers;
• Community facilities, and their co- location with other public facilities;
• Safety service facilities;
• Utility and communication facilities;
• Earth mining, oil extraction, and related processing;
• Agriculture;
• Travel trailer and recreational vehicle (TTRV) parks;
• Commercial uses per criteria identified for certain Subdistricts or other FLUE policies, including
hotels and motels;
• Certain accessory commercial uses;
• Industrial uses per criteria identified for certain Districts, Subdistricts or other FLUE policies; •
• Business Park uses per criteria identified for certain Districts and Subdistricts; and,
• Research and Technology Park uses per criteria identified for certain Districts and Subdistricts.
An approximately 37 acre area is designated as the southeast quadrant of Moved Use Activity Center
No. 7 (Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard) within the Urban Commercial District. The
land uses that are generally allowed by the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict designation include
concentrations of commercial uses in mixed -use settings, designed and developed at a human - scale,
pedestrian- oriented and interconnected with abutting properties, and allowing:
• Commercial uses;
• Residential uses;
• Institutional uses;
• Hotel and motel uses at a maximum density of up to 26 units per acre; and,
• Community facilities,
Residential density in MUAC No. 7 mixed -use developments is the same as that allowed by the Urban
Residential Fringe (URF) Subdistrict — a maximum of up to 1.5 units per gross acre, or up to 2.5 units
per gross acre via the transfer of one dwelling unit per acre from RFMUD Sending Lands. If density is
to be distributed outside the Activity Center boundary, then certain stipulations apply, as follows:
■ Thirty percent (30 %) of Activity Center - accumulated density must be located within the Activity
Center [in this instance, it is 37 southeast quadrant acres applied to the 1.5 units per gross
acre (for 55.5 units'Activity Center - accumulated density); or, 37 acres applied to the 2.5 units
per gross acre via the transfer of one dwelling unit per acre from RFMUD Sending Lands (for
92.5 units' Activity Center - accumulated density).] This allocation works out to 17 residential
•
-6-
A hEtem 9C
units located within the Activity Center of 55 accumulated (with the 1.5 factor) or, 28 residential
• units located within the Activity Center of 92 accumulated (with the 2.5 factor).
With regard to the subject property's proximity to the Physicians Regional Medical Center — Collier
Boulevard facility, certain GMP and LDC provisions allow for additional special land uses that include:
Support medical facilities, such as physicians' offices, medical clinics, medical treatment,
research and rehabilitative centers, and pharmacies located within one - quarter mile of the
medical center.
Surrounding Lands:
The 2,262 acre subject site is an unusually- shaped area, appearing somewhat like the State of
Louisiana with irregular edges. Describing its surrounding lands may be best accomplished with a
virtual walk - around.
Beginning our description with land lying adjacently to the north, or at the 12 o'clock position, is the
Willow Run commercial extraction operation (including quarry excavation lakes, concrete plant and
asphalt plant activities) zoned A, Rural Agricultural district with a Provisional Use (PU); Red Cockaded
Woodpecker (RCW) mitigation area. The current Future Land Use designation is predominantly
Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict (URF), along with areas of Rural Fringe Mixed Use District
(RFMUD) Sending Lands, Belle Meade Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) Overlay. Further
north lies the San Marino RPUD.
Located generally north, northeast, at the 1 o'clock position, are rural residential uses and equestrian
facilities in the area where Benfield Road, Barton Gilba Drive and Stable Way have their terminal
• ends. This area is zoned A, Rural Agricultural. The current Future Land Use Designation is Rural
Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) Sending Lands, Belle Meade Natural Resource Protection Area
(NRPA) Overlay.
Located generally northeast and east, at the 2 and 3 o'clock positions, is undeveloped land zoned A,
Rural Agricultural. The current Future Land Use Designation is Rural Fringe Mixed Use District
(RFMUD) Sending Lands, Belle Meade Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) Overlay. Further
east lie Picayune Strand State Forest lands.
Located generally southeast, at the 4 o'clock position, is a citrus growing operation, with on -site sales
facilities on Sabal Palm Road, zoned A, Rural Agricultural district with a Conditional Use (CU). The
subject property surrounds some lands in this area; these properties include State of Florida owned
lands and a few privately owned parcels.
Located generally south, southeast, at the 5 o'clock position, are undeveloped lands, zoned A, Rural
Agricultural. The current Future Land Use Designation is Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD)
Sending Lands, Belle Meade Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) Overlay.
Located generally south, along a lengthy meandering southerly border, are multiple designations.
North of Saba[ Palm Road, at the 6 o'clock position, is an area of low - density residential
development, zoned A, Rural Agricultural. The current Future Land Use Designation is Rural Fringe
Mixed Use District (RFMUD) Sending Lands, Belle Meade Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA)
Overlay. Located across Sabal Palm Road, south, at the 6 o'clock position, and south, southwest, at
the 7 o'clock position, is the Veronawalk Mixed -Use Planned Unit Development, zoned as part of the
Winding Cypress DRI. The current Future Land Use Designation is Urban Residential Fringe
• Subdistrict (URF).
-7-
Agenda 9 a Ito
Located generally southwest, at the 8 o'clock position, is an area of multi - family residential
•
development zoned as the Rockedge RPUD; FPL Easement; and, the main N -S canal abutting CR
951. North of John's Road is the °Kountree Kampin" RV Resort, zoned Travel Trailer and
Recreational Vehicle Campground (TTRVC); and, the Physicians Regional Medical Center, zoned
PUD. The current Future Land Use Designation is Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict (URF).
Across Collier Boulevard (CR 951) near its intersection with Rattlesnake Hammock Road, is an area
of partially developed land zoned Sierra Meadows PUD containing an office building and Edison
Village PUD. The current Future Land Use Designation is Urban Mixed Use District and SW quadrant
of the Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 (Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard).
Located generally west, at the 9 o'clock position, north of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and east of
CR 951, is an area of undeveloped land zoned for the Hammock Park Commerce Center CPUD, the
McMullen MPUD, the Good Turn Center MPUD and other CR 951 - fronting parcels zoned for C-3
through C -5 commercial uses, and tracts zoned A, Rural agricultural; and, FPL Easement. The
current Future Land Use Designations are Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict (URF) and NE
quadrant of the Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 (Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard);
and, the main N -S canal abutting CR 951.
Across Collier Boulevard (CR 951), is the Naples Lakes Village Center commercial development, part
of Naples Lakes Country Club MPUD. The current Future Land Use Designations are Urban Mixed
Use District and NW quadrant of the Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 (Rattlesnake Hammock Road
and Collier Boulevard).
Located generally northwest, at the 10 o'clock position, is a place of worship with community
services, zoned First Assembly Ministries Education and Rehabilitation Campus MPUD. Across
•
Collier Boulevard (CR 951) near its intersection with The Lord's Way, is the [Lely Area Stormwater
Improvement Project] LASIP Conservation Area PUD; further north lie the Homes of Islandia and
Naples National Golf Club PUDs. The current Future Land Use Designation is Urban Mixed Use
District
Located generally north, northwest, at the 11 o'clock position, is undeveloped land fronting CR 951
zoned A, Rural Agricultural, as part of the commercial extraction operation lying to the north. The
current Future Land Use Designation is Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict (URF).
STAFF ANALYSIS:
ADDroDdateness of Chanaes:
The practicalities of the petitioner's proposed amendments are established, in part, through an
evaluation of relevant and appropriate data for population growth, commercial inventory, infrastructure
development and other considerations in the surrounding geographic area.
Certain amendments introduce new provisions allowing for the use of TDRs in manners exclusive to
the subject property. Residential development is currently planned and limited to certain transitional
densities, achievable with TDRs transferred into the Urban Fringe. The appropriateness of changing
the FLUE and CCME for allowing additional TDRS to' be used for residential development is
addressed herein.
ME
. 8E
Agenda Item 9C
Other amendments introduce an additional amount of commercial and office development, uses and
• activities to an expanded Mixed Use Activity Center on the subject property. Commercial
development is currently planned and limited to certain acreages and floor areas based on the
allocation and spatial arrangement of Activity Centers throughout the planning area. The
appropriateness of expanding the site for additional commercial and office development is addressed
herein.
Certain amendments offer to preserve native vegetation and habitat in Sending Lands in a
proportional substitution for preserving less native vegetation and habitat in the Urban portion of the
project. Preservation of these Sending Lands is a requirement under other provisions of the GMP
from which TDR program benefits are derived. The appropriateness of changing the FLUE and
CCME to derive dual benefits from preserving a portion of the same land area is addressed herein.
Still other amendments introduce new provisions allowing another means of vehicular access to a
Business Park proposed at a certain location inside the project. The appropriateness of allowing The
Lord's Way for both residential and nonresidential traffic is addressed herein.
Commercial Development:
The Mixed Use Activity Center concept is designed to concentrate almost all 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.
A trend toward commercial development is evident in the area adjacent to the Mixed Use Activity
Center proposed by CP- 2006 -11 for expansion. This development is evidenced within the original
MUAC No. 7 and in areas where the MUAC has previously expanded.
• Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7's nearest activity center neighbors are MUAC No. 9 (1 -75 and Collier
Boulevard and Davis Boulevard) located approximately 3.1 miles directly north on CR951 has an
Interchange Activity Center], and MUAC No. 18 (US 41 and Collier Boulevard) located approximately
3.4 miles directly south on CR951. MUAC No. 6 (Davis Boulevard and Santa Barbara Boulevard)
lies northwest, separated from MUAC No. 7 by approximately four (4) road miles.
Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7's nearest non - activity center, non - residential neighbor is the Collier
Regional Medical Center facilities located immediately south — both inside and outside the MUAC
boundaries. The next nearest non - residential neighbor is the College Park office complex located
approximately 0.9 miles directly west on Rattlesnake Hammock Road.
Generally, Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 has no competing general commercial land uses closer
than 3.1 miles.
The need for an additional 9.16 acres of commercially developable land via a MUAC expansion is
evaluated within a "Study Area" described in the Market and Needs Evaluation submitted with this
petition [extending two and one -half (2.5) radial miles from the center point of Mixed Use Activity
Center No. 7], including the following approved projects:
Located within Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 are a number of Planned Unit Developments and
commercially zoned properties, as follows:
❖ North of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and east of CR 951 — the Northeast Quadrant — is an
approximately 64.5 acre (gross) area of undeveloped land zoned for the Hammock Park
• Commerce Center CPUD, the McMullen MPUD, the Good Turn Center MPUD and other CR
WE
F0
Agenda Item 9C
951 - fronting parcels zoned for C -3 through C -5 commercial uses. This quadrant has more •
than 445,000 developable sq. ft. on 56.5 acres (net) available for Mixed Use Activity Center
Uses.
North of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and west of CR 951 — the Northwest Quadrant — is an
approximately 39.9 acre (gross) area of land zoned, and part of, Naples Lakes Country Club
MPUD developed with the Naples Lakes Village [shopping] Center. This quadrant has
approximately 75,865 sq. fi: developed of 260,000 developable sq. ft. on 95.3 acres (net)
available for Mixed Use Activity Center Uses.
South of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and west of CR 951 — the Southwest Quadrant — is an
approximately 38.9 acre (gross) area of land zoned Siena Meadows PUD, a commercial node
adjacent to Lely Resort project This quadrant has approximately 3,900 sq. ft. developed on
30.1 acres (net) available for Mixed Use Activity Center Uses.
❖ South of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and east of CR 951 — the Southeast Quadrant — is an
approximately 41.4 acre (gross) area of land zoned and developed as the Collier Regional
Medical Center. Undeveloped land and the commercial component of the Hacienda Lakes
project proposed for expansion also comprise this quadrant. This quadrant has approximately
35.0 acres (net) available for Mixed Use Activity Center Uses.
South of the Southwest Quadrant of MUAC No. 7, fronting CR 951 — is an approximately 5.7 acre
area of land zoned and developed as the Edison Village PUD. The (7,100 sq. ft.) 21st Century
Oncology and (6,700 sq. ft.) Anchor Health Urgent Care professional and medical facilities are
located here.
The above - listed sites are located within the projects Study Area, and currently provide approximately •
93,520 sq. ft. of commercial use opportunities. Source. March, 2008 Planned Unit Development (PUD) Master List
(brepared and maintained by the Collier County TranjpoTiwion Planning Section) and the Collier County Interactive Growth Model
(CTGM).
Residential Demand Analysis:
An assessment of the area establishes that residential land uses may be allowed at a maximum
density of 1.5 units per gross acre, or up to 2.5 units per gross acre via the transfer of up to one
dwelling unit per acre from lands designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands, with
the exception of a site specific property comprising 55 acres located within the Urban Residential
Fringe to include a density bonus of up to 6.0 additional units per gross acre for affordable home
ownership for low and moderate income residents.
A further assessment of approved developments within this area revealed that the developments
included large amounts of environmentally sensitive lands. As a result, the residential components of
these developments have been concentrated on smaller tracts of land within the development
resulting in net densities greater than the maximum allowable gross density of 1.5 du /ac. The
following PUD's are examples of this type of development:
1. Forest Glen of Naples is a 614 -acre PUD approved for 1.26 units per acre or 799 dwelling units.
Due to environmentally sensitive land within the project, the 799 residential units are
concentrated within Tract "R" of the development comprising 170 acres that equate to 4.7 units
per acre net density. [Section 2, Township 50 South, Range 26 East.]
•
-10-
Agenda Item 9C
2. San Marino is a 235 -acre PUD approved for 1.5 units per acre or 352 dwelling units. However,
• the total 352 dwelling units are to be constructed on a 21 acre site within the PUD equating to
a net residential density of 16.77 dwelling units per acre. [Section 11, Township 50 South,
Range 26 East]
3. Winding Cypress is a 1,928 -acre PUD approved for 1.2 units per acre or 2,300 dwelling units
for the overall development. The residential component of this PUD will comprise 2,300
dwelling units being developed on 448 acres equating to 5.14 dwelling units per acre net.
[Sections 24, 34, & 35, Township 50 South, Range 26 East.]
The Hacienda Lakes of Naples project is being proposed as a 2,262 acre DRI /PUD planned for 0.78
units per acre or 1,760 dwelling units. However, the 1,760 units are to be constructed on
approximately 652 acres equating to 2.8 units per acre net density.
In addition to these examples of developments with higher net densities, certain projects are approved
in the Urban Residential Fringe that allow greater intensities than the typical 1.5 du /ac. scenario.
1. First Assembly Ministries Education & Rehabilitation Campus is a 79.1 -acre PUD. First
Assembly is approved for a mixture of land uses for religious, community social services and
residential uses in a campus -type setting, including: 1800 seat auditorium, 600 seat chapel,
300 student school, 450 child /adult care facility, 400 bed care unit facility, 120 travel trailer or
park model lots, adult living facility for 400 group housing units, and 57 multi - family units along
with numerous inside and outside recreational facilities and accessory uses. [Section 14,
Township 50 South, Range 26 East.]
2. The Swamp Buggy Days' Florida Sports Park is a 129 -acre PUD. The Swamp Buggy PUD is
is approved for intense outdoor sports and recreational activities, including swamp buggy races
and a gun shooting range [on portion of subject property].
3. Growth Management Plan Amendment CP- 2002 -1 was approved (site of the McMullen PUD)
to expand the northeast quadrant of Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7. The area added
comprises approximately 18.5 acres and is immediately contiguous to the eastern limit of the
original activity center boundary. The approved uses are limited to: "personal indoor self -
storage facilities offices for various contractor /builder construction trade specialists inclusive of
the offices of related professional disciplines and services, warehouse space for various
contractor /builder construction trade occupants and related businesses including but not
limited to lumber and other building materials dealers, paint, glass, and wallpaper stores,
garden supply stores as accessory uses only." [Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26
East.]
4. The Urban Designation allows for support medical facilities (such as physicians' offices,
medical clinics, treatment, research and rehabilitative centers, and pharmacies provided the
dominate use is medically related) to locate within '/ mile of existing or approved hospitals or
medical centers which offer primary and urgent care treatment for all types of injuries and
traumas. Accordingly, the surrounding lands within one - quarter mile of a hospital can
potentially be zoned and developed with support medical uses [affecting a portion of subject
property].
5. Rezone application PUDZ- 2003 -AR -4674 was approved in May 2004 to permit up to 260,000
square feet of hospital and related uses. Pursuant to the aforementioned provision, the site
was also approved for 80,000 square feet of medical office and related uses. The entire
• property is known as the Collier Regional Medical Center. This property is located on the east
-11-
Y BE
Agenda Item 9C
side of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) adjacently south of Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7. •
[Section 23, Township 50 South, Range 26 East.]
Comprehensive Plan Amendment — Statutory Data and Analysis Requirement
Chapter 9J -5, Florida Administrative Code, "Minimum Criteria for Review of Local
Government Comprehensive Plans and Plan Amendments, Evaluation and Appraisal
Reports, Land Development Regulations and Determinations of Compliance" sets forth
the minimum data and analysis requirement for comprehensive plan amendments.
More specifically, Section 9J -5.005 "General Requirements" delineates criteria for plan
amendments in sub - section 9J -5.005 (2) "Data and Analysis Requirements."
Sub - section 9J- 5.005(2) states in part that "All goals, objectives, standards, findings and
conclusions within the comprehensive plan and its support documents, and within plan
amendments and its support documents, shall be based upon relevant and appropriate
data and analysis applicable to each element. To be based upon data means to react to
it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on
that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue...
the Department will review each comprehensive plan [amendment] for the purpose of
determining whether the plan [amendment] is based on data and analyses described in
this Chapter and whether data were collected and applied in a professionally acceptable
manner."
It is incumbent upon all applicants requesting comprehensive plan amendments to
provide supporting data and analyses in conjunction with any relevant support •
documents. It is not the responsibility of Collier County staff to generate data and
analysis for the applicant, rather it is staff's responsibility to review and analyze the
petitioner's data and analysis for accuracy, applicability, professional acceptability,
sound methodology, etc. Any outstanding deficiencies or other issues with respect to
data and analyses that may remain at the time of any requisite public hearing are the
responsibility of the applicant. An evaluation of the adequacy of the data and analysis
for the subject plan amendment is set forth herein.
In preparation for Growth Management Plan amendment petitions, Collier County
was provided the October 2009 Florida Senate "Interim Report 2010 -107 entitled
"POPULATION NEED AS A CRITERIA FOR CHANGES TO A LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
FUTURE LAND USE MAP." in addition to the Interim Report, a draft rule to amend the
Florida Administrative Code was provided.
The Interim Report identified a primary issue of a "Needs Assessment" in determining
whether a comprehensive plan amendment as submitted by a local government
provides more land than is needed to accommodate anticipated population growth.
Population growth is utilized in the context of projected population during the S and 10
year planning time horizons
The genesis for the Interim Report was a land use decision in Marion County where the
Governor and Cabinet upheld a decision of an administrative law judge (AU) that a
proposed comprehensive plan amendment would, if adopted, allow more than five
times the residential units needed in Marion County's 10 year planning horizon. The •
finding of the AU was that the applicant's methodology was not professionally
-12-
Agenda Item 9C
acceptable because it did not demonstrate the need within the adopted planning time
• horizon.
The Report identified several proposed comprehensive plan amendments that were
found not in compliance based upon needs criteria, that is, because need was not
demonstrated by the applicant. However, the Report also identifies some instances
where comprehensive plan amendments were found in compliance despite failing to
meet the needs assessment criteria; more about this later in this summary. One
amendment highlighted in the Report not meeting the needs assessment involved the
re- designation of land for industrial development in Putnam County; another such
amendment was for the creation of the Clear Springs Sector Plan that re- designated
17,000+ acres to allow uses that included over 11,000 dwelling units, 6.8 million square
feet of Research /Corporate Park /Commercial, and 21.8 million square feet of Industrial
uses.
The needs analysis is a useful planning tool to ascertain whether a proposed plan
amendment will result in a local government's over - allocation of land in a specific land
use category. One of the biggest problems identified with the over - allocation of certain
land uses is urban sprawl, which causes increased infrastructure costs, a depleted urban
core, and the premature development of agricultural lands and natural areas.
The needs analysis explained in the Interim Report includes a market factor, planning
time horizon, and population projections. As previously noted, the planning horizon
for Collier County is presently out to 10 years (2020). The County utilizes medium
range population projections as provided annually by the University of Florida's Bureau
• of Economic and Business Research. The market factor is a numerical tool used to
determine the amount of land use supply needed to accommodate anticipated growth.
The Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) uses a market factor of 1.25, or
25 percent greater than the anticipated need of land use supply necessary for the
population projected in the [10 year] planning time horizon. The additional 250/6 is
designed to allow for market flexibility.
Market factor is calculated by dividing the supply of land use by the demand for that
land use. The supply could be dwelling unit capacity (all built units plus all units
allowed based on existing zoning and future land use designation), commercial capacity
(all built commercial square feet plus all commercial square feet allowed based on
existing zoning and future land use designation [land converted to building square
feet]), or industrial capacity (all built industrial square feet plus all industrial square feet
allowed based on existing zoning and future land use designation [land converted to
building square feet]). The demand could be dwelling unit demand, commercial square
feet demand, or industrial square feet demand — all based upon population projections
within the 10 -year planning horizon.
Below are fictitious examples of commercial market factors for three different GMP
amendments within three different geographic areas, all at the 10 -year planning
horizon:
1) supply of 1.25 million SF /demand for 1 million SF = market factor of 1.25 (supply
= 125% of demand)
• 2) supply of 950,000 SF /demand for 800,000 SF = market factor of 1.19 (supply
-13-
8E
Agenda Item 9C
= 119% of demand) •
3) supply of 1.5 million SF /demand for 1 million SF = market factor of 1.50 (supply
= 150% of demand)
In the above examples, based on market factor considerations only, there is a
demonstrated need for the first two amendments as the market factor is at or below
1.25, but there is no demonstrated need for the third amendment as the market factor
exceeds the recommended 1.25.
The Interim Report also notes that the numerical needs assessment (market factor),
while a significant factor in determining need, is not the only consideration. Case law
indicates commercial or industrial land use need may also be demonstrated by other
factors such as suitability of the property for change, locational criteria, and community
desires. In the Report's Findings and /or Conclusions section, it states:
The needs assessment is a fundamental part of land use planning. Specifically, the
numerical needs assessment is a useful tool to determine whether the amendment will
cause an area to become over - allocated or exacerbate existing over - allocation. It is also
a key indicator of urban sprawl. However, the numerical needs assessment is only one
factor to consider when conducting a needs assessment. It is also important to consider
other policy factors such as job creation potential, urban infill, form of development, or
the promotion of development in areas where it is most efficient for the local
government to promote growth."
When the numerical needs assessment exceeds the L25 market factor, the above •
additional factors should be addressed, with specificity, in the proposed GMP
amendment petition as part of the data and analysis. The local government can then
consider whether the overall needs assessment for a certain land use supersedes the
numerical needs assessment and, if so, would need to cite with specificity the policy
factors that were relied upon in making that determination. During the Transmittal
stage, DCA would make a determination in its Objections, Recommendations and
Comments Report as to whether the policy factors articulated provide the rational
nexus to exceed the 1.25 market factor; during the Adoption stage, DCA would do that
as part of its determination of compliance with state law.
As a point of emphasis, the provisions of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J -5, Florida
Administrative Code require that appropriate data and analysis be provided to demonstrate an
allocation of additional commercial acreage is needed.
Commercial Demand Analysis:
The firm of Real Estate Research Consultants, Inc. conducted the Market and Needs Evaluation,
which analyzed market conditions within the South Naples and Royal Fakapalm Planning
Communities. This analysis provided an overall context for assessing the basic goods and services
requirements of the emerging population within the County's easternmost urban area and exurban
fringe. The residential figures utilized in the study are as follows:
• Growth in the eastern fringe of urban Collier County is projected to increase the population of
the Planning Communities during the period 2010 to 2030. This area is projected to grow 36.5
percent from 12,447 persons in 2010, to 15,409 persons in 2015, to 17,000 persons in 2030 — •
an increase of approximately 4,550 persons, according to June, 2010 estimates provided by
-14-
8E Y. 4
Agenda Item 9C
the County's Comprehensive Planning Section. [An ambitious development schedule
indicates about 4,000 of these 4,550 persons will have the opportunity to reside in the
Hacienda Lakes of Naples project by 2020.1 It is questionable whether there will be 4,000
persons in this development, even at buildout, based on the persons per household, and
occupancy /vacancy rates from the 2000 Census_
The Research Consultants' Evaluation has faults, particularly in its attempt to dismiss the relevance
of, or contribution from, existing and potential commercial lands within the same market area, claiming
"[w]e see only a limited relevance for competing lands in the context of this analysis" and "other lands
that might also be available to accommodate opportunities generated by the population of Hacienda
Lakes are of no material importance in evaluating development options': Comprehensive Planning
staff respectfully disagrees with these assertions — which effectually separate the Evaluation further
from its geographical setting and market realities — and considers characteristics of the surrounding
market area to be wholly relevant and appropriate.
To the extent that the analysis provided by the Evaluation is made insubstantial by these claims, the
data provided has been useful in staffs evaluation of this part of the proposed GMP amendment,
especially for extrapolating a more - accurate analysis.
Collier Interactive Growth Model
The East of County Road 951 Infrastructure and Services Horizon Study was a two phase planning
effort to assess the County's ability to accommodate growth within the County east of Collier
Boulevard (CR 951). Included in the second phase of the study was the development of a Collier
County Interactive Growth Model (CIGM). The Board adopted the CIGM as a planning tool at its
advertised public hearing in February 2009. This model was developed to assist in projecting
• population and its spatial distribution over time to build -out in all areas lying east of CR 951. The
interactive growth model is also utilized to approximate the timing and location of commercial and
industrial centers, school facilities, parks and recreational facilities, fire stations, etc. The commercial
sub -model is designed to project the demand for neighborhood, community and regional centers that
include retail and other commercial uses. This sub -model helps to spatially allocate the optimal
locations for these commercial centers required as functions of time and population, and as a result of
disposable incomes of the population. The CIGM could not be fully utilized in evaluating the Hacienda
Lakes of Naples project proposal, as approximately one -half of the area studied lies west of Collier
Boulevard (CR 951).
•
Guidelines for Commercial Development used in the CIGM remain relevant, however, as bases for
further computations, as categorized below:
• Number of Persons per Neighborhood Center: 13,110
• Number of Persons per Community Center. 34,464
• Number of Persons per Regional Center: 157,324
• Number of Acres per Neighborhood Center. 11
• Number of Acres per Community Center. 28
• Number of Acres per Regional Center: 100
• Square Feet Building Area per Neighborhood Center. 110,734 (8.45 sq. ft. per Capita)
• Square Feet Building Area per Community Center. 257,668 (7.48 sq. ft. per Capita)
• Square Feet Building Area per Regional Center. 1,000,000 (6.36 sq. ft. per Capita)
-15-
a
m
Agenda Item 9C
The above floor area figures are the average sizes of Neighborhood, Community and Regional •
Centers in existence (built) in Collier County. This means some Centers are larger, and some smaller,
than these countywide averages; that is, there is a range in size of each type of Center. Each type of
Center is classified based upon size as well as uses.
Based on the population thresholds provided by the Real Estate Research Consultants' Market and
Needs Evaluation extrapolated by the CIGM Guidelines, staff has developed commercial analysis for
petition CP- 2006 -11 as follows (with the referenced map attached and made part of this Staff Report):
• Existing and Potential Commercial sq. ft.
Within the petition's defined Study Area, there are 93,522 sq. ft. of existing commercial
development and 794,440 sq. ft. of potential commercial development (vacant land designated
as commercial & vacant land zoned commercial). A total supply of existing and potential
commercial space within the Study Area is 887,962 sq. ft.
• Population
Based on the CIGM, the total population in the Study Area are /will be: 2010 — 14,069 persons;
2015 — 17,416 persons; and, 2030 — 19,204 persons.
• Square Footage Demand for a Community Center
The total existing /projected population within the Study Area translates into an
existing /projected demand for commercial space within the Study Area as follows: 2010 —
14,069 persons yields demand for 105,236 sq. ft.; 2015 - 17,416 persons yields demand for
130,272 sq. ft.; and, 2030 — 19,204 persons yields demand for 143,645 sq. ft.
• Square Footage Demand for a Regional Center •
The total existing /projected population within the Study Area translates into an
existing /projected demand for commercial space within the Study Area as follows: 2010 -
14,069 persons yields demand for 89,478 sq. ft.; 2015 - 17,416 persons yields demand for
110,766 sq. ft.; and, 2030 — 19,204 persons in 2030 translate to 122,138 sq. ft. demand for
commercial space.
Data Sources.•
The QG112 anal}�sis for this petition utilized.• (1) the 2007 Commercial Inventory prepared by the Collier Count}+
Comprehensive Planning Department, (2) present GMP designations that allow commercial honing (3) population pr jkAons
prepared by the applicants consultant. There is a minor discrepancy between the CIGM population pr jections and those
prepared by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research at the Universit• y of Florida (BEBR).
Environmental Impacts*
The environmental report submitted by Passarella and Associates with a companion petition [as
Exhibit "M° in PUDZ materials] was updated in August 2009. This report states that the vegetation
surveys and habitat mapping were done in 2003, 2005, 2007 and 2009. The substantive review of
this document was done by the Stormwater and Environmental Services Section and a staff report
was brought before the Environmental Advisory Council for their review. The environmental report
confirms the environmental characteristics of native vegetation and habitat reported at the time the
Rural Fringe Mixed Use District was established.
Stormwater and Environmental Planning Section — Staff Remarks
Stormwater and Environmental Planning Section review staff has reviewed the above referenced •
amendments to the FLUE and CCME, and their review comments are provided below.
-16-
8AEnda item 9C
Future Land Use Element
Density Rating System
d. Density Blending
Stormwater and Environmental Planning Section staff recommends replacing the word "mitigation"
with either "preservation" or "retention" since the requirement in the GMP is a native vegetation
retention requirement and not a mitigation requirement. Similarly, replace the words "mitigated for"
with the word "shifted" in the same paragraph.
The applicant is proposing to be able to shift the native vegetation retention requirement from the
Urban designated portion of a project to the portion of a project designated NRPA Sending lands, if
the maximum native vegetation retention requirement within the Sending lands portion of the project is
met. In keeping with the intent of the GMP to retain as much native vegetation as possible within
Sending lands, Stormwater and Environmental Planning Section staff recommends allowing the native
vegetation retention requirement to be shifted from the Urban designated portion of a project to the
portion of a project designated Sending lands and not just NRPA Sending lands as proposed by the
applicant.
Proposed changes with regard to archeological sites will not be reviewed by Stormwater and
Environmental Planning Section staff, but [from within] the Zoning Services Section.
[Stephen Lenberger, Senior Environmental Specialist
Stornwaterand Environmental Planning Section)
is Traffic Capacity/Traffic Circulation Analysis:
The traffic study submitted by Tindale- Oliver and Associates is dated August 2010. The substantive
review of this document was done by the Transportation Planning Section, and their review comments
are provided below. Although these comments primarily address aspects of the proposed companion
Hacienda Lakes Development of Regional impact (DRI) and Mixed Use Planned Unit Development
(MPUD) requests, they are included here in supplement, as shown in ATTACHMENT HL -3.
Historical and Archaeological Impacts:
The historical and archaeological report submitted by the Archaeological and Historical Conservancy,
Inc. dates to August 2009. This report states that archaeological resources have been identified as
present on the 2,262 acre subject property, based on reference to the Collier County Index of
Historic /Archaeological Maps, and the sites are identified on County Historical and Archaeological
Probability Maps. Application materials illustrate the location and arrangement of these sites on
Exhibit "O ". These sites are predominantly hammock formations and are protected as such. They are
not located in areas of the subject property where actual development is proposed. Provisions
proposed by parts of CP- 2006 -11 require that these sites be preserved and cannot be mitigated for.
Public Facilities Impact:
The Hacienda Lakes project, if developed as proposed by these amendments, is expected to result in
increased impacts upon certain Category A public facilities besides roads (evaluated separately), but
• these impacts will not be "significant" (generating potential for increased Countywide population
-17-
V
�- Benda Item 9C
greater than 2% of the population projections for Parks and Recreation, Solid Waste Disposal, Potable •
Water, Wastewater Treatment and Stormwater Management facilities, as defined in Policy 1.2 of the
CIE and other applicable GMP Elements). For potable water and wastewater treatment services, the
proposed development will demand (as net increases) more than 660,650 gallons per day and
414,250 gallons per day, respectively. Utilizing the level of service standards identified in the CIE, the
proposed uses will not result in a significant impact on Category A public facilities.
The demand for potable water and wastewater treatment was calculated based on the development of
the 1,760 residential units, 375,000 sq. ft. commercial space, 75,000 sq. ft. office space and a 135
room hotel. Absent from the petitioner's impact analysis are other proposed land uses such as a
business park with 140,000 sq. ft. use area, specialty residential and medical uses proximate to the
Medical Center, and up to two (2) schools.
Petition materials indicate the property is located within the Urban Designated area and adjacent
Rural Fringe Sending Lands, proximate to more than adequate existing or planned public facilities.
The project will not result in a failing LOS of a public facility, except as residential development
approaches buildout and inadequate Community Park facilities will be evidenced.
It should be noted that the applicants public facilities impact analysis used residential figures varying
persons per household (PPH) numbers of 2.0, 2.05 and 2.5 depending on the specific facility or
service analyzed. The County has adopted the PPH figure of 2.39 in this location. However,
occupancy /vacancy rates must also be accounted for. The public facilities impact analysis may
necessitate re- calculating and adjustments based on this figure, providing different results.
2008 Legislation - HB 697: •
This legislation, which pertains to energy conservation and efficiency, went into effect on July 1, 2008.
Some key phrases in the legislation include: "discouragement of urban sprawl "; "greenhouse gas
reduction strategies "; "transportation strategies to address reduction in greenhouse gas emissions
from the transportation sector.' Among other things, House Bill 697 requires certain amendments to
the Growth Management Plan (Future Land Use Element and map, Housing Element, Transportation
Element, Conservation and Coastal Management Element) which would be initiated by Collier County.
However, in the interim (and perhaps beyond), each GMP amendment petition should include data
and analysis to demonstrate how it discourages urban sprawl and reduces greenhouse gas
emissions. The Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) reviews GMP amendments for
compliance with this legislation.
This application has been reviewed for adequacy of data and analysis to demonstrate how the project
would discourage or not contribute to urban sprawl, and reduce or not elevate greenhouse gas
emissions.
Especially because the 06 -11 application predicates a mixed use development of regional impact, the
HB 697 response affords an excellent opportunity to include plans for. committing to sustainable, or
"green" construction techniques and building designs; establishing commercial recycling programs;
providing dedicated parking area(s) to park n -ride or ride -share vehicles; providing bus stop(s);
providing electric vehicle preferred parking and charging stations; committing that service stations
dispense more than one alternative fuel; providing pedestrian and bicycle paths interconnecting with
neighboring communities, extra bike racks and public seating areas, and community -wide bike share
programs; or other energy - conserving ideas.
•
-18-
8E
Agenda Item 9C
The applicant explains the project will provide opportunities for public schools within the boundaries of
the project, and a mix of land uses that provides for a live /work community. Residences will be
developed to provide for multiple types of ownership and housing options to serve diverse household
incomes.
Companion Development of Regional Impact (DRI) application materials address HB 697 energy efficiency
measures, and they appear here in part, to reflect developer commitments.
• Project preserves some 1,543 acres of land while limiting development footprint to about 700
acres;
• The most - intense land uses are oriented adjacent to existing development;
• Mix of residential uses, medical and commercial uses, an existing attraction, and a centrally -
located elementary school;
• A jobs -to- housing balance, reducing automobile trips and minimizing vehicle miles traveled;
• Neighborhoods developed with a multi -modal street system, promoting alternative modes of
transportation and reducing GHG emissions;
• Energy conservation features, incorporating a bicycle and pedestrian system connecting all
land uses, bike racks and storage facilities in recreational, commercial and multi - family areas,
select energy - efficient indoor and outdoor building features, prohibition of covenants or deed
restrictions that would hamper or prevent energy conservation, vegetative choices and
landscape design features that reduce need for water and maintenance, energy efficient
lighting in public areas, and others.
The connection of this legislation with the actual project design is stronger in the proposed companion
Hacienda Lakes Development of Regional Impact (DRI) and Mixed Use Planned Unit Development
(MPUD) requests. Staff reserves the bulk of its evaluation of HB 697 related issues to the review of
• these development proposals.
Other Considerations:
The County's ability to manage growth in accordance with its adopted Growth Management Plan is
,tested by requests to expand or allow commercial development outside Neighborhood Centers, Mixed
Use Activity Centers and other planned locations. These planned locations are purposely sized,
spatially arranged and separated to encourage and support a healthy business environment County-
wide and, discourage and avoid over commercialization and strip development.
The petitioner's argument is premised on the unusual idea that regional medical facilities should be
discounted from calculations for uses and acres in Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 because they are
not typical commercial uses. This premise is faulted however, as numerous non - retail uses are found
and encouraged in Mixed Use Activity Centers generally — and none are discounted elsewhere.
Acquiescing to this idea would compensate the petitioner for MUAC acreage used for land uses other
than those in the plans of the Hacienda Lakes of Naples project.
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM) SYNOPSIS:
A Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) was [duly advertised, noticed and] held on Thursday,
September 30, 2010, 5:15 p.m. at Edison College Campus Auditorium B -101, located at 7007 Lely
Cultural Parkway, Naples. Approximately twenty-eight people other than the applicant's team and
County staff attended. Dwight Nadeau, AICP, the applicant's agent provided a full description of the
-19-
8E
Agenda Item 9C
proposed amendments, including developed areas and preserved areas, roads involved and •
proposed accesses, and the residential density and commercial and office use intensity. Developing
the subject property would incorporate the Swamp Buggy Days and Junior Deputy sites at their
present locations.
Mr. Nadeau explained the GMPA Transmittal process to the group in attendance indicating how if
these GMPAs were approved in Transmittal, subsequent GMPA Adoption processes would be
required along with the DRI and PUD rezone procedures. The rezone would also be preceded by the
holding of another Neighborhood Information Meeting and set of public hearings.
The part of this GMPA relating to Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 would allow the development of
additional commercial and professional office space on these approximately 37 acres.
Mr. Nadeau provided an overview of the County's Transfer of Development Rights program, and how
certain limitations leave the development of the project site with un -used, or surplus TDRs. The part
of this GMPA relating to the TDR program would allow more TDRs to be shifted to the urban part of
the property for increased density there.
Questions generated during the subsequent discussion focused on the nature of the proposed
development, traffic and localized road conditions. One person asked about the Swamp Buggy facility
and the potential for compatibility issues with nearby residential land uses. The applicant's team
explained how the proposed Business Park would serve as a transition to buffer noise and other
impacts between the facility and residential land uses. Land uses allowed at the Swamp Buggy
facility will remain the same, where redevelopment into a business park or school site is not planned.
Another attendee asked for clarification regarding main vehicular access to the new development.
The team explained that The Lord's Way and Rattlesnake Hammock Road would be •
extended /improved to serve as the main access points with CR 951. A right -of -way corridor is being
reserved at this time for the eventual development of, and connection to, Benfield Road. Their
development plans do not include the actual construction of Benfield Road.
An attendee asked about the nature of the residential development. The applicant indicated a variety
of single - family and multi - family housing options are planned, without age or income restrictions.
Another attendee asked for clarification regarding plans for the area located east of the Verona Walk
community. The team explained that this area is to be part of the larger preserve acreage. Except for
the Benfield Road corridor, these lands are protected from development in perpetuity. In order to
derive certain benefits from the TDR program, these preserve lands are conveyed to a public agency
responsible for restoration and maintenance.
No one in attendance expressed opposition to the project. No major issues or contentions were
raised or discussed. No statements of commitment were made by the agent, applicant or developer.
The meeting was completed by 6:15 p.m.
[Synopsis prepared by C. Schmidt, A1CP, Principal Planner]
•
-20-
Agenda Item 9C
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
• Approximately 493.2 acres [with the potential to produce 394.5 TDRs] lie east, beyond 1 mile of the
URF boundary, and are identified as an "Area not qualified for Sending" TDR credits into the URF.
[This acreage however, is qualified for sending TDR credits into other receiving areas of the County.]
is
•
PART ONE of SIX: This part of CP- 2006 -11 lifts the FLUE's 2.5 unit - per -acre maximum achievable
density to 2.8 units per acre to use all qualifying TDRs within the Hacienda Lakes project.
The property's present designation as Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict currently
allows residential land uses at a maximum density of 1.5 units per gross acre or via
Transfer of Development Rights program up to 2.5 units per gross acre for a maximum
of 1.662 dwelling units.
The Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict is designed to provide a clear transition
between the Urban Residential Subdistrict on the west side of CR 951 and the
Agricultural /Rural lands to the east as envisioned when the Urban Residential Fringe
Subdistrict was established in 1989.
Because of this amendment, there are no significant impacts to public facilities, as
defined in the CIE, with respect to Potable Water, Wastewater Treatment, Stormwater
Management, Solid Waste Disposal, Parks and Recreation facilities.
PROVISION
EXISTING
PROPOSED
REMARKS
Maximum Residential
2.5 DU /acre
2.8 DU /acre
Just 507.8 ac would be
Density (utilizing TDRs)
- eligible to receive in URF
- eligible to receive in URF
developed residentially
Retention / Preservation
- Required Preservation
with receiving "lift"
• 432.4 in rsdntl tracts
FLUE
Area
- Preservation Area with
• 36.6 MUAC residential
"shift"
• 38.8 in residential/
medical uses tract
PART TWO of SIX: This part of CP- 2006 -11 shifts a portion of the FLUE's native vegetation
preservation from Urban lands to RFMUD Sending Lands to protect the highest quality wetlands and
habitat within the Hacienda Lakes project.
PROVISION
EXISTING
PROPOSED
REMARKS
Native Vegetation/
25% NV in Urban portion
Under 25% NV — Urban
• 25% of Urban Preserve
Habitat
60% NV in Rural portion
portion
is 72.4 ac. of 289.7 NV
Retention / Preservation
- Required Preservation
100% NV —Rural portion
. 60% of Rural Preserve
FLUE
Area
- Preservation Area with
is 847.2 ac of 1,412 NV
"shift"
PART THREE of SIX: This part of CP- 2006 -11 lifts the FLUE's 1.0 unit - per -acre maximum transferred
TDR density to 1.3 units per acre to use all qualifying TDRs within the Hacienda Lakes project
PROVISION
EXISTING
PROPOSED
REMARKS
Maximum Use of TDRs
1.0 DUITDR per acre
1.3 DUs/TDRs per acre
Overall Density would be
- eligible to transfer into
- eligible to transfer into
0.78 DUs /acre (gross)
URF from Sending Lands
URF from Sending Lands
within i mile
within 1 mile, with "lift"
-21-
8E
Agenda Item 9C
PART FOUR of SIX: This part of CP- 2006 -11 expands the size of the Southeast quadrant of Mixed •
Use Activity Center No. 7 by 9.16 acres to develop commercial uses otherwise ceded by the
development of non - commercial, professional medical uses in this quadrant.
The magnitude of this project (approximately 37 gross acres; 28 net acres) is similar to a
Community Center commercial development at the upper limits of size — and
approximately one - quarter of a Regional Center commercial development of average
size.
The Market Area studied has 93,522 sq. ft. commercial floor area, on approximately 17.6
acres described as existing or "developed".
Located within Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 are a number of Planned Unit
Developments and commercially zoned properties, totaling approximately 713,962 sq. ft.
commercial floor area and more than 136 acres — developed and undeveloped.
Approval of this expansion to MUAC No. 7, along with residential development and other
proposed land uses for the Hacienda Lakes project, will require intersection
improvements at more than one intersection with Collier Boulevard among various road
improvements.
Based upon total existing commercial inventory in the market study area, additional need
for commercial uses to serve the surrounding market area cannot be ascertained. There
is an excess of commercial development and commercially developable property in the
market area.
PROVISION
EXISTING
PROPOSED
REMARKS
Direct Access for Business
The Lord's Way does not
The Lord's Way would
Supply of 887,962 sq. ft. /
Acreage Allowed for
27.5 acres
36.6 acres
Demand for 143,645 sq.
Southeast Quadrant of
FLUE provisions
new provision
ft. = Market factor of 6.18
MUAC No. 7
(Supply = 618 % of
Demand)
PART FIVE of SIX: This part of CP- 2006 -11 allows The Lord's Way to serve as access to a Business
Park as well as to predominantly residential areas within the Hacienda Lakes project.
Approval of Business Park access via The Lord's Way may require eventual various
road improvements and intersection improvements at the intersection with Collier
Boulevard.
PROVISION
EXISTING
PROPOSED
REMARKS
Direct Access for Business
The Lord's Way does not
The Lord's Way would
Provides additional
Park onto Arterial
provide such access by
provide such access with
benefits for access to both
Roadway
FLUE provisions
new provision
Collier Boulevard and the
future Benfield Road
•
PART SIX of SIX: This part of CP- 2006 -11 shifts a portion of the CCME's native vegetation
preservation from Urban lands to RFMUD Sending Lands to protect the highest quality wetlands and •
habitat within the Hacienda Lakes project.
-22-
�gkda Item 9C
Certain amendments will result with deriving additional benefits from preserving native
• vegetation and habitat, whose preservation is already a requirement under other
provisions of the GMP, from which benefits will also be derived based on the 2:1
preservation factor guaranteed in the "shift" from the Urban designated portion of the
project.
PROVISION
EXI5'f1NG
PROPOSED
REMARKS
Native Vegetation/
25% NV in Urban portion
25% — X = Urban NV
• Urban Preserve would
Habitat
60% NV in Rural portion
60% -t- 2X =Rural NV
be 47.2 ac.
Retention / Preservation
- Preserved
- Preserved with "shift"
. Rural Preserve would
CCME
be 1,342 ac.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION:
The Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) heard the proposed amendment at their December 1,
2010 hearing. EAC considerations were limited to the parts of CP- 2006 -11 with environmental
significance (parts 1, 2, 3 & 6). These four aspects of the Hacienda Lakes of Naples proposal may be
simplified into just two paired changes — one pair of amendments would allow all eligible TDRs
generated from adjacent RFMUD Sending Lands to be used in the Urban portion of the project for a
greater maximum density [the 11W7, while the other pair of amendments would allow less native
vegetation preservation in the Urban portion of the project if a proportionally greater amount is
preserved in RFMUD Sending Lands [the "shift"].
EAC members discussed the nature of the 187 additional TDRs that would be used to increase the
density above the existing 2.5 residential units per acre, and staffs recommendation to limit further
• participation in the TDR program in some manner. The applicant's agent argued how no such
restrictions should be placed on TDR use that would inhibit full participation in the TDR program.
Speakers present agreed with the idea to make full use of TDR program.
Members discussed the proposal to relax preservationfretention requirements with the intent to
preserve the higher quality habitat on the large property while not preserving lower quality habitat —
regardless of location. The applicant's agent explained how approximately 25 acres of Urban
preserve lands would equate to approximately 50 acres of additional preservation in the Rural portion
of the project. EAC members reached consensus that the better habitat on the subject property
would be preserved.
Members also discussed how subsequent zoning activity would include the redemption and use of
TDRs severed and transferred from adjacent RFMUD Sending Lands.
EAC members recognized that no objections were raised by NIM attendees. The EAC recommended
to the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners to transmit CP- 2006 -11,
without staffs recommendations but with one EAC stipulation, to the DCA on a 3-0 vote. The
recommended stipulation requires that all Transferable Development Rights be severed from all
Sending Lands to be preserved — whether the TDRs are utilized in the development of the Hacienda
Lakes of Naples project or they are held until used elsewhere in the County through the TDR
program.
The EAC also provided direction for modifying the GMP provisions, as proposed by CP- 2006 -11.
Members recommended that the FLUE and CCME language should not identify or include reference
to the Hacienda Lakes Development of Regional Impact (DRI) and Mixed Use Planned Unit
• Development (MPUD) by name. Staff concurred, and explained that FLUE and CCME provisions
-23-
8E ,
Agenda Item 9C
being prepared for recommendation to the CCPC were drafted with the same idea for removing or •
modifying the applicant's proposed provisions in this manner.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:
The Office of the County Attorney review of this Staff Report is underway. No observations or
comments on legal aspects of CP- 2006 -11 were provided at the time of this printing that would
preclude the CCPC from making a recommendation the BCC on the proposed GMP amendments.
[REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
•
-24-
Agenda Item 9C
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
isIn consideration of the reviews and analyses provided within this Report, staff recommends that the
Planning Commission forward Petition CP- 2006 -11 to the Board of County Commissioners
corresponding with the individual parts of the proposal as shown in the figure below.
•
•
PROVISION
EXISTING
PROPOSED
REMARKS
RECOMMENDATION
Just 507.8 ac
Maximum
2.5 DU /acre
2.8 DU /acre
would be
To Transmit
Residential Density
- eligible to receive
- eligible to receive
developed
with Modification
(utilizing TDRs)
in URF
in URF with
residentially
receiving "lift"
• 432.4 in
residential tracts
• 36.6 MUAC
residential
• 38.8 in residential/
medical uses tract
Native Vegetation/
25% NV in Urban
Under 25% NV —
• 25% of Urban
Habitat
portion
Urban portion
Preserve is 72.4
To Transmit
Retention /
60% NV in Rural
100% NV — Rural
ac. of 289.7 NV
with Modification
Preservation
portion
portion
• 60% of Rural
FLUE
- Required
- Preservation Area
Preserve is
Preservation Area
with "shift"
847.2 ac. of
1,412 NV
1.0 DU/1'DR per
1.3 DUs/TDRs per
Maximum Use of
acre
acre
Overall Density
To Transmit
TDRs
- eligible to transfer
- eligible to transfer
would be 0.78
with Modification
into URF from
into URF from
DUs /acre (gross)
Sending Lands
Sending Lands
within 1 mile
within 1 mile, with
"lift"
Supply of 887,962
Acreage Allowed
27.5 acres
36.6 acres
sq. ft. / Demand for
NOT
for Southeast
143,645 sq. ft. =
TO
Quadrant of MUAC
Market factor of
TRANSMIT
No. 7
6.18
(Supply = 618
of Demand)
Provides additional
Direct Access for
The Lord's Way
The Lord's Way
benefits for access
To Transmit
Business Park onto
does not provide
would provide such
to both Collier
Selected
Arterial Roadway
such access by FLUE
access with new
Boulevard and the
Alternative
provisions
provision
future Benfield
Road
Native Vegetation/
25% NV in Urban
25 %— X = Urban
• Urban Preserve
To Transmit
Habitat
portion
NV
would be 47.2
with Modification
Retention /
60% NV in Rural
60% + 2X =Rural
ac.
Preservation
portion
NV
. Rural Preserve
CCME
- Preserved
- Preserved with
would be 1,342
"shift"
ac.
Staff recommends that consideration for transmittal include an understanding that the following
requirements /conditions be placed on the companion PUD rezone:
-25-
� Y
Agend8 a tern 9C
■ The Base TDR Credits, Early Entry TDR Bonus Credits, Environmental Restoration and •
Maintenance Bonus TDR Credits, and Conveyance TDR Bonus Credits shall be severed and
redeemed from all Sending Lands to be preserved within one mile of the Urban Residential
Fringe prior to issuance of the first residential Development Order in the Hacienda Lakes of
Naples MPUD.
■ A conservation easement be attached /applied to all Sending Lands to be preserved beyond
one mile of the Urban Residential Fringe prior to final approval of the first Site Development
Plan (SDP) for the Hacienda Lakes of Naples project.
Staff- recommended modifications to this set of Growth Management Plan amendments shows the FLUE
and CCME language proposed in six parts, as shown in ATTACHMENT HL -2.
Closing Remarks:
Issues raised by the Transportation Planning review staff are of concern but do not affect CP- 2006 -11
directly. These issues will be thoroughly addressed in the evaluations of the companion Hacienda
Lakes Development of Regional Impact (DRI) and Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD)
requests.
Still other issues surrounding CP- 2006 -11 are more appropriate to be considered during review of the
companion DRI or PUD rezone processes, and will be addressed at that time.
is
[REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
is
-26-
• PREPARED BY:
Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner
Comprehensive Planning Section
REVIEWED
David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager
Comprehensive Planning Section
Michael Bosi, AICP, Director
Comprehensive Planning Section
r;
jam D. Lorenz, Jr1P.E.,~ -rector
Land Development Services Department
•
APPROVED BY:
Nick Casalanguida, Depu t r
Growth Management SerDon
— Planning and Regulation
PETITION NO.: CP- 2006 -11
Staff Report for the January 6, 2011 CCPG Meeting.
8E
1(.v Ic 10
Date
Date
IZ-
Date
f z -17- Zorn
Date
17,-LO -1Q
Date
NOTE: This petition has been advertised for the February 22, 2011 BCC Meeting.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION:
Mark P. Strain, Chairman
•
8E
Agenda Item 9C
ATTACHMENT HL -1 •
The Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC proposed Growth Management Plan amendments — CP- 2006 -11 —
are shown below in single strike- through /single underline format, in six parts, as follows:
PART ONE of SIX:
Future Land Use Element
[Insert new language — FLUE Page 29]
1. URBAN DESIGNATION
A. Urban Mixed Use District
2. Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict:
The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide transitional densities between the Urban Designated Area
and the Agricultural/Rural Area and comprises approximately 5,500 acres and 5% of the Urban Mixed
Use District. Residential land uses may be allowed at a maximum density of 1.5 units per gross acre,
exclusive of density bonus that may be achieved via CCME Policy 6.2.5 (6) b.1., or higher through the
use of the following:
a. Up to 2.5 units per gross acre via the transfer of up to one 1.0 dwelling unit (transferable
development right) per acre from lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary and
designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending, except in the case of the Hacienda
Lakes PUD /DRI. which may achieve a maximum density of up to 2.80 units per gross acre via •
the transfer of up to 1.30 dwelling units (transferable development rights) per acre from lands
designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending: and.
b. In the case of properties specifically identified below, a density bonus of up to 6.0 additional
units per gross acre may be requested for projects providing affordable- workforce housing
(home ownership only) for low and moderate income residents of Collier County, pursuant to
Section 2.06.00 of the Land Development Code, or its successor ordinance, except as
provided for in paragraph "c" below. Within the Urban Residential Fringe, rezone requests are
not subject to the density rating system, except as specifically provided in c. below, but are
subject to the following conditions:
PART TWO of SIX:
URBAN DESIGNATION
[insert new language — FLUE Pages 51 — 53]
B. DENSITY RATING SYSTEM
5. Density Blending:
This provision is intended to encourage unified plans of development and to preserve wetlands,
wildlife habitat, and other natural features that exist within properties that straddle the Urban Mixed
Use and Rural Fringe Mixed Use Districts or that straddle Receiving and Neutral Lands within the
Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. In the case of such properties, which were in existence and under
unified control (owned, or under contract to purchase, by the applicant(s)) as of June 19, 2002, the
allowable gross density for such properties in aggregate may be distributed throughout the project,
regardless of whether or not the density allowable for a portion of the project exceeds that which is •
otherwise permitted, when the following conditions are met:
-1-
Agenda Item 9C
• 2. Density Blending Conditions and Limitations for Properties Straddling the Urban Residential
Fringe Sub - District and Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending lands:
(a)
The project must straddle the Urban Residential Fringe Sub - District and the Rural
Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands;
(b)
The project in aggregate must be a minimum of 400 acres;
(c)
At least 25% of the project must be located within the Urban Residential Fringe Sub -
District. The project must extend central water and sewer (from the urban designated
portion of the project) to serve the entire project, unless alternative interim sewer and
water provisions are authorized by Collier County;
(d)
The Project is currently zoned or will be zoned PUD;
(e)
The density to be shifted to the Sending Lands from the Urban Residential Fringe is to
be located on impacted or disturbed lands, or it is demonstrated that the development
on the site is to be located so as to preserve and protect the highest quality native
vegetation and/or habitat on -site and to maximize the connectivity of such native
vegetation and /or wildlife habitat with adjacent preservation and /or habitat areas;
(f)
Native vegetation shall be preserved as follows:
a. The Urban portion of the project shall comply with the native vegetation
requirements identified in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element
(for Urban designated lands), or in the case of projects where the native
vegetation requirement for the Sending Lands portion of the project is the
maximum required 60 percent of the Sending Land area in order to promote
greater preservation of the highest quality wetlands and listed species habitat
the reguired native vegetation for the Urban portion of the proiect may be
shifted by providing native vegetation preservation in the Sending Lands portion
•
of the project exceeding the 60% maximum preservation requirement as set
forth in b. below. The ratio for such native vegetation preservation shall be two
acres of Sending Lands (exceeding the 60% maximum preservation
requirement) for each acre below the required amount of native vegetation for
the Urban portion of the proiect Significant Archeological Sites identified by the
State of Florida Division of Historic Resources shall be preserved and cannot be
mitigated for.
b. For those lands within the project designated as Sending, the native vegetation
preservation requirement shall be 90% of the native vegetation, not to exceed
60% of the total project area designated as Sending.
C. Wetland areas that are impacted through the development process, but which
result in enhanced wetland function, including habitat and /or flowways, shall be
considered as part of the native vegetation requirement set forth in this
provision and shall not be considered as impacted areas. These wetland areas
and/or flowways may be used for water storage provided that the water
discharged in these areas is pre - treated.
(g) Permitted uses for density blending under this provision include residential
development and associated amenities, including golf courses meeting the criteria for
golf courses within the Neutral area. This provision is not intended to eliminate any
uses permitted within the applicable underlying land use designation.
ra
PART THREE of SIX:
B. DENSITY RATING SYSTEM:
2. Density Bonuses
8E
Agenda Item 9C
[insert new language — FLUE Pages 47 -50]
Consistency with the following characteristics may add to the base density. Density bonuses
are discretionary, not entitlements, and are dependent upon meeting the criteria for each
bonus provision and compatibility with surrounding properties, as well as the rezone criteria in
the Land Development Code.
f. Transfer of Development Rights Bonus
To encourage preservation /conservation of natural resources, density transfers are permitted
as follows:
(c) From Sending Lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary into lands
designated Urban Residential Fringe, at a maximum density increase of one (1) unit
per gross acre, except for the Hacienda Lakes PUD /DRI, which may transfer TDRs
from Sending Lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary into lands
designated Urban Residential Fringe at a maximum density increase of 1.30 units per
dross acre.
PART FOUR of SIX:
I URBAN DESIGNATION
C. Urban Commercial Subdistrict
1. Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict
[amend language — FLUE Pages 56 -57]
2. The allowable land uses for a Master Planned Activity Center shall be the same as for
other designated Activity Centers; however, a Master Planned Activity Center
encompassing the majority of the property in two or more quadrants shall be afforded
the flexibility to redistribute a part or all of the allocation from one quadrant to another,
to the extent of the unified control. The maximum amount of commercial uses allowed
at Activity Center # 3 (Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard) is 40 acres per quadrant
for a total of 160 acres maximum in the entire Activity Center, the balance of the land
area shall be limited to non - commercial uses as allowed in Mixed Use Activity Centers.
The maximum amount of commercial uses allowed at Activity Center #7 (Rattlesnake
Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard) is 40 acres per quadrant, except that the
northeast quadrant may have a total of 59 acres and the southeast quadrant may have
a total of 50, for a total of 47-9 189 acres maximum in the entire Activity Center; the
balance of the land area shall be limited to non - commercial uses as allowed in Mixed
Use Activity Centers.
Note: The Activity Center #7 inset map within the FLUE is to be amended to reflect the
proposed boundary change. It is not the intent of this amendment request to modify the
Future Land Use Map to depict the boundary change.
-3-
C,
•
•
•
is
t
PART FIVE of SIX:
I URBAN DESIGNATION
A. Urban Mixed Use District
4. Business Park Subdistrict
Agenda Item 9C
[insert new language — FLUE Pages 31 -32]
The Business Park Subdistrict is intended to provide for a mix of industrial uses and non - industrial
uses, designed in an attractive park -like environment with low structural density where building
coverage ranges between 25% to 45% and where landscaped areas provide for buffering and
enjoyment by the employees and patrons of the park. Business Parks shall be allowed as a
Subdistrict in the Urban -Mixed Use District, Urban Commercial District and Urban Industrial District
and may include the general uses allowed within each District, the specific uses set forth below, and
shall comply with the following general conditions:
* ** *** **** *** UNAFFECTED PROVISIONS ARE SKIPPED *** **** *** ** *
h. When located in a District other than the Urban Industrial District, the Business Park must have
direct access to a road classified as an arterial in the Transportation Element.
[Alternative amendment language 1] The Lords Way shall be considered direct access to Collier
Boulevard (CR 951) for Business Parks within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict
[Alternative amendment language 2] Direct access is defined as a driveway and /or local roadway
connection to the arterial road provided the portion of the local roadway intended to provide
access to the Business Park is not within a residential neighborhood and does not service a
Predominantly residential area.
PART SIX of SIX:
Conservation and Coastal Management Element
GOAL 6:
OBJECTIVE 6.1:
[insert new language — CCME Pages 18 -21]
Policy 6.1.1:
For the County's Urban Designated Area, Estates Designated Area, Conservation Designated Area,
and Agricultural /Rural Mixed Use District, Rural- Industrial District and Rural - Settlement Area District
as designated on the FLUM, native vegetation shall be preserved through the application of the
following preservation and vegetation retention standards and criteria, unless the development occurs
within the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) where the ACSC standards referenced in the Future
Land Use Element shall apply. Notwithstanding the ACSC requirements, this policy shall apply to all
non - agricultural development except for single - family dwelling units situated on individual parcels that
are not located within a watershed management conservation area identified in a Watershed
Management Plan developed pursuant to policies supporting Objective 2.1 of this Element.
-4-
Agenda Item 9C
The following standards and criteria shall apply to the vegetation retention requirements referenced
above.
* ** *** **** *** UNAFFECTED PROVISIONS ARE SKIPPED *** **** *** ** *
•
14. In order to promote greater preservation of the highest quality wetlands and listed species
habitat the required native vegetation for the Urban portion of the project may be shifted by
providing native vegetation preservation in the Sendinq Lands portion of the project exceeding •
the 60% maximum preservation requirement for proiects that:
(a) Are under unified control;
(b) Straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending
designations;
(c) Meet the maximum required 60 percent preservation requirement for the Sending
Lands portion of the proiect.
The preservation ratio shall be two acres of Sending Lands (exceeding the 60% maximum
preservation requirement) for each acre below the required amount of native vegetation for the Urban
Portion of the proiect Significant Archeological Sites identified by the State of Florida Division of
Historic Resources shall be preserved and cannot be mitigated for.
[END OF HL -1 GMP AMENDMENT ENTRIES]
•
-5-
Coastal High Hazard
Non - Coastal High Hazard Area
Area
Residential and Mixed
Less than 2.5 acres 10%
Less than 5 acres. 10%
Use Development
Equal to or greater
Equal to or greater than 5 acres
than 2.5 acres 25%
and less than 20 acres. 15%
Equal to or
greater than 20 ac. 25%
Golf Course
35%
35%
Commercial and
Less than 5 acres. 10%
Less than 5 acres. 10%
Industrial
Equal to or greater
Equal to or
Development
than 5 acres. 15%
greater than 5 acres. 15%
Industrial
50 %, not to exceed 25%
50 %, not to exceed 25% of the
Development (Rural-
of the project site.
project site.
Industrial District only)
The following standards and criteria shall apply to the vegetation retention requirements referenced
above.
* ** *** **** *** UNAFFECTED PROVISIONS ARE SKIPPED *** **** *** ** *
•
14. In order to promote greater preservation of the highest quality wetlands and listed species
habitat the required native vegetation for the Urban portion of the project may be shifted by
providing native vegetation preservation in the Sendinq Lands portion of the project exceeding •
the 60% maximum preservation requirement for proiects that:
(a) Are under unified control;
(b) Straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending
designations;
(c) Meet the maximum required 60 percent preservation requirement for the Sending
Lands portion of the proiect.
The preservation ratio shall be two acres of Sending Lands (exceeding the 60% maximum
preservation requirement) for each acre below the required amount of native vegetation for the Urban
Portion of the proiect Significant Archeological Sites identified by the State of Florida Division of
Historic Resources shall be preserved and cannot be mitigated for.
[END OF HL -1 GMP AMENDMENT ENTRIES]
•
-5-
U
8E
ATTACHMENT HL -2
Agenda Item 9C
Staff - recommended modifications to The Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC proposed Growth
Management Plan amendments — CP 2006 -11 — are shown below in double strike- through /double
underline format, as follows:
These modifications are generally recommended for proper format, use of code language, succinctness,
and clarity, except for Part Four -of -Six provisions related to the proposed expansion of Mixed Use
Activity Center No. 7. (Note. single underline text is added, and single e- Mrrough text is deleted, as
proposed by petitioner, double underline text is added, and double -r -" - 1` --• o h text is deleted, as
proposed by staff.)
PART ONE of SIX:
Future Land Use Element
I. URBAN DESIGNATION
[Insert new language— FLUE Page 29]
A. Urban Mixed Use District
2. Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict:
The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide transitional densities between the Urban Designated Area
and the Agricultural /Rural Area and comprises approximately 5,500 acres and 5% of the Urban Mixed
• Use District. Residential land uses may be allowed at a maximum density of 1.5 units per gross acre,
exclusive of density bonus that may be achieved via CCME Policy 6.2.5 (6) b.1., or higher through the
use of the following:
•
a. Up to 2.5 units per gross acre via the transfer of up to one (1.OLdwelling unit (transferable
development right) per acre from lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary and
designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands, except in the case of the
properties that straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural
Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands designations, and meet the other Density Blending criteria
provided for in subsection 5.2 of the Density Rating System, which may achieve a maximum
density of up to 2.80 units per gross acre via the transfer of up to 1.30 dwelling units
(transferable development rights) per acre from lands designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use
District Sending Lands: and,
b. In the case of properties specifically identified below, a density bonus of up to 6.0 additional
units per gross acre may be requested for projects providing affordable- workforce housing
(home ownership only) for low and moderate income residents of Collier County, pursuant to
Section 2.06.00 of the Land Development Code, or its successor ordinance, except as
provided for in paragraph °c° below. Within the Urban Residential Fringe, rezone requests are
not subject to the density rating system, except as specifically provided in c. below, but are
subject to the following conditions:
-1-
T:;
Agenda Item 9C
PART TWO of SIX:
I. URBAN DESIGNATION
[insert new language — FLUE Pages 59 — 53]
B. DENSITY RATING SYSTEM
5. Density Blending:
This provision is intended to encourage unified plans of development and to preserve wetlands,
wildlife habitat, and other natural features that exist within properties that straddle the Urban Mixed
Use and Rural Fringe Mixed Use Districts or that straddle Receiving and Neutral Lands within the
Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. In the case of such properties, which were in existence and under
unified control (owned, or under contract to purchase, by the applicant(s)) as of June 19, 2002, the
allowable gross density for such properties in aggregate may be distributed throughout the project,
regardless of whether or not the density allowable for a portion of the project exceeds that which is
otherwise permitted, when the following conditions are met:
2. Density Blending Conditions and Limitations for Properties Straddling the Urban Residential
Fringe Sub - District and Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending lands:
•
(a) The project must straddle the Urban Residential Fringe Sub - District and the Rural
Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands;
(b) The project in aggregate must be a minimum of 400 acres;
(c) At least 25% of the project must be located within the Urban Residential Fringe Sub -
District. The project must extend central water and s wastewater treatment
facilities (from the urban designated portion of the project) to serve the entire project,
unless altemative interim GQwar===� water and wastewater treatment provisions are •
authorized by Collier County;
(d) The Project is currently zoned or will be zoned PUD;
(e) The density to be shifted to the Sending Lands from the Urban Residential Fringe is to
be located on impacted or disturbed lands, or it is demonstrated that the development
on the site is to be located so as to preserve and protect the highest quality native
vegetation and /or habitat on -site and to maximize the connectivity of such native
vegetation and /or wildlife habitat with adjacent preservation and /or habitat areas;
(f) Native vegetation shall be preserved as follows:
a. The Urban portion of the project shall comply with the native vegetation
requirements identified in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element
(for Urban designated lands), or in the case of protects where the native
vegetation requirement for the Sending Lands portion of the proiect is the
maximum required 60 percent of the lotal Sending Land area, in order to
promote greater preservation of the highest quality wetlands and listed species
habitat, the required native vegetation for the Urban portion of the project may
be shifted by providing native vegetation preservation in the Sending Lands
portion of the proiect exceeding the 60% maximum preservation requirement as
set forth in subsection "b:y below. The ratio for such native _vegetation
preservation shall be two acres of Sending Lands (exceeding the 60%
maximum preservation requirement) for each acre below the required amount
of native vegetation for the Urban portion of the proiect. Significant
Archeological Sites identified by the State of Florida Division of Historic
Resources shall be preserved and cannot be mitigated for.
•
-2-
BE
Agenda Item 9C
b. For those lands within the project designated as Sending, the native vegetation
• preservation requirement shall be 90% of the native vegetation, not to exceed
60% of the total project area designated as Sending.
C. Wetland areas that are impacted through the development process, but which
result in enhanced wetland function, including habitat and /or flowways, shall be
considered as part of the native vegetation requirement set forth in this
provision and shall not be considered as impacted areas. These wetland areas
and /or flowways may be used for water storage provided that the water
discharged in these areas is pre - treated.
(g) Permitted uses for density blending under this provision include residential
development and associated amenities, including golf courses meeting the criteria for
golf courses within the Neutral area. This provision is not intended to eliminate any
uses permitted within the applicable underlying land use designation.
PART THREE of SIX:
B. DENSITY RATING SYSTEM:
2. Density Bonuses
[Insert new language — FLUE Pages 47 -50]
Consistency with the following characteristics may add to the base density. Density bonuses
are discretionary, not entitlements, and are dependent upon meeting the criteria for each
bonus provision and compatibility with surrounding properties, as well as the rezone criteria in
• the Land Development Code.
f. Transfer of Development Rights Bonus
To encourage preservation /conservation of natural resources, density transfers are permitted
as follows:
(c) From Sending Lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary into lands
designated Urban Residential Fringe, at a maximum density increase of one (1) unit
per gross acre, except for properties that straddle the
Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands designations
and meet the other Density Blending criteria provided for in subsection 5.2 of the
Density Rating System, which may transfer TDRs from Sending Lands located within
one mile of the Urban Boundary into lands designated Urban Residential Fringe at a
maximum density increase of 1.30 units per gross acre.
PART FOUR of SIX:
1 URBAN DESIGNATION
C. Urban Commercial Subdistrict
1. Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict
[amend language — FLUE Pages 56 -57]
2. The allowable land uses for a Master Planned Activity Center shall be the same as for
other designated Activity Centers; however, a Master Planned Activity Center
• encompassing the majority of the property in two or more quadrants shall be afforded
-3-
^t
.. r
8E
Agenda Item 9C
the flexibility to redistribute a part or all of the allocation from one quadrant to another, •
to the extent of the unified control. The maximum amount of commercial uses allowed
at Activity Center # 3 (Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard) is 40 acres per quadrant
for a total of 160 acres maximum in the entire Activity Center, the balance of the land
area shall be limited to non - commercial uses as allowed in Mixed Use Activity Centers.
The maximum amount of commercial uses allowed at Activity Center #7 (Rattlesnake
Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard) is 40 acres per quadrant, except that the
northeast quadrant may have a total of 59 acres
ate, for a total of 47-9 4=99 acres maximum in the entire Activity Center, the
balance of the land area shall be limited to non - commercial uses as allowed in Mixed
Use Activity Centers.
proposed bound.'., ghn ge. it is n9t the h#ep of this afnendment request to medl�r the
W-0-1-1--1 WON
PART FIVE of SIX:
I URBAN DESIGNATION •
[Insert new language - FLUE Pages 31 -321
A. Urban Mixed Use District
4. Business Park Subdistrict
The Business Park Subdistrict is intended to provide for a mix of industrial uses and non - industrial
uses, designed in an attractive park -like environment with low structural density where building
coverage ranges between 25% to 45% and where landscaped areas provide for buffering and
enjoyment by the employees and patrons of the park. Business Parks shall be allowed as a
Subdistrict in the Urban -Mixed Use District, Urban Commercial District and Urban Industrial District
and may include the general uses allowed within each District, the specific uses set forth below, and
shall comply with the following general conditions:
* ** *** **** *** UNAFFECTED PROVISIONS ARE SKIPPED *** **** *** ** *
h. When located in a District other than the Urban Industrial District, the Business Park must have
direct access to a road classified as an arterial in the Transportation Element.
[Altemative amendment language 1]
Bewiayafdd=v(1GeAR-, -9-511 fFor Business Parks within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict. access
to Collier Boulevard (CR 9511 via The Lords Way shall be considered direct access to an arterial
mad.- -
Ge et n to the aft=i =1 mm-!� r€lrided the ®f a#1 f +ti Impol mwWraw intend -d to „ate
•
-4-
i 8E
Agenda Item 9C
r�
u
PART SIX of SIX:
Conservation and Coastal Management Element
GOAL 6:.
OBJECTIVE 6.1:
[Insert new language— CCME Pages 18 -21]
Policy 6.1.1:
For the County's Urban Designated Area, Estates Designated Area, Conservation Designated Area,
and AgriculturaURural Mixed Use District, Rural - Industrial District and Rural - Settlement Area District
as designated on the FLUM, native vegetation shall be preserved through the application of the
following preservation and vegetation retention standards and criteria, unless the development occurs
within the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) where the ACSC standards referenced in the Future
Land Use Element shall apply. Notwithstanding the ACSC requirements, this policy shall apply to all
non - agricultural development except for single - family dwelling units situated on individual parcels that
are not located within a watershed management conservation area identified in a Watershed
Management Plan developed pursuant to policies supporting Objective 2.1 of this Element.
The following standards and criteria shall apply to the vegetation retention requirements referenced
above.
* ** *** **** *** UNAFFECTED PROVISIONS ARE SKIPPED *** **** *** ** *
In order to promote greater preservation of the highest quality wetlands and listed species
habitat the required native vegetation for the Urban portion of the proiect may be shifted by
providing native vegetation preservation in the Sending Lands portion of the project exceeding
the 60% maximum preservation requirement for projects that:
(a) Are under unified control;
(b) Straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands
• designations:
-5-
Coastal High Hazard
Non - Coastal High Hazard Area
Area
Residential and Mixed
Less than 2.5 acres 10%
Less than 5 acres. 10%
Use Development
Equal to or greater
Equal to or greater than 5 acres
than 2.5 acres 25%
and less than 20 acres. 15%
Equal to or
greater than 20 ac. 25%
Golf Course
35%
35%
Commercial and
Less than 5 acres. 10%
Less than 5 acres. 10%
Industrial
Equal to or greater
Equal to or
Development
than 5 acres. 15%
greater than 5 acres. 15%
Industrial
50 %, not to exceed 25%
50 %, not to exceed 25% of the
Development (Rural-
of the project site.
project site.
Industrial District only)
The following standards and criteria shall apply to the vegetation retention requirements referenced
above.
* ** *** **** *** UNAFFECTED PROVISIONS ARE SKIPPED *** **** *** ** *
In order to promote greater preservation of the highest quality wetlands and listed species
habitat the required native vegetation for the Urban portion of the proiect may be shifted by
providing native vegetation preservation in the Sending Lands portion of the project exceeding
the 60% maximum preservation requirement for projects that:
(a) Are under unified control;
(b) Straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands
• designations:
-5-
i
Ag nda to 9C
.(c) Meet the maximum required 60 percent preservation requirement for the Sendinq
Lands portion of the proiect. 0
The preservation ratio shall be two acres of Sending Lands (exceeding the 60% maximum
Preservation requirement) for each acre below the required amount of native vegetation for the Urban
portion of the proiect Significant Archeological Sites identified by the State of Flonda Division of
Historic Resources shall be preserved and cannot be mitigated for.
[END OF HL -2 GMP AMENDMENT ENTRIES]
•
•
IQ
•
r 8E
Agenda Item 9C
ATTACHMENT HL -3
Transportation Planning Section — Staff Remarks
The Collier County Transportation Planning Section review staff would reject CP- 2006 -11 based on
the present proposal; and provide the following comments:
1. Traffic Study Comments:
A.
Appendix is not attached to Traffic Study, no CD is found with appendix (same for DRI).
B.
Does not include analysis of future Benfield, future Rattlesnake Hammock Extension, The
Lords Way, Sabal Palm, etc. The analysis is not consistent with LRTP, in that these
roadways are not shown in the TIS. (see next comment)
C.
(Staff note: No TIS review fees are required.)
D.
The traffic study, dated 7/2/10 in the PUD and GMPA, is not consistent with the Question
21 responses dated 7/23/10 in the DRI. All of these documents MUST be consistent with
one another. (See also DRI - specific comments in the DRI response)
E.
No mention of the East Central TCMA is made in this traffic study. However, significant
impacts on many of the TCMNs are noted. Please revise the analysis to include review of
TCMA impacts.
F.
Table 1- Reconcile all trip generation outputs with the accompanying DRI and PUDZ.
Additionally, reconcile the proposed development rights (units /square footage /Uses)
between all three documents.
G.
Analysis of the E +C network requires revision of the Collier Boulevard link from Golden
Gate Blvd to 1 -75. Construction is not anticipated to be funded until 2013 (not 2010 as
shown). Also - Collier Boulevard improvements due in 2010 (From Davis Blvd to US-41)
are complete, as are Santa Barbara Blvd Extension improvements. Please include these
•
as 'existing' segments in the revised traffic study.
H.
Tables 2a, 2b, and 2c- Comments are withheld at this time until the trip generation and
proposed land uses are reconciled. Upon reconciliation of the trip generation outputs
between the DRI, PUD, and GMPA, staff anticipates re- calculation of the internal capture
and pass -by rates to accurately reflect the final scenario.
1.
Page 13,second paragraph; the growth rate proposed does not match the DRI and PUD
application(s). Please reconcile all documents.
J.
Table 5- Why were some of the historical growth rates omitted? These rates can be
established using previous AUIR documentation. Previous years are available and should
be employed.
K.
Staff disagrees that buildout of all commercial square footage and residential units will
occur by 2019. Analysis of this buildout date attempts to sever the development from its
respective responsibility towards the future Benfield Road corridor, as well as other
improvements demonstrated as 'needs' in the LRTP. The study must analyze the [internal]
growth rate of the project, and must discuss any phasing that will be proposed. With
consideration for the study that has been presented, Staff requires revision of the buildout
dates to better approximate a more feasible buildout date on a less aggressive schedule.
This revision necessitates direct comparison to the actual buildout rates experienced by
nearby comparable developments such as Lely, Fiddlers Creek, and possibly Verona Walk.
L.
Table 6- Show two additional columns demonstrating the [PM Peak Hr, peak direction]
remaining capacity both with- and without- the project. Calculation should focus on the
revised build -out year as per the previous comment (K).
M.
Page 16 and Tables 7a,7b, 7c; Tables 8a, 8b; Tables 9a and 9b- Staff recommends at this
time that all detailed synchro analyses for intersection capacity be omitted from
•
-1-
i
r.8E
Agenda Item 9C
resubmittals until the future roadway network that is analyzed complies with both the LRTP •
and the County's or FDOT's scheduled improvement plans.
N. Page 16/17, CR -951 at US-41 is anticipated to become a failing intersection. Also- Any
analysis of potential future improvements must first comply with the county's existing or
ongoing plans. Please incorporate the corridor improvement plans for Collier Boulevard
from the vicinity of Golden Gate Main Canal at CR -951 South to Davis Boulevard in this
traffic study (lane configurations must be adhered to, no reduction to through -lane capacity
will be considered).
O. A new signalized intersection North of Lords Way on CR -951 shall not be permitted.
Please remove this from the analysis and adjust Lords Way intersection to assume future
signalization, if warrants are met.
2. Mitigation
A. Policy 5.1 mitigation is not appropriately discussed in the proposed GMP amendment. All
mitigation pertaining to policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth
Management Plan must be listed in the GMP amendment, the PUD, and the DRI
applications alike. All proposed mitigation must be consistent throughout the three
submittals, with the only exception being those items that may be required solely for
approval of the GMPA in order to allow commencement of either the DRI and /or the PUD
applications as subsequent approvals to the GMPA.
3. Pedestrian and Transit Facilities
A. A pedestrian facilities map is required in the Growth Management Plan Amendment
Application, just as in the accompanying DRI and PUDZ applications.
B. A transit master plan must be developed for this application that is consistent with the
PUDZ and DRI applications (as amended). •
Hacienda Lakes DRI Review Comments
1. The applicant has not satisfactorily answered companion DRI item Question 21. Although a
corridor is shown for Benfield Road that is consistent with the County's corridor study results, the
County does not feel that the corridor is adequately protected so as to allow for future
development as a parallel reliever to CR 951. At the time of the initial corridor study, the potential
alignment(s) of Benfield Road that were established only a cursory alignment, pending further
detailed analyses. The Developer has contributed a significant. amount of assistance toward the
establishment of the potential future alignment(s) through demonstration of the wetland /preserve
limits. These newly established boundaries effectively update the alignment(s) proposed by the
County's preliminary study, by identifying the incompatibility of the County's conceptual
alignment(s) in contrast to the Developer's newly identified preserve boundary.
In essence, the additional information from the Developer that has come to light demonstrates that
the corridor alignments shown in the County study are infeasible within the boundaries of this
development.
As a result of recognizing the refinement in the available data, the County has requested revision
of the Benfield alignment to a more palatable Westerly alignment (in Rev. 5); to be determined at
the Developers discretion, but inclusive of minimum roadway design and engineering criteria.
However, the Developer's insistence on considering only the conceptual alignment shown in the
County's study is in stark contrast to the Developer's responsibility to maintain a contiguous
preserve area.
-2-
•
Ayer IfM 9C
Furthermore, the Developer states that the roadway `will be designed and permitted, for the most
• part, by the County." The County does not agree, as the County is unable to accept such a
financial burden that would be indigenous to the applicants proposed terms. The network
demand for this corridor is not identified sooner than 2030 in the LRTP, yet the applicant's
proposed increase in density is anticipated to accelerate the demand for this parallel- relief
roadway. This accelerated demand is not accommodated by the Developer in a manner that the
County considers to be `financially feasible', in light of the additional information the Developer has
provided.
As such, the County continues to insist that a less impactful alternative alignment must be shown
by the Developer in an effort to maintain financial feasibility of the proposed roadway corridor. Re-
alignment of the proposed corridor is warranted in order to achieve compliance with requirements
being stated by the multiple environmental reviewing agencies.
Further negotiation and discussion with regard to mitigation and proportionate share are
anticipated.
2. The companion DRI item Question 21 is insufficiently answered. The pedestrian facilities that are
proposed are no greater than what is required by the current LDC, and serve to provide no
significant benefit to the non - motorized public. Additionally, the internal design and site planning
of this development creates unnecessary segregation of land uses, such that the residential area
is not considered to be a reasonable distance from commercial areas in order to promote
pedestrian movement
Furthermore, proposed transit amenities are wholly inadequate to serve a development of this size
and make -up. The introduction of a single proposed bus stop that is greater than one mile from
• the nearest residential area cannot be considered a reasonable attempt at employing the Transit
network in this area.
L_J
3. With comments 1 and 2 stated, Transportation Planning Section review staff do not feel that this
development attempts to address the requirements of House Bill 697 adequately.
Staff recommends the following in an effort to address the reduction of VMT's that are
necessitated by HB 697:
A. Relocation of the Benfield corridor top a westerly alignment as previously suggested. The
arrangement of this roadway further to the West will result in fewer VMT within the
development.
B. Revision of the development layout to reduce segregation of land uses within the
development; with the intent to create demand for non - vehicular movement of the population
throughout the development.
C. Creation of comprehensive pedestrian infrastructure facilitating non - vehicular modes of
transportation.
D. Expansion of the transit facilities to better integrate with the different nodes of this
development.
-3-
8E
! 4�
3 Agenda Item 9C
TIS Review Comments •
1. With respect to the 2019 proportionate share analyses of intersections such as SR -951 @ US-41,
the County reminds the applicant that State roadways are not allowed to adopt a minimum LOS of
"E". Table 2 of the applicant's response indicated that three movements at this intersection reach
LOS "E" in 2019 (inclusive of the project). However, the analysis does not clarify the extent to
which the development causes these degradations in LOS. Staff recommends demonstrating the
2019 buildout with, and without, the project for instances where the County is seeking
proportionate share commitments from the Developer for any improvements (such as the example
given above).
2. No other significant rejection comments are noted by staff at this time regarding the Traffic Impact
Study /Q21 response. However, staff reserves the right to add future commentary based on any
changes effected by forthcoming negotiations and discussions intended to finalize mitigation
provisions. Some of these improvements, as they become further defined and as the
proportionate share is assigned, may necessitate revisions within the TIS analyses.
C,
•
-4-
EAC Meeting: December 1, 2010 8E
• Item VILA
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MEETING OF December 1. 2010
I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT:
Petition No.: CP- 2006 -11
Petition Name: Amendments to the Conservation and Coastal Management Element, Future Land
Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series of the Growth
Management Plan, to Reconfigure the boundary and size of the Southeast
Quadrant of Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 (Rattlesnake Hammock Road and
Collier Boulevard); Increase the maximum allowable density that may be achieved
within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict (URF) portion of a Project lying in
more than one Future Land Use designation through enhanced utilization of
eligible Transferable Development Rights (TDRs); Provide a definitive access
provision for a Business Park located in the URF portion of a Project; and, Allow
for Native Vegetation Preservation in the URF portion of a Project to be Shifted to
the RFMUD Sending Lands portion of the Project when the Required Amount of
Native Vegetation Preservation is proportionally increased in the Sending Lands
portion of the Project — as they relate to proposed Hacienda Lakes Development
• of Regional Impact (DRI) and Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD)
Requests [Transmittal Hearing]
Petitioner: David Torres, for Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC
is
The subject property consists of approximately 2,262 acres located east of Collier Boulevard (CR 951),
with frontages on Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock Road Extension (a.k.a., entrance to
Swamp Buggy Days PUD's Florida Sports Park), in Sections 11, 12, 13, 14, 23, 24, and 25, Township
50 South, Range 26 East, and Sections 19 and 30, Township 50 South, Range 27 East, Collier County,
Florida. The property lies within the Royal Fakapalm Planning Community.
II. DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING PROPERTIES:
Subject Site:
The subject site is in part, zoned A, Rural Agricultural [approximately 2,133 acres] and lies
undeveloped within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use (RFMU) Sending Lands [zoning] Overlay.
Another 129 acres is zoned Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) for, and developed with,
the Swamp Buggy Days' Florida Sports Park. A portion of this CPUD acreage is used for the Collier
County Junior Deputy League's Camp Discovery.
- 1 -
} 8E
� r
EAC Meeting: December 1, 2010
The land uses that are expressly allowed by the Swamp Buggy Days PUD are: •
• Swamp Buggy Race Track and related facilities.
• Stock Car Race Track and related facilities.
• Motocross Race Track and related facilities (including bicycle and motorcycle).
• Target Ranges, including archery.
• Fairgrounds Area for expositions similar to the County Fair, including circuses, carnivals, and
other recreation /entertainment activities.
• Multi - purpose Use Areas (Picnic, Sports Fields, Unpaved Parking, etc.) including picnicking and
playground areas; amateur soccer, softball, and similar outdoor recreational sports and
activities; stadium, training and practice facilities for professional baseball.
• Onsite Roadways.
• Related Structures to house offices (including administrative offices and supportive service
facilities as Permitted Principal Uses and Structures), ticketing (including concessions,
ticketing, bleachers, and other spectator- related facilities as Permitted Accessory Uses and
Structures), exhibition activities (including exhibition hall /convention center), spectator and user
conveniences and facilities management.
The Future Land Use Map designates [approximately 1,637 acres] of the subject site as Rural Fringe
Mixed Use District (RFMUD) Sending Lands, Belle Meade Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA)
Overlay.
The present RFMUD Sending Lands designation would allow: participation in the Transfer of
Development Rights (TDR) program; agricultural uses consistent with the Florida Right to Farm Act;
habitat preservation and conservation; single - family residences at a 1 dwelling unit per 40 acres or
legally nonconforming parcel density; non - residential uses (e.g. passive recreation, essential services, •
sports and recreation camps, oil and gas exploration, development and production); and limited
accessory commercial uses.
Another [approximately 588 acre] portion of the subject site is designated as the Urban Residential
Fringe Subdistrict.
The land uses that are generally allowed by the Urban Residential Fringe (URF) Subdistrict
designation include a variety of residential and non - residential land uses, including mixed -use
development via PUDs. Residential development in the URF is typified by a "transitional' density
between the County's Urban designated area and the Agricultural /Rural area of a maximum of up to
1.5 units per gross acre, or up to 2.5 units per gross acre via the transfer of one dwelling unit per acre
from lands designated Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) Sending Lands. Certain industrial
and commercial uses may also be allowed, including:
• Essential services;
• Parks, open space and recreational uses;
• Water - dependent and water - related uses;
• Child care centers;
• Community facilities, and their co- location with other public facilities;
• Safety service facilities;
• Utility and communication facilities;
• Earth mining, oil extraction, and related processing;
• Agriculture;
• Travel trailer and recreational vehicle (TTRV) parks;
• Commercial uses per criteria identified for certain Subdistricts or other FLUE policies, including
hotels and motels; •
-2-
8E
EAC Meeting: December 1, 2010
40 • Certain accessory commercial uses;
• Industrial uses per criteria identified for certain Districts, Subdistricts or other FLUE policies;
■ Business Park uses per criteria identified for certain Districts and Subdistricts; and,
• Research and Technology Park uses per criteria identified for certain Districts and Subdistricts.
An approximately 37 acre area is designated as the southeast quadrant of Mixed Use Activity Center
No. 7 (Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard) within the Urban Commercial District. The
land uses that are generally allowed by the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict designation include
concentrations of commercial uses in mixed -use settings, designed and developed at a human - scale,
pedestrian- oriented and interconnected with abutting properties, and allowing:
• Commercial uses;
• Residential uses; _
• Institutional uses;
• Hotel and motel uses at a maximum density of up to 26 units per acre; and,
• Community facilities,
Residential density in MUAC No. 7 mixed -use developments is the same as that allowed by the Urban
Residential Fringe (URF) Subdistrict — a maximum of up to 1.5 units per gross acre, or up to 2.5 units
per gross acre via the transfer of one dwelling unit per acre from RFMUD Sending Lands. If density is
to be distributed outside the Activity Center boundary, then certain stipulations apply, as follows:
■ Thirty percent (30 %) of Activity Center - accumulated density must be located within the Activity
Center [in this instance, it is 37 southeast quadrant acres applied to the 1.5 units per gross acre
(for 55.5 units' Activity Center - accumulated density); or, 37 acres applied to the 2.5 units per
gross acre via the transfer of one dwelling unit per acre from RFMUD Sending Lands (for 92.5
• units' Activity Center - accumulated density). This allocation works out to 17 residential units
located within the Activity Center of 55 accumulated (with the 1.5 factor) or, 28 residential units
located within the Activity Center of 92 accumulated (with the 2.5 factor).
•
With regard to the subject property's proximity to the Physicians Regional Medical Center — Collier
Boulevard facility, certain GMP and LDC provisions allow for additional special land uses that include:
Support medical facilities, such as physicians' offices, medical clinics, medical treatment,
research and rehabilitative centers, and pharmacies located within one - quarter mile of the
medical center.
Surrounding Lands:
The 2,262 acre subject site is an unusually- shaped area, appearing somewhat like the State of
Louisiana with irregular edges. Describing its surrounding lands may be best accomplished with a
virtual walk - around.
Beginning our description with land lying adjacently to the north, or at the 12 o'clock position, is the
Willow Run commercial extraction operation (including quarry excavation lakes, concrete plant and
asphalt plant activities) zoned A, Rural Agricultural district with a Provisional Use (PU); Red Cockaded
Woodpecker (RCW) mitigation area. The current Future Land Use designation is predominantly Urban
Residential Fringe Subdistrict (URF), along with areas of Rural Fringe Mixed Use District ( RFMUD)
Sending Lands, Belle Meade Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) Overlay. Further north lies the
San Marino RPUD.
-3-
8E
EAC Meeting: December 1, 2010
Located generally north, northeast, at the 1 o'clock position, are rural residential uses and equestrian •
facilities in the area where Benfield Road, Barton Gilba Drive and Stable Way have their terminal ends.
This area is zoned A, Rural Agricultural. The current Future Land Use Designation is Rural Fringe
Mixed Use District (RFMUD) Sending Lands, Belle Meade Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA)
Overlay.
Located generally northeast and east, at the 2 and 3 o'clock positions, is undeveloped land zoned A,
Rural Agricultural. The current Future Land Use Designation is Rural Fringe Mixed Use District
(RFMUD) Sending Lands, Belle Meade Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) Overlay. Further
east lie Picayune Strand State Forest lands.
Located generally southeast, at the 4 o'clock position, is a citrus growing operation, with on -site sales
facilities on Sabal Palm Road, zoned A, Rural Agricultural district with a Conditional Use (CU). The
subject property surrounds some lands in this area; these properties include State of Florida owned
lands and a few privately owned parcels.
Located generally south, southeast, at the 5 o'clock position, are undeveloped lands, zoned A, Rural
Agricultural. The current Future Land Use Designation is Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD)
Sending Lands, Belle Meade Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) Overlay.
Located generally south, along a lengthy meandering southerly border, are multiple designations.
North of Sabal Palm Road, at the 6 o'clock position, is an area of low- density residential development,
zoned A, Rural Agricultural. The current Future Land Use Designation is Rural Fringe Mixed Use
District (RFMUD) Sending Lands, Belle Meade Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) Overlay.
Located across Sabal Palm Road, south, at the 6 o'clock position, and south, southwest, at the 7
o'clock position, is the Veronawalk Mixed -Use Planned Unit Development, zoned as part of the •
Winding Cypress DRI. The current Future Land Use Designation is Urban Residential Fringe
Subdistrict (URF).
Located generally southwest, at the 8 o'clock position, is an area of multi - family residential
development zoned as the Rockedge RPUD; FPL Easement; and, the main N -S canal abutting CR
951. North of John's Road is the "Kountree Kampin° RV Resort, zoned Travel Trailer and Recreational
Vehicle Campground (TTRVC); and, the Physicians Regional Medical Center, zoned PUD. The
current Future Land Use Designation is Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict (URF).
Across Collier Boulevard (CR 951) near its intersection with Rattlesnake Hammock Road, is an area of
partially developed land zoned Sierra Meadows PUD containing an office building and Edison Village
PUD. The current Future Land Use Designation is Urban Mixed Use District and SW quadrant of the
Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 (Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard).
Located generally west, at the 9 o'clock position, north of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and east of CR
951, is an area of undeveloped land zoned for the Hammock Park Commerce Center CPUD, the
McMullen MPUD, the Good Turn Center MPUD and other CR 951- fronting parcels zoned for C -3
through C -5 commercial uses, and tracts zoned A, Rural agricultural; and, FPL Easement. The current
Future Land Use Designations are Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict (URF) and NE quadrant of the
Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 (Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard); and, the main
N -S canal abutting CR 951.
Across Collier Boulevard (CR 951), is the Naples Lakes Village Center commercial development, part
of Naples Lakes Country Club MPUD. The current Future Land Use Designations are Urban Mixed
Use District and NW quadrant of the Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 (Rattlesnake Hammock Road •
and Collier Boulevard).
EL
EAC Melting: December 1, 2010
• Located generally northwest, at the 10 o'clock position, is a place of worship with community services,
zoned First Assembly Ministries Education and Rehabilitation Campus MPUD. Across Collier
Boulevard (CR 951) near its intersection with The Lord's Way, is the [Lely Area Stormwater
Improvement Project] LASIP Conservation Area PUD; further north lie the Homes of Islandia and
Naples National Golf Club PUDs. The current Future Land Use Designation is Urban Mixed Use
District
Located generally north, northwest, at the 11 o'clock position, is undeveloped land fronting CR 951
zoned A, Rural Agricultural, as part of the commercial extraction operation lying to the north. The
current Future Land Use Designation is Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict (URF).
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This petition seeks to amend the FLUE Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 (Rattlesnake Hammock Road
and Collier Boulevard) Map of the FLUE Map Series — along with correlating text changes — to re-
designate acreage from the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict of the Urban Mixed Use District, to
the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict of the Urban Commercial District.
This petition seeks to amend Business Park Subdistrict provisions under the FLUE Urban Mixed Use
District to provide a definitive access provision for a business park located in the Urban Residential
Fringe portion of the proposed Hacienda Lakes development.
This petition seeks to amend Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict provisions under the FLUE Urban
is Mixed Use District in order to exclude the subject property from the density bonuses achieved with
certain provisions of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) by introducing a
higher achievable density exclusive to the proposed Hacienda Lakes development.
This petition seeks to amend Native Vegetation Preservation provisions of the Density Rating System,
Density Blending section under the FLUE Urban Designation in order to preserve less native
vegetation than is otherwise required in the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict portion of the project if
more vegetation that is native is preserved in adjacent RFMUD Sending Lands.
This petition seeks to amend Transfer of Development Rights Bonus provisions of the Density Rating
System, Density Bonuses section under the FLUE Urban Designation in order to exclude the subject
property from a maximum density increase that can be achieved through the transfer of development
rights from adjacent RFMUD Sending Lands by introducing a higher density increase exclusive to the
proposed Hacienda Lakes development.
This petition seeks to amend Native Vegetation Preservation provisions under the CCME in order to
preserve more native vegetation than is otherwise required in RFMUD Sending Lands when less
native vegetation is preserved in adjacent lands designated Urban.
Please note that not all' aspects of the CP- 2006 -11 petition relate to the purposes and duties of the
Environmental Advisory Council involving County environmental resources management. The issues
of expanding the Mixed Use Activity Center and crafting a Business Park access provision are not
addressed in this Report.
-5-
EAC Meeting: December 1, 2010
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS
The 06 -11 application seeks to amend Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict provisions under the FLUE
Urban Mixed Use District in order to exclude the subject property from the density bonuses achieved
with certain provisions of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) by introducing
a higher achievable density exclusive to the proposed Hacienda Lakes development. Overall,
maximum density increases from 1.5 dwelling units per acre to 2.5 per acre are allowed when
development rights are transferred from RFMU Sending Lands within a project under unified control.
Maximum achievable density would further "lift °, or increase, from 2.5 dwelling units per acre to 2.8 per
acre with this text amendment.
Companion PUD application materials summarize that without adoption of the GMPA, the
Hacienda Lakes project would be able to develop 1,662 dwelling units using all eligible TDRs
and other currently - available density. With the adoption of this part of the GMPA, the Hacienda
Lakes project would be able to develop up to 1,850 dwelling units using newly qualifying TDRs
— for a 187 unit gain — making use of all available TDRs generated by the 1,016 acres lying
within one mile of the Urban portion of the project. The applicant further explains, the project
area is unique in that the land area within one mile of the URF boundary, from which TDRs
must be generated from for sending into the URF, generates187 more TDR credits than the
URF is capable of receiving under current FLUE provisions; and, that the "lift" will have no
measurable impact on the URF's "transitional" nature, nor will it affect its surrounding lands.
Certain amendments will result with introducing new provisions that would allow for the use and
manipulation of TDR density in manners unique to the subject property, where residential development
is now limited to certain transitional densities, and consequently affects a larger planning area.
The applicant explains, that by allowing the use of additional TDRs within the developable
portion of this project, the property owner is actually compensated for losing development
rights instead of hoping they will be compensated in the future; and, this is a more effective
utilization of those eligible TDRs.
The 06 -11 application seeks to amend Native Vegetation Preservation provisions of the Density Rating
System, Density Blending section under the FLUE Urban Designation in order to preserve less native
vegetation than is otherwise required in the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict portion of the project if
more native vegetation is preserved in adjacent RFMUD Sending Lands. Existing native vegetation
required to be in the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict could be removed [not satisfying the 25%
preservation standard] if more vegetation is preserved in adjacent areas designated RFMU Sending
Lands within a project under unified control. Any such mitigation would preserve two (2) acres of
vegetation in areas designated as RFMUD Sending Lands [above the 60% maximum preservation
requirement] for every one (1) acre cleared in the Urban residential Fringe. This text change, if
approved, would affect lands designated in both the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict and RFMUD
Sending Lands developed as projects under unified control.
Without adoption of the GMPA, the Hacienda Lakes project would preserve 25% of native vegetation in
the URF, and 60% of native vegetation in RFMUD Sending Lands. With the adoption of this part of the
GMPA, the Hacienda Lakes project would preserve less than the required amount of native vegetation
and habitat in the URF, and proportionally more of RFMUD Sending Lands acreage.
Under current GMP provisions, the Rural designated portion of the project would demonstrate
compliance with the preservation standard of Rural Fringe Sending Lands — preserving ninety percent
(90 %) of native vegetation present, not to exceed sixty percent (60 %) of the total project area
g A
•
•
}
EAC Meeting: December 1, 2010
8E
• designated Sending. However, more preserve is offered than the required 60% of the total project area
designated Sending — in return for permission to preserve less native vegetation present in the Urban
portion of the project.
The applicant explains, the proposal to protect higher quality native vegetative communities in
the Rural lands portion of the project [provides them] a greater opportunity to function naturally
as opposed to protecting Urban native vegetative areas that would be of lesser functional
value.
FLUE Section 5, Subsection 2(f), Density Blending for*Properties Straddling the URF and RFMUD
Sending Lands refers to CCME Policy 6.1.1 for the Urban portion of the project, requiring that twenty -
five percent (25 %) of native vegetation present be preserved.
However, less preservation is offered in the Urban portion of the project than the 25% of the native
vegetation present required by this Policy, in return for preserving more native vegetation in the Rural
portion of the project.
Certain amendments will eventually result with deriving additional benefits from preserving native
vegetation and habitat, whose preservation is already a requirement under other provisions of the
GMP, from which benefits may already be derived.
Application materials have previously explained how "the density blending provision in the GMP was,
in part, specifically developed to apply to this property'. One specific blending provision presently
provides the density boost from 1.5 du /ac. to 2.5 du /ac. Nevertheless, the County is being asked to
confer additional "lift' — and effectively consent to double dipping into the density pool. The current
provisions were adopted by the County with density capped, or limited, to 2.5 du /ac. to satisfy the need
• for an acceptable transition balanced between the dense Urban and sparse Rural areas.
The requested "lift' from 2.5 to 2.8 du/ac. would be awarded for preserving lands that are already
required to be preserved by current FLUE provisions in order to obtain the "Environmental Restoration
and Maintenance" TDR Bonus for the Sending Lands portion of the project, which will be pursued
according to the companion rezoning materials.
Comprehensive Planning staff has concerns about the appropriateness of changing the FLUE and
CCME to derive new benefits and pass over existing benefits — and have drafted conditions that avoid
superfluous development rights. These conditions appear below, in the Recommendations section of
this Staff Report.
The 06 -11 application seeks to amend Transfer of Development Rights Bonus provisions of the
Density Rating System, Density Bonuses section under the FLUE Urban Designation in order to
exclude the subject property from a maximum density increase that can be achieved through the
transfer of development rights from adjacent RFMUD Sending Lands by introducing a higher density
increase exclusive to the proposed Hacienda Lakes development.
The applicant explains, the proposal [does not ask to increase] the overall number of units
presently allowed, [but to] utilize the additional TDR credits generated from [the] project
Sending Lands within one mile of the Urban Boundary.
The 06 -11 application seeks to amend Native Vegetation Preservation provisions under the CCME in
order to preserve more native vegetation than is otherwise required in RFMUD Sending Lands in order
• to preserve less native vegetation than is otherwise required in adjacent lands designated Urban.
-7-
r .
EAC Meeting: December 1, 2010
[I�7
The applicant explains, there is greater value in preservation of additional Rural Lands rather is
than the lands within the Urban Fringe.
General Assessment Observations & Remarks:
A detailed evaluation of the subject plan amendment was conducted by the Collier County Parks
and Recreation Department review staff and they comment, the "PR" (Passive Recreation) tract
identified in companion MPUD rezone materials appears to include the area for the Junior Deputy
[League]. Advise [further] how the recreational open space requirements of LDC will be met.
The applicant explains, the project will provide ancillary recreational and social spaces [in
addition to Junior Deputy and Preserve areas] within the residential portions of the
development, in the form of clubhouse space and outdoor recreational opportunities such as,
but not limited to swimming pools, tennis courts, playgrounds and green spaces.
2008 Legislation - HB 697:
This legislation, which pertains to energy conservation and efficiency, went into effect on July 1,
2008. The Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) reviews GMP amendments for
compliance with this legislation.
This application has been reviewed for adequacy of data and analysis to demonstrate how it
would discourage or not contribute to urban sprawl, and reduce or not elevate greenhouse gas
emissions. •
Especially because the 06 -11 application predicates a mixed use development of regional
impact, the HB 697 response affords an excellent opportunity to include plans for: committing to
sustainable, or "green" construction techniques and building designs; establishing commercial
recycling programs; providing dedicated parking area(s) to park -n -ride or ride -share vehicles;
providing bus stop(s); providing electric vehicle preferred parking and charging stations;
committing that service stations dispense more than one alternative fuel; providing pedestrian
and bicycle paths interconnecting with neighboring communities, extra bike racks and public
seating areas, and community -wide bike share programs; or other energy - conserving ideas.
The applicant explains, the project will provide opportunities for public schools within the
boundaries of the project, and a mix of land uses that provides for a livelwork community.
Residences will be developed to provide for multiple types of ownership and housing
options to serve diverse household incomes.
Companion Development of Regional Impact (DRI) application materials address HB 697
energy efficiency measures, and they appear here in part, to reflect developer
commitments.
• Project preserves some 1,543 acres of land while limiting development footprint to
about 700 acres;
• The most - intense land uses are oriented adjacent to existing development;
• Mix of residential uses, medical and commercial uses, an existing attraction, and a
centrally - located elementary school;
• A jobs -to- housing balance, reducing automobile trips and minimizing vehicle miles
traveled; •
lE
EAC Meeting: December 1, 2010
•
• ■ Neighborhoods developed with a multi-modal street system, promoting alternative
modes of transportation and reducing GHG emissions;
• Energy conservation features, incorporating a bicycle and pedestrian system connecting
all land uses, bike racks and storage facilities in recreational, commercial and multi-
family areas, select energy- efficient indoor and outdoor building features, prohibition of
covenants or deed restrictions that would hamper or prevent energy conservation,
vegetative choices and landscape design features that reduce need for water and
maintenance, energy Efficient lighting in public areas, and others.
IV. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY:
Background and Considerations:
The following is a summary of the background of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District'.
Originally adopted as the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District on June 19, 2002 this special land use area
is generally located between the coastal Urban area and Golden Gate Estates —the rural fringe area of
the County. Due to legal challenges, the original amendments did not become effective until July 22,
2003.
GMP Future Land Use Element (FLUE) provisions for the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, in part, read
as follows:
The Rural Fringe. Mixed Use District provides a transition between the Urban and Estates
• Designated lands and between the Urban and Agricultural /Rural and Conservation
designated lands farther to the east. The Rural Fringe Mixed Use District employs a
balanced approach, including both regulations and incentives, to protect natural resources
and private property rights, providing for large areas of open space, and allowing, in
designated areas, appropriate types, density and intensity of development. The Rural
Fringe Mixed Use District allows for a mixture of urban and rural levels of service, including
limited extension of central water and sewer, schools, recreational facilities, commercial
uses and essential services deemed necessary to serve the residents of the District. In
order to preserve existing natural resources, including habitat for listed species, to retain a
rural, pastoral, or park -like appearance from the major public rights -of -way within this area,
and to protect private property rights, the following innovative planning and development
techniques are required and/or encouraged within the District.
Transfer of Development Rights (TDR), and Sending, Neutral, and Receiving Designations:
The primary purpose of the TDR program within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District is to
establish an equitable method of protecting and conserving the most valuable
environmental lands, including large connected wetland systems and significant areas of
habitat for listed species, while allowing property owners of such lands to recoup lost value
and development potential through an economically viable process of transferring such
rights to other more suitable lands. Within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, residential
density may be transferred from lands designated as Sending Lands to lands designated
as Receiving Lands on the Future Land Use Map, subject to the provisions below.
Residential density may not be transferred either from or into areas designated as Neutral
Lands through the TDR program.
Receiving Lands are areas of lesser environmental value; accordingly, they have the least
• restrictive protection standards and broadest list of permitted uses. Residential density is
Iom
@AC Meeting: December 1, 2010
allowed at 1 DU /5 acres; for parcels equal to or larger than 40 acres, this density may be
increased via TDRs to a maximum of 1 DU /acre.
Neutral Lands have an intermediate level of environmental protection standards. Permitted
uses are virtually the same as prior to the June 22, 1999 Final Order. Residential density is
allowed at 1 DU /5 acres. These lands are "neutral° to the TDR program - they are not
eligible to send or receive dwelling unit rights. For parcels equal to or larger than 40 acres,
clustering is allowed.
Sending Lands are areas of higher environmental value; accordingly, they have more
restrictive protection standards and a more restrictive list of permitted uses. Residential
density is limited to 1 DU /40 acres, or pre - existing parcel size of less than 40 acres if
created prior to June 22, 1999. Residential density may be transferred at a ratio of 1 DU /5
acres, or pre- existing parcel size of less than 5 acres if created prior to June 22, 1999 and
lawfully existing; however, this will be reviewed further to determine if it is appropriate to
have a variable ratio dependent upon a given parcel's value and/or proximity to the Urban
area. Once development rights have been transferred (TDRs used), allowable land uses
are further restricted - agricultural uses are allowed to continue but cannot be intensified.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Data and Analysis Requirements:
[Id
Chapter 9J -5, Florida Administrative Code, "Minimum Criteria for Review of Local Government
Comprehensive Plans and Plan Amendments, Evaluation and Appraisal Reports, Land Development
Regulations and Determinations of Compliance" sets forth the minimum data and analysis requirement
for comprehensive plan amendments. More specifically, Section 9J -5.005 "General Requirements"
delineates criteria for plan amendments in sub - section 9J -5.005 (2) "Data and Analysis Requirements."
Sub- section 9J- 5.005(2) states, in part, "All goals, objectives, standards, findings and conclusions
within the comprehensive plan and its support documents, and within plan amendments and its support
documents, shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and analysis applicable to each
element. To be based upon data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent
necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan
or plan amendment at issue ... the Department will review each comprehensive plan [amendment] for
the purpose of determining whether the plan [amendment] is based on data and analyses described in
this Chapter and whether data were collected and applied in a professionally acceptable manner."
Data and analysis was prepared and submitted to support the proposal to develop approximately 719
acres straddling Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict Rural Fringe Mixed Use District lands, while
preserving approximately 1,543 acres. Vegetation mapping was conducted in 2002, 2003 and 2009.
Listed species surveys were conducted in 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2009. Red - Cockaded Woodpecker
surveys were conducted in 2003, 2004 and 2009.
The Passarella & Associates, Inc. Ecological Consulting firm's untitled report prepared for the
Hacienda Lakes project verifies the existence of wetland areas and upland habitat, native vegetation
and exotic and nuisance vegetation, presence and potential presence of listed species, archaeological
sites, and recreational business activities on the subject property.
[This Report is labeled as "Exhibit M" in CP- 2006 -11 application materials, with
summarizing statements found on pages 24 and 25. Please note that mapping
prepared for this exhibit is labeled primarily for the companion Hacienda Lakes DR-r
application and do not fit into the order of 06-11 GMPA exhibits.]
_10-
•
•
EAC Meeling: December 1, 2010
• In a summary the report concludes, in part, `The [Hacienda Lakes] site plan has been designed to
minimize impacts to the listed species... identified on the property, minimizes impacts to the higher
quality wetland and upland habitat on the eastern portion of the site". `The on -site preserves have
been designed to connect to off -site preserves and the Picayune Strand State Forest... to retain
connectivity of wildlife habitat."
Environmental Impacts:
➢ The original Rural Fringe Mixed Use District designations were based upon landscape scale
analysis. Since then, proposals for re- designation have relied on site - specific environmental
findings in order to demonstrate different property characteristics.
➢ Data and analysis is provided in an effort to demonstrate that the Sending Lands designated
areas will benefit from the shift of preservation efforts from the Urban Residential Fringe, and is
supported by Environmental review staff.
Under regular circumstances, the entire Sending Lands portion of the project area would demonstrate
compliance with the preservation standard of Rural Fringe Sending Lands — preserving 90% of native
vegetation present, up to 60% of the site. This percentage would amount to approximately 982 acres if
no additional preservation were proposed bringing the Sending Lands total to 1,484 acres.
[These preservation calculations are summarized in the Table appearing on page 41 of
42 of "Exhibit F", List of Developer Commitments.]
Evaluation of the data and analysis for the subject plan amendment was conducted by the Collier
County Stormwater and Environmental Planning Section staff, with recommendations provided below:
• Future Land Use Element
Density Rating System
d. Density Blending
•
The applicant is proposing to be able to shift the native vegetation retention requirement from the
Urban designated portion of a project to the portion of a project designated Sending Lands, if the
maximum native vegetation retention requirement within the Sending lands portion is met. In keeping
with the intent of the GMP to retain as much native vegetation as possible within Sending lands,
Stormwater and Environmental Planning Section staff recommends allowing the native vegetation
retention requirement to be shifted from the Urban designated portion of a project to the portion of a
project designated Sending lands.
(Stephen Lenberger, Senior Environmental Specialist
Stormwater and Environmental Planning Section]
IFiR
r
EAC Meeting: December 1, 2010
Neighborhood Information Meeting Synopsis:
SE
A Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) was [duly advertised, noticed and] held on Thursday,
September 30, 2010, 5 :15 p.m. at Edison College Campus Auditorium B -101, located at 7007 Lely
Cultural Parkway, Naples. Approximately twenty -eight people other than the applicant's team and
County staff attended. Dwight Nadeau, AICP, the applicant's agent provided a full description of the
proposed amendments, including developed areas and preserved areas, roads involved and proposed
accesses, and the residential density and commercial and office use intensity. Developing the subject
property would incorporate the Swamp Buggy Days and Junior Deputy sites at their present locations.
Mr. Nadeau explained the GMPA Transmittal process to the group in attendance indicating how if these
GMPAs were approved in Transmittal, subsequent GMPA Adoption process' would be required along
with the DRI and PUD rezone procedures. The rezone would also be preceded by the holding of
another Neighborhood Information Meeting and set of public hearings.
The part of this GMPA relating to Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 would allow the development of
additional commercial and professional office space on these approximately 37 acres.
Mr. Nadeau provided an overview of the County's Transfer of Development Rights program, and how
certain limitations leave the development of the site with un -used TDRs. The part of this GMPA
relating to the TDR program would allow more TDRs to be shifted to the urban part of the property for
increased density there.
•
Questions generated during the subsequent discussion focused on the nature. of the proposed
development, traffic and localized road conditions. One person asked about the Swamp Buggy facility
and the potential for compatibility issues with nearby residential land uses. The applicant's team •
explained how the proposed Business Park would serve as a transition to buffer noise and other
impacts between the facility and residential land uses. Land uses allowed at the Swamp Buggy facility
will remain the same, where redevelopment into a business park or school site is not planned.
Another attendee asked for clarification regarding main vehicular access to the new development. The
team explained that The Lord's Way and Rattlesnake Hammock Road would be extended/improved to
serve as the main access points with CR 951. A right -of -way corridor is being reserved at this time for
the eventual development of, and connection to, Benfield Road. Their development plans do not
include the actual construction of Benfield Road.
An attendee asked about the nature of the residential development. The applicant indicated a variety
of single - family and multi - family housing options are planned, without age or income restrictions.
Another attendee asked for clarification regarding plans for the area located east of the Verona Walk
community. The team explained that this area is to be part of the larger preserve acreage. Except for
the Benfield Road corridor, these lands are protected from development in perpetuity. In order to
derive certain benefits from the TDR program, these preserve lands are conveyed to a public agency
responsible for restoration and maintenance.
No one in attendance expressed opposition to the project. No major issues or contentions were raised
or discussed. No statements of commitment were made by the agent, applicant or developer.
The meeting was completed by 6:15 p.m.
jSynopsis prepared by C. Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner]
•
-12-
>E.AC Meeting: December 1, 2010
.1 .
• V. MAJOR ISSUES:
These are proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element and Conservation and Coastal
Management Element as specifically allowed by Florida Statutes. For those properties that are re-
designated, and for properties affected by GMP text changes, they will be subject to all GMP
requirements and limitations of the new designations, including requirements of the Future Land Use
Element and Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME).
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS:
In view of the reviews and analyses provided within this Report, staff recommends that the Collier
County Environmental Advisory Council forward Petition CP- 2006 -11 to the Board of County
Commissioners with a recommendation to transmit to the Florida Department of Community Affairs
with the following requirements /recommended conditions, as follows:
Approximately 493.2 acres lie east, beyond 1 mile of the URF boundary, and are identified as an "Area
not qualified for Sending" TDR credits into the URF [This acreage however, is qualified for sending
TDR credits into other receiving areas of the County.] If any of these "not qualified" acres are
preserved in order to lift the URF receiving capacity to 2.8 units /acre, then they should not be able to
produce further TDR benefits. Preliminary calculations show that from 326 to 468 additional acres of
RFMUD Sending Lands will be preserved above and beyond the 1,016 acres required for obtaining the
"Environmental Restoration and Maintenance" TDR Bonus. The acres associated with providing liftto
the URF receiving capacity should however, be required to (1) meet the same preservation standards
as lands qualifying for the TDR program — as a provision to be added to the GMPA or as an condition
to be applied to the PUD. Such a requirement ensures that all lands preserved as part of the Hacienda
• Lakes subject property will be subject to, and meet, the same restoration and maintenance standards.
In addition, the acres associated with providing lift to the URF receiving capacity should however, be
required to (2) surrender further participation in the TDR program insofar as severing credits from said
acres — as a provision to be added to the GMPA or as an condition to be applied to the PUD Such a
requirement ensures that all lands preserved as part of the Hacienda Lakes subject property will
provide density enhancements, one time, and precludes double - dipping into the density pool.
With such requirements and conditions, CP- 2006 -11 would remain consistent with other components
and provisions of the GMP.
Other issues surrounding CP- 2006 -11 are not environmental in nature, and will be addressed by the
CCPC or are more appropriate to be considered during review of the companion PUD rezone process,
and will be addressed at that time.
-13-
:. EAC Meeting: December 1, 2010
m
PREPARED BY: •
�71�4 ik�I-Affi--
Corby Schrridt, AICP, Prir%ipal Planner Date
Comprehen , ive Planning Section
REVIEWED
: 0 -` �-' tz)
David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager Date
Comprehensive Planning Section
i
l/ / i,S-A C;/ C)
Stephen Lenberger, Senior Environmental Specialist . Date
Stormwater and Environmental Planning Section
Gerald Kurtz, P.E., Stormwater Manager Date
Stormwater and Environmental Planning Section •
'5W'
Iliam D. Lorenz-,/Jr., P.E., Director Date
Land Development Services Department
APPROVED BY:
lr �
Nick Casalanguida, Deputy Administrator'
Growth Management Services Diuisionl��-
- Planning and Regulation Al
Date
I:ISCHMIDT CorW 14 November 10 DRAFT 06 -11 EAC Staff Report - TransmittaLdocx
-14-
•
RESOLUTION NO. 11=
: A. RESOLUTION -. OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS -PROPOSING' AMENDMENT TO THE
COLLIER . COUNTY 'GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN;
ORDINANCE 89-05, AS AMENDED, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING
THE FUTURE LAND. USE ELEMENT, AND FUTURE LAND USE
MAP AND MAP SERIES AND THE CONSERVATION: AND
.,-COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT TO ADD ACREAGE TO- -
THE URBAN MIXED. USE ACTMTY CENTER 97; . TO ALLOW ' ' .
ACCESS - TO A BUSINESS PARK SUBDISTRICT- THROUGH . .
LORD'S. WAY; TO INCREASE - DENSITY- IN - 'THE 'URBAN
RESIDENTIAL. FRINGE- SUBDISTRICT AND TO ALLOW FOR".
THE TRANSFER OF NATIVE VEGETATIVE RETENTION FROM
THE URBAN AREA TO THE'SENDING AREA AND..INCREASE
THE 60% CAP ON NATIVE. 'VEGETATION: IN THE ' TOTAL
PROJECT AREA DESIGNATED: AS SENDING -AREAS " AND
FURTHERMORE RECOMMENDING 'TRANSMITTAL OF THE
:AMENDMENT . TO- . THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS.
WHEREAS, Collier County, pursuant to Section 183.316 1. et. -s Florida Statutes, the
= Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act,
was required . to-prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan; and
WHEREAS, the Collier- County Board of, County Commissioners adopted the Collier
County Growth Management Plait on Jan' uaty 10, 1989; and
WHEREAS, the Local Government Comprehensive Planning-And Land Development-
Regulation. Act of. 1985 provides authority for -local governments to amend- their respectnre
comprehensive- plans and outlines certain .procedures to amend adopted comprehensive plans
pursuant to Sections 163.3184 and 163.3187, Florida Statutes ;, and
WHEREAS, Collier County has prepared plan amendments to the following elements of .
its: Growth Management Plan:
Future. Land Use Element, Including the Future Land- Use Map and Map .Series, and
Conservation and Coastal Management Element;. and
WHEREAS,, the Collier. County Planning- Commission (CCPC) on January 20, 2011
considered the prop osed. amendment to.the Growth Management: Plan pursuant to the authority
granted -to it by Section 163.3174, Florida: Statutes, and recommended_ approval of- s_ aid
amendment to. the Board of County Commissioners; and
WHEREAS, -upon: receipt of- Collier.-County's- proposed Growth" Management. Plan .
amendment, various. State agencies and: the Department of Community Affairs (DCA):. have .
ninety (90). days to review the proposed amendment and DCA must transmit, in Writing, to .
Collier County, its comments along vrith- any objections and /or recommendations for .
modification; within said ninety (90). days pursuant to Section 963.3184, Florida Statutes; and -
CP -20D64 i GMP Transmittal Resolution
1.6f2 _
r'.
8.-E
WHEREAS,. Collier..County, upon receipt of the written comments from DCA must-adopt, _ •
adopt with changes or not -adopt -the proposed .Growth Management Plan amendment, within
sixty (60) days of such receipt pursuant to Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes; and
WHEREAS, the DCA, within forty -five (45) days of receipt of Collier County's adopted
Growth Nlanagerrient Plan amendment, must review and determine" rf the Plan amendment is In
compliance with the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Developmenf Act -
1985,: the State Comprehensive. Plan, the appropriate Regional Policy Plan and Ririe 9J -5,
Florida, Administrative Code, pursuantto Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE . BOARD OF COUNTY" .
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,'FLORIDA, that
The' Board of.. County Commissioners hereby approves the proposed: Growth
Management Plan .amendment, attached hereto as- Exhibit -A -and incorporated by reference
herein, for the purpose of transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs thereby initiating..
the required .State evaluation -of the .Growth. Management' Plan amendment; prior to final
adoption: and .State determination of compliance iuith the Local. Government Comprehensive'
Planning and Land Development "Regulation Act of 1985 and Rule 9J -5, Florida Administrative
Code, -Minimum. Criteria for Review. of Local -Government -. Comprehensive -.Plans and
Determination of Compliance. :
THIS R. ES_OLUTION ADOPTED: after motion, second and majority vote this . day
of .. 2011.
ATTEST: BOARD OF`COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
Deputy Clerk FRED W. COYLE, Chairman
Approved. as to form
and "legal sufficiency.
Heidi Ashton -Cicko
Assistant County Attorney
Section Chief, Land UsetTransportation
CP110- CMP-0078M15
CP- 2046 -11 GMP Transmittal Resolution
2of2
•
'1
Exhibit A
PART ONE of SIX:
Future Land Use Element
I. URBAN DESIGNATION
A. Urban Mixed Use District
2. Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict:
CP- 2006 -11
[Insert new language — FLUE Page 29]
The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide transitional densities between the Urban Designated Area
and the Agricultural /Rural Area and comprises approximately 5,500 acres and 5% of the Urban Mixed
Use District. Residential land uses may be allowed at a maximum base density of 1.5 units per gross
ac lus any density bonus that may be achieved via CCME Policy 6.2.5 (6) b.1., e;
and either:
a. Up to 2=4 1_0 units per gross acre via the transfer of up to one LI.Ohdwelling unit (transferable
development right) per acre from lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary and
designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands except in the case of the
Ini
properties that straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural
Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands designations, and meet the other Density Blending criteria
provided for in subsection 5.2 of the Density Rating System. which may achieve an additional
maximum density of up to 2=89 1.3 units per gross acre via the transfer of up to 1.30 dwelling
units (transferable development rights) per acre from lands located within one mile of the
Urban Boundary and designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands: agd, or, in
b. In the case of properties specifically identified below, a density bonus of up to 6.0 additional
units per gross acre may be requested for projects providing affordable- workforce housing
(home ownership only) for low and moderate income residents of Collier County, pursuant to
Section 2.06.00 of the Land Development Code, or its successor ordinance, except as
provided for in paragraph "c" below. Within the Urban Residential Fringe, rezone requests are
not subject to the density rating system, except as specifically provided in c. below, but are
subject to the following conditions:
a. All rezones are encouraged to be in the form of a planned unit development;
b. Proposed development in the area shall be fully responsible for all necessary water
management improvements, including the routing of all on -site and appropriate off -site
water through the project's water management system, and a fair share cost of necessary
improvements to the CR 951 canal /out -fall system made necessary by new development in
the area; and,
-1-
Single underlined words are added, and single;;ag# words are deleted, as proposed by
• petitioner. Double underlined words are added, and double sue- words are deleted, as
proposed by CCPC on Consent.
Row of asterisks ( ** *** * * ** *** ** ) denotes breaks in text.
8 E
CP- 2006 -11
c. Properties eligible for the Affordable- workforce Housing Density Bonus (home ownership •
only) will be specifically identified herein. The actual number of bonus units per gross acre
shall be reviewed and approved in accordance with the conditions and procedures set forth
in Section 2.06.00 of the Land Development Code, except that, Section 2.06.03 shall not
apply, and the number of dwelling units required to be sold to buyers earning 80% or less
of Collier County's median income, as calculated annually by the Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD), shall be at least thirty percent (30 %).
The following properties are eligible for an Affordable- workforce Housing Density Bonus (home
ownership only) of up to 6.0 additional dwelling units per acre.
1. Property located on the East side of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), approximately ...
PART TWO of SIX:
URBAN DESIGNATION
[Insert new language — FLUE Pages 51 — 53]
B. DENSITY RATING SYSTEM
5. Density Blending:
This provision is intended to encourage unified plans of development and to preserve wetlands,
wildlife habitat, and other natural features that exist within properties that straddle the Urban Mixed
Use and Rural Fringe Mixed Use Districts or that straddle Receiving and Neutral Lands within the •
Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. In the case of such properties, which were in existence and under
unified control (owned, or under contract to purchase, by the applicant(s)) as of June 19, 2002, the
allowable gross density for such properties in aggregate may be distributed throughout the project,
regardless of whether or not the density allowable for a portion of the project exceeds that which is
otherwise permitted, when the following conditions are met:
2. Density Blending Conditions and Limitations for Properties Straddling the Urban Residential
Fringe Sub - District and Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending lands:
(a) The project must straddle the Urban Residential Fringe Sub - District and the Rural
Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands;
(b) The project in aggregate must be a minimum of 400 acres;
(c) At least 25% of the project must be located within the Urban Residential Fringe Sub -
District. The project must extend central water and € wastewater treatment
facilities (from the urban designated portion of the project) to serve the entire project,
unless alternative interim water and wastewater treatment provisions are
authorized by Collier County;
(d) The Project is currently zoned or will be zoned PUD;
-2-
Single underlined words are added, and single stFusk-t#reug# words are deleted, as proposed by •
petitioner. Double underlined words are added, and double st€ue� words are deleted, as
proposed by CCPC on Consent.
Row of asterisks ( ** *'t* ** ** *** ''ti` ) denotes breaks in text.
8E
CP- 2006 -11
• (e) The density to be shifted to the Sending Lands from the Urban Residential Fringe is to
be located on impacted or disturbed lands, or it is demonstrated that the development
on the site is to be located so as to preserve and protect the highest quality native
vegetation and /or habitat on -site and to maximize the connectivity of such native
vegetation and /or wildlife habitat with adjacent preservation and /or habitat areas;
(f) Native vegetation shall be preserved as follows:
a. The Urban portion of the project shall comply with the native vegetation
requirements identified in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element
(for Urban designated lands), or in the case of projects where the native
vegetation requirement for the Sending Lands portion of the proiect is the
maximum required 60 percent of the total Sending Land area, in order to
promote greater preservation of the highest quality wetlands and listed species
habitat, the required native vegetation for the Urban portion of the project may
be shifted by providing native vegetation preservation in the Sending Lands
portion of the proiect exceeding the 60% maximum preservation requirement as
set forth in subsection "Y= below. The ratio for such native vegetation
preservation shall be two acres of Sending Lands (exceeding the 60%
maximum preservation requirement) for each acre below the required amount
of native vegetation for the Urban portion of the project. In no instance shall
less than 10 percent of the required amount of native vegetation be retained in
the Urban portion of the proiect. Significant Archeological Sites identified by the
State of Florida Division of Historic Resources shall be preserved and cannot
be mitigated for. Rer thase kands iprith6n
the pF&jest designated as Sending, the
0
vegetation, net to exe-ee- o
edd
d;sehawd on these areas is pFe treated=
b. For those lands within the project designated as Sending, the native vegetation
preservation requirement shall be 90% of the native vegetation, not to exceed
60% of the total project area designated as Sending, unless the provisions
found in subsection "a" above are met. (provirion relocated only, out of "1 "above]
C. Wetland areas that are impacted throuah the development process. but which
result in enhanced wetland function, including habitat and /or flowways shall be
considered as part of the native vegetation requirement set forth in this
provision and shall not be considered as impacted areas. These wetland areas
and/or flowways may be used for water storage provided that the water
discharged in these areas is pre - treated. (provirion relocated only, out of "l "above]
-3-
Single underlined words are added, and single stFusk thmugh words are deleted, as proposed by
• petitioner. Double underlined words are added, and double st€a� words are deleted, as
proposed by CCPC on Consent.
Row of asterisks ( ** * ** ** ** * ** ** ) denotes breaks in text.
8E
CP- 2006 -11
(g) Permitted uses for density blending under this provision include residential •
development and associated amenities, including golf courses meeting the criteria for
golf courses within the Neutral area. This provision is not intended to eliminate any
uses permitted within the applicable underlying land use designation.
PART THREE of SIX:
B. DENSITY RATING SYSTEM:
[Insert new language — FLUE Pages 50]
2. Density Bonuses
Consistency with the following characteristics may add to the base density. Density bonuses
are discretionary, not entitlements, and are dependent upon meeting the criteria for each
bonus provision and compatibility with surrounding properties, as well as the rezone criteria in
the Land Development Code.
f. Transfer of Development Rights Bonus
To encourage preservation /conservation of natural resources, density transfers are permitted
as follows:
(c) From Sending Lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary into lands
designated Urban Residential Fringe, at a maximum density increase of one (1) unit
per gross acre, except for properties that straddle the
Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands designations_
and meet the other Density Blending criteria provided for in subsection 5.2 of the
Density Rating System, which may transfer TDRs from Sending Lands located within
one mile of the Urban Boundary into lands designated Urban Residential Fringe, at a
maximum density increase of 1.39 units per gross acre.
-4-
Single underlined words are added, and single stFUekt#r$ ugh words are deleted, as proposed by •
petitioner. Double underlined words are added, and double st€ue agh words are deleted, as
proposed by CCPC on Consent.
Row of asterisks ( ** *** **** * ** ** ) denotes breaks in text.
•
•
PART FOUR of SIX:
URBAN DESIGNATION
C. Urban Commercial Subdistrict
1. Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict
r% I.-
CP- 2006 -11
[
[amend language — FLUE Pages 56 -57]
2. The allowable land uses for a Master Planned Activity Center shall be the same as for
other designated Activity Centers; however, a Master Planned Activity Center
encompassing the majority of the property in two or more quadrants shall be afforded
the flexibility to redistribute a part or all of the allocation from one quadrant to another,
to the extent of the unified control. The maximum amount of commercial uses allowed
at Activity Center #3 (Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard) is 40 acres per quadrant
for a total of 160 acres maximum in the entire Activity Center; the balance of the land
area shall be limited to non - commercial uses as allowed in Mixed Use Activity Centers.
The maximum amount of commercial uses allowed at Activity Center #7 (Rattlesnake
Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard) is 40 acres per quadrant, except that the
northeast quadrant may have a total of 59 acres and the southeast quadrant may have
a total of SQ 49.2 acres, for a total of 479 489 188.2 acres maximum in the entire
Activity Center;
Note: The Activity Center #7 inset map within the FLUE is to be amended to reflect the
proposed boundary change. It is not the intent of this amendment request to modify the
Future Land Use Map to depict the boundary change.
FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES
[amend in order]
Activity Center No. 7 — Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard Mixed Use Activity Center
• amend inset map depicting new MUAC boundary, instead of revision to the Future Land Use
Element Countywide FLUM.
PART FIVE of SIX:
URBAN DESIGNATION
A. Urban Mixed Use District
4. Business Park Subdistrict
-5-
[Insert new language — FLUE Pages 31 -32]
Single underlined words are added, and single StFUGk words are deleted, as proposed by
• petitioner. Double underlined words are added, and double swag# words are deleted, as
proposed by CCPC on Consent.
Row of asterisks ( ** *** * * ** * ** ** ) denotes breaks in text.
• 8E
CP- 2006 -11
The Business Park Subdistrict is intended to provide for a mix of industrial uses and non - industrial •
uses, designed in an attractive park -like environment with low structural density where building
coverage ranges between 25% to 45% and where landscaped areas provide for buffering and
enjoyment by the employees and patrons of the park. Business Parks shall be allowed as a
Subdistrict in the Urban -Mixed Use District, Urban Commercial District and Urban Industrial District
and may include the general uses allowed within each District, the specific uses set forth below, and
shall comply with the following general conditions:
h. When located in a District other than the Urban Industrial District, the Business Park must have
direct access to a road classified as an arterial in the Transportation Element. except that a
Business Park in Section 14, Township 50 South. Range 26 East may have access to an arterial
road via The Lords Way.
•
l�
Single underlined words are added, and single stFUGk through words are deleted, as proposed by •
petitioner. Double underlined words are added, and double st€W � words are deleted, as
proposed by CCPC on Consent.
Row of asterisks ( ** ' ' *** ** ) denotes breaks in text.
CP -2006 a
• PART SIX of SIX:
Conservation and Coastal Management Element
•
[Insert new language — CCME Pages 18 -21]
GOAL 6:
OBJECTIVE 6.1:
Policy 6.1.1:
For the County's Urban Designated Area, Estates Designated Area, Conservation Designated Area,
and Agricultural /Rural Mixed Use District, Rural- Industrial District and Rural- Settlement Area District
as designated on the FLUM, native vegetation shall be preserved through the application of the
following preservation and vegetation retention standards and criteria, unless the development occurs
within the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) where the ACSC standards referenced in the Future
Land Use Element shall apply. Notwithstanding the ACSC requirements, this policy shall apply to all
non - agricultural development except for single - family dwelling units situated on individual parcels that
are not located within a watershed management conservation area identified in a Watershed
Management Plan developed pursuant to policies supporting Objective 2.1 of this Element.
The following standards and criteria shall apply to the vegetation retention requirements referenced
above.
* ** * ** * * ** * ** * * * ** * ** * * ** * ** ** *
L14a- In order to promote greater preservation of the highest quality wetlands and listed species
habitat the required native vegetation for the Urban portion of the project may be shifted by
providing native vegetation preservation in the Sending Lands portion of the proiect exceeding
-7-
Single underlined words are added, and single stFUsk through words are deleted, as proposed by
• petitioner. Double underlined words are added, and double ink thm, words are deleted, as
proposed by CCPC on Consent.
Row of asterisks ( ** * ** * *** * ** ** ) denotes breaks in text.
Coastal High Hazard
Non - Coastal High Hazard Area
Area
Residential and Mixed
Less than 2.5 acres 10%
Less than 5 acres. 10%
Use Development
Equal to or greater
Equal to or greater than 5 acres
than 2.5 acres 25%
and less than 20 acres. 15%
Equal to or
greater than 20 ac. 25%
Golf Course
35%
35%
Commercial and
Less than 5 acres. 10%
Less than 5 acres. 10%
Industrial
Equal to or greater
Equal to or
Development
than 5 acres. 15%
greater than 5 acres. 15%
Industrial
50 %, not to exceed 25%
50 %, not to exceed 25% of the
Development (Rural-
of the project site.
project site.
Industrial District only)
The following standards and criteria shall apply to the vegetation retention requirements referenced
above.
* ** * ** * * ** * ** * * * ** * ** * * ** * ** ** *
L14a- In order to promote greater preservation of the highest quality wetlands and listed species
habitat the required native vegetation for the Urban portion of the project may be shifted by
providing native vegetation preservation in the Sending Lands portion of the proiect exceeding
-7-
Single underlined words are added, and single stFUsk through words are deleted, as proposed by
• petitioner. Double underlined words are added, and double ink thm, words are deleted, as
proposed by CCPC on Consent.
Row of asterisks ( ** * ** * *** * ** ** ) denotes breaks in text.
CP- 2006 -11
the 60% maximum preservation requirement found in Density Blendbg provisions of the FLUE •
for projects that:
(a) Are under unified control=s
(b) Straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands
designations=. and.
(c) Meet the maximum required 60 percent preservation requirement for the Sendinq
Lands portion of the project.
The preservation ratio shall be two acres of Sendinq Lands (exceeding the 60% maximum
preservation requirement) for each acre below the required amount of native vegetation for the Urban
portion of the proiect. In no instance shall less than 10 percent of the required amount of native
vegetation be retained in the Urban portion of the project. Significant Archeological Sites identified by
the State of Florida Division of Historic Resources shall be preserved and cannot be mitigated for.
•
G: \CDES Planning Services \Comprehensive \COMP PLANNING GMP DATA \Comp Plan Amendments\2006 Cycle Petitions \CP - 2006 -11
FLUE -CCME Hacienda Lakes of Naples \ExhibitA's\21 Jan 11 Exhibit Update.docx
Single underlined words are added, and single stFUGk th ugh words are deleted, as proposed by •
petitioner. Double underlined words are added, and double st€u61( thFeWffh words are deleted, as
proposed by CCPC on Consent.
Row of asterisks ( ** *** **** * ** ** ) denotes breaks in text.
•
Exhibit A
PART ONE of SIX:
Future Land Use Element
URBAN DESIGNATION
E
CP- 2006 -11
A. Urban Mixed Use District [Insert new language — FLUE Page 29]
2. Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict:
The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide transitional densities between the Urban Designated Area
and the Agricultural /Rural Area and comprises approximately 5,500 acres and 5% of the Urban Mixed
Use District. Residential land uses may be allowed at a maximum base density of 1.5 units per gross
acre, exekisive=ef plus any density bonus that may be achieved via CCME Policy 6.2.5 (6) b.1., of
and either "a" or "b" below:
a. Up to 2=5 1_0 unite per gross acre via the transfer of up to one L1.01dwelling unit (transferable
development right) per acre from lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary and
designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands, except in the case of the
properties that straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural
Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands designations, and meet the other Density Blending criteria
provided for in subsection 5.2 of the Density Rating System. which may achieve an additional
• maximum density of up to 2=89 1.3 units per gross acre via the transfer of up to 1.30 dwelling
units (transferable development rights) per acre from lands located within one mile of the
Urban Boundary and designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands: and or, in
b. In the case of properties specifically identified below, a density bonus of up to 6.0 additional
units per gross acre may be requested for projects providing affordable- workforce housing
(home ownership only) for low and moderate income residents of Collier County, pursuant to
Section 2.06.00 of the Land Development Code, or its successor ordinance, except as
provided for in paFagF@p " " below.
Aot=subOet=te the density Fat
aX6ePt=a&=sPeeifieaIIY PFOWI _e_ in -, below, but
subjeet to the following
,
Within the Urban Residential Fringe, rezone requests are not subject to the density rating system,
except as specifically provided . below, but aFe subjeet to the follewing nenditions- for the
Affordable- workforce Housing Density Bonus (provision relocated only, out of "b" above] All rezones are
encouraged to be in the form of a planned unit development Proposed development in the a€ea
Subdistrict shall be fully responsible for all necessary water management improvements including the
routing of all on -site and appropriate off -site water through the project's water management system;
and a fair share cost of necessary improvements to the CR 951 canal /out -fall system made necessary
by new development in the a€ea Subdistrict.
-1-
Single underlined words are added, and single stFUelF thmugli words are deleted, as proposed by
• petitioner. Double underlined words are added, and double st€eek thm, words are deleted, as
proposed by CCPC on Consent and revised further post -CCPC and recommended by staff.
Row of asterisks ( ** I **** *** ** ) denotes breaks in text.
i 8E
CP- 2006 -11
Properties eligible for the Affordable - workforce Housing Density Bonus (home ownership only) will
be specifically identified herein. The actual number of bonus units per gross acre shall be reviewed
and approved in accordance with the conditions and procedures set forth in Section 2.06.00 of the
Land Development Code, except that, Section 2.06.03 shall not apply, and the number of dwelling
units required to be sold to buyers earning 80% or less of Collier County's median income, as
calculated annually by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), shall be at least
thirty percent (30 %).
The following properties are eligible for an Affordable- workforce Housing Density Bonus (home
ownership only) of up to 6.0 additional dwelling units per acre.
1. Property located on the East side of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), approximately ...
PART TWO of SIX:
URBAN DESIGNATION •
[Insert new language — FLUE Pages 51 — 531
B. DENSITY RATING SYSTEM
5. Density Blending:
This provision is intended to encourage unified plans of development and to preserve wetlands,
wildlife habitat, and other natural features that exist within properties that straddle the Urban Mixed
Use and Rural Fringe Mixed Use Districts or that straddle Receiving and Neutral Lands within the
Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. In the case of such properties, which were in existence and under
unified control (owned, or under contract to purchase, by the applicant(s)) as of June 19, 2002, the
allowable gross density for such properties in aggregate may be distributed throughout the project,
regardless of whether or not the density allowable for a portion of the project exceeds that which is
otherwise permitted, when the following conditions are met:
2. Density Blending Conditions and Limitations for Properties Straddling the Urban Residential
Fringe Sub - District and Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending lands:
-2-
Single underlined words are added, and single stFUsk through words are deleted, as proposed by •
petitioner. Double underlined words are added, and double st€aek thmwh words are deleted, as
proposed by CCPC on Consent and revised further post -CCPC and recommended by staff.
Row of asterisks ( ' '' **** *'"t '"t ) denotes breaks in text.
8E
CP- 2006 -11
• (a)
The project must straddle the Urban Residential Fringe Sub - District and the Rural
Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands;
(b)
The project in aggregate must be a minimum of 400 acres;
(c)
At least 25% of the project must be located within the Urban Residential Fringe Sub -
District. The project must extend central water and € wastewater treatment
facilities (from the urban designated portion of the project) to serve the entire project,
unless alternative interim water and wastewater treatment provisions are
authorized by Collier County;
(d)
The Project is currently zoned or will be zoned PUD;
(e)
The density to be shifted to the Sending Lands from the Urban Residential Fringe is to
be located on impacted or disturbed lands, or it is demonstrated that the development
on the site is to be located so as to preserve and protect the highest quality native
vegetation and /or habitat on -site and to maximize the connectivity of such native
vegetation and /or wildlife habitat with adjacent preservation and /or habitat areas;
(f)
Native vegetation shall be preserved as follows:
1 The Urban portion of the project shall comply with the native vegetation
requirements identified in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element
(for Urban designated lands), or in the case of projects where the native
vegetation requirement for the Sending Lands portion of the project is the
maximum required 60 percent of the total Sending Land area in order to
promote greater preservation of the highest quality wetlands and listed species
habitat, the required native vegetation for the Urban portion of the project may
be shifted by providing native vegetation preservation in the Sending Lands
portion of the project exceeding the 60% maximum preservation requirement as
• set forth in subsection "b "= below. The ratio for such native vegetation
preservation shall be two acres of Sending Lands (exceeding the 60%
maximum preservation requirement) for each acre below the required amount
of native vegetation for the Urban portion of the project In no instance shall
less than 10 percent of the required amount of native vegetaton be retained in
the Urban portion of the project. Significant Archeological Sites identified by the
State of Florida Division of Historic Resources shall be preserved and cannot
be mitigated for. tho Sending, the
0
vagetation, not to exe-e-e-d- 0
b= 2Q For those lands within the project designated as Sending the native vegetation
preservation regujrement shall be 90% of the native vegetation not to exceed
-3-
Single underlined words are added, and single ask t#neugh words are deleted, as proposed by
• petitioner. Double underlined words are added, and double st€ael(through words are deleted, as
proposed by CCPC on Consent and revised further post -CCPC and recommended by staff.
Row of asterisks ( ** * ** * * ** * ** ** ) denotes breaks in text.
8ECP- X006 -11
60% of the total project area designated as Sending, unless the provisions •
found in subsection "a" above are met. (provision relocated only, out of "1 "above)
3 Wetland areas that are impacted through the development process, but which
result in enhanced wetland function, including habitat and /or flowways. shall be
considered as part of the native vegetation requirement set forth in thjs
provision and shall not be considered as impacted areas. These wetland areas
and /or flowways may be used for water storage provided that the water
discharged in these areas is pre - treated. (provision relocated only, out of "1 " above]
(g) Permitted uses for density blending under this provision include residential
development and associated amenities, including golf courses meeting the criteria for
golf courses within the Neutral area. This provision is not intended to eliminate any
uses permitted within the applicable underlying land use designation.
PART THREE of SIX:
B. DENSITY RATING SYSTEM:
[Insert new language — FLUE Page 50]
2. Density Bonuses
Consistency with the following characteristics may add to the base density. Density bonuses
are discretionary, not entitlements, and are dependent upon meeting the criteria for each •
bonus provision and compatibility with surrounding properties, as well as the rezone criteria in
the Land Development Code.
f. Transfer of Development Rights Bonus
To encourage preservation /conservation of natural resources, density transfers are permitted
as follows:
(c) From Sending Lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary into lands
designated Urban Residential Fringe, at a maximum density increase of one (1) unit
per gross acre, except for properties that straddle the
Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands designations.
and meet the other Density Blending criteria provided for in subsection 5.2 of the
Density Rating System, which may transfer TDRs from Sending Lands located within
one mile of the Urban Boundary into lands designated Urban Residential Fringe, at a
maximum density increase of 1.30 units per gross acre.
-4-
Single underlined words are added, and single StFUGk words are deleted, as proposed by
petitioner. Double underlined words are added, and double 6l(thFOUg-h words are deleted, as is
proposed by CCPC on Consent and revised further post -CCPC and recommended by staff.
Row of asterisks ( ** *** **** *** ** ) denotes breaks in text.
•
•
PART FOUR of SIX:
URBAN DESIGNATION
C. Urban Commercial Subdistrict
1. Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict
1 BE CP- 2006 -11
[amend language — FLUE Pages 56 -57]
2. The allowable land uses for a Master Planned Activity Center shall be the same as for
other designated Activity Centers; however, a Master Planned Activity Center
encompassing the majority of the property in two or more quadrants shall be afforded
the flexibility to redistribute a part or all of the allocation from one quadrant to another,
to the extent of the unified control. The maximum amount of commercial uses allowed
at Activity Center #3 (Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard) is 40 acres per quadrant
for a total of 160 acres maximum in the entire Activity Center; the balance of the land
area shall be limited to non - commercial uses as allowed in Mixed Use Activity Centers.
The maximum amount of commercial uses allowed at Activity Center #7 (Rattlesnake
Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard) is 40 acres per quadrant, except that the
northeast quadrant may have a total of 59 acres and the southeast quadrant may have
a total of � 49.2 acres, for a total of 4T9 489 188.2 acres maximum in the entire
Activity Center;
Note: The Activity Center #7 inset map within the FLUE is to be amended to reflect the
proposed boundary change. It is not the intent of this amendment request to modify the
Future Land Use Map to depict the boundary change.
FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES
[amend in order]
Activity Center No. 7 — Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard Mixed Use Activity Center
• amend inset map depicting new MUAC boundary, instead of revision to the Future Land Use
Element Countywide FLUM.
PART FIVE of SIX:
I URBAN DESIGNATION
[Insert new language — FLUE Pages 31 -32]
A. Urban Mixed Use District
4. Business Park Subdistrict
-5-
Single underlined words are added, and single stFUsk-threug# words are deleted, as proposed by
• petitioner. Double underlined words are added, and double s4aek4hmugh words are deleted, as
proposed by CCPC on Consent and revised further post -CCPC and recommended by staff.
Row of asterisks ( ** * ** ** ** * ** ** ) denotes breaks in text.
8 EP- 2006 -11
The Business Park Subdistrict is intended to provide for a mix of industrial uses and non - industrial •
uses, designed in an attractive park -like environment with low structural density where building
coverage ranges between 25% to 45% and where landscaped areas provide for buffering and
enjoyment by the employees and patrons of the park. Business Parks shall be allowed as a
Subdistrict in the Urban -Mixed Use District, Urban Commercial District and Urban Industrial District
and may include the general uses allowed within each District, the specific uses set forth below, and
shall comply with the following general conditions:
h. When located in a District other than the Urban Industrial District, the Business Park must have
direct access to a road classified as an arterial in the Transportation Element. except that a
Business Park in Section 14 Township 50 South Range 26 East may have access to an arterial
road via The Lords Way.
•
le
Single underlined words are added, and single °+FUGk through words are deleted, as proposed by
petitioner. Double underlined words are added, and double �€pu@4 words are deleted, as •
proposed by CCPC on Consent and revised further post -CCPC and recommended by staff.
Row of asterisks (' * ** **** * ** ** ) denotes breaks in text.
PART SIX of SIX:
Conservation and Coastal Management Element
GOAL 6:
OBJECTIVE 6.1:
8E
CP- 2006 -11
[Insert new language — CCME Pages 18 -21]
Policy 6.1.1:
For the County's Urban Designated Area, Estates Designated Area, Conservation Designated Area,
and Agricultural /Rural Mixed Use District, Rural- Industrial District and Rural - Settlement Area District
as designated on the FLUM, native vegetation shall be preserved through the application of the
following preservation and vegetation retention standards and criteria, unless the development occurs
within the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) where the ACSC standards referenced in the Future
Land Use Element shall apply. Notwithstanding the ACSC requirements, this policy shall apply to all
non - agricultural development except for single - family dwelling units situated on individual parcels that
are not located within a watershed management conservation area identified in a Watershed
Management Plan developed pursuant to policies supporting Objective 2.1 of this Element.
The following standards and criteria shall apply to the vegetation retention requirements referenced
above.
* ** * ** * * ** * ** * * * ** * ** * * ** * ** ** *
L14). In order to promote greater preservation of the highest quality wetlands and listed species
habitat the required native vegetation for the Urban portion of the project may be shifted by
providing native vegetation preservation in the Sending Lands portion of the project exceeding
-7-
Single underlined words are added, and single stFUGk through words are deleted, as proposed by
• petitioner. Double underlined words are added, and double stFi ink thm, words are deleted, as
proposed by CCPC on Consent and revised further post -CCPC and recommended by staff.
Row of asterisks ( ** * ** ** ** *** ** ) denotes breaks in text.
Coastal High Hazard
Non - Coastal High Hazard Area
Area
Residential and Mixed
Less than 2.5 acres 10%
Less than 5 acres. 10%
Use Development
Equal to or greater
Equal to or greater than 5 acres
than 2.5 acres 25%
and less than 20 acres. 15%
Equal to or
greater than 20 ac. 25%
Golf Course
35%
35%
Commercial and
Less than 5 acres. 10%
Less than 5 acres. 10%
Industrial
Equal to or greater
Equal to or
Development
than 5 acres. 15%
greater than 5 acres. 15%
Industrial
50 %, not to exceed 25%
50 %, not to exceed 25% of the
Development (Rural-
of the project site.
project site.
Industrial District only)
The following standards and criteria shall apply to the vegetation retention requirements referenced
above.
* ** * ** * * ** * ** * * * ** * ** * * ** * ** ** *
L14). In order to promote greater preservation of the highest quality wetlands and listed species
habitat the required native vegetation for the Urban portion of the project may be shifted by
providing native vegetation preservation in the Sending Lands portion of the project exceeding
-7-
Single underlined words are added, and single stFUGk through words are deleted, as proposed by
• petitioner. Double underlined words are added, and double stFi ink thm, words are deleted, as
proposed by CCPC on Consent and revised further post -CCPC and recommended by staff.
Row of asterisks ( ** * ** ** ** *** ** ) denotes breaks in text.
9.906-11
the 60% maximum preservation requirement found in Density Blending provisions of the FLUE •
for projects that:
(a) Are under unified control:,
(b) Straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sendinq Lands
designations
(c) Meet the maximum required 60 percent preservation requirement for the Sendinq
Lands portion of the proiect.
The preservation ratio shall be two acres of Sendinq Lands (exceeding the 60% maximum
preservation requirement) for each acre below the required amount of native vegetation for the Urban
portion of the proiect. In no instance shall less than 10 percent of the required amount of native
vegetation be retained in the Urban portion of the project. Significant Archeological Sites identified by
the State of Florida Division of Historic Resources shall be preserved and cannot be mitigated for.
•
G: \CDES Planning Services \Comprehensive \COMP PLANNING GMP DATA \Comp Plan Amendments\2006 Cycle Petitions \CP - 2006 -11
FLUE -CCME Hacienda Lakes of Naples \ExhibitA's\24 Jan 11 Exhibit Update.docx
IE
Single underlined words are added, and single stFUGk t#mugh words are deleted, as proposed by •
petitioner. Double underlined words are added, and double stmak thFough words are deleted, as
proposed by CCPC on Consent and revised further post -CCPC and recommended by staff.
Row of asterisks ( ** *** **** *** ** ) denotes breaks in text.
LU
10
10
d
Nk
IL
o
®a
«
<
CL
§ \J
�;.
t:
)
) /
§0
\\
z
�
U
$ !�
` �\
||�
� \■
°
= 6
WI
§
LU
10
10
«
<
)
) /
§0
\\
z
�
(
°
( /
§
/� G
$ !�
` �\
||�
� \■
°
= 6
WI
- M
°
7)
\
| } n
/�
&|
«
<
»!
k`
|
�
`
|
«
n
W LO
/
<
|
_
»
|
§
r
%
|
�
.
■ 2|
--
-----
�!
■
2|
|
|
|
.
.
!
§
CL
-
.
\
;
--
— a
— ---
, 2;
Hacienda Lakes
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
GMP Application
CCPC Review Materials
GMP Amendment
0 Application Form
DIVA'
COWILTIXG tt;i v
1 \1 1L XSrcg
roirm
• CONSULTANT TEAM
Mr. Emilio Robau, P.E.
RWA, Inc.
6610 Willow Park Drive, Suite 200
Naples, Florida, 34109
(239) 597 -0575 Office
(239) 597 -0578 Fax
Mr. Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq.
Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A.
4001 Tamiami Trail North, # 300
Naples, Florida 34103
(239) 435 -3535 ext 256 Office
(239) 435 -1218 Fax
Mr. Kenneth C. Passarella
Passarella and Associates, Inc.
13620 Metropolis Avenue
Suite 200
Fort Myers, Florida 33912
(239) 274 -0067 Ext. 15 Office
• (239) 274 -0069 Fax
Mr., Robert Mulhere, AICP, President/CEO
Mulhere & Associates
P.O. Box 1367
Marco Island, Florida
(239) 825 -9373 Office/Mobile
Mr. Owen Beitsch
Real Estate Research Consultants, Inc.
14 East Washington Street
Suite 500
Orlando, Florida 32801
(800) 767 -5635 Office
(407) 839 -6197 Fax
Mr. Brian Barnes, Senior Scientist
Water Resource Solutions, a Division of ENTRIX, Inc.
1388 Colonial Boulevard
Fort Myers, FL 33907
239) 574 -1919 Ext. 7004 Office
(239) 574 -8106 Fax
is
8E
• Mr. Richard S Tomasello, P.E.
Tomasello Consulting Engineers, Inc.
5906 Center Street
Jupiter, FL 33458 -3973
(561) 575 -3910 Office
(561) 744 -1865 Fax
Mr. William E. Oliver, Senior Vice President
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc.
1000 N. Ashley Drive
Suite 100
Tampa, FL 33602
(813) 224 -8862 Office
(813) 226 -2106 Fax
Dr. Robert Carr
Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Inc.
Suite 107
Davie, FL 33314
(954) 792 -9776 Office
(954) 792 -9954 Fax
is
•
BE
• APPLICATION FOR A REQUEST TO AMEND
THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPLICATION NUMBER DATE RECEIVED
PRE - APPLICATION CONFERENCE DATE
DATE SUFFICIENT
This application, with all required supplemental data and information, must be completed and
accompanied by the appropriate fee, and returned to the Comprehensive Planning Department,
Suite 400, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104. 239 -252 -2400 (Fax 239 - 252 - 2946).
•
The application must be reviewed by staff for sufficiency within 30 calendar days following the filing
deadline before it will be processed and advertised for public hearing. The applicant will be notified
in writing, of the sufficiency determination. If insufficient, the applicant will have 30 days to remedy the
deficiencies. For additional information on the processing of the application, see Resolution 97 -431 as
amended by Resolution 98 -18 (both attached). If you have any questions, please contact the
Comprehensive Planning Section at 239 - 252 -2400.
SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
I. GENERAL INFOMRATION
A. Name of Applicant David Torres
Company Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC
Address 12600 Biscayne Court
City Naples State Florida Zip Code 34105
Phone Number: 904 - 762 -4454 Fax Number 877 - 357 -8271
B. Name of Agent * Dwight Nadeau, AICP
• THIS WILL BE THE PERSON CONTACTED FOR ALL BUSINESS RELATED TO THE PETITION.
Company RWA, INC
Address 6610 Willow Park Drive, Suite 200
City Naples State Florida Zip Code 34109
Phone Number 239 - 597 -0575 Fax Number 239 - 597 -0578
Name of Agent Mr. Richard Yovanovich
• THIS WILL BE THE PERSON CONTACTED FOR ALL BUSINESS RELATED TO THE PETITION.
Company Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A
Address 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300
City Naples State Florida
Zip Code 34103
Phone Number 239 - 435 -3535 Ext 256 Fax Number 239 - 435 -1218
C. Name of Owner (s) of Record Wilton Land Company, I.I.C.
Address 206 Dudley Road
City: Wilton State: Connecticut Zip Code 06897
Phone Number
Fax Number
•
D. Name, Address and Qualifications of additional planners, architects, engineers,
environmental consultants and other professionals providing information contained
in this application.
Name of Planning Consultant /Lobbyist: Robert Mulhere, AICP
Company: Mulhere & Associates. Inc.
Mailing Address P.O. Box 1367 Email: rimulhere@gmail.com
City: Marco Island State: Florida Zip Code 06897
Phone Number 239 - 825 -9373 Fax Number
Name of Lawyer: Mr. Richard Yovanovich, Esquire
Company: Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester,P.A.
Mailing Address 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300
City: Naples State: Florida Zip Code 34103
Phone Number 239 - 435 -3535 ext 256 Fax Number 239 - 435 -1218
Name of Transportation Engineer: Mr. Bill Oliver
Company: Tindale- Oliver & Associates. Inc.
Mailing Address 1000 N. Ashley Drive, Suite 100
City: Tampa State: Florida Zip Code 33602
Phone Number 813- 224 -8862 Fax Number 813- 226 -2106
Name of Environmental Consultant: Ken Passarella & Cheryl Rolph
Company: Passarella and Associates, Inc .
Mailing Address 9110 College Pointe Court
City: Fort Myers State: Florida Zip Code 33919
Phone Number 239 - 274 -0067 Fax Number 239 - 274 -0069
Name of Hydro - Geologist Consultant: Mr. Brian Barnes
Company: Water Resource Solutions, a Division of ENTRIX
Mailing Address 428 Pine Island Road SW
City: Cape Coral State: Florida Zip Code 33991
Phone Number: 239 -574 -1919 ext 7004 Fax Number: 239 - 574 -8106
Name of Economist: Mr. Owen Beitsch
Company: Real Estate Research Consultants, Inc.
Mailing Address 14 East Washington Street
City: Orlando State: Florida Zip Code 32801
Phone Number: 800 - 767 -5635 Fax Number: 407 - 839 -6197
Name of Archaeologist: Mr. Bob Carr
Company: Archaeological and Historical Conservancy Inc.
Mailing Address 4800 SW 64th Avenue, Suite 107
City: Davie State: Florida Zip Code 33314
Phone Number: 954 - 792 -9776 Fax Number: 954- 792 -9954
•
• Name of Flood -Plain Consultant: Mr. Dick Tomasello
Company: Tomasello Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Mailing Address 5906 Center Street
City: Jupiter State: Florida -Zip Code 33458
Phone Number: 561- 575 -3910 Fax Number: 561- 744 -1865
Name of Professional Engineer: Mr. Emilio Robau
Company: RWA, Inc.
Mailing Address 6610 Willow Park Drive
City: Naples State: Florida Zip Code 34109
Phone Number: 239 - 597 -0575 Fax Number: 239 - 597 -0578
Name of Professional land Surveyor: Mr. Michael Ward
Company: RWA, Inc.
Mailing Address 6610 Willow Park Drive
City: Naples State: Florida Zip Code 34109
Phone Number: 239 -597 -0575 Fax Number: 239 - 597 -0578
See Attached Additional List
II. Disclosure of Interest Information:
A. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, Tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in
• common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage
of such interest. (Use additional sheets if necessary).
Name and Address Percentage of Ownership
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
Percentage of Stock
Swamp Buggy Days Inc. 100% of 00417240000
Kim Charles Hornback, President
Tom Cannon, Robert Swift, Randy Johns
Chuck McMahon (Members of the Board of Director)
Collier County Junior Deputy League Inc. 100% of 00418400409
Wayne Arnold, President
John R. Wood, Vice President
William Poteet, Petra Jones, Victoria Freeman
• Paul Lindabury (Directors)
C. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the
percentage of interest.
• Name and Address Percentage of Interest
N/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
Wilton Land Company, LLC.
George P. Bauer Revocable Trust - 99%
Carol Bauer is the beneficiary of such trust
Carol B Bauer Revocable Trust - 1 %
George Bauer is the beneficiary of such trust
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
Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC
Jennifer Toll 99%
Duncan Toll Revocable Trust 1 %
Jennifer Toll is the beneficiary of such trust
Officers
David E. Torres, Manager & President
Date of Contract: 01 /26/10
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 (Wilton Land Company, 01/26/10 Jr Deputy league
12/27/95, Swamp Buggy Days 10/14/82 ) leased ( ): Term of lease yrs. /mos.
If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate date of option: 01 26/10 and date
option terminates: 01 /26/15 , or anticipated closing: 11 /15/2012 .
• 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.
[Ia
• III. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:
A. LEGAL DESCRIPTION A TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE STATE OF
FLORIDA, COUNTY OF COLLIER, LYING IN SECTION 11 THROUGH 14 AND 23 THROUGH
25, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST AND SECTION 19 AND 30, TOWNSHIP 50
SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING FURTHER BOUND AND
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 30; THENCE S.89 °10'42 "W.
ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION FOR 2835.68 FEET TO THE SOUTH QUARTER
CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE S.89 °11'14 "W. ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE FOR
2906.24 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 25; THENCE S.89 °09'39 "W.
ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION FOR 2693.18 FEET TO THE SOUTH QUARTER
CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE S.89 °11'01 "W. ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE FOR
2693.80 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE N.00 °13'35 "W.
ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION FOR 2636.34 FEET TO THE WEST QUARTER
CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE N.00 °14'15 "W. ALONG SAID WEST LINE FOR 2637.01
FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE N.87 °07'13 "E. ALONG A
LINE COMMON TO SAID SECTION 24 AND 25 FOR 1704.07 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST
QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 24; THENCE N.01 °08'02 "E.
ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 684.58 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.87 °12'28 "E. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID
FRACTION FOR 340.01 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST
HALF OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE
N.01 004'11 "E. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 2052.01 FEET TO THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION AND AN INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH
LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE S.87 °28'21 "W. ALONG
SAID NORTH LINE FOR 2025.64 FEET TO THE QUARTER CORNER COMMON TO SAID
SECTIONS 23 AND 24; THENCE S.89 °01'58 "W. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 23 FOR 1328.51 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID
SECTION; THENCE S.01 °18'52 "W. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 679.65
FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE S.89 022'00 "W. ALONG
THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 663.28 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.01 014'38 "E. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR
675.75 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION AND AN INTERSECTION
WITH THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 23; THENCE
S.89 001'58 "W. ALONG SAID NORTH LINE FOR 664.25 FEET; THENCE CONTINUE
S.89 001'58 "W. ALONG SAID LINE FOR 627.16 FEET; THENCE N.01 °01'15 "E. FOR 1699.99
FEET; THENCE S.89 °01'58 "W. FOR 701.42 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST
LINE OF A 170 FOOT WIDE FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY EASEMENT;
THENCE S.01 001'15 "W. ALONG SAID EAST LINE FOR 68.31 FEET; THENCE S.89 °01'58 "W.
FOR 1232.97 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST LINE OF LANDS DESCRIBED IN
• OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 21, AT PAGE 183 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF SAID COLLIER
COUNTY; THENCE N.00 °51'54 "E. ALONG SAID EAST LINE FOR 956.27 FEET TO AN
INTERSECTION WITH A LINE 30.00 FEET SOUTH OF AND PARALLEL WITH (AS
MEASURED ON A PERPENDICULAR) THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 14; THENCE
N.87 °37'31 "E. ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE FOR 1237.00 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION
�r
• WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY EASEMENT;
THENCE N.01 001'15 "E. ALONG SAID EAST LINE FOR 30.05 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 14; THENCE N.87 °37'31 "E. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID
FRACTION FOR 1337.24 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 14; THENCE N.00 °48'00 "E. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID
FRACTION FOR 2683.32 TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE EAST HALF OF THE EAST
HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE
S.87 031'38 "W. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 334.19 FEET TO THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.00 °48'11 "E. ALONG THE WEST
LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 1341.38 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID
FRACTION AND AN INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST
QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE 5.87 °28'42 "W.
ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE FOR 1002.41 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID
FRACTION AND AN INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID FLORIDA POWER
AND LIGHT COMPANY EASEMENT; THENCE N.00 °48'45 "E. ALONG SAID WEST AND EAST
LINE FOR 335.13 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE
SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE
S.87 027'58 "W. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 1236.32 FEET TO AN
INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL
RECORDS BOOK 21, AT PAGE 183; THENCE N.00 °49'30 "E. ALONG SAID EAST LINE FOR
1004.62 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 11;
THENCE N.00 050'27 "E. ALONG SAID EAST LINE FOR 344.07 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION
WITH THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE N.87 °28'56 "E. ALONG SAID NORTH
LINE FOR 1235.95 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE
5.00 049'13 "W. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 342.92 FEET TO THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION AND AN INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH
LINE OF SAID SECTION 14; THENCE N.87 025'45 "E. ALONG SAID NORTH LINE FOR 1336.32
FEET TO THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE CONTINUE
N.87 025'45 "E. ALONG SAID NORTH LINE FOR 668.16 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER
OF THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF
SAID SECTION; THENCE 5.00 °47'37 "W. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR
671.11 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 14; THENCE
N.87 027'14 "E. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 668.22 FEET TO THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE 5.00 °47'14 "W. ALONG THE EAST
LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 671.39 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID
FRACTION; THENCE N.87 °28'42 "E. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH HALF OF
THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 14 1336.55 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER
OF SAID FRACTION AND THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 13; THENCE N.87 °30'06 "E. ALONG THE
SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 1328.72 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.00 038'50 "E. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR
1345.26 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION AND THE SOUTHWEST
• CORNER OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 12;
THENCE N.00 041'44 "E. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 2707.07 FEET TO
THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.87 °40'34 "E. ALONG THE
NORTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 1321.29 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
SAID FRACTION; THENCE S.00 036'23 "W. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR
rolm
• 2701.30 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION SAID POINT BEING THE
NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 13; THENCE S.87 °26'11 "W. ALONG THE
NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION FOR 662.90 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE
WEST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID
SECTION; THENCE S.00 °35'02 "W. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 1345.93
FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE S.87 °30'06 "W. ALONG
THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 664.36 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
SAID FRACTION AND SAID SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
THE NORTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE S.00 °38'50 "W. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER
FOR 672.63 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE
N.87 °32'03 "E. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 665.09 FEET TO THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE S.00 035'02 "W. ALONG THE EAST
LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER FOR 672.97 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID
FRACTION; THENCE S.87 033'59 "W. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR
665.81 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE S.00 038'51 "W.
ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER
FOR 1345.10 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE
S.87 037'27 "W. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 667.27 FEET TO THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE S.00 042'40 "W. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID
• FRACTION FOR 1344.51 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION AND AN
INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 24; THENCE N.87 °40'54 "E.
ALONG SAID NORTH LINE FOR 2006.20 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE S.00 056'29 "W. ALONG
THE WEST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 1368.25 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.87 °34'58 "E. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION
FOR 1343.68 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE
N.00 041'32 "E. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 1365.31 FEET TO THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.87 °41'38 "E. ALONG THE NORTH
LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER FOR 1337.58 FEET
TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE S.00 026'32 "W. ALONG THE
EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION FOR 1703.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE
NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE S.87 °33'18 "W. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID
FRACTION FOR 672.60 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST
HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE
S.00 034'02 "W. ALONG SAID WEST LINE FOR 1022.89 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER
OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.87 028'21 "E. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION
FOR 674.89 FEET TO THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 19; THENCE
S.88 012'42 "E. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER FOR 3093.52 FEET
TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE S.03 039'20 "W. ALONG THE
EAST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 2676.74 FEET TO THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF
SAID SECTION; THENCE N.88'56'1 0"W. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR
• 2940.59 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE S.87 007'20 "W.
ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 25 FOR
2726.50 FEET TO THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE
S.87 007'13 "W. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER FOR 807.16 FEET;
THENCE S.03 018'31 "E. FOR 1451.00 FEET; THENCE N.88 °56'54 "E. FOR 1582.00 FEET;
•
• THENCE 5.00 031'35 "E. FOR 1130.61 FEET; THENCE S.89 015'59 "E. FOR 1823.18 FEET TO THE
EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE N.89 057'58 "E. ALONG THE NORTH
LINE OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SAID SECTION 30 FOR 2200.53 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER; THENCE 5.00 °37'14 "W. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR
1344.51 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.89 034'43 "E.
ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 365.01 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST
QUARTER OF THE WEST HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF; THENCE S.00 041'48 "W. ALONG THE
WEST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 671.03 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID
FRACTION; THENCE N.89 °23'00 "E. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR
364.14 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.89 022'35 "E.
FOR 710.09 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF;
THENCE N.00 052'45 "E. FOR 1334.78 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE EAST
HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE EAST
HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF; THENCE S.89 °46'12 "W. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID
FRACTION FOR 356.23 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE
N.00 049'34 "E. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF
FOR 668.60 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE
N.89 057'58 "E. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SAID SECTION 30 FOR
• 2497.82 FEET TO THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE 5.01 ° 12'08 "W.
ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION FOR 2640.60
FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
101,084,043 SQUARE FEET OR 2,320.6 ACRES +/-
LESS AND EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCELS:
PARCEL "A"
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST
QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF OF
SAID SECTION 30; THENCE 5.00 °59'10 "W. FOR 1329.95 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER
OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF
THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF; THENCE 5.89 °22'35 "W. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE
OF SAID FRACTION FOR 355.05 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION;
THENCE N.00 055'57 "E. FOR 1332.36 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID EAST
HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE EAST
HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF; THENCE N.89 046'12 "E. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID
FRACTION FOR 356.23 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
473,270 SQUARE FEET OR 10.9 ACRES +/-
• PARCEL "B"
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTEROF SAID SECTION 24; THENCE N.87 °28'21 "E. ALONG THE NORTH
LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 1349.77 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID
• FRACTION; THENCE S.00 °40'10 "W. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR
1361.17 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE S.87 °17'48 "W.
ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 1356.51 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.00 °56'29 "E. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID
FRACTION FOR 682.86 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE EAST HALF OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER;
THENCE S.87 023'02 "W. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 338.41 FEET TO
THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.01 °00'20 "E. ALONG THE WEST
LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 683.43 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID
FRACTION; THENCE N.87 °28'21 "E. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR
337.61 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
•
C
2,072,100 SQUARE FEET OR 47.6 ACRES +/-
B. GENERAL LOCATION East of Collier Boulevard near the intersection of Rattlesnake
Hammock Road, Collier County, Florida.
C. PLANNING COMMUNITY: Royal Fakalpalm D. TAZ:
E. SIZE IN ACRES 2262.14 +/- acres (Total Project) F. ZONING _A, Rural Agricultural
District, PUD, Swamp Buagy Days ,A, ST Rural Agricultural District with Special Treatment
overlay
G. SURROUNDING LAND USE PATTERN Commercial excavation, institutional rehabilitation and
church, hospital and medical offices, agricultural and residential land uses, State and private
undeveloped lands.
H. FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION(S) " Urban Designation, Mixed Use District, Urban
Residential Fringe Subdistrict; Urban Designation, Commercial District, Mixed Use Activity
Center #7 Subdistrict: and Agricultural /Rural Designation, Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District.
IV. TYPE OF REQUEST:
A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN ELEMENT (S) TO BE AMENDED:
Housing Element
Traffic Circulation Sub - Element
Aviation Sub - Element
Sanitary Sewer Sub - Element
Solid Waste Sub - Element
Capital Improvement Element
x Future Land Use Element
Immokalee Master Plan
Recreation /Open Space
Mass Transit Sub - Element
Potable Water Sub-Element
NGWAR Sub - Element
Drainage Sub - Element
X CCME Element
Golden Gate Master Plan
B. AMEND PAGE (S) 29, 50, 52, 53, 56, 57, 77, 78 OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT and PAGE 21
OF THE Conservation and Coastal Management ELEMENT AS FOLLOWS: (Use Strike ough to
[l�
• identify language to be deleted; Use Underline to Identify language to be added). Attach
additional pages if necessary: See Attachment A
C. AMEND FUTURE LAND USE MAP(S) DESIGNATION FROM Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict TO
Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict (increasing the existing Activity Center by 9.16 acres to
recapture acreage presently used in support of the Physician's Regional Medical Center (for
medical uses).
D. AMEND OTHER MAP(S) AND EXHIBITS AS FOLLOWS: (Name & Page #)
E. DESCRIBE ADDITINAL CHANGES REQUESTED:
V. REQUIRED INFORMATION:
NOTE: ALL AERIALS MUST BE AT A SCALE OF NO SMALLER THAN I" =400'. At least one copy reduced to 8-
1 /2 x 11 shall be provided of all aerials and /or maps.
A. LAND USE
Exhibit E Provide general location map showing surrounding developments (PUD,
40 DRI's, existing zoning) with subject property outlined.
Exhibit K Provide most recent aerial of site showing subject boundaries, source, and
date.
Exhibit H Provide a map and summary table of existing land use and zoning within
a radius of 300 feet from boundaries of subject property.
B. FUTURE LAND USE AND DESIGNATION
Exhibit G Provide map of existing Future Land Use Designations) of subject property
and adjacent lands, with acreage totals for each land use designation on
the subject property.
C. ENVIRONMENTAL
Exhibit M Provide most recent aerial and summary table of acreage of native
habitats and soils occurring on site. HABITAT IDENTIFICATION MUST BE
CONSISTENT WITH THE FDOT- FLORIDA LAND USE, COVER AND FORMS
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (FLUCCS CODE). NOTE: THIS MAY BE INDICATED
ON SAME AERIAL AS THE LAND USE AERIAL IN "A" ABOVE.
Exhibit M Provide a summary table of Federal (US Fish & Wildlife Service) and State
(Florida Game & Freshwater Fish Commission) listed plant and animal
species known to occur on the site and /or known to inhabit biological
communities similar to the site (e.g. panther or black bear range, avian
rookery, bird migratory route, etc.).
• Exhibit O Identify historic and /or archaeological sites on the subject property.
D. GROWTH MANAGEMENT
Reference 9J- 11.006, F.A.C. and Collier County's Capital Improvements Element
Policy 1.1.2 (Copies attached).
1. INSERT "Y" FOR YES OR "N" FOR NO IN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING:
10
nim
MN
• N Is the proposed amendment located in an Area of Critical State
Concern? (Reference 9J- 11.006(1)(a)(5), F.A.C.). IF so, identify area
located in ACSC.
Y Is the proposed amendment directly related to a proposed
Development of Regional Impact pursuant to Chapter 380 F.S. ?
(Reference 9J- 11.006(1)(a)7.a, F.A.C.)
N Is the proposed amendment directly related to a proposed Small Scale
Development Activity pursuant to Subsection 163.3187 (1) (c), F.S. ?
(Reference 9J- 11.006(1)(a)7.b, F.A.C.)
N Does the proposed amendment
create a significant impact in population which is defined as a potential
increase in County -wide population by more than 5% of population
projections? (Reference Capital Improvement Element Policy 1.1.2). If
yes, indicate mitigation measures being proposed in conjunction with the
proposed amendment.
Y Does the proposed land use cause an increase in density and /or intensity
If the proposed amendment involves an increase in residential density, or an
increase in intensity for commercial and /or industrial development that would
cause the LOS for public facilities to fall below the adopted LOS, indicate mitigation
measures being proposed in conjunction with the proposed amendment.
(Reference Capital Improvement Element Objective 1 and Policies)
2. Exhibit I Provide a map showing the location of existing services and public
facilities that will serve the subject property (i.e. water, sewer, fire
protection, police protection, schools and emergency medical services.
3. Exhibit I & .1 Document proposed services and public facilities, identify provider, and
describe the effect the proposed change will have on schools, fire
protection and emergency medical services.
F. OTHER
• Identify the following areas relating to the subject property:
Zone X Flood zone based on Flood Insurance Rate Map data (FIRM).
N/A Location of wellfields and cones of influence, if applicable. (Identified on
11
to the uses permitted in a specific land use designation and district
identified (commercial, industrial, etc.) or is the proposed land use a
new land use designation or district? (Reference Rule 9J- 5.006(5) F.A.C.).
If so, provide data and analysis to support the suitability of land for the
proposed use, and of environmentally sensitive land, ground water and
natural resources. (Reference Rule 9J- 11.007, F.A.C.)
E. PUBLIC FACILITIES
1.
•
Provide the existing Level of Service Standard (LOS) and document the
impact the proposed change will have on the following public facilities:
Exhibit L
Potable Water
Exhibit L
Sanitary Sewer
Exhibit N
Arterial & Collector Roads; Name specific road and LOS
Exhibit L
Drainage
Exhibit L
Solid Waste
Exhibit L
Parks: Community and Regional
If the proposed amendment involves an increase in residential density, or an
increase in intensity for commercial and /or industrial development that would
cause the LOS for public facilities to fall below the adopted LOS, indicate mitigation
measures being proposed in conjunction with the proposed amendment.
(Reference Capital Improvement Element Objective 1 and Policies)
2. Exhibit I Provide a map showing the location of existing services and public
facilities that will serve the subject property (i.e. water, sewer, fire
protection, police protection, schools and emergency medical services.
3. Exhibit I & .1 Document proposed services and public facilities, identify provider, and
describe the effect the proposed change will have on schools, fire
protection and emergency medical services.
F. OTHER
• Identify the following areas relating to the subject property:
Zone X Flood zone based on Flood Insurance Rate Map data (FIRM).
N/A Location of wellfields and cones of influence, if applicable. (Identified on
11
• Collier County Zoning Maps)
_N/A Traffic Congestion Boundary, if applicable
N/A Coastal Management Boundary, if applicable
N/A High Noise Contours (65 LDN or higher) surrounding the Naples Airport, if
applicable (identified on Collier County Zoning Maps).
C-I
J
G. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
X $16,700.00 non - refundable filing fee made payable to the Board of County
Commissioners due at time of submittal. (Plus proportionate share of advertising costs)
$9,000.00 non - refundable filing fee for a Small Scale Amendment made
payable to the Board of County Commissioners due at time of submittal.
(Plus proportionate share of advertising costs)
Exhibit D Proof of ownership (copy of deed)
Notarized Letter of Authorization if Agent is not the Owner (See attached form)
X 1 Original and 5 complete, signed applications with all attachments including
maps, at time of submittal. After sufficiency is completed, 25 copies of the
complete application will be required.
* Maps shall include: North arrow, name and location of principal roadways and shall be
at a scale of 1 " =400' or at a scale as determined during the pre - application meeting.
12
Hacienda Lakes IE
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
GMP Application
CCPC Review Materials
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description
•
•
DAI [1
CU\SUTI \G Fipoei�
i r u i
•
8E
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF
COLLIER, LYING IN SECTION 11 THROUGH 14 AND 23 THROUGH 25, TOWNSHIP 50
SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST AND SECTION 19 AND 30, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 27
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING FURTHER BOUND AND DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 30; THENCE
5.89 010'42 "W. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION FOR 2835.68 FEET TO THE
SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE S.89 °11'14 "W. ALONG SAID
SOUTH LINE FOR 2906.24 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 25;
THENCE 5.89 009'39 "W. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION FOR 2693.18
FEET TO THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE S.89 °11'01 "W.
ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE FOR 2693.80 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
SAID SECTION; THENCE N.00 °13'35 "W. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION
FOR 2636.34 FEET TO THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE
N.00 014'15 "W. ALONG SAID WEST LINE FOR 2637.01 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE N.87 007'13 "E. ALONG A LINE COMMON TO
SAID SECTION 24 AND 25 FOR 1704.07 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE
EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
•
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 24; THENCE N.01 °08'02 "E. ALONG THE
EAST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 684.58 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.87 012'28 "E. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID
FRACTION FOR 340.01 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE WEST LINE OF THE
EAST HALF OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION;
THENCE N.01 °04' 11 "E. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 2052.01
FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION AND AN INTERSECTION
WITH THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION;
THENCE 5.87 °28'21 "W. ALONG SAID NORTH LINE FOR 2025.64 FEET TO THE
QUARTER CORNER COMMON TO SAID SECTIONS 23 AND 24; THENCE S.89 °01'58 "W.
ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 23 FOR
1328.51 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE 5.01 018'52 "W. ALONG THE
WEST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 679.65 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST
QUARTER; THENCE S.89 022'00 "W. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION
FOR 663.28 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE
N.01 014'38 "E. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 675.75 FEET TO THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION AND AN INTERSECTION WITH THE
NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 23; THENCE
S.89 001'58 "W. ALONG SAID NORTH LINE FOR 664.25 FEET; THENCE CONTINUE
S.89 001'58 "W. ALONG SAID LINE FOR 627.16 FEET; THENCE N.01 °01'15 "E. FOR 1699.99
FEET; THENCE 5.89 °01'58 "W. FOR 701.42 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE
•
EAST LINE OF A 170 FOOT WIDE FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY
EASEMENT; THENCE S.01 °01'15 "W. ALONG SAID EAST LINE FOR 68.31 FEET;
•
THENCE 5.89 001'58 "W. FOR 1232.97 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST
LINE OF LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 21, AT PAGE 183 OF THE
PUBLIC RECORDS OF SAID COLLIER COUNTY; THENCE N.00 °51'54 "E. ALONG SAID
EAST LINE FOR 956.27 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH A LINE 30.00 FEET SOUTH
OF AND PARALLEL WITH (AS MEASURED ON A PERPENDICULAR) THE SOUTH
LINE OF SAID SECTION 14; THENCE N.87 °37'31 "E. ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE
FOR 1237.00 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID FLORIDA
POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY EASEMENT; THENCE N.01 °01'15 "E. ALONG SAID
EAST LINE FOR 30.05 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTH HALF OF
THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 14;
THENCE N.87 °37'31 "E. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 1337.24
FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID
SECTION 14; THENCE N.00 °48'00 "E. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR
2683.32 TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE EAST HALF OF THE EAST HALF OF
THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE 5.87 °31'38 "W.
ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 334.19 FEET TO THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.00 °48'11 "E. ALONG THE
WEST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 1341.38 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
SAID FRACTION AND AN INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION;
THENCE S.87 °28'42 "W. ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE FOR 1002.41 FEET TO THE
•
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION AND AN INTERSECTION WITH THE
EAST LINE OF SAID FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY EASEMENT; THENCE
N.00 048'45 "E. ALONG SAID WEST AND EAST LINE FOR 335.13 FEET TO THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE 5.87 °27'58 "W.
ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 1236.32 FEET TO AN
INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL
RECORDS BOOK 21, AT PAGE 183; THENCE N.00 °49'30 "E. ALONG SAID EAST LINE
FOR 1004.62 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION
11; THENCE N.00 °50'27 "E. ALONG SAID EAST LINE FOR 344.07 FEET TO AN
INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF
OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE
N.87 028'56 "E. ALONG SAID NORTH LINE FOR 1235.95 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE S.00 °49'13 "W. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF
SAID FRACTION FOR 342.92 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION
AND AN INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 14; THENCE
N.87 025'45 "E. ALONG SAID NORTH LINE FOR 1336.32 FEET TO THE NORTH
QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE CONTINUE N.87 °25'45 "E. ALONG
SAID NORTH LINE FOR 668.16 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE WEST
HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID
SECTION; THENCE 5.00 °47'37 "W. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR
671.11 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 14; THENCE
•
N.87 027'14 "E. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 668.22 FEET TO THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE S.00 °47'14 "W. ALONG THE
•
AM
EAST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 671.39 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.87 °28'42 "E. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH
HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 14 1336.55 FEET TO THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION AND THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 13;
THENCE N.87 030'06 "E. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 1328.72
FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.00 °38'50 "E.
ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 1345.26 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF SAID FRACTION AND THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE EAST HALF
OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 12; THENCE N.00 °41'44 "E. ALONG
THE WEST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 2707.07 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.87 °40'34 "E. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF
SAID FRACTION FOR 1321.29 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID
FRACTION; THENCE S.00 °36'23 "W. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR
2701.30 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION SAID POINT BEING
THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 13; THENCE S.87 °26'11 "W.
ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION FOR 662.90 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE S.00 °35'02 "W. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF
SAID FRACTION FOR 1345.93 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID
FRACTION; THENCE S.87 030'06 "W. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION
•
FOR 664.36 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION AND SAID
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER; THENCE S.00 °38'50 "W. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER FOR
672.63 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE
N.87 032'03 "E. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 665.09 FEET TO THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE S.00 °35'02 "W. ALONG THE EAST
LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER FOR 672.97 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID
FRACTION; THENCE S.87 °33'59 "W. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION
FOR 665.81 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE
S.00 038'51 "W. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER FOR 1345.10 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID
FRACTION; THENCE S.87 °37'27 "W. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION
FOR 667.27 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE EAST HALF OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE S.00 °42'40 "W.
ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 1344.51 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF SAID FRACTION AND AN INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH LINE OF
SAID SECTION 24; THENCE N.87 °40'54 "E. ALONG SAID NORTH LINE FOR 2006.20
FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE S.00 °56'29 "W. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID
FRACTION FOR 1368.25 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION;
THENCE N.87 034158 "E. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 1343.68
•
FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.00 °41'32 "E.
ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 1365.31 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST
AM
T
•
CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.87 °41'38 "E. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF
THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER FOR 1337.58 FEET TO
THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE S.00 °26'32 "W. ALONG THE
EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION FOR 1703.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER
OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE 5.87 °33'18 "W. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF
SAID FRACTION FOR 672.60 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE WEST LINE OF
THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER;
THENCE 5.00 034'02 "W. ALONG SAID WEST LINE FOR 1022.89 FEET TO THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.87 °28'21 "E. ALONG THE
SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 674.89 FEET TO THE WEST QUARTER
CORNER OF SAID SECTION 19; THENCE S.88 °12'42 "E. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF
THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER FOR 3093.52 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
SAID FRACTION; THENCE S.03 039'20 "W. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID FRACTION
FOR 2676.74 FEET TO THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE
N.88 056'10 "W. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 2940.59 FEET TO
THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE S.87 007'20 "W. ALONG THE
NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 25 FOR 2726.50
FEET TO THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE S.87 007'13 "W.
ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER FOR 807.16 FEET;
THENCE S.03 018'31 "E. FOR 1451.00 FEET; THENCE N.88 056'54 "E. FOR 1582.00 FEET;
• THENCE S.00 031'35 "E. FOR 1130.61 FEET; THENCE S.89 015'59 "E. FOR 1823.18 FEET TO
THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE N.89 057'58 "E. ALONG
THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SAID SECTION 30 FOR 2200.53 FEET TO
THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF
THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE 5.00 037'14 "W. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF
SAID FRACTION FOR 1344.51 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID
FRACTION; THENCE N.89 °34'43 "E. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION
FOR 365.01 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE EAST HALF OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE WEST HALF OF THE
SOUTH HALF; THENCE S.00 °41'48 "W. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID FRACTION
FOR 671.03 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE
N.89 023'00 "E. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 364.14 FEET TO THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.89 °22'35 "E. FOR 710.09 FEET
TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER
OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF; THENCE
N.00 052'45 "E. FOR 1334.78 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE EAST HALF
OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE EAST
HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF; THENCE 5.89 046'12 "W. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF
SAID FRACTION FOR 356.23 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID
FRACTION; THENCE N.00 049'34 "E. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST HALF OF
THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE EAST HALF
OF THE SOUTH HALF FOR 668.60 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID
FRACTION; THENCE N.89 057'58 "E. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH HALF
• OF SAID SECTION 30 FOR 2497.82 FEET TO THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID
SECTION; THENCE S.01 °12'08 "W. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST
QUARTER OF SAID SECTION FOR 2640.60 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
101,084,043 SQUARE FEET OR 2,320.6 ACRES +/-
LESS AND EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCELS:
PARCEL "A"
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST
QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTH
HALF OF SAID SECTION 30; THENCE S.00 °59'10 "W. FOR 1329.95 FEET TO THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF; THENCE
S.89 022'35 "W. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 355.05 FEET TO
THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.00 °55'57 "E. FOR 1332.36
FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST
QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTH
HALF; THENCE N.89 °46'12 "E. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR
356.23 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
• 473,270 SQUARE FEET OR 10.9 ACRES +/-
PARCEL "B"
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTEROF SAID SECTION 24; THENCE N.87 °28'21 "E. ALONG THE
NORTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 1349.77 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER
OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE S.00 °40'10 "W. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID
FRACTION FOR 1361.17 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION;
THENCE S.87 017'48 "W. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 1356.51
FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.00 056'29 "E.
ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 682.86 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST
QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE S.87 023'02 "W. ALONG THE
SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 338.41 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.01 000'20 "E. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID FRACTION
FOR 683.43 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE
N.87 028'21 "E. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 337.61 FEET TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING.
2,072,100 SQUARE FEET OR 47.6 ACRES +/-
• REV 6 -24 -10
Hacienda Lakes
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
GMP Application
CCPC Review Materials
EXHIBIT B
Legal Documents
•
•
CONSULTING
1 11ILJ
•
•
AFFIDAT17T
I David E. Torres. (Manager of Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC.) being
first duly sworn, depose and say that Wilton Land Company, LLC 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 our knowledge and belief. Well
understand that the information requested on this application must be complete and
accurate and that the content of this form, whether computer generated, or County
printed shall not be altered. Public hearings will not be advertised until this application
is deemed complete, and all required information has been submitted.
As contract purchaser via option, I further authorize Dwight Nadeau of RWA, Inc. to act
as my representative in any matters regarding this Petition.
Lakes of Naples, LLC
David E. Torres, Manager
Typed or Printed Name of Owner
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
2010, by who is personally known to me or has produced
identification.
QLQ��_
State of Florida (Signature of Notary Public - State of Florida)
County of Collier
Notary P� ANNA ROSA Stamp: �ry,�I
• .; ,r MY COMMISSION
�a C DD 599004
EXPIRES: October 13,2010
kfdodTNUNowyPUWUndm%ters
[I�
•
LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
I hereby authorize RWA, Inc.
(Name of Agent —typed or printed)
To serve as my A tin requ t t
property identifi d in t App 10 .
Signed:
David r , M
Hacien _ Naples, LLC.
I hereby certify th ve tea 1
correct and co lete to \ t
Signed:
David Torres, anager
Hacienda La es;'E LC,
• STATE OF (Florida)
COUNTY OF (Collier)
•
Collier County Growth Management Plan affecting the
Date: T!I O
to makj2(he foregoing application, and that the application is true,
Sworn to and subscribed before me this C9W day of
By: — QAa�=
(Notary Public)
CHOOSE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:
who is personally known to me,
who has produced
and
did take an Oath
did not take an Oath
Date:
3 /zL/' oy
')IAA 1tJA— 2010.
MYCOMMISS) ES IfDD599004
;I-bs, 13 2gg
a - Oubl�.^ Undennears
NOTICE — BE AWARE THAT:
as identification
Florida Statute Section 837.06 — False Official Statements Law states that: "Whoever knowingly
makes a false statement in writing with the intent to mislead a public servant in the performance
of his official duty shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided
by a fine to a maximum of $500.00 and /or maximum of a sixty day jail term."
x:120051050150.02.03 Hacienda Lakes MPUD- DRI- ERP10001 General Consultation \000A - Subtask 1.1 General Consultntion - Planning\Legal
Hacienda LaLc5 BE
of Naplc5
March 17, 2010
George P. Bauer
Manager
Wilton Land Company, LLC
206 Dudley Rd
Wilton, CT 06897
Re: Wilton Land Company lands in Collier County subject to option to purchase by Hacienda Lakes of Naples
Dear Mr. Bauer:
As you are aware, pursuant to the option agreement between Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC (hereinafter
referred to as "Hacienda ") and Wilton Land Company, LLC (hereinafter referred to as "Wilton "), Hacienda has been
authorized to pursue governmental approvals necessary to develop the lands owned by Wilton in Collier County.
The purpose of this letter is to request that Wilton, owner of the lands described in the attached legal
description, confirm that it has authorized Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC represented by David E. Torres as
Manager, to pursue all permitting matters associated with the subject property and any related applications.
• Please execute below to confirm the above noted authorization.
Sincer Porres
David _
Manager, Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC
Agreed to:
Zenf
George . Bauer, Manager
Wilton Land Company, LLC.
State of OT—
County of 97c it et
George P. Bauer, Manager of Wilton Land Company, LLC, being subscribed and sworn to before me
this 17"li'k day of Mm(',kt 2010
Notary Public
• Notary Public
State of Q�T—
My commission Expire MARTHA N R)' W EEZ AN
T
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAR. 31,201i:
Hacienda LWA
Corby Schmidt, Principal P1416
GMP Application
CCPC Review Materials
EXHIBIT C
Narrative Statement
•
IDAVA'
CONSULTING *
1 V 1 U � Sricris
•
E'�a
Hacienda Lakes, LLC
GMP Amendment
EXHIBIT C: NARRATIVE STATEMENT
This amendment is submitted in conjunction with the Hacienda Lakes DRI application ( "Project ").
The Project is located east of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951) near the intersection of Rattlesnake
Hammock Road, within Sections 12, 13, 14, 23, 24, and 25, Township 50 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida and Sections 19 and 30, Township 50 South, Range 27 East, Collier County,
Florida (See Exhibit "E" - Vicinity Map). The Project contains property designated Urban, Mixed
Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Sub - district (625.07 acres) and Rural Fringe Sending Lands
Sub - district (1,637.07 acres). The total acreage of the DRI is 2,262.14 + /- acres. The adjacent
properties include Willow Run Quarry to the north; vacant lands to the east, Hammock Park
Commerce Center, Collier Regional Medical Center, First Assembly Ministries Education and Rehab,
the Rockedge PUD to the west; and Winding Cypress and vacant lands south (See Exhibit "G" -
Future Lands Use Map). The subject property is zoned "A" and "PUD" (see Exhibit "H" - Zoning
and Land Use Map). The subject property includes the existing Swamp Buggy Days PUD. The
property is located within Flood Zone "X" as verified through the National Flood Insurance Program
Flood Insurance Rate Map Number 12021 C061 0G, Panel 610 or 1150.
The DRI application provides for the following:
• • A maximum 1,760 residential dwelling units;
• A maximum of 327,500 +/- square feet of retail (convenience, general and specialty retail), and
70,000 square feet of professional office space, a 135 room hotel, 140,000 square feet of business
park or school, and an elementary school to seine up to 919 students;
Note: The relocation of the Swamp Buggy and Junior Deputy facilities is no longer proposed as
part of this DRI/PUD application.
The DRI includes 1,543.03 +/- acres of preserve, which includes both uplands and wetlands. The
development area is limited to 673.11 +/- acres. The site includes a number of identified
archeological sites, all of which fall within preserve areas.
The project furthers the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District objectives by severing TDRs from 1,016,02
+/- acres of qualified or eligible TDRs (from Sending lands located within one mile of the urban
boundary) Sending Lands, which will be placed under a permanent conservation easement and
ultimately deeded to a public entity (such as the SFWMD or Division of Forestry).
Additionally, there are several GMP amendments accompanying the DRI, proposing the following:
Future Land Use May (FLUM) Chanize:
The amendment proposes to reconfigure the boundary and size of the southeast quadrant of mixed
Activity Center Number 7 by adding +/- 9.16 acres of land located adjacent to and east of the 27.51
acres within the DRI that is presently within the Activity Center. The Collier Regional Medical
Center PUD contains the southernmost 9.16 +/- acres of this quadrant. The hospital related uses
located on those 9.61 +/- acres did not require the Activity Center designation. This land is not being
utilized for Mixed Use Activity Center type uses, such as residential or commercial retail and office
• uses. Therefore, the Activity Center boundary is proposed to be reconfigured to increase the present
boundary and increase the southeast quadrant size by +/ -9.16 acres.
QA2005 \050150.02.03 Hacienda rakes MPUD- DRI- ERM0004 GMP Amendment \Subtask 4.2 GMP Amendment Application Support\Substantive
Review\ 2010- 07- 19_Revised_Narrative_Exhibil_C r m (clean).docx
1
Reconfiguring the activity center boundaries to recapture the 9.16 acres of land (within the Collier
Regional Medical Center and Activity Center # 7, and which is not being utilized for typical Activity
Center uses) snake very good planning sense and furthers the objective of the FLUE related to mixed
use activity centers.
Moreover, Activity Center # 7 is a designated Mixed Use Activity Center, and as such, the boundaries
of any quadrant may be reconfigured (if a property owner controls a majority of the activity center
land within the respective quadrant). That is the case with respect to this southeast quadrant. As
justification for this reconfiguration, we offer the following supporting data:
At their inception, Activity Centers were created at major intersections, with each quadrant containing
40 acres for a total size of 160 acres. The actual size of many activity centers has been adjusted to
reflect the actual land uses in developed or partially developed activity centers. Activity Center # 7
has not been remapped or updated. However, Activity Center # 7, was actually increased in size
when an additional 19 acres was added immediately adjacent and to the east boundary of the
northeast quadrant (the FLUE provides for a maximum of 40 acres of commercial or mixed use
within each quadrant, except the northeast quadrant, which is 59 acres. The additional 19 acres has
very limited total developable square footage and very and very specific land uses, which are also
limited as to square footage.. The Flue reads as follows [underline added for emphasis]:
• The maximum amount of commercial uses allowed at Activitv
Center #7 (Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier
Boulevard) is 40 acres per quadrant, except that the northeast
quadrant may have a total of 59 acres, for a total of 179 acres
maximum in the entire Activity Center; the balance of the land
area shall be limited to non - commercial uses as allowed in
Mixed Use Activity Centers. With respect to the +/- 19 acres in
the northeast quadrant of Activitv Center #7, said acreage
lying adjacent to the east of the Hammock Park Commerce
Center PUD, commercial development (exclusive of the
allowed "1/4 mile support medical uses ") shall be limited to a
total of 185,000 square feet of the following uses: personal
indoor self- storage facilities — this use shall occupy no greater
than 50% of the total (185,000) building square feet; offices for
various contractor /builder construction trade specialists
inclusive of the offices of related professional disciplines and
services that typically serve those construction businesses or
otherwise assist in facilitating elements of a building and
related infrastructure, including but not limited to architects,
engineers, land survevors and attorneys — these offices of
related professional disciplines and services shall occupy no
greater than 50% of the total (185,000) building square feet;
warehouse space for various contractor/builder construction
trades occupants; mortgage and land title companies; related
businesses including but not limited to lumber and other
• building materials dealers, paint, glass, and wallpaper stores,
garden supply stores — all as accessory uses only, accessory to
offices for various contractor/builder construction trade
Q:\2005\050150.02.03 Hacienda Lakes MPUD- DRI -ERP \0004 GMP Amendment \Subtask 4.2 GMP Amendment Application Support\Substantive
Review\1-010- 07- 19_Revised Natrstive_Exhibit_C tjm (clean).docx
2
dE
•
•
specialists or accessory to warehouse space for various
contractor/builder construction trades occupants; management
associations of various types of buildings or provision of
services to buildings /properties; and, fitness centers.
The usable size of the overall activity center, when non - commercial uses (pure residential, ROW
(both existing and proposed as part of the Hacienda Village PUD DRI, and the FPL major
transmission line easement) are subtracted is 126.61 acres. For the southeast quadrant, as we propose
to revise the boundary, the usable acres remaining after the FPL easement and all ROW (existing and
proposed are subtracted) is 31.42 acres, but practically speaking, the usable size remains 22.26 acres
when the 9.16 acres of hospital related Collier Medical Center PUD land is subtracted.
In conclusion, by recapturing the 9.16 acres that is not being utilized for activity center type uses
(retail and office or mixed commercial and residential), the quadrants size is restored to 31.42 acres of
lands for Mixed Use Activity Center type uses. This is surely not "oversized ", and will allow for well
planned and designed mixed use activity center, that meets the intent, in terms of both use and size,
for mixed use activity centers set forth in the FLUE, and will serve the project's residents as well as
nearby residents and visitors.
Table I: Activity Center Acreage: Existing and Proposed
AC Acreage
Overall AC
Acreage Used for ROW,
Total
Breakdown
Acreage
FPL Easement, and Pure
Usable for
Residential Acres Are
AC Uses
Subtracted
Overall Activity Center
184.83
58.21
126.62
Southeast Quadrant
41.42
19.16*
22.26
Overall Activity Center Size
with Proposed 9.16 Acre
193.99
58.21
135.78
Reconfi ation
Southeast Quadrant with
Proposed 9.16 Acre
50.58
19.16*
31.42
Reconfiguration
* Includes hospital acreage.
For the purposes of the public facility impact analysis, the additional 9.16 acres is to allow for
additional Activity Center commercial uses. The total maximum square footage of commercial
activity center land use requested in the DRI is 397,000 square feet (327,000 square feet of retail and
70,000 square feet of office and a hotel with up to 135 rooms). Note: there is also a proposed
Business Park consisting of up to 140,000 square feet. The Business Park does not require the
Activity Center designation and is not be located with the Activity Center, but is located so as to
buffer future residential development from the existing Swamp Buggy Days PUD uses. The overall
controlling limitation on density and intensity within this DRI/PUD is the maximum trip
generation which cannot exceed 3,328 PM Peak Hour Trips. Using this as the controlling
limitation provides market flexibility while still addressing the maximum allowable overall
density and intensity.
•
Q:\—)005 \050150.02.03 Hacienda Lakes MPUD- DRI -ERP \0004 GMP Amendment \Subtask 4.2 GMP Amendment Application Support \Substantive
Review\ 2010- 07- 19_Revised_Narrative_Exhibit_C rjm (clean).docx
3
•
�j
I'A
I �
N
Al
U y—
r rn D J
no In m
'� U Oc O ZQ Z< E w 5k
U U U
c Q
a < w v N < a Q c- U) ii V) U) U)
O V T U)
o W 0
io Q W Lq t W C N O - Q 0! Cq T M ¢ O Q Q
00 Y g
a
N
w J J J O
mZ� I �Z=OZ F mvvvv d ~--� ~ E Q L U O
z r�3Jroo��v� ��> �`"�� W w mocoo Q w� wW u UJ _
N m
0" wo :za � i•, 1, Q Q I I
�000a �w�` `!„ Ur U I- O j 7 j )J W U U U w En
�W U °ro °Z �p tz x00 0 I�j w FYC) i-r1 �=? I<
pCNwQz�3o¢wzj : U Z V) U7 r U .
U+ U
G d Q U Q Z Q Q of
Is
3CO R¢' NZ WON F'71 771 u
Z Z m p u p p E U G
p <Le�aW�Ow I n 6
N, V O W
�<�wo3wm¢ 1
tr 0,-uGp 4F
¢�¢rJ ¢¢OQO
vi
W I\
J
.� Q 0!
Z W�
o ~_
— — _ — O Z Wm
W }}- x
noQ
Z
W
�W
em
8�t196L B�kpY SCf► 068 !!�) �lVA3'Y108 !�O
'l I � $ -
�I j
��
40 8E
Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Amendments:
One of the GMP FLUE amendments seeks to increase the maximum allowable density that may be
achieved within the Urban Residential Fringe (URF) portion of the project. Presently the maximum
allowable base density within the URF is 1.5 units per acre. That number may be increased to 2.5
units per acre with qualified or eligible TDRs (TDRS severed from lands located within the Rural
Fringe Mixed Use District Sending designation located within one mile of the Urban Boundary).
This amendment would allow that 2.5 unit per acre cap to be exceeded within this DRI/PUD by
allowing for greater utilization of eligible TDRs from the project, but with an overall cap on the
increase of 0.30 additional units per acre (for an overall cap of 2.80 gross units per acre for URF
lands within the project).
This minor increase in density is well justified (since it will be located in the urban area where there
are more than adequate public facilities and services) and in no way does it alter or diminish the
intent of the one mile restriction in that the additional TDRs will still be required to come from those
lands. Moreover, it is further limited to additional TDRs within one mile of the urban boundary that
are also generated from lands within the project itself. This really should be a "no brainer" in that it
allows for use of more TDRs by allowing for a 0.30 unit per acre increase in density in the urban area.
This furthers the programs overall objectives of protecting valuable habitat and wetlands,
compensating owners of Sending lands, through a viable and marketable TDR program, for loss of
value associated with the loss of property rights on Sending lands. As to the intent of URF providing
a lower density and intensity buffer between the urban are and the rural area, that policy intent is still
achieved with the project significant buffer units Sending Lands preserve areas stretching across the
entire eastern portion of the project from north to south, buffering the Sending lands and existing and
likely future "public lands" from the project's development area.
As to the amount of requested increased density within the URF Subdistrict, we offer the following.
We have identified a maximum project density without the GMPA of 1662.56 units (See Dwelling
Unit Entitlement Summary and TDR Sending Exhibit below). When TDRs (limited to the Early
Entry and Base TDRs) from the 27.67 acres of sending land reserved for the Benfield Road ROW are
subtracted, that leaves 187.75 "eligible" TDRs that cannot be utilized under the current URF 2.5 unit
per acre maximum density limitation. In order to utilize all or a portion of these TDRs, a minor
increase in allowable URF density equating to 0.30 units per acre (from 2.50 to 2.80 units per acre) is
necessary. Also, in order to address staff concerns related to the potential applicability of the
proposed density increase to other lands that straddle the URF and Sending designations, we have
limited the applicability of the proposed amendment to the subject property. The overall gross project
density calculates to 0.78 units per acre.
This proposed amendment will not result in a significant increase in density in the Urban Residential
Fringe, but will allow for the use of all project generated TDRs, furthering that program's objectives
to compensate Sending land owners, and to preserve important Sending lands. It is important to note
that the request is not a typical request for additional density, but rather for a small amount of
additional receiving capacity. The density associated with these eligible TDRs are not new dwelling
units, as they already exist and are accounted for in the GMP.
With the proposed FLUE Amendment allowing for utilization of eligible TDRs but limited to an
• additional 0.156 unit per acre density increase (for a total allowable density in URF lands of 2.656
units per acre, the density within the DRI is as follows:
Q:\2005 \050150.02.03 Hacienda Lakes MPUD- DRI -ERP \0004 GMP Amendment \Subtask 4.2 GMP Amendment Application Support\Substantive
Review\ 201 0- 07- 19_Revised_Nan- ative_Exbibit_C drn (clean).docx
4
•
•
•
Hacienda Lakes DRINPUD
Dwelling Unit Entitlement Summary
Acres
Calculation Ratio Total Units
Density Calculation with no GMP
Amendments
Base Density Calculation (FLUE)
Urban Residential Fringe (URF) Density
excluding
business park acreage
552.1
1.5 per acre
828.15
Urban Residential Fringe TDR lift (receiving
capacity)
552.1
1 per acre
552.10
Activity Center Density
36.67
1.5 per acre
55.01
Activity Center TDR lift (receiving capacity)
36.67
1 per acre
36.67
Business Park
36.3
0 per acre
0.00
Business Park TDR lift (receiving capacity)
36.3
1 per acre
36.30
Total Density in Urban Residential Fringe
(Base Density only computed on lands other
than business park)
625.07
1508.23
Sending Lands (FLUE)
Total Sending Area
1637.07
Sending Area to be Developed or within
Benfield ROW
127.82
1 per 40 acres
3.20
Total Density created by Sending Lands
3.20
Density Bonus via Mitigation Activities
(LDC 3.05.07.F.4.b.iii)
Density Bonus via excess Mitigation
Activities
10% bonus to residential
density
151.14
Total Units Without GMP Amendment
1 1662.56
Q:\2005 \050150.02.03 Hacienda Lakes MPUD- DRI -ERP \0004 GMP Amendment \Subtask 4.2 GMP Amendment Application Support\Substantive
ReviewL. 010- 07- 19_Revised_Narrative_Exhibit_C tin (clean).docx
•
•
r�
•
J.- 1. 7010 W7 PY 0: \707.5\07017602113 &-I-& Lehr YPIa- M- VIP\0Wf C—W CanzMaliw \W0% - scralk 1.1 Gww& t —unaff n - Vl wft \E0f\aso7wa203M4 -d"
:AL: CLIENT:
��� /�FEB., 2010 HACIENDA LAKES OF NAPLES, L.L.C.
Visualization 1" = 2500'
i NSi T,L l e RyinnOg & Mem `" M.S "T� HACIENDA LAKES
8510WftwPatD,..�1� - �D. E.
TDR SENDING EXHIBIT
wp. Ftolle.a.,oe D.H.N. 0501500203PX14
FfC. R ;�� y_�':050150.02.03 ���I E,„ 1 1 3t >:
Q:12005\050150.02.03 Hacienda Lakes MPUD- DRI -ERP \0004 GMP Amendment \Subtask 4.2 GMP Amendment Application Support\Substantive
Review\2010- 07- 19_Revised Narrative_Exhibit_C din (clean).docx
n
•15
III
F
�y
1
1
LEGEND:
1 11
III
1
,
QUALIFIED SENDING
AREA = 1016.02 ACRES
AREA NOT QUALIFIED FOR
11
II
�I�
SENDING = 493.23 ACRES
'R
t
BENFIELD R.O.W. IN RFMUE
II
27.67 ACRES
Gill
i I
DEVELOPMENT IN RFMUD =
11�
II
1
100.15 ACRES
v (J ; 1
%�
P5280'
1
111
I I
1
i
° URFS PRESERVE _
_
56.46 ACRES
p,,,
m
I;
•- `_1'.�;.''I "�,I-i
�_
i
RFMUD PRESERVE
ACRES
I I
; - ,
1464.57
will
Ld
11
I I
,. r.'
L C .
0
1
11
II
11
1
1
`I
111
1
�
".
, 11
•j
111
1 n
u,
111
III
ul
SABAL PALM ROAD
1
1
I
1
III
1
J.- 1. 7010 W7 PY 0: \707.5\07017602113 &-I-& Lehr YPIa- M- VIP\0Wf C—W CanzMaliw \W0% - scralk 1.1 Gww& t —unaff n - Vl wft \E0f\aso7wa203M4 -d"
:AL: CLIENT:
��� /�FEB., 2010 HACIENDA LAKES OF NAPLES, L.L.C.
Visualization 1" = 2500'
i NSi T,L l e RyinnOg & Mem `" M.S "T� HACIENDA LAKES
8510WftwPatD,..�1� - �D. E.
TDR SENDING EXHIBIT
wp. Ftolle.a.,oe D.H.N. 0501500203PX14
FfC. R ;�� y_�':050150.02.03 ���I E,„ 1 1 3t >:
Q:12005\050150.02.03 Hacienda Lakes MPUD- DRI -ERP \0004 GMP Amendment \Subtask 4.2 GMP Amendment Application Support\Substantive
Review\2010- 07- 19_Revised Narrative_Exhibit_C din (clean).docx
n
•15
•
r �
•
8E
Hacienda Lakes DRIIMPUD
Dwelling Unit Entitlement Summary (Continued)
Density Additions with GMP Amendments
Use of Eligible TDRs within Project boundary up
to a max density of 3 units per acre in URF
Inventory of RFMU lands
Developed Sending Areas within 1 mile without
100.15
Benfield ROW
Developed Sending Areas past 1 mile
0
Undeveloped Sending Areas within 1 mile
1016.02
Undeveloped Sending Areas past 1 mile
493.23
Benfield Rd ROW lands within RFMU
27.67
Total RFMU Sending Lands
1637.07
Calculation of Eligible TDR Sending Area
Generation (within 1 mile)
Base TDR (undeveloped lands within one
1016.02
1 per 5 acres
203.20
mile only)
1st TDR Bonus (undeveloped lands within
1016.02
1 per 5 acres
203.20
one mile only)
2nd TDR Bonus (Restoration and
Maintenance for undeveloped lands within one
1016.02
1 per 5 acres
203.20
mile only)
3rd TDR Bonus (Conveyance for
1016.02
1 per 5 acres
203.20
undeveloped lands within one mile only)
Total
812.82
TDRs used under current GMP rules (see
1 per acre of URF
above)
625.07
excluding business park
625.07
Remaining Qualified TDRs to be used
187.75
1,662.56 units without
GMP
plus 187.75 eligible TDRs
Total Units Allowed Using All Eligible TDRs
unused
1850.31
588.77 ac x 1.5 base
density (base density for
Project Maximum Amount of Units at 2.8
URF minus business park)
units per URF acre as requested by GMP
+ 625.07 ac x 1.3 tdr
amendment and including URF land density
receiving capacity (entire
and bonuses allowed
URF acreage) + rural
lands density (3.2 units) +
bonus units (151.14)
1850.08
Applicant Requested Density
1760
EM
Overall Gross Project Density (du per acre)
2,262.14
0.78
Q:\2005\050150.02.03 Hacienda Lakes MPUD- DRI -ERP \0004 GMP Amendment \Subtask 4.2 GMP Amendment Application Support\Substantive
Review\ )010- 07- 19_Revised_Narrative_Exhibit C qm (clean).docx
7
•
Finally, the proposed GMP amendment seeks to amend the Density Rating System, Density Blending,
and CCME Native Preservation Provisions for properties straddling the Urban Residential Fringe
Sub - District and Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands, for the following purposes:
To cross reference, in the Density Rating System under Density Bonuses (TDRs) the previously
discussed increased achievable density in the URF through the utilization of all project generated
eligible TDRs;
To allow mitigation for native vegetation preservation required in the URF portion for projects
straddling the URF and NRPA Sending Lands designations. NRPA Sending Lands contain the
highest quality of native vegetation, including wetlands, uplands, and habitat for listed species. Thus,
a greater emphasis on preservation within these lands is warranted. The proposed amendment
language would allow the mitigation only for projects where the native vegetation required is at the
maximum amount of 60% of the Sending Lands, thus increasing the amount of preservation in the
Sending Lands above the 60% maximum amount required. Moreover, the mitigation requires a ratio
of 2 acres of native vegetation preservation within the NRPA Sending Lands portion of the project for
every acre of required native vegetation below the required amount in the Urban Residential Fringe
Subdistrict portion of the project.
Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses:
The subject property has direct access to Collier Boulevard. The surrounding properties consist of
commercial PUD's, residential PUD's, Collier Regional Medical Center, and undeveloped
Agricultural acreage parcels. Portions of the project along the east are immediately adjacent to the
Picayune Strand. The proposed residential use of the subject property will be compatible with the
•
existing and future residential uses on surrounding lands. Adequate buffering provisions are set forth
in the County's Land Development Code, and as may be necessary on a site specific basis, buffer
areas may be increased to enhance compatibility as a result of the site planning and rezoning process.
The majority of the 1,543.03 +/- acres of preserve lands are located along the eastern portion of the
project providing enhanced protection for the conservation lands further to the east. Preservation
lands within the project will significantly increase protection of listed species habitat and wetlands.
This significant attention to natural resource protection both within the project and on adjacent lands
results in a development plan that is compatible with surrounding land uses.
Public Facilities and Services:
Public facilities within the area of the subject property are depicted on Exhibit "I" - Public Facilities
Map. With respect to Public facilities, Exhibit "L" — Public Facilities Impact Analysis is a
spreadsheet which sets forth the impacts on public facilities under the existing and proposed
scenarios. Impacts on Collier Boulevard are addressed in the attached transportation report prepared
by Tindale Oliver and Associates.
With respect to Potable Water, Sanitary Sewer, Stormwater Drainage, Solid Waste, Community and
Regional Parks and Arterial & Collector Roads within the vicinity of the project, the proposed
Amendment will not result in any of these facilities falling below the adopted level of service
established by and in accordance with the Collier County Growth Management Plan and the LDC.
The Collier County Sheriff's Department will provide police protection/law enforcement services.
There is a Sheriffs substation located on East Tamiami Trail which is a shared facility housing
• Collier County EMS and an East Naples Fire Department station.
Q:\'-)005 \050150.02.03 Hacienda Lakes MPUD- DRI -ERP \0004 GMP Amendment \Subtask 4.2 GMP Amendment Application Support\Substantive
Review\ 201 0- 07- 19_Revised_Narrative_Exhibit_C din (clean).docx
i
MR
•
•
•
The County does not currently have an adopted LOS for educational facilities. Impact fees will cover
the cost of any additional impacts on the public school system resultant from development of this site.
Exhibit "J" — New and Future Public Schools depicts the location of new schools to be built in
Collier County through the year 2022.
Conclusion:
The proposed GMP amendments are appropriate, and further the objectives of the CCME by
incentivizing greater preservation and restoration of native vegetation, including wetlands and
uplands, as well as encouraging preservation and restoration of additional habitat suitable for listed
species. The proposed GMP amendments restore the usable acreage in the southeast quadrant of
Activity Center Number 7. This allows for an appropriate amount of commercial and office
development, proximate and within this DRI as well as other existing and proposed development,
providing employment, shopping, dining and other consumer needs for the market area.
Prepared by: Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP. Mulhere and Associates, LLC. Date: 07/19/10
Q:\2005 \050150.02.03 Hacienda Lakes MPUD- DRI- ERP\0004 GMP Amendment \Subtask 4.2 GMP Amendment Application Support\Substantive
Revie-,r\ 201 0- 07- 19_Revised_Narrative_Exhibit_C drn (clean).docx
0
[Ta
Hacienda Lakes
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
GMP Application
CCPC Review Materials
ATTACHMENT A
GMP Language & MAP
•
•
DUTA'
CONSULTING
.L Vr U As.
�J
Attachment "A"
Proposed GMP Amendment Language
Future Land Use Element
I. URBAN DESIGNATION
A. Urban Mixed Use District
2. Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict:
FLUE Page 29
The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide transitional densities between the Urban
Designated Area and the Agricultural/Rural Area and comprises approximately 5,500
acres and 5% of the Urban Mixed Use District. Residential land uses may be allowed at a
maximum base density of 1.5 units per gross acre, plus any density bonus that may be
achieved via CCME Policy 6.2.5 6) b.1_, er and either "a" or "b" below:
a. Up to 24 1.0 units per gross acre via the transfer of up to one (1.O — dwelling unit
(transferable development rightl per acre from lands located within one mile of the Urban
Boundary and designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands, except in
• the case of properties that straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe
Mixed Use Sending Lands designations, and meet the other Density Blending criteria
provide for in subsection 5.2 of the Density Rating System, which may achieve an
additional maximum density of up to 1.3 units per gross acre via the transfer of up to 1.30
dwellin units transferable development rights) per acre from lands located within one
mile of the Urban Boundary and designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending
Lands; and or,
b. In the case of properties specifically identified below, a density bonus of up to 6.0
additional units per gross acre may be requested for projects providing affordable -
worlforce housing (home ownership only) for low and moderate income residents of
Collier County, pursuant to Section 2.06.00 of the Land Development Code, or its
successor ordinance, except as provided for in " " below.
Within the Urban Residential Fringe, rezone requests are not subject to the density rating system,
except as specifically provided in--e. below, : for the
Affordable Housing Density Bonus. All rezones are encouraged to be in the form of a planned
unit development. Proposed development in the area Subdistrict shall be fully responsible for all
necessary water management improvements, including the routing of all on -site and appropriate
off -site water through the project's water management system, and a fair share cost of necessary
improvements to the CR 951 canal /out -fall system made necessary by new development in the
Subdistrict.
•
Hacienda Lakes GMPA 8E
CP- 2006 -11— Attachment A (rev 4)
is Page 2 of 9
; [provision
relocated only, to above paragraph]
b. Pr-epesed developmeRt in the
area ,.hall be Tespersible fer- all neeesar-y water-
th,-eugh the pr-E�eet's water- FnanagemeRt system, and a fair- share eest ef He , . . wemeRts
to the GR 951 e naWeut fall system a by new development the a area;
[provision relocated to above paragraph, and the term "area" replaced with "Subdistrict "]
•
e— Properties eligible for the Affordable- workforce Housing Density Bonus (home ownership
only) will be specifically identified herein. The actual number of bonus units per gross acre shall
be reviewed and approved in accordance with the conditions and procedures set forth in Section
2.06.00 of the Land Development Code, except that, Section 2.06.03 shall not apply, and the
number of dwelling units required to be sold to buyers earning 80% or less of Collier County's
median income, -as calculated annually by the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD), shall be at least thirty percent (30 %).
The following properties are eligible for an Affordable- workforce Housing Density Bonus (home
ownership only) of up to 6.0 additional dwelling units per acre.
1. Property located on the East side of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), approximately ...
StFaek t4eu and underlined language represents deletions and additions proposed by the
Applicant and is consistent with the CCPC recommendation and Staff's changes and additions to
the CCPC recommended language.
•
•
•
Hacienda Lakes GMPA 8E
CP- 2006 -11 —Attachment A (rev 4)
Page 3 of 9
FLUE Pages 51 -53
I. URBAN DESIGNATION
B. DENSITY RATING SYSTEM
5. Density Blending:
This provision is intended to encourage unified plans of development and to preserve
wetlands, wildlife habitat, and other natural features that exist within properties that
straddle the Urban Mixed Use and Rural Fringe Mixed Use Districts or that straddle
Receiving and Neutral Lands within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. In the case of
such properties, which were in existence and under unified control (owned, or under
contract to purchase, by the applicant(s)) as of June 19, 2002, the allowable gross density
for such properties in aggregate may be distributed throughout the project, regardless of
whether or not the density allowable for a portion of the project exceeds that which is
otherwise permitted, when the following conditions are met:
2. Density Blending Conditions and Limitations for Properties Straddling the Urban
Residential Fringe Sub - District and Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending
lands:
(a) The project must straddle the Urban Residential Fringe Sub - District and
the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands;
(b) The project in aggregate must be a minimum of 400 acres;
(c) At least 25% of the project must be located within the Urban Residential
Fringe Sub - District. The project must extend central water and Sewer-
wastewater treatment facilities (from the urban designated portion of the
project) to serve the entire project, unless alternative interim sewer-and
water and wastewater treatment facilities provisions are authorized by
Collier County;
(d) The Project is currently zoned or will be zoned PUD;
(e) The density to be shifted to the Sending Lands from the Urban Residential
Fringe is to be located on impacted or disturbed lands, or it is
demonstrated that the development on the site is to be located so as to
preserve and protect the highest quality native vegetation and/or habitat
on -site and to maximize the connectivity of such native vegetation and/or
wildlife habitat with adjacent preservation and /or habitat areas;
(f) Native vegetation shall be preserved as follows:
L. The Urban portion of the project shall comply with the native
vegetation requirements identified in the Conservation and Coastal
Management Element (for Urban designated lands), or in the case
of projects where the native vegetation requirement for the
Sending Lands portion of the project is the maximum required 60
Stnaek through and underlined language represents deletions and additions proposed by the
Applicant and is consistent with the CCPC recommendation and Staff's changes and additions to
the CCPC recommended language.
Hacienda Lakes GMPA
CP- 2006 -11 —Attachment A (rev 4)
• Page 4 of 9
percent of the total Sending Land area, in order to promote greater
preservation of the highest quality wetlands and listed species
habitat, the required native vegetation for the Urban portion of the
project may be shifted by providing native vegetation preservation
in the Sending Lands portion of the project exceeding the 60%
maximum preservation requirement as set forth in subsection b.
below. The ratio for such native vegetation preservation shall be,
two acres of Sending Lands (exceeding the 60% maximum
preservation requirement) for each acre below the required amount
of native vegetation for the Urban portion of the project. In no
instance shall less than 10 percent of the required amount of native
vegetation be retained in the Urban portion of the project.
Significant Archeological Sites identified by the State of Florida
Division of Historic Resource shall be preserved and cannot be
mitigated for.
For those lands within the project designated as Sending, the native
vegetation preservation requirement shall be 90% of the native
vegetation, not to exceed 60% of the total project area designated
as Sending, unless the provisions found in subsection "a" above
are met.
• Wetland areas that are impacted through the development process,
but which result in enhanced wetland function, including habitat
and /or flowways, shall be considered as part of the native
vegetation requirement set forth in this provision and shall not be
considered as impacted areas. These wetland areas and/or
flowways may be used for water storage provided that the water
discharged in these areas is pre - treated.
•
(g) Permitted uses for density blending under this provision include
residential development and associated amenities, including golf courses
meeting the criteria for golf courses within the Neutral area. This
provision is not intended to eliminate any uses permitted within the
applicable underlying land use designation.
Stfuek thfeugh and underlined language represents deletions and additions proposed by the
Applicant and is consistent with the CCPC recommendation and Staff s changes and additions to
the CCPC recommended language.
•
Hacienda Lakes GMPA
CP-2006-11 —Attachment A (rev 4) ' 8E
• Page 5 of 9
FLUE Page 50
B. DENSITY RATING SYSTEM:
2. Density Bonuses
Consistency with the following characteristics may add to the base density.
Density bonuses are discretionary, not entitlements, and are dependent upon
meeting the criteria for each bonus provision and compatibility with surrounding
properties, as well as the rezone criteria in the Land Development Code.
f. Transfer of Development Rights Bonus
To encourage preservation/conservation of natural resources, density transfers
are permitted as follows:
(c) From Sending Lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary into
lands designated Urban Residential Fringe, at a maximum density increase
of one (1) unit per gross acre, except for properties that straddle the Urban
Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands
designations and meet the other Density Blending criteria provided for in
subsection 5.2 of the Density Rating System, which may transfer TDRs
from Sendina Lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary into
• lands designated Urban Residential Fringe, at a maximum density increase
of 1.38 units per gross acre.
•
&Fael gl} and underlined language represents deletions and additions proposed by the
Applicant and is consistent with the CCPC recommendation and Staff's changes and additions to
the CCPC recommended language.
Hacienda Lakes GMPA
8E
CP- 2006 -11— Attachment A (rev 4)
• Page 6 of 9
FLUE Page 56 -57
I URBAN DESIGNATION
C. Urban Commercial Subdistrict
1. Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict
2. The allowable land uses for a Master Planned Activity Center shall be the
same as for other designated Activity Centers; however, a Master Planned
Activity Center encompassing the majority of the property in two or more
quadrants shall be afforded the flexibility to redistribute a part or all of the
allocation from one quadrant to another, to the extent of the unified
control. The maximum amount of commercial uses allowed at Activity
Center # 3 (Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard) is 40 acres per
quadrant for a total of 160 acres maximum in the entire Activity Center;
the balance of the land area shall be limited to non - commercial uses as
allowed in Mixed Use Activity Centers. The maximum amount of
commercial uses allowed at Activity Center 47 (Rattlesnake Hammock
Road and Collier Boulevard) is 40 acres per quadrant, except that the
northeast quadrant may have a total of 59 acres and the southeast quadrant
• may have a total of 49.2 acres, for a total of 4-7-9 188.2 acres maximum in
the entire Activity Center; the balance of the land area shall be limited to
non - commercial uses as allowed in Mixed Use Activity Centers.
r �
Note: The Activity Center 47 inset map within the FLUE is to be amended to
reflect the proposed boundary change. It is not the intent of this amendment
request to modify the Future Land Use Map to depict the boundary change.
Stnaek t4eu& and underlined language represents deletions and additions proposed by the
Applicant and is consistent with the CCPC recommendation and Staff's changes and additions to
the CCPC recommended language.
Hacienda Lakes GMPA
CP- 2006 -11 —Attachment A (rev 4) 8E
• Page 7 of 9
FLUE Pages 31 -32
I URBAN DESIGNATION
A. Urban Mixed Use District
4. Business Park Subdistrict
The Business Park Subdistrict is intended to provide for a mix of industrial uses and non-
industrial uses, designed in an attractive park -like environment with low structural
density where building coverage ranges between 25% to 45% and where landscaped
areas provide for buffering and enjoyment by the employees and patrons of the park.
Business Parks shall be allowed as a Subdistrict in the Urban -Mixed Use District, Urban
Commercial District and Urban Industrial District and may include the general uses
allowed within each District, the specific uses set forth below, and shall comply with the
following general conditions:
h. When located in a District other than the Urban Industrial District, the Business Park
must have direct access to a road classified as an arterial in the Transportation
Element, except that a Business Park in Section 14. Township 50 South. Range 26
• East may have access to an arterial road via The Lords Way.
.......................................... ...............................
Straek thfexgh and underlined language represents deletions and additions proposed by the
Applicant and is consistent with the CCPC recommendation and Staff s changes and additions to
the CCPC recommended language.
r�
•
8E � it
Hacienda Lakes GMPA
CP- 2006 -11 — Attachment A (rev 4)
Page 8 of 9
CCME Pages 18 -21
Conservation and Coastal Management Element
leTlY.W419
OBJECTIVE 6.1:
Policy 6.1.1:
For the County's Urban Designated Area, Estates Designated Area, Conservation
Designated Area, and AgriculturaURura1 Mixed Use District, Rural Industrial District
and Rural - Settlement Area District as designated on the FLUM, native vegetation shall
be preserved through the application of the following preservation and vegetation
retention standards and criteria, unless the development occurs within the Area of Critical
State Concern (ACSC) where the ACSC standards referenced in the Future Land Use
Element shall apply. Notwithstanding the ACSC requirements, this policy shall apply to
all non - agricultural development except for single - family dwelling units situated on
individual parcels that are not located within a watershed management conservation area
identified in a Watershed Management Plan developed pursuant to policies supporting
Objective 2.1 of this Element.
The following standards and criteria shall apply to the vegetation retention requirements
referenced above.
1144,) In order to promote greater preservation of the highest quality wetlands and listed
species habitat the required native vegetation for the Urban portion of the project
• may be shifted by providing native vegetation preservation in the Sending Lands
StFUGIE thfeugh and underlined language represents deletions and additions proposed by the
Applicant and is consistent with the CCPC recommendation and Staff s changes and additions to
the CCPC recommended language.
Coastal High Hazard
Area
Non - Coastal High Hazard Area
Residential and Mixed
Less than 2.5 acres 10%
Less than 5 acres. 10%
Use Development
Equal to or greater
Equal to or greater than 5 acres
than 2.5 acres 25%
and less than 20 acres. 15%
Equal to or
greater than 20 ac. 25%
Golf Course
35%
35%
Commercial and
Less than 5 acres. 10%
Less than 5 acres. 10%
Industrial
Equal to or greater
Equal to or
Development
than 5 acres. 15%
greater than 5 acres. 15%
Industrial
50 %, not to exceed 25%
50 %, not to exceed 25% of the
Development (Rural-
of the project site.
project site.
Industrial District only)
The following standards and criteria shall apply to the vegetation retention requirements
referenced above.
1144,) In order to promote greater preservation of the highest quality wetlands and listed
species habitat the required native vegetation for the Urban portion of the project
• may be shifted by providing native vegetation preservation in the Sending Lands
StFUGIE thfeugh and underlined language represents deletions and additions proposed by the
Applicant and is consistent with the CCPC recommendation and Staff s changes and additions to
the CCPC recommended language.
•
•
Hacienda Lakes GMPA 8E
CP- 2006 -11 —Attachment A (rev 4)
Page 9 of 9
portion of the project exceeding the 60% maximum preservation requirement
found in the Density Blending provisions of the FLUE for projects that:
(a) Are under unified control,
(bl Straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use
Sending designations, and
(c) Meet the maximum required 60 percent preservation requirement for the
Sending Lands portion of the project.
The preservation ratio shall be two acres of Sending Lands (exceeding the 60%
maximum preservation requirement) for each acre below the required amount of native
vegetation for the Urban portion of the project. In no instance shall less than 10 percent
of the required amount of native vegetation be retained in the Urban portion of the
project. Significant Archeological Sites identified by the State of Florida Division of
Historic Resource shall be preserved and cannot be mitigated for
S#uek thfeugh and underlined language represents deletions and additions proposed by the
Applicant and is consistent with the CCPC recommendation and Staff's changes and additions to
the CCPC recommended language.
• x c�
xj M W Z_
CF) x O Z Z
W G O Q W O
H CJ >- N!
U 00 00 Z }< O
-- z W �o Z
W I W C 7 > Z H
c 0U omU-4 W
D 0 4 In <
CD
W wo waaoo
Lj ¢O ¢VWi0(
Z � �
W a O
c) Oo U - -- -__
r
~ U
J I,.
J
0
U =
Q W
z ?�
V)
~ I
� II,
I
J Ili
LNYOSV3 ld3
z�
� Ww
Ir N -
CFm
I�,. J GOU SOW � Ut
O �
e
U �
nsca IVNVJ roo�
-- I��— -- -- - -- -- — _ IGG 89 I!
i - -
m � I
5
YU uJ I. _s
:3
5 r
I I N
I'. 7�2
- -- - -- i z rj I! S 1.
I ynN I r <
m w
ya C �
Z
I rG.
V
r I tl0 �GWUd3rV' 71-` �
`nom 1
z$ I
• a_I I I 7 °ss3�r r
N I I I baler r � y
J L - - - - --J o
o� m
O
0
O
N
a
:W
� e
e
EL
t
C
i
a
O � -
r
J 1
Hacienda Lakes
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
GMP Application
CCPC Review Materials
EXHIBIT D
Warranty Deeds
•
DIVA
COS¢ULTI \G FnOmiog
1 \T TL XSmjif
INSTR 4393149 OR 4536 PG 732 RECORDED 2/9/2010 11:28 AM PAGES 2
DWIGHT E. BROCK, COLLIER COUNTY CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
•DOC @.70 $0.70 REC $18.50
CONS $0.00
This lnstnunenl Prepared By:
Harold I Webre, Esquire
HAROLD WEBRE, P.A.
1804 S. Florida Avenue
Lakeland, FL 33803
QUIT CLAIM DEED
Exhibit D
Copy of Deed
BY THIS QUIT CLAIM DEED, dated this -� 1 day of January, 2010,
GEORGE P. BAUER ( "Grantor "), for and in consideration of the sum of Ten and
No/100 U.S. Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, hereby
remises, releases and quitclaims all of Grantors' right, title, interest, claim and demand
in the following described real property located in Collier County, Florida to WILTON
LAND COMPANY, LLC, a Flor't 'mite 'ability company ("Grantee"), whose
post office address is 206 Dudl� o f 6897:
The Southeast Quarter 1 14) of the
Northeast Quarter ) . Pee
• Collier County, Flori'da./4)V]
�,,
Parcel
*THE SUBJECT PROP�ikr -1 IS NOT
GRANTOR �
IN WITNESS W F'E
Deed the day and year first above`
Signed, seated and delivered in
ottr gresenc e
Witn__� ss ess 1— Signature
&0.
Witness I -Printed Name
Witness 2 — Signature
Wit ess 2 - run ed Nam
North *4! t Quarter (NW 114) of the
I, Tgwnshlp ShSouth, Range 26 East,
ry
F TEID RHO ERTY OF
• Ur
18 and delivered this Quit Claim
George P. Ober
m
•
•
0
* ** OR 4536 PG 733 * **
STATE OF CONNECTICUT !
COUNTY OF 6A-
The foregoing Quit Claim Deed was acknowledged before me on this X day of
January, 2010, by George P. Barer, who --- is personally known to me or
produced as identification.
(SEAL)
otary ublic -- Signature
o� public - Printed Name
� � 3
j - t11 r, �-JNP' T li
2
conwNssion l xp1m
January 31, 2014
[I�
INSTR 4388118 OR 4531 PG 2872 RECORDED 1/26/2010 4:17 PM PAGES 9 8
DWIGHT E. BROCK, COLLIER COUNTY CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
•DOC @.70 $210,000.00 REC 578.00 INDx $4 -00
CONS $30,000,000.00
Exhibit D
Copy of Deed
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION
SEMBLER FAMILY PARTNERSHIP #42, Ltd.,
a Florida limited partnership and
TOLL - RATTLESNAKE, LLC, a Florida limited
liability company
Plaintiffs,
VS.
TOLL FL VII LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
a Florida limited partnership, TOLL BROS.,
INC., a Pennsylvania corporation, .00
11 LLC, a Florida limited liabili atilVISION & FAITH, INC., a Flori rporaion,
GEORGE P. BAUER, and 1VIICI'ZE L A.
• TAYLOR,
GEORGE P. BAUER and
a Florida corporation,
VS.
Case No. 08- 2136- CA -HDH
U0 A)
1 -f : F,
N,&
FAITH, IN C .
Counter - claimants\ tj - CI �
TOLL - RATTLESNAKE, LLC, a Florida limited
liability company, SEMBLER FAMILY PARTNERSHIP i is
##42, LTD., a Florida limited partnership and TOLL "•!r
FL 11, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, ; c;,
Ni_b
Counter - defendants. "
n -
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
1, DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk and Comptroller of the above - entitled Court, do
• hereby certify that I executed and filed a Certificate of Sale in this action on
2010, for the real property described herein, and that no objections
OR 4531 PG 2873 8E
0
0
•
0
to the sale have been filed within the time allowed for filing objections. The real
property as described in Exhibit °A° which is attached hereto and made a part hereof
was sold to:
Wilton Land Company, LLC
206 Dudley Road
Wilton, CT 06897
WITNESS my hand and seal on this Court, on ,)1' nv A 2-S , 2010.
DD yl6 -QCK, Clerk & CQmp'trdllei,,
Ve r �
,110 Copies furnished to: n{ -
1 1 z f
-Louis D. D'Agostino, Esq. - • �''('�F
J Samuel J. Heller, Esq.�ri� t OFF F F, • •��' -�
Ira William Spivey, If �.
9463.145111436' L;
0- r
C1`���
OR 4531 PG 2874 8E
0
•
EXHIBIT W
•
PARCEL 1:
THE S 112 OF THE S 112 OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE SW 114 OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS THE WEST 100 FEET.
PARCEL 2:
THE E 1/2 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 3:
THE SW 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 4:
THE S 112 OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE SE 114 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY�'wl FLORIDA
PARCEL 5: �� - S OUT RANGE 26
THEW 112 OF THE NE 114 OF TH 4 F SECTION 13, 0 HIP 50 S H, RA EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLOR D \
PARCEL 6: ,
10 THE SW 1/4 OF THE NW 114 S
} <O �H
COUNTY, FLORIDA. t ?J , NGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
<I /I
PARCEL 7: k n L'
THE NW 114 OF THE SW 1/4 0 � �TION 13, TOWNSi�I���5Q OU, ti . NGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA.
'/,,,.��
PARCEL 8:�ti ai f
THE S 112 OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE SF4 FOIE ;3tl4.�,f SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
PARCEL9:
THE N 112 OF THE SW 114 OF THE SE 114 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCELIO:
THE N 112 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SW 114 OF SW 1/4 OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE
26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 11:
THE W 112 OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE NE 114 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 12:
THE N 112 OF THE NW 114 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS THE WEST 100 FEET.
PARCEL13:
THE N 112 OF THE S 1/2 OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 114, SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS THE WEST 1 O FEET.
•
•
c:
OR 4531 PG 2875
0 0
PARCEL 16:
THE E 112 OF THE EAST 112 OF THE SE 114 OF THE NW 114 OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50
SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 17:
THE SW 114 OF THE NW 114 OF THE NE 114, SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
PARCEL 18:
THE SE 114 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL19:
THE NE 114 OF THE NW 1/4, SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 20:
THE S 112 OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE NE 114 F
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. ��
PARCEL 21: �. ��
THE NW 114 OF THE NW 114 OF/rHE,NE -1.14,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. ,
PARCEL 22:
THE NE 114 OF THE NE 1/4
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
PARCEL 23: "=
THE N 112 OF THE SE 114 OF T kN� 114 OF SECTION
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL24: �
THEE 112 OF THE NW 114 OF THE NE 1/4 i
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
I HI 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26
r i;
50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
1' F SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
PARCEL 26:
THE W 1/2 OF SW 114 OF NE 1/4 OF SE 114 OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 27:
THE E 112 OF THE SW 114 OF THE NE 114 OF THE SE 114 OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 28:
ALL THAT PART OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE WEST 114 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 14;
THENCE ALONG THE EAST AND WEST 114 SECTION LINE, NORTH 87 °33'46" EAST 2673.55 FEET
TO THE CENTER OF SAID SECTION 14 AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN
DESCRIBED;
THENCE ALONG THE NORTH AND SOUTH 1/4 SECTION LINE NORTH 00 050'21" EAST 1341.85
FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION
14;
THENCE ALONG SAID LINE NORTH 87 °30'50" EAST 1336.55 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE
4
[Ta
OR 4531 PG 2876
•
0
OF THE SOUTHWEST 114 OF THE NORTHEAST 114 OF SAID SECTION 14;
THENCE ALONG SAID LINE SOUTH 00 °49'36" WEST 1342.78 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST AND
WEST 1/4 SECTION LINE;
THENCE LEAVING SAID LINE SOUTH 89 °44'17" WEST 134.30 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 04 °42'13" EAST 210.85 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 43 012'04" WEST 178.18 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 71031'36" WEST 145.23 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 77 °18'36' WEST 175.92 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 63 °27'15" WEST 288.67 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 53 °31'25" WEST 74.43 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 41 057'31" WEST 65.80 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 16 °01'06" WEST 80.79 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 11 °26'01" EAST 73.45 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 41005-47" EAST 146.55 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 21 016'17" EAST 88.09 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 07 051'12" EAST 154.74 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 00 °46'36" WEST 794.98 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 45 046'05" EAST 94.58 F
THENCE NORTH 87 °22'18" EAST 3427 E ' co .7-
THENCE NORTH 59 013'22" EAST 152.j�
THENCE NORTH 69 °05'26" EAST t - FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 82 053'39" EAS '10 O THE EAST .1 E O NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE
SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SEC ION 14'`1-
• THENCE ALONG SAID LINE SQUT "4 '3
THENCE LEAVING SAID L1NE'NO ; 8t�WE 7: t, 1
THENCE SOUTH 69 005'26" WI ST 18 64 EST;
THENCE SOUTH 59 °1322" WEST
THENCE SOUTH 87022-22" WW 39.63 FEET; 2 %1w
THENCE SOUTH 45 046'02" WE 9.76 FEET; - -_j THENCE SOUTH 68 °50'21" WES ._ . 24 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY 129. T ALONG THE ARC, +ION- TANGENTIAL CIRCULAR
CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SC WTI, ING A RA f .110.00 FEET THROUGH A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 67 °13'47" AND B 'CHORD WHICH BEARS SOUTH
35 °13'27" WEST 121.79 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 01 °3634° WEST 779.16 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 14;
THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE SOUTH 87 °39'37" WEST 74.85 FEET TO THE POINT ON THE
NORTH AND SOUTH 1/4 SECTION LINE;
THENCE ALONG SAID LINE NORTH 00 05021" EAST 2683.10 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL 29:
THE N 1/2 OF THE NW 114 OF THE NW 114 OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS THE WEST 100 FEET AND LESS THE NORTH 30 FEET.
PARCEL 30:
THE S 1/2 OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 114 OF SECTION 23. TOWNSHIP 5D SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS THE WEST 100 FEET.
ALSO LESS THAT PORTION DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 3241, PAGE 3460, PUBLIC
RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 31:
THE NE 114 OF THE NW 114 OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
• COUNTY. FLORIDA. LESS THAT PORTION DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 3241, PAGE
3460, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 32:
• OR 4531 PG 2877
8E
•
•
0
THE NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 33:
THE NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NW 114 OF THE SE 114 OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 34:
THE E 112 OF THE NW 114 OF THE NE 114, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 35:
THE W 112 OF THE NW 114 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 36:
THE SW 114 OF THE NE 114, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA.
t'R cc
PARCEL 37:
THE S 112 OF THE NW 114 OF SE T10 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SNGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS THE j DES, X80 -FEET.
ALSO LESS THAT PORTION
LESS THAT PORTION DESC
RECORDS OF COLLIER COI
PARCEL 38: r i
THE NW 1/4 OF THE SE 114 OF T NE 114 OF
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLO {
PARCEL 39: \0
THE N 112 OF THE S 1/2 OF THE SE N
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FI
2192, PAGE 2057, AND
PAGE 3460, PUBLIC
50 SOUTH, RANGE 26
23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
PARCEL40:
THE NE 114 OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE NE 114 OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 41:
THE S 112 OF THE S 112 OF THE SE 114 OF THE NE 114 OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 42:
THE S 1/2 OF THE N 1/2 OF THE E 1/2 OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP
50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 43:
THE NW 114 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NW 114 OF THE SE 114 OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50
SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL44:
THE NW 114 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARGEL45:
OR 4531 PG 2878
0 E
•
is
is 0
THE SE 114 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL46:
THE E 112 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL47:
THE SW 114 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, AND THE W
112 OF THE SE 114 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
PARCEL46:
THE SW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL49:
THE N 1/2 OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE NE 114
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY„ F�-(
PARCEL 50: ICJ
THE S112OF THE SE1 /4OFT�j 6NE�/
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER CO,[INT�',
PARCEL 51:
THE S 112 OF THE NE 114 OF
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER C
PARCEL 52:
THE W 112 OF THE NE 114 OF
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER Cl
SW 114 OF
114 OF THE SW 1
°i-ORI DA.
PARCEL 53:
THE N 1/2 OF THE NE 114 OF THESE 1/4 TH'
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
24, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
24, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
F SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
PARCEL 54:
THE NE 114 OF THE NE 114 AND THE N 112 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE SE 114 OF THE NE 114, SECTION
24, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL55:
THE NE 114 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 56:
THE SW 114 OF THE NW 114 OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 57:
THE EAST 112 OF THE SW 114 OF THE SE 114 OF THE SW 114 OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 50
SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 58:
THE W 112 OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
r�
•
is
OR 4531 PG 2879
0 0
PARCEL 59:
THE E 112 OF THE SE 114 OF THE SE 114 OF THE SW 114 OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 60:
THAT PART OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A CONCRETE MONUMENT MARKING THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 25; RUN N 00 °13'20" E, 2722.27 FEET TO A CONCRETE
MONUMENT MARKING THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 25; THENCE N 89 016'34"
W 1822.92 FEET; THENCE N 00 °33'02" W 1130.79 FEET; THENCE S 88 056'47" W 1582.03 FEET;
THENCE N 03 018'24" W 1451.30 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 25; THENCE S
87006'54"W 1919.74 FEET TO A CONCRETE MONUMENT MARKING THE NORTHWEST CORNER
OF SAID SECTION 25; THENCE S 00 °13'07' E 2636.89 FEET TO A CONCRETE MONUMENT
MARKING THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 25; THENCE S 00 °13'07" E 2636.89
FEET TO A CONCRETE MONUMENT MARKING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 25;
THENCE N 89 °12'25" E 2693.13 FEET TO A CONCRETE MONUMENT MARKING THE SOUTH
QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 25; THENCE N 89'1276'E 2693.13 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING. ���.,-
4 t-R co " 7'
TOGETHER WITH AN EASEMENT F l MWAY PUR*8t
RECORDS BOOK 759, PAGE 169 , Wi IC RECORDS OF
PARCEL 61: I
THE SW 1/40F SECTION 19,' O k 50 u. 27 ��S ,FLORIDA. �
PARCEL 62:
THE S 112 OF SECTION 30, TO IP 50 SOUTH, RA 4E 27� 0 #LLIER
LESS AND EXCEPT: �`���
t
THE WEST 112 OF THE NW 1/4 OFTH ` 4/
30, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 27, EA - NTY
ALSO LESS AND EXCEPT:
THE WEST 112 OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 112 OF SECTION
30, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
ALSO LESS AND EXCEPT:
THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SW 114 OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE EAST 112 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF SECTION
30, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
ALSO LESS AND EXCEPT:
THE WEST 112 OF THE NW 114 OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF SECTION
30, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
ALSO LESS AND EXCEPT:
THE EAST 112 OF THE NW 114 OF THE SW 114 OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 112 OF SECTION
30, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
ALSO LESS AND EXCEPT:
DEED RECORDED IN OFFICIAL
,COUNTY, FLORIDA
COLLIER COUNTY,
COUNTY, FLORIDA.
2 OF THE SOUTH 112 OF SECTION
FLORIDA.
* ** OR 4531 PG 2880 * ** 8E
THE EAST 112 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE SE 114 OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 112 OF SECTION
30, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
ALSO LESS AND EXCEPT:
THE WEST 1/2 OF THE SE 114 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 112 OF SECTION
30, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
ALSO LESS AND EXCEPT:
THE EAST 112 OF THE NE 114 OF THE SW 114 OF THE EAST 112 OF THE SOUTH 112 OF SECTION
30, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
ALSO LESS AND EXCEPT:
THE EAST 112 OF THE SE 114 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 112 OF SECTION
30, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EA E}EOUNTY, FLORIDA.
�J Vj rr ,����
J.
ALSO LESS AND EXCEPT: "\�,?
THE E 1/2 OF THE SE 114 OFT f
• TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANG 27
ALSO LESS AND EXCEPT:
THE EAST 112 OF THE NE 1lqFG,2!
30, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
ALSO LESS AND EXCEPT: `
I
THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NE 114 OF 41
30, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 21
r�
I�
EAST 112 OF-THE`•IOUTH 112 OF SECTION 30,
COL
I" Y, FLORIDA.
.
ST�Orq7I ' SOUTH 1/2 OF SECTION
COLLIER OUNTY, L A.
OF THE F THE SOUTH 112 OF SECTION
I�NjLTY, FLORIDA.
9
Hacienda Lakes
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
GMP Application
CCPC Review Materials
EXHIBIT E
Vicinity Map
•
•
DIVA'
COSSDUING Enpie�niq
1 \ 1 Il X .
.
9 0 0
Hacienda Lakes
Exhibit E - Vicinity Map
0 0.5 1 Miles
mikk,
DAITA INC.
CONSULTING
Z \ I Ll 1
-Planning -Visualization
Civil Engineering -Surveying S Mapping
Prepared By: nnjones
Printing Date: June 18, 2010
File: T:\ Projects\ 2005 \05_0150.02.03_HaciendaLakes\
GMP\Rev01 \Hacienda_V cinity_E.mxd
Hacienda Lakes 8 E
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
GMP Application
CCPC Review Materials
EXHIBIT F
PURPOSELY OMITTED
•
DAATA'
CUNSI.'LTIYG Fgnai{
1 V 1 IL A Snni,
Hacienda Lakes 8 �"
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner �+,
GMP Application
CCPC Review Materials
EXHIBIT G -1
Existing Future Land
0 Use Map
•
DATA' w
CONSULTING Ear e*
11 f Il X Sm qvF
0 0
r 1 8E
0 1,000 2,000Feet "DAIIAINC.
Hacienda Lakes
CONSULTING
Exhibit G -1 - Existing Future Land Use Map " '� 'L
-Planning -Visualization
N • Civil Engineering -Surveying R Mapping
Prepared By: rmjones
Printing Dale: June 18, 2010
File: T :1Projecls12005105 0150.02.03_HaciendaLiVes1
GMP1Rev011Existing_FLU M_G 1.mxd
•
Hacienda es
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
GMP Application
CCPC Review Materials
EXHIBIT G -2
Proposed Future Land
Use Map
DAVA�
C'ONSI :LTING
1 %. / TL J Svrc iu
i •
I 8E .p
Hacienda Lakes 0 1,000 2,000Feet Activity Center No. 7 - South Quadrant DIVA 1��.
/� CONSULTING
/ / /!\ \ \\ 1\ I t l 1
Exhibit G -2 - Proposed Future Land Use Map -Planning -Visualization
Civil Engineering -Surveying &Mapping
N
Prepared By: rrnjones
Printing Date: June 18, 2010
File: T.1Projecls1 2005 105_0150.02.03_HaciendaLakesl
8E
Hacienda Lakes
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
GMP Application
CCPC Review Materials
EXHIBIT H
Zoning and Land Use Map
•
IDIAlA'
1 \ T Tl JL Srwjiq
0 0 * 8E
1 f
I
-- r —
i
A PUD RSF -1
'�
A -MHO P RSF -2
L
F- --
A -PU -b - PE RSF -3
I
C
EMM
,
-
-- -
A -ST RMF -12(7) RSF -3- GGDCCO
"'" I -
C -1 I - RMF - 12(8.9) �l RSF 4
C -2 �� RMF- 12(10) RSF -4(3)
'� •.. -
C -3 RMF -I2- GGDCCO RSF -5
-
C-4 RMF- I2 -SBCO RSF - 5(0.4)
\
� C -5 � RMF -16 � RT
5rA 77
CF RMF -16(8) - TTRVC
CFPUD RMF -6 _ VR
I
- CPUD RMF -6(3)
e ,
s
,
CON RMF -6 (4)
s
Existing Land Uses within 500' of Project Boundary
USE CODE
LAND USE
00
RESIDENTIAL
01
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
i I
02
MOBILE HOME
04
CONDOMINIUM
07
MISC. RESIDENTIAL
10
VACANT COMMERCIAL
16
COMMUNITY SHOPPING CENTER
18
OFFICE, ONE STORY
21
RESTAURANTS
(
23
FINANCIAL INSTITIUTIONS
38
GOLF COURSE
40
VACANT INDUSTRIAL
47
MINERAL PROCESSING
_ -�
48
WAREHOUSING, DISTRIBUTION TERMINALS
60
GRAZING LANDS I
66
ORCHARD GROVES
67
POULTRY, BEES, TROPICAL FISH, RABBITS
i'
�
t .
69
ORNAMENTALS, MISC AGRICULTURE
71
CHRUCHES, TEMPLES
73
PRIVATELY OWNED HOSPITALS
82
FOREST, PARKS, RECREATIONAL
-
86
COUNTIES - OTHER
87
STATE - OTHER
91
UTI LITY
94
RIGHT -OF -WAY
95
RIVERS, LAKE, SUBMERGED LANDS
96
SEWEAGE DISPOSAL, WASTE LANDS
97
OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL
i
A PUD RSF -1
'�
A -MHO P RSF -2
L
F- --
A -PU -b - PE RSF -3
i I I
C
i
-
-- -
A -ST RMF -12(7) RSF -3- GGDCCO
r°.t— a`F
tl -.
I I
h
i
� J
J
L)
Existing Zoning within
500' of Project Boundary
A
CPUD
MPUD
PUD
RPUD
99 ACREAGE NOT AGRICULTURE CLASSIFIED
Legend
}
g� Y�
U
t�
r^
i
Layer CON -ST + ^;1 RMF -6- GGDCCO r _
Project Boundary � E RMF -6GH
�\ 500' Buffer outside Project Boundary GC � RMF- 6-SBCO
\ Collier County Major Roads L J I 0 RPUD d "r,
ZONES MH RPUD and CFPUD ek
Hacienda Lakes
Exhibit H - Zoning and Land Use Map
0 2,000 4,000 Feet
N
VXXIAINC.
CONSULTING
Z \ T IL 1
-Planning -Visualization
-Civil Engineering -Surveying k Mapping
Prepared By: nnjones
Printing Date: June 18. 2010
File: T:1 Projecls12005105 _0150.02.03_HaciendaLakesl
G M P1Rev011Hacie nda_Zoning_La nd Use_H. m xd
A PUD RSF -1
'�
A -MHO P RSF -2
L
F- --
A -PU -b - PE RSF -3
i I I
A- PU -c/J RMF -12 RSF -3(1)
-
-- -
A -ST RMF -12(7) RSF -3- GGDCCO
"'" I -
C -1 I - RMF - 12(8.9) �l RSF 4
C -2 �� RMF- 12(10) RSF -4(3)
'� •.. -
C -3 RMF -I2- GGDCCO RSF -5
-
C-4 RMF- I2 -SBCO RSF - 5(0.4)
\
� C -5 � RMF -16 � RT
l
CF RMF -16(8) - TTRVC
CFPUD RMF -6 _ VR
I
- CPUD RMF -6(3)
CON RMF -6 (4)
s
Hacienda Lakes
Exhibit H - Zoning and Land Use Map
0 2,000 4,000 Feet
N
VXXIAINC.
CONSULTING
Z \ T IL 1
-Planning -Visualization
-Civil Engineering -Surveying k Mapping
Prepared By: nnjones
Printing Date: June 18. 2010
File: T:1 Projecls12005105 _0150.02.03_HaciendaLakesl
G M P1Rev011Hacie nda_Zoning_La nd Use_H. m xd
Hacienda Lakes 8E
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
fe GMP Application
CCPC Review Materials
EXHIBIT I
Public Facilities Map
0
•
CONS[ LTISC. Fi�mio`
1 \ T Il 1 Surgig
0 0 0
Hacienda Lakes
Exhibit I - Public Facilities Map
0 0.5 1 Miles
�A
11AXIA INC.
CONSULTTNG
Z \ T TL 31L
-Planning -Visualization
Civil Engineering • Surveying & Mapping
Prepared By: rmjones
Printing Dale: June 18, 2010
File: T\ Projects12005105 _0150.02.03_HaciendaLakes%
GMPIRev01 \Public Facilities I.mxd
•
•
Hacienda Lake 8E
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
GMP Application
CCPC Review Materials
EXHIBIT J
Future Schools Location Map
IRIIIA'
CONSUL
TIAG
1 \1 1L 1%nn
• • * Bk
FUTURE SCHOOLS LOCATION MAP
COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
N.T.S.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
COLLIER COUNTY
r
STATE RD 29
w cd SITE
Lp H
.j TED
CORKSEYEWROAD
_LEE COIJIM
COLLIER COUNTY
U
10
ELEMENTARY "N" I
11110 1 PARKLAND PUD FLEWNITARN
SCH""l- "GOG, COMMIT MENT SCH 11 0()l "IT"
T13D 2025
. ... .... ..... . .
LEE COUNTY
L RCr
,�7, - )-
01 1 . r � T�T
LL,RT1
IS
Q
L
3,
S(-,Hoo,L. "R" -Y qil
0,
NORTH
I
_A�O�LEEROVID
rj
7
��`
,
-ILN i "R
a,
�
�A
L
MIDDLE
SCHOOL "DD"
2023
1N7FRS7ATER7.75(ALLfGAr0RALLE)q
17
MIDDLE "J.11'" -
ABAL BAY PUD
COMMITMENT
TBD
,fl' SOUTH
TRAk T
1,14f)
EAST-SOUTH
�74
;a
10
V
,Jlo
ZZ-1
WESrCLOX
AVA MARIA"
ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL -Q-
2019
MIDDLE
SCHOOL T"
2019
Exhibit J
PLANNING COMMUNITIES CI
COLLIER COUNTY
FLORIDA
T i-
r
7
r
UNSITED SCHOOLS
SCHOOL TYPE
PLANNING COMMUNITY
APPROXIMATE YEAR
ELEMENTARY "H"
ROYAL FAKAPALM (7)
2020
ELEMENTARY "V"
ROYAL FAKAPALM (7)
2023
ELEMENTARY "O"
SOUTH NAPLES (5)
2028
MIDDLE "GG"
RURAL ESTATES (8)
2027
NIGH "HHH"
ICORKSCREW (9)
2027
Exhibit J
•
•
.} 8E
Hacienda Lakes
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
GMP Application
CCPC Review Materials
EXHIBIT K
Aerial Photo of Subject Property
DIVA'
CONSULTiNG
1 \ T TL 1 SiT
f'
f �
. I 7 rw � � •,:� S N r ' �r � a
y s
I • /yw� � _ a: 111 I tr � � � ��}, r• ,
G i
AA-
Fj
J
. `i ^
0
h'R�4TTLESNAKE HAMMO.C,K RD
� y' SUBJECT
PROPERTY
qvtx 77"
-' J�'•�` _ LANDS �
YYnYY.YY's+., � �+ s — f '!� 1 �h „ }' �y�•f,• I I 1.
,Y
zf
ez
.o
f-
i
r r T! C� a
'; � � r t� 47.csftr•� ut' t r �
0 0.25 0.5 Miles
DTI INC.
a
•
Hacienda Lakes 8 G
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
GMP Application
CCPC Review Materials
EXHIBIT L
Public Facilities Impact Analysis
I?IITA'Y
COW LTISG
1 \T IL � Srcix
• • • 8E
C
cr
0
0)
0
M
U) S
� r
N
D
0)
c<
y
N
p
TSm
T O
T O
m
O
O_
O
O
O
a d p
1NNNNNNN
O
O O
O O
000
N
O
n m 0
�! N O
•--t
N
O 0
NNN
0 0
N
222
NN
0 N 0
o �m
d N p
tp
m
V
m
0
A
W
N
m j 3
d
m m
V m
m A
W N
j 3
d m
m V
m N
a
W tJ
j 3
V
�
N
N
N
N
N
N
j 0
V
v
v O
V
V V
O
O
J m
01
m
m
O
O
N
0
�V
O
mm
m 00
O
DN
OV
m V 01 01
01
0
0 0
q ^=
O
to
�
r0
l
t0
�p
y0
0H0 o
m
cM
M
o
a
o
1 3 c p
Hatommtoaa8
3 c
MammmUaA
°o
-�
°o °o
3 c
rai
0
trail
0
0
0
o
b
o
o
'�,°� •°-'.c
°000000000
°o
mto �=c
000000
m� m C
a N 0 O
°
a N 0 O
a N j p
C O
v
1.
C
C O
W O Z
d 0 0
d
O) o Z
d 0 0
d
m o Z
d 0 0
d
m o Z
d 0 0
d
m o Z
d 0 0
O"
d
m o Z
d 0 0
tT mom.
d
m
m o Z
d 0 0
Qm
d
m
m O Z
d 0 0
QO1-
d
ain r
•t7 m
<<<
m C m ''
D
V m 0 N
m
p T O
0
T N O N
p T O
'O �'m 0
-O.. m
d
-O.. CL d
-°" O m
d
�. O m
d
O O m
T q d
O O
T m d
O O
N -° H d
O 3m
g T d
m 0 O
� �
� �
V? -m0
o m
:74
� �
`,
y y Q
y y pr
y N Q
y w Q
N d tJ
y
d tS
d Q
p-1
y
d Q
y p -w
3
0 0
o 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
8 8
0 0
0 0
0 o
m
r D
0
0 0
0 0
0
0 0
m r D
n 3 n m
n 3 n
n 3 n
n. n 3
? m
m
n m m C
n m m C
_
omd
0md
0md
omd
o0)d
omd
omd
o0)d
<�C z
V y m .�%
V.y Co ;U
Ao 3
ao 3
°a$3
°a o,3
°9,3
°A $,3
°Q3
t^lautmmmaa
C) n3
-�
0m a3
mV....mm�
0m>3
mN
Z
Z
z
z
z
z
z
z
rI av
NN
to
to 0101000
my nv
m�tJ
W
W W
W
OD �I
dV
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
(0i1F o a
°
°°
0 °0
00 °0
°0 °0
°0 00
m
°°
0
0 0
0
o a
o °
0 d o
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
p 0 o
o
0
p o m o
mN
_:..
-
O
O
O
m
N
N
y 0 a0
nc
NNNN�NN
y 0>0 �
°:c
pt00000mu1N
y 30 a�
°-+c
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
0
O
m<
y m p T
�0000000�
N
0 0
0 0
0 0
m
a
y m p T
--m C
v0000000v
n
C
O
O
O
O
O
O
p
O
p
O
] C
.� Q d p
0
O
0 0
0 0
0 0
O
0 0
O
�""G m. d C
OOO
O
0
000op
O
O
d
omo TZOV)m
p d q d
�zomo
O d to d
�zotoo
O d d
�ZOy3
O d N d
O
vZO
O d y d
O
to °, -0ZOmo
O d in d
V O
pzomo
p d M d
O' O
°z
p d y d
tT O
<M.1-1 m
T l'o r
^ m
m TpD
D m <
N
m Dm D
tJ O
A d p 1 3
tJ O
Apt p i 3
tJ O
A d p 1 3
tJ
A d p 1 3
tJ
A d d 3
A d p 1 3
a d y 3
a 0 j y 3
m
d m<
o �< 3
O O
O O
O O
O O
p 0 n 1° ,q
>
y
0
0 0
0 0
0
O O
p 0 n d
O
H m
m moQ�d
(000
(000-�D�i
Co.
m moo-
m
N mpm o
_.
o> p.
°-)
y
f�F'i°Danv
o
°-)-
mommy
tm13°.�°
n3°.rn°- )n3°.�mn3
(noQy
°,�mn3°,rn°
-,m
-)n
3°, o°1mn3o,�°
-)
n3o mpl
-o
m_
rtty mac
-)
�3tn
NJ
NtO
Nj 7 a"30
N
N N
N N8
NN
(O/)j j 4V
Z
D
Z
D
z
D
Z
D
Z
D
Z
D
Z
D
Z
D
as
0 m
�omdo
OAfNNNNp
V
0 0
0 0
0 0
01N
0 (VT
°po
G) T. 0= n
Oai
V 0
0 0
0 0
0
0 N
°po
N" m O t^
oog000°p
oom�o
0 0
0 0
0 0°p
oo a'm;
I O. -
J 5- -
v
g
3
3
N
Da O
O O.
V
p
H dn
oa.. �
-� 0
1
o
1 1
1 1tnm0o
1
- -�
,
o
1
1 1
1to
y0,0o
1
� c
^I
O
O
0
O
R` d
0
N� 0,C
n a m
o
I
n m O
aO
0 0
5 M Z
O m R M Z
O m
m O -0 Z
_
O1
'D
O N m
N
'n 1
<
0
I o
o
a
o
p A vy
3
d
1
m
I 1
I I
0 0
0
O n
n n
3nd
0
t�D
°
m�ov�m�n
�° v
m
y
py �
O v
mtn
-m d c
Om
'i
n3 °
-
3
°p -
ra
3°
j- �N
ynn
�;ny
O
O?
V
O
J a'30
j J a V
O
> a
r.
O
J
D
D
D
>
D
D
D
D�
�o�
of
0
I
I I
000l
G) 5'
- Op0ado
°I
O
1 110001
vG<��
o
o0ndo
.9 J
pom
I
I I
ml
I I
m
ml
I I
I
�I
i t
o�I
3
O1
p)
d
GA
A
m T rap
D <-
C
O m 0 M Z
O m 0-V z
O N �.� z
O m O� z
O m O� z
d
O m O� z
m an
O m O v z
d m
p w°� z
m N
m Vl
`� T r
m T A D'.H.
.O O D <
p d N 01
a tr� -o
d
O d a d
A try o
d
O d y d
A try -o
d 3
O d an d
v� -o
A d d 3
O d
try -o
A d d 3
O d
try -°,
A d d 3
O m
v� -°,
?• p1 d 3
O d
Q� -0
A d d 3
30 (n
3 m
m J m
tD
_
mc' 3
p n
c
G
m-.' 3q
O' O d
d 3
d 3
d
T
T
N T
N T O d
N O d
map -�
1 1
1 1
a l
I I
N n
a
jEOD m m N n d
1n T O d
°mm
N T O d
N T O d
O d
y O d
O d
°mm
1'
A
=a4tNilmO
m m d
?
g
3 mm m�
n3 °
n3°° dn3°
rn°- 11n3°pmdn3
°rn°- 1n3°cnp-
1n3
°
n3 °°rap-
m!^O�
-.
0 m o a 3�
0 m o Da 3
0 m o a 3
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
>> am
m> > 4T
.
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
0 -' o•
m
m
.Z •<
v'.
.
o? ran d o
p o a d o
�w1
pond
I
l
I I
I
I
l
m
I
I
�
NI
I I I
ml
3
a
ml
ml
3
om„vzomo
vzom-
°.vZOmo
�zomn
vZOm9,vzom�.vZOm9,vZ
< wm
m T
Gi m ��D
D
G) m yoD
d m
o d N d
A d W •°w
o m y m
a m m 3 °add
o °1 d
3 °,
o d d
a y m 3 -°,
o d m
A y m 3 °,
o O1 d
a y m 3 -°,
o d d
a y m 3 °•
m r
phi
5
^ <
o
m <
3°
m
3
°.
!/1
0 5? m
t1 t? m
t1 t? U)
n S? fn
I I
1°
I
I o° p
',
1
1 1
1
1°
1 I
o° v1 a p
3 -0'*
y molly
3 -
y m°Qom
mov�m
yoO
�N m � Q
d N (0�0
d d m•Opn
UP d m0n"
N mpm O
m n
O mAaV 0)
O mLaT
°- 1
8 a
n3°,md
o
o 3°. m°-)
o3 °mm
?�N
0 a
m 3
0 a
o a 3
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
z
z
av
>> av
I I
I
I
f
7 1 av
D
D
D
D
D
mo
�
o
��m� o
of
oI
otpDZ
cmj
omZ
cyD
omZ
00
-�
omZ
tray
omZ
cyy
omZ
cyy
-"-
o�Z
cm.j
omz
cy.D
Z
m
Z
m
�Z.
1� ..
..
3m'..
310 "-
3ro
310
Ito
G)�
3'0
0
Mm a0
�a0
W n0
0
X
A
o. m O
0
; 0 m
G7�
gET
Tm
� m
0
NO .Xm O
W.O
(p .p m
01-0 m
m -�
W .n0
-
�%
�m
D N
N m
•a m
C
m gy
g m
gy
3
m
3am
m
gy m
3
O
m m
gy�m
'm m
D
Aamm01
V V
m
N�
m
A m
m V
p0 w
tp tp
u1
t0
(11
"m-�
°
m tp
.T
3 d o
3m-
m c
3m-
m c
Bra-
3 d
3 m c
3 m c
3m-
3m-
3m
3N
t++-
N am
N
�n
NA-
No�1
o- m
,.
mm m
< I (/)y
mm m
< J Ny
mm $
< J (ny
m
mm m
< J (Ay
m T
mm m
< 3my
m T
mm m
G my
m N
mm
< 7 Ny
m H T
mm m
G 7 Ny
m H -°
m
J C
a-
�0000miJO�1
m
0000-
0
0 0 0
m 0
0
S
M 3 C
0 m „
�atnmtn-
0a
m 0
00�0ln
0 0
0
cm,
0 0
3 C
m y^ T
CC
m N T
y T
y^
3
3 S
In
�.N CEO
X0 C
� p
�NGO
•
v 3
a _
n
i0
o
�
o
w20
p3
rs
0
o
1
o v
b =Q
o
a= v
0
�= tr
h= v
m
A
m
m
m m
,dm tl m
m m
m m
m m
M m m
`mm A m
fD m
k
MM
m
x
x
O vi j N
» < p
x
o
»
_
_
�d0
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
z
z
N0 1 t00
AA
ON
AA
AM
A A
V WO
sn-
3d1=O j top
Gim TmD
O��Nw
W
tJ tpmtJ
W
min-
AN
TO D
>
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
m TO D
C
L'?
wplNV�m�m
On n,z C
mmmoNm�m
0
$n n`z C-
N
p 0
3 3 d
p m
3
D p o
Z
Z
'<
v D
y
M -0
myAmmmmmao
v 3 N m a
am`�.n
mmmm
m mmy°•�
m 3 m m n
amKM
N
w
N
N
N
D
D
N
m m C 3 N
y
C
y
m
m m C 9 d d
d
m m
a m n m
=
v m
v A
a <.-
pNj (R
fA fR
fA
FA W
fA W
'01 < - N
i^
N
V
LSO t�D
m
0�1
V N 3
N tVi1
m m
m
m M
V
a 1Vj1 3
wm�1
�1
�1mtp�
m
tDOwwwwtn
°NNNNN
�n m
�
N01NN
NN
OON
^d
°Om0l
X00000000
tll
O
V1000
oN
V d,
C d O^.�
°Ot11Nmm
O
000
,°..m'��
QD O
so
0 000000
QDT O
z
Z
Z
z
Z
z
z
Z
z
fA
fA (R w
E9 WN�fy
(JaN 0
m NNN(A
0ty11 7
pD0000tp
V
m
A0
pp O C
V
j-
mm
m
m
m O C
tom
NmmODm�1NN
M-i
MMm-
to tDR
m Uf
amt° O.
NNNN
tp
t0 tp
t0
jtTT
t'
m 3 N
3 mt0 a
W N
N N Nt11m�
W
m
°i N C m
V
p1 to
?AA
Jmm�
V 10
matT
V
y C m j
C
cr
0
0)
0
M
U) S
� r
N
D
0)
c<
y
N
z
O
CD
a
D)
CD
CD
y
v
y
SD
CL
O
CD
M
Cr
n
O
CD•
0
O
C
3
!G
v
a
CL
CD
y
y
N
3
N
CL
Q
o'
3
d
a
tv
y
O
3
a
C
CS
n
a7
n
FD*
Cn
n
CD
.a
CD
Q
K
CD
SD
CL
a
O
3
m
CL
(D
3
(A
Ic
m
3
CL
m
3
fA
�G
m
n
CD
CD
y
CD
CL
7,
7'
M
G)
K
v
m
3
CD
3
CL
3
(D
3
• • 0 SE
n
n
CD X
(p 3
iS
� r
0
v
L
c
CD
T! CD
�NNNNNN
O
00000000
NN O (D
a) a)
O
00000000
N
N N
N
CD
'
-1 N
NNNNNNN
_
O 3'D
a? O
—COW
--40)
_
WN 3
CD
OD
��
OaoVOO•PWN
Nca 3
SI) (O (D
SD CD
SD CD
V�vvV-4000
'NNNNNNN�
p
'
N N
N
N N
N N
Oi
7 N
p
V
COO)CnCnO)OO°
V
V V
V
O
O
N
CO
V
U1
V
CACYRCnOO°
V V
O O
N
�OCnUtUt
VtOO°
—
to
0
f0
CO
CD
m�D
CD D
@ y i p
@ y-C p
y�
a (n o p
E- -0
3
w�CnCA(ntn��
-•
3 c
w p(n(n(ncn�.th,
ON(nM(n(n00o
3 3 c
ONU)O)CnCn000
00000000
a
CDC
CnNcnmmm000
000000000
a
(D� C
00000000
a �.
CDC C
CD
�N0 p
,¢
C1N0 0
Q N7 0
,
r N
O
< 0
fD
N C)
r N
O
0
N CD °
0 2) --. ,D
a��
Cfl
C
--
- -
--»O
O CAC
A
00000000
O 0, CAC_
00000000
CD (n
fD
N000000CD
O
CA O
O
N CD (D x
Q•`D
N
N
U) O
OOOOOOOOON
O
O O
•D, •P
CD (D .Zl
O
Co 0
U)
CflCflCOC000C0C0
(J7
O
U)
O
O
Ut
C�?•D
3— C) Q
3 O L
0) 0 O_
�.00�a
'"
00�-0
C) -a
v
CL CD
y Q
Q
!n Q
n
n
3
p
N
{fl
N
iA
w
to {fl
w W
iA
w
ifl
N
m
iA N M p
N C.) 0.- n -i
EA
CO
ffl in
��
EA
Efl Efl
.� ��
t!) to
.�
t�
N
�, n m
w v -''
0 n O-
N
a
(D O
N
W
0000000
0000000
_
V-
�u)OCnO)
—�V
+;a
N
V-4
W
W
W
W
NNE
O
>
V
co
co
O
00 co
U) O
00
Cn
co
O
ON CD
00 Oy (�
O
Cn
N
OOaoOO�AO
N O
O
O O
O O
O
O(D CD
OU)
O
00
in
A
in
??
O)
Cn
W
O
O�
O
O
�<
3 d
°0000000°
.A
0000000°
C r- CD
0 0
o
o
oo°°000°
0000000°
yr�
0 0o.
O
O
`p CA O
v 3
CA 3
O
O
O
O
N
NNNN
V
V
3
< D
N ap
V N .ZI
Q\
O
N
NNNN"-'��N
OOOOcnmo-
V
V V
3
<
`OG CL
N .Z7
O d
O NNr)r.)
N
V
V
V
N
3
< D
M
y D..Z1
V
O
0000CnU,ov
0000
0
0
0 0
C)
0
O
0
-0 r
cn Q =
O O — O
0 3 C
v
°
0000
O o
0
0 °
0
°°
0 0
(n
0
a-
�— O
3 3 C
v0000CnCn0v
0000-
to 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0°
cn
0
a Q
— O
3
p
°
O
0
0
0 0
°oo
0 v 3
(p m 0
°
0 0
0
0 000
0
v
!y 0
0
0
0
0
v
N
j
3
y
y
y
X:
l<
CCDD N
(D N
CD N
CD0
n
O
�o
_
-t CD°
n
c0:
0
— 0
zzzzZzzZ
CAC
ZzZzzzZz
CAC
CD
ZzzzzZzZ
CZ C
.
DDDDDDDD
2
c`-'
�
DDDDDDDD
2
�
sy D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
m Q
m o
a m o
(n
0
�
F
N
Cna
' �a
�
C
a o
y d
..
Q CD
y CL
:z
n
y Q
U)
cC�D—
O CL
3 nD—
CD o O. 3
=
3 0>
CD O 3
z
Z
z z
Z
Z
CD
z Z r 3 3 CL -0
y < sli
A)
Z Z
��������
Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z
r 3 3 as
Ov_, < sD
0
z
:� ��������
z
Z
Z
z
Z
Z
z
CL
r 3 3 °:•°
Ov_, < m
DDDDDDDD
�zzz
(O.� o
DDDDDDDD
CnZID a
`G DDDDDDDD
cn'.� o
3
o Q w o
o n. v
3
0 a o
3
(D
m
3 _
z
D
3
5
D O n
CD 1 3
0 0
=P
°
CD 3 fD
O a�
00000000
3
d 3 Cp
N
N N
O pNNNN
w
w
W
w
N
W
N
W
N
6-3 CD
3
�N0CD
0000C4
Q.ry N
N
N
Cnim
OOOOOOOOON
wU)w•PA�
(D CD (D
���
V IA
mboin6Cn(n00 bo
A��00
°
(D N
O T7
��
�co
K
Dy
�K�
c
c
o
00
c
m C)
x
7 X m
a L D
2) a, D
a
-
c
0 C
O
—
Nw
?A(n
c r.0
U3
'Z7
www��acncn
NM(ONmM
M
DL
3 C
�0
77
W
Ut
-P V
CO
N_
O V .Z7
sn
0-0
(n
?A?
W N
O O
?.OPT
V
�cc
pW)
N
W�
O
W
V
�G
ODd).P�A
W
W N
CD
*.:
�:'A
n� CD
0
NOP
?0000
--
- =CD
3
N N 3
�NOwNNaco
0 cD 3
7 n•p
3 (?•O
0!
.y.�U) O
.
v
O
Xw
D 3° v
D;
m
D 3°
3 n90 D
3 aK0,D
m
CD 3 -n(p
Z ::
G::
G:
3 p'D �o
CL
:�
<:�
Gam:
CL
3 �� T D
CL
(D
y
(D
y
(D CD
y y
CD
y
(D
y(a
CD z O- m
O O
CD
O y
CD
y
CD CD
y y
CD CD
y y
CD
y
.fl
3 n
CD
y
CD
y
N
y
M
y
(D
y
CD
y
CD
y
CD
y
, p a) C
3 ,� CD n, N
fD n,
(D
J
(n m
CD :3
Jm
QQ�CD
N
y
N
{fl{fl{fl{0
-0%f
4A N CO') C
N
N W
W
W W
N N
N n U
N
O
CnOMM0•PA
00000
com(ACnCn•A
wN O 0) 3
P� �,ip�
W
V 000000W
O��
-'�ww
�O y 3
�,Q°"C7
ZZzzzzzz
Z
ca
0) cD
0)
-� O CD 1A .s 3
(D CD
-
OW
tW co
0000
00
00 00
V V
V
E9
r.
DDDDDDDD
D
CD
O
O
V
P
OOOONN(n
P4
.
-N00N
.
N
a O a)
. CD N �.
k
CA0tocotoww90
O
v
V V
O O
00
a W 0
�. p
-�
ocnmomoo
N.
O
(Q
ao<
�aCncn(n(n00
W V
CL. <
0
5,0
c
I
A)
o
00 a o
c 0 co -*
x
rs
-tt
w
w
69
-o
� '
O
I
A , O Z7
O O W O
0)
v
, ,
I
,
i
, ,
i
, v
I
co
,
i
C)
O W O
Z
Z
z
Z
z
Z
Z
Z
z
I!!
O OD O
3 0 3
CO
W
i i
I I
I
i i
I I
I
I
i
I
O O
3 N 3
DDDDDDDD
D
W
7:
W v a
P.
v
v
O
a 2
CD O
cn
Cn N O
(D
(D
n
n
CD X
(p 3
iS
� r
0
v
L
c
9 .9 1 8E
0
O
m
d
m
3
m
m
C')
s
0
N
O,
T
m
c
d
m
J
v
T �
N
N N
N N
N N
N � <
N O S m
fD
m �I
rn m
A W
N�
W N
N
m 3
J 3
m fO m
D
r
N
3nta;
m m
F NY
�
v fNJ
O m
N A
W^
lhij
A�1m
N rnAmA
m
d T
3
n, m
A 0
N
N
O
rnrnrnrnrn���
N N
N N
O O
N N
N N
O O
+ ++
N N
m m
N^
m
�-
q
i�'
m
m m
m m
m m
m C
D 01 =
mJrn
AN
V m
m -'r
R1�
m
m+
%.h.
W N+
y 0.
�
rnm
0
V
2�0
m0
0 0
W m
0�°o�°3em
+_.m
J
m ^�
d
m m
m m
m o
o rn
en d
C 0
d J
J m
J C
V
mN.N
aN
T
—
N
+mm
a A
rn
m
-�",'
I' %:
T 3.
V
O a
O
a a
O O
a m
O O
m N
O A
W
JmO�IO
W
w
'
m
m m
m
V W
m j
� •'.
+ T
cn (A
c4._lt
� C
m m,
d
N
W rn
rn rn
rn rn
rn W
am
mmmmnnm03�c�
d 0
A 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 !J
0 0
N
N N
N N
j O
o�
oD
� m
i C
j �
I
O
N
m it
�I -4
I A
d
3 m
b
�OJD
��v.Aa
W
OWj
A +O
a ^
0 f J
D fn
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
O
O 3
d T
.
m (A
N
mmmm<o
A
rnmmrnmuamm
N
A A
A A
OWN N
N N
<omm
A A
N^
A
mmmmmmm�c
}�
mA
mm
W+O�1=
r...FO
m
tJ m
A m
W m
m rn
[D O
rn rn
rn d cn
m m
....
0
0 0
0 2•
o 0
0�
mmmmmta
nN
n
O
N O
O O
O O
O m
cn n
c
o
a J
m m
J
0
m
�mm
A OOmf
N
ONO OI
.Z1
W
k ar
O
m N O
r
o
N
mmmmmm�y
V N
N
V m
N N
N O
�I m
ccn
V C
J d �•
j
�N
O A
m V
m�Im�
�
�IAmmmmmmm
A
m O
O O
O O
O m
N
�1
n
V
m 4.
m
O
O m
m m
m m
m
a3
m
mm
d m
NN
�(Nll
OAOaO
J
o
�m
m
3 0
JJ-I
A
-4 -4
m mm
M M
rn
O
rn
N
N A
rn rn
O O
m rn
rn
m rn
W m
m m
W^
W
W
W 2C
O (p
A
m T��tl
� C
n. 2
Q
� a
f�D d
m
A
v
OR
m m
A A
v v
m m
A A
r v
A
m
V
�,f)
U/
a'nob00000
0
0 0
0 0
mmmmmmmmC
0 0
al.
rn
WM
A N
W
O m
OW.NWmy
m m
A- r'
Of.
eeeeeeae��
mm°D
a
Dt
R
m
N N
C m
mn�c
N ++
m m
O
m to
T J
D N
m
O
F
0 0
0 m
N
0 3
N v
r+
N
tm0 N
N tA0
N m
22v
W
�
r
O
mm�o�cmmmmmm`
m
wwwwmmmmm
m W
0
m m
A C
rn
rn m
m 0
W m
0 0
W
W j 5
o y p
_
+ a
0 0
T J
aoaaaaia
m
O
O O
O O
mN
O A
nq
n
m.
n �
n
� o
0
o m
m
m
kzt
T O
H v <
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 i m p
mm�IrnmA
W N
N
m 3
D
r
N
A
m
3
A
A 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
D 01 =
C: 3 m
P. m 3
�NWWWWNN
m ^�
+
m m
m m
m o
o rn
o �
J C
d
H
�
T 3.
A
m
O a
O
a a
O O
a m
O O
m N
O A
O m
+ T
cn (A
� C
m m,
N
W rn
rn rn
rn rn
rn W
y J
v N
m
A
d 0
A 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 !J
0 0
o�
oD
� m
i C
a
'fi
N
m it
�I -4
I A
A+
b
I V
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 f J
D fn
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
O 3
N A
m �
3�
rn
N N
N N
N ++
O
T J
mOm
mmmmmta
nN
O
N O
O O
O O
O m
0
m
o m
O
m N O
c J
j
N N
OOf
N N
tT tTm+
N N
A
m m
�.z
�IAmmmmmmm
A
m O
O O
O O
O m
N
m
3 O
fn A C
d m
NN
�(Nll
OAOaO
�m
m
O m
O (p
� C
f�D d
v
O
m 0
P.0
U/
a'nob00000
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
o �
mm°D
m
R
m
N N
C m
N N
m m
N ++
m m
O
m to
T J
D N
m
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 m
0 3
o n
v m
i C
3 n
GO
_
+ a
0 0
T J
aoaaaaia
m
O
O O
O O
mN
O A
nq
m
n
� o
0
o m
5�
C d
cmit
+AAAAN
N N
�
I
N
N N
N A
A% I
W
O
O O
O O
O N
ro
(9d C
n fD c
m my
N <
O0
m
m
rn
V 7 m
m A
J m
O rn
A N+
N m
N W
O
O m
+ T
N m
� C
o_
A
A
O N
O O
N N
O O
N N
O O
N N
O?
T H
m
m 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
O 3
mD
v m
� C
N
m
inN+
O
N W
m m
W W
m m
W ++
+m
m O
O
min
O A
T J
DG
-
03
o
�
V (A
� G
3 m
m
A
+ +
O A
++
A A
+ 0
A m
0 0
D o N
T J
n N
m
O
O O
O O
O A
n
mo m
C/)
C =
d m
+
W rn
rn rn
rn A
A Lf
j S
�Wiririnmmm�
N
A m
m m
m O
O m
A
( n c
d(n C
H o
+
+
<
o m
N
+ m
N m
m rn
N m
A W
m N
m W
W
W
49
ao
W mmmn
A in
in in
mmm
in in
in +
i
m
-n cn
o
m
A +
+ m
T j
misOO
A
0
0 a 0
OOON
0 0
0 0
!J
'A
'A
W
m
49
A m
(A (A
m m
W
m W
69 fp
W
m
-
W
m
m m
m W
W 0
a
NOtddA
rn
W A
A A
OWf
A m
��
m O
T
M;71
w
O
m C
O G
O
O A
W=0000000
O
N
N rn
A 0
rn rn
0 0
rn 0
0 f 0
0+
rn m
O
�I
�I m
m m
m t0
i0 A
N
A
m m
m m
m m
m m
1�
0
0 0
l J O
O m
N
N O
O O
O O
O O
Hacienda Lakes Q
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner 8E
GMP Application
CCPC Review Materials
EXHIBIT M
Environmental Report
0 & Maps
•
DAVA"%
CONSULTING FmiminE
1 V 1 Il 1 Smq ne
•
[r
Exhibit M
Vegetation mapping of the Project site was fast conducted by Passarella & Associates,
Inc. (PAI) between January and August 2002 and in March 2003 utilizing the Florida
Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) (Florida Department of
Transportation 1999). Wetland lines were flagged in the field and survey located.
Mapping was based on Level III FLUCFCS with Level IV used to denote hydrologic
conditions and disturbance. "E" codes were used to show levels of exotic invasion (i.e.,
Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) and melaleuca ( Melaleuca quinquenewia)).
In August 2009, PAI conducted fieldwork to update the FLUCFCS map for the Hacienda
Lakes DRI to reflect current conditions due to wildfires that occurred over the past
several years and the spread of invasive exotic plant species, especially melaleuca. The
wetland lines were re- flagged in the field and survey located in August through
December 2009. Verification and approval of the wetland lines by the South Florida
Water Management District (SFWMD) are pending as part of the Project's
Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) application (SFWMD Application No. 100126 -5).
AutoCAD Map 3D 2009 software was used to determine the acreage of each mapping
area, produce summaries, and generate the final FLUCFCS and Wetlands maps (Maps F,
F -1, and F -2).
isA total of 64 vegetative associations and land uses (i.e., FLUCFCS codes) were identified
on the Project site. The dominant.vegetation type on the site is Pine /Cypress, Disturbed
(FLUCFCS Code 6249). In general, the habitats on the Project site have a high degree of
infestation by melaleuca on the western and central portion of the property. The
melaleuca infestation generally decreases towards the eastern portion of the site.
•
The following table summarizes the FLUCFCS codes and provides an acreage
breakdown, while a description of each FLUCFCS code follows.
FLUCFCS Codes and Acreages
FLUCFCS
Code
Description
Acreage
Percent
of Total
180
Recreational
79.89
3.5
212
Unimproved Pasture
9.14
0.4
260
Rural Open Land
10.54
0.5
262
Low Pasture, Hydric
54.43
2.4
3219 E1
Palmetto Prairie, Disturbed (0 — 24% Exotics)
27.81
1.2
3219 E2
Palmetto Prairie, Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics)
12.60
0.6
3219 E3
Palmetto Prairie, Disturbed (50 - 75% Exotics)
3.71
0.2
Passarella & Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
•
•
•
FLUCFCS
Code
Description
Acreage
Percent
of Total
3219 E4
Palmetto Prairie, Disturbed (76 - 100% Exotics)
5.75
0.3
4119 El
Pine Flatwoods, Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics)
90.01
4.0
4119 E2
Pine Flatwoods, Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics)
143.78
6.4
4119 E3
Pine Flatwoods, Disturbed (50 - 75% Exotics)
23.49
1.0
4119 E4
Pine Flatwoods, Disturbed (76 - 100% Exotics)
0.35
<0.1
4159 E2
Pine, Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics)
6.77
0.3
4159 E3
Pine, Disturbed (50 - 75% Exotics)
10.78
0.5
4159 E4
Pine, Disturbed (76 - 100% Exotics)
6.47
0.3
4221
Brazilian Pepper, Hydric
1.81
0.1
424
Melaleuca
13.70
0.6
4241
Melaleuca, Hydric
345.07
15.3
4269 El
Tropical Hardwood Hammock, Disturbed
(0 - 24% Exotics)
0.40
<0.1
4269 E2
Tropical Hardwood Hammock, Disturbed
(25 - 49% Exotics)
2.25
0.1
4279 E1
Live Oak, Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics)
3.89
1 0.2
4279 E2
Live Oak, Disturbed (50 - 75% Exotics)
0.29
<0.1
4289 E1
Cabbage Palm, Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics)
1.20
0.1
4289 E2
Cabbage Palm, Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics)
19.08
0.8
4289 E3
Cabbage Palm, Disturbed (50 - 75% Exotics)
3.25
0.1
4349 E1
Hardwood - Conifer, Mixed, Disturbed
(0 - 24% Exotics)
1.47
0.1
514
Ditch
3.38
0.1
6189 E1
Willow, Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics)
10.97
0.5
6189 E2
Willow, Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics)
2.48
0.1
6219 El
Cypress, Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics)
157.74
7.0
6219 E2
Cypress, Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics)
27.66
1.2
6219 E3
Cypress, Disturbed (50 - 75% Exotics)
1.45
0.1
62459 E2
Pine/Cypress, Drained, Disturbed
(25 - 49% Exotics)
1.32
0.1
62459 E3
Pine/Cypress, Drained, Disturbed
(50 - 75% Exotics)
2.36
0.1
6249 E1
Pine/Cypress, Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics)
289.16
12.8
6249 E2
Pine /Cypress, Disturbed (25- 49% Exotics)
327.32
14.5
6249 E3
Pine/Cypress, Disturbed (50 - 75% Exotics)
258.23
11.4
6249 E4
Pine /Cypress, Disturbed (76 - 100% Exotics)
27.86
1 1.2
624B E2
Pine /Cypress, Burned (25 -49% Exotics)
22.90
1.0
624B E3
Pine/Cypress, Burned (50 -75% Exotics)
9.56
0.4
6259 El
Hydric Pine, Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics)
31.52
1.4
6259 E2
Hydric Pine, Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics)
27.86
1.2
6259 E3
Hydric Pine, Disturbed (50 - 75% Exotics)
63.26
2.8
Passarella & Associates, Inc.
Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 2
•
•
E'1�
FLUCFCS
Code
Description
Acreage
Percent
of Total
6259 E4
Hydric Pine, Disturbed (76 - 100% Exotics)
12.00
0.5
625B E3
Hydric Pine, Burned (50 - 75% Exotics)
1.22
0.1
6289 E1
Hydric Cabbage Palm, Disturbed
(0 - 24% Exotics)
2.64
0.1
6289 E2
Hydric Cabbage Palm, Disturbed
(25 - 49% Exotics)
6.94
0.3
6289 E3
Hydric Cabbage Palm, Disturbed
(50 - 75% Exotics)
2.09
0.1
6309 E1
Wetland Forested Mixed, Disturbed
(0 - 24% Exotics)
19.90
0.9
6309 E2
Wetland Forested Mixed, Disturbed
(25 - 49% Exotics)
7.21
0.3
6319 E3
Wetland Shrub, Disturbed (50 - 75% Exotics)
5.83
0.3
6419 E1
Freshwater Marsh, Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics)
6.82
0.3
6419 E2
Freshwater Marsh, Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics)
10.63
0.5
740
Disturbed Land
3.21
0.1
7401
Disturbed Land, Hydric
18.16
0.8
742
Borrow Area
5.38
0.2
743
Spoil
0.16
<0.1
747
Berm
0.93
<0.1
814
Road
0.32
<0.1
8146
Unpaved Road
4.33
0.2
830
Utilities
1.08
<0.1
8301
Utilities, Hydric
4.82
0.2
832
Powerline Easement
1.24
0.1
8321
Powerline Easement, Hydric
4.27
0.2
Totals
2,262.14
100.0
Recreational (FLUCFCS Code 180)
This area is occupied by the Florida Sports Park with associated parking areas and
facilities.
Unimproved Pasture (FLUCFCS Code 212)
This upland land type identifies areas that are part of an abandoned agricultural field.
The canopy and sub -canopy of this upland habitat are mostly open with scattered slash
pine (Pirnts elliottii), cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), and young melaleuca (Melaleuca
quinquenenpia). The ground cover is dominated by bahiagrass (Paspalum notattan), and
smutgrass (Sporobolus indicus) with dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), St.
Augustine grass (Stenotaphrum secundatum), carpetgrass (Axonopus spp.), blackroot
(Pterocaulon virgatum), broomsedge (Andropogon Wrghdcus), caesarweed (Urena
• lobata), shrubby false buttonweed (Spermacoce verticillata), and love grass (Eragrostis
spp•)
Passarella & Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 3
•
8E
Rural Open Land (FLUCFCS Code 260)
This upland land type identifies an old agricultural area that includes two old farm
buildings. The canopy vegetation includes slash pine and cabbage palm. Sub - canopy
vegetation is mostly absent with occurrences of cabbage palm, Brazilian pepper (Schinus
terebinthifolius), and melaleuca. The ground cover vegetation is similar to Unimproved
Pasture (FLUCFCS Code 212).
Low Pasture, Hydric (FLUCFCS Code 262)
This wetland land type identifies areas that are part of an abandoned agricultural field.
The canopy and sub - canopy of are mostly open with scattered slash pine, cabbage palm,
melaleuca, and cypress (Taxodium spp.). The ground cover is dominated by torpedograss
(Panicuin repens), and includes a variety of upland, wetland, and transitional herbaceous
species which vary by season.
Palmetto Prairie, Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 3219 E1)
The canopy of this upland habitat is absent or may contain scattered slash pine, cabbage
palm, earleaf acacia (Acacia auriculiformis), and less than 25 percent melaleuca. The
sub - canopy contains saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), and
Brazilian pepper. The ground cover is dominated by saw palmetto and contains varying
combinations of beautybeny (Callicarpa americana), saltbush (Baccharis halimifolia),
• staggerbush (Ly077ia fi•uiticosa), hog plum (Prunzus umbellata), gallberry (Ilex glabra),
bracken fern (Pteridizan aquilinum), wiregrass (Aristida stricta), pennyroyal (Piloblephis
rigida), muscadine grapevine (Vitis rotundifolia), greenbrier (Smilax spp:), poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans), love vine (Cassytha filiformis), and Virginia creeper
(Parthenocissus quinquefolia).
Palmetto Prairie, Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 3219 E2)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 3219 E1 with 25 to 49 percent
melaleuca and/or Brazilian pepper in the canopy and/or sub - canopy.
Palmetto Prairie, Disturbed (50 - 75% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 3219 E3)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 3219 E1 with 50 to 75 percent
melaleuca and/or Brazilian pepper in the canopy and/or sub - canopy.
Palmetto Prairie, Disturbed (76 - 100% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 3219 E4)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 3219 El with greater than 75
percent melaleuca and/or Brazilian pepper in the canopy and/or sub - canopy.
Pine Flatwoods, Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4119 E1)
The canopy of this upland habitat is dominated by slash pine and may contain scattered
cabbage palm, live oak, earleaf acacia, and less than 25 percent melaleuca. The sub -
canopy consists of slash pine, wax myrtle, with occasional dahoon holly (Ilex casine),
and Brazilian pepper. The ground cover is dominated by saw palmetto with varying
• combinations of gallberry, saltbush, muscadine grapevine, greenbrier, love vine, poison
ivy, pennyroyal, bracken fern, and beautyber y.
Passarella & Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 4
•
BE
Pine Flatwoods, Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4119 E2)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 4119 E1 with 25 to 49 percent
melaleuca and/or Brazilian pepper in the canopy.
Pine Flatwoods, Disturbed (50 - 75% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4119 E3)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 4119 E1 with 50 to 75 percent
melaleuca and/or Brazilian pepper in the canopy.
Pine Flatwoods, Disturbed (76 - 100% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4119 E4)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 4119 El with greater than 75
percent melaleuca and/or Brazilian pepper in the canopy.
Pine, Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4159 E2)
The canopy of this upland habitat contains slash pine with scattered cabbage palm,
earleaf acacia, and melaleuca. The sub -canopy contains slash pine, cabbage palm,
melaleuca, and Brazilian pepper. Typical ground cover includes cabbage palm,
bahiagrass, wax myrtle, ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), pennyroyal, wild coffee
(Psychotria sp.), greenbrier, muscadine grapevine, love vine, and widely scattered saw
palmetto.
is Pine, Disturbed (50 - 75% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4159 E3)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 4159 E2 with 50 to 75 percent
melaleuca and/or Brazilian pepper in the canopy.
•
Pine, Disturbed (76 -100% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4159 E4)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 4159 E2 with greater than 75
percent melaleuca and/or Brazilian pepper in the canopy.
Brazilian Pepper, Hydric (FLUCFCS Code 4221)
The canopy of this highly disturbed wetland area is dominated by Brazilian pepper and
may contain occasional melaleuca, slash pine and cypress. The sub -canopy is dominated
by Brazilian pepper with wax myrtle and/or saltbush. The ground cover is absent or may
include sparse asiatic pennywort (Centella asiatica), frog -fruit (Plryla nodiflora), dog
fennel, water pennywort (Hydrocotyle umbellata), buttonweed (Diodia virginiana),
and /or mock bishop's weed (Ptili nnium captillaceum).
Melaleuca (FLUCFCS Code 424)
The canopy of this highly disturbed upland area is dominated by melaleuca with widely
scattered slash pine. The sub - canopy consists of melaleuca and Brazilian pepper. Ground
cover is generally sparse and may include saltbush, wiregrass, broomsedge, dog fennel,
myrsine (Rapanea punctata), creeping oxeye (Sphagneticola trilobata), and/or poison
ivy.
Passarella & Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 5
Melaleuca, Hydric (FLUCFCS Code 4241)
This highly disturbed wetland area consists of a canopy dominated by melaleuca and may
contain widely scattered slash pine and /or cypress. The sub - canopy may be sparse or
dense with melaleuca, Brazilian pepper, slash pine, wax myrtle, and saltbush. The
ground cover is often bare ground /leaf litter, or may consist of a combination of
yellow -eyed grass (Xyris spp.), hatpins (Eriocaulon decangulare), rush fuirena (Fuirena
schpoidea), sawgrass (Cladh nz jamaicense), blue maidencane (Amphicarpuni,
muhlenbergianum), creeping oxeye, and/or climbing hempvine (Mikania scandens).
Several of the areas identified by this code were previously pine /cypress habitats with
high degrees of melaleuca whose vegetative composition has been altered by wildfires.
Most pine and cypress trees in the canopy were killed by the wildfires, while the
melaleuca trees persisted.
Tropical Hardwood Hammock, Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4269 E1)
The canopy of this upland habitat contains live oak (Quercus virginicus), laurel oak
(Quercus laurifolia), cabbage palm, and scattered slash pine and gumbo limbo (Bursera
simaruba). The sub - canopy typically consists of myrsine, Coco -plum (Cluysobalanus
icaco), cabbage palm, red mulberry (Morus rubra), and Brazilian pepper. The ground
cover includes wild coffee, Boston fern (Nephrolepis exaltata), swamp fern (Blechnurra.
serrulatum), cabbage palm, greenbrier, and scattered saw palmetto.
• Tropical Hardwood Hammock, Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4269 E2)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 4269 E1 with 25 to 49 percent
melaleuca and/or Brazilian pepper in the canopy and sub - canopy.
•
Live Oak, Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4279 E1)
The canopy of this upland community type contains live oak, laurel oak, and cabbage
palm. The sub - canopy contains wax myrtle and Brazilian pepper. The ground cover
includes saw palmetto, caesarweed, saltbush, poison ivy, greenbrier, and wild coffee.
Live Oak, Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4279 E2)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 4279 E1 with 25 to 49 percent
melaleuca and/or Brazilian pepper in the canopy and sub - canopy.
Cabbage Palm, Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4289 E1)
The canopy of this upland habitat contains cabbage palm, slash pine, and melaleuca. The
sub - canopy contains cabbage palm, myrsine, and Brazilian pepper. The ground cover
includes wax myrtle, Brazilian pepper, caesarweed, saw palmetto, bahiagrass, and
flatsedge (Cyperus spp.). A few of the areas identified by this code were previously pine
flatwoods whose vegetative composition has been altered by wildfires. Most pine trees
were killed in the wildfires while cabbage palm and melaleuca survived.
Passarella & Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 6
•
•
Cabbage Palm, Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4289 E2)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 4289 E1 with 25 to 49 percent
melaleuca and /or Brazilian pepper in the canopy and sub - canopy. A few of the areas
identified by this code were previously pine flatwoods whose vegetative composition has
been altered by wildfires. Most pine trees were killed in the wildfires while cabbage palm
and melaleuca survived.
Cabbage Palm, Disturbed (50 - 75% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4289 E3)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 4289 E1 with 50 to 75 percent
melaleuca and /or Brazilian pepper in the canopy and sub- canopy. A few of the areas
identified by this code were previously pine flatwoods whose vegetative composition has
been altered by wildfires. Most pine trees were killed in the wildfires while cabbage pahn
and melaleuca survived.
Hardwood- Conifer, Mixed, Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4349 E1)
This upland community has a canopy consisting of slash pine, live oak, laurel oak, and
cabbage palm. The sub - canopy contains dahoon holly, wax myrtle, myrsine, Brazilian
pepper, and cabbage palm. The ground cover includes saw palmetto, dog fennel,
caesarweed, and wild coffee.
• Ditch (FLUCFCS Code 514)
The canopy is typically open. The sub - canopy may contain Brazilian pepper, Carolina
willow (Salix carolinlana), and primrose willow (Ludwigia peruviana). The -ground
cover typically consists of paragrass (Urochloa nnttica), dotted smartweed (Polygonuin
punctatum), pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata), arrowhead (Sagittaria lancifolia), and
cattail (Typha spp.).
Willow, Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6189 E1)
The canopy and sub - canopy of this wetland habitat is dominated by Carolina willow and
may include buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), primrose willow, and Brazilian
pepper. The ground cover typically consists of sawgrass, fnreflag (Thalia geniculata),
arrowhead, pickerelweed, peppervine, paragrass, saltbush, and/or asiatic pennywort.
Willow, Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6189 E2)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 6189 E1 with 25 to 49 percent
exotics in the canopy and sub - canopy.
Cypress, Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6219 E1)
The canopy of this wetland habitat is dominated by cypress and may also include red
maple (Ater rubrunz), swamp bay (Pei-sea palustris), cabbage palm, and melaleuca. The
sub - canopy may contain Brazilian pepper, melaleuca, cabbage palm, myrsine, pond apple
(A717707za glabra), and buttonbush. The ground cover includes maidencane (Panicurn
hernitonion), wax myrtle, rush fuirena, corkwood (Stillingia aquatica), swamp fern,
• beakrush (Rhynchospora spp.), and giant leather fern (Acrostichi= danaeifoliuni).
Passarella & Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 7
• 8E
Cypress, Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6219 E2)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 6219 E1 with 25 to 49 percent
melaleuca and /or Brazilian pepper in the canopy and /or sub - canopy.
Cypress, Disturbed (50 - 75% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6219 E3)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 6219 El with 50 to 75 percent
melaleuca and/or Brazilian pepper in the canopy and /or sub - canopy.
Pine /Cvnress, Disturbed and Drained (25 - 49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 62459 E2)
This historically hydric community no longer exhibits signs of hydrology and, therefore,
was mapped as an upland community. The canopy consists of slash pine, cypress,
cabbage palm, and melaleuca. The sub - canopy contains slash pine, cabbage palm, downy
rose myrtle (Rhodomyrtus tomentosa), and Brazilian pepper. The ground cover includes
muscadine grapevine, caesarweed, dog fennel, poison ivy, cabbage palm, and scattered
saw palmetto.
Pine /Cypress, Disturbed and Drained (50 - 75% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 62459 E3)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 62459 E2 with 50 to 75
percent melaleuca, downy rose myrtle and/or Brazilian pepper in the canopy and/or sub -
canopy.
• Pine /Cypress, Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6249 E1)
The canopy of this wetland habitat typically consists of slash pine, cypress, cabbage
palm, and melaleuca. The sub - canopy may contain slash pine, cypress, cabbage palm,
melaleuca, and /or Brazilian pepper. The ground cover consists of a combination of
swamp fern, rush fuirena, corkwood, water pennywort, rosy camphorweed (Pluchea
rosea), and cabbage palm.
Pine /Cypress, Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6249 EQ
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 6249 E1 with 25 to 49 percent
melaleuca and/or Brazilian pepper in the canopy and sub - canopy.
Pine /Cypress, Disturbed (50 - 75% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6249 E3)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 6249 E1 with 50 to 75 percent
melaleuca and/or Brazilian pepper in the canopy and/or sub - canopy.
Pine /Cypress, Disturbed (76 - 100% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6249 E4)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 6249 E1 with greater than 75
percent melaleuca in the canopy.
Pine / Cypress, Burned (25 — 49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 624B E2
This code identifies areas burned by a wildfire in May 2009. Prior to the wildfire, the
community type was identified as FLUCFCS Code 6249 E2. At the time the FLUCFCS
• map was updated, the living vegetative community was not evident due to the recent
damage by the wildfire (i.e., dead pine and cypress trees, no recruiting vegetation);
Passarella & Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 8
•
8E
therefore, the area was assigned the code and exotic level of the habitat prior to the
wildfire and denoted with a `B'.
Pine /Cypress, Burned (50 — 75% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 624B E3)
This code identifies areas burned by a wildfire in May 2009. Prior to the wildfire, the
community type was identified as FLUCFCS Code 6249 E2. At the time the FLUCFCS
map was updated, the living vegetative community was not evident due to the recent
damage by the wildfire (i.e., dead pine and cypress trees, no recruiting vegetation);
therefore, the area was assigned the code and exotic level of the habitat prior to the
wildfire and denoted with a `B'.
Pine Hydric, Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6259 El)
The canopy of this wetland habitat consists of slash pine and melaleuca with scattered
cabbage palm and earleaf acacia. The sub -canopy contains slash pine, melaleuca,
myrsine, dahoon holly, cypress, and Brazilian pepper. The ground cover includes
sawgrass, blue maidencane, corkwood, yellow -eyed grass, gulf muhly (Muhlenbez gia
capillaris), gulfdune paspalum (Paspaluzn nzonostachyuzn), and/or rush fuirena.
Pine, Hydric, Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6259 E2)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 6259 E1 with 25 to 49 percent
• melaleuca and/or Brazilian pepper in the canopy and/or sub - canopy.
Pine, Hydric, Disturbed (50 - 75% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6259 E3)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 6259 E1 with 50 to 75 percent
melaleuca and/or Brazilian pepper in the canopy and/or sub - canopy.
Pine, Hydric, Disturbed (76 - 100% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6259 E4)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 6259 E1 with greater than 75
percent melaleuca in the canopy.
Hydric Pine, Burned (50 — 75% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 625B E3)
This code identifies areas burned by a wildfire in May 2009. Prior to the wildfire, the
community type was identified as FLUCFCS Code 6259 E3. At the time the FLUCFCS
map was updated, the living vegetative community was not evident due to the recent
damage by the wildfire (i.e., dead pine and cypress trees, no recruiting vegetation);
therefore, the area was assigned the code and exotic level of the habitat prior to the
wildfire and denoted with a `B'.
Hydric Cabbage Palm, Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6289 E1)
The canopy of this wetland habitat contains cabbage palm, scattered slash pine, myrsine,
and less than 25 percent melaleuca and/or Brazilian pepper. The sub - canopy consists of
cabbage palm, slash pine, and melaleuca. The ground cover includes cabbage palm,
swamp fern, dog fennel, asiatic pennywort, rush fuirena, yellow -eyed grass, and
• occasional saw palmetto.
Passarella & Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 9
•
Hydric Cabbage Palm, Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6289 E2)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 6289 E1 with 25 to 49 percent
melaleuca and /or Brazilian pepper in the canopy and sub - canopy.
Hydric Cabbage Palm, Disturbed (50 - 75% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6289 E3)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 6289 E1 with 50 to 75 percent
melaleuca and/or Brazilian pepper in the canopy and sub - canopy.
Wetland Forested Mixed, Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6309 E1)
The canopy consists of cypress, laurel oak, red maple, cabbage palm, and melaleuca. The
sub - canopy contains pop ash (Fraxinus caroliniarra), cabbage palm, myrsine, wax myrtle,
and Brazilian pepper. The ground cover includes swamp fern, sawgrass, greenbrier, and
asiatic pennywort.
Wetland Forested Mixed, Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6309 E2)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 6309 E1 with 25 to 49 percent
melaleuca and/or Brazilian pepper in the canopy and sub - canopy.
Wetland Shrub, Disturbed (50 - 75% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6319 E3)
• The canopy and sub - canopy of this wetland habitat typically contains Carolina willow,
primrose willow, Brazilian pepper with scattered wax myrtle, buttonbush, cypress, and/or
melaleuca. The ground cover in many areas is dominated by paragrass and /or
toipedograss and may include pepper vine (Anzpelopsis arborea), swamp fern, sawgrass,
pickerelweed (PontedeHa cordata), arrowhead (Saggitaria lancifolia), fireflag,
maidencane, and asiatic pennywort.
•
Freshwater Marsh, Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6419 ED
The canopy is open with widely scattered cypress. The sub - canopy is open with scattered
Brazilian pepper, Carolina willow, and/or primrose willow. The ground cover consists of
pickerelweed, arrowhead, fireflag, spikerush (Eleocharis interstincta), smartweed,
maidencane, and torpedograss.
Freshwater Marsh, Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6419 E2)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 6419 E1 with 25 to 49 percent
melaleuca and/or Brazilian pepper in the canopy and sub - canopy.
Disturbed Land (FLUCFCS Code 740)
The canopy and sub - canopy strata are generally open with scattered cabbage palm,
melaleuca saplings, and Brazilian pepper. The ground cover contains species typical to
disturbed areas including dog fennel, ragweed, caesarweed, creeping oxeye, sweetbroom
(Scoparia dulcis), white beggarticks (Bidens pilosa), sandspur (Cenchrus spp.),
smutgrass, saw palmetto, smutgrass, and bahiagrass.
Passarella & Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 10
E'l�
�J
Disturbed Land, Hydric (FLUCFCS Code 7401)
The canopy and sub - canopy strata are typically open and may contain scattered wax
myrtle, melaleuca and/or Brazilian pepper. Ground cover vegetation is generally absent,
or may contain torpedograss, blue maidencane, frog - fruit, rosy camphorweed, yellow -
eyed grass, bushy broomsedge (Andropogon gloineratus), and asiatic pennywort.
Borrow Area (FLUCFCS Code 742)
These open water habitats include areas of emergent and littoral vegetation including
cattail and spikerush.
Spoil (FLUCFCS Code 743)
The canopy stratum of this disturbed area is open. The sub - canopy contains Brazilian
pepper. Ground cover vegetation includes dog fennel, creeping oxeye, and Brazilian
pepper.
Beim (FLUCFCS Code 747)
The canopy of this altered area contains scattered slash pine, cabbage palm, Brazilian
pepper and/or melaleuca. The sub - canopy contains Brazilian pepper. The ground cover
includes species typical in upland disturbed areas including dog fennel, ragweed,
caesarweed, white beggar- ticks, and Brazilian pepper.
• Road (FLUCFCS Code 814)
This code identifies areas occupied by paved roads.
•
Unpaved Road (FLUCFCS Code 8146)
This code identifies areas occupied by unpaved roads.
Utilities (FLUCFCS Code 830)
This upland area was cleared for, and is occupied by utilities, specifically Collier
County's South County Water Treatment Plant Well Field. The ground cover includes
smutgrass, bahiagrass, and/or carpetgrass.
Utilities, Hydric (FLUCFCS Code 8301)
This wetland area was cleared for, and is occupied by utilities, specifically Collier
County's South County Water Treatment Plant Well Field. The canopy and sub- canopy
strata are open. The ground cover is absent in some areas or may contain torpedograss,
bahiagrass, carpetgrass, beaksedge, fog - fiuit, bushy broomsedge, and rosy
camphorweed.
Powerline Easement (FLUCFCS Code 832)
This area is occupied by Florida Power and Light electrical transmission lines. The
canopy and sub - canopy are open. Ground cover vegetation is absent in some areas or
may consist of bahiagrass, smutgrass, and /or caipetgrass.
Passarella & Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 11
8E
C,
C7
•
Powerline Easement, Hydric (FLUCFCS Code 8321)
This area is occupied by Florida Power and Light electrical transmission lines and access
road. The canopy and sub - canopy are open. Ground cover vegetation is absent in some
areas or may consist of torpedograss, bahiagrass, blue maidencane, flatsedge, pickerel
weed, frog - fruit, bushy broomsedge, and /or rosy camphorweed.
The Project includes 1,550± acres of upland and wetland preserve areas, including upland
buffers. The majority of the proposed wetland preserve areas consist of cypress, pine -
cypress, and hydric pine habitats ranging in quality based on exotic coverage and water
quality. The uplands proposed for preservation consist mostly of pine flatwoods. Table
12A -2 summarizes the post - development preserve area FLUCFCS codes and provides an
approximate acreage breakdown.
Post - Development Preserve Area FLUCFCS Codes and Acreages
FLUCFCS Code
Description
Approximate
Acreage
310
Dry Prairie
8.8
321
Palmetto Prairie
43.6
411
Pine Flatwoods
173.5
415
Mixed Pine
4.5
426
Tropical Hardwood Hammock
2.6
427
Live Oak
4.2
428
Cabbage Palm
13.9
434
Hardwood/Conifer, Mixed
1.5
514
Ditch
3.1
618
Willow
13.4
621
Cypress
230.7
624
Pine /Cypress /Cabbage Palm
840.5
625
Hydric Pine
99.3
628
Hydric Cabbage Palm
11.7
630
Wetland Forested Mixed
27.6
631
Wetland Shrub
5.8
641
Freshwater Marsh
57.8
742
Borrow Area
0.2
743
Spoil
0.2
747
Berm
0.9
7401
Disturbed Land, Hydric
4.5
8146
Unpaved Road
1.3
PRESERVE AREA TOTAL
1,549.6
Passarella & Associates, Inc.
Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 12
•
•
•
•
Surveys for listed plant and wildlife species have been conducted on the Project site over
the past several years by Passarella & Associates, Inc. (PAI). Listed species surveys
were conducted on the following dates: September 10, 11, 18, and 19, 2002; October 16,
17, and 18, 2002; November 12, 13, 14, and 15, 2002; June 4, 5, 24, 25, and 26, 2003;
October 10, 11, 17, 19, 25, and 26, 2006; and November 14, 2006.
On August 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, and 25, 2009, PAI conducted an updated listed species
survey for the Project. The 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2009 surveys were performed in
accordance with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC)
guidelines. Survey methodologies used were also consistent with Standardized State -
Listed Animal Survey Procedures for Use in the Review of SWFRPC Projects (Beever
2006).
Sampling dates, amount of effort expended, and qualitative descriptions of weather
conditions experienced during the survey periods are listed below.
Listed Species Survey Dates, Times, and Weather Conditions
Date
Man Hours
Weather Conditions
On -Site
September 10, 2002
24.0
Partly cloudy, light winds, temperatures in mid
to upper 80s.
September 11, 2002
8.0
Cloudy with light rain showers, calm,
temperatures in mid 80s.
Mostly sunny with an afternoon rain shower,
September 18, 2002
28.0
light winds, temperatures in upper 80s to low
90s.
September 19, 2002
24.0
Mostly sunny, light winds, temperatures in
upper 80s to low 90s.
October 16, 2002
9.0
Mostly sunny, light winds, temperature in upper
80s.
October 17, 2002
21.0
Clear, mostly calm, temperatures in low 80s.
October 18, 2002
20.0
Mostly sunny, light winds, temperatures in low
to mid 80s.
November 12, 2002
16.0
Partly cloudy, light winds, temperature in upper
80s.
November 13, 2002
16.0
Clear skies, windy, temperatures in low 70s.
November 14, 2002
20.0
Partly cloudy, light winds, temperatures in the
lower 80s.
June 4, 2003
24.0
Mostly cloudy with scattered showers, no wind,
temperatures in mid 80s.
June 5, 2003
12.0
Mostly cloudy with rain, no wind, temperatures
in mid 80s.
June 24, 2003
24.0
Mostly cloudy, light winds, temperatures in low
90s.
Passarella & Associates, Inc.
Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 13
GIa
•
•
•
l�l
June 25, 2003
18.0
Mostly sunny, light winds, temperatures in mid
90s.
October 10, 2006
25.5
Temperatures in upper 70s to lower 80s, winds
0 -5 mph, clear, sunny
October 11, 2006
25.5
Temperatures in upper 70s to lower 80s, winds
0 -5 mph, partly cloudy
October 17, 2006
24.0
Temperatures in mid to upper 70s, winds 5 -10
mph, clear, sunny
October 19, 2006
34.0
Temperatures in mid to upper 70s, winds 0 -5
mph, partly cloudy
October 25, 2006
34.0
Temperatures in low to mid 70s, winds 5 -10
mph, clear, sunny
October 26, 2006
16.0
Temperatures in the mid to upper 80s, winds 5-
10 mph, clear, sunny
November 14, 2006
34.0
Temperatures in low to mid 70s, winds 0 -5
mph, partly cloudy skies
August 11, 2009
20.5
Temperatures from the low 80s to low 90s,
winds 0 -5 mph, clear to partly cloudy
Temperatures from mid 80s to low 90s, clear
August 12, 2009
18.0
and calm early with breeze and patchy, light
rain in afternoon
August 13, 2009
10.5
Temperatures from the upper 70s to mid 80s,
winds 0 -5 mph, partly cloudy
August 18, 2009
18.0
Temperatures from low 80s to mid 90s, winds
3 -8 mph, p artly cloudy, humid
August 19, 2009
18.0
Temperatures from low 80s to low 90s, winds
0 -5 mph, p artly to mostly cloudy
August 25, 2009
12.0
Temperatures in the 80s, winds 3 -5 mph, partly
cloudy
Surveys were conducted for wildlife species listed by the FWCC and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service ( USFWS) as endangered, threatened, or species of special concern; and
for plant species listed by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
(FDACS) and USFWS as endangered, threatened, or commercially exploited. The
FWCC publication, "Florida's Endangered Species, Threatened Species and Species of
Special Concern; Official Lists" dated 2009 was used as a reference to identify the status
of listed species in Florida. The USFWS Threatened and Endangered Species Database
System (TESS) was referenced online for the federal status of listed species.
Literature referenced prior to conducting the listed species surveys included the Florida
Atlas of Breeding Sites for Herons and Their Allies (Runde et al. 1991), FWCC Bald
Eagle location maps, and USFWS and FWCC documented listed species locations.
Passarella & Associates, Inc.
Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 14
•
[l�
The listed species surveys were conducted by qualified ecologists walking parallel belt
transects and meandering transects through suitable habitat to ensure that sufficient visual
coverage of ground and flora was obtained. At regular intervals, the ecologists stopped,
remained quiet, and listened for wildlife vocalizations. Map G -1 shows transect locations
and spacings for the listed species surveys conducted in 2002, 2003, and 2006. The
survey transects walked for the 2009 updated listed species survey are shown on Map G-
2. Surveys were conducted during daylight hours, typically starting after sunrise and
concluding mid- afternoon. At regular intervals, the ecologists stopped, remained quiet,
and listened for wildlife vocalizations. Surveys were conducted with the aid of 8x or l Ox
power binoculars.
The September through November 2002 and June 2003 listed species survey methods
were consistent with FWCC guidelines for completing Section 18.D of the Application
for Development Approval (FGFWFC 1988). The 2006 and 2009 survey methods were
consistent with the Standardized State - Listed Animal Survey Procedures for Use in the
Review of SWFRPC Projects (Beever 2006). Consistency with the survey procedures are
summarized below.
In addition to the listed species surveys, red- cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
(RCW) non - nesting season foraging surveys were conducted October through December
• of 2003. Nesting season and cavity tree foraging surveys for the RCW were conducted
April through May 2004. The surveys were conducted according to the USFWS
Standard Local Operating Procedures for Endangered _Species (SLOPES) for the RCW
(USFWS 2002). Two abandoned RCW cavity trees were identified north of Sabal Palm
Road in the central portion of the project. One RCW was observed during the non -
nesting foraging survey on the northeast portion of the Project site during the 2003 non-
nesting season foraging survey.
In October through December 2009, an updated RCW non - nesting season foraging
survey was conducted according to the USFWS guidelines in the South Florida Survey
Protocol (USFWS 2004). No RCWs or cavities in live pine trees were observed during
the 2009 RCW non - nesting season foraging survey. During the 2009 RCW surveys, no
activity was observed at or around the abandoned cavity trees identified during the 2003-
2004 RCW surveys. One of the old cavity trees was observed to be dead and decaying.
A survey for the Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus) was conducted on the Project
site in January 2007 following guidance from the FWCC. No Florida bonneted bats were
detected on -site.
A scientific literature investigation was performed prior to the listed species survey to
determine the geographic range and documented occurrences of listed species. Also, the
presence of suitable habitat and consideration of the probability of listed species
occurring within the Project area was investigated. The recommended procedures for
• addressing listed species concerns for the Project were used. Steps one and two were
utilized during the listed species survey as outlined in the Standardized State - Listed
Animal Survey Procedures for Use in the Review of SWFRPC Projects.
Passarella & Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 15
•
•
8E
Step 1
An accurate map of the habitat types within the Project was prepared (Map F -1). A list of
potential listed species for mapped areas was then generated based on the habitat types
present (Table 12.0 -1).
List of Potential Listed Species That Could Occur on the Project Site
Group
Common Name
Scientific Name
Wading Bud
Wood Stork
Mycteria anaericana
Florida Sandhill Crane
Grus canadensis pratensis
Roseate Spoonbill
Ajaia ajaja
Little Blue Heron
Egretta caerulea
Snowy Egret
Egretta thula
Tri- Colored Heron
Egretta tricolor
White Ibis
Eudocimus albus
Lim kin
Aramus guarauna
Large Raptors
Snail Kite
Rostrhamus sociabilis
Bald Eagle
Haliaeetus leucocephalrrs
Aquatic
American Alligator
Alligator mississi iensis
Pine Flatwoods Cavity
Nesting
Red - cockaded Woodpecker
Picoides borealis
Southeastern American
Kestrel
Falco spari,erius paulus
Florida bonneted bat
Eunaops floridanus
Mammals
Big Cypress Fox Squirrel
Sciurus ni er shermani
Florida Black Bear
Ursus americanus
floridanus
Florida Panther
Puma concolor coryi
Terrestrial Reptiles and
Amphibians
Eastern Indigo Snake
Drymarchon corals couperi
Gopher Frog
Rana capito
Gopher Tortoise
I Gopherus polypheinus
Step 2
The appropriate survey methodology was used for listed species that have been identified
to be present or potentially present in the habitats on the Project site.
Wading Bird Group
Suitable habitats were surveyed for a minimum of five days. Pedestrian and vehicular
surveys were used to attain complete coverage. Wading birds species and locations
observed were recorded for each day.
Large Raptors Group
is Ecologists surveyed the site for signs of snail kites, snail kite activity (e.g., piles of apple
snail shells, white feces stains at perches), and potential nest sites.
Passarella & Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 16
•
aE
Ecologists surveyed for bald eagles throughout the site, particularly in potential habitats
within 3,000 feet of open water and open wetlands. Pedestrian transects were conducted
to survey for nests. Observations of bald eagles and their flight directions were recorded
on the map. During pedestrian transects, ecologists looked for bald eagle nests and
potential nesting sites. The locations of existing bald eagle nests and territories were
researched prior to conducting the survey.
Aquatic Group
Pedestrian surveys were conducted along ditches and wetland areas for sightings of
American alligators. American alligator nests, droppings, and tracks were also surveyed
for the presence of alligators.
Pine Flatwoods Cavity Nesting Group
Cavity tree and foraging surveys were conducted for the RCW on the Project site. Non -
nesting season foraging surveys were conducted between October and December of 2003
and again in 2009. The nesting season foraging survey and cavity tree survey for the
RCW were conducted during the months of April and May in 2004. For each survey,
pedestrian transects were conducted during the early morning hours for fourteen days.
Transects, observation stations, and observed wildlife were recorded on a map.
• Ecologists surveyed for southeastern American kestrels during the month of August
2009, three to four hours following sunrise. Power line poles were surveyed by vehicular
transects at a driving speed of five miles per hour. At regular intervals the vehicle was
stopped to listen for vocalizations by southeastern American kestrels. Both sides of the
road were surveyed, looking for kestrels perched on power lines and for cavities within
the power line poles. Pedestrian transects were conducted where vehicular access was
limited. Potential nest sites were looked for.
A survey was conducted specifically for the Florida bonneted bat (formerly the Florida
mastiff bat) in January 2007. Determination of presence for Florida bonneted bats was
based on systematic field surveys conducted by qualified ecologists using an acoustic bat
detector. The field survey methodology included an inventory of habitats on the Project
site and identification of preferred Florida bonneted bat habitat types. Field surveys were
conducted for five nights in January 2007. Surveys were conducted each night beginning
at or before sunset. Surveys were not conducted in rain, high winds, or if temperatures
dropped below 55 degrees Fahrenheit. Fixed survey stations were established within 300
feet of potential foraging and roost locations. Potential roost locations included buildings
and structures. Surveys were conducted for a period of approximately one hour near the
building/structure locations to detect roost chatter and calls that may be emitted as bats
leave the roost. If little to no bat activity was detected within one hour of sunset at the
building/structure location, the observation station was relocated to areas that might
provide potential foraging habitat.
Mammal Grout
•
The locations of documented occurrences of the Florida panther and Florida black bear
were researched prior to conducting the survey. Suitable habitats were surveyed by
Passarella & Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 17
•
•
MR
pedestrian transects looking for signs of mammals including tracks, scat, tree scratches,
nests and/or den areas. Ecologists surveyed for Big Cypress fox squirrels, including
potential Big Cypress fox squirrel nests and stripping of tree bark. Direct sightings as
well as wildlife sign were recorded on a map.
Terrestrial Reptiles and Amphibians
Suitable habitats were surveyed by pedestrian transects conducted between early and
mid - afternoon. Within potential gopher tortoise habitats and when a gopher tortoise
burrow or other sign (i.e., scat) was observed, the transect spacing was narrowed and
transects added to ensure coverage of the habitat.
Listed Wildlife Species Observed
Listed wildlife species identified on the Hacienda Lakes site during the 2002, 2003, 2006,
and 2009 listed species surveys, and during the 2003, 2004, and 2009 RCW surveys, as
well as during other on -site fieldwork (i.e., FLUCFCS mapping, wetland flagging, agency
site visits) conducted for the Project are listed in Table 12.0 -1. Approximate locations of
listed wildlife species observed during the 2002, 2003, and 2006 listed species survey, as
well as during other fieldwork conducted between September 2002 and November 2006,
are shown on Map G -1. Locations of listed wildlife species observed during the 2009
listed species survey, and other fieldwork conducted on the Project site from August 2009
through December 2009, are shown on Map G -2.
Listed Wildlife Species Observed on the Hacienda Lakes Property
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
FWCC
USFWS
Reptiles
American Alligator
Alli ator mississi iemis
SSC
T(S /A)
Gopher Tortoise (burrow)
Gopherus polyphemus
T
--
Birds
Snowy Egret
Egretta thula
SSC
--
Little Blue Heron
Egretta caerula
SSC
--
Tit- colored Heron
Egretta tricolor
SSC
--
Roseate S oonbill
Ajaia ajaja
SSC
--
White Ibis
Eudocirnus albus
SSC
--
Wood Stork
Mycteria amer•icaiza
E
E
Red - Cockaded Woodpecker
Picoides borealis
T
E
Bald Eagle
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
--
Mammals
Big Cypress Fox Squirrel
Sciurus urger" aw.cenna
T
--
Florida Black Bear
Ursus americamrs jloridanus
T
--
Florida Panther (sign)
Puma concolor coryl
E
E
FWCC— Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
USFWS —U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Passarella & Associates, Inc.
Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 18
•
UE W
E — Endangered
T — Threatened
T(S /A) —Threatened due to similarity of appearance
SSC — Species of Special Concern
* Protected under the U.S. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
American Alligator (Alligator inississippiensis)
Adult and juvenile American alligators have been observed on the Project site during
FLUCFCS mapping and wetland flagging as well as during the 2006 updated listed
species survey. Most of the American alligators were observed in association with the
ditches located south of Sabal Palm Road in the southwestern portion of the property.
One American alligator was observed in a freshwater marsh habitat in the southern
portion of the site. A juvenile American alligator was observed on a flooded hail in
hydric melaleuca habitat in the central portion of the Project site.
Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus polyphernus)
One inactive gopher tortoise burrow was observed on the Project site during the 2006
listed species survey. The gopher tortoise burrow was observed in a palmetto prairie
habitat located in the proposed conservation area in the northeast portion of the Project
site. During the 2009 listed species survey, two potentially occupied gopher tortoise
burrows were identified in palmetto prairie habitat located north of Sabal Palm Road and
• just south of the state -owned outparcel. At the time of the survey, both burrows were
inundated with water. The gopher tortoise burrow located during the 2006 survey was
not observed during the 2009 survey and no other burrows were - identified in the
northeastern portion of the Project.
�1
Snowy Egret (Egretta thula)
Snowy egrets have been observed foraging on the Project site in association with the
recreational area, low pasture, pine - cypress, and freshwater marsh habitats. No nesting
sites for this species were observed.
Little Blue Heron (Egretta caerula)
Little blue herons were observed foraging on the Project site in association with low
pasture, ditches, cypress, and pine - cypress habitats. No nesting sites for this species were
observed.
Tri- Colored Heron (Egretta tricolor)
Tri- colored herons have been observed foraging on the Project site in association with
low pasture, ditches, cypress, pine - cypress habitats. No nesting sites for this species were
observed.
Roseate Spoonbill (Aiaia aLaia)
Roseate spoonbills were observed on the Project site in association with ditches pine -
cypress habitats. No nesting sites for this species were observed.
Passarella & Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 19
•
White This (Eudochnus albus)
White ibis were observed on the Project site in association with the recreational area, low
pasture, ditches, cypress, pine - cypress, and freshwater marsh habitats. No nesting sites
for this species were observed.
Wood Stork Mweria anzericana)
Wood storks have been observed on the Project site in association with ditches and
various wetland habitats. Potential foraging habitat for the wood stork includes wetlands
and other surface water habitats. The Florida Atlas of Breeding Sites for Herons and
Their Allies (Runde et al. 1991) list no bud rookeries on the Project site. According to
the USFWS database the nearest documented wood stork rookery that has been recorded
as active since 1990 is Rookery No. 619161 located approximately 16 miles northeast of
the Project.
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Although the bald eagle is no longer listed as endangered, threatened, or species of
special concern by the FWCC or USFWS, it is still protected under the U.S. Bald and
Golden Eagle Protection Act. Bald eagles have been observed on -site perched in trees
and snags including in the old farm field along the north side of Sabal Palm Road; east of
the Willow Run Quarry; and near the Junior Deputy lake. No bald eagle nests have been
identified on -site. A review of the FWCC database for bald eagle nests within Collier
• County shows no documented bald eagle nests within a one mile radius of the Project
site. The nearest recorded bald eagle nest (CO -015) is located 1.5t miles northeast of the
Project boundary in Section 6, Township 50 South, Range 27 East. Bald eagle nest CO-
015 was reported as being active during the 2008 -2009 nesting season. The next closest
bald eagle nest (CO -037) is located approximately three miles south of the Project
boundary. Nest CO -037 was reported as being active during the 2008 -2009 nesting
season.
•
Red - Cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
Two abandoned RCW cavity trees were identified in 2004 in pine habitats in the eastern
portion of the Project site just north of Sabal Palm Road. It was noted that the cavity
trees did not have resin wells. One RCW was observed on the northeastern portion of the
property during the RCW nesting season foraging survey in May 2004. During the 2009
RCW non - nesting season foraging survey, no evidence of activity by RCWs at the two
abandoned cavity trees was observed. One of the previously identified cavity trees was
observed to be dead and decaying. No RCWs or cavities in live pine trees were observed
during the 2009 non - nesting season RCW survey.
Big Cypress Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia)
Big cypress fox squirrels have been observed on -site in association with hydric
melaleuca, pine - cypress, and pine habitats, as well as in pine trees in the abandoned farm
field on the north side of Sabal Palm Road.
Passarella & Associates, Inc. hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 20
•
Florida Black Bear (Ursus americanus floridanzts)
Florida black bear tracks, scat, and scratch marks on trees have been identified on -site.
One Florida black bear was observed on the Project site south of Sabal Palm Road in
November 2009 during the RCW non - nesting season foraging survey.
Florida Panther (Pztma concolor coryi)
The Project site is located within the Primary Zone of the USFWS Panther Focus Area
(Kautz et al. 2006). Telemetry points from radio- collared panthers have been recorded
by FWCC on the Project site. The panther telemetry points recorded on -site within the
past five years (from August 2004 to August 2009) are from Florida Panther Nos. 146,
147, 148, and 156. Most of the telemetry locations are south of Sabal Palm Road. The
telemetry points north of Sabal Palm Road are scattered throughout the central and
eastern portions of the Project. During fieldwork in 2009, Florida panther sign was
documented on -site. Florida panther tracks were identified on Sabal Palm Road leading
south onto the Project site; on a dirt trail on the east side of the Project site (east of the
Sports Park); on a trail east of Willow Run Quarry; and south of the citrus grove located
on Sabal Palm Road. A Florida panther scrape /scratch was identified on a trail in pine -
cypress habitat about one -half mile south of Sabal Palm Road.
Other Listed Wildlife Species That Could Potentially Occur On The Site
• Listed wildlife species that were not observed but which have the potential to occur on the
Project site are listed in the table below. Information used in assessing the potential
occurrence of these species included Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida Volume I.
Mammals (Humphrey 1992), Volume III. Amphibians and Reptiles (Moles 1992), and
Volume V. Birds (Rodgers et al. 1996); and personal experience and knowledge of the
geographic region.
•
Listed Wildlife That Could Potentially Occur on the Hacienda Lakes Property
Common Name
Scientific Name
Designated Status
Potential Locations
FWCC
USFWS
(FLUCFCS Code)
Amphibians and Rep tiles
Gopher Frog
Rana capito
SSC
_
211/260/3219/
4119/4279
Eastern Indigo
Drynzarchon corals
260/3219/4119/
Snake
cou err
T
T
4269/42794289/
Eastern Indigo
Dryntarchon corals
42891/4349/6219 /
Snake
T
T
4249/6259/6309/
(Continued)
(Continued)
coup
6419/743/832
Birds
Lim kin
Arannis gztaraztna
SSC
-
514/6419/742
Southeastern
Falco sparverius
American Kestrel
pauhis
T
_
4119/4159/6259
Florida Sandhill
Grits canadensis
211/260/262/3219 /
Crane
pratensis
T
_
6419/740/7401
Passarella & Associates, Inc.
Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 21
•
Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia SSC - 211/260
floridana
Mammals
Florida Bonneted 4119/4289/4349/525 /
Bat Eutnops floridanus E - 530/6249/6259/6289 /
6419
FWCC — Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
USFWS — U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
E — Endangered
T — Threatened
SSC — Species of Special Concern
Gopher Frog (Rana areolata)
The gopher frog could potentially occur within upland Pine Flatwoods, Disturbed
(FLUCFCS Code 4119) habitat on the Project site; however, it is typically only found in
association with populations of gopher tortoise. Gopher tortoise habitat on -site is limited.
Preferred breeding habitat for the gopher fiog includes seasonally flooded grassy ponds
and cypress ponds that lack fish populations (Moles 1992). No gopher frogs were
documented on -site.
• Eastern Indigo Snake Dtytnarchon corais couper•i)
The Eastern indigo snake could potentially occur within the native upland and wetland
habitats on the Project site. The Eastern indigo snake is far ranging and may utilize
activity areas of 125 to 250 acres or more (Moles 1992). The Eastern indigo snake is
typically found in association with populations of gopher tortoise. Gopher tortoise habitat
is limited and no eastern indigo snakes were found on -site.
Limpkin (Aramus o tarauna)
Potential foraging habitat for limpkin includes Ditches. The Florida Atlas of Breeding
Sites for Herons and Their Allies (Runde et al. 1991) list no bird rookeries on the Project
site. The nearest recorded site is No. 620022 located approximately 8.5 miles south of
the Project in East Marco Bay near Marco Island in Section 9, Township 52 South, Range
26 East. This colony was last reported occupied by brown pelicans in 1989. No limpkins
were found on -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 4119, 4159, and 6259); 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). No
Southeastern American kestrels were found on -site.
• Florida Sandhill Crane (Grus canadensis pratensis)
Potential foraging habitat for Florida sandhill crane may exist within the Disturbed Land
(FLUCFCS Code 740); Pasture (FLUCFCS Code 212); Open Rural Land (FLUCFCS
Passarella & Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 22
•
Code 260) Low Pasture, Hydric (FLUCFCS Code 262); and Freshwater Marshes,
Disturbed (FLUCFCS Code 6419) on the Project. Preferred sandhill crane habitat, such
as prairies and shallow marshes dominated by pickerelweed and maidencane, are limited
on the Project site. No Florida sandhill cranes were observed on -site.
Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia floridana)
Potential burrowing owl habitat exists along the berms in the Pasture (FLUCFCS Code
212) and Rural Open Land (FLUCFCS Code 260) habitat on the Project site. No
burrowing owls were observed on -site.
Florida bonneted bat (Eurnops floridcnnss) formerly known as the Florida mastiff bat
(Eurnops glaucinus floridanus)
Florida bonneted bats could potentially roost and/or forage within the upland and wetland
habitats on the Project site. The Florida bonneted bat is known to occur in cities and
forested areas on both the east and west coasts of south Florida from Charlotte County to
Palm Beach County (Marks and Marks 2006, Humphrey 1992). A Florida bonneted bat
survey was conducted on the Project site using the Anabat sonar and software equipment
and survey guidelines recommended by Cynthia and George Marks. No Florida
bonneted bats were documented on -site.
• Listed Plant Species Observed
Four listed plant species were observed on the Project site. Listed plant species identified
on -site and the habitat types (i.e. FLUCFCS Codes) in which they were found are listed in
the table below.
•
Listed Plant Species Observed on the Hacienda Lakes Property
FDACS — Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
USFWS —U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
C — Commercially Exploited
E — Endangered
Passarella & Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 23
—Designat ed Status
Habitat
Common Name
Scientific Name
(FLUCFCS
FDACS
US
Code)
Butterfly Orchid
Encyclia tampeizsis
C
-
6249
Stiff - Leaved Wild
Tillandsia fasciculata
E
_
6219/6249/
Pine
6259/6289
Giant Airplant
Tillandsia utriculata
E
-
6219/6249/
6259/6289
Cowhorn Orchid
Cyrtopodium
E
-
6249
punctatum.
FDACS — Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
USFWS —U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
C — Commercially Exploited
E — Endangered
Passarella & Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 23
•
•
Other Listed Plant Species that Could Potentially Occur On the Site
Listed plant species that were not observed but which have the potential to occur on the
Project site are listed in the table below. Information used in assessing the potential
occurrence of these species included personal experience and knowledge of the
geographic region.
Listed Plant Species That Could Potentially Occur on the Hacienda Lakes Property
FDACS — Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
USFWS —U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
C — Commercially Exploited
E — Endangered
T — Threatened
The site plan has been designed to minimize impacts to the listed species that have been
identified on the property. The site plan minimizes impacts to the higher quality wetland
and upland habitat on the eastern portion of the site. The on -site preserves have been
designed to connect to off -site preserves and the Picayune Strand State Forest in order to
retain connectivity of wildlife habitat. Development is proposed to occur mostly within
habitats on the western and central portions of the site which consist of high percentages
of exotics and lack high natural resource value.
Passarella & Associates, Inc.
Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 24
Designat ed Status
Potential
Common Name
Scientific Name
Location
FDACS
USFWS
(FLUCFCS
Code)
Bird's nest spleenwort;
Asplenium. serratum
E
-
4281
wild birdnest fern
Long strap fern
Campyloneurum
E
-
6219
lzyllitidus
White - squirrel- banana;
Deeringotharnnus
E
E
4119
beautiful pawpaw
pulclzellus
Catesby's lily
Lilium catesbaei
T
-
6259
Hand adder's tongue
Ophioglossunz
E
-
4289
fern
pahnattan .
Inflated wild pine
Tillandsia balbisiana
T
-
4289
Florida coontie
Zamia floridana
C
-
4119
Simpson's zephyr lily
Zeplzyranthes
T
-
6259
siinpsoni.i
FDACS — Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
USFWS —U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
C — Commercially Exploited
E — Endangered
T — Threatened
The site plan has been designed to minimize impacts to the listed species that have been
identified on the property. The site plan minimizes impacts to the higher quality wetland
and upland habitat on the eastern portion of the site. The on -site preserves have been
designed to connect to off -site preserves and the Picayune Strand State Forest in order to
retain connectivity of wildlife habitat. Development is proposed to occur mostly within
habitats on the western and central portions of the site which consist of high percentages
of exotics and lack high natural resource value.
Passarella & Associates, Inc.
Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 24
•
As discussed above, the Project's minimization of impacts to listed species includes the
preservation and enhancement of wetland and upland habitats on the property. The site
plan design preserves the higher quality wetlands located on the eastern portion of the
site. Additional mitigation lands were purchased and added to the Project's boundary to
offset environmental impacts. These additional lands include approximately 260 acres
south of Sabal Palm Road. On -site preserves were designed to retain connectivity to the
Picayune Strand State Forest to the east and to compliment the permitted conservation
area along Willow Run Quarry's eastern boundary.
The wetland mitigation plan for the Project includes the enhancement and preservation of
1,291± acres of on -site wetlands and 255± acres of on -site uplands. In addition,
approximately 3 acres of South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) "Other
Surface Waters" will be enhanced and preserved.
Enhancement of the wetland and upland preserves will include the hand removal of exotic
and nuisance vegetation such as melaleuca, Brazilian pepper, and cattails. The surface
water management system will be designed to maintain appropriate wetland hydroperiods
within the enhancement areas. The wetland hydroperiods will be maintained to provide
for the natural wet and dry cycles, which provides for foraging for wading birds.
• The wetland and upland preserves will be placed in a conservation easement or other
equivalent deed restriction with inspection, enforcement, and approval rights granted to
the SFWMD. It is anticipated that portions of the_ preserves will be deeded to the state to
compliment the Picayune Strand State Forest.
•
REFERENCES
Beever, James W. 2006. Standardized State - Listed Animal Survey Procedures for Use in the
Review of SWRPC Projects. First Edition.
Florida Department of Transportation. 1999. Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification
System. Procedure No. 550- 010 - 001 -a. Third Edition.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2009. Florida's Endangered Species,
Threatened Species, and Species of Special Concern; Official Lists. Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, Florida.
Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission. 1988. Wildlife Survey Methodology Guidelines
for Section 18.1) of the Application for Development Approval. Florida Game and
Freshwater Fish Commission, Office of Environmental Services.
Passarella & Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 25
•
Humphrey, S.R. 1992. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. Volume 1. Mammals. University
Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Kautz, R., R. Kawula, T. Hoctor, J. Comiskey, D. Jansen, D. Jennings, J. Kasbohm, F. Mazzotti,
R. McBride, L. Richardson, K. Root. 2006. How much is enough? Landscape -scale
conservation for the Florida panther. Biological Conservation, Volume 130, Issue 1,
Pages 118 -133.
Marks, Cynthia S. and Marks, George E. 2006. Bats of Florida. University Press of Florida,
Gainesville, Florida.
Moler, P.E. 1992. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. Volume IIl. 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. Buds. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
is Runde, D.E., J.A., Gore, J.A. Hovis, M.S. Robson, and P.D. Southall. 1991. Florida Atlas of
Breeding Sites for Herons and Their Allies, Update 1986 -1989. Nongame Wildlife
Program Technical Report No. 10. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission,
Tallahassee, Florida.
�J
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Standard Local Operating Procedures for Endangered
Species, Red - Cockaded Woodpeckers.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Revised Recovery Plan for the Red - cockaded
Woodpecker (Picoides borealis). 2nd revision. Atlanta, Georgia.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Red - Cockaded Woodpecker South Florida Survey
Protocol (adapted from Service 2003).
Passarella & Associates, Inc. hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 26
m1
I #�
�T
L I
t
( A•• i - ?I�
1 I�
it
LEGEND:
LANDS NOT INCLUDED
IN PROJECT AREA
NOTES:
i
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED
THROUGH THE COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY
APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE
OF JANUARY 2009.
PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER RWA, INC.
DRAWING NO.2010 -01 -07 BNDY.DWe
DATED JANUARY 7, 2010.
SURVEYED WETLAND LINES PER BANKS
ENGINEERING, INC. DRAWING NO.PoDs
FOR APPROVAL 1 -11- 2010- PN- MOD.DWG DATED
JANUARY 11, 2010.
FLUCFCS LINES ESTIMATED FROM 1' =200'
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS AND LOCATIONS
APPROXIMATED.
FLUCFCS PER FLORIDA LAND USE, COVER
AND FORMS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
( FLUCFCS) (FDOT 1999).
MAM BY DATE
W.C. 2/4/10 13620 Metropolis Avenue
WIEWEDBY DATE Suite 200
C.G.R 2/4/10 Fort Myers, Florida 33912
FLUCFCS
% OF
CODE
DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
160
RECREATIONAL
79.89Ac.t
3.5%
212
UNIMPROVED PASTURE
9.14Ac.t
0.44.
260
RURAL OPEN LAND
10.54Ac.t
0.5%
262
LOW PASTURE, HYDRIC
54.43 Ac.t
2.4%
3219E1
PALMETTO PRAIRIE, DISTURBED (0 -244. EXOTICS)
27.81 Ac.t
124.
3219E2
PALMETTO PRAIRIE. DISTURBED (2549% EXOTICS)
1260 Ac.t
0.6%
3219E3
PALMETTO PRAIRIE, DISTURBED (50 -75% EXOTICS)
3.71 Ac.t
0.216
3219E4
PALMETTO PRAIRIE, DISTURBED (76- 1004. EXOTICS)
5.75 Ac.t
0.3%
4119E1
PINE FLATWOODS, DISTURBED (0-24% EXOTICS)
9D.01 Ac.t
4.04.
4119E2
PINE FLATWOODS, DISTURBED (25496 EXOTICS)
143.78 Ac.±
6A%
4119E3
PINE FLATWOODS, DISTURBED (50-75% EXOTICS)
23.49Ac.t
1.0%
4119E4
PINE FLATWOODS, DISTURBED (76 -10(r EXOTICS)
0.35 Ac.t
0.0%
4159E2
PINE, DISTURBED (2549° -6 EXOTICS)
677 Ac.:t
0.3 16
4159E3
PINE, DISTURBED (50 -754. EXOTICS)
10.78Ac.t
0.5%
4159E4
PINE, DISTURBED (76- 1001.6 EXOTICS)
6.47AC.t
0.3%
4221
BRAZILIAN PEPPER, HYDRIC
1.81 Ac.t
0.14.
424
MELALEUCA
13.70 Ac.t
0.64.
4241
MELALEUCA. HYDRIC
345.07Ac.t
15.3%
4269E1
TROPICAL HARDWOOD HAMMOCK. DISTURBED (0 -24 %EXOTICS)
0.4OAc.t
0.04.
4269E2
TROPICAL HARDWOOD HAMMOCK. DISTURBED (25 -49.6 EXOTICS)
P-25Ac.t
0.1%
4279E1
LIVE OAK, DISTURBED (0 -244. EXOTICS)
3.89 Ac.±
0.2%
4279E2
LIVE OAK, DISTURBED (25 -4946 EXOTICS)
0.29 Ac.±
0.0'6
4289E1
CABBAGE PALM, DISTURBED (0 -2446 EXOTICS)
1.20Ac.t
0.1%
4289E2
CABBAGE PALM, DISTURBED (25494. EXOTICS)
19.OBAc.±
0.846
4289E3
CABBAGE PALM, DISTURBED (50 -756 EXOTICS)
3.25 Ac.t
0.14.
4349E1
HARDWOOD /CONIFER MIXED, DISTURBED (0-24% EXOTICS)
1.47 Ac.t
0.1%
514
DITCH
3.38 Ac.--t
0.146
6189E1
WILLOW, DISTURBED (0 -2446 EXOTICS)
10.97Ac.t
0.54.
6189E2
WILLOW, DISTURBED (25494. EXOTICS)
2.48Ac.t
0.1%
6219EI
CYPRESS, DISTURBED (0-24% EXOTICS)
157.74 Ac.t
7.046
6219E2
CYPRESS, DISTURBED (25 -49% EXOTICS)
27.66 Ac.t
12%
6219E3
CYPRESS. DISTURBED (50 -754. EXOTICS)
1.45 Ac.t
0.146
62459E2
PINE/CYPRESS, DISTURBED AND DRAINED (25.494. EXOTICS)
1.32Ac.t
0.1%
62459E3
PINE/CYPRESS, DISTURBED AND DRAINED (50 -7546 EXOTICS)
236 Ac.t
0.1%
6249E1
PINE/CYPRESS, DISTURBED (0 -244. EXOTICS)
289.16 Ac..t
12.84.
6249E2
PINE/CYPRESS, DISTURBED (25494. EXOTICS)
327.32Ac.t
14.5%
6249E3
PINE/CYPRESS, DISTURBED (5D -75 %EXOTICS)
258.23Ac.t
11.44.
6249114
PINE/CYPRESS, DISTURBED (76 -1004. EXOTICS)
27.86Ac.t
1.241
624BE2
PINE/CYPRESS, BURNED (25494. EXOTICS)
22.90Ac.t
1.04.
624BE3
PINE/CYPRESS. BURNED (50.754. EXOTICS)
9.56 Ac.t
0.4%
6259E1
HYDRIC PINE, DISTURBED (0 -244. EXOTICS)
31.52 Ac. t
1.4%
6259E2
HYDRIC PINE, DISTURBED (25494. EXOTICS)
27.86 Ac.t
1.2%
6259E3
HYDRIC PINE, DISTURBED (50-75% EXOTICS)
63.26Ac.t
2.8%
6259E4
HYDRIC PINE, DISTURBED (76 -1004. EXOTICS)
1200 Ac.t
0.5%
625BE3
HYDRIC PINE, BURNED (50 -75% EXOTICS)
1.22 Ac.t
0.14.
6289E1
HYDRIC CABBAGE PALM, DISTURBED (0 -244. EXOTICS)
264 Ac.t
0.141
6289E2
HYDRIC CABBAGE PALM, DISTURBED (25 -49% EXOTICS)
6.94 Ac.t
0.34.
6289E3
HYDRIC CABBAGE PALM, DISTURBED (50.754. EXOTICS)
209 Ac.t
0.14.
6309E1
WETLAND FORESTED MIXED, DISTURBED (0 -24% EXOTICS)
19.90 Ac.t
0.9%
6309E2
WETLAND FORESTED MIXED, DISTURBED (2549% EXOTICS)
7.21 Ac.t
0.34.
6319E3
WETLAND SHRUB, DISTURBED (50.754. EXOTICS)
5.83 Ac.±
0.3416
6419E1
FRESHWATER MARSH, DISTURBED (0.244. EXOTICS)
6.82 Ac.±
0.3%
6419E2
FRESHWATER MARSH. DISTURBED (25494. EXOTICS)
10.63 Ac.t
0.54.
740
DISTURBED LAND
3.21 Ac.t
0.1%
7401
DISTURBED LAND, HYDRIC
18.16 Ac.t
0.84.
742
BORROW AREA
5.38 Ac.t
0.24.
743
SPOIL
0.16Ac.t
0.04.
747
BERM
0.93 Ac.±
0.0%
814
ROAD
D.32Ac.t
0.0%
8146
UNPAVED ROAD
4.33Ac.t
0.2%
830
UTILITIES
1.08 Ac.t
0.01
8301
UTILITIES, HYDRIC
4.82Ac.t
024.
832
POWERUNE EASEMENT
1.24 Ac.±
0.14.
8321
POWERUNE EASEMENT, HYDRIC
4.27Ac.t
0.2%
TOTAL
2262.14Ac.t
100.0%
DRAWING No.
wPASSARELLA I HACIENDA LAKES 01MTT737
1.'.,,. A A T: D T A T WIT'TLT UT T Tf- r(`C SHEET�l.
1
LJ
x44 nid
m
!Cm pK
K
a � a
d °
t m � \
0 0 0
7� .yo
�p 'it rt O
.v • O u
w
LO a
N N
1
re �
�I V
C/)
Cn ,1ch
o Vr I
>r
�r
�z
,
np
x
y
s
t - O
1-. w
z
RI%F -I FLucres MAP.An Us: 17X11-C NORTH Mart 18, 2010 - 8:37AN PLOrM
HOWL Y) . .
r�� l
MOMi
•
�i11P �
1
N
I�,I b P t - imil
r b m r Yv O
'M
•
�, 1.
(C)
♦ + t Q Q O A D1 M iS A P. -1 id IY a m ti W! 1 �.i O 13 ! 1 -] 6 n !� =1 li Ld W- W 9 o W IY Q t A ii A o �i •li 8 0 W i� ! I+ ZS a Yi
FF FF FF FF fF fF FF FF fF FF IF IF FF FF R FF R fF FF fF k FF fF iF fF FF IF iF fF IF FF IF FF IF FF IF IF k fF fF FF Ff FF IF IF IF IF H• IF H• FF IF fF iF H• fF FF FF FF FF FF FF IF H
--------------- - - - - -- - �, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - -- - - -- - -..
E
[4
I,�1
X71
Rn RRM R17 RW R 12 -5 Rt RN IRY m- +. %4 12 W IY M 12 12
RM R 12 13 - I'7 +
-'RRRRRRRRRRR
t W 17 t W IY t M 17 �
O°CCCa PI,AOQ
'r HS n9
RQr9QagS,
nriaa ?` er.
SSSSSSS3S3$IIIIII88 ':SOS
9
�yy ovvvovQVnnnnn
71 I- i- saaaaaaa -
CC cc
vAaA
��i
A$433349 °°°°racy
aann
QA 71� C G � [?[}C1E iii ,nnn O4
CS L1 y (, (} (,(1 M Ll p •➢
b d b d b
F 7�i� �S'[;Y
�9 L1
CQOO17 r,�r, -ni-ni -ni -ni° fin
1] l l ,• , ),
nni a
IY )i 'ji {I fiF s, M M Ll
44 n'+ ---- nnnnnnnn QO �=
�5 � f' C
QQ°4QQSS"
C L L y y y� l p
}� °C CC "- '94 ° °Cn ,S
aaa a B
Q-
y' ++T,,A
T__ace�nl nn ,�nry C 91 OI C C Q Q V O a 71
�y ccoo --
};
S�
$nnnry 8aa L '- °t
n Q 91 O Q 4 4 Q 71 S L,
n
C C
A?? If ? C C L L L L G l A A A n n
7 Q V Q 71 a -
M Ll M Ll n n ,n n Q v
I.n
c ��►leely- i, °�ai�al�naaaaaaa7�
C
2���5 B�
�L i L L
D
Z G7
CCn�QLiii4 ¢ ,T'000QIn7O *+i •
S' 'G
QOOO SCC
A aaa
Clnnnnnnn�iIla
a
CI
a 0 1 � !!
vv$- a -aaaan p�p-, t'�aS;PI.`ea 181�rn�n
nn
°9¢An�GO'v1
n o o n
SSa aggQ 7O5Q
fi -D1
1 m
aaoov�lY7n. ^nnn�aa+SY {i
��3dn S"
c-no77oSS
an n:.j ir2�
i�P4 ta4}
�5'�n
-01
Z
pno v i1 } 7y- nn�ii�
LLfl S Tj "i LY rte'' i1
21
-O
•�
A
C�
aiO
oA
OD
mn
Co
m
i, 'Lr CI t it
ir it
93
D
zZ
� A n
o
om
Xo
9
ma
T
0 D
i'
Oz
♦ + t Q Q O A D1 M iS A P. -1 id IY a m ti W! 1 �.i O 13 ! 1 -] 6 n !� =1 li Ld W- W 9 o W IY Q t A ii A o �i •li 8 0 W i� ! I+ ZS a Yi
FF FF FF FF fF fF FF FF fF FF IF IF FF FF R FF R fF FF fF k FF fF iF fF FF IF iF fF IF FF IF FF IF FF IF IF k fF fF FF Ff FF IF IF IF IF H• IF H• FF IF fF iF H• fF FF FF FF FF FF FF IF H
--------------- - - - - -- - �, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - -- - - -- - -..
E
[4
I,�1
X71
?99
Z°
WD Z
nf,D
N-n
T N
O-(nt
ON
OOm
CDT
°m
0'�
mOr y
am'
vZ
cz°
b
�m0
Z,
o
D y
zm
t Z
—On
m Z
o°
n O O
�cA
D
Z G7
CT
z ,oz.
m D
fi -D1
1 m
Z
o>
n v
Ivy
D o
-01
Z
�1 O
O T
-O
•�
7iII
-0 fll
r
C�
aiO
oA
OD
mn
Co
m
.ny.n
93
D
zZ
o
om
Xo
=y
ma
T
0 D
DD
Oz
. D T
D
Z Z m
-
0 O
-
y
r
0z
O O
f
_
ion
D
nllA
bm pm
0 0
0 aE11D1 LAKES \2�0,Q10 \yQDRgI \QF -1 Fuxtcs MAr.cxe Le: I7XII -C Sourx MAR IB, 2010 - Bc33An Pl.orr® BY: Wluc BF
gRSrS8��a31a�'a�SEiQEi RRRP3F3fHPiPiPiPiP3 ('IRPiPiPi.PiPi°Q�`�'ti t rir;% �itvn�ifg(Ag. (Ag(A����f3kif9i3 '�3i^�mt��
^� aVWNOOnnm$$ $$�SBsBfBfBmr' $i$$;i*,- ,68m (B 0'$ $�l8j88 �fBfBiBininmioroisG;zNONO�S�
mmmmmmmmmmmmmm1}lm1Ammmm�n�m�n1mmm11� m mmmmmmmm mmm1tlmmmmmmmm VV
N W N -+ W rla W .p W N W W N T 0" m] N W IJ � N -� -� W N f" r l) .D. W N W W N W .F W N m m
M mv v T m Sr$ � Z Dc aO O m ro
D° m fbf r a�0 Km _m vm v m v vm .m vm vm v vvr `{ cZ a +r- • I
•!t�
00asr d mmTT 1m
Da
m m m ma m2xZZOOt7017 [700 -Z .O(- OG <-OG «{lam m$ gD OOmC000 t1--r- 1l---1r-.-1i -1D7��
Z Z m m ° T rfI D D 0 0 0 v 'O •D 'D •D v v v !l1 to 7i' O -S` �+ D b C C D D A D --1 O$
��- 17 Daaa a OO O "�7 {{7�Z��� 0000 t- �•
m m $ 0 0 ...I { m m T Z Z z Z Z to fn frl m fn m O p 0 -- p v v v O O x x D D a C C C c� m
m m m mm mmmmm 'o -fl-oa Z _
G m�lD ssaaxoomm mm mmt!lt/l mttlt!l o��D�n�,p4 _ m���0000�7�7�7a °n
O ttlyffnllq D ZZ > n�[�>�•1COOt.ONyf.1I 1pn py7 -m mmtA lA fA tIICCC� IYz ---��" m OOOOgyD q• D -
m n p OO S m Ifl rtl $ C� CC DOO 00 Oaa am m ZN r
pmmV VV c t1�u��mmmm •r1 - - -m 00� ��oiA' mmmmav
vo�rD�oaaaa� ccccccvvoO° 9�� 00000 xy,gc�vvovoob
0 vvc 333 - �`RiAFRipommPDncocoM
x Dvvv$vvvvq mmmmml�i 4V�i mmm`l'�a� ccc��ccc v
0 C CmOm mm tVn��y �j44� pOpOpOVm�rtl ti102 000$a 0 mX?C dim mmmmm m
-4 OOc Cc° 4��+ 9a1�DD`��xxp op mx t�7 O_i-a mmmm
O m� til$ ZZ° '�iA3° m 000000 mmm m
�ppmm �n
Sian �mx$o a of ;o xx00�
�- a�x0� qS�A
�y (�vjjlv�am�mcammm0> �}lmrmc�R'x5io .° vv00 -i-� ��'a`Se 0- �%��'4�YY�N3!��4 � •a' i'I1
Ifi fil0 nay
�Aat7000� °OXamcsmc0zZBBQNaP mmmPt ma o o
4s amcpp "'rr�1 ��0 600n000 °C�7�0 c� xr xxo' xxx Z �
> xm00sQm �.., .. ���N�i ih —2 -2 00 0001OOm�
mx2t �.
m m �y �7
�xxo dl$
0
v o A o
xx O�
g o m
L m m 0 O _-
< 0 ) d�
:P .. .A .A 0 0 0 t71
IJWWOQiN V�DN OWN N/Oil V� W N V�FV �N V VNOW WAD OW NOC�7� W-+O�O OHO fil (bi70 {AWN V >O�O �D
m m Ei�8�8��gf3SfiiS lf�i�'88{f3F3- '(i;U33�• �• �f3• �1i8�Fl3�Di$• 21 V i. I
pnnn nn p n n p pn n p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 0 p p 9 p p n n n p p 0 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p pn p
I+ I+ ♦F W F+ 1+ W N I+ K I+ 1+ k I+ H µ H K 1+ 1+ H I+ I+ H I+ 1+ I+ N t+ I+ W R I+ If I+ 1+ 1+ I+ I+ I+ I+ 1+ I+ 1+ I+ I+ I+ 1+ I+ 1+ I+ 1+ I+ I+ I+ I+ 1+ 1+ I+ I+ I+ I+ 1+ µ 1+
-1
S 00 00 000 00 000 00 000 00 00N O -+� a N O 00-+ V O 0o0 00 000 00 6100 00 00 CA.b 000 N 00 W O e
4°2 O t4�d°2et'�3'�1ial^2� :�ie2LQ 0g�j `iu L. L.:-- L,o �o v� 2n a coin rnt �iAaiA
r ... CR �p N o:eso:: °o°o:eo�eo o< � veoe�°
W
O N
ft
� O
W N ? G_
L. O
y N O N 0
N
C)
N tD
t
�m3
.c
F
O
n�
a�
cn
z
d
r cn
C cn
n cn
n O
cn C�
x
o 0
a
L3
W
� o
toil ODN
m m mm r
D D m
n mrm
O p = N
O
D Dm3
r m a --I
- -I
z 'o
° =i tl -n
m z 3
O
°
L. vmm
D = m D c
C N 7 C <
;u -<
m
zv
=zzc�
a3 um,-
m
y -, r-
602
Z
n o O v
o�- r
v o (n
`D m
r .Z1
DI Do
m:E-u
02Tu
D 0 -4
zZ{
com
N
C
Gov
No c {
°vm
mM
Z
< .a
o �
D
cif 7
C_0C-1 DD
D-11 O 0A
Z M C p 71
cmzcD
AmjMm
N�vv=
xo
o D m 0 o
a O O
"Tl
nD =
vDmm
m 11 0 m
mm °m
O a_r
T W m
m
Z
0
Z D m
-o Z C)
My m
O to Z
L- z o
m
n o
me
m
v
NN
• 7Pf �
i
.J•
aim,
N
, 6
1 Ir
i
it
I
1
8E
LEGEND:
SFWMD WETLANDS
® SFWMD 'OTHER SURFACE WATERS'
LANDS NOT INCLUDED IN PROJECT AREA
�? SFWMD WETLAND AND 'OTHER SURFACE
WATERS' NUMBER (TYP)
SURVEYED WETLAND LINE
NOTES:
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED
THROUGH THE COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY
APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE
OF JANUARY 2009.
PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER RWA, INC.
DRAWING NO.2010 -01 -07 BNDY.DWG
7, 2010.
_AND LINES PER
RING, INC.
DS FOR APPROVAL
i.DWG DATED
D.
I aw +_�-
U WOW
AW
M 'a� IT
✓ NN
DILAWN BY DATE
W.C. 2/4/10 13620 Metropolis Avenue
REVIEWED BY DATE Suite 200
C.G.R. 2/4/10 Fort Myers, Florida 33912
PASSARELLA I HACIENDA LAKES I 01MTT737
SHEET Nc.
I
t
I .
I
I
�''a�» -'� .... — i..r. _ i •:� '�.'y'w� y�- 'ter-.• � "' v�-• .r,•�. ,f � -.
A4
BCF
t, r ••WI'. 'a u y4. N ,fi,r SYrw�
} s
—ORC.W
WtIl
_. �_ I ! � I I I j I i I I t' • MR t � at. � ` � rx �� ` a '� r . -
BCFS� rtTF 4. F s r'Me'
i I:aivi ' i 3 •^ll i r ' $�x, p' r k}
CFS .� • u W ' 1 r . f; ..h f ,r ,�, f•� - 'd i c• ..':�
l .` ( _ B r.rBE •WI °.iNl-° : i . a �Z v < ,.s� ,•' _4. -
I s _ 7:
.,c 1 ; c ••ri.. �_ c., ys � � -� i-�- 1 1 `.`� - .� >a vr� ' � �§� �� �'' �'`'��'• �' -.�k3 �..d
•SE j �- _��� --�1' I � I i t j ;. I I i ,�,. "' � {�4 ., +/ !! `t• � a � �., .s,FS, � f r
Hl i .I. ► 1 y V J. ' 1.Y. t �' tx f t �r ;��i.
7 _ lsWll �i i I � °r�• ��•�. .f+p,r� B.•1` �r•.� �., 4`YR ✓� .r. _ �
'
— — — —'_ L�H L�Fi 1 I 1 y FS' f f •u > 7
w$'
vv I t 1 .F ?>$ k' i •.4 .,?, d, . ►�• •R. {. Wit•' �`, s
__-�y1 i 1 I 11A11�� �„�''"��.,•n�iy >j• y! e7 '•r` t � '.d "i �.•��??���n••?J��''se%•' a .� � t
r _ — -- ''I'' f t I.t - '` �i�`'�:ac'iA�, •'• - a 4 `" . ,... f, 1. "+."
Ej
( Eifl °. �Wli,l_I � — -�W- y+.� rF'. c4 n"w
i•, A"j . e'tirl � ilyy�'i -? w yf"sl� - �•�-'r �- % 1'�' 1: � �-' ._�` �• '= ^' ` � 9F, �ry
I °t I I'III °wl�`ilill�lliltili ��Nllil�l�{�ISP �� ~�,� r ` . '�°" '_" � -tr.. . •t~ t ,_ '°,
3 1 1 1 } I I I i t I t I 1 I I j -- ;, •+a...v,, , �:-'- , :,!"t� �. - Y,p' I. r
1(111111( i 0 i... Ili llil it it I 11 t II° _`.'�.6 -•;- � ;?..,. � �H '' -? � �"
IlllIi111 Ells wt,klYil�l +i II111 fI1lillll,lllllt � a� - ��y�„I.e. �x- �r �_. •a� rr •�,n,
I Il f ! Ilh i,l<'11! iE Jill 11 i Ilii it ! =__- t
I i ( Iiil IIi� II iI11I III II - �:"'5� �-
III wi I 1 I I f I Jill
I I 1- _ "1•wi -_i „ x - «-; ", +YRti • ,Y ix'' .r.t
I f's t 1 11 I III
t�BH•
r•avi - _ « >:
jIE'gIy`IIII�fiiIllllillll1111 Ilf: --� _i- __�-4'- �..,..`r.._- =� - u_ � ��,,t �..,v _t- '`•
1 !( III1 11 1
[fill IIi1IIII
Illlllllliltill
I ! I I i l I t I (i1 I'� .WII I ( I III III - _�_" "'�.- -~-• • lr --► - -
I il,�,l�.i.1.� �1-- r�Iliill�ill�filr� - '� = =--� _� _.,. ®� .•,: -,y ,,. � d : �
.� - a I •wl iyj I f•_wlt I1 I 1I I ��# y.-�r„ t.' yrG
I I f= 1 L` =�11� .s = • ��� I -. s
�,�.�:•��nir..- �� ar r.... r"-.: �.... r.r y 6, ^: rt?. •
• WI imam
a. • _ i I I , �`Y
:4_ ; I� ' 9 � • .f �' i
wl-
�G,� .w .. �� ,f s _ x'" .'►Ili �. � y I 1`lii�l I�, I I I '
}�L •w k i
�¢.'�' /_ a' �� ` Fc✓• ' i _— — _— — •'- — ''•BC •yr }Oa €I:y,•- E'a's L _ '�,;t• • x' `•� �.
E �v _'I _i.B
7M 7Z
XF
- r 3
9
( .
_
'a)• r
I
wF
_
u
-- - 111111 - .•'DWI ,. 'hti• •'^ z�
_
WS ys'L a. L. ( 2t' ;' �. i' • X11
OSE
tll "@S'iF.S•TCFIr _.. _ _. �•WI -+. _ "._ '_ ..., v iN$'�����a.� � • .✓ P� �` . �' � .. �'ir�- �` � 7t �;�
_ Ali •SE •� l}'3' t� yr,'.� •. �: ;� �d
Owl
AA •
— MH r
`rj
- yyyy��
�<�a -Y i.' ,t r. 1 C"ti1 L Y� � f {� a•Y'; • �•� < a iT
�• r,' a - Yy. •shy it t ' tt S � - t�,,t •'i t'fSjei • ! �,� � ,�t;� ,ri '`(
a..L' �� a e}:!fi� 4y �c�.� i�,y a -�"{ .Q•'i?.. n + 't y.:r t' I .}trf:•+..'k'l '�{ x.i`T.T t( 1G� �. ��s. it.
BB
.'l -•-.lw `.7 } ^Y�Tti7.X -�� �Lf�'•. :i J.- S�j�1. ��� i � � d 3, �' 06 � +y :•r'�i b �.{v� .�1t~ �S�t'C wp�..� r 7 _ r.�'. �Yv �
OKI
itrY,.. �l -;gyp T ah M
_~ �-. � ... --.. � i � r. I � •� � rte^ .� � - � .,
'�i J( Mtllllill � f.t p` !1 •"1 - r.� Y,L . r j ".�st•,• ! =_,•,� .
i. Iltl
I11iti�ll�tlJfllll 11111 j T '�',
7-u
W,
J J11�}ilf'11iJiwll {1111111. _ :. I .iFPS �
1-I s i ' i �.� t 1; ! {) b t':l ! I .r..► ...a.gB� -- '_ a ! 4=-.. .-fri. � s rr,� .•.,� � t'r' �.
1 _
- �— '_°- J1.. y •:Yip •.e.`�. ?r. �., S '�' � 1 Tr' S: � �r.� 1) �'•�'�- '
V - _"` P. _ ,� —•` — _ L -�.,- i :r�'13i� fk .`jt _ rti .s . � ,+ . t •.S•
Al
�BCfS vBBS: r ; +� I : "....___,,H'o-fls,i 't 1 1 a I I I, ` .:
'•���,{ :�,,:,;,•,�„ 1 1' •j 1
owl
` I "Pr-1 4.
{ BBS. �a
;g13s1 1 I 1 1 wl ( {' •t 1 1 r z ..,E
_� I 1 ! 1 1 I I I Jr. 1' I - 1 1 i - I• ; � � �- � t,:..r �:'� .. �p '��- �� ry'' x�4 -.j' �:l
"iBBS
`• tip � ��' 1 }1 . I. ,1 • � '1 1• _.. , , - a '�` � a -
- •�• �^e -'�y, - � ` �'y',�� ( to •..;1'. � yr ;ef.. �� a.d .�'a���7ea+ J�� � 1 rya, f ```�i
I. - V • !t � 1 .•� T �W.. f• �i'�� —, S" "i'.L Jt.� ♦+. tee[ )
V BBS'1 u '
f� C ♦1 1 •i.��V13`.. -�„ ,� �'.. •� � ,° ..r _ — .._ is�, i.,.. .` _ ..c c •SE. - .- f _ � _. q,...
C f t� t ~�� ct7� ..�! p ,— .'•WI. -- , !/ ,. ����.a3y`, <V .��
_ -J i i� '°DWI •!; �I _ —�JBB _... -i..i -.,4.1 R )_-'� J ,�•
E y v •9� i v'i i j� � ` t' _ _ _ _ _ _ � } p � I t• ; v BBS •- _ f
- ♦..•-_. �FP� —_ _ -- 11 ���i''- Y , G Y .e �''���`�� -~ .,ice ,�f• -.:
aij .f c,. Y i• r. �� �Y e�
M
t • r .
J
t � '
-
Y
1 t
BCFSN
owl
ow
OF
nn n� Bss ,
•WI' ♦ fy�'
WST'
t - - fO l; �' • twe
j N ,Y k.
�� � i •� '''. 4�✓ � irK y.f �.� � 1 f�.�l�r� ?!'�� . r � •"it•�C•K � '- - � v %{ : if�,u.. •.
' i'2 r � �." t'� ,1' �y' �+ A d � y 1. , Cj- r K.- �,: -^xt �Rt _.y r_ r t .R �• .'�i
�, Y.�•,k _, < `"S p.�' :. 1 t"�.'��B•i'%w ��", � ::. -t' I ;i IM = .- s��'u•
p
f ...,la _ ~f..�1��f �tT�y, `Y. 5 +''''," ♦.e / , r'.' �^Ef �. f• wn.�iK %'.� . "' ".r.� •�•Y'�'! .in r 1 =y'� ..�..j�) w(r
-� F'.i7.v 1! 1 RYC; ,.v... ,ry ti4�� +> ..y•� ;�
Hacienda Lakes 8E
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
GMP Application
CCPC Review Materials
EXHIBIT N
0 Tranportation Report
•
IDIVA ,
CO \CULTII;O Fne'nxmc
0
Hacienda Lakes
ReN4sed Traffic Impact Analysis
Prepared for:
Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC
Prepared by:
Tindale -Oliver and Associates, Inc.
July 2, 2010
• 619001 -00.09
COPR.
re-IM
fit. w,. u
Prep 4z•iinller the su eryfiio+rof:
Na, 3115
W41ian{ E. Oliver ,P.E. a
R49i%Ation No.:- 7 W
sY� '41
sign�d�`
Date:
•
8E
Hacienda Lakes
REVISED TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
Table of Contents
Introduction..................................................................................................................... ..............................1
TrafficGeneration .......................................................................................................... ............................... l
Traffic Distribution and Assignment ............................................................................. ............................... 5
StudyNetwork Identification ......................................................................................... ............................... 9
CommittedRoadway Improvements ............................................................................. ............................... 9
ExistingConditions ........................................................................................................ ............................... 9
Background Traffic Growth Estimate ............................................................................ .............................12
2019 Operating Conditions ............................................................................................ .............................13
• List of Figures
Figure 1. Hacienda Lakes Site Location and Study Network ........................................ ............................... 2
Figure2. Conceptual Site Plan ........................................................................................ ..............................4
Figure 3. Proposed Driveway Geometry ...................................................................... ............................... 22
List of Tables
Table1. Trip Generation Estimate .................................................................................. ..............................3
Table 2a. Internal Capture and Pass -By Capture Estimate - Daily ................................ ............................... 6
Table 2b. Internal Capture and Pass -By Capture Estimate — AM Peak Hour ................ ............................... 7
Table 2c. Internal Capture and Pass -By Capture Estimate — PM Peak Hour ................. ............................... 8
Table 3. Study Network Identification Table ................................................................. .............................10
Table4. Existing Conditions ........................................................................................ ............................... l l
Table5. Background Growth ......................................................................................... .............................14
Table 6.2019 Total Conditions Generalized Level of Service Analysis ....................... .............................15
Table 7a. Arterial Level of Service Summary ............................................................... .............................17
• Table 7b. Signalized Intersection Level of Service Summary ....................................... .............................18
Table 7c. Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Summary ................................... .............................19
Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impact Study
•
Table 8a. Arterial Level of Service Summary — With Improvements Scenario ............ .............................19
Table 8b. Signalized Intersection Level of Service Summary — With Improvements Scenario .................19
Table 9a. Signalized Intersection Level of Service Summary — project Driveway ..... ............................... 20
Table 9b. Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Summary — project Driveway . ............................... 20
List of Appendices
Appendix A — Methodology Correspondence
Appendix B — Trip Generation Estimate
Appendix C — FSUMTS Plots of Future Background Traffic and Project Traffic Distribution
Appendix D — Committed Improvements
Appendix E — Count Data and Adjustment Factors
Appendix F — Historical AADT Trends
Appendix G — Future Traffic Volume Forecast
Appendix H — Capacity Analysis Worksheets
Appendix I — Site Access Capacity Analysis Worksheets & Recommended Intersection Geometry
• Appendix J — Improvement Timing
.7
Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc.
1
[T
Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impact Sludi,
•
Hacienda Lakes
Revised Traffic Impact Study
Introduction
[r
Hacienda Lakes is a DRI- magnitude mixed -use development proposed for a 2,200 + /- acre site on
the east side of C.R. 951 /Collier Boulevard that extends from south of Sabal Palm Road to north
of Lord's Way in Collier County, Florida (Figure 1). Of the 2,200 acres, only 700 to 750 acres
are considered developable uplands. The development is estimated to build out in approximately
2019, with the major land use components indicated in Table 1. A preliminary site plan of the
proposed development is provided in Figure 2.
This transportation analysis examines one phase of development, for which specific approval is
desired.
A revised traffic study response to Question 21, Transportation, has been prepared and is
undergoing DRI review. This Traffic Impact Study is based on the same transportation analysis,
but is formatted as a traffic impact analysis report. The proposed development generates more
than 100 net new total 2 -way p.m. peak hour trip -ends, and significantly impacts one or more
• roadway facilities, and therefore meets Collier County's "Major Study" criteria.
This revised transportation analysis was prepared in response to review agency comments on the
March 21, 2010 study and due to some changes in the proposed land uses. Previous to
undertaking the original report preparation, a transportation methodology meeting was held on
December 21, 2009. Appropriate assumptions, sources of information, and procedures to be
used in the Hacienda Lakes transportation analysis were determined by the review agencies at
this meeting. A summary of the transportation methodology correspondence is provided in
Appendix A.
Throughout this report, the term service capacity has been used to indicate the traffic volume a
road may carry before exceeding an adopted level of service. This term has been used to avoid
the confusion normally encountered in discussing traffic volumes and service volumes.
Traffic Generation
Traffic generated by Hacienda Lakes is estimated in Table 1. The trip generation estimate was
based on fitted -curve equations or average trip generation rates obtained from the Institute of
Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation (8`h edition, 2008), as indicated in Table 1.
Whenever available, the fitted -curve equations were used. If a fitted -curve equation was not
available for a particular land use or time period, then the average rates were used. Hacienda
Lakes is estimated to generate 34,598 daily, and 2,156 a.m. and 3,328 p.m. peak hour trips. The
• higher p.m. peak hour trips reflect the inclusion of retail land uses which typically are not active
during the a.m. peak hour.
Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc_ Hacienda Lakes Traffic bnpact Snrdi,
-I-
U
16
I I
Legend
PINE RIDGE R PINE RIDGE RD EXT _ Significantly Impacted Roadway Network
cn I o Scheduled Improvements Within Study Area
GREEN BLVD
w
Scheduled Improvements Outside Study Area
If I m Lam, Approximate Area of Developable Land
<!, Parcel Lands
OLDEN GAT PKY m,'
o W; Collier Blvd:
Davis Blvd to Golden Gate Canal
? Add Lanes d:
I RADIO RD ( _
Davis Blvd:
or << Radio Rd to Collier Blvd
Z �` `; 6 Lanes 2010
a
m „ I
F I ! Davis Blvd:
Santa Barbara Blvd to Radio Rd
a� o i a ' �r 4 Lanes 2012
RAT11 E HAMMOCK RD 1
Hacienda Lakes
Project Site
Santa Barbara Blvd:
Rattlesnake Hammock Rd
to Davis Blvd
6 Lanes Under Construction
3
Collier Blvd:
o I U.S.41 to Davis Blvd
a ` 6 Lanes Under Construction
I 47
i
N
I
Miles Rd
0 0.5 1 2
• Figure 1
Hacienda Lakes Site Location and Study Network
Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc.
Hacienda Lakes Ti•a #c Impact Study
-2-
8E
•
•
w
W
� O
V
.Q
m
O)
C 'C
y
� X
� N
O y
CL a)
aci 1�
CO
O
Cn J
a' S,
� O
N U
Y
CO O
J 2
a�
C Co
a)
U iz
= U
L
O -
d
y m
O �
m J
1p �
CW �
_C U
N
C p
O �
.0 O
N 0)
rn
a Q,
T
o
O p
U �
� c
Q)
0) U
O
Z
8E
Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impact Studs,
-3-
M
CM
N
V' M
N M
O C'M CO
M
O
00
CO
N j
CO
O
N-
O
M
CO
O
M V'
M O
M Ln O
M
w
N
CO
W
m
d
N .-
N N
N 't
N
M
O
N
L
~
M
N
N
H
O
O
r-
V' O
N
h r-
V' M
M N M
O
O
It
N
N
00
IT
7
N
O
M
CO O
O
N Cn
M
N
r
N
(07
d
d
C
CO
CO
M O
O
(O
N
V' 0
M O
1` m
M h
V'
M
CO
N
V'
V
m
O
CO
N
CL
rIL
N
M
R
N
CA
r O
O O
N CO m
N
O
to
N
V`
CO
00
Q
r
N
C
00
��
�
N
�
r
r
H
O
In
O O
V• .-
(O V' N
I'-
M
00
r
ti
CO
=
7
0
In
V d)
r
to
M CO
(O N
�- r
N CO
(D
r
N
CO
V-
O_
CO
O
M
1
O
CCi
d
IL
N
CO r
It
(n N
n M
CO - h
Cn
M
M
r
P
M
-,t "t
l0 M
V M CO
N
M
W
O
w
Cl)
a
�
G
LO
O
(O
N A
M CO
(O O N
N
LO
O
CO
O
r
01
M
r-
O
M
CO
N CO
M
CA
CO Co
M CO
V� 00
00 CO
00 M LO
Cl) 00 N
-
O
M
00
O
O
I r
a)
N
CO
CO
(O
h
N
N N
N V
Cl i
CO
M
N
N
O
H
a
N
a
N
a
p
H
fC
I
f0
N
U N N
w
O
I
00
�-
O
() 0
0 0 0
O)
l0
1
t7
CO CO
CO
N
M O
O O O
M
Ve
.-
M
N V'
N (n
O O O
M
io
W
W
N Cn
O
y
Cl)
F-
O
4))
Z
0
�
O
O
N
N N
N
N N
N N
CC N N
N
Cu
w
7
7 7
7
7 7
7 7
7 7
7
U
U U
U
U U
U U
m U U
U
-o
-o -a
-O
-o -0
v -o
m -a -o
-o
m
0)
(0 (U
N
N 0)
C) N
U 0)
Q)
>
O
O O
O
O O
O O
O O O
O
O
M
N
N
<- N
O N I-
C)
N
N N
N
N N
N CN O
t`
tN 0
O
N
C
a)
O
7
C
«1
W
C
m
m
C
N
CO
0
0
0
pCO�..
O
B
C
E
_
_
=
C_.
C1
m
7
'O
'O
'O
d
C
V
U
U
U
N
O
Q
m
m
m
a
(9
U
m
a
c
y
�)
>,
>,
>, a)
v V -
U
~
U
a
m
L~LI
'O
m
C m
C
N C
CO O)
0 U Cn
N
m
C
C
C
0) LL
N
LL N
u- c
Cn
C
C
y
J
�
N d
N
N U C
N
U
(n
rn
(n
m o
c 'v
E
c
a
of
CO C:
m
C mq
U m
2
�
Q C�
Q
(n Q
(n (n
2
W
()
m
O)
C 'C
y
� X
� N
O y
CL a)
aci 1�
CO
O
Cn J
a' S,
� O
N U
Y
CO O
J 2
a�
C Co
a)
U iz
= U
L
O -
d
y m
O �
m J
1p �
CW �
_C U
N
C p
O �
.0 O
N 0)
rn
a Q,
T
o
O p
U �
� c
Q)
0) U
O
Z
8E
Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impact Studs,
-3-
•
•
0
E'1�
Y
•' rt _ _ BP a -s ,.:'• a_ sr. ?.:
jr, ew-
firmN
• N -ara,c C rv,c�._
iun
wR orc°�r �m P nstina aev
a ' �i r
wit P' nip" RAW-
e "-t7
r TaC"
mum ♦ -
w Ii1 MU%, .
-ILIO
IU
Y -
r.
r t 1010 �
Is
ram
1-
�1 _
1 �R: � ±•mom v
i . 2LUMT l
IYICf
TULI
UIt
Figure 2 -0
Conceptual Site Plan
NITS
Tindale - Oliver and Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impact S1udr
-4-
•
[D
Traffic Distribution and Assignment
Development traffic was distributed and assigned to the study network using a version of the
Collier County MPO Cost - Feasible Plan FSUTMS model currently being used for transportation
planning by the Collier County MPO's consultant. This model is slightly different from the
version used to develop the MPO- adopted cost - feasible transportation plan because it had been
updated by the MPO to reflect recent BEBR mid -range population projections. It was used at
Collier County staff s request, and was provided to Tindale- Oliver & Associates by Collier MPO
staff on January 21, 2010. New traffic analysis zones (TAZ's) were created to represent Hacienda
Lakes, and the TAZ's were coded with appropriate land use data to reflect ITE -based traffic
generation for the development.
As indicated in Table 1, Hacienda Lakes will consist of a mix of mutually- supporting land uses
that provide opportunities for trips generated by one land use component to be satisfied by another.
Therefore, some trips will occur within the site and need not travel on public roads adjacent to the
site. As a part of evaluating trip distribution, the FSUTMS model provides an estimate of internal
capture between on -site land uses. In addition, during the methodology discussions, application of
internal capture estimating procedures documented by the Institute of Transportation Engineers
was requested. Both methods were compared, and found to be in reasonably close agreement. In
addition, internal capture between residential and the proposed elementary school was assumed as
30 percent. This percentage results conservative when compared against the approximately 35
• percent estimated by Collier County School Board (the School Board estimates that 324 students
out of the 919 students to be able to accommodate the proposed elementary school will be
"consumed" by Hacienda Lakes DRI).
•
A summary of the estimated trip interchanges between on -site land uses is provided in Appendix
B. Overall, the internal capture estimates resulted in PM peak hour external trips being reduced to
approximately 85 percent of the total vehicle trip -end generation reported in Table 1.
During the traffic assignment step, capture of trips from Collier Boulevard (C.R. 95 1) adjacent to
the commercial component of the site was considered. For the p.m. peak hour, the resulting pass -
by capture estimate using ITE procedure is 296 trip -ends, or 148 trips, which would be
approximately 3.6 percent of the future background traffic on Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951),
adhering to the "less than 10 percent" limit agreed to during methodology discussions.
The net result of internal capture and pass -by capture estimates indicates that Hacienda Lakes is
estimated to generate 27,759 net external daily, and 2,546 (1,342 inbound, 1,204 outbound) net
external p.m. peak hour trip -ends. Tables 2a through 2c summarize the internal capture and pass -
by capture estimates.
The distribution and assignment of development trips is summarized in Table 3, and plots of the
FSUTMS model output substantiating the assignment are provided in Appendix C.
Tindale - Oliver and Associales, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impact Sludi,
-5-
•
•
�J
E;LI
Table 2a
7342
Gross Trips (outbound)
Internal Capture and Pass -By Capture Estimate
Internal Capture (inbound)
1113
Daily Internal Capture Matrix
1166
External Trips (inbound)
Shopping
External Trips (outbound)
6175
Residential Center Office
Hotel
Pass -By Capture = 25%
In
Out
In
Out
In
Out
In
Out
Total
6,800
6,800
7,342
7, 341
2, 234
2,234
418
417
1
6, 800
,, ;;. ��;
808
r . v '�
45
0
853
iut
6,800:
661
''i
0
` -
0
er: `.:
661
1
7,342
, .:
661
, ' -
294
158
1,113
iut
7,341
808
, '
220
., :.
138
° ,
1,166
1
2,234
0
' ,'
220
'Y `'
-
13
0
220
352
lut
2,234
45"_
5
;� -
294
' = '' -►'
Hotel In 418 0 138 13 151
Out 417 0 > 158 ' 0 ; 158
Total In 16,794
Out 116,792
School Internal Capture: 30% of school trips are assumed to come from Hacienda Lakes
School External Trips: 1012
Internal Capture: 304
Pass -by Trips Estimate
Shopping Center
Gross Trips (inbound)
7342
Gross Trips (outbound)
7341
Internal Capture (inbound)
1113
Internal Capture (outbound)
1166
External Trips (inbound)
6229
External Trips (outbound)
6175
External Trips (total)
12404
Pass -By Capture = 25%
Pass -By Trips
1861
Pass -By Trips (inbound)
931
Pass -By Trips (outbound)
931
Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc.
-6-
Internal Capture = 4,978
Capture Rate = 14.4%
Gross External = 29,620
Net External = 27,
Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impact Stmdv
•
•
MOR
Table 2b
Internal Capture and Pass -By Capture Estimate
AM PK Hour Internal Capture Matrix
Shopping
Residential Center Office Hotel
In Out In Out In Out In Out Total
234 815 189 121 304 62 36 23
In 234 8 0 01 8
Residential
815
9 0
0
Shopping
rn
189
9
8
Center
121
8
4
8
304
0
4
Office
Out
62
0
8
0
Hotel
In
36
0
8 0
ut
23
0
8 0
Total E
!1n
ut
School Internal Capture: 30% of school trips are assumed to come from Hacienda Lakes
School External Trips:
372
Internal Capture:
112
Pass -by Trips Estimate
Shopping Center
Gross Trips (inbound) 189
Gross Trips (outbound) 121
Internal Capture (inbound) 25
Internal Capture (outbound) 20
External Trips (inbound) 164
External Trips (outbound) 101
External Trips (total) 265
Pass -By Capture = 25%
20
w
Im
Internal Capture = 202
Capture Rate = 9.4%
Gross External = 1,954
Pass -By Trips 66
• Pass -By Trips (inbound) 33
Pass -By Trips (outbound) 33 Net External = 1,888
Tindale - Oliver and Associales, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impacl Sludr
-7-
.7
J
•
Table 2c
Internal Capture and Pass -By Capture Estimate
PM PK Hour Internal Capture Matrix
Shopping
Residential Center Office Hotel
Gross In Out In Out In Out In Out
Total
Trips 841 471 690 719 93 296 42 38
In 1 841 'ry iYr 86 6 0
92
Residential
Out 1 471 62 # -- 0 0
62
Shopping In 690 " 62 {:' "; „'. 141 20
96
Center Out 719 86 = ' , 22 13
121
In 93 0`i 22 ex'szr 0
22
Office
Out 296 6 1 -
21
In 42 0 1 `'
Hotel
14
Out 38 0 20 0
20
Total In 1,666
Out 1,524
School Internal Capture: 30% of school trips are assumed to come from Hacienda Lakes
School External Trips: 138
Worst Case Scenario Assumtions:
Student - to-staff ratio: 10.62 (obtained from Hillsborough County School Board)
Staff Memebers: 87
Staff Memebers Present (leaving) during the PM Peak Hour: 10%
Staff Memebers Present (leaving) during the PM Peak Hour: 9 (outbound trips)
Student Related Trips:
In: 68
Out 61 (70 trips - 9 staff trips)
30% Students from Hacienda Lakes
In: 20 (school inbound trips coming from inside Hacienda Lakes)
Out: 18 (school outbound trips staying inside Hacienda Lakes)
Internal Capture =
486
Capture Rate =
14.6%
Gross Extemal =
2,842
Pass -by Trips Estimate
Shopping Center
Gross Trips (inbound) 690
Gross Trips (outbound) 719
Internal Capture (inbound) 96
Internal Capture (outbound) 121
External Trips (inbound) 594
External Trips (outbound) 598
External Trips (total) 1192
Pass -By Capture = 25%
Pass -By Trips 296
Pass -By Trips (inbound) 148
Pass -By Trips (outbound) 148 Net External =
2,546
Tindale- Oliver and Associales, Inc.
-8-
8E
Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impact Stndv
•
•
Study Network Identification
The transportation study network for Hacienda Lakes was identified based on policies adopted
by Collier County. These policies require that all regionally significant roads where traffic from
the development consumes two percent or three percent of the adopted service capacity of the
"existing and committed" road should be included in the study network. The two percent
significant impact threshold applies for the first two road segments as traffic leaves or
approaches the site, and the three percent threshold applies to segments beyond the first two
segments.
The net external p.m. peak hour development trip -ends on individual road segments, estimated as
described above, were divided by roadway service capacities detennined and published in
Collier County's "Annual Update and Inventory Report" (AUIR) for roadways, for existing and
committed roads, to identify the transportation study network. This analysis is summarized in
Table 3, and the resulting study network is illustrated in Figure 1. Road segments denoted by
gray shading in Table 3 are on the study network.
Committed Roadway Improvements
Adopted capital programs of Collier County and the FDOT, current at the time of this analysis,
• were reviewed and four "committed" road improvement projects (with construction funding
scheduled within three years) was identified for study network roads. These improvements are:
• Collier Blvd.: U.S.41 to Davis Blvd., 6 -lanes under construction.
• Collier Blvd.: Davis Blvd. (S.R.84) to Golden Gate Canal, add lanes, 2010.
• Davis Blvd. (S.R.84): Radio Rd. to Collier Blvd., 6- lanes, 2010.
• Davis Blvd. (SR 84): Santa Barbara Blvd to Radio Rd, 4 -lanes, 2012.
• Santa Barbara Blvd.: Rattlesnake Hammock Rd. to Davis Blvd., 6- lanes, under
construction.
Appendix D contains applicable excerpts from Collier County's adopted 2009 Capital
Improvement Program and FDOT Work Program, and their locations are illustrated in Figure 1.
These improvements were considered in the identification of the transportation study network,
estimates of background traffic growth, and the assessment of future roadway operating
conditions.
Existing Conditions
Existing 2009 PM peak hour, peak season directional traffic volumes were obtained from Collier
County's 2009 AUIR for non -SIS roads and by multiplying the 2009 AADT volume estimates
by the KI00 and the D factors reported in Table 4 for SIS roads. Existing (2009) roadway
• operating conditions on the identified study network are summarized in Table 4. Count data and
adjustments are provided in Appendix E. The source and derivation of study network volumes
and all assumptions used to derive these values are also documented in Appendix E.
Tisdale - Oliver and Associales, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impact Sludi
-9-
•
•
m
v
m m
�a
3
Z
h
•
ne
I
[l�
►Q
S
33zi2AV+
Isk
Ily
01112223
ooAlf
111.._t1£
WANK;
fig
ae
_
33333
'333,
#P
X333333333
#_=
11=3x3333
°;33:3
�'e,ea
-•i
� ^.
a°
¢
C A
a
.
��
mmaslip
l^
e o
11111slSpsypigly
1P
11M
o
i_
-
Illp
=i
�
n
f
u.
Q1
a
•�
I
IT
=R�
tig
��
eta
o
/� m
<=5�o
N o
N
mm•�a
N m
N
�e
N
�4�
Rm��
8R�
A'
«��Sm<�N
�
��o�
■Im�
�A
°"'
��'o
oR
I
x
rrr
r�
o p
u o
o
v
u
v v
ta`oo
aaa
aaa
sad
`aaaaaaaa
soaaa����
m
`
aaa
$
as
l�
as
i
OWN*
8
S7gS30RS
°8m
-
NOR
1
110010
8
1
s�3e
i5
�5
�6
�,aaaa
FFFFF
aaa
FFFss
���aa�
�FFFFFFFF
aaa
as
FF
a�
F�
F���
�zFF
'aaa
FF
�F
U
11111,110
T
Mill,
U m
'n
4
U m
-
y
-
01-11
��
00000�000
owwwww000
gow
boo
vw
■w
o0
}E
80���
888`
m�R88S
Re
800-
�
• d
R
o
H--.
N
'W
o r
o
o ley,
h
i
n
LL
o o°
m
c,�
r
?
-
na
Mti
l
33
sysy
6
4FF
yg{
L
3s$�$
low
c
s
1 M8
4
MW
11
1
V
W SF
ne
I
[l�
•
• y
as
0
1
IU4
•
ti
5
71�2
4
Nm—d
FIT
a 6.d
o ci
d cs
d
d
cl
-1
s
1 1
1dr
6 6
Iq
n
q
R.
g
gig
v g
V. V.
gig
T
5
5 5
5 5
5 5 5
1
do
w@i�iiiiziimw33ww
°H23www
u
u 0
u
u 0
u u
u
2
k I
I I
k I
1 11
2 1111
R#
c22222222222222222�222
-CC
512p
20
5 5
5 5
5 :5
3
:5 :5
5 25
5:5
5
:5
:5
tiutititiciotititi
EEE2'2'222
''7
'Jtjj
2
N 3
00
.3
u 600
BE
rn rn .3
pp
ISM
E
E
151M
.1
1
1 1
o
I
I 2
a
m a
MEAN.
=i
w
a ci
d
pc
7.% 2
8 j '
g
2
E �E
6
..........
_ _
" _
. U
IE
2.
ti
tla�
•
Existing PM peak hour conditions on the study network were identified by comparing the
estimated 2009 PM peak hour, peak season traffic volumes with the AUIR service capacities
documented in Table 3. The resulting conditions are summarized in Table 4.
The study network consists of approximately 41.6 miles of road, carrying 87,915 peak -hour
vehicle -miles of travel. The highest volume to service capacity ratio observed is 0.83, and the
weighted average peak direction volume to service capacity ratio is 0.57, indicating that on
average the road network is slightly over 50 percent full -- and substantial capacity is available in
the network to accommodate additional travel.
Background Traffic Growth Estimate
Year 2019 PM peak hour traffic volumes on the 2012 existing plus committed non -state roadway
network were estimated using the FSUTMS Model for the Collier County MPO provided to the
applicant's consultant on January 21, 2010. Socio- economic data projections corresponding to the
mid -range population projections of the University of Florida's Bureau of Economic and Business
Research for 2019 were provided with the model set.
The Hacienda Lakes traffic volumes and background traffic volumes were identified using the
is "select zone" assignment procedures of the FSUTMS model. 2019 daily background AADT
volumes were forecasted by:
(a) subtracting the Hacienda Lakes select -zone traffic volumes from the total traffic
volumes,
(b) interpolating between 2000 validation model volumes and the 2019 volumes to
estimate 2009 model peak season volumes,
(c) determining the annual traffic growth rate from 2009 to 2019 based on the model
volumes above for a "Method A" estimate,
(d) determining the difference in 2019 and 2009 model -based volumes (taking into
consideration the MOCF of 0.85) to be used for a "Method B" estimate,
(e) applying the growth rate and the volume difference to the actual 2009 AADT counts to
create two ( "Method A" and "Method B ") estimates of 2019 AADT,
(f) examining the differences between the Method A and Method B estimates and usually
averaging the two to develop a 2019 background AADT estimate. Averaging was
chosen in most cases because the two methods produced very similar volumes.
For state roads, the annual growth rates obtained by the method described above were compared
against historic trends and the higher of the two was used in the analysis. In addition, in instances
where the resulting annual growth rate was lower than 2 percent a minimum annual growth rate of
2 percent was used. Analysis of the historic trend in traffic counts on state roads are provided in
• Appendix F.
Tindale - Oliver and Associales, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Ti•a(fc hnpact Study
12
•
. SE
The segment - specific volumes were then reviewed on an area -wide basis by computing the
vehicle -miles of travel on the study network. The model -based travel growth estimates indicate
that an annual VMT growth rate of 36,569 daily vmt per year can be expected, and the Hacienda
Lakes has used an annual VMT growth rate of 42,006 daily vmt per year. The model -based
growth rate also indicates that the 2019 study network vmt will be 1.477 times the 2009 study
network vent, and the Hacienda Lakes has estimated the 2019 study network vmt will be 1.462
times the 2009 vmt. Thus, the background traffic growth rates used in this analysis are consistent
with those of the BEBR mid -range forecasts, as incorporated into Collier County's travel demand
model. This information is presented and summarized in Table 5.
The resulting overall background traffic annual growth rate on the study network between 2009
and 2019 is 3.9 percent per year.
The obtained annual growth rates were applied to peak hour volumes on non -SIS roads and on SIS
roads resulting background AADT volumes were converted to PM peak -hour, peak season
background traffic volumes using the appropriate "Kioo" (for SIS roads), and "D" factors, as
identified in Table 5. The peak direction of background traffic on each segment was based on
existing traffic flow patterns.
• Hacienda Lakes trips on each road segment were identified using a "selected zone" FSUTMS
model traffic assignment procedure, which tracks the trips generated by the group of TAZ's in
which the Hacienda Lakes was isolated. The resulting distribution of external Hacienda Lakes
trips from the model was applied to the ITE -based trip generation estimate to estimate the PM peak
hour Hacienda Lakes traffic. PM peak hour background traffic volumes were added to PM peak
hour project traffic volumes to estimate total traffic volumes for the 2019 PM peak hour.
Background traffic volumes and Hacienda Lakes traffic assignments for 2019 are indicated in
Table 6.
2019 Operatine Conditions
2019 operating conditions were screened by comparing the estimated 2019 p.m. peak hour
volumes with the AUIR roadway service capacity volumes. The peak direction of background
traffic on each segment was based on existing traffic flow patterns. P.m. peak hour background
traffic volumes were added to p.m. peak hour development traffic volumes to estimate total traffic
volumes for the 2019 p.m. peak hour. Background traffic volumes and Hacienda Lakes traffic
assignments for 2019 are indicated in Table 6.
The total traffic volumes estimated as described above were compared against the roadway service
volume estimates of Collier County's AUIR to establish a screening of locations where below
standard operating conditions are expected, and where development traffic would meet or exceed
• the thresholds of significance. Table 6 provides a summary of estimated 2019 conditions at the
significantly impacted locations. On only three road segments are below level of service standard
conditions expected. On these two segments, and at site access points, more detailed intersection
Tindale- Oliver and Associales, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impact Study
13
• v
3
O
H G
A
U
R
m
O)
O
N
J
II RR
E E
o
I� C N Q IL
m9
c � W
o
K
A
E
E n
W U N
m
d
3
0
N
V
A
0
a
m
C
O
> O
m
jp N
d�
m �
C �p
O N
U O
E
tG 7
o G
O >
� o T
c o
C ell. rm
m 6
' E o
> m
d o �
3 N N
`m m •Y
W m — O
m EE A
m
e _ t
v
> O
m1 > m
M N C
R R � 3
m d N O
°v roi
C
a a
to m
o I
0
0
m
i 7N O
I U b
� I
LL
� F H
o a Q ~ U
m N
11 II N
m Nam " 8
m N
..8E
J
.V
a
O
F
N
. F
°����
F
o
NNn�Sn�
°n m.N-
om���$���
mnnNmvi
of
le Fi
Obi
°n ai
wuP`ciSgem$Em
N m
n
b
h
9
T�Rgll
m
Ct_R
4! J
e4i
Eo�ccmo�,
v°io
io
Sn'o�wmmn
m n w
rK
gnxrivmva�n°n���vmc°°vwo�vN�
��C
NN
n
2 vi
N Nv
m N
2
o
0
f
i1
Fe$
8o�
<<m'a6imb'io.'Rt°�or'S,E`8�^.,
m
m
e
n
din
mi
�n
n rg�Nm
yH
2
��
° m�'
� °i•mm�v°'vmi_Em�Bm�`do�$u'�i�54
l�yFEF�
01
n�<F4�NmN�vnnne�
8�mC�
q
AEA
aiNNmm
d
m2�w
■
HAT
ijp
o
eNNO���Omy�NmNVmm
R'
o °D
1;i
N
N m
m
Z CNi
�
mm°
mnmvi
N
$Homo
N
m
$m
vmi
7Rdi 12S
w
r�
oi a
m om
V2�rip
�p
o
m
�p
N
i n
n
6
0
m
NN
riNn
i2
NN
Nv
S '�
K
oRmivP�vn
nnNnal�ime`em�
n
of mm
Nn
0
6
e�9X
w°
mm'��i
mm
`�i_o
min'
o
tyim
o �n
Vm
IS
O
Z
C N
mn�m�QXQ�X
rn
�w"cm:Nm
olnrin
vi
N
N'vmM
N v
w
c
$
@ mpmo
�.9Q.
mtinnm��
mwui
�m
°m
m N
N
A N
N N
14
of
N m
N IA
N a
Omm
K
E
m
m
¢
E
EEm
R
E
Ert
p
m
m m
a
"'
O
+O s
O
"mi
K c
m?m3pm
m
n
41
�m�m�AmSa�
E
LL:
=g
C-
U U
8 i
s=
O J
m
11SS
3 2
N
tIl U
U v1
U tI)
K U
3 R N
m
E
a
a
;
2
a
m
m
m
z
m
��m
a m
m
m
m
<
ir
¢
om
a
in
imn �
c
rm �
v
6
6 6
0 ti
6 6
E
w w w
Y
m m
m m
m m
m m
N C,
w
c m
m
q r E
O D
U U
U U
U U
C�
!/1 w
.2
w m
m K
R m
K 41
N i
ti H
II RR
E E
o
I� C N Q IL
m9
c � W
o
K
A
E
E n
W U N
m
d
3
0
N
V
A
0
a
m
C
O
> O
m
jp N
d�
m �
C �p
O N
U O
E
tG 7
o G
O >
� o T
c o
C ell. rm
m 6
' E o
> m
d o �
3 N N
`m m •Y
W m — O
m EE A
m
e _ t
v
> O
m1 > m
M N C
R R � 3
m d N O
°v roi
C
a a
to m
o I
0
0
m
i 7N O
I U b
� I
LL
� F H
o a Q ~ U
m N
11 II N
m Nam " 8
m N
..8E
J
.V
a
O
F
•
•
•
m
C
m
d
y
0
m
J
L
a
N
d
c
a°
a
C
V
01
N
�D
�
f�f4�8f34z�'1f3�??3���3ff33
i�
�
3,
;8y3izi�3�
;33?3ff£'If8?4f
>
»
> >
>
>'s'
^
FRR
i.
+3
°R
A
; °m�mmnn
R•�
5
N�nR���IZ
CJ��n
°�s��Em
&�
�
5863�OeRiS�,A3
&�n�'
€68A3
°88
p
d
��
•
e$
^n`O_'Rc.��iirc,`._���Ri.�Cis.�
�3nCii
°'goo
Rgggggggg
a °a°
gggggg
YYY���tY����YYYY�2�uYYYo
gggg
ggggggFg
EE
<e
o
noo
�E
wi��������yw33u�u�wmz
;wow
w
�t
°
�o
°o oo
C,C„
C 3
o.^o.F
o
o`°o
og;`
5a
o
E
:a
iziz<<<i<<��z�a
°�x
°iggz'z�ggg
111109g
�
o
0
f
s
CR�'kyyyyRgq&A�
-gumc
8'�qq
ggggggEEgggggggggggg
gg
gg
It'll;
Er
of
w w
�
88}�e��FR�G.R,RS
$�BR�ARRA�og9�
FFggFggF
,�
yuUUy�uaH�v��ese���wm�w'U��
{{FEEggFFF�FFFFEEEE�FEE{EEE
oomoowww000aoommowwmwwuwww
{y�
■
°��
SABe�RegRn
�Rry
;3
esees�eaae
°�eeees�sssa
=��
m�2���
Pmrcf�uu�
nk
°3e
Ads
u5��
t��
°u3uum�'+3
rua��
m
�
�i
m
�ggdH
m;
ouu
Mid,�
�
mtt�a
�8
M
F�?FSpB
&FK'�r�.�o'br
E'��m��
��8ace
e
r
Y;
J
c
C
E'l�l
8 E
capacity analyses were undertaken to identify improvements that would restore the adopted level
of service standards. These intersections are:
On these three segments, and at site access points, more detailed intersection capacity analyses
were undertaken to identify improvements that would restore the adopted level of service
standards. These intersections are:
• Collier Boulevard (C.R.951) at Golden Gate Boulevard West
• Collier Boulevard (C.R.951) at Pine Ridge Road
• Collier Boulevard (C.R.951) at Green Boulevard
• Collier Boulevard (S.R.951) at Interstate 75 Ramps (North)
• Collier Boulevard (S.R.951) at Interstate 75 Ramps (South)
• Collier Boulevard (S.R.951) at Davis Boulevard
• Collier Boulevard (C.R. 95 1) at Northern Site Access (A.M. and P.M. peak hour analysis)
• Collier Boulevard (C.R. 95 1) at The Lord's Way (A.M. and P.M. peak hour analysis)
• Collier Boulevard (C.R. 95 1) at Rattlesnake Hammock Road (A.M. and P.M. peak hour
analysis)
• Collier Boulevard (S.R.951) at Wal -Mart Supercenter Driveway
• Collier Boulevard (S.R.951) at Manatee Road
• In addition to these intersections and pursuant to FDOT request, the following intersections were
also analyzed:
• Collier Boulevard (C.R.951) at Golden Gate Parkway
• Tamiarni Trail (U.S.41) at Rattlesnake Hammock Road
• Tanniami Trail East (U.S.41) at San Marco Road (C.R.92)
Intersection turning movement volume forecasts are included in Appendix G.
Levels of service were calculated using the following methodologies:
Signalized Arterials Synchro (2000 HCMProcedures)
Signalized Intersections Synchro (2000 HCMProcedures)
Unsignalized Intersections Highway Capacity Software (2000 HCM
Procedures)
Capacity analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix H. Table 7 summarizes the results of the
capacity analysis. As shown in Tables 7 A, B, and C at the following intersections improvements
will be required to achieve adopted performance standards:
• Collier Boulevard (C.R.951) at Pine Ridge Road
• • Collier Boulevard (C.R.951) at Golden Gate Parkway
• Collier Boulevard (S.R.951) at Interstate 75 Ramps (South)
Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impact Study
-16- Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC
•
• Collier Boulevard (S.R.951) at Davis Boulevard
Table 7a
Arterial Level of Service Analysis Summary
Roadway
Average
Speed
Level of
Direction
[mph]
Service
On
From
To
Collier Blvd
Golden Gate Blvd.
Green Blvd.
20.6
D
NB
Collier Blvd
X75 (S)
Davis Blvd.
6.7
F
NB
S.R. 951
Wal -Mart Driveway
Manatee Rd.
43.2
A
NB
At these intersections the following improvements are required:
• Collier Boulevard (C.R.951) at Pine Ridge Road
• Widen the northbound and southbound approaches in the intersection vicinity to 3 lanes in each
direction.
•
Collier Boulevard (C.R.951) at Golden Gate Parkway
• Construct an additional (for a total of two) northbound -to- westbound left turn lane on Collier
Boulevard.
Collier Boulevard (S R.951) at 1 -75 Ramps (South)
• Reduce the number of southbound through lanes from 4 to 3,
• Lengthen the outside right turn lane at the Collier Boulevard/Davis Boulevard intersection
approximately 650 feet (from E +C turn lane end to I -75 eastbound off ramps),
• By reducing the number of southbound through lanes and lengthening the southbound right
turn lane at the Collier Boulevard/Davis Boulevard intersection, it will be possible to provide
two receiving lanes for the eastbound right turn movement at the Collier Boulevard/I -75 South
Ramps intersection, enabling this movement to operate as free flow.
Collier Boulevard (S.R.951) at Davis Boulevard
• Construct an eastbound -to- southbound right turn lane on Davis Boulevard.
Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Ti•afc Impact Studr
-17- Hacienda Lakes orNaples, LLC
8E
•
•
•
I. 8E
Table 7b
Signalized Intersections Level of Service Analysis Summary
Tindale - Oliver and Associales, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Ti afTc Impact Sludr
-18- Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC
Movement
Time
Intersection
a
Measure
Overall
Period
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Collier Blvd
WC
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.93
n/a
0.26
n/a
0.77
0.89
0.95
0.30
n/a
n/a
PM
Delay
n/a
n/a
n/a
76.2
n/a
48.9
n/a
22.6
26.0
65.3
6.5
n/a
35.9
at
Peak
Golden Gate
Hour
[sec]
LOS
n/a
n/a
n/a
E
n/a
D
n/a
C
C
E
A
We
D
Blvd
Collier Blvd
V/C
0.98
1.16
0.34
0.69
1.06
n/a
1.08
1.3
0.52
1.05
1.05
0.19
n/a
PM
Peak
Delay
136.4
36.3
63.3
128.4
n/a
114.1
172.2
26.7
172.6
79.8
15.4
103.8
Pane
Hour
67.1
Ridge Rd
LOS
E
F
D
E
F
n/a
F
F
C
F
E
B
F
V/C
0.95
n/a
0.25
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.78
0.95
n/a
n/a
0.70
0.16
n/a
Collier Blvd
at
PM
Peak
Delay
71.0
n/a
34.2
n/a
n/a
n/a
37.2
16.8
n/a
n/a
10.1
1.1
22.9
Green Blvd
Hour
[sec]
LOS
E
n/a
C
n/a
n/a
n/a
D
B
n/a
n/a
B
A
C
Collier Blvd
V/C
1.23
n/a
0.98
n/a
n/a
n/a
1.31
0.53
n/a
n/a
1.02
1.02
n/a
at
PM
Peak
Delay
161.9
n/a
87.3
n/a
n/a
n/a
159.6
6.1
n/a
n/a
80.4
97.7
97.4
Golden Gate
Hour
[sec]
Pkwy
LOS
F
n/a
F
n/a
n/a
n/a
F
A
n/a
n/a
F
F
F
Collier Blvd
V/C
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.89
n/a
0.28
0.93
0.46
n/a
n/a
0.86
0.11
n/a
PM
Peak
osel�,
n/a
n/a
n/a
75.4
n/a
45.7
8.4
3.1
n/a
n/a
31.6
15.1
16.8
I75at
Hour
LOS
n/a
n/a
n/a
E
n/a
D
A
A
n/a
n/a
C
B
B
Ramps
Collier Blvd
V/C
0.17
n/a
1.35
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1.18
0.25
1.30
0.44
n/a
n/a
PM
Delay
27.8
n/a
203.1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
107.3
23.3
261.5
1.7
n/a
100.8
at
Peak
1-75 South
Hour
[sec]
Ramps
LOS
C
n/a
F
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
F
C
F
A
n/a
F
V/C
0.94
1.20
n/a
0.47
0.47
0.85
1.22
0.87
0.14
0.67
1.05
0.53
n/a
Collier Blvd
PM
Delay
57.3
150.9
n/a
61.6
58.6
75.4
174.1
17.7
10.6
66.4
55.4
24.6
58.4
at
Peak
[sec]
Davis Blvd
Hour
LOS
E
F
n/a
E
E
E
F
B
B
E
E
C
E
Collier Blvd
V/C
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.44
n/a
0.05
n/a
0.58
0.11
0.58
0.38
n/a
n/a
at
PM
Peak
Delay
n/a
n/a
n/a
58.9
n/a
56.2
n/a
2.1
0.1
55.6
0.4
We
5.8
Wal -Mart
Hour
[sec]
Driveway
LOS
n/a
n/a
I n/a
E
n/a
E
n/a
A
A
E
A
n/a
A
V/C
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.80
n/a
0.73
n/a
0.96
0.15
0.97
0.67
n/a
n/a
Collier Blvd
PM
D[S
n/a
n/a
n/a
72.4
n/a
66.6
n/a
40.2
14.9
99.4
18.7
n/a
39.2
at
Peak
Manatee Rd
Hour
cj
LOS
n/a
n/a
n/a
E
n/a
E
n/a
D
B
F
B
n/a
D
Tamiami Trail
WC
0.95
0.95
0.14
0.87
0.93
0.09
0.94
0.72
0.43
0.81
0.97
0.25
n/a
at
Rattlesnake
PM
Peak
Delay
71.2
41.3
19.8
88
51.1
30.7
102.8
60.4
53.7
61.2
78.8
43.1
54.5
Hammock
Hour
[sec]
Rd
LOS
E
D
B
F
D
C
F
E
I D
E
E
D
D
Tindale - Oliver and Associales, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Ti afTc Impact Sludr
-18- Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC
•
•
•
Table 7c
Unsignalized Intersections Level of Service Analysis Summary
Note 1: unopposed movement
Table 8 summarizes the results of the "with improvements" capacity analysis.
Table 8a
Arterial Level of Service Analysis Summary
With Improvements Scenario
Roadway
Average
Movement
Time
Level of
Measure
Intersection
Speed
Imphl
Measure
Direction
On
From
To
Collier Blvd
1-75(S)
Davis Blvd.
Period
D
NB
WBL
WBT
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Tamiami Trail
0.29
V/C
n/a
note 1
note 1
0.02
note 1
n/a
0.44
n/a
0.03
n/a
n/a
n/a
at
PM
Peak
D[s la
n/a
note 1
note 1
8.5
note 1
n/a
23.0
n/a
10.6
n/a
n/a
n/a
San
Ridge Rd
Hour
LOS
n/a
note 1
note 1
A
note 1
n/a
I C I
n/a
B
n/a
n/a
n/a
Marco Rd
Note 1: unopposed movement
Table 8 summarizes the results of the "with improvements" capacity analysis.
Table 8a
Arterial Level of Service Analysis Summary
With Improvements Scenario
Roadway
Average
Movement
Intersection
Level of
Measure
Overall
Speed
Imphl
Service
Direction
On
From
To
Collier Blvd
1-75(S)
Davis Blvd.
21.4
D
NB
Table 8b
Signalized Intersections Level of Service Analysis Summary
With Improvements Scenario
Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impact Studio
-19- Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC
•
Movement
Intersection
Period
Measure
Overall
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Collier Blvd
WC
0.95
0.98
0.29
0.92
0.81
Na
0.97
0.95
0.62
0.92
0.91
0.19
Na
PM
Peak
Delay
61.2
72.9
30.8
96.2
69.1
Na
72.5
40.5
26.9
131.2
50.4
34.0
53.6
Piste
Hour
l l
Ridge Rd
LOS
E
E
C
F
E
Na
E
D
C
F
D
C
D
Collier Blvd
WC
0.99
Na
0.90
n/a
Na
Na
0.98
0.59
Na
n/a
0.86
0.68
Na
at
PM
Peak
Delay
68.7
Na
61.7
Na
n/a
Na
54.1
13.0
Na
Na
59.2
96.9
54.9
Golden Gate
Hour
Isecl
Pkwy
LOS
E
Na
E
Na
Na
Na
D
B
Na
Na
E
F
D
Collier Blvd
WC
0.61
n/a
0.51
Na
Na
Na
n/a
0.81
0.21
0.63
0.37
Na
n/a
at
PM
Peak
Del+62.0
Na
0.7
Na
Na
Na
Na
14.8
15.6
84.5
0.9
n/a
10.7
1-75 South
Hour
IseRamps
LO
We
A
Na
Na
Na
Na
B
B
F
A
Na
B
Blvd
WC
0.99
0.42
0.65
0.43
0.68
0.81
0.99
0.78
0.13
0.45
0.99
0.50
Na
Collier
at
PM
Peak
Delay
67.9
38.8
44.8
60.5
70.3
68.0
86.2
14.8
12.2
69.3
43.5
11.0
0.99
Davis Blvd
Hour
Deed
LOS
E
D
D
E
E
E
F
B
B
E
D
B
D
Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impact Studio
-19- Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC
•
�J
8 E ; .
The major site access points illustrated on the master site development plan (Figure 2) were also
analyzed. The site will utilize an internal collector road system to collect and distribute traffic
from individual residential enclaves and building sites to the adjacent roadway network. The
project is proposing three connections to Collier Blvd. (C.R. 951), as follows:
• North Project driveway (full connection),
• The Lord's Way (right - in/right - out/left -in connection), and
• Rattlesnake Hammock Road (full connection).
Traffic signals are anticipated to be required at the first and third of these site access intersections.
Table 9 summarizes the results of the capacity analysis and Figure 3 illustrates the recommended
geometry. Worksheets documenting the site access intersection levels of service and
recommended geometry are included in Appendix I.
No other major direct connections to Collier Blvd. are anticipated but a secondary entry point to
the commercial area south of Rattlesnake Hammock Rd may be pursued at a later date. Such entry
is not expected to be used by residents of the development, but would be a convenient entry point
to the shopping areas for travelers on Collier Blvd.
• Table 9a
Signalized Intersections Level of Service Analysis Summary
Project Driveway
Tindale- Oliver and Associales, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Ti-afc Impact Sludv
-20- Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC
Movement
Time
Intersection
Measure
Overall
rm
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
V/C
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.76
n/a
0.07
n/a
0.62
0.04
0.53
0.69
n/a
n/a
AM
Peak
Delay
n/a
n/a
n/a
63.2
n/a
46.2
n/a
10.5
8.8
64.6
9.8
n/a
13.7
Hour
[sec]
Collier Blvd
at
LOS
n/a
n/a
n/a
E
n/a
D
n/a
B
A
E
A
n/a
B
North Project
V/C
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.67
n/a
0.04
n/a
0.83
0.13
0.65
0.55
n/a
n/a
Driveway
PM
Peak
Delay
n/a
n/a
n/a
65.5
n/a
52.6
n/a
11.8
11.8
81.2
2.0
n/a
10.7
Hour
[sec]
LOS
n/a
n/a
n/a
E
n/a
D
n/a
B
B
F
A
n/a
B
V/C
0.74
0.65
0.24
0.70
0.73
0.66
0.69
0.59
0.12
0.76
0.78
0.44
n/a
AM
Peak
Delay
60.7
55.1
49.5
61.8
59.4
45.3
62.4
28.8
22.0
75.9
22.8
8.7
36.7
Collier Blvd
Hour
[sec]
at
LOS
E
E
D
E
E
D
E
C
C
E
C
A
D
Rattlesnake
We
0.99
0.72
0.21
0.83
0.97
0.99
0.74
0.99
0.26
0.95
0.60
0.50
n/a
Hammock
Rd
PM
Delay
Peak
86.3
56.2
46.6
68.5
86.2
81.2
62.5
53.0
32.3
103.4
11.5
2.8
53.0
[sec]
Hour
LOS
F
I E
D
E
I F
I F
I E
I D
C
F
B
A
D
Tindale- Oliver and Associales, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Ti-afc Impact Sludv
-20- Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC
•
8E
Table 9b
Unsignalized Intersections Level of Service Analysis Summary
Project Driveway
Note 1: unopposed movement
Worksheets that identify when each improvement will be needed are included in Appendix J.
Traffic impact mitigation strategies will be developed following the review of the Traffic Impact
isStudy, and in coordination with the development order.
•
Tindale- Oliver and Associales, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Ti•afc Impact Sludr
-21- Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC
m
Moveent
Time
Intersection
Measure
Period
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
WC
n/a
n/a
0.13
n/a
n/a
0.25
0.09
note 1
note 1
0.08
note 1
note 1
AM
Delay
n/a
n/a
18.4
n/a
n/a
16.7
20.1
note 1
note 1
13.4
note 1
note 1
Peak
Hour
[sec]
LOS
n/a
n/a
C
n/a
n/a
C
C
note 1
note 1
B
note 1
note 1
Collier Blvd
at
WC
n/a
n/a
0.18
n/a
n/a
0.33
0.09
note 1
note 1
0.21
note 1
note 1
Lord's Way
PM
Peak
Delay
[sec]
n/a
n/a
16.4
n/a
n/a
25.9
16.0
note 1
note 1
23.6
note 1
note 1
Hour
LOS
I n/a
I n/a
C
n/a
n/a
D
C
note 1
note 1
1 C
note 1
note 1
Note 1: unopposed movement
Worksheets that identify when each improvement will be needed are included in Appendix J.
Traffic impact mitigation strategies will be developed following the review of the Traffic Impact
isStudy, and in coordination with the development order.
•
Tindale- Oliver and Associales, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Ti•afc Impact Sludr
-21- Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC
•
•
•
1�
Figure 3
Project Driveways Geometry
Intersection
Geometry
L'
N
North Project
Collier Blvd
Driveway
at
North
Driveway
Collier Blvd
�
N
Collier Blvd
Lord's way
at
Lord's
Way
Collier Blvd
N
Rattlesnake
Collier Blvd
Hammock Rd
at
Rattlesnake
Hammock Rd
Collier Blvd
References: V-* EXlsting Lane
b New Lane
Tindale - Oliver and Associales, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impact Studv
-22- Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC
Hacienda Lakes .V E
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
GMP Application
CCPC Review Materials
EXHIBIT O
Areas of Historical/Archelogical
� Probability
DAATA'
COSSOLTI \G
A. \ 1 u JL sun.qiq-
• • • 8E
Hacienda Lakes
Exhibit O -Archaeological Map
0 1,000 2,000 Feet
'DIXTAtNC.
CONSULTING
Z \ ► T1 1
•Planning -Visualization
Civil Engineering • Surveying- & Mapping-
Prepared By: nnlones
Printing Dale: June 18, 2010 Imp—•
File: T:1Prolects12005105 0150.02.03 Hadendal-akesl
GMPIRev011Hacienda _Archaeological_O. mxd
•
•
8E
Hacienda Lakes
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
GMP Application
CCPC Revie*4 Materials
ATTACHMENT P
Resumes
DIVA`,
pwriq
CONSULTING
i'L ► ►t a
• DXXTA INC.Visual nation
C O N S L! LT I N G Civil Engineering
�& IL. r V1 1 Surveying & Mapping
Education
University of Florida /
B.S. C. E. / 1984
Registration i
License
Civil Engineering
FL - #42710, 1986
Civil Engineering
NC -#029031.2003
Professional
Societies
Florida Engineering
Society,
1986 — Present
• National Society of
Professional
Engineers.
1986 -- Present
Professional Engineers
in Private Practice.
1986 - Present
•
Experience Summary
Exhibit P
Resumes
Emilio J. Robau, P.E.
Director of Water Resources
Mr. Emilio Robau is one of the founding partners of the firm with over 25 years of
professional experience. His areas of practice include the management of land
development and environmental restoration design activities, general civil engineering
design, and environmental permitting with an emphasis on the water resource related
design elements. Mr. Robau graduated from the University of Florida with a Bachelor of
Science degree in Civil Engineering.
Mr. Robau is experienced in land planning, design and permitting of stormwater
management, water supply, and wastewater removal systems and related infrastructure.
He is qualified as an expert in the complex federal and state regulatory process necessary
for successful completion of estuarine, freshwater wetland and environmental resource
related permits projects. Mr. Robau is well versed with local regulatory requirements of the
various political jurisdictions, as well as in the preparation of environmental assessments,
and environmental impact statements, both key elements in the permitting process.
Representative Projects
Lely Main Canal Stormwater Improvement Project, Collier County, FL — Engineer of
Record for the design and permitting for the relocation and widening of the Lely Main
Canal, which is the outfall for a very large upstream watershed area. A significant
modeling effort addressed onsite stormwater issues and included the Harvey Harper
methodology for water quality contaminants. The Lely Main Canal required the design of
the 1,600 ft. long broad - crested weir to improve upstream drainage in the highly developed
areas of the watershed and prevent downstream saltwater intrusion and dewatering of the
local groundwater aquifer. RWA finalized the conceptual design for the Lely Main canal;
realigned the routing to provide a more natural watercourse; and designed extensive littoral
plantings for water quality enhancement
Griffin Road Filter Marsh, Collier County, FL — Engineer of Record responsible for
providing water quality treatment facilities and replacing a system of ditches and a small
canal that provide for a drainage outfall to the stormwater basin with new regulated
drainage facilities. The project involves construction of a lake and filter marsh that will
improve and provide water quality treatment. The project will also entail constructing a long
broad - crested weir to control stormwater discharges to the Rookery Bay National Estuarine
Research Reserve. This combination of stormwater facilities will replace the existing
uncontrolled discharge to Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve.
Lely Manor North South Canal, Collier County, FL — Engineer of Record responsible for
the design and permitting of a large canal that is a phase of a larger watershed
improvement plan called the Lely Area Stormwater improvement Plan. The project creates
additional water quality treatment for the basin and improves drainage by providing for
outfall improvements that reduce the hydraulic grade line in the upstream portions of the
canal.
i\C V
•
0DAITA i sualization
CONSULTING Civil Engineering
AL t T Ti -1L Suiveyiiig R. Mapping
•
•
Exhibit P
Resumes
Emilio J. Robau, P.E.
Page 2
Collier County Watershed Management Plan, Collier County, FL - RWA has teamed
with URS Corporation to prepare watershed management plans for Collier County that will
be used to amend the County's Growth Management Plan; promulgate land development
regulations; and specify capital improvement projects, thereby resulting in a net
improvement to the ecological health of the County's natural areas. The plan includes
extensive public hearings, meetings with environmental groups, and research of existing
environmental data to develop a plan that will assist local authorities in managing the
County watersheds. The plan also includes water quality and quantity watershed modeling
and the modeling of ecosystem responses to planned improvements and management
initiatives.
CEMEX, Barron Collier Limerock Mine Collier County, FL - RWA is leading the effort to
secure land use entitlements and obtain state, federal and local environmental permits for
a large limerock mine in Collier County. Mr. Robau provided expert testimony at the
environmental advisory council meeting and planning council meeting outlining the
operational sequencing of the mining operation. Mr. Robau is responsible for the
coordination, design and permitting of the processing plant, turn lanes on Immokalee Road
and the overall mining area. Mr. Robau is the engineer of record for all permitting and local
development order activities.
Marco Island Right Of Way and Drainage Master Plan, Marco Island, FL - RWA was
hired to assist in the development of a master right of way and drainage plan, working with
design consultants to prepare a plan that fully considered private property impacts,
aesthetics, engineering design, safety, and utility elements associated with some 24 miles
of City owned Rights -of -Way. The Master Plan included a full inventory of all water
management system components and the regulatory requirements in place that could be
supplemented to improve water quality and quantity management of stormwater runoff.
The major work components of the Drainage Master Plan included inventory of all drainage
structures and pipes within public rights -of -way and easements; the creation of a hydraulic
model for use in sizing improvements; a public participation program to identify areas of
concern for street flooding, safety hazards, or related pavement deficiencies; and the
development of a 5 -year CIP.
Toll Brothers — Rattlesnake DRI Master Planning & Design – Engineer of Record
responsible for a 2,250 -acre property consisting of 910 acres to be developed. The water
management system is composed of four major basins, three of these basins will discharge
into the wetlands and one basin will discharge into Henderson Creek Canal. RWA utilized
XP -SWMM software to design the stormwater management plan and incorporated regional
sub watershed models
Forest Glen Master - Planned Community; The Ronto Group; Naples, FL – Engineer of
Record responsible for project oversight, including planning, environmental permitting, site
and related infrastructure design, construction document preparation, and construction
administration services.
•
DIA[A INC. VIis lalization
CO \ S LI LT I N G Civil Engineering
1 e T TA. 1 Surveying &Mapping
•
•
Exhibit P
Resumes
Emilio J. Robau. P.E.
Page 3
Sabal Bay Master Planned Community— Engineer of Record responsible for the design
of a 2,300 -acre mixed -use community. The property includes wetland and upland
conservation areas that cover more than 70 percent of the project area and requires the
construction of a portion of the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Plan (LASIP). The
largest component of this plan is the relocation and widening of the Lely Main Canal, which
is the outfall for a very large upstream watershed area. This regional stormwater
management facility also included the design of a 1,600 ft. long broad crested weir to
improve upstream drainage in the highly developed areas of the watershed and more
importantly prevent downstream saltwater intrusion and dewatering of the local
groundwater aquifer. The design also included complex regional, federal, state and local
environmental permitting. Coordination with Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research
Reserve, an adjacent property owner and other non - governmental environmental
organizations was a critical element of the successful permitting of the facility and
associated development. RWA performed the final design utilizing XP SWIMM software.
Vasari Country Club; 375 -Acre Master Planned Single and Multi - Family Residential
Community; Taylor Woodrow Communities, Inc.; Bonita Springs, FL — Engineer -of-
record responsible for overseeing the master planning, environmental permitting,
transportation consulting, land development civil design, construction document
preparation, and contract administration services. Included were design and document
preparation for the potable water and sanitary sewer systems, and drainage master
planning. Traffic operation services included design and construction document
preparation for signing, pavement marking, and channelization. Permitting services
included SFWMD, COE, ERP, and other local and regional permits, FIT studies, and
impact statements.
Golden Gate Parkway Grade - Separated Overpass (Phase IB); Single -Point Urban
Interchange at Airport - Pulling Road; Collier County Transportation; Naples, FL —
Project engineer responsible for identifying and designing preliminary drainage
requirements. These tasks included completion of a drainage and hydrology analysis,
preliminary review of environmental permitting requirements, and preparation of studies
and statements necessary for environmental permitting application
! / ,IRC.
Planning
• DAIVisualization
C O N S LI I -T I N G Civil Encyineenng
.A %. 0 V AL JL Surveying & Mapping
Education
University of Alaska/
BS /Resource Mgmt
w /emphasis on Urban
Planning — Minor in
Anthropology / 1984
Registration 1
License
A.P.A. - 063982
Professional
Societies
American Planning
Association
• 1987 - Present
Florida Chapter
American Planning
Association
1987 - Present
is
Experience Summary
Exhibit P
Resumes
Dwight H. Nadeau, A.P.A.
Planning Services Manager
Mr. Dwight Nadeau is a professional Planner and Planning Services Manager. He is
responsible for coordination and management of resource allocations for planning tasks
associated with the firm's land planning and development projects. Mr. Nadeau has
over 20 years of planning and community service experience. He holds a Bachelor of
Science degree in Resource Management with emphasis on Urban Planning, and a
minor in Anthropology from the University of Alaska, Fairbanks,
Mr. Nadeau has significant experience in project planning and management; as well as,
comprehensive planning and land use regulation oversight. He has specific expertise in
the successful planning and zoning of monumental projects. Mr. Nadeau played a key
role in the planning and zoning, as well as professional support in the resulting legal
battle over the rural area residential development "clustering" of Twin Eagles Golf and
Country Club. After 12 years, the matter successfully culminated with the setting of a
legal precedent for 'clustering' of residential developments in rural areas, and laid the
foundation for the future development of Eastern Collier County. In addition, Mr.
Nadeau has vast experience with beachfront and waterfront redevelopment, which
includes visioning, conceptual development design, project team coordination, and
public involvement through the administrative review and political processes.
Representative Projects
Olde Marco Inn; Marco Cat, LLC, Marco island, FL — Project Planner responsible for
site analysis, master planning, and planned unit development rezoning. Established a
local historic designation, resulting in the refurbishment of this historic 1896 structure,
as well as the addition of a 62 -room boutique hotel. Facilitated an archeological survey
that resulted in an archeological dig that found significant tools and debris that further
illustrated the day -to -day life of the lost Caloosa Tribe.
Sancerre; EcoGroup, Naples, FL — Project Planner responsible for site analysis,
master planning, support and representation of a Coastal Construction Control Line
Variance with the City of Naples and the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection. Once home to the historic Tides Inn, this 1.57 -acre beachfront property in
Naples, Florida is now an eight -story, 23 -unit luxury condominium complex.
Vanderbilt Inn Re- Development; TimeMed, Inc., Naples, FL - Project Planner
responsible for redevelopment site analysis, master planning, approval of a zoning
overlay to provide for additional building height beyond existing zoning limits, support
and representation of a Coastal Construction Control Line Variance with Collier County
and the Florida Department of Protection, and played a significant support role in the
resolution of a building moratorium imposed as a result of the proposed redevelopment
project for 4.83 acres of beachfront property. The site is now under construction with a
77 -unit luxury condominium project.
•
IDXXTA�NC Vit al .ation
C O N S U L T I N Ci Civil Engineering
-1 \ Y « X Surveying & Mapping
•
Dwight H.
Nadeau, A.P.A.
Page 2
White Lake
• Corporate Park;
120 -acre Industrial
1
�8E
Exhibit P
Resumes
Park; Power Corporation; Naples, FL — Project Planner responsible for research into
additional commercial development opportunities, with focus on the interface of land
uses with the 1 -75 right -of -way corridor. Prepared and submitted the application to
amend the existing planned unit development document, prepared exhibits, attended
board hearings, and provided expert testimony to support the application.
Lake Marion Golf Resort, Phase 1 and 11; 930 -Acre 450 -Unit Single and Multi- family
Residential Planned Development; Lake Marion Golf Resort, Ltd., Polk County, FL
— Project Planner responsible for due diligence, planning and development zoning. The
project lies within the 47,000 acre vested pre -DRI Poinciana Development, and required
a proposed land plan and PUD modification; construction and operation permit
applications; application for dredge and fill activities on federal wetlands.
Sun City — Fort Myers; 9,200 -Acre Mixed -Use Master Planned Community; WCl
Communities, Inc.; Fort Myers, FL — Project Planner responsible for land
development planning and zoning activities for the Trevisio and Rialto subdivisions of
Sun City - Fort Myers.
Hideout Goff Club; 220 -Acre Master Planned Golf Community; WCI Communities,
Inc.; Fort Myers, FL — Project Planner responsible for the application, support and
acquisition of the Fishing Lake Conditional Use Permit.
White Lake Corporate Park, Phase Il (fka Phase IV); 2 -Acre Commercial Out-
Parcel within 120 -Acre Master Planned Industrial Park; Power Corporation;
Naples, FL — Project Planner responsible for land development planning, zoning and
environmental issues, including preliminary and final subdivision platting, and permit
application preparation, support and acquisition.
Summit Place (aka Hibiscus Village); 57 -Acre, 230 -Unit Residential Community;
Waterways Joint Venture IV; Naples, FL — Project Planner responsible for due
diligence, site planning, preliminary sub - division plat, zoning and permitting application,
support and acquisition; PUD zoning amendment application and support,
miscellaneous rezoning support, and environmental permitting.
Golden Gate Fire Station #73; 5 -Acre Main Fire Station, Administrative Office and
Certified Fire Fighter Training Facility; Golden Gate Fire Control District; Naples,
FL — Project Planner responsible for planning and zoning review and site planning.
Tuscany Cove; 77 -Acre, 396 -Unit Residential Villa Community; A.R.M.
Development Corporation of S.W. Florida, inc.; Naples, FL — Project Planner
responsible for project planning and zoning services, including due diligence;
conceptual site plan, rezoning application and support, public participation, PSP
application and preparation of associated exhibits for the acquisition of appropriate land
planning, zoning and permitting application approvals.
Palmero Cove; 139 -Acre, 524 -Unit Residential Villa Community; Elias Brothers
Corporation; Naples, FL — Project Planner responsible for project planning and zoning
services, including due diligence; conceptual site plan, rezoning application and
support, public participation, and preparation of associated exhibits for the acquisition of
appropriate land planning, zoning and permitting application approvals.
• INC.
Planing
i ualization
C O N S LI LT I N G Civil Engineering
-L t If 1'1. 1 Stuveying & Mapping
•
Exhibit P
Resumes
Dwight H. Nadeau, A.P.A.
Page 3
Golden Gate Fire Station 972; Existing 3 -Acre Fire Station Site and Related
Infrastructure Improvements; Golden Gate Fire Control District, Naples, FL — Project
Planner responsible for the preliminary site plan, permitting application preparation and
support, and SFWMD ERP and ROW permit application and support.
White Lake Corporate Park Phase 1; 120 -Acre Industrial Park; Power Corporation;
Naples, FL — Project Planner responsible for due diligence, planning and zoning research,
PUD application preparation and support, including preparation of exhibits, and board
hearing attendance.
Lake Marion Golf Resort — Phase 111; 130 -Acre 450 -Unit Planned Residential
Development; Lake Marion Golf Resort, Ltd.; Polk County, FL — Project Planner
responsible zoning application and support; PUD application and support; traffic impact
statement; Polk County protected species survey; environmental impact statement; site
planning; evaluation of existing wetland jurisdictional limits, and submittal to SFWMD and
COE for jurisdictional determinations.
Collier County Fleet Facility; Collier County Government, Naples, FL — Project Planner
responsible for project planning and zoning services, including due diligence; conceptual
site plan, rezoning application and support, public participation, and preparation of
associated exhibits for the acquisition of appropriate land planning, zoning and permitting
application approvals.
• T INC.
Planning
J Visualization
C O N S I J LT I\ G Civil Engineering
L '� V T 1. 1 Surveying &. Mappi
. ng
•
is
Exhibit P
Resumes
Michael A. Ward, P.L.S.
Suniey Project Manager
Education
Experience Summary
Bachelor of Science.
Surveying and
Mr. Michael A. Ward, P.L.S, has more than 23 years of experience as a Professional Land
Mapping:
Surveyor. Mr. Ward has extensive experience with boundary surveys, topographic
University of Florida,
surveys, hydrographic design, rights -of -way, construction layout, plaiting, condominium
1989
documents and project coordination. Mr. Ward's notable project experience includes
surveying for the Southwest Florida International Airport Expansion, Florida Gulf Coast
University Phases i, II, and the Sports Complex and Arena, as well as numerous Florida
Registrations t
Department of Transportation (FDOT) survey and construction projects and numerous golf
Licenses
course communities throughout Southwest Florida,
Professional Land
Surveyor
Representative Projects
FULS 330119994
Griffin Road Filter Marsh, Collier County, FL — Survey Project Manager responsible for
the surveying and mapping services for the water quality treatment facilities and
Professional
replacement a system of ditches and a small canal that provide for a drainage outfall to the
Societies
stormwater basin with new regulated drainage facilities. The project involves construction
of a lake and filter marsh that will improve and provide water quality treatment. The project
Florida Surveying and
will also entail constructing a long broad - crested weir to control stormwater discharges to
Mapping Society
the Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve.
Collier -Lee Chapter of
Florida Surveying and
Cape Coral Utility Expansion Project, Lee County, FL — Project Manager for the utility
Mapping
expansion project that involves establishing horizontal and vertical control; preparing a
Society/President
base map containing the platted road rights -of -way, lot lines, and parcel ownerships; and
19974998
collecting data of the existing improvements and features located inside of and within 10
Board of Directors.
feet of the right -of -way's (approximately 117,600 lineal feet) to be used for utility expansion
District 51Director
design purposes.
2000-2009
Treeline Boulevard, Lee County, FL — Project Surveyor for right -of -way maps, design
surveys, and parcel acquisition surveys for the 5 -mile stretch of Treeline Boulevard, from
Alico Road to Daniels Parkway.
Humane Society Naples (Naples Municipal Airport), Naples, FL — Principal -in- charge of
surveying services for the new 27,000 sq ft Humane Society Building on 2.72 acres. RWA
survey crews completed a boundary and topographic survey for the Naples Municipal
Airport parcel leased to the Humane Society of Naples. RWA also performed detailed
locations of the existing conditions and are providing the construction staking for the
additions and modifications.
Lely Manor North South Canal, Collier County, FL — Survey Project Manager for the
Lely Manor Outfall West project, a phase of the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project
(LASIP). Scope of services provided includes design survey, network control and base
map, topographic survey, and wetland line location.
Lely Main Canal Filter Marsh & Salinity Control Structure, Collier County, Florida —
Survey Project Manager for the relocation and widening of the Lely Main Canal, the outfall
for a very large upstream watershed area in Collier County, Florida, in conjunction with the
design of the Saba] Bay Master Planned Community.
• DIX A T�C•Visualization l �
CONSULTING Civil Engineering
1 d Y V1 X Surveying &Mapping
r�
�J
L
Exhibit P
Resumes
Michael A. Ward, P.L.S.
Page 2
Embarq Fiber Optic Lines (Southwest Florida International Airport); Fort Myers, FL —
Project Manager for RWA, Inc. and teaming partner Earthview LLC to complete contract for
EMBARQ to locate and map all of the underground fiber optic lines within the perimeter of
the newly constructed Southwest Florida International Airport. This project consisted of
locating more than nine miles of buried Fiber Optic lines, and all of the splice boxes and
switch cabinets along the new Terminal Access Road, around the runways, taxiways,
terminals, and the new commercial section of the airport. The purpose of this project was to
create legal descriptions and sketches for granting EMBARQ an easement across airport
property.
Collier Boulevard Widening, Collier County, Florida — Project Manager for the 5.5 -mile
Collier Boulevard six -lane expansion project. The project included control, horizontal,
topographic, and vertical surveys. In addition, this project included three miles of canal
cross sections for the SFWMD 951 Canal.
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Homestead Florida - Project Surveyor for the boundary
and topographic surveys of the entire air base following Hurricane Andrew. The survey
consisted of the location of all improvements, including all hangars, buildings, roadways,
utilities, water management facilities; detailed topographic surveys of the runways,
taxiways and aprons; jurisdictional wetland lines; and coordination with State and Federal
sections of land. Mike also served as the Project Manager /Project Surveyor for the offsite
Mitigation Park consisting of 18 sections of land. This included the Jurisdictional Wetland
Surveys, limited topographic surveys, and Conservation Easements. Additionally, provided
surveying services for the acquisition of the Noise Abatement parcels east of the airport
property, and prepared the reconfigured Noise Overlay Zones.
Naples Municipal Airport; Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc.; Naples, FL — Project
Manager of surveying services for the preparation of an as -built survey for Kimley -Horn for
the newly constructed portion of a taxiway and apron area at the Naples Municipal Airport.
The services consisted of a detailed topographic survey with very small tolerances.
I
E & ASSOCIATES, LLC
PO Box 1367 Marco island, Florida 34146
Saint Michaels
College, VT / BA /
Political Science /
1977
Florida Gulf Coast
University, FL /
Masters /Public
Administration /
2001
American Institute
of Certified
Planners (AICP)
American
Planners
Association
(APA), #077255
American Institute
of Certified
Planners
1994 — Present
American Planning
Association,
1989 — Present
Florida Chapter
American Planning
Association
1989 — (Elected
Secretary 2005 —
2006)
FAPA Promised
Lands Section
President 2001-
2002
American Society
of Public
Administrators
1994 - Present
Urban Land
Institute
•
Experience Summary
. 8E
Exhibit P
Resumes
Robert J. Mulhere,AICP
Mr. Robert J. Mulhere, President and CEO of Mulhere & Associates, has more than 20
years of professional planning and land development experience. His general areas of
practice include urban planning and design, zoning regulations, ordinance writing, conflict
resolution and public facilitation.
Providing planning expertise to clients in both private and public markets, Mr. Mulhere has
honed his skill in the writing and interpretation of local, state and federal zoning regulations,
ordinances and codes. Recognized by the Florida American Planning Association (FAPA)
as a leader in the planning field, particularly in the field of growth management, he received
the FAPA Award of Excellence in 1997 and 2001and the Award of Merit in 2000. He also
was serving as Collier County's planning consultant during development of the county's
award wining Rural Lands Stewardship Areas program (RLSA), which received many
honors including the 2003 FAPA Award of Excellence.
Mr. Mulhere attended Saint Michaels College in Vermont where he obtained his bachelor's
degree in political science. He also holds a master's degree in public administration from
Florida Gulf Coast University.
Representative Projects
Rural and Agricultural Lands Study, Hendry County, Florida — Principal in Charge for a
study related to rural lands and the agricultural industry in Hendry County. The Plan
included an analysis of existing conditions and the creation of new comprehensive plan
goals, objectives, and policies, as well as a framework for the development of rural areas,
while protecting agriculture and important natural resources.
Rural Area Plans, Highlands and Hendry Counties, Florida - Principal in Charge for a
study that addresses protection of rural character in both Highlands and Hendry Counties.
RWA provided an analysis of existing mechanisms to protect rural lands, creation of an
easily implemented transfer of development rights program, and comprehensive standards
for new developments.
lmmokalee Area Master Plan Update /LDC Rewrite and Overlay, Collier County,
Florida — Principal in Charge for an update to the lmmokalee Area Master Plan, an LDC
Rewrite, and a Zoning Overlay specific designed for lmmokalee. This work was conducted
on behalf of the lmmokalee Community Redevelopment Agency in eastern Collier County.
Collier County Professional Planning Services, Collier County Attorney's Office,
Collier County, FL — Planning consultant for the Collier County Department of
Transportation and County Attorney's Office providing services related to Eminent Domain
issues as well as preparing conceptual site plans for curing sites after taking. Projects
included the Right -of -Way taking and curing analysis of lmmokalee, Santa Barbara,
Goodlette -Frank and Pine Ridge Roads.
Bonita Beach Road RPD, Bonita Springs, FL — Principal in Charge of preparation,
submitting, and providing supporting professional planning consultation services for a City
of Bonita Springs Comprehensive Plan amendment, with a designation of Moderate
Density Mixed Use Planned Development (Mod. Den. MU /PD).
• Exhibit P
Resumes
2006— N Magazine
and the Education
Foundation of Collier
County's Man of
Distinction
2001 - Award of
Excellence - Florida
American Planning
Association
2000 - Award of Merit -
Florida American
Planning Association
1997 - Award of
Excellence- Florida
American Planning
Association
1997 - Top 30
Leaders of 2&
Century — Marco
Island Eagle
1997 -Marco Island
•Citizen of the Year
Naples Daily News
L`
Collier County RLSA (Rural Stewardship Credit System (RSCS) and Rural Fringe
Transferable Development Rights (TDR) Programs; Board of County
Commissioners; Collier County, FL — Principal -in- charge and project manager
responsible for the oversight of the development of the RLSA and Rural Fringe TDR
Programs. This included the process by which landowners may obtain designation as a
Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) and/or a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA). Scope
included process delineation for obtaining stewardship credits by the property owner
through an application process. The scope encompassed overseeing the implementation
of the designation process into a user - friendly database system for use by County staff; as
well as mechanisms for regular maintenance, updates, data backup, and easy public
information access. Appropriate Growth Management Plan (GMP) Goals, Objectives, and
Policies (GOPs), and implementing Land Development Code (LDC) amendment were
written to accomplish project objectives: to protect wetlands and habitat for listed species;
enhance the economic viability of agricultural land, and identify land suitable for possible
conversion to other uses.
Miscellaneous Public Sector Involvement, Collier County, FL — Responsible for
administration and interpretation of the Collier County Comprehensive Plan and the Collier
County Land Development Code. Staff liaison to the Collier County Planning Commission,
the Collier County Environmental Advisory Council, and several other advisory boards,
committees and subcommittees. In this capacity, Mr. Mulhere directed the development of
numerous zoning overlays and land code amendments, including the Marco Island Zoning
Overlay, the Collier County Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Overlay, The Immokalee
Zoning Overlay, the development of Commercial Architectural standards in Collier County,
as well as comprehensive rewrites of Collier County's sign and landscape codes.
•�
Bonita Beach Road RPD Annexation and Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA),
Bonita Bay Group, Bonita Springs, FL — Principal -in- Charge responsible for providing
planning reports, required application and related documents required to annex 1290 acres
into City of Bonita Springs and amend the Comprehensive Plan to include the subject
property under the Moderate Density Mixed Use Planned Development designation.
Provided CPA Application Support (CPAs) by coordinating sufficiency responses required
by DCA, RPC and Lee County planning staff and /or City of Bonita Springs staff. Client
representative for all public hearings of the City of Bonita Springs Local Planning Advisory
Board (LPA) and City Council. Provided expert testimony as it related to planning issues
and consistency of the proposed amendment with the City of Bonita Springs
Comprehensive Plan.
Marco Island Marriott Resort, Golf Club and Spa /Madeira Condominium, Marco
Island, FL — Principal -in- Charge of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) re- zoning of a
39 -acre Marco Island site to allow for major hotel expansion and an addition of a
beachfront high -rise residential condominium. Organized public involvement program to
address concerns raised by the community and zoning committee members. Introduced
visualization effects to illustrate how the project would tie in with adjacent projects.
Composite views of the proposed towers and project landscaping using computer
generated digital imagery effectively illustrated the difference between the proposed design
and the allowable building mass of the project before the rezone. This visual interpretation
of the project helped RWA win the support of the community and receive quick rezoning
turnaround.
Richard Scott Tomasello Telephone: (561) 575 -3910 Office }(
• 5906 Center Street, (561) 744 -7264 Home v
Jupiter, Florida 33458 (561) 744 -1865 Fax
E -mail: Dixietom @aol.com
Professional Certified Professional Engineer, Florida PE #15233
Education MS, 1973, Florida Institute of Technology Exhibit P
Major: Physical Oceanography Resumes
BS, 1970, Florida Atlantic University
Major: Ocean Engineering
Experience
July 1989 to Tomasello Consulting Engineers, Inc. Jupiter, Florida
Present President
Flood study of Mulloch Creek (S2DMM, HEC RAS), Lee County
Flood study of Estero River (S2DMM, HEC RAS) Lee County
FEMA Velocity Zone LOMR Analyses (CHAMP), for several residential and commercial projects in Lee,
Charlotte, Collier, and Pinellas Counties
Flood study of Yellow Fever Creek, East Branch, and Powell Creek (S2DMM, HEC RAS) Lee County
Flood study of Trout, Owl and Otter Creek basins (S2DMM, HECRAS), Lee County
Design storm and long -term hydroperiod /hydropattern analyses for Cloud Grove RLSA project (S2DMM) St.
Lucie / Indian River County, Florida.
• Hydroperiod /hydropattern and water budget modeling (S2DMM) for Lemon Grove Mitigation Bank, Martin
County, Fl.
Wetiand water management system for Taylor Creek Restoration at Eckerd Youth Ranch (S2DMM),
Okeechobee, Fl.
Coastal flood analyses for preliminary FIRM, City of Sanibel and Town of Ft Myers Beach, Florida
Exfiltration discharge attenuation system designs for several big box stores (e.g Wal -Mart, Home Depot) and
residential developments, Palm Beach County, Fl.
Water Budget hydroperiod / hydropattern analysis model study for Mirasol Project, Collier and Lee County,
Florida
Regional Hydrologic /hydrogeologic/hydrodynamic model(S2DMM) of South Lee County and Northern Collier
County, Mirasol Project
Six Basin Studies, Cocohatchee, Golden Gate Main Canal -West, Henderson Creek, District 6, Southern
Coastal and Ava Maria Basins, and leading to Collier County FEMA FIRM development (S2DMM).
Regional wetland model simulation (S2DMM) for Arvida's Weston Increment III, 1185 acre Mitigation Area,
Broward County.
Wetland hydroperiodlhydropattern simulations (S2DMM) for wetland preserve associated with 40 acre
development (Tommy Lee Jones Residence), Wellington, A.
2D, H/H and Water Budget (wetland hydroperiodlhydropattern) Modeling Study (S2DMM) of Pal- Mal/Cypress
Creek/Groves Basin, Loxahatchee River watershed, Palm Beach and Martin Counties.
Coastal flood restudy for City of Naples and Collier County (CHAMPS).
Reviewed FEMA Coastal Flood Study Update for Collier County and City of Naples and Marco Island, Appeal
of Proposed FEMA FIRMs
M
TIA
Exhibit P
• 3 -D Hydrodynamic (EFDC) flushing simulations for Sailfish Point Harbor, Martin Co., FL Resumes
2D, Hydrologic/Hydraulic (H /H) model (SHEET2D) applied to Belle Meade Watershed and finer grid applied to
Winding Cypress project for the predevelopment routings of design storms, Collier County, Fl.
HIH analyses of Bedman Creek Watershed and diversion flowway plans (SHEET2D), for East County Water
Control District, Lee County, FL
2D, Hydrologic/ Hydrodynamic Model (SHEET2D) and water budget/hydroperiodlhydropattem model
( MASSMOD) for STA2 General Design Report, Model analyses of STA2, ENR, and WCA2A for SFWMD,
Palm Beach & Broward Co., FL
Water Budget Model analysis for Golf Digest using MASSMOD model (Combination of Surface and
Groundwater Routing Model), for WCI Properties and Taylor Woodrow, Palm Beach, Co., FL.
2D, H/H model (SHEET2D) analysis of Pelican Marsh East, WCI Properties, Collier Co., FL
2D, H/H model (SHEET2D) Flood study of Six Mile Cypress Slough, Colonial Interstate Properties, Lee Co.,
FL
2D, H/H model (SHEET2D) for Atlantic Ridge - Hobe Sound Basin Study, for SFWMD, Martin County, FL.
Seepage and Water Budget Analyses using MODFLOW and MASSBAL for Weston Increment ill Mitigation
Area, for Arvida Corporation, Broward County, FL.
Storm Water Treatment Area No.2, STA2, 2D Hydraulic Model (SHEET2D) Study for SFWMD, Palm Beach
County, FL
• Tomoka River Watershed Study, SWMM Model applied for McKim & Creed, Volusia County, FL
Water Budget Model ( MASSBAL) analysis for C -9W Basin, for Blockbuster, Broward and Dade Counties, FL.
(HM) analysis and nonpoint source pollution loading model (NPS) evaluation of B -19 Watershed, for the Board
of County Commissioners, Volusia County, FL.
HIH model (SHEET2D) analysis of the Estero River Watershed, for ALI CO, Lee County,FL.
H/H consultation for Intelligent Hydro Data Verification for SFWMD Data Management Division
H/H model analysis (HEC1, UNET, FEMA SURGE) of Lake lstokpoga Watershed, for SFWMD, Polk and
Highlands, Counties, FL.
Hydraulic /Hydrodynamic model (SHEET2D) analysis of Everglades Nutrient Reduction Project, for SFWMD,
Palm Beach County, FL.
2D, H/H model (SHEET2D, UNET) analysis of Saddlebrook Resorts, for Wiregrass Ranch, Inc., Pasco County,
FL.
Nonpoint source pollution loading model (NPS) evaluation,(19 watersheds) Lee County Stormwater
Management Master Plan, Lee County, FL.
Water budgetlhydroperiod/hydropattern model ( MASSBAL) analysis for Six Mile Cypress Watershed, for
Board of County Commissioners, Lee County, FL.
2D, H/H model analysis (SHEET2D) of Red Bam /Snake Pens Watershed, for Lykes Brothers, Glades County,
FL.
•
H/H model (HEC1, HEC2) analysis for Yellow Fever Creek, East Branch, Daughtrey Creek, and Six Mile
Cypress Slough, for Lee County Stormwater Management Master Plan, Lee County, FL.
H/H model (DWOPER) analysis of Airport Road drainage basin, Collier County, FL.
Hydrographic surveys, permitting, and design for several tidal projects in Palm Beach, Martin and Brevard
.8�
Counties, FL. Exhibit P
• January 1981 to South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, Florida, Resumes
July 1989 Supervising Professional Engineer
Developed SFWMD design methodology for exfiltration trench design systems. Developed MBR and
SHEET2D runoff analysis models for use by Surface Water Management Division.
Performed several H1H studies in South Florida river and canal basins using models such as HEC2,
DWOPER, EXTRAN, SHEET2D, MBR.
American Water Resources Association
Palm Beach County Water Resources Task Force
•
Performed coastal flood studies in Lee and Collier County, Florida. Both led to new FIRM maps.
Served as technical consultant to the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Coastal Flooding from
hurricanes.
Served Brunswick, GA, Federal District Court as arbitrator for the Brunswick vs FEMA coastal flood study
dispute.
Supervised scientists and engineers in estuarine studies including the Loxahatchee, St. Lucie, and
Caloosahatchee. Supervised permit review and criteria development projects.
October 1978 to
AB2MT Consultants, Inc., West Palm Beach, Florida
December 1980
Project Manager (Manager of West Palm Beach office)
Prepared technical outputs for the Palm Beach County 208 Plan. Included modeling and field studies on
runoff quality and quantity.
Residential development canal and marina design for flushing optimization utilizing two-dimensional
hydrodynamic modeling.
•
April 1976 to
Area Planning Board of Palm Beach County, West Palm Beach,
October 1978
Florida Environmental Engineer
Prepared technical outputs for the Palm Beach County 208 Plan.
March 1972 to
Gee & Jenson Consulting, Inc. West Palm Beach, Florida
April 1976
Project Engineer, Waterfront Development and Environmental Impact Group.
Performed Flood elevation determinations for Charlotte Harbor, Florida, for two major developers. Study
resulted in the FIRM maps being modified.
EIS's; Dredge fill projects; coastal construction design, permitting, and inspection; sub water inspections of
various underwater structures. (Certified NAUI diver).
Professional
American Society of Civil Engineers (Past President- Palm Beach Branch)
Activities
Served on ASCE Task Committee on Drainage Design Problems in Coastal Areas
American Water Resources Association
Palm Beach County Water Resources Task Force
•
r. ENTRIX
• Down to Earth. Down to Business:-
r
•
D IS CIPLi NEISPECIALTY
• Water Flow Assessment
• Groundwater Use Permitting
• Well Assessment and
Rehabilitation
EDUCATION
• B.S.; Agronomy, The
Pennsylvania State University,
1989
CONTINUING EDUCATION AND
CERTIFICATIONS
• Occupational Safety and Health
Administration 40 -hour
Hazardous Materials Safety
Training and subsequent 8 -hour
annual updates, 1992 -2006
• American Society of Testing
Materials Workshop Training for
Risk -Based Corrective Action,
ASTM Standard E1739 -95,
1997
• Princeton Groundwater, inc.,
The Itemediation Course, 2000
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
• National Groundwater
Association
Bames_Bnan_Masler 20100719[1j Doe
LOIN
Exhibit P Brian K. Barnes
Resumes SENIOR. MANAGING HYDROGEOLOGIST
SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS
Mr. Barnes has managed hydrogeologic investigations in Florida, Delaware and
Maryland for the past 15 years. His experience includes aquifer
characterization studies, well design and construction management,
groundwater flow modeling, water use permitting for potable water, irrigation
and dewatering purposes, and assessment and rernediation of petroleum
contaminated facilities. Mr. Barnes is responsible for the management of
ENTRIX Water Solutions, Inc. branch office (formerly Water Resource
Solutions), including coordination of office staff, design and implementation of
hydrogeologic investigations, preparation of technical reports, and ensuring that
Client's needs are addressed.
RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
WATER FLOW ASSESSMENT
Project Manager— Water FlowAssessment, Collier County, Florida
Mr. Barnes was the project manager for conducting hydrogeologic study of
impacts associated with a new surface water flow way adjacent to a cypress
strand to manage environmental impacts and hydroperiod associated with a
500 -acre development in Collier County, Florida. He developed a simulated
groundwater and surface water model using MODFLOW to evaluate water
levels and groundwater flow around a proposed weir.
Project Manager— Dewatering Assessment and Permit Application, Collier
County, Florida
Mr. Barnes was the project manager for conducting hydrogeologic Study of
impacts associated with dewatering at a 1,600 acre TPC golf course
development. He developed a simulated groundwater model using
MODFLOW to evaluate water levels as a result of dewatering. Particle
tracking modeling using MODPATH to assess potential saline water upcoming
and lateral migration were also conducted.
Project Manager— Sewage Treatment Mounding Analysis, Collier County, Florida
Mr. Barges was the project manager for conducting hydrogeologic study of
impacts associated with loading of sewage treatment ponds. This included
calibration of observed water levels with predicted levels, and loading
simulations with the use of MODFLOW. He also used particle tracking
modeling using MODPATH to assess travel tithes to potable wells.
Project Manager— Saline Water Intrusion, Confinement and Karst Strata
Assessment, Southwest Florida
Mr. Barnes was the project manager for the design and implementation of
saline water intrusion monitoring projects, and hydrogeologic investigations to
assess potential confining and Karst strata of the shallow surfrcial aquifer at
numerous sites in southwest Florida.
GROUNDWATER USE PERMITTING
Project Manager— Emergency Dewatering Permit, Florida Gulf Coast University,
Lee County, Florida
Mr. Barnes was the project manager for an emergency water use permit for
dewatering for Florida Gulf Coast University. He developed a simulated
groundwater and surface water model using MODFLOW to assess punrpage
and recharge impacts.
Page 1 of 2
• -°' ENTRIX
Down to Earth. Down to Business^
•
•
I 8E
Exhibit P
Resumes Brian K. Barnes
Project Manager— Master Dewatering Permit, Florida Gulf Coast University, Lee County, Florida
Mr. Barnes was the project manager for a master dewatering permit application for future construction at Florida
Gulf Coast University. He also conducted an assessment of drawdown impacts and wetland protection during
dewatering withdrawals.
Project Manager -- Water Use Permitting, Southwest Florida
Mr. Barnes was the project manager for water supply development and water use permitting at over 100
residential, golf course and /or mining facilities in southwest Florida. He evaluated the potential impacts
associated with proposed withdrawals (from surficial, intermediate, and Floridan aquifer systems) with respect to
existing water users, wetlands, and saline water.
WELL ASSESSMENT AND REHABILITATION
Project Manager— Well Rehabilitation, Pelican Bay Development, Lee County, Florida
Mr. Barnes was the project manager for well rehabilitation and subsequent well yield testing at a 400 -acre
development in Lee County, Florida. The project included the rehabilitation of six wells and testing to assess the
subsequent productivity of the wells.
Bam.: Bnan_Master 2010031911JZ= Page 2 of 2
Exhibit P
• »'n :,, Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Inc. Resumes
4800 S.W 64th Ave, Suite l07 Davie, FL 33314
Phone: 954- 792 -9776 Fax: 954- 792 -9954
Email: archlcl(@bellsouth.net Web: www.flarchaeology.com
Robert S. Carr
Education
•
August 1976 Florida State University. Tallahassee, Florida.
• M.S. Degree in Anthropology
August 1972 Florida State University. Tallahassee, Florida.
• B.A. Degree in Anthropology
1970-1971 University of Miami. Coral Gables, Florida.
• Course Work
June 1968 Miami -Dade Junior College. Miami, Florida.
• A.A. Degree
Professional Experience
1999 — Present Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Inc.
• Executive Director
1996- 1999 Dade County Historic Preservation Division
• Director
1994-1995 Dade County Division of Historic Preservation
• Acting Director
1978-1999 Dade County Division of Historic Preservation
• County Archaeologist
1980-1981 Florida Archaeological Council
• President
1980-1983 The Florida A n1hropologisl
• Editor
March 1977 U.S. Park Service, SE Archaeological Center, Tallahassee, Florida.
• Archaeologist
1973-1976 Division of Archives History and Records Mgmt, Tallahassee, Florida.
• Contract Archaeologist
Representative Projects (Principal Investigator)
• 1999 - 2003 Archaeological assessment and data analysis of Miami Circle (8DA12)
2000-2001 Archaeological investigation of Okeechobee Battlefield. Boundary
Page I of 3
�J
30M
Exhibit P
Resumes
Robert S. Carr —page 2
1992 and 2006 Preachers Cave, Eleuthera, Bahamas
1991 -2002 Ortona Canal and Earthworks, GIades County
2000-2001 Long Lakes (Broward County) archaeological investigations
1985-1991 Archaeological Survey of Broward County
1979-1981 Archaeological Survey of Miami -Dade County
1974 Archaeological Survey of Lake Okeechobee
Selected Reports and Publications
Regional Archaeological Surveys
2003 Carr, Robert S., Alison Elgart-Berry, Victor Longo, Jeff Ransom Archaeological Survey of Palm
Beach County, Florida. ANC Technical Report 9419.
1998 Carr, Robert S., David Allerton and Ivan Rodriguez An Assessment of the Archaeological and
Historic Resources of the Florida Keys, Monroe County. AHC Technical Repot 94.
1995 Carr, Robert S., James Pepe, W.S. Steele and Linda Jester Archaeological Survey of Martin
•
County, Florida. ANC Technical Report #124
1991 An Archaeological Survey of Broward County, Florida: Phase 1, AHC Technical Repot #34
1990 Carr, Robert S. and Patricia Fay An Archaeological Survey of the Lower Keys, Monroe County,
Florida. AHC Technical Report 419.
1981 Dade County Historic Survey Final Report: The Archaeological Survey. Historic Preservation
Division. Metro -Dade Office of Community and Economic Development.
1978 An Archaeological Survey of the Big Cypress National Preserve, Preliminary Report. National
Park Service, Southeastern Archaeological Center, Tallahassee Florida. (Co- author).
1975 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of the City of Apalachicola. Report on file with Division
of Archives, History and Records Management, Tallahassee, Florida.
1974 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of Lake Okeechobee. Division of Archives, History and
Records Management, Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties. Miscellaneous Project Repo? Series No. 22,
Tallahassee, Florida.
Historical Archaeology (Seminole)
2002 Carr, Robert S., Lance, M., Steele, W.S. An Archaeological Assessment and Boundary
Determination of the Okeechobee Battlefield, Okeechobee County, Florida (Grant No_ GA2255 -00 -001).
AHC Technical Repot #346.
1996 Archaeological and Historical Elements for the Management of Snake Warriors
• lsland, Broward County, Florida. AHC Technical Repot 9139.
Page 2 of 3
r�
LJ
Robert S. Carr —pale 3
Exhibit P
Resumes
1996 Carr, Robert S., and W.S. Steele Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of Atsena Otie
Levy County, Florida. ANC Technical Report 9151.
1995 Carr, Robert S. and W.S. Steele An Archaeological Survey of Brighton Seminole
Reservation, Glades County Florida. AHC Technical Report #116
1995 Carr, Robert S., Linda Jester and James Pepe Phase II Archaeological Excavations of the
Riverbend #12 Site, 8PB7984, Palm Beach County, Florida. AHC Technical Report 9112.
1981 The Brickell Store and Seminole Indian Trade. The Florida Anthropologist. 34:180 -199.
Regional Synthesis /Methodology
2003 "The Archaeology of Everglades Tree Islands" In Tree Islands of the Everglades. Edited by Fred
H. Sklar and A. Van Der Valk.
1984 Prehistoric Man in Southern Florida. In Environments afSouth Florida — Present and Past. Edited
by Patrick Gleason. Memoir 2 (revised). Miami Geological Society. (Co- author /Senior author)
1974 "Aerial Photos Aid Archaeologists." PopularArchaeology, Vol. 3, No. 6 -7, p. 45.
Bahamian Archaeological and Historical Assessments
2006 Carr, Robert S., Jane Day, Jeff Ransom, William Schaffer, and John Beriault An Archaeological
and Historical Assessment of Preacher's Cave, Eleuthera, Bahamas. AHC Bahamas Technical Report # #.
2003 Carr, Robert S., Alison Elgart -Beery, Victor Longo, Jeff Ransom Archaeological Survey of Palm
Beach County, Florida. AHC Technical Report #419.
2003 Lance, Mark and Robert Carr
Interim Report on Archaeological investigations at New Plymouth Green Turtle Cay, Abaco, The
Bahamas. AHC Bahamas Technical Report #3.
1993 Carr, Robert S., Jane Day, and Sandra Norman Archaeological Investigations at Preacher's Cave
North EIeuthera, Bahamas Phase 11. Bahamas AHC Technical Report 92, May 1993.
1991 An Archaeological Survey of Spanish Wells and North Eleuthera, Bahamas. Bahamas AHC
Technical Report U.
1982 An Effigy Ceramic Bottle From Green Turtle Cay Abaco. The Florida
Anthropologist. 35:200 -202. (Co- author /Senior Author).
Professional Affiliations
Society for American Archaeology
Society for Historic Archaeology
Florida Anthropological Society
• South Florida Historical Association
Florida Archaeological Council
Page 3 of 3
MN
LUM
•
•
Hacienda Lakes
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
GMP Application
CCPC Review Materials
ATTACHMENT Q
Market and Needs Evaluation
�`
I?1AIA
CoNst I Lntic F-
i V T YL X sI„r;TT
[1�
C O N S U L T A N T S
MEMORANDUM
TO: Collier County Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Owen Beitsch, PhD, AICP, CRE
DATE: September 23, 2010
RE: Market and Needs Evaluation for Hacienda Lakes Prepared in
Conjunction with ADA/DRI Submission(s) and Review(s)
(RERC 29 -115)
Several questions have been raised by the County regarding the market evaluation provided as
part of ADA/DRI and PUD submittals in July of this year. The analysis, which follows, has been
modified from that previously reviewed to address particular comments made by the Collier
County staff.
is BASIS OF DEMAND OVERVIEW
The County's guidelines for rezoning to an Activity Center designation indicate the following,
among others, should be weighed as part of the analytical process.
b. The amount, type and location of existing zoned commercial land, and developed commercial
uses, both within the Mixed Use Activity Center and within two road miles of the Mixed Use
Activity Center.
c. 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.
d. Existing patterns of land use within the Mixed Use Activity Center and within two radial miles.
This memorandum addresses these and several related points, concluding that the market
supports the proposed uses identified in the program and that all function in concert to achieve
balance among a number of planning, community, and financial objectives.
The project as it has been proposed envisions a variety of uses and activities. The primary
focus of Hacienda Lakes is its mix of multi and single family housing, comprised of an estimated
1760 units implemented in several phases. While the non - residential components add richly to
the project, these become viable in large part because of the specific population being created
• on site. Certainly, the project's residents may shop or work elsewhere, just as the project's non-
residential components will be available to persons living elsewhere in the County and region.
14 EAST WASHINGTON STREET • SUITE 500 • ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32801 • P 407- 843 -5635 • 800 - 767 -5635 • F 407 - 839 -6197 • WWW.RERCINC.COM
• Market and Needs Evaluation for Hacienda Lakes
Page 2 of 16
Nonetheless, the on site residents are an important source of initial and ongoing support for any
of the physical uses that will occur as part of the larger development program.
The decision to include non - residential uses in the project stems from a combination of
regulatory, market, financial, and practical considerations that together speak to their need. In
the current environment, it is advantageous to. integrate multiple uses to create a more
satisfying built environment and enhance community sustainability by reducing transportation
demands, balancing work with housing, and managing overall physical growth. As these social
objectives are achieved, the project is itself more desirable to prospective residents such that its
market potential and financial performance are enhanced. In effect, the ultimate mix of uses
draws upon a variety of considerations which together sustain a market position and encourage
demand. Need then includes influences or factors broader than determinations about
incremental space or lands required, or otherwise available, in the local market area.
Specific to demand as one dimension of need, it is not practical to model all possible outcomes
at this stage of planning. As a result, it makes sense to think of demand in terms of a range.
This range sets parameters within which actual performance might rationally be expected by the
developer or others with interests in the proposed program.
Consequently, we have evaluated demand for the commercial, office, business park, and
lodging aspects of this project from a number of different perspectives including project based
demand, share of market, and historical performance, all within the context of locations or
• properties that could compete over the proposed planning and development period. Presumably
these different approaches should coalesce around reasonably similar answers before a final
conclusion is reached. Most likely, the answers will not result in single number but will yield a
tight range suggestive of targeted end point Though not identified as such, the different
perspectives or methods of analysis might be viewed collectively as a sensitivity test that
gauges the reasonableness of the overall analysis.
•
Market analysis needs to be distinguished from needs analysis. The former describes how a
project will respond to specific users while the latter addresses the quantity of underlying land or
the gross inventory of physical space required to serve broad market segments. Need is
invariably higher than demand simply because there must be adequate lands, units, or buildings
to provide locational options, design features, size, and amenities which together will affect cost.
Some businesses will own multiple facilities. There must be adequate lands or inventory to
accommodate mobility and movement. Some housing will be transitional. Some facilities will
age or become obsolescent or possibly non - conforming. Some will simply be removed. This
specific study addressed potential demand. The need for the facilities, such as those described
in this report, will by definition be in excess of any demand that can be documented.
GENERAL MARKET OR SERVICE AREA
Hacienda Lakes, as it is now planned, envisions a variety of uses and activities but the primary
focus remains its mix of multi and single family housing, comprised of an estimated 1,760 units
implemented in several phases. These units are a mix- of multi and single family product
directed at the county's growing and affluent population base.
REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, INC.
•
•
0
Market and Needs Evaluation for Hacienda Lakes
Page 3 of 16
The residential aspects of the project, as described below, will draw from a region far larger than
Collier County itself although the county's own population growth offers some benchmarks for
planning and market testing. Any hotel or lodging components, while benefiting from other
activities nearby, is not necessarily correlated with the particulars of the location or the project.
Similarly, other parts of the planned venture will draw from varied geography or be driven by
conditions or circumstances particular only to the resident population. Retail or commercial uses
proposed for Hacienda Lakes may be among those activities with the most discrete service area
but the analysis, as it is laid out in subsequent sections, is sufficiently conservative that the
population of the project itself demonstrates adequate spending potential to posit need or
demand for such facilities as part of the general land development scheme. Ultimately, the
analysis focuses on its own residential population, not that of any surrounding or competing
areas, to generate support or demand adequate to substantiate the project's non - residential
elements.
To establish context we have assumed
that the geographical area most
affected by or that will interact with
Hacienda Lakes is comprised of a
radial distance about 2.5 miles from
the intersection of CR951 and
Rattlesnake Hammock Road. This
area is consistent with direction
received from staff and acknowledges
certain external factors should be
considered for their possible
implications.
Within that area, TAZ data prepared by
the MPO suggests there were
approximately 12, 447 people present
in 2010, growing to 15,409 people in
2015. At the 2030 benchmark, these
people will be comprised of about
17,000 households for planning
purposes. The radial analysis includes
each TAZ fully encapsulated in the 2.5
mile distance while excluding those
which are included only marginally.
Altogether, we considered thirteen
TAZ's for inclusion within this discrete
area.
This same area was matched generally
to CLARITAS to estimate incomes of
the population in place. While the
CLARITA data does not match the time frame of the TAZ data, it does offer insight into the
earnings and spending potential of this part of Collier County. According to CLARITAS, the area
now has an average household income of about $82,000, growing to more than $90,000 in 20i5.
It is not altogether if the TAZ data prepared by Collier County includes the estimated dwelling
unit counts associated with Hacienda Lakes which, as described later in this memo, will have -
incomes much higher than those for the larger area. The four TAZ's most closely associated
with Hacienda L indicate about 1800 units in place by 2030, comparable to the number actually
REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, INC.
I•
I*
10
a
�<
Zm
A<
m
I I
it
,
O�
3t
m
uu
w
J�.
0.
U:
Hacienda Lakes 0 0.25 0.5 Miles
Study Area 2.5 Miles from Intersection A
N
2 5 MILE BUFFER
FROM INTERSECTION
x
st
2[11
Legend
Proposed ACIMly Center
LJ MH
Pmjed Boundary
PUD
• Ralttesnake Hammonk Rd 8 CR B51 InlerscCGon
Point _ P
2.5 Mile Buffer from Inlersec0on
R"F -16
PUD's not within 2 hula Buffer
I RMF-6
- Color County Major Roads
l RKIF -6(3)
Zoning within 2.5 Mlle Buffer
[_ RPUD
A
RSF -3
C-3
RSF -3(1)
C-5
RSF-0
O CPUD
RSF -5
E
TTRVC
K \/\/ AIM'.
C'1')NINE 1:r11•.0
1 \T Tl a
•PlacnLnp •Vi,.ulvatimr
• Crvil Enginsri *e •S :n.;tin- S M.ppinp
Prepared By. manes
Pnnkn3 Date. Sept 22, 2010
Fie: T.%Pm,ects12005\05_0IS0.02-03 HeaendaLakesi
•
•
.8E
0 0.25 0.5 Miles
Hacienda Lakes DIXIA,Nr
Traffic Analysis Zones v CONSL 1:V1 j. INC,
AL %. AL
C'. C. -S—yiri & M.rph;
•
Prepared By:
Plmlmg Date: "et,122,2010
Fla:
01540203 H....,!.L.AeM
::i�
• Market and Needs Evaluation for Hacienda Lakes
Page 4 of 16
planned for the project. Whether or not the TAZ data explicitly recognizes Hacienda Lakes, the
ultimate area incomes will be favorably affected by the project's proposed units.
For the most part, the area is significantly undeveloped but might be considered an emerging
area in the County for analytical purposes. As a result, much of the analysis is prospective and
strongly associated with the population and incomes of the project's own housing counts. To the
degree, support accrues to the project's components by realizing capture, visitation, or spending
from any existing population or sources of income, this would be considered favorable to this
analysis as presented.
RESIDENTIAL DEMAND
The residential framework and development program at Hacienda Lakes is fundamental to
providing support for the project's non - residential elements. Given the current downturn in the
housing market, it is appropriate to consider the dynamics of the longer housing market.
According to the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), it is generally agreed that the
current recession began in December 2007. No formal close to the recession has been
announced by NBER, the body generally recognized as the benchmarking authority for the
nation's business cycles, but Spring 2010 is emerging as a likely end point according to many
economists. Whatever the official end date, the decline in economic health well exceeds the 16
month contractions suffered first from 1973 to 1975 and then again from 1981 to 1982. These
earlier downturns constitute the longest recessionary.periods since the Great Depression.
Although recent data remains mixed, it does on the whole suggest the steep economic decline
already suffered is modulating leading to some consensus about a passing, if not ending, event.
• Nationally, nonfarm employment edged upwards since December 2009. Preliminary data shows
an increase of 290,000 employees from March 2010 to April 2010. The nation's unemployment
rate dipped to 9.5 (P) in April 2010.
• Even with some continuing loss of jobs, consumer confidence, an important predictor of spending
potential, maintains an upward movement. The Conference Board (CB) reported that its index
which had improved to 53.3 in May, up from 57.7 in April. The index had sagged somewhat after
the first of the year but the most recent measure concludes three straight months of gains. The
steady improvement is evidence of a more strident role for the consumer in rebuilding the nation's
economy.
• The CB's Index of leading economic indicators (LEI) for the U.S. declined 0.1 percent in April,
following a 1.3% gain in March, and a 0.4% rise in February. As of March there had been about
one year of steady increases in this measure prompting CB economist Ken Goldstein to observe,
"These results suggest a recovery that will continue through the summer, although it could lose a
little steam." At the same time, CB's coincident index (CEI), a measure of current economic
activity, has been improving steadily since middle of 2009.
• The results from the CB largely mirror information from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis
(BEA). BEA, in its May 27, 2010 release, reported that gross domestic product GDP Real (GDP)
increased 3.0 % in the first quarter of 2010 after increasing 5.6% in the fourth quarter of 2009.
The increase tracks higher consumer spending, improved exports, and investments made for
private inventory and residential activity.
REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, INC.
8E :1al
• Market and Needs Evaluation for Hacienda Lakes
Page 5 of 16
• Privately owned housing completions in May 2010 were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of
687,000. This is 7.4% below the revised April 2010 estimate of 742,000 units but is 15.4% below
the revised May 2009 rate of 812,000 units. May 2010 building permits, which offer some
perspective of near term future activity, fell about 5.9% below the revised April 2010 figures but
were 4.4% above the numbers for May 2009.
Without suggesting that any part of Florida will rebound from the rescission immediately,
population growth will resume at rates necessitating additional housing from several quarters.
The more recently trends offer the expectation that a recovery is looming and that planning to
take advantage of coming changes is not inappropriate. Without regard to County policy, growth
in population has generally exceeded the BEBR moderate series. From a demand and
economic perspective, it is worthy to consider how recent favorable shifts in various economic
indicators might assure this growth is realized over the likely planning horizon.
In any case, Collier County's population will have reached 518,100 persons by 2035 according
to BEBR's most recent moderate series of projections. This is an increase over the 2010
population of approximately 184,000 people or a minimum increase of about 74,000 resident
households. The current recession notwithstanding, this growth suggests a significant source of
demand from incremental expansion of the area's permanent households. To clear its inventory
of some 1700 units, Hacienda Lakes need capture only about 13.2% of the expected change
401 through 2015, something of a high penetration rate but not untenable given the slowdown in
planning now being experienced. Applying BEBR's moderate projections through 2035, the
project would have to capture only about 2.3% of the total resident change. Should the resident
population exceed the moderate range, this percentage would decrease accordingly. It is worth
noting that the moderate projection has actually been adjusted upward by about 10,000 people
over that reported only one year before by BEBR, evidence of the conservative nature of this
analysis.
These numbers are only indicative of the many diverse layers of housing demand that will be
realized from within the base of the existing population and experienced in the guise of
relocations for preference, convenience, school
choice, or realignment of family needs. The
existing population also gives rise to housing Estimated Population Growth Naples
demands that occur exclusively from new 700,000
household formations generated as the result of oPermaner>t
divorces, new marriages, and returning children. 600,000 1 ❑Seasonal Peak n
The projected change in permanent or fulltime 500,000
resident population, however, is only the most
obvious source of potential demand. Demand 400,000
also stems from sources that are not immediately
evident in terms of their affects on the 300,000
measurable population. Specifically, the area's
effective population, as many indicators 200,000
substantiate, is materially higher than the 2004 2009 2014
• reported permanent population and will drive Wom Doyle Data Source: Collie Courty Governmert
demand higher. As the permanent segments
have grown, these too are reasonably posited to show increases. The impacts of these non-
REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, INC.
•
•
r�
LJ
Market and Needs Evaluation for Hacienda Lakes
Page 6 of 16
resident population counts are obvious in the accompanying graph prepared by Collier County
staff.
Mobility and its impacts are further illustrated in data distributed by Sun Realty of Naples.
Reporting that fewer than 50% of local homes are bought by area residents, the organization
also reports fewer than 10% actually reside in Florida, meaning a substantial number of homes
in the Naples area are occupied as second
homes. Without validating the data as Where Naples Residents Live
altogether correct, the inference, in the context �-
of other factors, clearly is that the scale of the "%
market cannot be adequately judged by an :tau
analysis of current and projected resident
population alone.
Among the key drivers of the second or
seasonal phenomenon is the state's tax
structure. Without an income tax, Florida is
especially attractive to high income households,
and Naples has historically been a draw for this
socio- economic group.
Region
a Florida
G Mid Atlantic
11 Midwest
C New England
E Foreign
L OtherState%
Additional observations regarding the effective population come from these sources:
• The American Community Survey (2006 -2008) indicates that there were an estimated 53,350
units of a total 192,000 housing units in Collier County held exclusively for seasonal and second
home usage. These seasonal units represent about 28% of the total inventory.
As of 2009, there were a reported 75 hotel and motel establishments in Collier County with a
combined room count of 6814 rooms. According to the local Convention and Visitors Bureau,
occupancies swell in the winter and spring months to 70% or more.
• As evidenced by a perusal of the region's tax rolls, a substantial share of the local housing market
is occupied by non - residents, many from overseas as well as elsewhere in the United States that
domicile in Collier County on a seasonal and second home basis. Of 181,292 residential parcels
identified on the 2009 tax rolls, 57,547 were identified as out -of -state or foreign owners.
Whatever factor(s) one applies to the above particular indicators, they are suggestive of higher
population counts and represent a demonstrable interest in this regional location. These
prospective residents could represent some 25 % -35% of the project's households but are not
necessary to maintain an otherwise reasonable market share.
Still, another way of benchmarking data is to consider building permits as a function of the
reported resident population change over some longer period of time so that the pace of
construction activity is moderated. The area market was experiencing significant pressure from
non - resident purchasers well before the onset of the current recession so permits may be
deemed a more reliable indicator of housing trends on average than changes measured in
population. From 2000 -2010, the population changed by about 82,000 people. Over this same
time frame, about 52,000 permits were issued locally. For each person, approximately 0.62
permits were recorded yielding today's inventory. Rather than suggesting merely an overbuilt
REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, INC.
.8E
• Market and Needs Evaluation for Hacienda Lakes
Page 7 of 16
situation, if that is the case, the relationships illustrate the general degree to which housing
construction has responded to external influence. Using a more conservative and lower 0.55
relationship, at least some 18,000 housing units would still need to be constructed by 2015 with
an additional 83,000 constructed by 2035. Viewed in terms of market share against these
numbers, Hacienda Lakes would need to capture less than 10% of the housing required by
2015.
On balance, the fundamental demographics support the project's unit count. Its position will
have to be validated by cost and pricing analysis that should not be confused with basic issues
involving growth and general housing demand.
NON - RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, OVERVIEW
As the accompanying table Commercial inventory In service, Collier County
indicates, there has been a Selected years
steady progression of non- 1995 -1998 1995 -2008 1999 -2008 1995 -2008 1999 -2008
residential development in Average Average
the Collier County, which Commercial 1,743,030 10,9863605 9,243,575 784,758 924,358
generally matches the Office/ Banks 627,673 2,667,745 2,040,072 190,553 204,007
increase observed in Industrial 1,241,887 4,112,661 2,870,774 293,762 287,077
residential activity. At least
since 1995, about 1,700,000 Total 3,612,590 17,767,011 14,154,421 1,776,701 1,415,442
• square feet (SF) of various
kinds of facilities have been placed into service annually ending upon need and location. The
benchmark dates shown purposely ignore later additions because they may not be occupied
and because they may have not properly matched the pace of actually demand. As of
December 2008, about 14,000,000 SF total were added with about 64% accounted for as
commercial space.
Such numbers have greater meaning in the context of other jurisdictions where there have
presumably been different rates of development and emphasis on the appropriate uses and
forms. Viewed in the aggregate, however, these numbers from areas with varied levels of
economic maturity offer some broader benchmarks by which activity might be measured relative
to residential development or population growth. On an overall basis, it can be rationally
assumed that these markets achieve relative balance in their land use demands over an
extended time, especially if aberrational periods are removed as reference points.
For purposes of multi jurisdictional comparison, our analysis correlates to the total number of
dwelling units, not population, The former offers the certainty that the effective population and its
related needs, spending or demand are captured in the analytical framework whether or not that
population is officially recognized as the resident population. The table below summarizes
selected data by designated land codes from each respective county's tax roll(s). It is a
composite of all development existing within the built environment as of 2000. This period
would overlook the levels of activity occurring since 2005 and now shown to be unsustainable.
Looking at the totals only, it would not be unreasonable to expect each dwelling unit to support a
minimum of 91 SF, potentially as much as an average of 279 SF although there many instances
• in more mature settings where the numbers reach beyond 300 SF. The particulars of these
numbers, of course, depend on the actual match to the finally approved and implemented
program which may show some variation.
REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, INC.
•
•
•
Market and Needs Evaluation for Hacienda Lakes
Page 8of16
Non - residential inventory in service, selected counties, 2000
Total retail and
commercial inventory in
service (SF) per dwelling
unit (DU) as of December,
2000. Includes DOR (land
use) codes 11 -14,
16,29,30
Total office inventory in
service (SF) per dwelling
unit (DU)as of December,
2000. Includes DOR (land
use) codes 17- 29,23 -25
Total industrial inventory in
service (SF) per dwelling
unit (DU)as of December,
2000. Includes DOR (land
use) codes 85,86,87
Total all
Alachua
136.96
76.11
123.01
336.09
Charlotte
91.80
18.49
49.87
160.16
Clay
211.22
40.68
109.44
361.35
Collier
107.23
28.58
69.35
205.16
Dade
131.65
96.32
235.54
463.51
Desoto
83.01
32.85
63.81
179.67
Gadsen
86.83
54.80
267.03
408.65
Glades
43.97
7.09
40.30
91.35
Hardee
78.08
35.40
52.33
165.81
Highlands
82.22
30.30
62.18
174.69
Lake
106.80
42.49
120.42
269.70
Liberty
65.49
21.54
26.00
113.03
Okaloosa
149.62
73.53
117.39
340.54
Okeechobee
136.32
33.67
18.86
188.85
Orange
167.65
142.01
240.68
550.33
Polk
112.71
47.92
217.94
378.56
Seminole
151.98
91.22
170.08
413.28
St. Lucie
99.67
31.54
97.87
229.08
Average
113.51
50.25
115.67
279.43
Low
43.97
7.09
18.86
91.35
High
211.22
142.01
267.03
550.33
Understanding that (1) these many other counties are not by themselves a metric, (2) there are
some overlaps and discrepancies in the codes themselves relative to specific users that might
be actually attracted to the subject property, and (3) within the codes themselves it cannot be
assumed that each county accurately reports the data, the information in aggregate does
identify the level of inventory and activity that is supported at a jurisdictional level, correlated to
some commensurate scale of residential activity.
The overlaps and discrepancies, to the degree they even exist, do not distort the objective or
purpose of the analysis because specific kinds of users do not necessarily match the physical
coding of the use. For example, a physician's office or a place of worship may occupy space
within a property that the DOR code notes is a shopping center. The critical aspect of the
correlation is not the use per se but the generalized level of activity or space in service
compared to the population base supporting it. Over time, the users may change, even if the
DOR codes do not. Taken this way, the collective experience of these several counties
establishes a reference point for the planned program at Hacienda Lakes, explained in more
detail over the next several pages.
REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, INC.
8E
•
•
r�
�J
Market and Needs Evaluation for Hacienda Lakes
Page 9 of 16
Future Retail and Commercial Demands
SE ,
Each year the Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes its Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE). The
survey that began in 1980 consists of an interview in which consumer units (households
typically) are queried every 3 months over a 12 -month period to track income, tax and
expenditure habits, distinguishing
these by size of household,
Average annual expenditures, Consumer Expenditure
Survey, 2008
employment status, income and other
attributes. The survey effort is
Item
$100,000
and more
$100,000 to $120,000
$119,999
to
$149,000
$150,000 and
more
designed to capture different types of
consumer expenditures occurring
Income after taxes
5157,379
S105,048
5727,295
5220,261
over a period of time. It is among the
Average annual expenditures
$100,065
577,586
S91,590
5124,678
most detailed reconciliations of
American consumer habits. A part of
Food at home
S5,690
55,390
55.755
S5.940
that survey is reproduced here in
Food away from home
$5,611
$4,383
55,214
S7.071
summary form with the relevant
Alcoholic beverages
5919
5761
5904
S1.083
categories of spending or other
information highlighted. Materials not
highlighted or referenced provide
Housekeeping supplies
51.165
51.147
S1,097
51,238
Laundry and cleaning supplies
5212
5199
5236
5208
context but are not a part of any
Other household products
5702
5735
56co
5747
calculations as discussed.
Postage and stationery
5251
S213
5260
5282
Household furnishings and equipment
S3,531
52,642
53,091
54,631
Household textiles
$303
S206
5239
$443
In effect, the CE offers a lim se of
g p
Furniture
5863
5573
$727
51,191
what families allocate to certain
Floor coverings
$104
S93
582
5128
activities and provides a framework
Major appliances
5394
5274
5362
5515
for what those expenses
Small appliances
5232
5156
5208
5325
projecting
Miscellaneous household equipment
$1,634
57,341
57,474
52,029
are and how they may ultimately
manifest themselves in terms of
Apparel and services
$3,643
52,734
53,122
54,686
supportable demand for physical
facilities. The unit of analysis is the
Transportation
Vehicle purchases (net outlay)
515,674
55,450
513,424
54,546
515,720
55.764
55,984
household. While there remain some
Gasoline and motor oil
54,208
53,954
54.237
54.396
questions at this point what specific
users, restaurants, or other operators
Healthcare
54,471
54,037
54,316
54,931
Drugs
5651
5615
5644
5686
may ultimately be drawn to the
Medical supplies
5198
5171
5167
5244
Hacienda Lakes location, the
spending habits of the project's
Entertainment
55,869
54.306
56.363
56.835
affluent households are reasonably
Personal care products and services
51.198
5947
51.138
51,472
determinant.
Reading
5233
5197
S210
5278
Given the nature of the residential Tobacco products and smoking supplies 5258 5322 5244 5217
program and the apparent demand
segments, the larger project is likely Miscellaneous 51.767 51.278 51.612 52.277
to be oriented toward the regions' Household expenditures, except cars $41,404
highest income families. In 2008, the Household expenditures, including cars $47,238
CE indicates that households with
incomes in excess of $150,000 per year allocated on average about $41,000 of a total $124,000
available for food at home, outside dining, entertainment, personal needs, and miscellaneous
household expenditures. These sums do not include those directed to housing, transportation,
automotive purchases and services, education, insurance, and many other items not of
immediate relevance to this analysis and not shown in the table at all. Nonetheless, these too
REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, INC.
8E
• Market and Needs Evaluation for Hacienda Lakes
Page 10 of 16
might also be purchased or consumed nearby within facilities or buildings just for that purpose.
Medical services would be an example of the latter category of goods or services not counted.
Because of these or similar exclusions, the list of identified consumables, in this context, would
be deemed conservative.
Based on the expected housing count in Hacienda Lakes (1760 units) and its consumption
patterns ($41,000- $47,000 per household on average), its group of households would
reasonably be expected to allocate some $72,000,000 in total annual spending for a variety of
goods and services that could be located on site and within the project's scope. If automobile
purchases are assumed to be a part of the mix, the total rises to an expected $83,000,000.
Again, the specifics will be a function of the users matched to the site's locational and market
features as building plans are implemented. Presumably, existing residents in the same
geographic area are already adequate served by their choice of commercial of facilities. Should
this population be attracted to any commercial activity at this location, the demand generated by
those potential users would be incremental to these estimates of spending. On balance, it is
reasonable to expect some of the project's residents to pursue commercial opportunities
elsewhere in the region, just as it is plausible to anticipate support from existing residents to the
exclusion of shopping in other parts of the county.
In theoretical terms, data collected by the US Bureau of the Census directly from retailers and
service providers, would reconcile to the reported spending of individual or household
consumers. Although the data and categorization of the information fail to match perfectly to the
• CE, they provide yet another means of gauging aggregate expenditure potential. In 2009, the
per capita spending for a more discrete set of items - general retail and food only - was
approximately $11,000, down materially from $12,000 estimated in 2008. At an assumed
household size of 2.5 persons, the total expenditures would be would almost $50,000,000. This
estimate is not income adjusted, does not include some categories identified specifically in the
CE survey, and excludes all auto related expenses, including even gas or oil purchases. Again,
this estimated expenditure reflects only the population of Hacienda Lakes. Existing residents in
the service area potentially add to this sum.
According to Sales & Marketing Management 2002 Survey of Buying Power, Naples
significantly exceeds both the national and state average for retail sales per household, with
$39,583. Florida's average retail sales per household is $32,024, while the U.S. average is
$33,662. Given these much higher numbers, the per capita estimates seem very conservative.
Certainly used as a proxy for supportable spending, the estimated $50,000,000 in consumables
would be substantially more conservative than the sums suggested by the CE survey but
sufficiently close to validate the estimate.
How individual operators or users respond to these spending patterns is subject to extreme
variation depending on size, type, and market position. The Urban Land Institute's (ULI) Dollars
and Cents of Shopping Centers is the definitive source of retail metrics. The data is useful as a
benchmark but it is focused almost exclusively on shopping centers, and much of what functions
as retail may not be in a conventional retailing environment or be of a size below ULI's reporting
thresholds. Given that caveat, it can be assumed in general that sales occurring in appropriate
venues would average from a low of approximately $150 per square foot (SF) to a high of about
$485 per SF with many around $200 per SF. These numbers reflect a blend of retailers,
is restaurants and other establishments.
REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, INC.
•
• Market and Needs Evaluation for Hacienda Lakes
Page 11 of 16
Given a potential $72,000,000 in sales from the project's households, these figures, in
conjunction with sales per SF, suggest that a low of 150,000 SF (sales of $485/SF) up to a high
of 363,000 SF (sales of $200 /SF) might be supported based upon choice of tenants and sales
volume experienced. At an assumed sales projection of $50,000,000, a supportable program
could support an estimated 315,000 per SF (sales of $150 /SF).
If the highest figure (363,000 SF) is optimistic, the lower end of the range (150,000 SF) matches
well to the County's estimated commercial and retail square footage per dwelling unit (1760
units x 107 SF) as these relationships existed in the year 2000, acknowledging the potential for
inconsistencies in the DOR classification. A reminder, we benchmark to this single year to
moderate the rapid spike in all kinds of development which occurred mid decade. Further, the
number is well within a reasonable market share of the actual absorption occurring in the ten yrs
from 1998 -2008 and the annual average achieved during this period.
These benchmarks not withstanding, the most probable number reflects average sales of some
$200 per SF generating a supportable program between the low and the high at about 340,000
SF based on assumed annual sales of $72,000,000 which excludes any considerations or
impacts of auto sales. Including frictional vacancies of 5 %, the number rises to about 357,000
SF, well above the size of the retail facilities contemplated in the current application. The
supportable square footage would be materially higher if auto sales or other activities should
ultimately figure into the mix of operators, and there is no reason to remove such prospective
users until development plans advance. Again, these expenditures depend only on the
• population of Hacienda Lakes. Any existing population counts in the general service area could
push these numbers higher but that would suggest spending is being diverted from commercial
outlets already in operation.
Actual absorption of space would be yet another indicator of demand potential although the data
is more generalized and covers an aggressive period of retail inventory expansion. Without
regard to location, about 2,700,000 SF of retail space were absorbed countywide from the end
of 2005 through the end of 2009, according to data prepared by CoStar, an annualized rate of
about 553,000 SF. This is well below the figure suggested by data summarized from the
County's tax rolls, and reported earlier, at some 900,000 SF over a ten year period. Either
reference point, in the context of the physically identifiable market, suggests the project's
proposed commercial program is relatively modest.
Overall, we think the retail and commercial components are justified in the proposed project
based on the scale of other elements in the plan. Even recognizing, current vacancies in the
market which are above 10 %, the planned development program is not unreasonable in the
time frame presented.
Future Office Demands
While the commercial opportunities on site are beneficially and symbiotically associated with the
concentration of nearby housing, the demand for office space is less direct. Nonetheless, for
planning purposes, it is still useful to think of additional office space inventory in terms of
incremental change in either area population or household growth because of their association
• with employment changes. Not unlike the commercial uses planned as part of Hacienda Lakes,
need for office uses in the context of the larger development program includes influences or
factors that are broader than considerations of incremental space required or already available
in the local market area.
REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, INC.
• Market and Needs Evaluation for Hacienda Lakes
Page 12 of 16
As the data reported previously illustrates, there are no specific measures that would suggest a
single benchmark for office space. Unlike retail which is commensurate with certain spending
patterns, levels of residential activity, and settlement patterns, the ultimate demand for office
space depends on the area's capacity to function as a major employment center. Absent a level
of mature economic activity; it may be unreasonable to anticipate demand for office space
beyond that associated with basic insurance, financial, medical, or miscellaneous personal
services. Rather than reaching levels of 90 SF - 140 SF per dwelling unit, like Orange, Dade, or
Seminole counties, the more appropriate measure might be a lower 50 SF - 60 SF per dwelling
unit.
Again, these numbers reflect the housing counts and their relationship to inventories in place
during 2000. Because these numbers were realized before the surge in construction activity
leading into the current recession, they are unlikely to misrepresent the relationship between
housing and other kinds of development. At these benchmark figures, some 88,000 SF (50 SF/
unit) to 105,000 SF (60 SF/ unit) of office space might be supported, numbers above those
shown in the proposed development program. Again, even recognizing, current vacancies in the
market which may be near 15 %, the planned development program is not unreasonable in the
time frame presented.
Collier County's actual number in 2000 was 28.50 SF of office space per dwelling unit. If correct,
the number would suggest a low of about 50,000 SF of office space might be supported. In the
• context of the reference numbers for other counties, 28.50 SF seems low if the County's wish is
to promote continued economic development and diversification of employment opportunities.
At the very least, this means of estimating demand signals a floor for the proposed program.
Actual absorption of space would be yet another indicator of demand potential although the data
is plausibly discounted since, like the retail data reported, it also covers an aggressive period of
development and construction. Without regard to location, about 1,300,000 SF of office space
were absorbed countywide from the end of 2005 through the end of 2009, an annualized rate of
about 325,000 SF. The project's proposed office inventory represents a very small part of the
physically identifiable office market.
Again, a full occupancy is unlikely to be achieved. Consequently, the inventory built to
accommodate this potential demand would be moderately higher to allow for frictional
vacancies. As with the retail and commercial estimates, the most probable number falls
between the low (50,000 SF) and the high (105,000 SF) at about 75,000 SF, approximately the
figures proposed in the development program. While the analysis acknowledges possible
inconsistencies or overlaps in the original DOR data, the impacts, if any, are addressed in the
thresholds deemed supportable.
Future Hotel Demands
As with the other uses, it is useful to think of the lodging inventory relative to the scale of the
population which is a proxy for the area's strength as a business and tourist destination. Since
the region offers so many beaches and natural features, the relationship between population
and the available inventory is likely to understate the strength of the market and its potential to
support added rooms.
REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, INC.
8E
• Market and Needs Evaluation for Hacienda Lakes
Page 13 of 16
Using the 2000 population of 251,400 persons to establish a benchmark, there was one room
for every 35 -40 persons in Collier County based on data available from the Department of
Business Regulation. As with the retail and office uses described above, these numbers
illustrate conditions before the surge in construction activity leading into the current recession.
These numbers change to one room for approximately 45 -50 persons using an estimated 2008
population of 332,856. Together, the higher and lower population counts suggest a supportable
room count of approximately 120 rooms to 150 rooms at the Hacienda Lakes site, a range
consistent with the 135 rooms contemplated in the proposed development plan.
If the project's other features are themselves supported as the analysis suggests, they will in
turn add to the base of support for the proposed hotel which is envisioned as a limited service
property of the type typically sited proximate interstate interchanges and along major
commercial roads. In 2009, the county's occupancy rate was reported by the CVB to be about
65% indicating some question about the viability of hotels in less supportive locations or
settings. Here, a limited service lodging property is a use which complements the other
proposed non - residential uses, and it functions as still another amenity for Hacienda Lakes. The
lodging use is appropriate given the larger mixed use concept being proposed.
Future Business Park or Industrial Demands
Business park uses are less discrete in terms of their orientation compared to the other
• categories of land use proposed for the development program. Normally, these business park
uses are comprised of some combination of office, flex, warehouse, and /or manufacturing
facilities. Flex space is comprised of finishes that balance office and warehouse or distribution
functions. Office spaces most likely to be sited in a business park setting will be class B or C
structures and would not readily compete with the class A facilities contemplated elsewhere in
the larger project.
Not unlike the market for office facilities, there are no specific measures that would suggest a
single appropriate benchmark for industrial or business park needs. As with office space, the
ultimate demand for space that might support industrial, semi - industrial or distribution activities
is highly dependent upon the area's capacity to function as a major employment center. Absent
a level of mature economic activity, it may be unreasonable to anticipate demand for business
park uses that normally flow to a regional commercial hub. Here, the needs are likely to be more
locally oriented although that could change over the project's implementation timetable.
Given the region's higher incomes, the market price for land suited to housing and other forms
of non - residential activity tends to preclude these kinds of uses which are necessary whatever
the state of the economy. Consequently, it can be reasoned that business park or similar uses
are now under represented in Collier County.
Rather than reaching levels of 120 SF - 240 SF per dwelling unit, like Lake, Orange, or Polk
counties, the more appropriate measure might be a lower 70 SF - 90 SF per dwelling unit,
numbers that begin to push beyond the present level but which do not rise to the capability of a
regional distribution center. These numbers suggest a range of 123,000 SF (70 SF/ unit) to
158,000 SF (90 SF/ unit) oriented to business park functions and structures, effectively figures
• in keeping with the current program. These numbers reflect conventional warehousing and
semi - industrial characteristics but inevitably some space will shift to activities more compatible
with office needs. Given that the overall program could be deemed light in terms of its
conventional office elements, some of the longer term demands might be satisfied within the
REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, INC.
•
• Market and Needs Evaluation for Hacienda Lakes
Page 14 of 16
confines of a business park environment. Again, this last observation reflects possible
inconsistencies or overlaps in the original DOR data.
How these business park uses will ultimately adapt to market needs will depend largely on the
way in which the region and location are marketed. Still, they seem to be a reasonable
complement to the balance of the development program.
COMPETING LANDS AND ENTITLEMENTS
As outlined in the County's requirements, we have surveyed nearby properties which might
accommodate some of the uses or activities proposed in the development plan and /or
potentially competing for the demands estimated. A profile of the eleven projects which might
be deemed significant for
Concentrations of Competing uses, Hacienda Lakes
this analysis Is Shown in
Retail and office uses located within two miles of CR951 /Rattlesnake Hammock
the accompanying table.
Commercial Developed
Square Commercial
RWA Ordinance
Total Commercial Footage Square
ID NAME Comments Number
Acreage Acreage Approved Footage
We see only a limited
relevance for competing
COLLIER REGIONAL Approved for 260K hospital and BOX
IMEDICAL CENTER medical office. BOX Office already developed. 04 -28
60.00 60.00 340,000 275,946
lands in the this
(DRI- 99 -1). Neighborhood commercial
context of
12 WINDING CYPRESS not opento the public 02 -35
1,928.00 15.00 30,000 -
analysis. For the most
Office and commercial uses allowed.
Developed with an Urgent Care and an
part, the actual
15 EDISON VILLAGE Amsouth Bank. One parcel left. 00.83
7.44 5.66 54,000 25,000•
implementation of any use
Developed with a Publix anchored shopping
remains largely
•
NAPLES LAKES COUNTRY center. Fifth Third Bank, Radiation Therapy
speculative at this stage
21 CLUB Office & Southtrust Bank. One parcel left 03 -33
25 SIERRA MEADOWS( EX) VacanL Retail / Office allowed 99 -91
485.02 15.00 110,000 80,000'
90.80 30.20 260,000 -
of planning. Because
DR]-84-3C; Only listed 30 acres which are the
many of these potential
C3 uses per PUD (which are in the study
area); On Rattlesnake Hammock /Grand Lely
projects will never be
27 LILY RESORT or and on CR951 /Grand Lely Dr 07 -72
HAMMOCK PARK
2,89250 30.00 30000
,0'•
the
30 COMMERCE CENTER Retail /Office allowed. 07 -30
20.23 19.05 160.000
constructed r project's
Retail /Office allowed. Assisted Living also
residential uses, which
31 GOOD TURN CENTER allowed instead of commercial, 09-53
950 950 100,000
comprise the focus of the
Medical& General Office. No retail allowed.
project, may never have
32 MCMULLEN PUD ALF also allowed instead of commercial. 10-18
Parcel North of Good Turn
19.32 1932 30,000 "• -
15 1111 ,15 zoning) Two parcels
9.24 9.24
access to the facilities or
Parcel (C-3 zoning) North
services that could be
33 o1C-S Zoning
• App pprozimat e amount Did not use county numbers as there has been construction since last County
9.24 9.24
Update
offered only if these other
;'Estimated at 1O,000sf per acre of developable commercial acreage.
•• Based an it being developed as ALF. 3 acres are within 114 mile from hospital allowing medical
office. Estimated at 30,000sf
projects are built as
Source: PUD Ordinances, Collier County PUD list
envisioned.
•
Of the 1,756,000 SF shown in the table, very little has already been built, adding to the
speculative nature of the plans. Of that which is built, almost two- thirds has a distinct medical
orientation which has not been directly considered in the demand estimates outlined for the
project. For the most part, there are no obvious opportunities that might satisfy a lodging
demand such as proposed in the proposed plan. Locations that might be deemed competitive
for hospitality uses are constrained in their value because of the larger mixed use concept that
supports this particular activity. There are no known or identifiable industrial or business park
uses being contemplated in the area of primary concern.
REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, INC.
8E
• Market and Needs Evaluation for Hacienda Lakes
Page 15 of 16
In addition to these properties, we also summarized TAZ data that identified parcels or projects
by zoning or current activity. Since this data was not complied by the planning team
independently, however, we cannot confirm that it is altogether current. That said, with some
Planning Community exceptions, the information found in this
Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ's) 2000 additional level of analysis appears
reasonably consistent with the planning
Bldg. Land team's own field inventory of the area's
Zoning Square Feet Area (acres) most relevant or potentially competitive
A 2,866 0.0 holdings.
C -3 0 1.0 As to these other projects or properties
C-4 1,575 1.5 identified by the planning team or others
CF 2,504 12.5 generally it remains entirely conjectural
1 1,708 0.8 that the approvals attached to these other
PUD 317,553 231.0 sites, their supporting infrastructure, price,
RMF- 12(10) 0 1.5 general availability, physical suitability,
Total 326,206 248.3 market timing, owner's expectations, or
planned programs will be in concert with
the specific programmatic features that will define Hacienda Lakes or satisfy its development
goals. In effect, how and when these nearby lands or parcels could be used is a secondary
consideration in weighing the needs for similar land uses within Hacienda Lakes itself. In the
absence of the project's own supporting non - residential features or activities, the residential
• uses are materially handicapped in terms of achieving their market position. This is a constraint
to the project which becomes a further constraint on its currently expected financial
performance.
Because the (1) project's own proposed non - residential uses are supportable or in proportion to
the population and numbers of housing units planned and (2) they add to the mix of activity
deemed desirable to the performance of the larger project, other lands that might also be
available to accommodate opportunities generated by the population of Hacienda Lakes are of
no material importance in evaluating development options. Were they to be sited on other
entitled lands — should they be available as their entitlements suggest -- the project's non-
residential components would not benefit the balance of the development program as it has
been conceived while requiring more frequent and longer trip lengths to achieve the same
objective.
To the degree that alternative sites may be desirable for other uses or purposes, it is evident
that they are dependent upon the population base being created at Hacienda Lakes and
similarly situated residential communities being planned. Stated somewhat differently, these
other sites add little of value to the concept being proposed.
CONCEPT OVERALL, SUMMARY
There are many different considerations or factors to weigh in determining the overall and most
desirable mix of uses to be entitled and developed. Because the project's primary focus is
centered on residential uses, these must be the applicant's principal concern. In that regard, the
• evidence seems to indicate that the relative magnitude of population growth and interest in
second or seasonal homes justifies the project's primary land use. While the current state of the
economy seems to mitigate this potential, the longer term data and recent shifts in the economy
point to recovery, suggesting the applicant's plans are reasonably considered now.
REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, INC.
• Market and Needs Evaluation for Hacienda Lakes
Page 16 of 16
•
Other components of the project have a base of market support, estimated by their relationship
to the total number of units proposed, likely spending, and prior patterns of use and demand
extending over several years. The relative scale of these uses remains consistent with data
drawn from a number of jurisdictions suggesting reasonableness overall in terms of analytical
approach and the conclusions developed from that approach. Any approach has certain
weaknesses but these are controlled in the present case by multiple lines of analysis that reach
similar conclusions. Still, these conclusions are presented in terms of a range, rather than a
single point estimate, to avoid inferences of accuracy greater than those we believe are
possible.
Again, the current state of the economy, though something of a concern, is not a long term
bellwether of the estimates provided. Aside form the expectations of demand, there are broader
community and planning values to consider which largely dictate that any major residential
project also include complementing land uses to enhance the value both to residents and
investors. In that regard, competing projects, though something of an issue, are not the single
consideration for proceeding with the broader concept as proposed.
As for competing properties, there do not appear to be any that can adequately accommodate
the proposed plan's business park activities. Most of these plans remain speculative and
uncertain. If the proposed project is to realize its market position, it cannot be handicapped or
constrained by perceptions of projects that will not occur with some level of certainty.
REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Hacienda Lakes 8E
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
GMP Application
CCPC Review Materials
EXHIBIT R
Transit Master Plan
•
•
D`AW,
CO \SI;LTI \G Epiming
1 %.T U 1 sa @tee
r ♦ * $E
r
LO
C)
w
J
O
m
w
w
O
U
Legend
®� Proposed CAT Facility
—° Proposed CAT Route 4A & 4B Extension
Existing CAT Route 4A & 4B
Existing CAT Facility 4A
Existing CAT Facility 4B
Existing CAT Route 7
Proposed Pedestrian Facilities
Proposed Bike and Pedestrian Facilities - Offsite
Future Bike and Pedestrian Facilities
Future Pedestrian Facilities
Project Boundary
Development Boundary
EXISTING CAT
ROUTE 7
(TO MARCO ISLAND)
Proposed \ I '
Access I I
I
Proposed
Access
THE LORD'S WAY
EXISTING
CAT
ROUTE 4A-,-
Land Use
Attraction Tract
- Business Park or School
Commercial
® Preserve Tract
Public Facilities Tract (EMS)
Passive Recreational Tract
- School
Residential Tract
Residential / Medical Use
Public ROW Reservation
Roads
Collier County Major Roads
PROPOSED
4A & 413 CAT
ROUTE EXTENSION
Proposed
PROPOSED
Access
CAT FACILITY
RATTLESNAKE
PROP. RATTLESNAKE
HAMMOCKRJI
HAMMOCK RED. EXT.
EXISTING
CAT
ROUTE 4A-,-
Land Use
Attraction Tract
- Business Park or School
Commercial
® Preserve Tract
Public Facilities Tract (EMS)
Passive Recreational Tract
- School
Residential Tract
Residential / Medical Use
Public ROW Reservation
Roads
Collier County Major Roads
Hacienda Lakes
Transit Master Plan
Exhibit R
0 500 1,000
Feet
Z\
N
'DA TA INC.
CONSULTING
1 \V VL 1
- Planning - Viwalimflon
• Civil Engineering - Surveying & Mapping
Prepared By: rnniones
Printing Dale: Sept. 8, 2010
File: T\Projecls\2005 \05_0150.02.03_
Hacle nda Lakes \G en eral\Tra nsitM P.mxd
I �1
fEXISTING
EXISTING
EXISTING
CAT
CAT
CAT
CILITY
FACILITY
ROUTE 4A
(TYP)
4B (TYP)
STATE
& 46 -,
LANDS
Hacienda Lakes
Transit Master Plan
Exhibit R
0 500 1,000
Feet
Z\
N
'DA TA INC.
CONSULTING
1 \V VL 1
- Planning - Viwalimflon
• Civil Engineering - Surveying & Mapping
Prepared By: rnniones
Printing Dale: Sept. 8, 2010
File: T\Projecls\2005 \05_0150.02.03_
Hacle nda Lakes \G en eral\Tra nsitM P.mxd
Hacienda Lakes
E
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
• GMP Application
CCPC Review Materials
EXHIBIT S
Pedestrian Master Plan
•
DIVA'
CONSULTING
i'L t rt JL
• • • 8�
r
a�
V
W
J
O
In
IY
W_
J
J
O
U
Proposed
Access
EXISTING 10'
SHARED USE
PATH
Proposed
Access
RATTLESNAKE
HAMMOCK RD
EXISTING'
SIDEWALK
(WIDTH
VARIES)
Hacienda Lakes
Pedestrian Master Plan
Exhibit S
I 1
II
I I
II
II
JI
1
1
1 Proposed,
1 Access
THE LORD'S WAY
PROPOSED
1 PEDESTRIAN
1 FACILITIES
1
1 PROPOSED
1 OFFSITE
1 6' SIDEWALK \8;
1 4' BIKELANES
PROP. RATTLESNAKE
HAMMOCK RD. EXT.
I
1
1
Legend
Project Boundary
Proposed Pedestrian Facilities
Proposed Bike and Pedestrian Facilities - Offsite
Future Bike and Pedestrian Facilities
Future Pedestrian Facilities
- - - - -- Existing Shared Use Path
------ Existing Sidewalk
= Development Boundary
Land Use
i J Attraction Tract
- Business Park or School
Commercial
® Preserve Tract
r— Public Facilities Tract (EMS)
Passive Recreational Tract
- School
Residential Tract
Residential / Medical Use
r� Public ROW Reservation
Roads
Collier County Major Roads
0 500 1,000
Feet
N
FUTURE
PEDESTRIAN
FACILITIES
FUTURE
PEDESTRIAN
FACILITIES
FUTURE
PEDESTRIAN
AND BICYCLE
FACILITIES
STATE
LANDS
"DIX T/ \INC.
CONSULTING
ZtT 1L JL
• Planning • Visualization
Civil Engineering • Surveying & Mapping
Prepared By: nnJones
Printing Date: June 29, 2010
File: TAProjects\2005 \05_0150.02.03_
H a c i e n d a La kes \G e n e ra I\Pe d M P. mxd
`8E
-0
o u) n
x
z
>
3
3 D
O
3
m
m
n
rn
arm
p
(
rn
M
n
O
O
cn °7 ;u
�- m n
c�
n
D
Z
p
'..
3
n
z00
m
°
m
m
m
V
3
m
m
v
3
'J G) O
rt
m
m0
m n
G)
rr;
r
m
m
°
Ho
G)
o
3
Q
rn
z
O
i�O
m
n
Z
m
m
'- N
.�
m
�
=W °o
rn � w
n
D
Q7
W
n H L
rn
r"
m
Z
Z
n
--ni
m
C�
O C
X
O
�,
-n
H z
r,
O
rm
N
m
mto0
01
WG
°
.<
nZ-
o
0
n O
rn
00
-ZI
rn
On�p
°
v
a
o 0
�D
X
z
3 -� o
tp.
C)
v
z "'
®
--q 2!
O
r
O
3
m
O
Arno
M N
m
`:
H
v
z -I C)
pON
�D
O
rn > o-
q
m
0;0 M
O
=
O
ozrM
m
rn��
�,
C
-rG
D-i-�
�I rn D
m
W
=
3 >
z0D
_�
O
m
j, ,
r
o p
S
Z
G)
W
m
m
C:
r_
�
D
�'
M
U2
fD.
v