Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Agenda 10/14/2008 Item # 7A
Agenda Item No. 7A October 14, 2008 Page 1 of 30 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ADA- 2008 -AR- 13529, Theodore J. Raia, Jr., requesting an administrative appeal of the previously approved Site Development Plan Amendment (SDPA) AR- 12644. The applicant believes the approval of SDPA -AR -12644 violates the Pelican Bay Planned Unit Development (Ordinance No. 04 -59) and the Collier County Land Development Code (Ordinance No. 04 -41) as they existed on the dates the plan was submitted and approved. The subject property is located in Waterpark Place, Phases III and IV in the Pelican Bay PUD, in Section 4, Township 49S, Range 25E, Collier County, Florida. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the appellant's request is to seek a reversal of the approval of SDPA -AR- 12644 from the Collier County Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). The project is an amendment to the Waterpark Place Site Development Plan, the approval of which was issued by the Director of the Engineering and Environmental Services Department pursuant to the Pelican Bay PUD Ordinance No. 04 -59 and the Collier County LDC, Ordinance No. 04 -41. The amendment was approved on June 19, 2008. In this case, the Board of County Commissioners will be sitting as the BZA, and they are to review the record of action and to determine if any part of the administrative decision was inconsistent with the existing Land Development Code regulations (includes the Pelican Bay PUD) and the Growth Management Plan (See Codes of Laws and Ordinances, Sec. No. 250 -58). The appeal process is focused specifically on the claims raised by the applicant as they relate to the approval of the Site Development Plan Amendment (SDPA) by staff. The issues here are whether the approval of the SDPA, as rendered by the Director(s) (the administrative decision) was inconsistent with the existing Land Development Code regulations and the Growth Management Plan (See Codes of Laws and Ordinances, See. No. 250 -58). Should the BZA determine that the Site Development Plan Amendment approval is contrary to the Land Development Code or the Growth Management Plan the Board may overturn the administrative decision to approve the Site Development Plan Amendment. Should the Board find none of the above, the Board shall accept the Director(s) approval of the Plan. CONSIDERATIONS: The project, located in Tracts C and D of the Waterpark Place at Pelican Bay subdivision is known as Waterpark Place Phases III and IV. It is comprised of 5.63 acres within a 16.81 acre tract and upon completion will consist of 152 multi - family dwelling units in two high -rise structures with attached two -story parking garages. The zoning district of the subject property is known as the Pelican Bay PUD. The Pelican Bay PUD was approved in 1977; the latest amendment was approved in 2004 (Ordinance No. 04 -59). Agenda Item No. 7A October 14, 2005 Page 2 of 30 A. Waterpark Place History of SDP Approvals. Waterpark Place has undergone a variety of SDP amendments and approvals. There were four buildings in the initial site plan which was approved in 1991. The first two of those buildings have been constructed — St. Pierre and St. Laurent. The subject Site Development Plan is for the next two buildings — Phases III (Cap d'Antibes) and IV (Cote d'Azure). The SDP dates and setbacks approved by the County in these prior approvals are provided in the following Table. SDP Approval Dates and Approved Setbacks SDP South St. Pierre St. Laurent Cote d'Azure Cap d'Antibes to Date Property to To To North Line to St. Cote Cap d'Antibes Property Line St. Pierre Laurent d'Azure 6 -13 -91 25 feet 242 feet 170 feet 150 feet 99 feet 7 -15 -91 50 feet 235 feet 163 feet 158 feet 99 feet (St. Pierre SDP Approval) 8 -28 -95 232 feet 150 feet 157 feet 99 feet (St. Laurent SDP Approval) 6 -19 -08 150 feet 150 feet 100 feet (Cap d'Antibes & Cote d'Azure SDP Approval) B. 2003 Official InteMretations. In 2001, Gulf Bay requested and obtained approval of a Site Development Plan combining the remaining two phases of Waterpark Place into one building consisting of two towers on one common base. On the amended Site Development Plan, the combined building (then called Cap d'Antibes) was set back 50 feet from the north property line, 150 feet from the existing building to the south, and there was approximately 60 feet between the towers. This SDP was approved by County staff. No administrative appeal was taken: however, the Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc. ( "Foundation ") and the Pelican Bay Property Owner's Association, Inc. ( "PBPOA ") challenged this SUP by way of Requests for Official Interpretation. Two Official Interpretations were issued on September 29, 2003 (to counsel for the PBPOA) and November 24, 2003 (to counsel for the Foundation), respectively (see Tabs 9 and 10 of exhibits provided by Gulf Bay). An appeal was taken to the BZA, testimony was presented, and the Official Interpretations were not rejected by the BZA. A Petition for Writ of Certiorari was then submitted to the Circuit Court of Collier County. Ultimately, the Petitions for Writ of Certiorari were dismissed. As a result, these two Official Interpretations stand. Following the dismissal of the Writs of Certiorari, property owners within the neighboring associations (St. Pierre and St. Laurent) and the Foundation, initiated litigation against the Agenda Item No. 7A October 14, 2008 Page 3 of 30 developer arguing deed restriction violations. This litigation and additional cases were filed between various parties, including Collier County, one of which resulted in final judgment; the remainder was settled by agreement of the parties. The previous Site Development Plan (amendment) for the original building (SDPA -AR- 412) was approved on July 20, 2001, and all of the site work on the property was completed, however the building was never constructed due to the court ordered injunction. The recently approved Site Development Plan Amendment (the subject of this appeal; see exhibits provided by County Staff) is a completely redesigned building which consists now of two separate projects — the Cap d'Antibes and the Cote d'Azure. This appeal is directed against one of the two buildings, the Cap d'Antibes, which along with the Cote d'Azure was approved as part of this SDP amendment. C. Appellant's claims 1. The submittal letter is in error The appellant claims that the letters submitted with the Site Development Plan amendment application (see Gulf Bay exhibit tabs 13, 14 and 15 letters dated May 30, 2007 from the Pelican Bay Foundation; May 22, 2007 from the St. Laurent Condominium Association; June 4, 2007 from the St. Pierre Condominium Association) are not relevant ( "are in error because they obscure the fact that the Saint Raphael and the San Marino are the only residential abutting neighbors "); that reducing the setbacks will be injurious to the residential neighbors abutting the project and deprives the neighbors of their view of the gulf, depreciates their property and subjects them to increased wind damage and notes that the neighbors that actually abut the project (San Raphael and San Marino) did not come together to resolve their objections as the applicant's letters imply. Staff response: These statements are irrelevant; neither the Land Development Code nor the PUD require "approval" in any form from nearby or abutting property owners in order for staff to approve an SDPA. The Pelican Bay PUD at section 7.04.03 sets forth the setback/minimum yard requirements for the subject property. Section 7.04.03.C. allows for clustered buildings to have reduced setbacks if they have a common architectural theme and approval of the site plan will be in harmony with the general intent of the PUD, and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or to adjoining properties or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. In the Official Interpretation dated June 17, 2008 (INTP- 2008 -AR -13411 Tab 16 of Gulf Bay exhibits), "separation reductions are permissible in certain land use districts in the Pelican Bay PUD, and in this case are appropriate provided the two conditions of 7.04.03C (Ordinance No. 04 -59) are met ... 1. Provided a common architectural theme is employed, and 2. A site plan is approved in accordance with Section 2.05 of the PUD." The PUD allows for clustered buildings with a common architectural theme be afforded with distances less than set forth in the PUD so long as the plan is approved in accordance with Section 2.05 of the PUD. It is staff's assessment that the site plan met the requirements of Section 2.05 and is consistent with LDC, PUD and DRI, therefore it was properly approved. Agenda Item No. 7A October 14, 2008 Page 4 of 30 2. Clustered Buildings /Open Space The appellant argues that the clustered building requirement for reduced setbacks has not been met because cluster and open space requirements in the LDC have not been complied with. Mr. Raia argues that Section 4.02.4.E. of the LDC requires that an equal amount of open space must be provided for all reductions in yard requirements. Staff response: The open space in the Pelican Bay PUD approved in 1977 satisfied the open space requirements for clustered buildings in the LDC. As clearly stated by the Zoning Director in the 2008 Official Interpretation regarding this same question, (see Tab 16 Gulf Bay exhibits) "the required provisions for open space as they relate to cluster development, per the LDC, have been satisfied for the Pelican Bay PUD and this project, as to both the amount and location ... [b]ecause the LDC provisions clearly exempt PUDs from providing the same amount of open space that was produced as a result of setback reductions and exempt PUDs from providing it within the same general area of the subject development, it is my opinion that the Waterpark Place Development has satisfied the open space requirements of the LDC as it relates to cluster development and the PUD." Table 1 of the Pelican Bay Land Use Schedule clearly states that the PUD is required to set aside 570 acres of conservation acreage, 171 acres for golf course and other recreation and 20 acres for a neighborhood park. This constitutes approximately 36 percent of the development's 21104 acres of land and qualifies as open space as noted above, which far exceeds the minimum 30 percent requirement for open space per the LDC. Therefore, the required provisions for open space as they relate to cluster development, per the LDC, have been satisfied for the Pelican Bay PUD and this project, as to both the amount and location. There is an exception for `planned unit developments where the open space requirements of this LDC have been satisfied." This was pointed out by the Zoning Director in the 2008 Official Interpretation. Applying that exception to the subject SDP, there is no requirement for the subject SDP to provide additional open space equal to the amount of the setback reductions. 3. Common Architectural Theme The appellant alleges that "the buildings comprising Waterpark Place do not present a common architectural theme, and are not in accordance with Section 2.05 of the PUD." Staff response: Like the previous SDP applications, the subject SDP submittal contains an opinion of an architect indicating that Phase III (Cap d'Antibes) and IV (Cote d'Azure) of the Waterpark Place project have a common architectural theme, based upon criteria set forth in the PUD. The opinion of the architect of record is that Phase III (Cap d'Antibes) and IV (Cote d'Azure) of the Waterpark Place project were designed to be compatible in character, use of materials, and colors; the project continues to have a signature entrance way that includes a gated structure, landscaping, common signage, paving surfaces and a unified look to identify the development as having a common architectural theme. Although not required by law, the current SDP file also contains approval letters from the St. Pierre, St. Laurent and the Foundation who have all "determined that construction of the two high- rise clustered buildings as shown on the Conceptual Design Plan is consistent with the common architectural theme for ifateipark Place, and with the waivers and approvals 4 Agenda Item loo. 7A October 14, 2003 Page 5 of 30 granted herein complies with all provisions of the Waterpark Place Restrictions." The Zoning Director had previously opined on this same issue wherein it was determined the projects were entitled to a reduction in development standards because they employed a common architectural theme, in the earlier Official Interpretation that was upheld by the BZA. 4. South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) Permit The appellant argues in the appeal that the "SDP does not meet the restrictions of the [SFWMD surface water management] permit." He states that the amount of impervious surfaces in the SDP "exceed[s] the amount allowable by the South Florida Water Management District. Staff response: The SFWMD states that they "issued a modification to [the SFWMD Permit] on June 5, 2008 (see SFWMD letter dated August 22, 2008 tab 39 Gulf Bay's exhibits). This permit complies with all applicable [SFWMD] permit criteria ... [and authorizes] the construction of two residential towers, attached two -story parking garages, driveways, ground parking, pools /associated decks and associated infrastructures.... The approach taken with regard to the Waterpark Place project, including the pervious /impervious ratios, is consistent with the conceptual permit previously approved by [SFWMD]...." It is Staff's position that the letter modification issued by SFWMD on June 5, 2008, which was included in the SDP submittals, was properly relied upon by County Staff in approving the subject SDP in accordance with the LDC. The August 22, 2008 SFWMD district letter confirnis Staff s position. 5. Accessory structures and lot coverage The appellant argues that the accessory buildings will occupy an area greater than 5 percent of the total lot area. He also argues that in the Zoning Director's 2008 Official Interpretation she changes the fundamental definition of "shall" in LDC Section 4.02.03.A. Section 4.02.03.A states that "for the purposes of this section, in order to determine yard requirements, the term "accessory structure" shall include detached and attached accessory use structures or buildings notwithstanding the attachment of such structure or building containing the accessow use to the principal use, structure or building. " Mr. Raia cites this section for his claim that the parking garages violate the lot coverage requirements. However, this section clearly only applies to yard requirement determinations and not to lot coverage determinations. The Zoning Director has provided her professional opinion in 2004 and again in 2008 (an undisputed Official Interpretation) that a parking structure attached to a multi - family high rise tower is considered part of the principal structure and, therefore, the accessory structure lot coverage requirements of LDC section 4.02.03.B. do not apply to the parking garages. In conclusion, the County's professional staff has reviewed the Site Development Plan application and has found that it meets the requirements of the LDC, the Pelican Bay PUD and is consistent with the Growth Management Plan. The appellant has not provided any substantial 5 Agenda Item No. 7A October 14, 2008 Page 6 of 30 competent evidence to the contrary. Therefore it is Staff's position that the SDPA was properly approved in accordance with all applicable regulations. FISCAL IMPACT: As a matter of information the fee for this appeal is $1,000 plus advertising costs. Approximate staff time devoted to the processing and analyzing of this appeal request to date has been approximately 25 hours excluding the scheduled hearing. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: In accordance with Section No. 250 -58 of the Code of Laws and Ordinances, the Board of County Commissioners sitting as the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) is being asked to review the administrative decision of County staff to issue final Site Development Plan approval of Site Development Plan Amendment SDPA -AR -12644 for Waterpark Place, Phases III and IV. The BZA shall consider the application of the LDC, the Growth Management Plan and County Ordinances by staff and shall hear testimony. The BZA shall either affirm the final Site Development Plan approval or shall revoke the issuance of the final Site Development Plan approval. The BZA may not revoke the issuance of the final Site Development Plan approval unless it finds that there is no substantial competent evidence to support the issuance of the final Site Development Plan approval or that the final Site Development Plan approval is contrary to the goals, objectives and policies of the GMP or that it does not comply with the requirements of the LDC or County Ordinances including the applicable PUD Ordinance. - -HFAC GROWTH MANAGEMENT PL.kN IMPACT: The Site Development Plan is consistent with the County's Growth Management Plan. RECOMMENDATION: That the County staffs approval and consistency finding of the Site Development Plan Amendment, SDPA- AR- 12644, known as Waterpark Place, Phases III and IV, be upheld by the BZA. Prepared by: Susan M. Istenes, AICP, Zoning Director Page l of 2 Agenda Item No. 7.A October 14, '1008 Page 7 of 30 file: / /C: \AgendaTest \Export\ 114- October° /x2014,% 202008 \07. %20BOARD %200F %20ZO... 10/8/2008 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number: 7A Item Summary: This item to be heard at 9 00 a.m. on October 15. 2008. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission Members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. ADA- 2008 -AR -13529 Theodore J. Raia, Jr., requesting an administrative appeal of the previously approved SDPA -AR- 12644. The applicant believes the approval of SDPA -AR -12644 violates the Pelican Bay Planned Unit Development Ordinance (Ordinance No. 04 -59) and the Collier County Land Development Code (Ordinance No. 04 -41) as they existed on the dates the plan was submitted and approved. The subject property is located in Waterpark Place, Phases III and IV in the Pelican Bay PUD, in Section 4, Township 49S, Range 25E, Collier County, Florida, The back up information for this item is located at the Board of County Commissioners Office, 3301 E. Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 Meeting Date: 10/14/2008 9:00:00 AM Prepared By Susan Istenes, AICP Zoning & Land Development Director Date Community Development & Environmental Services Zoning & Land Development Review 9/22/2008 9:3 6:50 AM Approved By Community Development & Joseph K. Schmitt Date Environmental Services Administrator Community Development & Community Development & Environmental Services Environmental Services Admin. 9/3142008 11:09 AM Approved By Susan Istenes, AICP Zoning & Land Development Director Date Community Development & Environmental Services Zoning & Land Development Review 9130/2008 2:28 PM Approved By Heidi F. Ashton Assistant County Attorney Date County Attorney County Attorney Office 101112008 9:43 AM Approved By Judy Puig Operations Analyst Date Community Development & Community Development & Environmental Services 1011/2008 12:04 PM Environmental Services Admin. Approved By OMB Coordinator OMB Coordinator Date -- County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 10/1/2008 1:42 PM Approved By file: / /C: \AgendaTest \Export\ 114- October° /x2014,% 202008 \07. %20BOARD %200F %20ZO... 10/8/2008 Mark Isackson Budget Analyst Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 101112008 2:01 PM Approved By James V. Mudd Board of County Commissioners County Manager County Manager's Office Date 10/712008 4:27 PM Pacle 2 of 2 Agenda item No. 7A October 14, 2003 Page 8 of 30 file://C.\AgendaTest\Export\I 14-October%2014,%202008\07.%20BOARD%200F%20ZO... 10/8/2008 Agenda Item No. 7A ' October 14. 2008 + Page 9 of 30 RECEIVED JUL 17 2008 ZONING DEPARTMENT APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL Section 250 -58 PETITION NO (AR) ADA- 2007 -AR- 1.3529 PROJECT NAME WATERPARK PHASES 111 & IV PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT: 20071200081 DATE PROCESSED ASSIGNED PLANNER DATE: 7/17/08 DUE: 7/31/08 APPLICANT INFORMATION NAME OF OWNER THEODORE J. RATA, JR. ADDRESS 7117 PELICAN BAY BLVD., APT. 404, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34108 TELEPHONE # 239 -594 -2851 CELL # 239 -269 -3851 FAX # 239 -594 -2851 E -MAIL ADDRESS TEDRAIA @YAHOO.COM NAME OF AGENT /APPLICANT FIRM ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP TELEPHONE # CELL # FAX # E -MAIL ADDRESS REQUEST DETAIL Appeal of Application No. AR -12644 Waterpark Place, Phases III (Cap d'Antibes) and IV (Cap d'Azur), Project: 200712008, dated 12/12/07, Folio 81210002257 (Please reference the application number that is being appealed) Col (Ret) Theodore J. Raia, Jr., MD 7117 Pelican Bay Boulevard Apartment 404 Naples, Florida 34108 (239) 594 -2851 tedraia @yahoo.com July 16, 2008 Board of County Commisioners Board of Zoning Appeals Collier County Government Center 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, florida 34112 Dear Commissioners: Agenda Item No. 7A October 14, 2008 Pane 10 of 00 I am an affected property owner residing at 7117 Pelican Bay Blvd. within 300 feet of the Waterpark Place development, AR- 12644, and wish to appeal the approval under section 250 -58 because it violates the Pelican Bay Planned Unit Development (PL-D) and the Land Development Code (LDC) as they existed on the dates the plan was submitted and approved. The accompanying Submittal Letter for the SDP avers: "The developer, their neighbors and the Foundation worked together to resolve the objections. The parties have agreed on the sitting (sic) and improvements depicted on the Site Development Plan set. We have attached letters from the St. Pierre, St. Laurent and the Pelican Bay Foundation approving the proposed development." The Submittal Letter is in error and obscures the fact that the Saint Raphael and the San Marino are the only residential abutting neighbors of Waterpark Place and will be injuriously impacted by the latest Waterpark Place SDP. Therefore the Director has been misled when she cites in her interpretation "the statement "in harmony and not injurious to the neighborhood or to adjoining properties" is somewhat subjective." Reducing the setbacks deprives the neighbors of their view of the gulf, depreciates their property and subjects them to increased wind damage due to the Venturi effect created by this reduction. The Saint Raphael and the San Marino definitely did not come together to resolve their objections. Furthermore they do not agree on the siting and improvements depicted on the Site Development Plan. The Submittal Letter continues: "The PUD allows for clustered buildings with a common architectural theme be afforded with distances less than set forth in the PUD so long as the plan is approved in accordance with section 2.05 of the PUD." Agenda Ifem Flo. 7A October 14, 2008 Page 11 of 30 Section 2.15 of the PUD refers the reader to the LDC for all definitions not contained in the PUD. "Clustered" is defined in the LDC as "This form of development employs a more compact arrangement of dwelling units by allowing for reductions in the standard lot requirements of the applicable zoning district, with the difference between the reduced lot size and the standard lot requirement being placed in common open space." Judge Ted Brousseau in quoting this definition stated in his ruling, "It is obvious that the intent of permitting clustering is to exchange reduced lot size requirements for more open space. Sadly, the site plan change allowed Cap d'Antibes to reduce setbacks AND increase building size." This is exactly what the developer requested and the Director of Planning Services approved. The Director further states "the clustering provisions in the Pelican Bay PUD function essentially the same as a variance to the setback and separation requirements would. The ability to reduce the setbacks, the conditions under which they may be reduced and the impact of the allowable reductions on neighboring properties was evaluated and determined, in this case to be appropriate, at the time of PUD zoning approval. These separation reductions are permissible in certain land use districts in the Pelican Bay PUD, and in this case are appropriate provided the two conditions of 7.04.03. C (Ordinance No. 04 -59) are met. I have evaluated the site development plan application for the Waterpark Place development and it is my professional opinion that the proposed development is compatible with surrounding properties. Approval will only be granted if the plan is administratively deemed to be consistent with the development provisions of the PUD. As these development provisions were evaluated for both internal and external compatibility at the time of rezoning, plan approval in accordance with the regulations will ensure the development will not be injurious to the neighborhood or surrounding properties. The Pelican Bay PUD is an ordinance passed by duly elected officials. The Director claims that the developer needs only her professional opinion and plans that show compatibility in order to change laws passed by the commissioners. For instance setbacks can be reduced to zero as approved in the original Cap d'Antibes plan. Even granting this assumed unique authority by the Director, no where does it permit that the reduction claimed and the space created be used for larger buildings. Such changes should only be permitted by amending the PUD. The Director continues to cite the reasons for cluster: " in order to: increase common open space; reduce the overall development area; reduce alterations and impacts to natural resources on the site; to preserve additional native vegetation and habitat areas; and, to reduce the cost of providing services, including but not limited to central sewer and water. " Pursuant to the above referenced definitions of clustering and Section 7.04.03. C. of the Pelican Bay PUD, the plain reading of the PUD ordinance simply allows clustered Agenda ;gem No. 7A Gcto',er 14. 2008 Page 12 of 30 buildings (a concentration or grouping of buildings) under two conditions: 1. Provided a common architectural theme is employed, and 2. A site plan is approved in accordance with Section 2.05 of the PUD. Provided these two conditions are met, the subject development can be clustered. Again at no time does it state or infer that allowing for larger buildings is a reason to cluster. This added reason by the Director completely alters the fundamental concept of cluster development. Furthermore the conditions cited have not been met. 1. Professor Susan Tate of the University of Florida at Gainesville submits that the buildings comprising Waterpark Place do not present a common architectural theme, and 2. are not in accordance with Section 2.05 of the PUD because it is not in harmony and is injurious to the neighborhood. However when and if these conditions are met the space created by reducing the setbacks cannot be used to allow for larger buildings as the Director claims. According to the Director setbacks are only observed if you have one building, but when you add a second building setbacks may be reduced to zero and the buildings increased in size to occupy all the space created. The official interpretation by the Director creates vagueness and negates the due process of having only our elected officials pass our laws such as approving a PUD. The Director expands on why PUDs allow exceptions to setback requirements 4.02.04 Standards for Cluster Residential Design. E. Common open space. 1. All reductions in the minimum lot area, lot width, and yard requirements below that which would otherwise be required within the district in which the cluster development is located shall be required to provide an equal amount of common open space within the same phase and general area of each cluster of homes in the development unless said cluster development is part of a planned unit development where the open space requirements of this LDC have been satisfied. Furthermore, the LDC requires the following with respect to open space: In developments of commercial, industrial and mixed use including residential, at least thirty (30) percent of the gross area shall be devoted to usable open space. This requirement shall not apply to individual parcels less than five (5) acres in size. However, the LDC also specifically provides that cluster developments (within PUD zoning districts where open space requirements of the LDC have been satisfied) are exempt from meeting the specific requirements for open space. Table 1 of the Pelican Bay Land Use Schedule clearly states that the PUD is required to set aside 570 acres of conservation acreage, 171 acres for golf course and other recreation and 20 acres for a neighborhood park. This constitutes approximately 36 percent of the development's 2,104 acres of land and qualifies as open space as noted above, which far exceeds the minimum 30 percent requirement for open space per the LDC. Therefore, the required Agenda item No. 7A October 14, 2008 Page 13 of 30 provisions for open space as they relate to cluster development, per the LDC, have been satisfied for the Pelican Bay PUD and this project, as to both the amount and location. The Director interprets this to mean that once a developer in a PUD sets aside 30% of the land to usable common open space there are no limitations to setback reductions. If this is the interpretation of the LDC then why have setback clauses in PUDs that already satisfy the 30% usable open space requirement? In Pelican Bay the only usable open space common to the residents who provided the open space is the 20 acres of neighborhood park. The 570 acres of conservation acreage can not be considered since it is county property and is not common to the residents who sacrificed their setbacks. In addition the waterways are the only usable part of that 570 acres and were never part of Pelican Bay while the mangrove forest has always been a protected area. Finally the 171 acre golf course is definitely not usable common open space. It is a private club with limited membership not open to or usable by most of the residents of Pelican Bay while non resident members do use it. Sacrificing ones setback space for a private golf course is not cluster. Therefore the exemption the Director is claiming for the developer is not permitted because the 30% of common space has not been met. The Director continues to discuss accessory buildings: Nevertheless, on July 26, 2004, I authored a staff clarification (SC- 04 -04) which provides guidance on the applicability of this section of the Land Development Code as read in conjunction with similar and related regulations contained in the LDC pursuant to accessory structures. My opinion, the background and explanation are provided below. Please note that the provisions of the LDC referenced below are from the "old" LDC (Ordinance No. 91 -102), which was later recodified into the "new" LDC (Ordinance No. 04 -41). BACKGROUND /CONSIDERATIONS: During review of a Site Development Plan for a multi family project, staff was asked to clarify whether the limitations regarding size of accessory buildings - a maximum lot area in square feet that could be occupied by accessory buildings - would apply to an attached one -story structure providing parking for the residents of a multi family high -rise tower. DETERMINATION (CLARIFICATION): It is my determination that a one -story parking structure attached to a multi family tower would be considered part of the principal structure, and that the area occupied by the parking structure would not be used in the calculation of lot coverage by accessory structures. In Division 6.3 (Ordinance No. 91 -102), the definition of `Accessory Use or Structure" states that "Where a building is attached to a principal building, it shall be considered a part thereof, and not an accessory building, except as provided in Division 2.6... " Agenda !tern No. 7A October 14, 2003 Page 14 of v0 Ordinance No. 91 -102, Section 2.6.2.1. (Location of Accessory Buildings and Structures) (also in Ordinance No. 04 -41 Section 4.02.03) states that '...in order to determine yard requirements, the term "accessory structure" shall include detached and attached accessory use structures of buildings notwithstanding the attachment of such structure or building containing the accessory use to the principal use structure or building.' Ordinance No. 91 -102, Section 2.6.2.3. (also in Ordinance No. 04 -41 Section 4.02.03 Limitations as to Size ofAccessory buildings and Structures) states that "Accessory buildings shall not occupy an area greater than five percent of the total lot area in all residential zoning districts, or occupy an area greater than 40 percent of any building envelope... whichever is the lesser... " In conclusion, is my opinion that there is no exception in the language of Section 4.02.03 {also in Ordinance No. 91 -1021 of the LDC to indicate that a parking structure attached to a multi - family high -rise tower would not be considered part of the principal structure and therefore it is my opinion that it would be exempt from accessory structure lot coverage requirements of the LDC. In the Director's "Determination (Clarification)" it is important to note that it addressed one story garages. The garages in Waterpark Place are two stories. Furthermore the Director changes fundamental definitions of words clearly defined in the LDC, namely the word "shall" which is mandatory. Also there can be no other meaning of "all" then all. The Director chooses to ignore "...in order to determine yard requirements, the term "accessory structure" shall include detached and attached accessory use structures of buildings notwithstanding the attachment of such structure or building containing the accessory use to the principal use structure or building" and "Accessory buildings shall not occupy an area greater than five percent of the total lot area in all residential zoning districts." The garages will occupy an area greater than twice the allowable amount. Not restricting the size of accessory buildings significantly alters the appearance reserved for residential zones as opposed to commercial and industrial zones. The combination of the reduction of setbacks "without creating common open space" and "no limit to the size of accessory buildings" leads to considerable increase in the amount of impervious land. This increase can exceed the amount allowable by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) in the permit granted to Collier County and delegated to the Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD) to administer. This process requires the developer to submit copies of the SDP for review by the PBSD Board. The review by the Board found that the "impervious" amount of development measured 81.9% significantly exceeding the permissible 46 %. Non - the -less the Director approved the SDP. The Director claims that she already possessed a letter of approval from the original submission of the Agenda Item No. 7A October 14. 2008 Page 15 of 30 Cap d'Antibes and since this resubmission is 0.66 acres less impervious than the original plan an additional approval letter is not necessary. Unfortunately the original Cap d'Antibes SDP was not presented to the PBSD Board for review. Instead the administrator at the time, Jim Ward, sent a letter of approval to the Director. It is obvious that Mr. Ward erred in his calculation because at that time the original project had 86% impervious development again far exceeding the allowable 46 %. Therefore the SDP does not meet the restrictions of the permit and should not have been approved without acknowledging this fact. Federal and State hydrology mandates must be met and can be very costly to the county to correct if violated. I have included: 1. A copy of Judge Ted Brousseau's ruling that was sustained by the appellate court and not challenged by the developer. 2. A copy of Professor Susan Tate's assessment of Waterpark Place along with various photos. The following public documents should be made available to the Board of County Commissioners sitting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and at the requested hearing. 1. The SDPs for the original Cap d'Antibes and the current Waterpark Place to include but not limited to the submittal letter. 2. My Request for Official Interpretation (ROI) and the response of the Director. 3. Mr. Parisi's ROI and the response of the Director. 4. Any other official documents that relate to the Waterpark Place development including but not limited to the covenants and the PUD. 5. My request for a Zoning Verification and the response of the Director. Enclosed please fmd my filing fee check for $1,000.00. Respectfully, Theodore J. Raia, Jr. ,I ADA- 2007 -AR -13529 Oc`Paae110 of WATERPARK PHASES 111 & IV PROJECT: 20071200081 DATE: 7/17/08 DUE: 7/31/08 Waterpark Place Project, Pelican Bay, Collier County, Florida Conformance with Collier County Land Development Code Sec. 2.6.27 Regarding Architectural Style, Similarity of Design, and Common Architectural Theme Analysis by Susan Tate, ALA, Architect February 2004 The following is my professional opinion of the compatibility of the proposed Waterpark Place Cap d'Antibes condominium development with prevailing standards and definitions of design, architectural style and theme. My relevant qualifications are as follows: Registered Architect in the State of Florida (AR0009620); faculty of the University of Florida College of Design, Construction and Planning since 1972; practicing professional and consultant; expert in compatible design and guidelines for designated districts. I. According to the Collier County Land Development Code 2.6.27.4.6, the board of commissions shall determine that the three specific design features listed therein are incorporated in the project. This analysis will discuss each of these. 1. "The architectural style of the dwelling units /structures shall be similar in design and in the use of materials and color. " Stvle may be defined as "a definite type of architecture, distinguished by special characteristics of structure and ornament." According to the recognized reference What Style Is It ?, "style is essentially visual and has no necessary relationship to the function of a building." Architectural styles are recognized by character defining features, geometric forms, and patterns. Specifically, this is composed of the following elements: scale, shape, massing of forms, proportion, visual balance, linear characteristics, solid and void patterns, rhythm of repetition, texture, and detail language. This analysis will apply each of the above elements of design in order to determine whether there is an "architectural style" that is "similar in design" among the existing and proposed buildings of Waterpark Place, Scale The proposed scale of the Cap d'Antibes structures is significantly larger than the existing St. Pierre and St. Laurent. The size of the proposed condominium and ancillary structures in relation to the site is also inconsistent with the building -to -land ratio of the existing structures on this parcel and with communitv standards. The scale of the proposed buildings creates a visual imbalance that is not in Agenda Item No. 7A October 14, 2008 Page 17 of 30 harmony with the built and natural features of the parcel. Moreover, the extensive size of the proposed Cap d'Antibes structures would obscure lines of sight within the parcel, from neighboring sites, and from public by -ways. This non - conforming scale would create a visual impact that would be iniurious to the community at !REM Shape, Massing of Forms, Proportion The overall shapes of the St. Pierre, St. Laurent, and Cap d'Antibes are not similar; this is apparent in the footprints and elevation profiles. The massing of the St. Laurent is composed of multiple projections and recesses in several scales, while the St. Pierre is comparatively simple in massing. The Cap d'Antibes structures differ in massing from either of these. Likewise, the proportion of height to width of the Cap d'Antibes buitdings is not in harmony with the existing buildings. Visual Balance and Linear Characteristics In terms of balance, the St. Pierre and St. Laurent have facades that are primarily symmetrical. The fagade designed for each Cap d'Antibes structure is asymmetrical with a domed tower; one structure has three projecting bays and the other has two. The dominant linear character of the St. Pierre is horizontal with strong bands of windows; vertical shafts are secondary and contrast. The St. Laurent is vertical in articulation; in addition, the individual windows of the St. Laurent are primarily vertical, with heights double the widths. The Cap d'Antibes design is not in harmony with these features. Solid and Void Patterns, Rhythm of Repetition, Texture The solid and void patterns and the rhythm of repetition are expressed in the fenestration, or the relationships of window openings to wall or solid skin. The St. Pierre visually emphasizes the negative space or window openings, dominated by horizontal bands of glazing. Expressed in the glass and rounded edges, the texture of the St. Pierre material language is decidedly smooth. While the visual rhythm of the St. Pierre is smooth, that of the St. Laurent is staccato and dominated by the solid materials. The design for the Cap d'Antibes is not in harmony with these features. Detail Language of Architectural Styles The most obvious element of "architectural style" is often the detail language. For example, domes and columns are associated with classical antiquity and later interpretations of those origins; pointed arches are associated with gothic architecture and its revivals. Much of the 20`h Century was influenced by the International Style, in which functionalism and integrity of materials dominated. The absence of ornament on the St. Pierre suggests relationship to international modernism. In contrast, the St. Laurent is detailed with vertical shafts and vertical projections at the parapet roofline; this feature recalls early skyscraper expression of the skeletal frame. Yet a third "architectural style" is suggested in the design for the Cap d'Antibes structures; the domes, arched windows, and parapet balustrade are classical in origin. Thus, there would be no consistency in style within the parcel. Agenda Item No. 7A October 14, 2008 Page 13 of 30 Summary opinion whether "design feature " #1 is "incorporated into the pro'eI ct ": This analysis found no continuity, relationship, or pattern of design, features, or architectural style in either the existing or the planned structures of Waterpark Place. Therefore, the existing and the proposed buildings do not incorporate the required criterion of "architectural style" that is "similar in design." 2. "The residential project shall have a signature entranceway which serves to identify the development as having a common architectural theme. The entranceway design and improvement elements shall include some or all of the following. the use of landscape materials, gated structure, water features, sculpture and ornamental pavement surfaces. " In The Timeless Way of Building, Christopher Alexander states that towns, neighborhoods, and buildings are defined by "the patterns which keep on repeating there." "Isn't it true that the features which you remember in a place are not so much peculiarities, but rather the typical, the recurrent, the characteristic features: the canals of Venice, the flat roofs of a Moroccan town, the even spacing of the fruit trees in an orchard.... ?" Theme is defined as "a unifying or dominant idea, motif...." Whether in music, literature, art, or architecture, the theme continues throughout the work. It is a pattern, a repetition, a recurrent characteristic. The existing and proposed buildings of Waterpark Place lack similar design features or "architectural style" that would establish such a theme. Summary opinion whether "design feature " #2 is "incorporated into the project ": In the analysis of "design feature" #l, no elements were found that would comprise "architectural style" that is "similar in design" and, therefore, no "common architectural theme" can be established. While the project might have a "signature entranceway" and the other listed landscape features, it could not meet the required criterion "common architectural theme." 3. "Street materials, signage, and lighting shall be complementary and the same throughout the project's accessways." Summary opinion whether "design feature" #3 is "incorporated into the project" Based on the conclusions regarding design features 1 and 2 that there is no "architectural style" that is "similar in design" and that there is no "common architectural theme," there is no common pattern or style or theme with which to be "complementary." Therefore, the project could not meet the required criterion to include the listed "complementary" features. II. This analysis regards the Collier County Land Development Code Sec. 2.6.27. Cluster development. The Collier County Land Development Code, in conformance with the universal concept of cluster development, states that the intent is to cluster buildings in return for more "common open space intended for recreation or public use," less Agenda Item No. 7A October 14; 2008 Page 19 of 30 "urban sprawl," preservation of "natural features," and "conservation of environmental resources." Legislation allowing cluster development, which originated in single family neighborhoods, is based on improved conditions for society, such as those identified in the Collier County Land Development Code. These include visual context, activity zones, and conservation of open space and natural features. Model land development codes suggest consideration of clusters to facilitate protection of environmentallv sensitive or historically significant features. In summary, this analysis concludes that compatible scale is an essential feature of the visual context of neighborhoods and districts and communities. The proposed scale would be a deviation from well- conceived land development regulations, from the spirit of cluster development, and from visual harmony within the community. < cc o o� p N Q Z�- O � � N N C� � CJ U � Q 4—J C 0 L U- 4- J W L .J Lr) 4 W O L U- a) L L CL 4jJ /� \j p4 i i 4 O ^„� M w�( TT^^ •�I r-, Vl M Y� O OIN,^ 0 M QM N ax�o CIA �ae� od"Vi- N W � pd�d V ! L J Lr) LO L L 4-; V) r o ch 10 _N @ O� � U y Q v W T 7� j A 3: Q) L CL 4.; U) � o M low Q � N dE""OF+ 43a� {moo o` j cv o ZEN r N CJ � — cz co 0 a. � J �0 Q O M C^� W J OJ O W Agenda Item No. 7A ADA- 2007 -AR- 1352 %ctober 14, 2008 WATERPARK PHASfSgt- 'f &4 < PROJECT: 20071200081 DATE: 7/17/08 DUE: 7/31/08 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TwBnWM JLUCIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COU.raR COUNTY, FLORIDA —cnr mom JANICE M. TRECKER, JAMES BUSH and PATRICIA BUSH, JOSEPH LEHRHAUPT and LINDA LEHRHAUPT. JOHN UNIPITLAW and SUSAN LiMPiTLAW, ELLIOTT BLADES and ANITA BLADES, DANIEL GROTE and JEAN GROTE, ROSE KULAK, HENRY PRICE and JERI PRICE, DON RICHARDSON and PAT RICHARDSON, JAMES SWENSON and DONNA SWENSON. Plaintiffs, CASE NO. 03a05 ca GULF BAY LAND INVESTMENTS, INC., an kwcdve Florida corporation. GULF BAY LAND INVESTMENTS, INC., a fanign ,PARCEL J4 DEVELOPMENT, INC., an bac tm Florida corporation, PARCEL Ja DEVELOPMENT, INC., a foreign corporation, Find JudgMd This cause was tried before the Court an August 24 and 25, 2005. Based on the evidence pneaented and the applicable Whx4 i w of law. to Court *Ws and rulas as 1. In June 1990, the defendants purchased appro 16.61 acres of land (now oiled WaWpark Place) m Pelican Bay from Westinghouse Cornmunities of Naples, I= ('WCN7. The deferxl nks accepted title to Waterpark Place subject to a regrictive covenant that reatftfs the manner in which Waterpark Place may be developed. Among other PwIsions, the restrid" coverant requires nrirrirrrum setbacks from the property ikm of Agenda Item No. 7A October 14, 2008 Page 24 of 30 100' with 200' between the buildings to be constructed in Waterpark Place, and wpessly provides that Waterperk Phm will be used for 4 muM4kxy residential buildings and one villa unit. 2. In 1992, the debrxisi s prepared and obtained governmental approval of a site devefoprnent plan that positions the 4 naufflosbory residential buildings and one via unit in Waterperk Place. In the plan. the 4 muSebry reside did buildings are about equally spaced on the property, and each is planned to be 22 stories high and contain 106 dwelling units. After this original sfe devefopmeni plan was approved by Collier County and before 2000, the defendants constructed 2 of the 4 muW story residential buildings, and sold c0ndor1,rirrium units in those bulkik s to the Piain6itfa. 3. In 2000, the defendants changed the site dweloprnent plan by combining the last 2 not yet constructed radii -Axy residential bins into two very tangs buildings on one common base. Each building appears to have a footprint double the size of the bWWft it replaced. On the amended oft development plan, the combined buildings, called Cap if Antibes, are set back only 50 feet from the north property line, 150' from the wdstlng bulking to the south and approximately 60' between the buildings. Under the circumstances, the amended side development plan does not comply with the setback requirements of the rive covenant. 4. In 1998, the restrictive cov+enaM was amended to 9=m the defwxWft from the submittal requirements of the contract under which the defendants purchased the property in 1990 and the submittal requirements of the Agenda Item No. 7A October 14. 2008 Page 25 of 30 nestric*ve covenant This amendment does not, however, excuse oompiiance with the separate and Independent satbeclk Mq<arsntents Of the neatrM9 cwmvi t FuMwnx e, If this amendment had excused con"enoe with time requirements, it would have became necessary to declare the amendment invalid because it would have substantially irrrpeeired the uniform plan of deaeippment for the property in violation of Article III of the restrictive covenant and the cominon law of the State of Florida as set forth in GoNen v. Polhi onaW. 390 Sold 187 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). Loch Haven Homeowner's Assn. v. AW9, 389 So2d 997 (FhL 2d DCA 1960), Bey Island Towem, Inc. v. Bay 1AFsn&W9ste Mein.. 319 Sold 574 (File. 2d DCA 1975), ftn* o Ranch , Jnc. Y. Sunshine Ranchers Hor»e�orrnar's. lrrc.. 303 Sold 985 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974] MAVay Pines Properly Owners Asset., Inc. v. Wsfheftton, 596 So2d 84 (Fla. 41' DCA 1992), Mob v. Lodz Haven Homeowners' Assn. Ina, 413 So2d 26 (FIa.1982). 5. in 2001;' the Amended and Restated Declaration and General Protec ibe Covenants for Peiicen Bay (hereatier Medasabon-) was amended to excuse the defiendants firm the recpidrernerts of Article Ill of that Declaration. This amendment, however, does not excuse the defendants from the roqulremeft of the reshiaive covenant Furthwrrnore, for the same reasons that the 1998 amendment to the reshic" covenant would have been invalid if ft had ahwnpted to exam compliance with the setback requirements of the restrictive covenant this amendment th the Declaration would also have been Invalid. Agenda Item No. 7A October 14, 2008 - - -- - -- Page 26 of 33 S. In 1894, the defarxlants fled their own Dedarebm of Covenants for Waterpark Place. As a mat m of law, this Dedwa*m of CoAmerrts does not supercede or rescind the mquirrerrterrts of the restricfive covenant fled by WCN In 1980. 7. On February 21, 2000, WCI Watermark Communilies, Inc., issued a written MW that aplxoves the amended she developmeed plan. This fetter does not spedficagy approve any reduction in the selbac ks required by the restrictive caven®nt, The Court firxls that tlsis leper was not issued by WCN. or its successors, and does not constitute written approval of any reduction m the setbacks required by the restrictive covenant. FuMww hors, even If this letter had been issued by WCN and had been Intended to approve setbacks not otherwise dewed by the restrictive covenant. the Court finds and reties that the reduction in setbacks and the combination of the Iasi 2 buildings with one common base subetandally impairs the uniform plan of development for Waterpark Place mandated by the restrictive covenant. Under the noes. WCN would not have been lawW pen it led io approve these changes. 8. Plaintiff argues that the amended site deveioprnerd plan is not in compliance wflh the Planned Unit Development ibr Peicen Bay (TUD".) Spedkally, UM argue the setback requirements in the PUD are violated, and Cap d'Antibes is not a 'clustered" building then quaVW for an exemption under 7.04.03 of the PUD. in addition, before Cap d'Antfbes could be dassilied as a `clustered' budding under the PUD, ti would have been noes ary to obtain a Agenda Item No. 7A • i October 14, 2008 Page 27 of 30 conditieornai use penult as required by secdion 2.6.27 of the Collier County Land Development Code. and this conditional use pen* was not obtained. Fomrer Director of the Planning and Services Division for Collier County, Robert J. Mulhere, who was responsible for issuing the final approval, tesdf led t hal: Collier County adhered to the pmoedurss set forth in the PLOD and the Coder County Land Development Code(t.DC� He determined that by'austering' the buildings the PUD permitted the change from two standard sized buildings wkh required sedecks to two huge 'clustered' buildings u=zklg severely r ftxd ssfbadas. This conclusion is hard to umderstsnd in ligtt of Division 6.3 of the LDC wtdch states in the ds on of a Cluster Development, 'This form of development employs a more compact ar angernm t of dwelling units by slowing for reductions in the standard lot requirements of the applicable zoning district, with the ditlmence between the reduced lot size and the standard lot nequa+enow being placed in connnon open space.' ht is obvious that the intent of permitting clustering is tD exchange reduced lot regtmements for move open space. Sadly, the ske plan change allowed Cap d' Antibes 1D reduce setbacks AND haven budding size. However, the appdal3e courts have ruled that this court is not empowered to act as a super zoning board, substituting our judgment for Mat of the legiaadve and admintatrative bodies exercising legitimate o*dtinres. Therefore, this argment can not be considered to reaching a final determination by this oourt. It also appease that when Caber County Issued its approval far the ske plan change it did not take into conatderation the Agenda Item No. 7A Dalai 11/1112005 Tim a 3112 PH Toy Y 5976937 1" Nolen !az )F&"jbFA714 2008 Page 28 of 30 dedarMon of restrictions. This providee an addlGorta! reaeart why this court ni d make its independent decision in en6onrtg the lthtS that arum under the restrictions. 9. Finally, the Court rtes that two is no factual or legal basis to support the waiver andlor estoppel mWW selective snkxoernent defsnses asserted by the defendants. For any aredfor all of to *ftgoing findings or Condtrsiorm #re plaintliis are entMn to the relief requested in their arrmxW complakt. Ttwefom it Is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED #vat 1. The Court declares that Constnclion of the Cap d'Andbes buklkV shown in the amemled site development purl world violate the provisions of the restrictive covenant 2. The defendants are hereby permanently enjoined from conetrtuting the propaeed Cap d'Andbes bukft shown in the amended site development pimL Done Ordered In Ct wdms in Naples, Florida. this L day of 2005. Con bmted Copies to: John T. Biak*, Esq. Ric#tard H. CrkNbw. Esquire Edward K. CFteffy, Esquire of oft NOV 1720 �+ t b � Ted isjMi Agenda Item No. 7A O.-tober 14, 2008 Page 29 of ::0 Official Receipt - Collier County Board of County Commissioners CDPR1103 - Official Receipt Trans Number I Date I Post Date Payment Slip Nbr 844859 7/17/2008 10:28:52 AM 7117/2008 AR 13529 Appl Name: PARCEL J JOINT VENTURE Appl Stage /Status: REVIEW STAGE NO. 1 /PENDING Address: JOSEPH LIVIO PARISI, ESQ 8156 FIDDLER'S CREEK PKWY NAPLES FL 34114 Proj Name: WATERPARK PLACE PHASES III AND IV Type: RMF TAZ: Subdiv Nbr: 1905 Project Nbr: 2007120008 Payor : COL. THEODORE J RATA MD Fee Information Fee Code Description i GL Account Amount Waived 11ADMA I ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS FEES 113113832634121000000 $1000.00 Total $1000.00 Payments Payment Code I Account/Check Number Amount CHECK 11272 $1000.00 Total Cash 1 $0.00 Total Non -Cash 1 $1000.00 Total Paid $1000.00 Memo: Cashier /location: LAURAWELLS / 1 User: MONROIG 1 Collier County Board of County Commissioners Printed:7 /17/2008 10:30:27 AM CD -Plus for Windows 95 /NT Agenda Item No. 7A October 14. 2003 Page 30 of 30 Official Receipt - Collier County Board of County Commissioners CDPR1103 - Official Receipt Trans Number I Date I Post Date Payment Slip Nbr 844859 7/17/2008 10:28:52 AM 7/17/2008 AR 13529 Appl Name: PARCEL J JOINT VENTURE Appl Stage /Status: REVIEW STAGE NO. 1/PENDING Address: JOSEPH LIVIO PARISI, ESQ 8156 FIDDLER'S CREEK PKWY NAPLES FL 34114 Proj Name: WATERPARK PLACE PHASES III AND IV Type: RMF TAZ: Subdiv Nbr: 1905 Project Nbr: 2007120008 Payor : COL. THEODORE J RATA MD Fee Information Fee Code Description t GL Account Amount I Waived 11ADMA I ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS FEES 13113832634121000000 1 $1000.00 Total 1 $1000.00 Payments Payment Code I Account/Check Number Amount CHECK 1272 $1000.00 Memo: Total Cash Total Non -Cash Total Paid $a.00 1$1 000.00 ! $1000.00 Cashier /location: LAURAWELLS / 1 User: MONROIG 1 Collier County Board of County Commissioners Printed: 7/17/200810:30:27 AM CD -Plus for Windows 95 /NT +A- �rc(- ) Site Development Plan and application documents Waterpark Place Phases III & IV - Cap d'Antibes and Cote d'Azur SDPA- 2007 -AR -12644 Staff provided back up to ADA- 2008-AR- 13 529 -4--4A, Site Development Plan Amendment Application Documents Tab Document Date A SDPA Application submitted by O. Grady Minor 12/11/07 B Common Architectural Letter Lawrence Cohan 09/05/07 C 2008 Official Interpretation Response to Parisi 06/17/08 D Misc. Correspondence from Ted Raia 2007 -08 E Letter of approval Pelican Bay Foundation; 05/30/07 Letter of approval St. Pierre Condominium 06/04/07 Letter of approval St. Laurent Condominium 05/22/07 Declaration of Covenants; Assignments Varies F First Round Review Comments and Response 01/16/08 G Second Round Review Comments and Response 04/10/08 H Third Round Review Comments and Response 06/04/08 Final Approval Letter 06/12/08 COA's 06/17/08 K Elevations and Floor Plans 06/12/08 L Site Development Plans 06/12/08 M Landscape Plans 06/12/08 Q. WADY MINOR & ASSOCIA19, P.A. Civil Engineers ■ Land Surveyors ■ Planners ■ Landscape Architects r SARK W. MINOR P.E. b. WAYNE ARNOLD, A.I.C.P. JOSHUA R EVANS, P.E. STEPHEN V. BURGESS, P.S.M. MICHAEL. T. HERRERA, P.E. JUAN A. ARAQUE, PSAL DAVID W. SCL II>IITT, P.E. KEITH A. STEPHENSON, P.S.M. MICHAEL J. DELATE, P.E HEIDI K WILLIAMS, A.I.C.P. ELIZABETH A. FOUNTAIN, P.E. KENNETH W. PAHMIG PAMELA M. HYYT I Intake Planner Collier County Development Services 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34134 RE: Waterpark Place Phases III and IV Cap d'Antibes and Cote d'Azure SDPA Submittal Dear Intake Planner: December 11, 2007 SDPA- 2007 -AR- 12644 REV: I WATERPARK PLACE PHASES III AND IV Project: 2007120008 Date: 12/12/07 DUE: 1/14/08 Enclosed please find the following items for review and approval of the final site development plan. 1) Sixteen (16) copies of the project narrative. 2) Sixteen (16) copies of the SDP application. 3) Sixteen (16) copies of the SDP pre - application meeting notes. 4) Sixteen (16) sets of the Site Development Plans 5) Sixteen (16) copies of the Pelican Bay PUD. 6) One (1) approved addressing checklist. 7) One (1) Opinion of Title 8) One (1) Letter of Authorization. 9) One (2) copy of the deed. 10) One (4) PUD monitoring report 11) One (1) Property ID number & legal description 12) One (1) fee calculation worksheet.& review fees; check # $38,616.98 4A- 002843 in the amount of 13) CD Rom disk containing site development plans in DXF format in state plane NAD83 Florida East Coordinates. 14) Seven (7) sets of Landscape & Irrigation Plans 15) Six (6) sets of Floor plans and elevations 16) Three (3) Drainage Calculations 17) One (1) Estimated cost of construction of Roadways, Paving & Drainage 18) Four (4) Engineer's Report (water management) with Assumptions & Explanations containing; Hydraulic Grade Line Pipe calculations for culverts, 25 -year 3 -day storm routing, Lighting Plan (multi - family) 19) One (1) Engineering Review Checklist (239) 947 -1144 ■ FAX (239) 947 -0375 n Web Site: www.gradyminor.com 3800 Via Del Rey ■ Bonita Springs, Florida 34134 -7569 EB 0005151 ■ LB 0005151 n LC 26000266 /fLISD? (Cap D'Anubes Sitc Development Plan)506DP102SDPA\Sub 1tr 10- 02 -01.doc SPLISDP • • Intake Planner Re: Waterpark Place Phases III and N Cap d'Antibes and Cote d'Azure December 10, 2007 Page 2 20) One (1) Estimated cost of utilities construction, Water & Sewer calculations 21) Three(3) Engineer's Report (utilities) containing fixture count 22) One (1) Water and/or Sewer availability letter 23) One (1) Utility Review Checklist 24) One (1) copy of ROW permit application 25) One (1) Transportation Review Checklist 26) Two (2) Completed COA Application „ If you have any questions or need additional i MWM:cjd ion please contact our office. ery qury yours, Mark W. Minor F:TROJ- HNGISWLISDP (Cap D'Antibes Site Development Plan)106DP102SDPA \Sub Itr 10-02- 07.doc SILISDP ..w COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNM16 2800 NOHORSESHOE DRIVE DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT R NAPLES, FL RIDA 34104 WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET (239) 403 -2400 FAX(239)643-6968 SITE DEVELOPM, ENT PLAN APPLIC.- ON SDP AR NUMBER SDPA- 2007 -AR- 12644 REV: I PROJECT NAME ATERPARK PLACE PHASES III AND IV PROJECT NUMBER F—Pw roject: 2007120008 DATE PROCESSED Date: 12/12/07 DUE: 1/14/08 COORDINATING PLANNER - - - - - Above to be completed by staff APPLICANT /, OWN;ER INFORMATION,. AGENT: Mark W. Minor FIRM: O Grady Minor & Associates. P.A. ADDRESS: 3800 Via Del Rey City: Bonita Springs State: FL Zip. 34134 PHONE #: 239 -947 -1144 CELL #: FAX #: 239 -947 -0375 E -MAIL ADDRESS: mminorggrady_minor.com OWNER(S) NAME: Gulf Bay Land Investments Inc d.b.a.- Parcel I Joint Venture ADDRESS: 8156 Fiddler's Creek Parkway City: Naples State: FL Zip: 34114 PHONE #: 239 -732 -9400 CELL #: FAX #: 239- 732 -9402 E -MAIL ADDRESS: strainm0gulfbay.com PROPERTY LOCATION � - PROJECT NAME: Cap d`Antibes and Cote d'Azure If this project is located In a PUD or it has a Conditional Use or a Variance approved, please indicate the PUD name and /or CU or Variance Application Request # Resolution #04 -59 SECTION /TOWNSHIP /RANGE: 04/495/25E PROPERTY I.D.# 81210002257 & 81 21 0001 753 SUBDIVISION NAME: Waterpark Place at Pelican Bay UNIT BLOCK LOT LOCATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY (proximity to closest major intersection or road): Pelican Bay Boulevard and Gulf Park Drive Current Zoning Designation: PUD Type of Development Proposed: Residential Total Area of Project:5.63 # Units'! 52 Density27.0 Non- Residential Sq Ft:0 Aw ADJACENT ZON NGJIAND USE ZONING LAND USE North PUD Residential East PUD Residential South PUD Residential West PUD Preserve/ Natural Area I hereby submit d app lication to be complete and accurate. SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE WATERPARK PLACE PHASES III AND N Cap d'Antibes and Cote d'Azure SDP Project Narrative SDPA- 2007 -AR -12644 WATERPARK PLACE PHASES III AND 1V Project: 2007120008 Date: 12/12/07. _ _ REV: 1 DUE: 1/14/08 _ _ General Proiect Description: The proposed project is to consist of two (2) twenty -one story residential buildings each with attached two story parking garages located along the west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard about one quarter mile north of Gulf Park Drive. The towers complete the Waterpark Place neighborhood. Waterpark Place was started in 1990 and through today the developer has completed two of the four towers, the main entrance and supporting infrastructure. The building sites for phase III and IV are improved, i.e., the drainage, utilities and roads are in place. This infrastructure was completed under SDP -90 -261 and the majority will be utilized to support these two buildings. The proposed building approved under SDP 90 -261 is not planned to be constructed, instead the Developer has chosen to construct the two buildings depicted on this new Site Development Plan. Zoning: The project lies within the boundary of the Pelican Bay PUD (Ord. No. 04 -59). Specifically in `Group 4'. Group 4 allows multi - family buildings up to 200 feet in height. This project is to consist of (2) — 200 foot tall, 21 -story towers with attached 2- story garages. The towers & garages, pavement and signage compliment the existing structures and other architectural elements such that the project meets the criteria set forth to exhibit a "common architectural theme ". The PUD allows for projects of clustered buildings with a common architectural theme be afforded with distances less than set forth in the PUD so long as the plan is approved in accordance with section 2.05 of the PUD. We are therefore requesting approval from the "Director" of specific distances as depicted on the Site Development Plan including the distance between principal structures from 200' to 150' and the rear yard distance from 100' to 53'. We have attached the architect's certification that this project is consistent with the criteria set forth in defining "common architectural theme ". This project has extensive history relative to the previous approved Site Development Plan Amendment. The neighbors, St. Pierre and St. Laurent along with the Pelican Bay Foundation objected to certain elements of the proposed development and petitioned the Courts to overturn the SDPA. The developer, the neighbors and the Foundation worked together to resolve the objections. The parties have agreed on the sitting and improvements depicted on the Site Development Plan set. FAFROJ- ENGISISTLISDP (Cap D'Antibes Site Development Plan)106DP\02SDPA\Project Narmtive.doc- 0 0 We have attached letters from St. Pierre, St. Laurent and The Pelican Bay Foundation approving the proposed development. The letters contain a list of improvements with specific set -backs and separations. The Site Plan contained in the SDP plan set complies with the agreed upon set -backs and separations. Access: Access to Waterpark Place presently exists at the north end of the project and consists of a divided entry road, gate house and frontage road to each building. Construction of these two towers will disrupt the existing access for the residents, their guests, service personnel, customers and construction vehicles. We propose to temporarily convert the main entry to "construction access ". The access point will have a "flag man" on duty during construction hours for safety purposes. All construction vehicles will enter and exit the project at this location. The second point of ingress /egress is at the existing sales facility. The driveway and sales facility are planned to remain open through the construction of the first building. The residents are planned to enter the project at the south end of the construction area. We proposed a new temporary driveway cut where residents "enter only" from Pelican Bay Boulevard then turn south onto the existing frontage driveway. We proposed a temporary guard house for the resident's security and one lane south bound for residents and one lane southbound for guests. These lanes will merge just south of the guard house for 2 -way traffic. The residents then are planned to have two means of egress. We are proposing two "exit only" driveways, one at St. Laurent and one at St. Pierre. These driveways are to be gated with automatic warning signals for pedestrians and bicyclists along Pelican Bay Boulevard. The temporary access plan included on the drawings contains details of all of the aforementioned temporary driveways. Upon completion of the last building the temporary driveways will be razed and the right-of-way restored to its present condition. All access to Waterpark Place will then be from the main entry. Utilities: Water and sewer facilities servicing the two towers were constructed in 2004 and are private. The plans depict minor modifications to the sewer manholes to adjust the rims to finish grade then various modifications to the water distribution system such as relocating fire hydrants, FDC's and horizontal deflections to avoid portions of new structures. Drainage: The project is within Pelican Bay's master surface water management system. There are no requirements nor need for water quality storage or attenuation. The system only conveys stormwater runoff to the Pelican Bay system. The project will require a SFWMD letter modification. Parking, paviniz and sidewalks: A portion of the existing parking and driveway is to be retained but due to the change in the flood zone (11.0' to 13.3') rebuilding of most of the main entry is required. All residents will be assigned spaces in the garages. Service FAPROJ- ENG\S \STLISDP (Cap D'Antibes Site Development Plan) \06DP\02SDPA\Project Narrative.doc- 0 0 i personnel and guests may park in open parking just east of the garages. Pedestrians may access both buildings from Pelican Bay Blvd. via an ADA compliant walk way. The plans also provide pedestrian access to the "tram path ". Pelican Bay Services District: The project lies within the boundary of the Pelican Bay Service District. Twenty -five feet of a fifty foot wide easement lies along the northerly portion of this project. There is an existing asphalt walk and emergency vehicle access way thru the easement to the tram road. Proposed improvements to this area are depicted on the plan set. We are also proposing an elevated boardwalk for pedestrian access from Phase III to the tram road as depicted on drawing no. 16. Site Fire Protection: The site has been designed to allow emergency vehicles to access the buildings on three sides. Each building has a primary and secondary fire department connection with close by hydrant. The locations are depicted on the plans. F:\PROJ- ENG\S \STLISDP (Cap D'Antibes Site Development Plan)\06DP\02SDPA\Project Namtive.doc- • COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET .419W201 (239) 403 -2400 FAX (239) 643 -6968 W, PRE - APPLICATION MEETING NOTES & SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST ❑ SDP [&SDP Amendment u Da Applicant:MXK Li s Project R r Proposed Proposed Project Addr/Location: _63M Size of Project Site: acres SDP # for Amendments • �p •{ . . :. (Circle One) Is SDP within a plat? Provide name and AR#: Baxkk �E4-4 i WIT FIFTEW Meeting Attendees (attached sign in sheet) Assigned Planner: /7 t SDPA- 2007 -AR- 12644 REV: 1 WATERPARK PLACE PHASES III AND IV Project: 2007120008 Date: 12/12/07 _ _ DUE: 1/14/08 Page 1 of 9 G: 1CurrentlPre- Application Forms 20061SDP -SDPA Site Development Plan Pre- application.doe SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN /) (SDP) APPLICATION I (SDPA) APPLICATION SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST THIS COMPLETED CHECKLIST IS TO BE SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATION PACKET • ITEMS MUST BE IN THE EXACT ORDER LISTED BELOW • A COVER SHEET MUST BE ATTACHED TO EACH SECTION NOTE: INCOMPLETE SUMBITTALS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. REQUIREMENTS I COPIES IREQUIRED1 REQUIRED Page 2 of 9 GACurrenAPre- Application Forms 20061SDP -SDPA Site Development Plan Pre- application.doc Cover letter br:ief,ly explaining the project 15 X SDP application completed & signed 15 X SDP pre-application meeting notes LDC 10.02.03.6) 15 X Site Development Plan signed & sealed including cover sheet (LDC 10.02.03.B. 1.b.) 15 X PUD document if zoned PUD or Conditional Use 15 Addressing Checklist 1 X ADDITIONAL COPIES OF SITE PLANS, as needed: 1 Architectural Review is required - 1 additional set 1 Located in Pelican Bay Services District - 1 additional set 1 Located in the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area - 1 additional set 1 Located within the RFMUD or RLSAO areas - 1 additional set 1 Affordable Housing project - 1 additional set 1 O BE INCLUDED ON SITE PLANS: five vegetation retention/mitigation 121on, Section 3.05.07.8 * *15 X �C cleorin g plan/vegetation inventory, (LDC 10.02.03.B.1.1.xii, LDC 10.02.03.B.1.d. ) **15 X .aerial photographs (taken within the previous 12 months min, scaled I"= 200'), showing FLUCCS Codes, Legend, and profect boundary * *15 X Preserve management plan * *15 Page 2 of 9 GACurrenAPre- Application Forms 20061SDP -SDPA Site Development Plan Pre- application.doc Aak _ i ►� Page 3 of 9 GACurrent\Pre- Application Forms 20061SDP -SDPA Site Development Plan Pre- application.doc # OF NOT REQUIREMENTS COPIES REQUIRED REQUIRED For projects subject to Architectural Review: Architectural plans must be 1/8" scale minimum (signed & sealed), including 1 color rendering, (LDC 10.02.03.3.1.II.f.) including: 6 ✓ Every Fafade of eaci building must be shown on Architectural plans ✓ Building cross sections or typical wall sections (LDC 5.05.08.0.10 and LDC 05.08.E.3) ✓ Dumpster details: height, material and color (LDC 5.05.08.E.3) ✓ Light pole details or cut sheet: height, material and color (LDC 5.05.08.E.6) ✓ Color paint chips and roof color paint chips or samples (LDC 5.05.08.C.5.a) ✓ Floor plans and building elevations ❑ This project qualifies for a separate "Alternative Architectural Design" submittal per 5.05.08.F. Additional fees $500.00) and submittal application is required. For projects not subject to Architectural Review: For projects not requiring architectural review: Floor plans and elevations with dimensions. This information, showing floor area by use, is intended only to determine that the use is compatible 6 with the zoning, establish parking requirements, and show building height measurements meeting Code. Full architectural or construction drawings are not needed. Simple floor plans & building elevations w/ dimensions. This information, showing floor area by use. is intended onlx IQ determine that the use is compatible with the zoning establish parking reo uirements and show building height meeting Code, If the project is aQJ subject to Architectural Code review, floor area use may be shown on the site plan and the building height shown on simple elevations, either on the site plan as an inset or on a separate sheet — full architectural or construction drawings are not needed. Drainage calculations signed and sealed by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Florida 3 Estimated cost of construction of Roadways, Paying & Drainage 1 SFWMD permit, permit modification, or waiver (LDC 10.02.03.6.1.1.) including staff report 3 exhibits t! Engineer's Report with Assumptions & Explanations per Ord. 2001 -57 include 25 -year 3 -day a storm routing Excavation permit application i Hydraulic Grade Line Pipe calculations for culverts i Lighting Plan (multi-family) ca 1 Engineering Review Checklist Signed by a Professional Engineer 1 ^� ,KM�+ , Estimated cost of utilities constructlon, Water & Sewer calculations signed & sealed by a 1 Professional Engineer licensed in the State of Florida IF COLLIER COUNTY - Engineer's Report, signed & sealed, containing the following: ✓ Sewer Hydraulics 3 ✓ Lift station hydraulics to first downstream master station ✓ Lift station buoyancy calculations ✓ Chloromine Dissipation Report ✓ Fixture Count Water and/or Sewer availability letter 1 Fixture Count 1 boll DEP utility installation permits (water sewer) (LDC 10.02.03.B.1.'.i ) I Utility Review Checklist 1 Page 3 of 9 GACurrent\Pre- Application Forms 20061SDP -SDPA Site Development Plan Pre- application.doc # OF COPIES .I NOT REQUIRED [Agency Irt -of -Wa it a licatbn Coun FDO 1 nsportation Review Checklist viromment Impact Statement — rioted copies g vironment Impact Statement in electronic format 1 V nservation easement including signed and sealed legal description and boundary survey for serve — include protective language, sketch and description in construction plans; contact 1 iew staff for current version (attach cover letter to documents ed Species Survey; less than 12 months old. Include copies of previous surveys 2 >( ACOE permit and exhibits, LDC 10.02.03.6.1..) 1 roved wetland jurisdictional lines less than 3 ears old) 1 accepted UMAM WRAP scores 1 rInfor,mation w Test from Fire Department (no more than 6 months old), (LDC 10.02.03.B.l.WL(d)(ii) 2 X n of existing and proposed fire hydrants 2 X in the Standard Building Code, type of construction, total square footage under cupancy /use, fire sprinkler data (NFPA 1141), (LDC 10.02.03.B.1.il.d.) PLEASE INCLUDE FOQMOTION AN EItNFt2 TtJt: CAV¢D Dar=e nn cuter i nc Tuc c1T0 s....r ❑ EDC "Fast Track" must submit approved copy of official application 2 0 Affordable Housing "Expedited" must submit copy of si ned Certificate of Agreement. N N 't r required permits: Applicant /Agent Signature bate Page 4 of 9 G: 1CunentiPre- Application Forms 20061SDP -SDPA Site Development Plan Pre- application.doc ted Certificate of Adequate Public Facilities Application (LDC 10.02.07), including the tion fee and estimated Transportation Impact Fee calculations. 2 �\ b Utilit Gitlin is required for verification of trash container r uiremenfs rpplkant X din RFMU (Rural Fringe [Nixed Usel Receiving Land Areas must contact Mr. Gerry J. Lacavero, State of Florida Division of Forestry 0 -3500 for information regarding "Wildfire Mitigation & Prevention Plan ", LDC Section A2.a.(b)i.c. ❑ EDC "Fast Track" must submit approved copy of official application 2 0 Affordable Housing "Expedited" must submit copy of si ned Certificate of Agreement. N N 't r required permits: Applicant /Agent Signature bate Page 4 of 9 G: 1CunentiPre- Application Forms 20061SDP -SDPA Site Development Plan Pre- application.doc 0 0 �1 Notes required on the SDP: a. Exotic vegetation as defined by the Collier County Land Development Code shall be removed from the site and subsequent annual exotic removal (in perpetuity) shall be the responsibility of the property owner. b. The review and approval of Improvement Plans does not authorize the construction of required improvements, which are inconsistent with existing easements of record. c. The property owner is responsible for replacement of all dead landscape material and for the maintenance of the required irrigation system. d. The property owner is responsible for the perpetual maintenance of all features of the surface water management system as outlined by the design engineer on these drawings. e. Vegetation to remain shall be protected with approved barricading (detail shown) and barricading will remain in place until completion of construction. NOTES: A ss I,►,� rnl?— Nsre�cr rb f* R-- a 11(165-rove ! ! tZoA-t L4;,'V6 T-14 - .'T �-rO W (NVE A LA^' Srd 7,e-- ?a su ss� fit- 71 EMP A GGES -S , r NC 0A _ ► ��• G:1Current\Pre- Application Forms 20061SDP -SDPA Site Development Plan Pre- application.doc Fj I Fee Gidaulation Worksheet - Site Developr t Plans I L_t Construction document review - 0.75% of probable water /sewer construction costs Cost Estimate $ $ Construction inspection -- 2.25% of probable waterlsewer construction costs Cost Estimate $ $ Construction document review -- 0.75% of probable roadway, paving & drainage construction costs Cost Estimate $ $ I Construction inspection - 2.25% of probable roadway, paving & drainage construction costs Cost Estimate $ $ ❑ $20 Environmental Health Review Fee, if applicable $ (grease trap, septic tank or underground storage tank) ❑ $250 Site Clearing fee (first acre or fraction of an acre, round acres up to next whole acre) $ plus $50 for each additional acre or fraction of an acre :($3,000 maximum) U Methodology Review - $ 500.00 N y 5.� p fa. SZ�3x'Tc S�$�l $ ❑ Minor Study Review - $ 750.00 � lIN L4Eu bF A 'T1 ❑ Major Study Review - $1,500.00 $ Right -of -way Permit - contact Transportation (774 -8260) for required fees (submit this directly to the Transportation Department) $2,500 Environmental Impact Statement review $ OCOA application fee $200 + $25 per D-U. or per 1,000 sq. ft. commercial ($5,000 max.) $ ❑ Excavation Permit Fees (see next page for calculations) $ Fee Subtotal: $ Pre - application fee credit, if applicable - $ (Applications submitted 9 months or more after the date of the last pre -app meeting shall not be credited towards application fees and a new pre- application meeting will be required.) -Xotal Fees Required lake checks payable to Board of Co. Commissioners or BCC) Page 6 of 9 GACurrentTre- Application Forms 20061SDP -SDPA Site Development Plan Pre- application.doc Residential only: $5,000.00 Plus $100 per residential structure, plus $40 per dwelling unit $ Number of Buildings: Number of D /U: ,7 Non - residential only: $5,000.00 Plus $200 per non- residential structure, plus $0.10 per sq.ft. $ Number of Buildings: Total Square footage: ❑ When a building consists of both residential and non - residential uses, the fees shall be calculated as follows: $5,000.00 Base fee $ $200.00 per structure $40.00 per residential dwelling unit $0.10 per square foot of non - residential floor area except for parking garage structures shall be calculated at $0.05 per gross square foot of floor area (sq.ft. x$0.10) (sq. ft. x$0.05) $ ❑ SOP $200 l=ire review Amendment Review Fees: Base fee S2,500-O& $ Residential only: $2,500 Plus $100 per residential structure plus $40 per dwelling unit $ Number of Buildings: Number of D /U: ❑ Non - residential only: $2,500 Plus $200 per non - residential structure, plus $0.10 per sq. ft. $ Number of Buildings: Total Square footage: ❑ When a building consists of both residential and non - residential uses, the fees shall be calculated as follows: $2,500.00 Base fee $ $200.00 per structure $40.00 per residential dwelling unit $0.10 per square foot of non - residential floor area except for parking garage structures shall be calculated at $0.05 per gross square foot of floor area (sq.ft. x$0.10) (sq. ft x$0.05) $ A$150 Fire review $ " 1?nvinw A Inennrfinn — IlFilifloe Mnmtirarl me nar nrrlln =nra 9MA-24 Cartlnn A 9 Al L_t Construction document review - 0.75% of probable water /sewer construction costs Cost Estimate $ $ Construction inspection -- 2.25% of probable waterlsewer construction costs Cost Estimate $ $ Construction document review -- 0.75% of probable roadway, paving & drainage construction costs Cost Estimate $ $ I Construction inspection - 2.25% of probable roadway, paving & drainage construction costs Cost Estimate $ $ ❑ $20 Environmental Health Review Fee, if applicable $ (grease trap, septic tank or underground storage tank) ❑ $250 Site Clearing fee (first acre or fraction of an acre, round acres up to next whole acre) $ plus $50 for each additional acre or fraction of an acre :($3,000 maximum) U Methodology Review - $ 500.00 N y 5.� p fa. SZ�3x'Tc S�$�l $ ❑ Minor Study Review - $ 750.00 � lIN L4Eu bF A 'T1 ❑ Major Study Review - $1,500.00 $ Right -of -way Permit - contact Transportation (774 -8260) for required fees (submit this directly to the Transportation Department) $2,500 Environmental Impact Statement review $ OCOA application fee $200 + $25 per D-U. or per 1,000 sq. ft. commercial ($5,000 max.) $ ❑ Excavation Permit Fees (see next page for calculations) $ Fee Subtotal: $ Pre - application fee credit, if applicable - $ (Applications submitted 9 months or more after the date of the last pre -app meeting shall not be credited towards application fees and a new pre- application meeting will be required.) -Xotal Fees Required lake checks payable to Board of Co. Commissioners or BCC) Page 6 of 9 GACurrentTre- Application Forms 20061SDP -SDPA Site Development Plan Pre- application.doc Additional Review Fees for So*esubmittals): and Review = $1000 40' Review = $1500 5'' Review = $2000 6t' and subsequent reviews = $2,500 Additional Review Fees for amendments to SDP (resubmittals): 3'd Review = $1000 4t' Review = $1500 5t' and subsequent reviews = $2,000 Additional Review Fees for Insubstantial Change to SDP (resubmittals): 3`d Review = $1000 4d' Review = $1500 5t' and subsequent reviews = $2,000 Additional Review Fees for EIS (resubmittals): 3'd Review = $1000 4t' and subsequent reviews = $ 500 Pre - Application Meetings Fee =$500 Fee will be credited toward application fee upon submittal with the following exceptions: 1. Applications submitted 9 months or more after the date of the last pre - application meeting shall not be credited towards application fees and a new application meeting will be required. 2. Second and subsequent pre - application meetings, at the applicant's request, shall not be credited towards application fees. ► Second and subsequent pre - application meetings at staffs request will be held at no charge to the applicant. Project Meetings 1. Meetings with Planning Department Project Manager per applicant request, site plan reviews and land use petitions in progress, $150.00 per one hour minimum, $75.00 per ' /Z hour thereafter. 2. Additional Planning Department staff attending meeting per applicant request, $75.00 per'/ hour per staff member 3. Inter- Departmental Project Meeting per applicant request, site plan reviews and land use petitions in progress, $500.00 per one hour minimum, $250.00 per'/ hour thereafter. Page 7 of 9 G:1Current\Pre- Application Forms 20061SDP -SDPA Site Development Plan Pre- application.doc EXCAVATION REVIEW FEES REVIEW FEES: ❑ Private: $400.00 ❑ Commercial: $2000.00 ❑ Development: $400.00 ❑ Modification: $300.00 ❑ Annual Renewal $300.00 ❑ Cubic Yardage Fee: $200 first 5000 c.y.; $10 per additional 1000 cy; maximum of $20,000.00 ❑ Inspection fee: $150 per month payable yearly at the time of the annual report I EXCAVATION PERMIT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: The following information is to be submitted with the site plan regarding the excavation: 1. Attachment °A" prepared by a surveyor or engineer registered in the State of Florida showing all information required in Section 22 -111 of the Code of Laws and Ordinances, Ord. 04 -55 2. Attachment "B" —For commercial applications, a list of names and addresses of nearby property owners as required by Section 22- 111(3) d of the Code of Laws and Ordinances, Ord. 04 -55. 3. Attachment "C" — Evidence provided by applicant that the excavation does not conflict with the growth management plan or land development regulations adopted pursuant thereto, nor does it conflict with existing zoning regulations. Special criteria and approval procedures may be necessary for projects within the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern. If owner is partnership, limited partnership. 4. If owner is land trust, so indicate and name beneficiaries; If owner is corporation other than public corporation, so indicate and name officers and major stockholders; If ownership is partnership, limited partnership or other business entity, so indicate and name principals. 5. Provide the following information on the Planting Plan for the LSPA: calculation table showing the required area for the Littoral Shelf Planting Area (LSPA); show the control elevation and the dry season water table (NVGD); the maximum water depth and estimated number of months of flooding for the range of planted elevations with the LSPA; a plant list to include the appropriate range of elevations for each specked plant species, spacing requirements, and plant size; planting locations of selected plants; and details of the appropriate signage denoting the area as a LSPA. VEGETATION REMOVAL & SITE FILL REVIEW REQUIREMENTS: Review Fees: Already listed under clearing fees The following information is to be submitted with the site plan regarding the VRSFP's: 1. Provide the calculations to justify clearing up to 25 acres for storage of excess lake material Page 8 of 9 G:1Current%Pre- Application Forms 20061SDP -SDPA Site Development Plan Pre- application.doc ❑oll� rdb�n� 0 dC�d�. x p w cc n. dm C b �r CD n o a o xab No�'dO �ozx� ea b� 0o E n a C x `o oc o. rD n z rn c 0 z w rD LA C. dao CD Cl. � C Cr' � o @�'� c� CD r- o.o loo G w O Cp ID o�� ^ o (4 M ID cr CD w.� aq CD o CD I-h �'0"� ctiD o �' w � cra CL CD 0 cD � o na aq CD cn En 'p .7 G CL G � � O 0 04 w w o -a c Q O z stl X00 d 2 n m 0 c r m SD PA DATA TABLE, RECOMMEND2wo Zonina, Sub ect Property & Surrou example SUBJECT PROPERTY PUD stview Plaza) SURROUNDING N: I (Industrial) Gail Blvd ROW, then E E: RSF -3 (Residential) W: PUD (Westview Plaza) SITE DATA REQUIRED Setbacks. Interior Lots (example) FRONT YARD 25' SIDE YARD #1 (N *) 15' or Y2 BH (BH = 30) SIDE YARD #2 (S) 15' or Y2 BH (BH = 30) REAR YARD 25' (PRESERVE SETBACK * *) FRONT YARD #1 (NE *) 25' FRONT YARD #2 (SE) 20' (REDUCED 2Np SETBACK PER PUD DOC, S 3.4.5 * *) IDE YARD #1 (SW) 15' SIDE YARD #2 (NW) 15' * Use closest corresponding compass ** Explain special yard requirement c Separation of structures (exa te) 15' PROVIDED 15.5' 25' 25' (example) 25.5' 20' 5.5' 30' .T bint: N, NW, S, SE, etc. allowances & cite PUD document where applicable or 17' 4r� I 15 or /z sum of building heights (SBH) 20' (SBH = 40', Yz x 40'= 20') Building height (ex ple) 75' 50' example) 1,200 sq ft 1,850 sq ft �J Page 9 of 9 G:1CurrentlPre- Application Forms 20061SDP -SDPA Site Development Plan Pre- application.doc a w CO N 1. � y . r M s 0 c� z c m i Q li t�'io O � n M v Z a � 3 z m M v Q O N O 3 Ii2 r Q Q. v a 'a CD 7v D n -a m �O m m z rA- z y ti►� I L r 1 s � a ' �r i ♦ MS • 1 r • r� � � s n � � y . r M s 0 c� z c m i Q li t�'io O � n M v Z a � 3 z m M v Q O N O 3 Ii2 r Q Q. v a 'a CD 7v D n -a m �O m m z rA- z y ti►� -) A rn N O 01 y U O ID w z_ z 1 0 0 N E O U- C O .2 .Q m a` U ti s N Y 0 a a -7 w LU r� m z L z N A z 02 f- Z 0 V � � J W Z C -) A rn N O 01 y U O ID w z_ z 1 0 0 N E O U- C O .2 .Q m a` U ti 0 0 COWER COl ilrTlf t',p1(ERNMF_NT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE ADDRESSING DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 ADDRESSING CHECKUST.4 Please complete the fbilowing and fax to the Addressing Depafent at 239.559 -&724 Ot submit in person to the Addressing Department at the above address. Farm must be signed by Addressing personnel prior to pwapplication meeting. Not WI bmg wil apply to every proled• Items in bold type are required. Forms older than 6 months will require additional review and approval by the Addressing Department. PE79TION TYRE (dwGk petition typ9 wow, complete a separate Addressing CheokU for each Petkbn TYPO) aL (Blasting POW nit) SDP (Site DeWIOpmeot Plan) SDPA (GDP AmeWrnerd) 6D ($pat Dock Extension) CarnivaYClr as Permit SDPI Unsubstantial Change to SDP) CU (Conditional Use) 5IP (Stle Impravement Plan) SIP( (lrtsubstwrttal Chw V6 to SIP) EXP (E=avebori Permit) FP (Final Plat SNR (Street Name Change) ❑ LtA (Lot 1,1na Adjustment) SNC (Street Name Change., Unplatted) TDR (Transfer of Development Rights) ❑ PNC (Project Name Change) [j PPL (Plans & Plat RevW*) VA (Variance) VRP (Vegetadion RepiovaI Permit) PSP (Preliminary Subdivision Plat) ❑ VRSFP (Vsgetatlon Removal & Site FIN Permit) PUD Rezone RZ (Standard Rezone) ❑ OTHER I.EaAL DESCRIPTION of subject property or properties (copy of lengthy descripfbn may ba Attad*d) poraans of Tracts Q & C. Wetem9rk PIaCe a PeD at Beok 49 Panes 1A thru 2 Cou o FOLIO (Propv►ty ID) NUMBER(s) of above (attach to, or associate with, legal desctipdon If mate titan one) .8121 WW�Z Tract C - 0121,000-175 STREET ADDRESS or ADDRE$$E$ (as apPricabie, if aheady assigned) d dier Bou) • LOCATION MAP must be attached showing exact bonbon of projecusfts In rehation to nearest public Mad right-0f� SURVEY (copy - needed only for unplatted propeNes) PROPOSED PROJECT NAME (tf applicable) Ca - PROP08ED STREET NAMES Of Wfioahls) egstin sITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NUMBER (for existing pO' may) SDp or AR # Page 1 of 2 "In ADDRESSING CHECKLIST - PAGE TWO Project or development names proposed Tor, or already appearing in, condominiUm doc=ents (if 3pp60800n; Indicate whWw proposed or eodsting) Please Check One: ® Checklist is to be Faxed back D Personally (Pieced Up APPLICANT NAME Park W01 PHO ?39- s47114a _ FAX:239,J%7-8376 Signature on Addressing Checidist does not constitute project and /or Street Name appravat and Is sub)ec:t to further review by the Addressing Department FOR STAFF USE ONLY Prinury Number $~1 �-Q Address Number YSL4-9 -a� Address Number �g Address Number aRPrnved by , ,y�,, _M.sxQ„M Date: 0% — ,- --O `7 Updated by: Data: IF OLDER THAN 8 MONTHSs FORM MUST BE UPDATED OR NEW FORM SUBMITTED Page 2 of 2 K W. MINOR ° 1 TANAGER COURT 239.593-3= NAPLES. FL 34119 Date Orderofe lal C.OJ/���I 17 �+�... I '. S�co ao V t &A V NA. t -;'ti AI- rtaaa D ,p N oAars W FiFM i'QRD SANK For K..tp ), , hn W-ft V'ne -tprr x:06709 17 191: 003 247745 2I'' L5L6 1 Ar . 250222 �a R lb t • im onsw•or u� 11 0=1 of cotir Cr, t I3J0412 10 e r mat r, slam, tl This km&wreY pmmor Ire ru 11.51 MrkJ. Wbodrrard Esquie IOC -.tl .t/ MV&WIt p&" 4t Lombardo, P.A. GOlIII 2.1i SOf LWW Odt D dw, sub 710 11u: NW" FL 34105 r111t mu i WIWI (0 1) M 3131 llct R 7FMS WT -CLAIM GEED. executed d* %' day of h:. i "4 2000 by Guff WY Land &W"6 leafs, Inc., a Fbrlds coMor ftn and Paroel J4 Development, W., a Florida corponWbA " Pft **op post oaloe address !s: 3170 Club Center BMd. Maples, FL 34114 std pally, to Parcel J Joint Ventura, a Florida Off" PwtrW NP (yY�.,.N, ».. e.... w. w- 'MI Now .a •— ..ar " -*" 19' w 0t Mw. NO rww'"w"a ".w- d Yrrei O t w..u.,+Mw. ' •9"'� `�"""' w...r.t.o.e.w. -w-r 1 i4eWsaelh,' 11 WEAsaafdWperty,lbrandnoans r . , S h&- .dpaWby wSON i0WPWfyN N0NeOL%�y aCOW� k A MOYYtrp lOt pbcs Or panoalNot � � in " county of COMW St+h of Fbd* ,fa-wfh: Trod -Cl, 1Y, 'E'and 'F•a W4WP4rk Ph" at Pelican Bay, as rMoorded,h plat Book 19, pops 10tlrouph2f, aReplatofPWtWB' p+rliMSay, Ul* FMtaen, as recorded in Plat Book 15, Pape# 5 ltvovo 14, aN of the Public Records o/ Coltlar Countyfler TO MAVEAW To M orkrarryw4"SAWfa " WX pwy, ~ M bw or SOW, 0vKfWSS ~ above Wmen- SlpW sealed and de#WW print Nsrrr:,,_,., STATE OF FLORIDA piw is the deyandyasr" COUNTY OF COWER The mrepokp msl wwlf was sckmwbdpad before this G day of ZM by Audrey J. Ferrao, as prrsldent of t3u1/Aay land lnvsstrnar�ts Ina . who is a aaOW c5d not take an Oath. ' NOTARY NUSM • STATQ Or FLO**A : oIAM o MATrIa • PI711t cOM• IMPON r ecl"m SOMMO rna W 140+401AR+n COnxNsslon W. My CwvWssbn ExpreS: (St AQ SDPA - 2007 -AR- 12644 REV: I WATERPARK PLACE PHASES III AND IV Project: 2007120008 Date: 12/12/07 DUE: 1/14/08 i P W Name t ! r PAW AA6m: -.r,� * *1#: 2647 PG: 3494 # PARCEL A DEVELOPMENT, INC., a Flb W corporation J. fmtC-w hy, as Plraadant STATE OF NEW YORK COLWTY OF NEW YORK - -V The kropo&V kubvmanf was ackw Medged belora this " day of 2000, by J. AkC&Ihy, , ss Plsaident of Parcel J4 DevekW ent, Inc., vWw is perswm#y kwvm to ma or has p vduoed a oHt # fficerm (b f as ids W40don and dd not tab an oath. >r A .: ,1r;rvrt A tMRAIA Notary Rotary S',r :�a al ::awYo+k Convrlsslon A%. ch ct My Corrwnlssivo E> *&S: t7r-9 "a:1 in ti1'astcheatsr COUNY C,wwn.s: ion Expires June 20. 2000 (SEAL) PREPARATION OF DEED ONLY IMTHOUT OPIANON OF 771'LE PUs deed convoys by Gull Bey land nts, Inc. and Parvei J -1 DevokVmw t, kv. as of, Pamoi J ure, a Florida OenarW P IP (" " con to the hold on behWo /the FWbwmWtofhe huca nount of S 70 1.) Cl�, L . _* 0 0 _�A TITLE OPINION SDP of Waterpark Place at Pelican Bay This opinion is provided pursuant to Section 177.041, Florida Statutes, to: The Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3301 Tamiami Trail East Naples, Florida 34112 SDPA - 2007 -AR- 12644 REV: I WATERPARK PLACE PHASES III AND IV Project: 2007120008 Date: 12/12/07 _ _ DUE: 1 /14/08 1, Mark J. Woodward, am an attorney licensed to practice in the State of Florida and 1 have this 26" day of November, 2007, examined title to the following property: Tracts "C" and "D" of Waterpark Place at Pelican Bay according to the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 19, Pages 19 through 21, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida.. evidenced by a title insurance commitment from Chicago Title Insurance Company's Commitment No. 14539, which covers all public records on file up to and including December 11, 2006 and abstracts or searches from First Title & Abstract, Inc., which cover all public records on file in Collier County up to and including November 11, 2007, at 5:00 pm. Based solely upon our examination of the foregoing, and assuming the accuracy of the information contained therein, it is our opinion that: The record title to the above - described property is vested in Parcel J. Joint Venture, a Florida general partnership, by instrument recorded at Official Records Book 2647, Page 3493, of the Public Records, Collier County, Florida. Said record title holders have a tee simple title thereto subject, however, to the following qualifications: l . Taxes: For the year 2007 and subsequent years although not yet due and payable until on or after November 1, 2007. Tract "D" assessed in the amount of $58,136.31 which includes PBSD in the amount of $20,777.94, Folio No. 81210002257. Tract ,c,, assessed in the amount of $54,480.40 which includes PBSD in the amount of $16,802.03, Folio No. 81210001753. 2. Conditions, restrictions and limitations together with easements reserved for public utility purposes as shown on the Plat of Pelican Bay Unit Fifteen, as recorded in Plat Book 18, Pages 5 through 13, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. 3. Conditions, restrictions and limitations together with easements reserved for public utility purposes as shown on the Plat of Waterpark Place at Pelican Bay as recorded in Plat Book 19, Pages 19 through 21, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. 4. Amended and Restated Declaration and General Protective Covenants for Pelican Bay as recorded in O.R. Book 2938, Page 1959, et seq., Amendment thereto dated March 2, 2007 as recorded in O.R. Book 4191, Page 1900, Assignment of Certain Rights, Privileges and Obligations to the Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc., as recorded in O.R. Book 3257, Page 2056; Assignment of Certain Rights, Privileges and Obligations to the Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc., as recorded in O.R. Book 3496, Page 3065, et seq., and O.R. Book 3496, Page 3069, et seq., respectively; First Amendment to Assignment of Rights, Privileges and Obligations as recorded in O.R. Book 3793, Page 2853, all of the Public Rocords of Collier County, Florida, and as amended. These documents contain provisions creating easements, assessments for various purposes and lien rights. Page 1 of 3 5. Final Order Establishing and Confirming Collier County Water Management District Number 7 as recorded in O.R. Book 282, Page 976, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. 6. Subject to the Pelican Bay PUD Ordinance No. 77 -19, as amended by Ordinance No. 88 -62, Ordinance No. 89 -35 and Ordinance No. 90 -66, and as amended. 7. Amended and Restated By -Laws of Pelican Bayof Naples Foundation, Inc. n/k/a Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc., as recorded in O.R, Book 3002, Page 996, et seq. as amended in O.R. Book 3250, Page 1673; as amended in O.R. Book 3487, Page 488; as amended in O.R. Book 4000, Page 2433; as amended in U.R. Book 4135, Page 729; as amended in O.R. Book 4257, Page 3666; Public Records of Collier County, Florida, and as amended. These documents contain certain provisions creating assessments for various purposes and lien rights. 8. Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation of Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc., as recorded in O.R. Book 3002, Page 992, et seq. Public Records of Collier County, Florida. 9. Final Judgent in favor of Pelican Bay Improvement District for bond validation use #85- 0139CC recorded in O.R. Book 1 131, Page 2253, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Although not yet due and payable. 10. Subject to Board ofCounty Commissioners Ordinance No. 90-111 creating the Pelican Bay Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit which permits the levy of special assessments. 11. Easement in favor of the Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc., as recorded in 0. R. Book 2312, Page 1771, Public Records of'Collier County, Florida. 12. Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of Waterpark Place as recorded in O.R. Book 1903, Pages 815 through 833, Public Records of Collier County, Florida, and as amended. These documents contain provisions creating easements, assessments for various purposes and lien rights. 13. Bill of Sale and Utility Facilities Warranty Deed and Bill of Sale in favor of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, as recorded in O.R. Book 1932, Page 723; and O.R. Book 1932, Page 727; respectively, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. 14. Easement in favor of Florida Powcr and Light Company as recorded in O.R. Book 2311, Page 539; and O.R, Book 2338, Page 1550, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. 15. Declaration of Restrictions and Protective Covenants for a Portion of Parcel B, Future Pelican Bay Unit Fifteen as recorded in O.R. Book 1541, Page 2070, et seq., as amended in O.R. Book 1652, Page 1215; as amended in O.R. Book 1686, Page 1232; as amended in O.R. Book 2010, Page 2192; as amended in O.R. Book 2502, Page 438; as amended in O.R. Book 2677, Page 1462; Assignment of Certain Rights, Privileges and Obligations to the Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc,, as recorded in O.R. Book 3496, Page 3065, et seq. and O.R. Book 3496, Page 3069, et seq., respectively; First Amendment to Assignment of Rights, Privileges and Obligations as recorded in O.R. Book 3793, Page 2853, all of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, and as amended. 16. Easement in favor of the Pelican Bay Improvement District as recorded in O.R. Book 790, Page 1814, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. 17. That certain Mortgage and Security Agreement by and between Gulf Bay Land Investments, Inc., a Florida Corporation and Parcel J -I Development, Inc., a Florida Corporation &b /a Parcel J Joint Venture, a Florida general partnership, as mortgagor and Toyomenka (America), Inc., a New York Corporation, n/k/a Tomen America, Inc., as mortgagee, as recorded in O.R. Book 1541, Page 2099, et seq.; Receipt of Future Advance as recorded in O.R. Book 1671, Page 2073; Mortgage Modification Agreement as recorded in O.R. Book Page 2 of 3 1671, Page 2084; Receipt of Second Future Advance as recorded in O.R. Book 1887, Page 472; Receipt of Third Future Advance as recorded in O.R. Book 1887, Page 483; Mortgage Modification and Splitter Agreement as recorded in O.R. Book 1988, Page 1561; Mortgage Modification Agreement as recorded in O.R. Book 2757, Page 1191; Receipt of Fourth Future Advance as recorded in O.R. Book 2757, Page 1196; UCC Financing Statement as recorded in O.R. Book 1545, Page 1817, as amended in O.R. Book 1613, Page 1830, and as amended in U.R. Book 2757, Page 1208; Primary Mortgage in favor of Westinghouse Communities of Naples, Inc. as recorded in O.R. Book 1541, Page 2083, as modified by that certain Notice of Additional Advance and Receipt recorded in O.R. Book 1652, Page 1219, as assigned to WC] Communities, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, in O.R. Book 2081, Page 767, as assigned to Westinghouse Electric Corporation, a Pennsylvania Corporation, in O.R. Book 2081, Page 772, as assigned to Tomen America, Inc., in O.R. Book 2204, Page 2008 all of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, 18. That certain Mortgage Deed and Security Agreement by and between Parcel J Joint Venture as Mortgagor and Mellon United National Bank as Mortgagee, as recorded in O.R. Book 4178, Page 1318, Assignment of Leases, Rents and Profits as recorded in O.R. Book 4178, Page 1333, and UCC Financing Statement as recorded in O.R. Book 4178, Page 1340, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. 19. Agreement dated may 24, 2007 entered into between the St. Laurent at Waterpark Place Condominium Association, Inc., the St. Pierre at Waterpark Place Condominium Association, Inc., and Gulf Bay Land Investments, Inc. d/b /a Parcel J Joint Venture as recorded in O.R. Book 4240, Page 1700, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. 20. Mandate from the Second District Court of Appeals dated June 14, 2007, as recorded in O.R. Book 4246, Page 1521, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. 21. Agreement dated May 22, 2007 entered into between Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc. and Gulf Bay Land Investments, Inc. d/b /a Parcel J Joint Venture as recorded in O.R. Book 4256, Page 3 82 1, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Not covered in this Title Opinion are: rights of parties under unrecorded purchase agreements or leases, if any; and facts that might be disclosed by an accurate survey or personal inspection of the property. Respectfully submitted, WOODWARD, PIRFS & LOMBARDO, P.A. By...__ -- - Mark J. Woodward Florida Bar No. 309397 3200 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 200 Naples, Florida 34103 F:%USERSIWANDA%Cap d- Antibes \Title Opinion 11.2007.wpd Page 3 of 3 qA 0 Official Receipt - Collier County Board of County Commissioners CDPR1103 - Official Receipt ber Date 12/11/2007 2:44:25 PM Post Date 12111/2007 Appl Name: Q GRADY MINOR Appl Stage /Status: COMPLETENESS STAGE /PENDING Address: 3800 VIA DEL REY BONITA SPRINGS FL 34134 Proj Name: WATERPARK PLACE PHASES III AND IV Type: RMF TAZ: Subdiv Nbr: 1905 Project Nbr: 2007120008 Payor : PARCEL J JOINT VENTURE Fee Information AR 12644 Nbr Fee Code I Description 06MINOR MINOR STUDY REVIEW 10SBRV SUBDIVISION REVIEW FEES GL Account Amount Waived 31316367336963560085 $750.00 13113832632242000000 $4069.97 11FSDP _ FIRE REVIEW FEE 11300000020910200000 $150.00 11PRPP PRE- APPLICATION FEE 13113832634127600000 $- 500.00 IISDPA SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDM _ 113832634398800000 —Y $2900.00 11SDPS SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 13113832634399000000 $18499.20 _ 12SBIN _ SUBDIVISION INSPECTION FEES _ 13113832732243000000 $12209.90 12UTIN UTILITY INSPECTION FEES 13113832732371000000 $1310.62 12UTRV UTILITY PERMIT REVIEW FEES_ 13113832732370000000 $436.89 11 SDPS 19APFA SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES APP 13113832634399000000 $- 6209.60 13113890232253000000 $5000.00 Total $38616.98 Payments Payment Code_ _ Account/Check Number CHECK 4a 002843 Memo: SDPA- 2007 -AR- 12644 REV: I WATERPARK PLACE PHASES III AND IV Project: 2007120008 Date: 12/12/07 — DUE:1 /14/08_ Collier County Board of County Commissioners CD -Plus for Windows 95 /NT Total Cash Total Non -Cash Total Paid Amount 3616.98 _ 000 $38616..918.] $38616.98 j Cashier /location: HILLCAROL / 1 User: LEVYMIKE Printed: 12/11/2007 2:44:56 PM 0 1A_ - Official Receipt - Collier County Board of County Commissioners CDPR1103 - Official Receipt Trans IN 803877 11 12:55:38 PM Post Date 11/8/2007 Appl Name: Q. GRADY MINOR Appl Stage /Status: REVIEW STAGE NO. 1 /PENDING Address: MARK MINOR 3800 VIA DEL REY BONITA SPRINGS FL 34134 Proj Name: WATERPARK PLACE AT PELICAN BAY Type: RMF TAZ: 53/63 Subdiv Nbr: 1905 Project Nbr: 2001020062 Payor : MARK W MINOR Fee Information Payment Slip Nbr AR 12,534 -- J~ -- -d Fee Code I Description GL Account Amount Waived 11PRPP PRE- APPLICATION FEE 13.1.13.832634127600000 $500.00 Total $500.00 Payment Code CHECK Memo: Payments Account/Check Number 1516 Amount $500.00 Total Cash $0.00 Total Non -Cash $500.00 Total Paid j $500.00 Cashier /location: MCCAULEYKATY / 1 User: DANELLECARREL SDPA_2007 -AR- 12644 REV: ! WATERPARK PLACE PHASES III AND IV Project: 2007120008 Date: 1 2/12/07 - - - - ...SUE:_ 1 1i4 10$_ Collier County Board of County Commissioners Printed:11 /8 /2007 12:56:10 PM CD -Plus for Windows 95 /NT 0 I-A Official Receipt - Collier County Board of County Commissioners CDPR1103 - Official Receipt Trans Number 832405 Date _ 4/28/2008 2 :46:58 PM Post Date _ _ Payment Slip Nbr 4/28/2008 JAR 12644 Appl Name: Q GRADY MINOR Appl Stage /Status: REVIEW STAGE NO. VRESUBMIT Address: 3800 VIA DEL REY BONITA SPRINGS FL 34134 Proj Name: WATERPARK PLACE PHASES III AND IV Type: RMF TAZ: Subdiv Nbr: 1905 Project Nbr: 2007120008 Payor : Q GRADY MINOR & ASSOC Fee Information Fee Code Descri tion GL Account_ 11SDPS SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN !1311383263439900000C Total Amount Waived_ $1000.00 $1000.00 Payments Payment Code Account/Check Number _ Amount CHECK 11 3450 $1000.00 Total Cash $0.00 Total Non -Cash $1000.00 Total Paid $1000.00 Memo: Cashier /location: MURPHYLINDA / 1 User: DANELLECARREL SDPA- 2007 -AR- 12644 REV- 3 WATERPARK PLACE PHASES III AND IV Project: 2007120008 Date: 4130/08 DUE: 5/28108 - - Collier County Board of County Commissioners Printed:4 /28/2008 2 :47:21 PM CD -Plus for Windows 95 /NT Official Receipt - Collier County Board of County Commissioners CDPR1103 - Official Receipt Trans Number Date 839329 6/9/2008 11 :24:30 AM Appl Name: Q GRADY MINOR Appl Stage /Status: REVIEW STAGE NO. 1 /RESUBMIT Address: 3800 VIA DEL REY BONITA SPRINGS FL 34134 Proj Name: WATERPARK PLACE PHASES III AND IV Type: RMF TAZ: Subdiv Nbr: 1905 Project Nbr: 2007120008 Payor : Q GRADY MINOR & ASSOC Fee Information nent Slip Nbr 12644 Fee Code ibescr4tio n GL Account Amount Waived 11SDPS SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 113113832634399000000 $140.00 Total $140.00 Payment Code AccountlCheck Number CHECK 13652 Memo: Payments Amount $140.00 Total Cash $0.00 Total Non -Cash $140.00 Total Paid $140.00 Cashier /location: MURPHYLINDA / 1 User: DANELLECARREL MINOR SUBMITTAL SDPA - 2007- AR. 12644 REV :4 WATERPARK PL PHASES III & IV Project: 2007120008 Date: 619/08 DUE; 7/8108 Collier County Board of County Commissioners Printed:6 19/2008 11:25:00 AM CD -Plus for Windows 95 /NT 0 0 J_� Official Receipt - Collier County Board of County Commissioners CDPR1103 - Official Receipt Trans Number Date Post Date I Payment Slip Nbr 840950 6/18/2008 1:55:45 PM 6/18/2008 JAR 12644 Appl Name: Q GRADY MINOR Appl Stage /Status: REVIEW STAGE NO. 3 /PENDING Address: 3800 VIA DEL REY BONITA SPRINGS FL 34134 Proj Name: WATERPARK PLACE PHASES III AND IV Type: RMF TAZ: Subdiv Nbr: 1905 Project Nbr: 2007120008 Payor : PARCEL J JOINT VENTURE Fee Information _Fee Code Descri tion GL Account 08DEP1 DIST 1 ROAD COA DEPOSIT 33116365036350031331 Total ent Code I Account/Check Number 003065 Memo: Payments Total Cash Total Non -Cash Total Paid amount Waived 734.20 734.20 Amount $0.00 $309734.20 $309734.20 Cashier /location: MURPHYLINDA / 1 User: FLORISROGERS Collier County Hoard of County Commissioners Printed -.6/18/2008 1:56:14 PM CD -Plus for Windows 95 1NT Engineering /Sermwater Standard MiOnum Checklist Hereby certify that I have p r Wally checked the above items. Signature of P. r- (I"("ls Mark W. Minor Printed Name Date Updated 12/10/2007 08 Submitted Y N WA Comment 1. X How trash is handled and disposed of? See attachment 2. X Finished floor elevation must be at least 18" above road or at 100 -year storm elevation. See attachment 3. X Provide note stating which entity is responsible for maintenance of water management facilities 4. X P.E. Seal is required 5_ X Provide a copy of SFWMD Permit, permit modification, or waiver See attachment 6. j j X j Submit ROW permit application number See attachment 7. X Excavation permit 8. X Provide wheel stop detail See Arch. plans 9. X Provide handicap striping detail 10 X Provide a location map that a total stranger can use to find the site 11 X Show existing and proposed utilities 12 X Internal roadways & parking aisles must be at 25 yr -72 hour storm stage 13 X Parking areas must be at 10yr -24 hour storm stage Show wet season water table elevation on cross sections Minimum road centerline longitudinal grade is 0.3% SD>yA- 2007 -AR- 12644 REV: 1 WATERPARK PLACE Minimum allowable road elevation is 5.5.' NGVD PHASES III AND TV Minimum aisle width for 90 degree parking is 24' Project: 2007120008 Driveway must not be too close to intersection Date: 12/12/01 DUE: 1/14, 14 X 15 X 16 X 17 X 18 X ,-19 X Detention pond must discharge through a hardened overflow or structure with bleed -down _0 X Sideslopes must be a max. 4 :1 for slopes over 2 ft. high 21 X Interior islands must be curbed 22 X A throat length of 30' from EOP to the first parking space is required 23 X Stop bar & stop sign shown at exits 24 X Erosion control details & access & silt fence location must be shown on se arate sheet 25 X Submit signed & sealed drain pipe calculations 26 X Provide an Engineer's certification that the receiving system /facility has been inspected. 27 X Minimum roadway pavement thickness is 1 -1/2" of Type "S" asphalt Or pavers 28 X Limerock base must extend 6" and subgrade must extend 12" past EOP 29 X Provide sidewalk within the R.O.W 30 X All turn lanes on County roads must use ABC -3 in lieu of limerock & stabilizing 31 X New pavement needs to match traveled lane, not shoulder 32 X Provide handicap ramp curb cut detail 33 X Projects must do 25 -year, 72 -hour storm routing. Par of Pelican Bay 34 X Add note; "The approval of these construction plans does not authorize construction of require improvements which are inconsistent with easement of record" 35 X Provide lighting pl (multi - family) On Landscape Plans 36 X Submit Engine stimate of Paving & Drainage cost _37 X Submit Pavin rainage Review & Inspections fees Hereby certify that I have p r Wally checked the above items. Signature of P. r- (I"("ls Mark W. Minor Printed Name Date Updated 12/10/2007 08 Engineering /Stormwater Checklist Attachment 1) Trash is collected in "trash- rooms" that are located in the garage. Each unit has access to a "trash chute" on their living floor. The residents drop trash down the chutes and it falls into receptacles in the trash room. On garbage pick -up days, maintenance personnel roll the trash receptacle from the trash room to the service area. The trash receptacle is emptied by Waste Management then the receptacle is rolled back to the trash room. This is standard practice for this type of development. 2) Flood elevation is 13.3' NGVD S) We have submitted for a Letter Modification. 6) We have submitted concurrently. Utilities Standard Minimum Checklist ereby certify that I h e p onally cjiecked the above items. Mark W. Minor Signature of t E. Printed Name Date Updated 12/10/2007 Submitted Y N N/A Comment 1. X Submit water and sewer availability letter Ord 2004 -31 Section 7 para 7.1.1 2. X Submit FDEP applications Ord 2004 -31 Section 7,21 3. X Submit cover letter in the engineers report Ord 2004 -31 Section 8.2.3 a thru f 4. X Submit engineers estimated cost of construction Ord 2004 -31, Section 8.2.5 5. X Submit review and inspection fees. Ord 2004 -97 Sections F) 7 & G) 7 6. X Submit Engineers report Ord 2004 -31 Section 8.2.3 pars g. 7. X Provide Narrative on system in Engineers Report Ord 2004 -31 Technical Standards, Section 1.2.1 A 8. X Provide Chlorine dissapation report in Engineers Report Ord 2004 -31 technical standards Section 12.1 B Already approved 9. X Provide Hydraulic Design Requirements in Engineers Report Ord 2004 -31 Technical Standards Part 1 section 2.1.2 Already approved 10 X Submit Force main design showing 2.5' per second velocity Ord 2004 -31 Provide all pump station information in Engineers Report and on detail sheet Ord 2004 -31 8.2.5 h)_& Technical standards None 11 X Part 2 Section 13510 Detail #WW 7 (Pump information, Dimensions, Buoyancy Calculations & transformer location etc. None 12 X Engineers Report shall contain capacity in down stream pump station Ord 2004 -31 Technical Standards Part 2 Section 2.1.2 Already approved 13 X Submit ROW permit Ord 2004 -31 Section 8.2.7. No work in R/W 14 X Submit FDOT permit Ord2004 -31 Section 8.2.7 No work in RNV "' 5 X Submit Fire Control District approval Ord 2004 -31 Section 8.3 Existing /approved .6 X Submit potable water Flows and irrigation flows Ord 2004 -31 Part 4 Section 4 17 X Submit Utility Site Master Plan w/ key map Ord 2004 -31 Section 8.2.5 b) 18 X Show phase lines if applicable Ord 2004 -31 Section 8.2.5 b) 19 X Note who is to install meter, if 3" or larger by contractor Ord 2004 -31 Technical Standards Part 1 Section 1.6.2 20 X Nate who is to install service lead and box Ord 2004 -31 Section 8.2.5 d) 21 X Note all inspections required which require 48 hour notice Ord 2004 -31 Section 9.4.2.2 22 X Note who will own and maintain the water, wastewater and non - potable irrigation water Ord 2004 -31 Section 8.2.5 1 23 X Note that meter shall be sized by Public Utilities Ord 2004 -31 Section 8.2.5 d 24 X Add note at tie in indicating use of gap configuration or TBF at option of the FCD. Ord 2004 -31 Technical Standards Part 1 Section 1.5 and Sections 2 & 3. Fire line tied -in 25 X Show all temporary and permanent bacterial sample points Ord 2004 -31 Technical Standards Manual Section 2 Subsection 02675 3.4 A 26 X Add isolation valves Ord 2004 -31 Technical Standards Part 1 Section 1.2.4 27 X Show conduits Ord 2004 -31 Technical Standards Part 1 Section 1.6.1 none 28 X Provide Clean out every 100' Florida Building Code Section 708.3.1 Not required 29 X Provide pump station grading plan Ord 2004 -31 Section 8.2.5 h) none 30 X Use the la lest details Ord 2004 -31 Technical Standards Part 3 31 X Not in CA er County franchise area. Submit approval from governing authority 32 X Check Prast Due Conveyance on Projects ereby certify that I h e p onally cjiecked the above items. Mark W. Minor Signature of t E. Printed Name Date Updated 12/10/2007 • 0 J4 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION Engineering and Environmental Services 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, Florida 34104 To: Gilbert Moncivaiz Public Utilities From: Craig Calli Engineering Inspector Date: 3124108 Re: Waterpark Place Phases III and IV AR -12664 Attached you will find potable flows for the above referenced project. FOR is requesting two 4" meters. Cc: File Engineering Reading File Phone (239) 252 -5366 c r . o u n t y Fax (239) 530.6201 WWW.colliergov.net 0 i -7A _ COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION Engineering and Environmental Services 2800 North Horseshoe Drive - Naples, Florida 34104 To: Anthony Russo Public Utilities Engineering Department From: Craig Call i40-1 Engineering Inspector Date: 3124108 Re: Waterpark Place Phases III and IV AR -12644 Attached you will find FDEP application for water and wastewater within the above referenced project. Also attached is ( ) unapproved master utility site plan. Cc: File Engineering Reading File Phone (239) 252 -5866 G o l S c r G t y Fax (239) 530.6201 www.colliergov.net COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT DIVISION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Engineering and Environmental Services 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, Florida 34104 To: Gilbert Moncivaiz Public Utilities From: Craig Callis Engineering Inspector Date: 5116108 Re: Water Park Place Phases III and IV AR -12644 Attached you will find proposed cooling tower flows for the above referenced project. FOR is requesting two 1.5 meters... Cc: File Engineering Reading File r C- O H H L Y PROJECT PRE - APPROVAL LETTER June 12, 2008 Q GRADY MINOR (239)947 -0375 3800 VIA DEL REY RE: SDPA -AR- 12644, WATERPARK PLACE PHASES III AND 1V Please be advised that the above -named project is complete and a COA Certificate has been granted. As required by LDC Section 10.02.07, prior to the expiration of the temporary, one -year capacity reservation previously secured by the applicant upon the County's acceptance of the TIS, the Certificate will be issued upon payment of one -half (50 %) of the estimated transportation impact fees due for the development. Such estimates shall be based on the currently approved impact fee schedule in effect upon issuance of the development order. The fifty percent (50 %) amount due at this time is $309,734.20. A project approval letter will be issued once payment is received and a COA Certificate issued. If the applicable estimated transportation impact fees are not paid within the time frame listed above, the COA application will be deemed denied and the applicant must reenter the COA application process from the beginning. Final calculation of impact fees due will be based on the intensity of the development actually permitted for construction and the impact fee schedule in effect at the time the building permit application is submitted. In addition, impact fees for all other facilities, i.e. Parks, Libraries, School, Government Buildings, Water, Sewer, Fire, EMS, Correctional Facilities, etc. will be due prior to the issuance of the building permit. If you have any questions related to the project approval, please contact the Application Processing and Distribution Department at (239) 252 -2473. If you have any questions related to payment of the impact fees and issuance of the COA Certificate please contact Floris Rogers at (239) 252 -2991 Engineering Technician Cc: Floris Rogers, Impact Fee Analyst Phil Tindall, Principal Planner This project is subject to LDC Section 10.02.03 B.4.b which states: Approved site development plans (SDPs) only remain valid and in force for two years from the date of their approval unless construction has commenced, as follows. If actual construction has not commenced within two years, measured by the date of the SDP approval letter, the site development plan approval term expires and the SDP is of no force or effect. The date of this pre - approval letter constitutes the "date of approval ". W North aples Fire Control rescue District 1885 Veterans Park Drive • Naples, Florida 34109 (239) 597 -3222 • Fax (239) 597 -7082 October 5, 2007 John H. Goff Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Re: Flow Test @ Waterpark Place @ Pelican Bay — 6897 Grenadier Blvd. Fax: (239) 947 -0375 Dear Sir or Madam: The North Naples Fire Control and Rescue District has conducted a flow test at the above location. This also will serve as an invoice of $35.00 to cover the cost of the test. Please make your check payable to North Naples Fire Department, and you must reference the name of the job on the check. Following are the results of the flow test: Static: 79 Resid: 53 Total Flow GPM: 1,609 Pitot: 23 x 2 Ports Flow @ 20 PSI GPM: 2,505 Time: 10:35 am — 10/5/07 If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me @ (239) 597 -9227. Sincerely, Dave L. Raub, Fire Marshal North Naples Fire Prevention Bureau DLR/dw RECEIVED 10 2007 & Associu;:_ s.. Q. (ADY MINOR & ASSOCIATOP.A. Civil Engineers . Land Surveyors ■ Planners ■ Landscape Architects SARK W. MINOR P.E. D. WAYNE ARNOLD, A.I.C.P. JOSHUA R. EVANS, P.E. STEPHEN V. BURGESS, P.S.M MICHAEL T, HERRERA, P.E. JUAN A. ARAQUE, P.S.M. DAVID W. SCHMITT, P.E. KEITH A. STEPHENSON, P.S.M. MICHAEL J. RELATE, P.E. HEIDI K. WILLIAMS, A.I.C.P. ELIZABETH A. FOUNTAIN, P.E. KENNETH W. PAHUTSKI PAMELA M. HYYTI Mr. Steven Seal Collier County Development Services 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RE: Waterpark Place Phase III and IV Inspection of Receiving Facility Dear Mr. Seal: December 10, 2007 SDPA - 2007 -AR- 12644 REV: 1 WATERPARK PLACE PHASES III AND IV Project: 2007120008 Date:__12 /12/07 ------ DUE: 1114108 This project is located within the Pelican Bay Water Management drainage basin. We have made an inspection of the PBSD easement area that accepts stormwater discharge from this project. The system appears to be adequately maintained MWM:cjd V e f y trj ly yours, W. Minor, P.E. a #45324 (239) 947 -1144 ■ FAX (239) 947 -0375 a Web Site: www.gradyminor.com 3800 Via Del Rey ■ Bonita Springs, Florida 34134 -7569 EB 0005151 ■ LB 0005151 w LC 26000266 F: \PRnJ- ANGKISTI.itinP tt`an l�'Anh}�ec C�tr. llrveln..nvnr Plen\u1LnP \mCnP4V CC PRCll won ttirvn n.... rn �e.,o COLLIER COUNTY YY PUBLIC UTILIrI "ILS DIVISION *_ —.- A7 33111 East 7 amiumi had \nhics, f k,rula 3.11 23) 73 ; Fax (1=91 712 "'fi January 23, 2007 SDPA - 2007 -AR- 12644 WATERPARK PLACE Ms, Noel A. Hollister PHASES III AND IV Woodward, Pires & Lombardo, P.A. Project: 2007120008 Date: 12/12/07 3200 Tamiami Trail N., Suite 200 Naples, Florida 34103 Subject: Cap d'Antibes, Phase 1 Water and Wastewater Availability Dear Ms. Hollister: REV: 1 DUE: 1/14/08 Potable water service for domestic and irrigation purposes and sanitary sewer service are available for the above referenced project via existing lines along Pelican Bay Boulevard. A master meter shall be required for such facilities as rental apartments, shopping centers, strip malls, high rise condominiums, recreational vehicle parks, mobile home parks or any other multi- family projects that cannot or do not provide the required CUEs paralleling a typical single family street cross - section or any other project that does not comply with or meet the intention of Ordinance 2004 -31, as amended or superseded. If this project is not to provide the required Collier County Utility Easements (CUEs), all water and sewer facilities shall be owned and maintained by the owner, his successors or assigns. If this project is to provide the required CUEs, all water and sewer facilities shall be owned and maintained by Collier County Public Utilities. Tie -in to water and sewer lines shall be made after submission and approval of the hydraulic calculations by Engineering Review Services, showing that the downstream systems are adequate to handle the increase in flow. The District will be snaking phased expansions to the water supply, treatment and transmission facilities and sewage transmission, treatment and disposal facilities servicing the area in question and other areas of the County, based on demands within the system and other binding commitments. These expansions should provide sufficient capacity to supply the referenced property's anticipated potable water and sewage treatment and disposal demands and the remainder of the District's committed capacity_ However, no guarantee can be issued that other developments throughout the District will not have an impact on the quantity of r . CIS. Noel Hollister January 23, 2007 Page 2 of 2 0 --);A potable water, sewage treatment, and disposal capacity available to this property until each phase has received a commitment for service. Connections are also subject to the availability of water and sewer capacity at the time formal application is received. Should water supply or sewage treatment and disposal capacity not be available, the Developer would be required to provide an interim means of water supply and treatment, and sewage treatment and disposal until the District's facilities have the adequate capacity to serve the project. Please note that any and all improvements that you construct must be in accordance with all applicable ordinances and policies, including the payment of impact fees. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at (239) 530 -6237. Sincerely, (e4zl- Carla J. Fogle Engineering Technician cc: Diane Deoss, Utility Billing & Customer Service Heather Sweet, Utility Billing & Customer Service Craig Callis, Engineering Review Services Steve Nagy, Wastewater Collections Manager Ty Stuller, Water Distribution Manager SDPA- 2007 -AR- 12644 REV; 1 WATERPARK PLACE PHASES Ill AND IV Project. 2007120008 Date:— -12/12/07---- DUE_ 1/14/08 CAP D'ANTIBES AT WATERPARK PLACE PHASES III & IV SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PIPE SIZING CALCULATIONS Prepared by: . GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES, P.A. ENGINEERS ■ LAND SURVEYORS ■ PLANNERS ■ LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, Florida 34134 (239) 947 -1144 (239) 947 -0375 (F) December, 2007 ark W. Minor, P.E. Florida Regist ation Number 45324 I— .. ... • • 1a Purpose: To determine the inside diameter of culverts to allow passage of storm water runoff without causing localized street flooding. Parameters: 1. The discharge elevation at CS -1 is set at 4.5' NGVD (10 -year stage) 2. Design storm is the 1 -hour, 10 -year event with rainfall intensity of 3.25 inches/hour. 3. Runoff from each sub -basin is determined by using the rational formula. Q = ACI Q in cfs A in Acres C = 0.80 (dense suburban residential areas) i = 3.25 inches /bours 4. Hydraulic gradient is determined by the manning formula where Q = (cm/n) (R)2l3(S) '/z A. 5. Calculations Contributing flows to each catch basin were determined and calculations were performed for each run of culvert. The following calculation sheet shows the catch basin number, contributing area flow thru the culvert between catch basin, diameter of the culvert, length of the culvert and tailwater elevation at the catch basin. In no case is the elevation at the catch basin above the crown of the road. _ T (� n n n C) C7 n n: n �' I C) 3 W W Y, W W W Y, co, W W! ;W'' W Z� ;(D o rn ia! (71 n 01 C) 0 C) C) n.n n n n n <D W: w co CO CO cnl(D cn co o w AI(pI cn'oo 0) 11: Cn (DIN V (n. rn ao A �'j Z i I I m m m.m W O IO A. '•I A A Oo�CO• (b.(b WIC' (.n 'Ul m m m (7�(/) cn 1 y of CD CO in co, (A N N O fD CO flc co V z G 1 A I1A co V co N, NI Cn V W CM `p m - CD O, O OI O O 01110 Oi01 QIO. 10. 0 :.p O }�c �y ? l rb 3 icoi C) Ico a) 'O O it Co. 00 O10 a1!co O.O � co: co '.010 a) O co O � i 0 O � co O n c I'o � cr co III co i i I N W W co W;iW W:W� Wow WWI W W Z (n. ;U1 Cn cn (n i,(n Cn'Ln : to (n M: al Cn Cn 03 _ NI T 1 S. M A 'COIN (n (n 'A CO O.cD W! --4 � I(njV V (Y) . 1 < Z O O Aj IW — iC. C, WINS, �1 Im n W W'V co O), C» CDC ,D .OHO AICOI ic"i �— I, I I { I I I 1 I. I I mo- Ia'II I I Q 'a o' b)' W cn; W coI w i1! is w; i1' iw n•. w' wo inlu); in C) woo. w w m m, s I.OIO ' j0. ,010 O..O! 1010 100 O O y''�0 I O C_n c, --4 0 O V O',O co W O O. I W A: 'O W d C) O W O V 111 ;A�� A'��'A Aj A,A .AjA;U1I C.)) Ip:. u W (n•Cn �(.n <�m p Nam' _�'�ICWp ''C070 �iQ OO -4 IO O:O i0 (P � W IG) co Im m m to C, (D co CD.Wj co &I:'. I . ; I- i m f ; C. CD Lf?. � LQ Nr cp cp in, MO d cc) Co co c) 0 O : 0 (0 0 C� 8, CDI ri MM. 1 CD. CD 0 0 CD C' 0 r-- in CD CO ICO� !'O'er C 0) In 'COD, II� tco- ;' �? 1 1 CD Ln � ,1 r! i CD i .VI (3. ci 161 ci^ I jO !ln'I Lo' 'o CIA L. N LO U) I U) "M Lo to U) Lo LO LO i . ; "m C, 4 'i M. C"n C-i 6- C": ff") !I m CD 0� CD 00, C) co; C) co 00 . . C) co co M- C; C) 6 6 � CZ) 6 (3 0' �2 Loi co Lo Lo U) U-j U'j C4. Co Lo N LO M U I L) ) u LM) :00 < N IN ca < m m: C6 6! M; co m in L) co (.5 c) :C) t I'A O 0 LU cc C) Y) ry LL 0 D LL SDPA-2007 -AR- 12644 REV: 1 WATERPARK PLACE PHASES III AND IV Project: 2007120008 DUE- 2/12/07 Date: 12/12/07 _ _ _ _ - - Prepared by: Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. Civil Engineers ■ Land Surveyors ■ Planners 3 800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, Florida 34134 (941) 947 -1144 (941) 947 -0375 (Fax) July, 2001 Mark W. or, P.E. ......... W. Florida Pkgistered Engineer No. 45324 77 Table of Contents 1. Project Narrative 2. On -site sanitary sewer hydraulic calculations 3. Cost Estimate 4. Review and inspection fee calculations 5. Specifications F:UOBIPELICAN\W ATERPARIMWMITOC.DOC STL_ I Proiect Narrative 0 _71AV Phases IV & V (Cap d' Antibes) are part of an existing high rise residential condominium project located in Pelican Bay. The main infrastructure is existing. The remaining infrastructure to be constructed is to serve Cap d' Antibes. Potable Water Phases IV & V each require 3 -inch water meter assemblies. A 3 -inch water meter assembly will be constructed at the project boundary along Pelican Bay Boulevard for each phase (building). The meter assemblies will be constructed within C.U.E.'s. Four (4) -inch diameter water lines will be installed from the meter assemblies to the buildings_ Fire Lines The site is to be served by a fire line and fire hydrants run from an 8 -inch fire service meter assembly to be installed at the project boundary within a C.U.E. F:UOBIPELICAN\W ATERPAR\MVJMlrcport doc STL I Sanitary Sewer The sanitary sewer is existing on the site. The sewer will be extended and 8 -inch diameter sewer laterals will be installed to each building. F: Upa\ PELICAN\WATERPAR \MVnviVcpottdoc STI- 1 On -Site Sanitary Sewer Hydraulic Calculations Flow Calculations Average daily flows 182 units x 250 gpd/unit = 45,500 gpd 20 pool cabanas x 50 gpd/cabana = 1,000 gpd Public areas = 2,000 gpd Total = 48,500 gpd Size sewer mains per maximum daily flow. Maximum daily flow = 48,500 gpd x 4 = 194,000 gpd. The capacity of an 8 -inch diameter PVC pipe laid at 0.4% is 600,000 gpd, therefore, the pipe size is adequate. F:UOBIPELICAN\W ATERPAR\MW?&rcport.doc STL.1 WATERPARK PLACE PHASE III AND W Cap d'Antibes and Cote d'Azure Engineers Estimate for Utilities SDPA- 2007 -AR- 12644 REV, WATERPARK PLACE 1 PHASES III AND IV Project: 2007120008 Date; 12/12/07 _ _ _ _DUE _1/14108 1) Horizontal deflection of 12" fire main, 4" potable main and 4" fire line from FDC 3 each X $7,500 = $22,500.00 2) Relocate fire hydrant assembly 2 each X $2,500 = $ 5,000.00 3) Construct new fire hydrant assembly 1 each X $5,000 = $ 5,000.00 4) Construct new FDL 1 each X $3,500 = $ 3,500.00 5) Extend 12" fire line, and 4" potable line 1 lump sum = $ 5,000.00 6) Raise manhole rim 3 each X $750 = $ 2,250.00 7) Testing, disinfection, T.V. sewer mains, refurbish existing facilities 1 lump sum TOTAL FOR UTILITIES = $15.000.00 = $58450.00 W. Minor, P.E. Florida #45324 (239) 947 -1144 r FAX (239) 947 -0375 ■ Web Site: www.gradyminorx 3800 Via Del Rey ■ Bonita Springs, Florida 34134 -7569 EB 0005151 ■ LB 0005151 ■ LC 26000266 Q. GVDY MINOR & ASSOCIAT #P.A. r IA Civil Engineers ■ Land Surveyors ■ Planners ■ Landscape Architects LARK W. MINOR P.E. D. WAYNE ARNOLD, A.I.C.P. JOSHUA R. EVANS, P.E. STEPHEN V. BURGESS, P.S.M. MICHAEL T. HERRERA, P.E. JUAN A. ARAQUE, P.S.M. DAVID W. SCHMITT, P.E. KEITH A. STEPHENSON, P.S.M. MICHAEL J. DELATE, P.E. HEIDI K. WILLIAMS, A.I.C.P. ELIZABETH A. FOUNTAIN, P.E. KENNETH W. PAHUTSKI PAMELA M. HYYTI WATERPARK PLACE PHASE III AND W Cap d'Antibes and Cote d'Azure Engineers Estimate for Utilities SDPA- 2007 -AR- 12644 REV, WATERPARK PLACE 1 PHASES III AND IV Project: 2007120008 Date; 12/12/07 _ _ _ _DUE _1/14108 1) Horizontal deflection of 12" fire main, 4" potable main and 4" fire line from FDC 3 each X $7,500 = $22,500.00 2) Relocate fire hydrant assembly 2 each X $2,500 = $ 5,000.00 3) Construct new fire hydrant assembly 1 each X $5,000 = $ 5,000.00 4) Construct new FDL 1 each X $3,500 = $ 3,500.00 5) Extend 12" fire line, and 4" potable line 1 lump sum = $ 5,000.00 6) Raise manhole rim 3 each X $750 = $ 2,250.00 7) Testing, disinfection, T.V. sewer mains, refurbish existing facilities 1 lump sum TOTAL FOR UTILITIES = $15.000.00 = $58450.00 W. Minor, P.E. Florida #45324 (239) 947 -1144 r FAX (239) 947 -0375 ■ Web Site: www.gradyminorx 3800 Via Del Rey ■ Bonita Springs, Florida 34134 -7569 EB 0005151 ■ LB 0005151 ■ LC 26000266 Q. C*DY MINOR & ASSOCIATES, P.A. f Civil Engineers ■ Land Surveyors . Planners ■ Landscape Architects MARK W. MINOR, P.E. JOSHUA R EVANS, P.E. MICHAEL T. HERRERA, P.E. DAVID W. SCHMITI', P.E. MICHAEL J. DELATE, P.E. ELIZABETH A. FOUNTAIN, P.E. Waterpark Place Phases III and IV Cap d'Antibes and Cote d'Azure Engineer's Estimate for paving and drainage A. Drainage D. WAYNE ARNOLD, A.I.C.P. STEPHEN V. BURGESS, P.S.M. JUAN A. ARAQUE, P.S.M. KEITH A. STEPHENSON, P.S.M. HEIDI K. WILLIAMS, A.I.C.P. KENNETH W. PAHUTSKI PAMELA M. HYYn SDPA- 2007 -AR- 12,644 REV: 1 WATERPARK PLACE PHASES III AND Iv Project: 2007120008 Date_ 12/12/07 ------ IWE_ 1/11/08 A.1 Demolition of CB -18, 20 and connecting culverts. 1 Lump Sum $ 5,000.00 A.2 Modify existing inlet tops of CB- 2,4,5,6,10 & 19 1 Lump Sum $ 5,000.00 A.3 Relocate CS -1 I Lump Sum $ 2,000.00 AA Construct concrete apron at CB -14 1 Lump Sum $ 1,500.00 A.5 Throat inlets 6 X $2,800 each $16,800.00 A.6 Type `C' inlet 1 X $2,200 each $ 2,200.00 A.7 Type `E' inlet 1 X $2,700 each $ 2,700.00 A.8 48" mitre end sections 2 X $1,250 each $ 2,500.00 A.9 15 -inch RCP 181 If X $28/If $ 5,068.00 A.10 18 inch RCP 12 if X $34 /]f $ 408.00 A.11 36 -inch RCP 92 if X $54/lf $ 4,968.00 A.12 48 -inch RCP 20 If $76/1f $ 1,520.00 (239) 947 -1144 ■ FAX (239) 947 -0375 ■ Web Site: www.gradyminor.com 3800 Via Del Rey ■ Bonita Springs Florida 34134 -7569 F: \I'ItQJ- ENG\S \STLISDI) (Cap D'Antibes ��I]eyelntipfai I )j(l([}Y.II�$D¢ ffjinP�B %ding Estimate.doc 1- 9 — 1A A.13 Rip -rap mats 2 X $1,500 each $ 3,000.00 A.14 Grading 1 Lump Sum $10,000.00 A.15 Trench drain 2 X $4,000 each $ 8,000.00 Sub -total drainage $70,664.00 B. Paving B.1 Demolition of existing pavement and curb 1 Lump Sum $50,000.00 B.2 Off -site fill balance 5,200 cubic yard X $12 /cubic yard $62,400.00 B.3 Type `A' curb 1761f X $16 /lf $ 2,816.00 B.4 Type `D' curb n.. 1,062 If $14 /lf $14,868.00 B.5 Type `F' curb 957 if X $22/If $21,054.00 B.6 5' wide concrete sidewalk 4,820 sf X $4 /sf $19,280.00 B.7 12 -inch stabilized subgrade 4,940 sq. yd. X $3 /sq. yd. $14,820.00 B.8 8 inch limerock base 5,430 sq. yd. X $12 /sq. yd. $65,160.00 B.9 1 %2 type S -3 asphalt 6,800 sq. yd X $7 /sq. yd. $47,600.00 B.10 Signage & striping 1 Lump Sum $ 5,000.00 B.11 Site lighting 32 X $2,000 each $64,000.00 B.12 Conduit 1 Lump Sum $ 5,000.00 F- \PROI- ENG \S\STLIS DP (Cap D'Antibes Site Dcvclopment Plan} \06DP\02SDPA\Paving &z Grading Estimate.doc - 2 - B. 13 Temporary Access 1 Lump Sum $75,000.00 B.14 Right -of -Way restoration 1 Lump Sum $25,000.00 Sub -total paving: $471,998.00 Grand Total Paving & Drainage: Mark W. Minor, P E. Florida #45324 F` \PROI- GNG \S \STLI SDP (Cap D'Antibes Site Development Plan )\06DP \02SDPA \Paving & Grading Estimate.doc -3 - Net Reduction in Traffic Affidavit Waterpark Place Phases III and IV SDPA - 2007 -AR -12644 REV: 2 WATERPARK PLACE PH III & IV Project: 2007120008 Date: 315/08 DUE: 412/08 We do hereby certify that the SDP Amendment for the subject project causes a net reduction in traffic from the approved SDP. Florida (239) 947 -1144 ■ FAX (239) 947 -0375 ■ Web Site: www.gradyininor.com 3800 Via Del Rey ■ Bonita Springs, Florida 34134 -7569 EB 0005151 ■ LB 0005151 ■ LC 26000266 W. Minor, P.E. ,"tered #45324 RADY MINOR NOR & ASSOCIA4, P.A. Civil Engineers ■ Land Surveyors ■ Planners ■ Landscape Architects MARK W. MINOR, P.E. JOSHUA R., P.E. D. WAYNE ARNOLD, A.I.C.P. MICHAEL T. . HERRERREKA, P.E. KEITH A. STEPHENSON, P.S.M. DAVID W. TT, P.E. JUAN A. ARAQUE, P.S.M. EL MICHAEL J. DEL.ATE, P.E. .DEL HEIDI K WILLIAMS, A.I.C.P, ELIZABETH A. FOUNTAIN, P.E. D. KENT CARLYLE, R.L.A. ANDRES F. CORREA, P.E. KENNETH W. PAH[TISKI, P.S.M. PAMELA M. HYYTT Net Reduction in Traffic Affidavit Waterpark Place Phases III and IV SDPA - 2007 -AR -12644 REV: 2 WATERPARK PLACE PH III & IV Project: 2007120008 Date: 315/08 DUE: 412/08 We do hereby certify that the SDP Amendment for the subject project causes a net reduction in traffic from the approved SDP. Florida (239) 947 -1144 ■ FAX (239) 947 -0375 ■ Web Site: www.gradyininor.com 3800 Via Del Rey ■ Bonita Springs, Florida 34134 -7569 EB 0005151 ■ LB 0005151 ■ LC 26000266 W. Minor, P.E. ,"tered #45324 0 0 -V Z-.%- COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION July 23, 2001 Q. Grady Minor Engineering 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Re: Waterpark Place Ph 1, Pelican Bay SDP# AR -412 Meter Sizing Dear Mr. Minor: 3301 E. TAMIAMI TRAIL NAPLES, FL 34112 (941) 732 -2575 FAX: (941) 732 -2526 SDPA- 2007 -AR- 12644 RF,V: 1 W A- fSRPARK PLACE PHASES III AND IV Project: 2007120008 DIJE:l�14 /08 Date: 12/12107 - - - _ _ - _ - Our office has reviewed the preliminary domestic meter sizing information for the above - referenced project that was forward to our office. Your recommendation for a three inch (3 ") domestic water meter meets our minimum requirements based on the fixture information, that you supplied. This does not consider fire flow, irrigation demand or any continuous load demand. Since our review is for the minimum size requirement, the engineer should consider all relevant factors before approving the final meter size. If you have any further questions or concerns regarding the information contained in this letter or in the attachments, please feel free to contact me at (941)732 -2575. Sincerely, I c Lisa Taylor Public Utilities, Engineering Technician I cc: Heather Sweet, Department of Revenue Steve Wander, Community Development Planning Meter Sizing G.aginmfing YcchNMcler Siting /PmjmW Miami September 5, 2007 ebration. 0 arc.hiteotu:re r planning. f construeti.ttn adin.i.ntstratlon Collier County Development Services 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 Re: Cap d'Antibes and Cote d'Azur at Waterpark Place, Common Architectural Theme To Whom It May Concern: BCArchitects is the Architect for Cap d'Antibes and Cote d'Azur, to be located in Waterpark Place at Pelican Bay. These buildings have been designed to be compatible in character, use of materials, and color with the two existing residential buildings in Waterpark Place, St. Pierre and St. Laurent. All of Waterpark Place has a signature entry way which serves to identify the developments as having a common architectural theme, landscaping, paving surfaces and a unified look when seen from Pelican Bay Boulevard. The street materials, additional signage and lighting for Cap d'Antibes and Cote d'Azur will be complimentary and the same throughout the project's access ways. Respectfully, I -- 6k-11 Managing Principal Lawrence S. Cohan Kenneth L. Tobin Arthur J. Pearl Orlando L. Rio Adan Fons Jr. 4942 S. Woune Road Suite 200 Coral Gables, Florida 33146 Tel 305.663.8182 Fax 305.663.8882 www.bcarchiteds.com June 17, 2008 err �I � �� I►r COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT Community Development and Environmental Services Division Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive - Naples, Florida 34104 Mr. Joseph L. Parisi, Esq. Parcel J Joint Venture 8156 Fiddler's Creek Parkway Naples, FL 34114 RE: INTP- 2008 -AR- 13411, Request for official interpretation regarding the Site Development Plan Amendment (SDPA) application request number 12944 for the Waterpark Place Development, Phases III and IV Dear Mr. Parisi: Pursuant to Section 1.06.00 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) you are requesting an official interpretation of three provisions of the Pelican Bay PUD (Ordinance No. 04 -59) and the Collier County LDC (Ordinance No. 04 -41) as they relate to the approval of a Site Development Plan for a multi - family development commonly known as Waterpark Place Development, Phases III and IV which is presently under County review as an amendment to the Site Development Plan (SDPA - 2007 -AR 12644). You have asked the Zoning and Land Development Review Director to render an official interpretation with respect to the following three questions. In the first part of your request, you ask if the above referenced Site Development Plan (SDP) has to be in compliance with the PUD and the LDC in addition to meeting the requirements of Section 2.05 (Site Plan Approval) of the Pelican Bay PUD, specifically as it relates to the statement "in harmony and not injurious to the neighborhood or to adjoining properties." The PUD and the LDC set forth the development standards that any development contemplated within the Pelican Bay PUD must comply with in order to be granted development order approval for a site development plan. At the time of initial rezoning and subsequent amendments, the Pelican Bay PUD was evaluated for consistency with the County's Growth Management Plan and the proposed development standards were analyzed to ensure internal and external development compatibility, consistent with the requirements of the PUD zoning district. Development in accordance with the approved standards set forth in the Pelican Bay PUD and LDC presumes compatibility with adjoining properties both internal and external to the development, unless otherwise stated in the PUD ordinance. The statement "in harmony and not injurious to the neighborhood or to adjoining properties" is somewhat subjective; however it is one of the same criteria the BCC considers when evaluating variance requests (See section 9.04.03 of the LDC). The clustering provisions in the Pelican Bay PUD function essentially the same as a variance to the setback and separation requirements would. The ability to reduce the setbacks, the conditions under which they may be reduced and the impact of the allowable reductions on neighboring pr iji� es was evaluated and determined, in this case to be C o � i e r G o u rw t y Phone (239) 252 -2400 Fax (239) 252 -6968 or (239) 252 -2913 w w.collierco- nct appropriate, at the time of PUD zoning approval. These separation reductions are permissible in certain land use districts in the Pelican Bay PUD, and in this case is are appropriate provided the two conditions of 7.04.03. C (Ordinance No. 04 -59) are met. I have evaluated the site development plan application for the Waterpark Place development and it is my professional opinion that the proposed development is compatible with surrounding properties. Approval will only be granted if the plan is administratively deemed to be consistent with the development provisions of the PUD. As these development provisions were evaluated for both internal and external compatibility at the time of rezoning, plan approval in accordance with the regulations will ensure the development will not be injurious to the neighborhood or surrounding properties. Additionally, it is my opinion that Section 2.05 of the PUD that you reference in your request, although broadly stated, simply requires that the application and documentation provided by the applicant to the County for SDP approval shall include materials necessary to demonstrate that the approval of the site plan will be consistent with the approved regulations in the PUD and the LDC. Furthermore, it also allows that should the staff determine during the course of their review or otherwise, that in their professional opinion, additional documents and information are necessary to review the project to ensure compliance with any applicable development regulations, then under this provision, they would have the authority to request that information from the applicant. In the second part of your request, you ask about the relationship of the word "clustering" as it is stated in Section 7.04.03 (Minimum Yards) of the PUD ordinance, to the definition of "clustering" set forth in the Land Development Code. Although it is not clearly stated in your request, I believe you are asking whether or not the act of clustering buildings requires that the created open space resulting from the reduction of setbacks and separation distances (the clustering of buildings) on this site has to be utilized in accordance with the clustering provisions of the LDC. Generally speaking, the theory behind cluster type of development is that a reduced setback or distance between buildings would be an acceptable "trade -off" to preserve environmentally sensitive areas or create more open space for public use. Residential cluster development is a form of land development in which principal buildings and structures are grouped together on a site, thus saving the remaining land area for common open space, conservation, agriculture, recreation, and public and semipublic spaces. Generally speaking, the terms "Cluster" or "Clustering" means a site - planning or design technique that concentrates buildings and structures in specific areas on a lot, site, or parcel to allow the remaining land to be used for recreation, open space, and/or preservation of features and/or structures with environmental, historical, cultural, or other significance. The techniques used to concentrate buildings may include, but shall not be limited to, reduction in lot areas, setback requirements, and/or bulk requirements, with the resultant open space being devoted for one or more uses. The Collier County Land Development Code defines "Cluster" and "Clustering" in accordance with this theory as follows: Cluster: Concentrating or grouping buildings more closely than in conventional arrangements, locating such buildings on a limited portion of a development site, in order to allow for open space or preservation of natural features. Cluster development: A design technique allowed within residential zoning districts or where residential development is an allowable use. This form of development employs a more compact arrangement of dwelling units by allowing for, or requiring as the case may be, 2 I-A reductions in the standard or typical lot size and yard requirements of the applicable zoning district, in order to: increase common open space; reduce the overall development area; reduce alterations and impacts to natural resources on the site; to preserve additional native vegetation and habitat areas; and, to reduce the cost of providing services, including but not limited to central sewer and water. Pursuant to the above referenced definitions of clustering and Section 7.04.03. C. of the Pelican Bay PUD, the plain reading of the PUD ordinance simply allows clustered buildings (a concentration or grouping of buildings) under two conditions: 1. Provided a common architectural theme is employed, and 2. A site plan is approved in accordance with Section 2.05 of the PUD. Provided these two conditions are met, the subject development can be clustered. As to the requirements for open space per the LDC, absent specific PUD regulatory language which states what is to be done with the remaining open space within development that is clustered, and given the LDC definition and regulations pertaining to clustering, it is my opinion that the LDC provision with respect to the open space requirement as a result of buildings being "clustered" as a result of meeting the two standards in section C. of the PUD, still apply. This LDC provision reads as follows: 4.02.04 Standards for Cluster Residential Design. E. Common open space. 1. All reductions in the minimum lot area, lot width, and yard requirements below that which would otherwise be required within the district in which the cluster development is located shall be required to provide an equal amount of common open space within the same phase and general area of each cluster of homes in the development unless said cluster development is part of a planned unit development where the open space requirements of this LDC have been satisfied. Furthermore, the LDC requires the following with respect to open space: In developments of commercial, industrial and mixed use including residential, at least thirty (30) percent of the gross area shall be devoted to usable open space. This requirement shall not apply to individual parcels less than five (5) acres in size. It is my opinion that when read and applied together, the PUD ordinance allows for clustering provided the two conditions noted above (7.04.03.0 of the Pelican Bay PUD) are met. When buildings are clustered then the requirements for the (4.02.04.E.) open space per the LDC apply. However, the LDC also specifically provides that cluster developments (within PUD zoning districts where open space requirements of the LDC have been satisfied) are exempt from meeting the specific requirements for open space. Table 1 of the Pelican Bay Land Use Schedule clearly states that the PUD is required to set aside 570 acres of conservation acreage, 171 acres for golf course and other recreation and 20 acres for a neighborhood park. This constitutes approximately 36 percent of the development's 2,104 acres of land and qualifies as ry open space as noted above, which far exceeds the minimum 30 percent requirement for open space per the LDC. Therefore, the required provisions for open space as they relate to cluster 3 0, 7/ ` development, per the LDC, have been satisfied for the Pelican Bay PUD and this project, as to both the amount and location. In summary, although the Pelican Bay PUD does not expressly regulate the land areas' resulting from the clustering of the subject property's buildings, the theory of cluster development is not fully realized, as contemplated by the LDC and GMP, without applying the specific provisions for open space of the LDC as noted above. Because the LDC provisions clearly exempt PUDs from providing the same amount of open space that was produced as a result of setback reductions and exempt PUDs from providing it within the same general area of the subject development, it is my opinion that the Waterpark Place Development has satisfied the open space requirements of the LDC as it relates to cluster development and the PUD. In the third part of your request you note that Section 4.02.03 of the LDC states that "accessory buildings shall not occupy an area greater than five percent of the total lot area in all residential zoning districts" and you ask if additional garages can be constructed on the Waterpark Place Development tract. I assume from your question that you have determined that the proposed garage will occupy an area greater than five percent of the total lot area, although you have not provided that calculation. Nevertheless, on July 26, 2004, I authored a staff clarification (SC -04- 04) which provides guidance on the applicability of this section of the Land Development Code as read in conjunction with similar and related regulations contained in the LDC pursuant to accessory structures. My opinion, the background and explanation are provided below. Please note that the provisions of the LDC referenced below are from the "old" LDC (Ordinance No. 91 -102), which was later recodified into the "new" LDC (Ordinance No. 04 -41). BACKGROUND /CONSIDERATIONS: During review of a Site Development Plan for a multi- family project, staff was asked to clarify whether the limitations regarding size of accessory buildings - a maximum lot area in square feet that could be occupied by accessory buildings - would apply to an attached one -story structure providing parking for the residents of a multi- family high -rise tower. DETERMINATION (CLARIFICATION: It is my determination that a one -story parking structure attached to a multi-family tower would be considered part of the principal structure, and that the area occupied by the parking structure would not be used in the calculation of lot coverage by accessory structures. In Division 63 (Ordinance No. 91 -102), the definition of "Accessory Use or Structure" states that "Where a building is attached to a principal building, it shall be considered a part thereof, and not an accessory building, except as provided in Division 2.6... " Ordinance No. 91 -102, Section 2.6.2.1. (Location of Accessory Buildings and Structures) (also in Ordinance No. 04 -41 Section 4.02.03) states that '.An order to determine yard requirements, the term "accessory structure" shall include detached and attached accessory use structures of buildings notwithstanding the attachment of such structure or building containing the accessory use to the principal use structure or building. ' 4 74 Ordinance No. 91 -102, Section 2.6.2.3.(also in Ordinance No. 04 -41 Section 4.02.03 Limitations as to Size of Accessory buildings and Structures) states that "Accessory buildings shall not occupy an area greater than.ive percent of the total lot area in all residential zoning districts, or occupy an area greater than 40 percent of any building envelope... whichever is the lesser... " In conclusion, is my opinion that there is no exception in the language of Section 4.02.03 {also in Ordinance No. 91 -102) of the LDC to indicate that a parking structure attached to a multi- family high -rise tower would not be considered part of the principal structure and therefore it is my opinion that it would be exempt from accessory structure lot coverage requirements of the LDC. Pursuant to Division 10.02.02.F. of the LDC, this interpretation has been sent to you via certified mail, return receipt requested. A copy of this interpretation and appeal time frames will be placed in the Naples Daily News. Within 30 days of receipt of this letter, or within 30 days of publication of the public notice, any affected property owner or aggrieved or adversely affected party may appeal the interpretation to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). A request for an appeal must be filed in writing and must state the basis for the appeal and include any pertinent information, exhibits, or other back -up information in support of the appeal. The appeal must be accompanied by a $1,000.00 application and processing fee. If payment is in the form of a check, it should be made out to the Collier County Board of Commissioners. An appeal can be hand delivered or mailed to my attention at the address provided. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any further questions on this matter. Sincerely, �• J Susan M. Istenes, AICP, Director Department of Zoning & Land Development Review Cc: Collier County Board of County Commissioners Collier County Planning Commission Jim Mudd, County Manager Jeff Klatzkow, County Attorney Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, CDES Mike Sawyer, Senior Planner, Zoning Department Col (Ret) Theodore J. Raia, Jr., MC 7117 Pelican Bay Boulevard Apartment 404 Naples, Florida 34108 (239) 594 -2851 traia @embargmail.com August 31,2007 Mr. James Mudd Collier County Manager Administration Building F 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 Dear Mr. Mudd: 9/ RECEIVED OFFICE OF THE COUNTY MANAGER SEP - 4 2007 ACTION, , -4ce .k'z,4�waer5-72-, 1 1 have seen a preliminary site plan by Gulf Bay intended to replace the withdrawn Cap d'Antibes plan. This plan again reduces the setbacks between buildings from the required 200 feet to 150 feet. When and if this plan or any substitute plan is submitted to the Division of Community Development and Environmental Services for approval I would appreciate receiving notification of the submittal via email (traia0a embargmail.com). , In the past I believe former staff personnel have erred in giving approvals to reduced setbaC'k To quote Judge Brousseau's opinion in case No. 03 -3905, Janis M. Trecker, et al vs. Gulf Bay Investments, Inc: O�p9 "Robert J. Mulhere, who was responsible for issuing the final approval, testified that Collier County adhered to the procedures set forth in the PUD and the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). He determined that by "clustering" the buildings the PUD permitted the change from two standard sized buildings with required setbacks to two huge "clustered" buildings utilizing severely reduced setbacks. This conclusion is hard to understand in light of Division 6.3 of the LDC which states in the definition of a Cluster Development, "This form of development employs a more compact arrangement of dwelling units by allowing for reductions in the standard lot requirements of the applicable zoning district, with the difference between the reduced lot size and the standard lot requirement being placed in common open space." It is obvious that the intent of permitting clustering is to exchange reduced lot size requirements for more open space. Sadly, the site plan change allowed Cap d'Antibes to reduce setbacks AND increase building size. However, the appellate courts have ruled that this court is not empowered to act as a super zoning board, substituting our judgment for that of the legislative and administrative bodies exercising legitimate objectives." If approval of a site plan that does not meet the required setback of one -half the sum of the heights of the buildings, I would like to receive, again via email, a copy of the staff's reasoning in granting approval. It is my intent to appeal any approval that violates the PUD or LDC. Sincerely /--` Theodore J. Raia, Jr. Mr. Marc A. Huling Roetzel & Andress 850 Park Shore Drive Naples, FL 34103 Dear Marc: 1A Col (Ret) Theodore J. Raia, Jr., MC 7117 Pelican Bay Boulevard Apartment 404 Naples, Florida 34108 RECEIVED (239) 594 -2851 tedraia@earthlink.net OFFICE OF THE COUNTY MANAGER July 2, 2007 JUL - 3 1007 ACTION I have received the Settlement Agreement, dated May 22, 2007, between the Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc. and Gulf Bay Land Investments, Inc. After a careful read of the settlement I find that I cannot agree. While acknowledging the best efforts by you and the Foundation, I cannot in good conscience sign an agreement which I feel is wrong and not in the interests of the community. Let me explain this decision so that we may share a mutual understanding of my position. I believe that the Pelican Bay Planned Unit Development (PUD) and the Land Development Code take precedence over covenants and that covenant agreements cannot exceed what is permitted by the PUD or the LDC. Therefore the Foundation, Gulf Bay, the County staff and the Declarant, WCI, may not covenant outside of these bounds. Specifically the distances between buildings must be one half the sum of the heights of the buildings and in this case 200 feet. The submitted plan shows these to be only 150 feet. These distances may be reduced only by the Declarant, WCI, filing an amendment to the PUD. This has not been exercised to my knowledge since it would require a public hearing. Invoking section 7.04.03C of the PUD as the justification is not valid and I shall explain why. "Cluster" is not defined in the PUD but is covered in the LDC where its use excludes high rise buildings. Section 2.15 "Definitions" clearly states "all other definitions shall be contained in the Zoning Ordinance of Collier County." Furthermore clustering is designed to create more usable open space to be shared by the clustered units_ Let's assume that one could cluster high rise buildings, the plan should then show the space. Instead the created space is being used to accommodate larger buildings. If one follows this line of reasoning, setbacks between buildings apply only to single buildings but if you add more than one building setbacks do not apply. In fact the setbacks could be reduced to zero and the building foot print increased to fill the entire lot. This is not, and never was, the intent of the PUB nor the LDC. To quote Judge Brousseau's opinion in case No. 03 -3905, Janis M. Trecker, et al vs. Gulf Bay Investments, Inc: "Robert J. Mulhere, who was responsible for issuing the final approval, testified that Collier County adhered to the procedures set forth in the PUD and the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). He determined that by "clustering" the buildings the PUD permitted the change from two standard sized buildings with required setbacks to two huge "clustered" buildings utilizing severely reduced setbacks. This conclusion is hard to understand in light of Division 6.3 of the LDC which states in the definition of a Cluster Development, "This form of development employs a more compact arrangement of dwelling units by allowing for reductions in the standard lot requirements of the applicable zoning district, with the difference between the reduced lot size and the standard lot requirement being placed in common open space." It is obvious that the intent of permitting clustering is to exchange reduced lot size requirements for more open space. Sadly, the site plan change allowed Cap d'Antibes to reduce setbacks AND increase building size. However, the appellate courts have ruled that this court is not empowered to act as a super zoning board, substituting our judgment for that of the legislative and administrative bodies exercising legitimate objectives." What legitimate objectives will be exercised by submitting a plan containing the same violation for which the defendants had already been admonished by Judge Brousseau? Another reason why I cannot agree to this settlement is the addition of two more garages. Section 2.6.2.3 of the LDC states that garages in all residential zoning districts cannot exceed 5% of the total land area. The two existing garages already occupy 5 %. The PUD does not allow for any exceptions. The Declarant, WCI, may file for an amendment to allow a change, but until that is executed this approval would be in violation. In summary, I would like to approve the settlement if it conforms to all the sections of the PUD and the LDC. Over the entrance to the city hall in Cambridge, Massachusetts is inscribed "If laws are not enforced the people are not well governed." Sincerely, Theodore J. Raia, Jr. CC: Richard H. Critchlow, Aubrey J. Ferrao Mark Woodward Jim Hoppensteadt Pelican Bay Foundation Board PBPOA Board Com. Frank Halas James Mudd Joseph Schmitt St. Laurent Condominium Association St. Pierre Condominium Association St. Raphael Condominium Association �a � s �*' � Ems". - r. �► I •,- February 5, 2008 12• tIt� - COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT Community Development and Environmental Services Division Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, Florida 34104 Col (Ret) Theodore J. Raia, Jr., M.D. 7117 Pelican Bay Boulevard Apartment 404 Naples, FL 34108 RE: Request for zoning verification letter SDPA- 2007 -AR -12644 Waterpark Place, Dear Mr. Raia: Enclosed please find your request for Zoning verification and the $100.00 check you submitted with your application. The subject of the request, SDPA - 2007 -AR -12644 Waterpark Place, is a project which is currently under administrative review and has not been approved to date. Neither the Collier County Land Development Code nor the Code of Laws provides an opportunity to challenge the potential approval of a project which is essentially your request. Should you wish to object to the Site Development Plan approval, once it is approved, you may do so by filing a request for appeal in accordance with County Codes of Laws and Ordinances, specifically as noted below: Sec. 250 -58. Appeal from decision of administrative official. (a) Appeals to a board of zoning appeals or the governing body, as the case may be, may be taken by any person aggrieved or by any officer, department, board, or bureau of the governing body or bodies in the area affected by the decision, determination or requirement made by the administrative official. Such appeals shall be taken within 30 days by filing with the administrative official a written notice specifying the grounds thereof. The administrative official shall forthwith transmit to the board all papers, documents, and maps constituting the record of the action from which an appeal is taken. (b) Due public notice of the hearing on the appeal shall be given. (c) Upon the hearing, any party may appear in person or by attorney. A decision shall be reached by the appellate body within 30 days of the hearing; otherwise, the action appealed from shall be deemed affirmed. (Laws of Fla. ch. 67 -1246, § 16) We will be willing to advise you of the approval date of this project so that you may file a timely appeal with the appropriate fee. Please note that once the project is approved, you have 30 days to file an appeal pursuant to the Code of Laws and the Land Development Code. Sincerely, Susan M. Istenes, AICP Director, Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. C T11. _ /n'ln\ All -Ann COL (RET) THEODORE J. RATA, M.D. FILOMENA T. RATA 7117 PELICAN BAY BLVD., #404 NAPLES, FL 34108 PAY TO THE ORDER OF_ 3 y f MEMO l 0`/2870 1204 DATE r z� p � $/001 G DOLLARS L'J r Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc. May 30, 2007 Mr. Aubrey J. Ferran Gulf Bay Land investments, Inc., as Managing Member Of the Parcel J Joint Venture 8156 Fiddler's Creek Parkway Naples, FL 34114 -0816 Re: Approval for Development of Cap d'Antibes Waterpark Place, Pelican Bay, Naples, Florida Dear Mr. Ferrao: I write to you as the president of the Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc., an assignee of some of the powers of the declarant of the deed restrictions governing the property in Waterpark Place (the "Foundation "). The purpose of this letter is to confirm and convey the Foundation's approval for the development in Waterpark Place of two high -rise condominium projects, currently known as Cap d'Antibes (Building 1) and Cote d'Azur (Building II), by Parcel J Joint Venture ("Parcel Y), in accordance with the attached exhibits, drawings and plans, and the Agreement between Parcel J and the Foundation to which this letter is Exhibit "C." The Foundation provides its approval for the development of the two towers currently known as Cap d'Antibes (Building I) and Cote d'Azur (Building 11), having the authority to modify, amend and waive some of the covenants, conditions, restrictions and other provisions of the deed restrictions recorded on the property as set forth in the assignments attached hereto as Composite Exhibit "A." These deed restrictions are entitled, "Declaration of Restrictions and Protective Covenants for a Portion of Parcel B, Future Pelican Bay Unit Fifteen, Collier County, Florida" and dated June 28, 1990, as amended from time to time (hereinafter, the Waterpark Place Restrictions'), and entitled "Amended and Restated Declaration and General Protective Covenants for Pelican Bay" dated November 30, 2001 (hereinafter, the "Amended and Restated Declaration"). This written approval for the development of the two high -rise condominium projects, currently known as Cap d'Antibes and Cote d'Azur, is based upon a review and understanding of the conceptual design site development plan for Cap d'Antibes at Waterpark Paace, see sheet SK- 4 dated April 17, 2007, revised May 15, 2007, by BC Architects ALA and attached hereto as page 1 of Composite Exhibit "B ", and the east elevation of the two hi -rise condominium buildings as depicted on sheet A.02 dated April 17, 2007, revised May 9, 2007, prepared by BC Architects AIA and attached hereto as page 2 of Composite Exhibit "B" (collectively, the "Conceptual Design Plan"). The Conceptual Design Plan reflects the intent of the parties and sets forth the following: Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc.. 6251 Pelican Bay Boulevard - Naples, Florida 34108 (239) 597 -8081 - (239) 597 -6802 FAX- E -Mail: memberservices @pelicanbay.org 0 JA Letter to Mr. Ferrao Page 2 of 4 • The minimum distances between the two high -rise buildings (Buildings I and M --150 feet'; • The minimum distance between the St. Laurent and Building 11- 150 feet; • The minimum distance from Building I and the north property line —100 feet; • The minimum distance between the St. Laurent parking garage and the Building II parking garage -- 37 feet; • The minimum distance between Building 11 and the St. Laurent parking garage — 45 feet; • The minimum distances between the Villa Unit and the St. Laurent, and the Villa Unit and Building H — both equal to or greater than 50 feet. • The minimum distances between the western most edge of Building I, the western most edge of Building H, the western most edge of the St. Laurent, and the western most edge of the St. Pierre, and the western property line — all equal to or greater than 50 feet. • For both Building I and Building H: the top of lobby slab will be situated at 133' NGVD (or the minimum floor elevation required by law, which is currently 13.3' NGVD), the distance from the top of the lobby slab to the top of the main roof slab shall not exceed 200', and the distance from the top of the lobby slab to the uppermost part of the building shall not exceed 224' 8 ". + The minimum distance between the parking garages of Building I and Building H —128 feet; 1 The parties acknowledge and understand that the Conceptual Design Plan is conceptual and a preliminary design and while Parcel J agrees to construct the Project consistent with the intent of the Agreement; the patties recognize and understand that future coordination of multiple design disciplines (including those of the mechanical, civil and structural engineers), as well as an evaluation of the final building systems and equipment, considerations based on other project criteria, changes created by field conditions and requirements of governing authorities, that the distances identified by the Conceptual Design Plan may vary. With that in mind Parcel J agrees that the footprints of the buildings will not change in size or location subject to the fact that the Foundation agrees to accept changes in the distances depicted on the Conceptual Design Plan other than a change to the height of a building so long as any given change does not exceed the distance reflected on the Conceptual Design Plan by more than three percent (3 %). Parcel J will provide notice to the Foundation for any change of which Parcel J has knowledge that exceeds 1% of the distances reflected on the plans. 0 0 _�A Letter to Mr. Ferrao Page 3 of 4 The minimum distance from the Building I parking garage and the north property line — 59 feet; • The approximate total acreage for Building I, including parking garage —1.3 acres (or 56,813 sq. ft.), as distributed in Composite Exhibit `B "; • The approximate total acreage for Building II, including parking — 1.29 acres (or 56,637 sq. ft.), as distributed in Composite Exhibit «B». • The location of the two high -rise buildings and attached parking garages on the Property; • The elevations of the two high -rise buildings; • The footprint of the two high -rise buildings; — • Parking garages of 26.63' NGVD to the top of the tennis deck slab. No structures on the parking garages will exceed the height of 46.7' NGVD. We understand that the site features depicted on the Conceptual Design Plan, such as driveways, walks, pools, water features, parking, etc., are illustrative only and are subject to modification and change upon architectural and engineering review and upon review by governing authorities having jurisdiction over these improvements. Based on all the information contained in the Conceptual Design Plan, the Foundation concludes that the proposed development for Cap d'Antibes and Cote d'Azur is consistent with the general uniform plan of development for Waterpark Place, as that phrase is used in the Waterpark Place Restrictions and the Amended and Restated Declaration. The Foundation further has determined that construction of the two high -rise clustered buildings as shown on the Conceptual Design Plan is consistent with the common architectural theme for Waterpark Place, and with the waivers and approvals granted herein complies with all provisions of the Waterpark Place Restrictions and the Amended and Restated Declaration. Therefore, the Foundation has determined that Parcel J's proposed construction of the high -rise condominium project currently known as Cap d'Antibes (Building 1) and Cote d'Azur (Building II) can be constructed as depicted on the Conceptual Design Plan. By this letter, the Foundation intends to confirm and convey its approval for Parcel J's development of Cap d'Antibes and Cote d'Azur as set forth in the Conceptual Design Plan. If, urther explanation or is deemed not to provide the for any reason, this approval letter requires f • � 'IA Letter to Mr. Ferrao Page 4 of 4 requisite approval for Parcel J's development of Cap d'Antibes or Cote d'Azur in accordance with the Conceptual Design Plan, please do not hesitate to request additional written confirmation of approval from the Foundation. It is our express intention to facilitate the construction of Cap d'Antibes and Cote d'Azur in accordAnce with the Conceptual Plan. V y ours, P esident 526793 v_01 \067730.0006 q 'NMI, IN -rim 1A ST. PIF-13RE CONDON11INH)M ASSOCUCYION, !NC, BOARD OF DIRECTORS June 4, 2007 Mr.-Aabre-Y J. Fomo Guirst,y-Did, lilvestmentgJfic., as Managing Member at the Pardee J Joint Venture 8 156 Fiddler's Creek Parkway Naples, FL 14114-0816 I ' fac Re-61 Approval for Devoloptnonf-of0tp dlAnfibca, stod C P ote, d'Azor, Waterpark 41 Pelican Bay, Naples, Florida Bear Mr. Ferrao: I write to you as the President of the $t. Piarft at Waterpark Place Condominium Association, Inc., (the "St. Pierre Condomird'um As I fi, 1. The purpose ofthis1c.04 is to confirm and convey the St. Pierre, :Cohdomfnlivn Association's appmvaJ,f0 the development in Waterpark Place of two Mgh-fisp condominium projects, currin* knQvwn:as Cap d'Antibes (Building 1) and,Cote d'Azur (Building 11), by Parool, I Joint.Ventura (`Tareel T% in accordance with the attached exhibits, drawings and plans. The St. Pierre Condominium Association proAdes Its approval for the development of the -two towers currently known as Cap 4'Antba (BuBdilig D and Cote d'Azur (Building 11), having the authority to enforce, modify, amend and waive some of the covenants, conditions, restrictions and other provisions of the. "Declaration of Restrictions and Protective Covenants for a Pordon of Parcel B, Future Pelican Bay Unit Fifty, C6111cr County, Florida" and dated June 28,1990, as amended frotn' titii6 wtitna (horcinaft-r, the Waterpark Place Restrictions"). This written approval for the development of the two high-rise condominium projects, currently known as Cap d'Antibes and Cote d'Azur, is based upon a review and undmt4nding of the conceptual design site development plan for Cap. d'Antibes and Cote d'Azur at Waterpark Place, see shod SK-4 dated April 17, 2007, revised May 15, 2007, 2007 by BC Architects AIA and attached hereto as page I of Composite Exhibit "B" , and the east elevation of the two hi-rise condominium buildings as depicted on shect.A.02 dated April 17,2007, revised May 9, 2007, prepared by BC Architects ALA and attached hereto as page 2 of Composite Exhibit "B" (collectively, the "Conceptual Design Plan"). The Conceptual Design Plan reflects the intent of the parties and sets forth the following- GRENADIER BOULEVARD • NAPLES, FLORIDA 34108 (941) 566-1248 • FAX (941) 566-2279 , K Letter to Mr. Ferrao Page 2 of 4 • The distances between the two high -rise buildings (Buildings I and 11) —150 feet; • The distance between the St. Pierre and Building II —150 feet; • The distance from Building Land the north property line — 100 feet; ti • The distance between the St. Pierre parking garage acrd the Building I1 parltlttg garage — 37 feet; • The distance between Building Rand the St. Pierre parking garage — 45. feet; The distance between the, illa:Utit and the St. Pierre, and the Villa Unit and Building II —'both equal to or greater than 50 feet. • The distance -between the westem most edge of Building IA he western most edge. of Building II, the western most edge of the St. Pierre, and the western most edge of the St. Pierre, and the western property line — all equal to or greater than 50 feet. • For both BW14ing I and Building I1; the top of lobby slab will be situated lat -13.3' NGVD,(or the floor elovation required bylaw, which is currently 13.3°' NGVD), the distance from the top of the lobby slab to the top of the main roof slab shall not exceed 200', and the distance from the top of the lobby slab to the uppermost part of the building shall not exceed 224' 8". The distance; between the parking garages of Building I and Building`11 -128 feet; • The distance-from the Building- Lparking garage and the north ' The parties acknowledge said understand that the Conceptual Design Plan is conceptual and a preliminary design and while Parcel J agrees to construct the Project consistent with the intent of the Agreement; the parties recognize and understand that future coordination of multiple design disciplines (including those of the mechanical, civil and structural engineers), as well as an evaluation of the final building systems and equipment, considerations based on other project criteria, changes created by field conditions and requirements of governing authorities, that the distances identified by the Conceptual Design Plan may vary. With that in mind Parcel J agrees that the footprints of the buildings will not change in sue or location subject to the fact that the SL Pierre Condominium Association agrees to accept changes in the distances depicted on the Conceptual Design Plan so long as any given change does not exceed the distance reflected on the Conceptual Design Plan by more than three percent (3 %). Parcel 7 will provide notice to the St. Pierre Condominium Association for any, change of which. Parcel J has knowledge that exceeds 1%ofthe distances reflected on the plans. K': Letter to Mr. Ferrao Page 3 of 4 property line.— 58 feet; • The approxinvitte total acreage for Building 1, including parking garage —1.3 acres (or 56,813 sq. ft.), as distributed in Composite Exhibit "B"; The approximate total acreage for Building 11, including parking — " 1-29 acres (or 56,637 sq. ft.), as distri buted -in Composite Exhibit • The location of 1he two bigW�rise buildings and attached parking garages, on the Property, • The elevations ofthe two high-rise buildings; • The loOtpnint.,of the two hWdse buildiqgs,, • Parking gArages of 26463, NGVD to, the top of the tennis deck slab. No structures on the parking garages will exceed the height of 46.7' NGVD. We understand that. the site features depicted. on the Conceptual Desio Plan, such as driveways, walks, pools, water features,: parking, etc., are illustrative only and are subject to modification :and change ;upon artft aural and engineering review and upon review by g overning authorities ha*149, 1 urisdiOtift ever these hprovernents. Based on all -the infomation containe itt the Conceptual Design Plan, the St. Pierre Condomirilum Associatipa.-concludes that 6e proposed d0elopmeftt of tap d'Antibes and -Cote d'A.z.ur is consistent with the poorolviffbiln plaAvf -development for Waterpark Place, as that ph-rase is used in the Waterpark Place Restrictions. The St. Pierre Condominium Association further has determine.d.that construction, of the two,blghrrise clustered buildings as shown on the Conceptual Design Plan: is consistent with the com boh. architectural theme for Watetpark Place, and with the waivers and approvals granted herein complies with all provisions of the Watcrpark Place Restrictions. lberefore, the St. Pierre Condominium Association has determined that Parcel J's proposed construction of 1he high-rise condominium pwject currently known as Cap d'Antibes (Building 1) and Cote d'Azlir (Building IT) I can be constructed as depicted on the Conceptual Design Plan. By this letter, the St. Pierre Condominium Association intends to confirm and convey its approval for Parcel Js development of Cap d'Antibes and Cote d'Azur as set forth, in the Conceptual Design,Plan, If, for any reason, this .appr ' oval letter requires further explanation or is deemed not to provide the requisite approval for Parcel J's development of Cap d'Antibes or Cote d"Azur in accordance with the Conceptual Design Plan, please do not hesitate to request X Letter to Mr. Ferrao Pap 4 of '4 Additional itfen eqrtrtattrt #val frr�m tie St. Terre Gcr do $Pty. ° ' n urn Assoo tipa. It is our expr"s tow to OR #ate 0 cOmiM, 60n Of Cap d';Ati.tib s end 'Co'te d' Azur in accordance with thnseptuat-Plan. Very truly yours, PreMdent t ti Condominium Association 6849 Grenadier Boulevard Naples, Florida 34108 Phone: (239) 592 -1951 Fax: (239) 592 -1335 May 22, 2007 Mr. Aubrey J. Ferrao Gulf Bay Land Investments, Inc., as Managing Member Of the Parcel J Joint Venture 8156 Fiddler's Creek Parkway Naples, FL 34114 -0816 Re: Approval for Development of Cap d'Antibes and Cote d'Azur, Waterpark Place, Pelican Bay, Naples, Florida Dear Mr. Ferrao: I write to you as the President of the St. Laurent at Waterpark Place Condominium Association, Inc., (the "St. Laurent Condominium Association "). The purpose of this letter is to confirm and convey the St. Laurent Condominium Association's approval for the development in Waterpark Place of two high -rise condominium projects, currently known as Cap d'Antibes (Building I) and Cote d'Azur (Building 11), by Parcel J Joint Venture ( "Parcel J "), in accordance with the attached exhibits, drawings and plans, and the Agreement between Parcel J and the St. Laurent Condominium Association to which this letter is Exhibit "C ". The St. Laurent Condominium Association provides its approval for the development of the two towers currently known as Cap d'Antibes (Building 1) and Cote d'Azur (Building ID, having the authority to enforce, modify, amend and waive some of the covenants, conditions, restrictions and other provisions of the "Declaration of Restrictions and Protective Covenants for a Portion of Parcel B, Future Pelican Bay Unit Fifteen, Collier County, Florida" and dated June 28, 1990, as amended from time to time (hereinafter, the Waterpark Place Restrictions "). This written approval for the development of the two high -rise condominium projects, currently known as Cap d'Antibes and Cote d'Azur, is based upon a review and understanding of the conceptual design site development plan for Cap d'Antibes and Cote d'Azur at Waterpark Place, see sheet SK4 dated April 17, 2007, revised May 15, 2007, 2007 by BC Architects AIA and attached hereto as page 1 of Composite Exhibit "B ", and the east elevation of the two hi -rise condominium buildings as. depicted on sheet A.02 dated April 17, 2007, revised May 9, 2007, prepared by BC Architects AiA and attached hereto as page 2 of Composite Exhibit "B" 0 IA Letter to Mr. Ferrao Page 2 of 4 (collectively, the "Conceptual Design Plan"). The Conceptual Design Plan reflects the intent of the parties and sets forth the following: • The minimum distances between the two high -rise buildings (Buildings I and 11) —150 feet'; The minimum distance between the St. Laurent and Building II — 150 feet; The minimum distance from Building I and the north property line — 100 feet; The minimum distance between the St. Laurent parking garage and the Building II parking garage — 37 feet; • The minimum distance between Building II and the St. Laurent parking garage — 45 feet; • The minimum distance between the Villa Unit and the St. Laurent, and the Villa Unit and Building II — both equal to or greater than 50 feet. • The minimum distance between the western most edge of Building I, the western most edge of Building H, the western most edge of the St. Laurent, and the western most edge of the St. Pierre, and the western property line — all equal to or greater than 50 feet. • For both Building I and Building II: the top of lobby slab will be situated at 13.3' NGVD (or the minimum floor elevation required by law, which is currently 13.3' NGVD), the distance from the top of the lobby slab to the top of the main roof slab shall not exceed 200', and the distance from the top of the lobby slab to the ' The parties acknowledge and understand that the Conceptual Design Plan is conceptual and a preliminary design and while Parcel J agrees to construct the Project consistent with the intent of the Agreement; the parties recognize and understand that future coordination of multiple design disciplines (including those of the mechanical, civil and structural engineers), as well as an evaluation of the final building systems and equipment, considerations based on other project criteria, changes created by field conditions and requirements of governing authorities, that the distances identified by the Conceptual Design Plan may vary. With that in mind Parcel J agrees that the footprints of the buildings will not change in size or location subject to the fact that the St. Laurent Condominium Association agrees to accept changes in the distances depicted on the Conceptual Design Plan other than a change to the height of a building so long as any given change does not exceed the distance reflected on the Conceptual Design Plan by more than three percent (3 % }. Parcel J will provide notice to the St. Laurent Condominium Association for any change of which Parcel J has knowledge that exceeds 1% of the distances reflected on the plans. Letter to Mr. Ferran Page 3 of 4 uppermost part of the building shall not exceed 224' 8 ". • The minimum distance between the parking garages of Building I and Building II — 128 feet; • The minimum distance from the Building I parking garage and the north property line — 58 feet; • The approximate total acreage for Building I, including parking garage —1.3 acres (or 56,813 sq. ft.), as distributed in Composite Exhibit "B"; • The approximate total acreage for Building R, including parking — 1.29 acres (or 56,637 sq. ft.), as distributed in Composite Exhibit «B"; • The location of the two high -rise buildings and attached parking garages on the Property; • The elevations of the two high -rise buildings; • The footprint of the two high -rise buildings; • Parking garages of 26.63' NGVD to the top of the tennis- deck slab. No structures on the parking garages will exceed the height of 46.7' NGVD. We understand that the site features depicted on the Conceptual Design Plan, such as driveways, walks, pools, water features, parking, etc., are illustrative only and are subject to modification and change upon architectural and engineering review and upon review by governing authorities having jurisdiction over these improvements. Based on all the information contained in the Conceptual Design Plan, the St. Laurent Condominium Association concludes that the proposed development of Cap d'Antibes and Cote d'Azur is consistent with the general uniform plan of development for Waterpark Place, as that phrase is used in the Waterpark Place Restrictions. The St. Laurent Condominium Association further has determined that construction of the two high -rise clustered buildings as shown on the Conceptual Design Plan is consistent with the common architectural theme for Waterpark Place, and with the waivers and approvals granted herein complies with all provisions of the Waterpark Place Restrictions. Therefore, the St. Laurent Condominium Association has deterniuted that Letter to Mr. Fen-4o Page 4 of 4 Parcel J's proposed construction of the high -rise condominium project currently known as Cap d'Antibes (Building I) and Cote d'Azur (Building II) can be constructed as depicted on the Conceptual Design Plan, By this letter, the St. Laurent Condominium Association intends to confirm and convey its approval for Parcel J's development of Cap d'Antibes. and Cote d'Azur as set forth in the Conceptual Design Plan. If, for any reason, this approval letter requires further explanation or is deemed not to provide the requisite approval for Parcel J's development of Cap d'Antibes or Cote d'Azur in accordance with the Conceptual Design Plan, please do not hesitate to request additional written confirmation of approval from the St. Laurent Condominium Association. It is our express intention to facilitate the construction of Cap d'Antibes and Cote d'Azur in accordance with the Conceptual Plan. Very truly yours, .4-dG President ST. i &PM CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, AC. BOARD OF DIRECTORS SDPA- 2007 -AR- 12644 REV: 2 WATERPARK PLACE PH III & IV Project: 2007120008 Date: 315/08 DUE: 4/2108 June 4, 2007 Mr. Aubrey J. Ferrao Gulf Bay Land Investments, Inc., as Managing Member Of the Parcel 3 Joint Venture 8156 Fiddler's Creek Parkway Naples, FL 34114-0816 Re: Approval for Development of Cap d'Antibes and Cote d'Azur, Wate"Mrk Place, Pelican Bay, Naples, Florida Dear Mr. Ferrao: I write to you as the President of the St. Pierre at Waterpark Place Condominium Association, Inc., (the "St. Pierre Condominium Association'). The purpose of this letter is to confirm and convey the St. Pierre Condominium Association's approval for the development in Waterpark Place of two high -rise condominium projects, currently known as Cap d'Antibes (Building 1) and Cote d'Azur (Building 11), by Parcel J Joint Venture ( "Parcel J "), in accordance with the attached exhibits, drawings and plans, and the Agreement between Parcel J and the St. Pierre Condominium Association to which this letter is Exhibit "C" The St. Pierre Condominium Association provides its approval for the development of the two towers currently known as Cap d'Antibes (Building 1) and Cote d'Azur (Building 11), having the authority to enforce, modify, amend and waive some of the covenants, conditions, restrictions and other provisions of the "Declaration of Restrictions and Protective Covenants for a Portion of Parcel B, Future Pelican Bay Unit Fifteen, Collier County, Florida" and dated June 28, 1990. as amended from time to time (hereinafter, the Waterpark Place Restrictions"). This written approval for the development of the two high -rise condominium projects, currently known as Cap d'Antibes and Cote d'Azur, is based upon a review and understanding of the conceptual design site development plan for Cap d'Antibes and Cote d'Azur at Waterpark Place, see sheet SK-4 dated April 17, 2007, revised May 15, 2007, 2007 by BC Architects AIA and attached hereto as page l of Composite Exhibit "B ", and the east elevation of the two hi -rise condominium buildings as depicted on sheet A.02 dated April 17, 2007, revised May 9, 2007, prepared by BC Architects AIA and attached hereto as page 2 of Composite Exhibit "B" (collectively, the "Conceptual Design Plan"). The Conceptual Design Plan reflects the intent of 6825 GRENADIER BOULEVARD • NAPLES. FLORIDA 34 108 1941) 566 -1248 • FAX (941) 566 -2279 ST...ERRE CONDUMWtUM Asst]CIA -ncft ..4C. BOARD OF DIRECTORS Letter to Mr. Ferrao Page ? of 4 the parties and sets forth the following: • The distances between the two high -rise buildings (Buildings I and 11) -- 150 fitett; • The distance between the St. Laurent and Building I1— 150 feet; • The distance from Building 1 and the north property line -100 feet; • The distance between the St. Laurent parking garage and the Building 1I parking garage -- 37 feet; • The distance between Building It and the SL Laurent parking garage — 45 feet; The distance between the Villa Unit and the St. Laurent, and the Villa Unit and Building 11— both equal to or greater than 50 feet. The distance between the western most edge of Building 1, the western most edge of Building 11, the western most edge of the St. Laurent, and the western most edge of the St. Pierre, and the western property line —all equal to or greater than 50 feet. • For both Building I and Building 11: the top of lobby slab will be situated at 133' NGVD (or the minimum floor elevation required by law, which is currently 13.3' NGVD), the distance from the top of the lobby slab to the top of the main roof slab shall not exceed 200', and the distance from the top of the lobby slab to the Uppermost part of the building shall not exceed 224' 8". • The distance between the parking garages of Building I and Building II --128 feet; 'The parties acknowledge and understand that the Conceptual Design Plan is cancephW and a preliminary design and while Parcel J agrees to construct the Project consistent with the hde d of the Agreement; the parties recognize and understand that future coordination of multiple design disciplines (incltugng tbwe of the mechanical, civil and slrvetuml engineers), as well as an evaluation of the finol building systems and equipmmm, considerations basest on other project criteria, changes created by field conditions and requirements of governing outhorgiec, that the distances identified by the Conceptual Design Plan may vary. With that in mired Parcel J agrees that the footprints or the buildings will not change in size or location subject to the fact that the 5t. Pierre Condominium Association agrees to accept changes in the distances depicted on the Conceptual Design Pbrn so long as any given change does not exceed the distance reflected on the Conceptual Design Plan by mete than th#= portent (3%: Parcel J will provide notice to the St. Pierre Condominium Association for any change of which Parcel J has knotvicdge that exceeds I Yo of the distances reflected on the plans. 6825 GRENADIER BOLLEVARD • NAPLES. FLORIDA 341 08 (941) 588.1248 - FAX (941) 586 -2279 iA ST . iMM COMOMINIUM ASSOCIATION. AC. BOARD OF DIRECTORS Letter to Mr. Ferrao Page 3 of 4 • The distance from the Building I parking garage and the north property line— 58 feet; • The approximate total acreage for Building 1, including parking garage — 13 acres (or 56,813 sq, ft.), as distributed in Composite Exhibit "B' • The approximate total acreage for Building 11, including parking -- 1.29 acres (or 56,637 sq. ft.), as distributed in Composite Exhibit "B"; • The Iocation of the two high -rise buildings and attached parking garages on the Property; • The elevations of the two high -rise buildings; • The footprint of the two high -rise buildings; Parking garages of 26.63' NGVD to the top of the tennis deck slab. No structures on the parking garages will exceed the height of 46.7' NGVD. We understand that the site features depicted on the Conceptual Design Plan, such as driveways, walks, pools, water features, parking, etc., are illustrative only and are subject to modification and change upon architectural and engineering review and upon review by governing authorities having jurisdiction over these improvements. Based on all the information contained in the Conceptual Design Plan, the St. Pierre Condominium Association concludes that the proposed development of Cap d'Antibes and Cote d'Azur is consistent with the general uniform plan of development for Waterpark Place, as that phrase is used in the Waterpark Place Restrictions. The St. Pierre Condominium Association further has determined that construction of the two high -rise clustered buildings as shown on the Conceptual Design Plan is consistent with the common architectural theme for Waterpark Place, and with the waivers and approvals granted herein complies with all provisions of the Waterpark Place Restrictions. Therefore, the St. Pierre Condominium Association has determined that Parcel 1's proposed construction of the high -rise condominium project currently known as Cap d'Antibes (Building i) and Cote d'Azur (Building 11) can be constructed as depicted on the Conceptual Design Plan. By this letter, the St. Pierre Condominium Association intends to confirm and convey its approval for Parcel J's development of Cap d'Antibes and Cote d'Azur as set forth in the Conceptual Design Plan. If, for any reason, this approval letter requires further explanation or is deemed not to provide the requisite approval for Parcel J's development of Cap d'Antibcs or 6825 GRENADIER BOULEVARD • NAPLES, FLORIDA 34108 (941) S66-1248 • FAX (941) 586.2279 -1-V SI..:ERRE CONDOMM M ASSOCIATIO!\, ..VC. BOAR13 OF DIRECTORS Letter to Mr. Ferran Page 4 of Cote d'Azur in accordance with the Conceptual Design Plan. please do not hesitate to request additional written confirmation of approval from the $t. Pierre Condominium Association. It is our express intention to facilitate the construction of Cap d'Antibes and Cate d'Azur in accordance with the Conceptual Plan. Very truly yours,_ President 6825 GRENADIER BOULEVARD • NAPLES. FL )RIDA 34108 (94 t ) 566.1246 • FAX (941) 566 -2279 [, ± 4W +, r 4 i . � AMA 7 2411 YL LIL :Jij i�- ally, -!7- � 71.e--,-m7m�m;ll trill X 24Ce7- P4, OtARGaurritt Condominium Association 6849 Grenadier Boulevard Naples, Florida 34108 Phone: (239) 592 -1951 Fax: (239) 592 -1335 May 22, 2007 Mr. Aubrey J. Perrao Gulf Bay Land Investments, Inc., as Managing Member Of the Parcel J Joint Venture 8156 Fiddler's Creek Parkway Naples, FL 341 14 -0816 SDPA- 2007 -AR -12644 REV: 2 WATERPARK PLACE PH III & IV Project: 2007120008 Date: 315108 DUE: 412108 Re: Approval for Development of Cap d'Antibes and Cote d'Azur, Waterpark Place, Pelican Bay, Naples, Florida Dear Mr. Ferrao: I write to you as the President of the St. Laurent at Waterpark Place Condominium Association, Inc., (the "St. Laurent Condominium Association "}. The purpose of this letter is to confirm and convey the St. Laurent Condominium Association's approval for the development in Waterpark Place of two high -rise condominium projects, currently known as Cap d'Antibes (Building 1) and Cote d'Azur (Building 11), by Parcel J Joint Venture ( "Parcel J"), in accordance with the attached exhibits, drawings and plans, and the Agreement between Parcel J and the St. Laurent Condominium Association to which this letter is Exhibit "C ". The St. Laurent Condominium Association provides its approval for the development of the two towers currently known as Cap d'Antibes (Building 1) and Cote d'Azur (Building II), having the authority to enforce, modify, amend and waive some of the covenants, conditions, restrictions and other provisions of the "Declaration of Restrictions and Protective Covenants for a Portion of Parcel B, Future Pelican Bay Unit Fifteen, Collier County, Florida" and dated June 28, 1990, as amended from time to time (hereinafter, the Waterpark Place Restrictions "). This written approval for the development of the two high -rise condominium projects, currently known as Cap d'Antibes and Cote d'Azur, is based upon a review and understanding of the conceptual design site development plan for Cap d'Antibes and Cote d'Azur at Waterpark Place, see sheet SK-4 dated April 17, 2007, revised May 15, 2007, 2007 by BC Architects AIA and attached hereto as page 1 of Composite Exhibit "B ", and the east elevation of the two hi -rise condominium buildings as depicted on sheet A.02 dated April 17, 2007, revised May 9, 2007, prepared by BC Architects AIA and attached hereto as page 2 of Composite Exhibit 'S" 1 Letter to Mr. Ferrao Page 2 of 4 I J- (collectively, the "Conceptual Design Plan "). The Conceptual Design Plan reflects the intent of the parties and sets forth the following. • The minimum distances between the two high -rise buildings (Buildings I and 11) -150 feet'; • The minimum distance between the St. Laurent and Building II — 150 feet; • The minimum distance from Building I and the north property line —100 feet; • The minimum distance between the St. Laurent parking garage and the Building II parking garage — 37 feet; • The minimum distance between Building II and the St. Laurent parking garage — 45 feet; • The minimum distance between the Villa Unit and the St. Laurent, and the Villa Unit and Building II —both equal to or greater than 50 feet. • The minimum distance between the western most edge of Building I, the western most edge of Building II, the western most edge of the St. Laurent, and the western most edge of the SL Pierre, and the western property line — all equal to or greater than 50 feet. • For both Building I and Building II: the top of lobby slab will be situated at 13.3' NGVD (or the minimum floor elevation required by law, which is currently 13.3' NGVD), the distance from, the top of the lobby slab to the top of the main roof slab shall not exceed 200', and the distance from the top of the lobby slab to the The parties ackrrowledga and understand that the Conceptwd Design Plan is conceptual and a preliminary design, and while Parcel J agrees to construct the Project consistent with the intent of the Agreement; the parties recognize and understand that future coordination of multiple design disciplines (including those of the mechanical, civil and structural engineers), as well as an evaluation of the final budding systems and equipment, considerations based on other project criteria, changes created by field conditions and requirements of governing authorities, that the distances identified by the Conceptual Design Plan may vary. With that in mind Parcel J agrees that the footprints of the buildings will not change in size or location subject to the fact that the St. Laurent Condominium Association agrees to accept changes in the distances depicted on the Conceptual Design Plan other than a change to the height of a building so long as any given change does not exceed the distance reflected on the Conceptual Design Plan by more than three percent (3 %). ParceI J will provide notice to the St. Laurent Condominium Association for any change of which Parcel J bas knowledge that exceeds 1°% of the distances reflected an the plans. Letter to Mr. Fen: ao Page 3 of 4 uppermost part of the building shall not exceed 224' 8 ". • The minimum distance between the parking garages of Building I and Building iI --128 feet; • The minimum distance from the Building I parking garage and the north property line — 58 feet; • The approximate total acreage for Building I, including parking garage —1.3 acres (or 56,813 sq. ft.), as distributed in Composite Exhibit 193"; • The approximate total acreage for Building 11, including parking — 1.29 acres (or 56,637 sq. ft.), as distributed in Composite Exhibit "B,,. « The location of the two high -rise buildings and attached parking garages on the Property; • The elevations of the two high -rise buildings; • The footprint of the two high -rise buildings; • Parking garages of26.63' NGVD to the top of the tennis-deck slab. No structures on the parking garages will exceed the height of 46.7' NGVD. We understand that the site features depicted on the Conceptual Design Plan, such as driveways, walks, pools, water features, parking, etc., are illustrative only and are subject to modification and change upon architectural and engineering review and upon review by governing authorities having jurisdiction over these improvements. Based on all the information contained in the Conceptual Design Plan, the St. Laurent Condominium Association concludes that the proposed development of Cap d'Antibes and Cote d'Azur is consistent with the general uniform plan of development for Waterpark Place, as that phrase is used in the Waterpark Place Restrictions. The St. Laurent Condominium Association further has determined that construction of the two high -rise clustered buildings as shown on the Conceptual Design Plan is consistent with the common architectural theme for Waterpark Place, and with the waivers and approvals granted herein complies with all provisions of the Waterpark Place Restrictions. Therefore, the St. Laurent Condominium Association has determined that Letter to Mr. Ferrao Page 4 of 4 I'A Parcel J's proposed construction of the high -rise condominium project currently known as Cap d'Antibes (Building I) and Cote d'Azur (Building U) can be constructed as depicted on the Conceptual Design Plan. By this letter, the St. Laurent Condominium Association intends to confirm and convey its approval for Parcel J's development of Cap d'Antibes-and Cote d'Azur as set forth in the Conceptual Design Plan. If, for any reason, this approval letter requires further explanation or is deemed not to provide the requisite approval for Parcel J's development of Cap d'Antibes or Cote d'Azur in accordance with the Conceptual Design Plan, please do not hesitate to request additional written confirmation of approval from the St. Laurent Condominium Association. It is our express intention to facilitate the construction of Cap d'Antibes and Cote d'Azur in accordance with the Conceptual Plan. Very truly yours, President -7A I NM Ik � al if ■_ '� i• rr ,7 i• JIf �I. • 1; 111 f1, PI'' • �r Sr. �lra ♦r��. I� r � 4 its jj aft MASK, -j b ME i 7 Mimi A - milmommommummummoomma fill imp Nom So imi as now mam iml imi ii T- -1 RELWAN BAY Pelican Say Foundation, Inc. May 30, 2007 Mr. Aubrey J. Ferrao Gulf Bay Land Investments, Inc., as Managing Member Of the Parcel J Joint Venture 8156 Fiddler's Creek Parkway Naples, FL 34114-0816 1A 1 iw SDPA - 2007 -AR -12644 REV: 2 WATERPARK PLACE PH 111 8, IV Project: 2007120008 Date: 315108 DUE: 412108 Re: Approval for Development of Cap d'Antibes Waterpark Place, Pelican Bay, Naples, Florida Dear Mr. Ferrao: I write to you as the President of the Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc., an assignee of some of the powers of the declarant of the deed restrictions governing the property in Waterpark Place (the "Foundation'D. The purpose of this letter is to confirm and convey the Foundation's approval for the development in Waterpark Place of two high -rise condominium projects, currently known as Cap d'Antibes (Building 1) and Cote d'Azur (Building 11), by Parcel J Joint Venture ( "Parcel J'), in accordance with the attached exhibits, drawings and plans, and the Agrcctnent between Parcel J and the Foundation to which this letter is Exhibit "C." The Foundation provides its approval for the development of the two towers currently known as Cap d'Antibes (Building I) and Cote d'Azur (Building II), having the authority to modify, amend and waive some of the covenants, conditions, restrictions and other provisions of the deed restrictions recorded on the property as set forth in the assignments attached hereto as Composite Exhibit "A." These deed restrictions are entitled, "Declaration of Restrictions and Protective Covenants for a Portion of Parcel B, Future Pelican Bay Unit Fifteen, Collier County, Florida" and dated June 28, 1990, as amended from time to time (hereinafter, the Waterpark Place Restrictions "), and entitled "Amended and Restated Declaration and General Protective Covenants for Pelican Bay" dated November 30, 2001 (hereinafter, the "Amended and Restated Declaration"). This written approval for the development of the two high -rise condominium projects, currently known as Cap d'Antibes and Cote d'Azur, is based upon a review and understanding of the conceptual design site development plan for Cap d'Antibes at Waterpark Place, see sheet SK- 4 dated April 17, 2007, revised May 15, 2007, by BC Architects AIA and attached hereto as page 1 of Composite Exhibit "B ", and the east elevation of the two hi -rise condominium buildings as depicted on sheet A.02 dated April 17, 2007, revised May 9, 2007, prepared by BC Architects AIA and attached hereto as page 2 of Composite Exhibit "B" (collectively, the "Conceptual Design Plan "). The Conceptual Design Plan reflects the intent of the parties and sets forth the following: Pelican Bay f=oundation, Inc_ • 6251 Pelican Bay Boulevard - Naples, Florida 34108 (239) 597 -8081 - (239) 597 -6802 FAX- E -Mail: memberservicesgIpelicanbay.org Letter to Mr. Ferrao Page 2 of 4 • The minimum distances between the two high -rise buildings +✓ (Buildings I and In —150 feet'; • The minimum distance between the St. Launmt and Building it — ✓ 150 feet; • The minimum distance from Building I and the north property line ✓ — 100 feet; / • The minimum distance between the St. Laurent parking garage and r the Building 11 parking garage — 37 feet; • The minimum distance between Building It and the St. Laurent r✓ parking garage — 45 feet; • The minimum distances between the Villa Unit and the St_ Laurent, and the Villa Unit and Building H — both equal to or grantor than 50 feet • The minimum distances between the western most edge of Building L the western most edge of Building u, the western most edge of the St. Laurent, and the / western most edge of the St. Pierre, and the western property line — all equal to or greater than 50 feet. • For both Building I and Building H. the top of lobby slab will be situated at 13.3' NGVD (or the minimum floor elevation required by law, which is currently 133' NGVD), the distance from the top of the lobby slab to the top of the main roof ✓ slab shall not exceed 200', and the distance from the top of the lobby slab to the uppermost part of the building shall not exceed 224' 8 ". • The minimum distance between the parking garages of Building I and Building 11 -128 feet; ' The parties aidmwledge and understand that the Conceptna) besisn Plan is cmcq*.t and a prdimimiry design and while Parcel J agrees to construct the Project consistent with the intent of die Agreement; >be pasties recognize and understand that future coordination of mshipte deakp disciplines ('mduding those of the mechMIka , civil aid structural engineea), as weU as an evaluation of the final bw1dina syssmn and consideration based on other project criteria, changes created by field conditions and its of govetaing wadm hies, that the distances identified by the Conceptual Design Plan say vary. With that in mind Parcel J agrees that the footprbft of the buildings wilt not change in size or location subject to the fact that the l:oundation sgrea to accept changes in the distances depicted on the Conceptual Design Plan other than a change to the beight of a bmId"mg so king as any given change does not exceed the distance reflected on the Conceptual Design Plan by more than three percent (396). Parcel J will provide notice to the f=oundation for any rbange of which Parcel J has knowkdge that exceeds 1% of the distances reflected on the plans. Letter to Mr. Fenno Page 3 of 4 • The minimum distance from the Building I Parking garage and the it north property line — 58 feet; • The approximate total acreage for Building I, including parking garage —1.3 acres (or 56,813 sq. R.), as distributed in Composite Exhibit "B", • The approximate total acreage for Building II, including parking — 1.29 acres (or 56,637 sq. I), as distributed in Composite Exhibit ✓ "B's; • The location of the two high -rise buildings and attached parking —^ garages on the Property, • The elevations of the two high -rise buildings; • The footprint of the two high -rise buildings; Parking garages of 26.63' NGVD to the top of the tennis deck slab. No structures on the parking garages will exceed the height of 46.7' NGVD. We understand that the site features depicted on the Conceptual Design Plan, such as driveways, walks, pools, water features, parking, etc., are illustrative only and are subject to modification and change upon architectural and engineering review and upon review by governing authorities having jurisdiction over these improvements. Based on all the information contained in the Conceptual Design Plan, the Foundation concludes that the proposed development for Cap d'Antibes and Cote d'A= is consistent with the general uniform plan of development for Waterpark Place, as that phrase is used in the Waterpark Place Restrictions and the Amended and Restated Declaration. The Foundation further has determined that construction of the two high -rise clustered buildings as shown on the Conceptual Design Plan is consistent with the common architectural theme for Waterpark Place, and with the waivers and approvals granted herein complies with all provisions of the Waterpark Place Restrictions and the Amended and Restated Declaration. Therefore, the Foundation has determined that Parcel J's proposed construction of the high -rise condominium project currently known as Cap d'A.ntibes (Building ]) and Cote d'Azur (Building H) can be constructed as depicted on the Conceptual Design Plan. By this letter, the Foundation intends to confirm and convey its approval for Parcel J's development of Cap d'Antibes and Cote d'Azur as set forth in the Conceptual Design Plan. if, for any reason, this approval letter requires further explanation or is deemed not to provide the 1A Letter to Mr. Ferrao Page 4 of 4 requisite approval for Parcel J's development of Cap d'Antibes or Cote d'Azur in accordance with the Conceptual Design Plan, please do not hesitate to request additional written confirmation of approval from the Foundation. It is our express intention to facilitate the construction of Cap d'A.ntibes and Cote d'AzIiident r accord a with the Conceptual Plant V WS $26793 v-0 I 1067730.OWB tale itttw pmpnd bl artmatetm VMO fI. itatttp6 an" 101 Mid 0tlt00*, Ndn soo N*IM Ps361M 74 2299159 a: 2556 PG: 0944 n Is ems wMI d Mtm am. K t« m 0.14 a� iaipmti Rom to >irs 0 ■ !ui tll o ll Nui ABROG + T OW MTAIM1nG8'M l'J>iIVlLWM AND OAtAUTXM BIwT >lr�RIW w'tm im Nanow11L maR =m covxmAm PXLWAN µY IQ"ioW Ail• b M BY 1? k M* I= y SMUNMMr a mtda r of ON 0210 dq d MAY 19!17 by t4 WCI CMgAJNlM ilia M PAR77fJDG9ll P, 9 De MM d* ==M by 1a' d WCN C�ttpkk.% UL itpb. WatlSSltol�a of 1l Im. tctanetly► Cad Rkk*4 :oft f'n"*k MM). IMM ttdtimet a si Ise.d o f od", 3dae socy. Nqk% Pbddt snot (do "Dar in m- lv is om et .Am dd MWAN a Y i�e6ga Hq FoUNDAMM, 1NC.. a PAddlt no1-�1oRe+tttp . Boeiemd. NwIM ftddt "M mss. do moan is deg aetbb D ttlooedttl = AM* L I (7m". Fioddt (dye "Da WHWAA.% vadm+et bog do tV& ptovbbw btiptttd b7 dtt aad WEgaa. pi. d OMF De IMM bat Art 1� tad pow" of to at b Ott% p wcm, attire F+atmdMiow ad e�1mi" a do lFwaitirdae' cada. aided i ft 71 1974 and -1dm I= k I *& It 11,, , , of Ceilikr of oat Dodo!" dte umftkdaee ad odter d ' of do DwAudk % die my tnrdt1d11e� a �. ,M=D to. moans adaaa, the w1um ma, dta Pbatddo 1 dmhee p bavo *A atdbot'41 md Aet Dadandael ttwl has m4i"wad Dodtnet b dttasdt ttird aatiP covoorfa. w didw and , 11 -dttt ut lbtth bt Ae Dockin and WHMU A$, bt DwhM do" 10 A%* ld -11' tmod sishtk bananasl darks. obftmb a aad pwom lo Ass PH '- I ic+n m ■ ih" bmd% on m eat iitt* b plow Now 'RI>ORR. ft Dac>tatat. f" ad In aodttatdbn of Tm trod NOW Doll is pao.o% red adw flood etd ttittI" Moddatttiae. dye fag" and of T4Ah is m*y► • dt m ba" W&"jjwh* dek" ad us*a to Ate r, " It& 1 A of d+e Dwjfftd's tisitlt etttd pom wo pcvv ft by ott ftM of the Datttedioe. mm td. ��. air Attlpttrnt a mt htleeied >a tad rbdl fe oe � bto araatattrd b. gaot !q tiybt. poww or aolttttih b 6c Fond! m 10 my ffw at I aw p . m lbr eap ww eomwxdm at my t+UtRoom or maw aS bw ei Aw aR bi' v m.. wbwn "8daa t Btl." m throb I= a ti Wd bt &a Daelandoaw all or wM lit, powers and ndism* AM 0', � ssarvaA pmts rho Deeietam of m. baefedlas, bat not vmw no, to don and pd*M set 6oto b app. 3,g1 a d a3i�� of ore DacatWon apdoord 7�` •, xaptedrnlr. DodeM dolt beffift OWV* Man nata Mg. BIML ft Is Wt Undid to. RW Bali le INO event be ommtrttad ta, 910 asp► d1K Power ar m oby in do Potmdd m to mtbex any Compoelte Exhibit "A'• 0&: 2356 PG: 0905 mvems� eoadhlon. ranietion or dbu PearWcm Wvmod by do neobsdm apb: do Da bsmt ar scy PeopZStY a owned by at Deelermt or ellBtidr or tslbefdlei �e Doob "a EV flValy a< bopiwAiumom the Drchum or affMAR er nefad'I i orbs Dxlrunt has i e& to P O pre WNS IQ In apamert in ago a of do due bwW. oor� im tVA I - do Foerdrdoa fj& so air or tiers not ti odaeet UY 101"a'mm Or peen, do Dam s eesvee LIM fuel d+e rW but mt da dW or Be ash m mdaa MI each tt ok dou or OvegAnt bnt 0* idbmlq ftV (3Q) WON* dsdl' Fdor auft m the Fourdeda► of des Dwimifffs osaeWm adaroe cal aeeb Tca&dm or eo"mm 7be Fouededom does booby nowt " AUWM=t Mead ebttwdt hs 6* aatAaieod � ettleeee. and s ad"ond eeaddmAm for tfds Ast�d. to �► b0s' 03 1,e set! mbq"a e y red a9 dtkre. dtmnsdk daaRe ar dOu d sodm r IM Arcs OPIM the Dsele =L eaooee W e" - ' W. zb ft Am or Pcw"@ cut of ere adv"aeet d+ft m power, zW* and dbt Pdm ruder, by end fta & Ids Dedeudn im � 7. WX eo d o date beeroy. p wAdd boars W doh '+r VW- Aielees slay not 1%* to a9► edam MAOR or dah beau+ br lay d&d pets?' spigg Dm*wm t or FouMm fbr seams ubft m prior to tM date beead: By No are Mm Went, On DseimM tepssrte and wwrmk dirt fi bee tint pnerfsoskf ndpid M say s►* any CC nod rrrirssts tlerttort �1rd lice ereticodoR. derisry erd raosss- a[ d da Awipo md. b tM but sr bodwmWs 1aeeltas aid bdk4 do a* ci tT bubt 00 rob s"dpe d by tide Adp mt'"be the laemdadvr. fd ■douses and = ts% eyed sp atber !K's, or mdo* haft tine '.71 i . ..' I - PrW 7r •• I 1��_� � •I 7. 34106 STATE OF FLOWA coumY OF COL UER Tom fexo� im alumene am � bdbW me dab'AP dtpr of h .1947 by �r K fiebm w. s Seolor Tilts hiddis of WCt Cdamsmtlos IJIW to tan. s Daawsm Wicd petoe=eblP, oa bcbW of den pumaddp. [fr le peneoelb Natsq Psebfic Prhm Nance Lawd Y. Skraiy my Occ arhdae rises: ' Y. i[ltltr f MOW �� aMLta.rt -qA Composite Exbibit "A'1 ttt (A: 2336 10: 8906 "1 MW =*d azil by d 1" ftW d Mown =d the a* mobodmd ate* of ft Ord MMS ID ma I�tiicb ttgd BrS� of 16e � � cm team. pmvftdoa� � aoe�iom tm� !n �t �VR 1� m B1C= mvnmm Alm O iATlOZLS SBi EORla n�i i'HE DECi,ARA71C1ti N&MWMM AND YRanctm covsm 11= FM mar-" BAY. tits ft =d 7w ft "" "�° wboww w'. STATE or "a=& COlJm of COL= me lase " per, b*, a sw b, to ago. �a r� 3 a[ _ Tom_. im he= 6q so COCIMadl M li, 0 , . ig �rau�i.t.RiLWAXtw�a Composite EiMbit "A" IA mi. iaaumeem pfd by rod rum to: VivianR HatduA Fw- 24301 WaldeaCkaterDdW 9oedm Sp ft; FL 34134 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT'S: 3158609 OR: 3257 ?G: 2056 MIM 11 *TM n it MM cterrll, R 141W IM at MM11 IMM L nett► MM nc M 33A etcr. tM ltlfltlM a tt 311 M A" 11111 tM tt 31111 TM ASSIGNMENT Is made as of the , day of Maxeh, 2003, by (i) WCl COMMUNITIES, INC., a Delaware corporation, bans the miccemw by mew or wo Communities Limited Pwtoorship, being gr oT by merger of WCN Caamunitim Inc. (formerly Watingbogm es, Inc., formerly Coral Ridge- ColVer Properties, lttc.), whose address Drive. Bonita Springs, Florida 34134 (the ' Declarant'), (ir'} IXE Y FOUNDATION, INC., a Florida not- for -profit cl whose address is 62 Bay Boulevard. Naples, Florida 34108 (tht F WHERE, and General Protective Covenants for Pelican I S5. which was arnended and tcstatcd by that and Genem Protective Covenants for Pelican in O.R. 39 1959, all in the Public Records of Collier Co (colie+ctivtly "Deelarstion "j. WHEREAS, pw=m ' siq� �tl' �a"on: (a) Declarant recorded separate covenants, conditions, b� r ptovisions applying 10 spxiftc neigbbarhoods within Pelican Bay, some w 'ch are listed on Exhibit "A" adached herd* (collectively, the "Neighborhood Covenants''; and (b) Declarant may dekgate or assign to the fioundatioa, either artchWvely or non - exclusively, enforcement rights that have not been previously assigned to the Foundation. WHEREAS, the Foundation desires to have the authority and power to enforce the covenants, conditions, restrictions god other provisions imposed by the Neighborhood Covenants and the right, power and authority to grant waivers and variances from the covenants and restrictions contained in cub or the Neighborhood Covenants and has requested Declarant to delegate and assign the Declarant's enforcement rights and powers as to such covenants, conditions and restuictions set rotth in the Neighborhood Covenants and the right power and authority to grant waivers and variances from the covenants and restrictions contained in each of the Neighborhood Covenants; and ry,lPetko 8sy1Am48rM9*%VM% Composite Exhibit "A" 1-4 OR: 3257 PG: 2057 WHEREAS, the Declarant desires to assign its enforcement rights. interest, duties, obligations and powers to the Foundation and the right. power and mthmsty to grant waivers and variances fmnt the tavenar is and restrictions contained in cash of the Neighborhood Covenants, all on a limited basis, all as set fortis below. NOW, THEREFORE, the Declarutt, for and in comiderationt of Ten and NonOO Dollars (S 10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, does hereby noo- exclusively delegate and assip to the Foundation all of Doelarant's enforcement rights provided for by the tnmts of the Neighborhood Covenants and the right, power and authority to grant waivers and vuiancea from the covenants and restrictions contained in each of the Neighborhood Covenants. Notwittowding the fora ping. Decbtrutt reserves 000 itself the right, and the power, (i) to enforce the covenants, conditions, restrictions and other provisions of the Neighborhood Covenants that have not beers assigned to the Foundation. (ii) as to any rights, powers, duties or privileges contained in the Naighbottwod Covenants, to delegate or assign, either exclusively or non- exclusively, said rights. po%vM duties or privileges to the Foundation, to a nei an owner, or to any other person; and ( Iii) in the event the F or elects net to enfime any restriction or covenants in tghbotbood Co the Declarant reserves umo itself the right, but not 1h dut lion, to enf ch restriction or ccnwmnt but only following thi ( ) a or 'ce o the Foundation of the Declatant's intention to f This Assignm i be construed to grant any right, power or a to a otutdab assigned herein and this Assignment in noway y right. power foundation to (1) assign (or amtntd) dwelling uni uniblbusiness other density rights; (2) amend the Neighborhood or (3} y conflict. Further, this Assignment Is trot intended to, construed to, grant my right. power or authority to the Foundati covenants, conditions, rsstriction or other provisions imposed by the Vcighborlwod Covenants against the Declarant or any property or improvement owned by the Declarant or affiliate or subsidiary of the Declaranl or any property or improvements the Declarant or affiliate or subsidiary of the Declarant has a right to purchase pursuartt to an agreement in effect as of the date hereof The Foundation does hereby accept this Assignment by and through its duly authorized officers, and as additional eonsidetation for this Assignment, the Foundation hereby waives, releases and relinquishes any and all claims, demands. chosen or rights of action it may have against the Dcchmint, concerning, related ter, arising f m or growing out of the enforce: rent duties, powcre, rights and oblipitions uodler, by and through the Neighborhood Covenants from the beginning of time to the date berzof; provided. however, this waiverhelease shall not apply to any enforcement action or claim brought insofar as it related to this Assignment by any third party against Declarant or Fountdstian for enforcement matters arising or occunim prior to the date hereof. By its execution hereof: the Declarant represents and wamtnts that it has not pm iously assigned to any Composite E%Mbit "A" 14 OR., 3257 PG; 2058 entity any of the onforeotttent rights being usigned by this Aaaignr=L Rather, the Deebmt Mmsents and warrants that fbilawing the execution, delivery and recotdittg of this Assignment. to the best of Declaranes knowledge and belief, the only entity having the enfat+eement tights assigned by this Amalpnmt, shall be the Foundation, Its successors and assigns, and any other persan(s) or entity(ies) having the right of enforcement at law or in equity. Witnessed by: Y STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF LEE The foregoing 2003, by George IL Delaware corporation, lyp%Gem 94r1AuivLMc4hDe0 It, WCl CO RTES, -. A Dept corporatiolT / icy ice President My 3 this day of Maack. 7 Communities. Inc.. a P to ma. A Composite Exhibit "A" 11A Ox: 3257 PGG: 2059 ACCEPTANCE OF ASSIGNMENT The undersigned entity by and through its Board of Direcim and the duly authorized oiilcers of the undotaigrnd entity and purwant to the Articles and By -Laws of the undersigned entity hereby accepts the foregoing terms provisions and conditions contained in the foregoing ASSIGNMENT OF CERTAIN 1UGHTS, PRIVILEGES AND OBLIGATIONS . Witnessed by: Print Name: A!b)z m ,A uJ. i- 7,c S Print STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIE by PELICAN RAY FOUNDATION, INC, a Florida not - far -Mfit cotporatm By: �..�. Print to Z?. 24-0 me this 7 `day of as �C ' of the Pell 'on, Ins. a Florida not - for -profit cotporatimi, on b 1 h�e catporatioa IIy known to nm A i_ti1� J Print Name: rf;* U "a My Commission Expires: �► ooa m" ME 4 Composite Exhibit "A" 1A 4 OR: 3257 PG: 2060 171 -7 A a ww $ S qa N n 4 0. i w � `0.r � 4w. m � P W m W W W W O o C7 00 CIO O O Li n L V G C•• � .� ■ r9 ° 96 ■■ J e. A 9 N ■ w 94 a x OQQ � D pD qR G�7e � jP X _ TLq■i •� T 7. �ti gg� � � y � ..• .R g i ti D w C G w Yi w pm t X03 4m x �m ki Composite Ezh bit "A" I'A . V u uqWX alpodmez) s z _ Fn rc PR Ito � ro W S b a. A b .�.. C o E' O o W s F pgp_ tA W .QQ pp� A N a O N N d N go pC7 A % y N � V b I9OZ n n � 4c 1~i X R •17 I9OZ OR: 3257 PG: 2062 a � � a � 6 o WN ,. C V U u Ct [7 l7 Q (7 C7 b 7 m cl a a ci c a w 3 0:3 b A w 0 0 00 0 o a 7G o o a� o� o� o iC m ti c �, r.03 Adm Am Composite Exhibit "A" r O O O A 7D �7 ■ y ?� � � o Q � A Y Sap rT ire M r �Mp V M r C ■ o a Q !1 o o c F $ 8 pr I pr wr 4 : S A g IA A p� n IA so Qq N N 0 Ja A �} h £9OZ :9d L5Z£ :80 7 G r_. rz . 1.� 11 O �• 44w a`` �D$a �g2O 1A P O G. 11 j ❑ I N � g g a m 0 OR: 3257 PC: 2064 u P. 4A N t• 0 O O A w N ,o n y ca 1 1 ra o O r x a W N N I a GI Y 2- It d d d d o d Ci a O �• 44w a`` �D$a �g2O 1A P O G. 11 j ❑ I N � g g a m 0 OR: 3257 PC: 2064 u P. 4A N t• 0 O O A w N d s z Composite E%hibit "A" -7,A ra o O r I a GI Y 2- It d s z Composite E%hibit "A" -7,A ,jd..11(llgx � n n. o O fi O o go 11 10 a Im • w • H 'V h Iii .. Ch �. � a a �i � � %v �.ai. � �n �n -n ems► tw � N EA V) r E IA QQ } A A li S90Z I*d YS?E I-H0 I A 1 OR: 3257 M, 2066 rig z o o ypn w w + w w 0.w L. V 3 L. 4i fQ S 4. vo u (,1 .Y W R. 0. {L 0. p� O. IL � C►, a w ° 0 4 a sppy a � m �� �A �u°. t5C`� � `CI� �rT d� 4 ] 4 w Composite ExWbit "A" -1,A- 0. 4 �v r+ hypc a0 -jQ-1 ..f I'd,�yq O 0 0 0 0- -C�tr a c a z o o ypn w w + w w 0.w L. V 3 L. 4i fQ S 4. vo u (,1 .Y W R. 0. {L 0. p� O. IL � C►, a w ° 0 4 a sppy a � m �� �A �u°. t5C`� � `CI� �rT d� 4 ] 4 w Composite ExWbit "A" -1,A- IA ,�'u 3t4I aisod U,Z) 5 g � i _ o R CI t S I LL 0 a s � 1 ro �° La a � P 7 O O Q O O O Ci 'G � � G• C � � � IK ro ro � n ti p F m L90Z :9d LSZE :10 144 3340266 OR; 3496 PG: 3065 tyro! D tt 111Icu DCDLDI of CUM CEM, n 1211912N1 It tIAM MW 1. VW, CIM He !11 11.51 lefts co11r ttaltlo�o 1s u M M in 1121t Th% inumamw prepared by +sad rslum to: VivtenN.13 -sbgs, Eset. t % 24301 Wagen O meei ]hill Bonita 5prhgs, Per 34134 y tu--i .Y r . �.. a rf ; w t�. +t L31! —= �!_ ►I! s : _ . ;. M 'KNOW ALL MXN BY THESE PRESMffS: TICS ASSIGNMENT is made as of the A day of January, 2004, by (i) WCI COMMUNITIES, INC., a Delaware corporation, being the succasttar by matgm of WCI Communities Limited Partnership, being succaosaar by merger of WCN Communities, Inc. (Formerly westinghotue Cur s, 7nc., fora►erly Coral Ridga- Calliar Properties. Inc.), whose addr Drive, Bonita Springs, Florida 34134 (the 'Declarant"), ' of (ii) PEL Y FOUNDATION. INC-, a Florida not- for - profit w adder is P 'can Bay Boukwand, Naples, Florida 34108 (the "Fouqiatitfn' WHEREAS, 1 . and Game ul Protective Covenants for Pelican P 755, which was amended and restated by that c and Oeacral Pmtectivc Covenants for Pelican ad in O.R. 3 1959, all in the Public Records of Collier Corm 'da (coUedively tba "l)eclarativn"). WHEREAS. purt<aant s.ao t ��ow (a) Declarant recorded scpstate covenants, oanditiona, n err pmvlsians applying to specific neighborhoods within Peiicaa Bay ("Nea rood Goveamts"); and (b) Declarant, by virtue of that certain Assignment of Cartaiu Rights, Privileges and Obligations, dated March 7, 2003, and recorded in O.R. Book 3257, Page 2056, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida ("First Assignment") assigned its enfotrxmeat rights, interest, duties, obligations and powers to the Foundation and the authority to giant waiverz and variances from the covenants and restrictions contained in those certain Neighborhood Covenants described in Exhibit "A" to the First Assignment ("Assigned Neighborhood CovexnanW), on a non - exclusive, limited basis as dt cnbed in the First Assignment. WHEREAS. the Foundation desires to have the authority and power to amend the covenants, conditions, restrictions and other provisions imposed by the Assigned Neighborhood Covenants.and has. requested Declarant to delegate and assign the Declarant's amendment rights and powers as to such covesrat ts, conditions and restrictions set forth in the Assigned Neighborhood Covenants; and 4- ?diem 8WArdpNdjhDac2 Composite Exhibit "A" OR: 3496 PG: 3066 WHEREAS, the Declarant deduce to assign its artt mdromt rights, interest, duties, Obligations and powers to the FomxWon contained in the Assigned Neigborhood Covenants on it non - exclusive, limited basis. as act forth below. Now, ORE, the Declarant, far and in =sideration of Tea and Noll W Dollars (g 10.00) and oft r good and vtthmble considecatioa, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acimowledged, does hereby non - exclusively delegate and andp to the Foundation all of Dcclarant's amendment rigbis provided for by the amts of the Assigned Neighborhood Covenants so long as any ouch emendmest does not affect MY unassigned rights and powers of Deelarmtt as determined by Declarant in Declarazes sola discretion, which unassigned rights of Declarant hucloda but era not iimited to the following: (i) the right to enforce the covenants, condition% restrictions and other provisions of the Assiguad Neighborhood Covennu shat have not been assigned to theFomtdation; (u) as to any si dt>hea Neighborhood Co ,the right to c non - exclusively, neighborhood m or (iii) in the F restriction or not the duty or 'on, to eafarce following thirty calendar days' Declarant's intend once any Such (iv) the right to assij�i, square footage or any other Covenzab wxmdh%ly; m the A,ssigaed or 'gn, tither e�cchtsivetY or or � to tbt Fotmdstion, to a to pctsan; w not to enrope any ua�oRs, the right, hroit r covcmmt butt only Foundation of the nt; af unitaRtatel unimmsiness amts, ame:od the Assigned Neig#" hDod (v) the right to resolve any conflict between the Neighborhood Covenants and the Declaration. Items (i) through (v) above are: collectively referred to as "Unassigned Rights of Declarant". Further, this Assignment is not intended to. and shall in no event be conshved to, grant any right, power or authority to the Foundation to ennemd any covenants, condiuoffi. restrictions or other provisions imposeui by the Acsigaed Veigbbarhood Covenants that would affect any of the Unassigned }tights of Declarant as determined by Declarant in Dwiarant's sole discretion. tysR�ticu 9ay/Asaip.Ne�tlroeaa Composite Exhibit "A" IA- OR; 3496 PG; 3067 The Foundation does hereby accept this Assignment by and throngh its duty authorized officers, and as additional consideration for tins Assignment; the Foundation bo eby waives, releases and relinquishes any and all claims, dotaxads, chosen or righb of action it may have against the Declarant, concerning, related to, arising f om or growing out of the amendment powers and rigbts of Declarant under. by and tierottgh the Assigned Neighborhood Covenua ftm the beginning of time to the date bereot~ provided, however, this waivcdrelessa shall not apply to any arawdauent action or claim brought insofar as it misted to this Assigmuent by any third party against Declarant or Foundation for amendments made by Declarant prior to the date hereof. By its execution hereof; the Declarant represents and warrants that it has not previously assigned to day esatity any of the amendment righft being assigned by this Assigranent Ftu tba, the Declarant represents and warrants that Mowing the execution, delivery tract recording of this Assignment, to the best of Declamft knowledge and belief, the only entity having the Amendment rights assigned by this A,asipnmt, shall be the Foundation, its successors and assigns, and any otber persons) or entity(ies) having the right of enforcement at law or an .,��cor'�,. Witnessed by. Delaware T F✓ C�R t '� - o� Q c o l. The foregoing ins=1=1 was acknowledged befort me this —Z7 day of Iamrary, 2004, by George R Page, as Senior Vice President of WCI Communities, Inc., a Detaw= corporation, on behalf of the corporation. He is personally known to me. L Notny Public Print None: Ajej ICII DI-Y My Commission Expires: Ipm.hean 8WAx%irj&4.a=2 ----------------- F tALMLY.I I MU myCQia6tiW llDCIMM u...- Ii l.Mi++N Composite Exhibit "A" * #* OR: 3496 PO; 3068 ttt ACCEPTANC& OF ASSIGNMENT The undersigned entity by and through its Board of Directors and the duly authorized officers of the undersigned'entity-and parmud to the Articles and By-i mn of the undersigned entity hereby accepts the foregoing terms, psovidM aad c0000os containod in the foregoing ASSIGNMENT OF CERTAIN RIGHTS, PRIVII M AND OBLIGATIONS . Witnessed by. PMCAN BAY FOUNDATION. INC.. a Fimida not for -profit omporation B r Qjl� Prig N ,� Print Names Its: C 4141 JAM STATE OF I-WRIDA COUNTY OF COLLIE Tho foregoing as on lysM.rw" a,yrkatjmua{fiovQ E- wes me this .3e-c, day of by _ of the Pelie on, Inc., a Florida not - c cmporaRio etscnafly ]mown to me. TkE C G� 0 13c Print Name' My Commioon Expires: 4 CompositetWbit "A" �A 71& iast:nmroa PnWa by and n:Aua to- vM= W $a nnex Eta - 24301 Walft Ceatrr Dhtve Bonita Sprinp, FL 34134 ASS3I�,OF CERTAii tier . R. MIO W ALL MEN BY CIS PRFMUM: 3340267 OR: 3496 PG: 3069 1111 M L t11Jt= novel of tulip M", ti WISn111 at UIUM MW 1. 11t1C[, tm 11C M 11.31 lets., cum ennead n u In m tu Ion NMI n 31te: THIS ASSIGNMENT is made as of the ;L7 day of January, 2004, by (i) WC1 COMMUNJrim, INC., a Deiaw 1 ' g the rsitocessor by merger of WC1 Coramunities Umited maw of WCN Communities, lot. (formerly W estingh0 aides of Nap fonnariy Coral Ridge- Collier Properties, Inc.), whose is 14301 Wa1dett ' G Bonita Springs, Florida 34134 (the '�cclata W o A FOUMATION. INC.. a Florida not-for-PM fit co Bay Boutavard; Naples, Florida 34108 (tho "Yo n WHEREAS, 1 the Foundation is the "Foundation" named in certain Amen Declaration and Gc=rol Protective Cova+uannts for Hay, x000td k 2938, Page 1961, of the Public Records of Collier orida (the "Dec WHEREAS, pursuant to � � tlla Declaration, Declarant has tine right and the power as to say riglris, and duties or privileges that bavc not previously been assigned, to deleto or assign, either e=lusively or nonecclusively, said rights. powers, duties or privileges to the foundation. W1EMFAis. purrscant to Section 7.04(x) of the Declaration. Declarant has the right and power to amend specific provisions of the Declaration insofar as they apply to one or more Neighborhoods (as defuted fharetn) without amending those provisions with respect to all Neighborhoods. WHEREAS, pvrsnant to Section 9.07 of the Declaration. Declarant may. in its sole discretion, by an instrument filed of record, modify, wINI e, amend, waiver or add to the covenantn, conditions, restrictions and other provisions of the Declaration So long as the same does not impair the general development scheme of Pelican Bay. ir.+raimn a.rrM.rp, An Dm. Composite Exhibit "A" I A'-� - OR: 3496 PG: 3070 WHEREAS. the Foundation desires to have the right and powers described in Sections 7.04(x) and 8.07 dc1'bod above and has requested that Declarant delegate and assign -the Declarant's rights and powers as sot forth therein on a n m- t=)usive basis. WHEREAS, the Declarant desires to assign its rights and powers tech Sections 7.04(x) and 8.07 to the Foundation on a non- exclasfve, limited basis as set forth below. NOW, THEREFQRE, the Declarant, for and in consideration of Teat and No/100 Dollars (S 10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the taxipt and sumawney of which is hereby acknowledged, does hereby nan- cxchtsively Magda and assign to the Foundation Declarares amendromt rights as ad forth in Section 7.04(a) and 8.07 of the Declaration so long as any such amendment does not affect any unassigned rights of Declarant as determined by Declarant in DeelMot's sole disrre ion, including but not limited to Declar nit's remaining eaaanmm-ciak retail and residential square footage and development rights for Pelican Bay and Declarant exporesaly reserves the right to amend the Declaration with respect to the remaining eommaercial, retail end residential square fbatagc and development rights for�'elieen -$$y in + ec on with the use of those development rights - /, t �'Q,R COCra Furth, this Assi not hibmdod to, M tae event be construed to, grsrot any right, pow« r7ma" r nay coveisants, conditi ons, restriction p�br 1.. imp xfl b Declaration against the Declarant ar any t or affiliate or subsidiary of the Declarant or affiliate or subsidiary of the Dec an agreement in effect as of the date hereof. The Form 7�&Meconcanhig, by ac gent by and through its drily authorized officeronal for this Assignment, the Foundation hereby waive all claims, demands. choses or rights of action it may hav related to, arising from or growing out of amendment powers and rights of Declarant, under, by and through the Declaration from the beginning of Time to the date hermit' provided, however, this waivwrclessa shall not apply to any enforcument action or claim brought insofar as it related to this Assignment by any third party against Declarant or Foundation for amendments made by Declarant prior to the date hereof: By its execution hereof, the Decleraw rcprwcmts and warraMa that it has not previously assigned to any entity any of the amendment rights being assigned by this Assignment. Further, the Declaramt represents and warrants that following the executions, delivery and recording of this Assignment, to the best of Declarant's knowledge and belief; the only entity having the amendment rights assigned by this Assignment, shall be the Foundation, its successors and asslgns, and any outer person(8) or mtity(ies) having the right of enforcement at law or in equity. ry, hUm as ^asip A&A Dw- Composite Exhibit "A" '7 a OR: 3496 PG: 3071 a WC [ Witnessed by. O WPrintE v . a wart or PrintNsme: C'J 4 STATE OF PLORiDA COUNTY OF LEE The foragomg msftuwmeni was admowledged before me this a' day of 7anusry. 2004, by George R. Patio, as Sector Vice President of Wa C==unitim, lam, a Dclwwm coTonldM u Well .n 8..y+AWIM A" Dec. 3 ki Cotnposits Exhibit "A" I ik OR: 3496 ?G: 30 72 "t ACCEPTANCE OF ASS![:Diltd MT The under ipW entity by and through ift Boatel of Dirac rs and be duty authorized o8icm of the undersigned aotity and pwmaat to the Arkks and By -Laws of the undersigned coty hereby acxepts t7te foregoing terms. pmvis =s and conditions contained in the foregoing ASSIGNMENT OF CERTAIN RIGHTS. PR-IV i EGW AND OBLIGATIONS . Witnessed by. PELICAN BAY FOUNDATION INC., e Florida not= inr-PW& cargnrabon Prin Na, wl • PxnntN ��_ Its STATE OF FiARIDA COUNTY OF CO The foregoing ' 1 me this ,,z'r"L.ay of bS► as of the l'e y Lion, Enc., a Florida nat- for-pmfit corporation, am of lira carpotaho . orally lmcrwn to me. Print Name s arit'G My Co co FJ*= bWre imn OWAuip AAR Dee. q RAM Composite Fxhibit "A" �a I PC WOI ,• -'''�� 111 Kii�-- tw� '77-. w arwrr a�wa7 �aw.rrl�.��wri '�11p ------------ :! Ji=l UZI rru.f�ia- �- wlw>..ww�� J�IIA - = - mill! �.Y!�` uiYfW •IRI UI �f'. 11.110.1 W -= w1�Y1 �.If� 1 •11[ltalrwwt�fiwr w'wwwww/ I.rj��G -.1 aA'— Rw�.wws.wri so am mi1 •�•II�� 1 .- .�- �i►�rr wow �.rw w1 .-.. ir+ Jlifn ==Sam N �. r>i�r�wwoiwl�w�rM�ti I IN I 1Z 1 7�f,IL "'I^.•rl rt !nT�.7- �•,,^.•.!_[^'Y;11[!rea!! a Ilk SDPA- 2007 -AR -12644 REV: 2 WATERPARK PLACE PH III & IV Project: 2007120008 Date: 316/08 DUE: 412/08 Cap d'Antbes AT F E LI CA N BAY JA First Round Review Comments from County and Applicant Response Waterpark Place Phases III & IV SDPA- 2007 -AR -12644 January 16, 2008 (County letter date) March 3, 2008 (Applicant letter date) I CA January 16, 2008 Q GRADY MINOR 3800 VIA DEL REY FAX - (239)947 -0375 RE: SDPA -AR -12644 - WATER-PARK PLACE PHASES III AND IV The following comments are provided to you regarding the above referenced project. If you have questions, please contact the appropriate staff member who conducted the review. The project will retain a "HOLD" status until all negative comments are satisfied. NOTE: Any submittal of third and subsequent project review responses must be accompanied by a check for the required fee as follows: 3rd = $1000, 4th = $1500, 5th = $2000, 6th and subsequent review for SDP = $2500 6th and subsequent review for SDPA = $2000 Any submittal not accompanied by the required fee will be left at the receptionist desk for pickup by the applicant, who will be notified. Submittals must also be accompanied by a cover letter outlining the response to each negative comment and all drawings must be properly folded (standard engineering fold of 9 "x12" showing title block in corner). Submittals must be a minimum of ten (10) complete sets of Civil drawings and five sets of Landscape or Architectural drawings if needed. The following negative comments were received and need to be addressed as noted: DEV REV CURRENT PLANNING - MICHAEL SAWYER Standard Checklist Item: B. Review FLOOR PLANS showing building use by floor area (sq ft) and ELEVATION showing building height Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: - -- REVIEW 1 COMMENTS - -- A. "Common Architectural Theme /Cluster Development ": Provide elevations and site plans showing the proposed towers along with the existing towers with a statement clearly outlining the "common architectural /cluster development" theme components of this project (Waterpark Place). Include LDC 4.02.04 and LDC definition for cluster development and how this project addresses all criteria, specifically how this development meets purpose and intent, allowable lot coverage, common open space, and all sections of common architectural theme section. B. Provide use information for the four enclosed areas /elements on the tennis deck level of the parking structures (two elements /areas on each parking structure). See also building height comments below. DEV REV CURRENT PLANNING Standard Checklist Item: D. Review coversheet for compliance with LDC Sec. 10.02.03.13.1.(b).(i). as follows: Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: DEV REV CURRENT PLANNING Standard Checklist Item: D.2. On coversheet, identify ZONING of subject property; include PUD name & ordinance if applicable; if submittal is an SDP AMENDMENT, identify original SDP viewer Remarks to Checklist Item: -REVIEW 1 COMMENTS - A. Provide original SDP reference on the site plan for this amendment. B. Revise title of cover sheet to show that this is a SDPA Site Development Plan Amendment instead of a SDP. DEV REV CURRENT PLANNING Standard Checklist Item: E. Review site plans for compliance with LDC Sec 10.02.03.13.1.(b).(ii). as follows: Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: - -- REVIEW 1 COMMENTS - -- A. See review comments above regarding documentation of how this project meets LDC 4.02.04. standards and requirements. DEV REV CURRENT PLANNING Standard Checklist Item: E.2. On site plan, provide SITE SUMMARY in chart form, including the following: Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: - -- REVIEW 1 COMMENTS - -- See review comments above regarding documentation of how this project meets LDC 4.02.04. standards and requirements. DEV REV CURRENT PLANNING Standard Checklist Item: E.2.c. Total square footage of impervious area (including parking areas, drive aisles, and internal streets), and its percentage of the total site area Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: - -- REVIEW 1 COMMENTS - -- A. See review comments above regarding documentation of how this project meets LDC 4.02.04. standards and requirements. DEV REV CURRENT PLANNING Standard Checklist Item: E.2.d. Total square footage of landscape area /open space and its percentage of total site area Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: - -- REVIEW 1 COMMENTS - -- A. See review comments above regarding documentation of how this project meets LDC 4.02.04. standards and requirements. DEV REV CURRENT PLANNING Standard Checklist Item: E.3. On site plan, provide PROJECT SUMMARY in chart form, including the following: Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: '7A DEV REV CURRENT PLANNING Standard Checklist Item: E.5. On site plan, in chart and on drawing, show all SETBACKS, required by zoning district & provided, for principal & accessory structures Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: - -- REVIEW 1 COMMENTS - -- A. See review comments above regarding documentation of how this project meets LDC 4.02.04. standards and requirements. DEV REV CURRENT PLANNING Standard Checklist Item: E.6. On site plan, in chart and on drawing, show SEPARATION between structures, required by zoning district & provided, for principal and accessory Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: - -- REVIEW 1 COMMENTS - -- A. See review comments above regarding documentation of how this project meets LDC 4.02.04. standards and requirements. DEV REV CURRENT PLANNING Standard Checklist Item: E.7. On site plan, in chart form, show maximum BUILDING HEIGHT permitted by zoning district and height proposed Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: - -- REVIEW 1 COMMENTS - -- A. See review comments above regarding documentation of how this project meets LDC 4.02.04. standards and requirements. B. Revise all building height data on elevations and charts to include the four enclosed areas (two on each parking structure) on the upper level /currently noted tennis deck/parking structure. See also review notes regarding use information for these areas /elements. DEV REV CURRENT PLANNING Standard Checklist Item: F. On site plan, show all PARKING AREAS and DRIVE AISLES Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: DEV REV CURRENT PLANNING Standard Checklist Item: H. On site plan, show location of TRASH container(s) or pad(s); if enclosed, show minimum enclosure dimensions of 12 X 12 ft per LDC Sec 5.03.04 Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: DEV REV CURRENT PLANNING Standard Checklist Item: H.I. On site plan, for multifamily residential developments, give means of disposal (dumpster, curbside pickup, =1 compactor) and, if applicable, number of containers approved by Utilities Billing Dept. Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: — EV REV CURRENT PLANNING Mandard Checklist Item: K. Review for compliance with OPEN SPACE provisions per LDC Sec 4.02.01.B Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: - -- REVIEW 1 COMMENTS— A. See review comments above regarding documentation of how this project meets LDC 4.02.04. standards and requirements. DEV REV CURRENT PLANNING Standard Checklist Item: Additional comments Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: - -- REVIEW 1 COMMENTS-- - A. Provide confirmation from both Pelican Bay Foundation and Pelican Bay Services regarding approval of this project. B. Due to the history and nature of this project additional new review comments are likely during the review process. —r. Provide documentation that this project meets PUD 2.06., 2.08, standards. DEV REV ADDRESSING - PEGGY JARRELL Standard Checklist Item: VERIFY UNIT /SUITE NUMBERS Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: NEED UNIT NUMBERS FOR BUILDINGS AND CONDO DOCS NEED TO MATCH WITH THE UNIT NUMBERS DEV REV ADDRESSING Standard Checklist Item: UNIT /SUITE NUMBERS NEED TO BE SUBMITTED Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: DEV REV ENVIRON. PLANNING - SUMMER ARAQUE BROWN Standard Checklist Item: 28. Additional Comments: Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: Review 1 - 01/15/07: Please submit any SFWMD permits assuring that there no negative impacts will affect the water quality to Clampass bay. DEV REV ENGR H2O MGMT - STEVE SEAL Standard Checklist Item: HOW IS TRASH BEING HANDLED OR DISPOSED OF? Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: 14 DEV REV ENGR H2O MGMT Standard Checklist Item: SUBMIT ROW PERMIT NUMBER Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: DEV REV ENGR H2O MGMT Standard Checklist Item: SHOW WET SEASON WATER TABLE ELEVATION ON CROSS SECTIONS. Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: Provide on CS Detail Sht. 8 DEV REV ENGR H2O MGMT Standard Checklist Item: MINIMUM AISLE WIDTH FOR 90 DEGREE PARKING IS 24 FT. Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: Dimension on plan in front of Bldg. One DEV REV ENGR H2O MGMT Standard Checklist Item: Enter additional comments here: Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: 1. Revise Control Structure Detail Sht. 8 to provide a bleeder and a baffle. Show rip -rap slope at a max. 2:1 slope. Show the location of the WSWT. 2. Dimension parallel parking spaces in front of Bldg. One at a min. 9'x 23'. DEV REV ENGR TRANSPORTATION - RUSS MULLER Standard Checklist Item: Signing /Striping Requirements Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: Crosswalks that are not stop controlled need to be high visibility (piano keys) 10' wide. The crossing near the entry monument is in the vehicular queue and an additional stop control may be needed. Stop signs at building exits need to have stop bars. The handicap parking detail shows 12' space and a 5' aisle but the spaces scale 8'. The parking calculations read 4 HC spaces but only 3 are shown per building. Curb ramps are detailed as CR20 but the plan view shows no locations where CR20 would be the correct ramp. Need to include detectable warnings per FDOT Index #304. DEV REV TRANSPORTATION - JOHN PODCZERWINSKY Standard Checklist Item: CCAMP (Res. 01 -247) Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: 1/14/08 Review Comments: The applicant must schedule a meeting with staff to discuss the temporary access management plan. DEV REV TRANSPORTATION Standard Checklist Item: Turn Lanes (Ord. 2003 -37) Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: 1/14/08 Review Comments: A right turn lane is required at the projects permanent entrance. ` "`DEV REV TRANSPORTATION _,tandard Checklist Item: Right -of -Way (Ord. 2003 -37) Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: 1/14/07 Review Comments: The temporary access management plan must receive endorsement from the Right -of -Way department. DEV REV TRANSPORTATION Standard Checklist Item: Traffic Control (LDC 6.06.01) Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: 1/14/08 Review Comments: 1) Driveways that are ingress only, or egress only, must have the appropriate signage. 2) Egress -only driveways need to be directionalized through the use of curbing. DEV REV TRANSPORTATION Standard Checklist Item: Access Lighting (LDC 6.06.03) Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: 1/14/08 Review Comments: Please submit a lighting plan compliant with LDC 6.06.03 B )EV REV TRANSPORTATION Standard Checklist Item: TIS Requirements (LDC 6.02.03; TIS Guidelines and Procedures) Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: 1/14/08 Review Comments: An affidavit stating that there is a net reduction in traffic must be submitted. -� X4- DEV REV TRANSPORTATION Standard Checklist Item: Additional Comments Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: 1/14/08 Review Comments: Please provide copies of any agreements in place between the developer and the County that may have an impact on roadway impacts or access. DEV REV LANDSCAPE PLANNING - BOB WRIGHT Standard Checklist Item: Submit a consistent Landscape Plan and Site Plan (LDC 10.02.01 .A.l.a.i. and ii.) Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: - -- REVIEW 1 COMMENTS - -- k. For an SDPA, please provide copy of original approved Landscape Plan for entire site. Document all existing ode required plant material for entire site and provide replacement plant material in areas where site fails to meet minimum code standards. Entire site must be brought up to present day code standards to the greatest extent. Highlight area of specific SDP Amendment and provide code minimum plant material for specific amendment 1A area B. Items such as FPL Pads, some lightpoles, southern trellis and eastern property line do not appear to be consistent on Site and Landscape Plans. Please revise. C. Please show entrance drive stop bars and clear sight triangles on Landscape Plan. D. Please provide buffer re- vegetation plan for temporary construction entrance drives along Pelican Bay Boulevard. Note vegetation protection measures to be used in these areas. DEV REV LANDSCAPE PLANNING Standard Checklist Item: Clearly delineate property lines. (LDC 10.02.01 I.A. l .a.i. and ii.) Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: - -- REVIEW 1 COMMENTS - -- A. Property lines difficult to distinguish on Landscape Plan, please show clearly. DEV REV LANDSCAPE PLANNING Standard Checklist Item: Provide perimeter landscape buffers. (LDC 4.06.05.G.) Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: - -- REVIEW 1 COMMENTS - -- A. Entire northern perimeter Type 'B' and Type 'A' Buffer trees (Live Oaks) appear to be located directly over existing 36" Dia. culvert. Please revise to avoid root system conflicts. Type 'B' Buffer shrubs labeled on plan but plant material location is not shown. These shrubs are specified as Awabuki Viburnum and listed as a native plant. Please note that all code required plant material within the Collier County Coastal High Hazard Zone must be 100% native (such as Viburnum obovatum). B. Type 'B' Buffer along southern site perimeter does not appear to meet the minimum required width of 15'. There appears to be about ten feet between the pool deck and the adjacent residential structure. Please provide the minimum buffer width in this area. Please provide height, type, texture and finish of required wall for this buffer. Type 'B' Buffer plant material (shrubs, not shown on plan) must be located so as to screen wall from adjacent residential land -use. As noted above, Awabuki Viburnum must be replaced with native variety of shrub for coastal zone. Type 'A' Buffer along remaining portion of southern perimeter does not appear to meet the minimum width of 10' within the property line. Please revise. C. Please label Grenadier Blvd. on Landscape Plan and show entrance to site from Pelican Bay Blvd. Type 'D' buffer is required along Grenadier, approximately 585 LF less entrance drives or 513 LF. 17 trees and 342 shrubs (double -row) are needed for this buffer. It appears that about 7 trees have been provided. Some shrub areas labeled but not shown, please provide minimum code requirements for this buffer. Existing trees to remain in this area do not appear to be shown on plans, nor is tree protection provided. DEV REV LANDSCAPE PLANNING Standard Checklist Item: PROVIDE INTERIOR VEHICULAR USE AREA LANDSCAPING. (LDC 4.06.03.B.1. AND 2.) Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: - -- REVIEW 1 COMMENTS - -- A. V.U.A. trees for structures over 20,000 SF must be a minimum of 14' -16' in height (3 " -4" Caliper) at time of planting. -A► LANNING EV REV LANDSCAPE P .andard Checklist Item: Provide curbing around landscape islands and /or turning radii. (LDC 4.06.03.B.1.) Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: - -- REVIEW 1 COMMENTS - -- A. Please label types of curbing to be used on Site and Landscape Plans. DEV REV LANDSCAPE PLANNING Standard Checklist Item: Provide sufficient building perimeter landscaping. (LDC 4.06.05.B.4. and 5.) Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: - -- REVIEW 1 COMMENTS - -- A. Several foundation planting areas around the perimeter of the parking garages do not appear to meet the minimum width of ten (10) feet. Areas which do not meet the minimum width standard (for structures over 10,000 SF) may not be counted towards meeting the foundation planting requirement. Please revise. B. Foundation planting in the area of the proposed towers appears incomplete. Foundation planting area review is not possible at this time. C. B.F.P.A. calculation for proposed parking structure required square footage appears to be in error. Please use zildings over 10,000 SF section of table, which should provide a required area of about 5,000 SF for each �cructure. Please revise, noting that planting areas must be a minimum of 10' wide and required trees must be 14' tall at planting. D. B.F.P.A. calculation for proposed tower also appears to be in error. Please use Buildings over 50' in height section of table. Rough calculation shows about 6,500 SF of planting area required for each tower. Please revise, noting that the minimum planting area width would be 10' and trees need to be 18' tall at planting. DEV REV LANDSCAPE PLANNING Standard Checklist Item: Avoid conflicts with landscaping and utilities (overhead and underground). (LDC 4.06.05.G.) Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: - -- REVIEW 1 COMMENTS - -- A. Please see comment above concerning 36" culvert in direct conflict with proposed north buffer trees. B. Due to incomplete plans, full review of possible conflicts can not be completed at this time. C. Tree /underground utility conflicts appear to exist at north side of Garage 1 (central section) and northeast corner of Garage 2. .-DEV REV LANDSCAPE PLANNING ;andard Checklist Item: Provide an accurate plant legend (tree size, species diversity, cold tolerance, native ratio). (LDC 4.06.05.C.3., 4.06.05.C. I., 4.06.05.C.8. and 4.06.05.C. I.) Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: - -- REVIEW 1 COMMENTS - -- A. Please revise Plant Legend to reflect any changes generated by Review 1 Comments. Note that all code required plant material must be 100% native. DEV REV LANDSCAPE PLANNING Standard Checklist Item: Provide planting details. (LDC 4.06.05.B.) Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: - -- REVIEW 1 COMMENTS - A. Please provide Tree & Vegetation Protection Barrier Details on Site Plan Sheet 13 of 16. Provide Site Clearing Plan (Site Plan Sheet 13 of 16) and note the locations of existing native vegetation to remain. Designate Tree Protection Barrier installation locations on plan. References: PUD Document: Page 8, Section 2.05 a.4) & Page 13, Section 2.14 DEV REV LANDSCAPE PLANNING Standard Checklist Item: Provide accurate landscape calculations. Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: - -- REVIEW 1 COMMENTS - -- A. Please revise calculations to reflect any changes generated by Review 1 Comments. B. Please completely revise Section VII of Landscape Calculations to reflect LDC Section 4.06 for Collier County. DEV REV UTILITY BILLING - GARY MOROCCO Standard Checklist Item: Review pad /enclosure detail dimensions and ensure they meet LDC requirements Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: Please include detail on the SDP showing how these units will be service per the LDC 5.03. If you have any questions, please contact Gary Morocco @ 239- 252 -5817. DEV REV UTILITY BILLING Standard Checklist Item: Review locations of dumpsters and/or compactors throughout the complex or development Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: Please show detail on the SDP. DEV REV UTILITY BILLING Standard Checklist Item: If applicable, review compactor specifications Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: If a compactor is going to be used, please include detail and specs for the compactor. DEV REV UTILITY BILLING Standard Checklist Item: _�A For multi - family developments, ensure that no dumpster will be located more than 250' from the building to be served Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: 'nknown at this time. DEV REV UTILITY BILLING Standard Checklist Item: FOR MULTI - FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS, ENSURE THAT EADH BUILDING TO BE DUMPSTER SERVED HAS A DUMPSTER LOCATED WITHIN 250' OF THE BUILDING. Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: Unknown at this time. DEV REV UTILITY BILLING Standard Checklist Item: Ensure the developer is requesting the correct number of dumpsters for the project Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: Please show on the SDP. DEV REV UTILITY BILLING Standard Checklist Item: Ensure that enclosures are angled correctly for pick up Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: Unknown at this time. ._DEV REV UTILITY BILLING standard Checklist Item: Ensure that enclosures have proper ingress and egress Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: Unknown at this time. DEV REV UTILITY BILLING Standard Checklist Item: The above statement includes making sure no collection truck has to back -up more than 30' to egress from the enclosure Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: Unknown at this time. DEV REV UTILITY BILLING Standard Checklist Item: Ensure there are no overhead obstacles (14' for minimum travel and 21' for front load service) to avoid possible property damage issues where location of dumpsters, compactors and toters Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: Unknown at this time. DEV REV UTILITY BILLING Standard Checklist Item: When there is a cul -de -sac, put in the stipulation that landscaping in the cul -de -sac should not overflow into travelway creating an obstruction for the truck. This will avoid property damage issues with the solid waste collections hauler. Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: _� A7 DEV REV UTILITY BILLING Standard Checklist Item: Ensure that recycling enclosures meet the requirements and specifications for the non - residential recycling ordinance. Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: Please show where recycling containers will be stored and where they will be placed for pick up. DEV REV ENGR UTILITIES - CRAIG CALLIS Standard Checklist Item: Additional Comments. Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: 12/26/07 1. DEP applications need to show Roy Anderson Public Utilities Engineering Dept, not Stan Chrzanowski. 2. Engineers report needs to be signed and sealed. 3. Provide documentation showing downstream lift station has capacity for project. 4. Provide documentation showing downstream master pump station has capacity for project. Contact Zamira De Toro 252 -6279. 5. Submit existing and proposed potable flows, show that existing meter has capacity. 6. Submit existing and proposed irrigation flows, show that existing meter has capacity. 7. Change note 10 to Collier County will own and maintain all water and / or sanitary sewer located within CUE /ROW. 8. Add note who will own and maintain water and sanitary on site. 9. Label manholes 1,2, and 3 as existing. 10. All easements whether existing or proposed are to be shown with sizes and type. 11. Plan and profile is showing removing sanitary plug and installing three manholes. Cost of construction and project narrative are showing adjusting manhole rims to finish grade. 12. Label size of existing meters. 13. Modifications to water distribution system is missing changes 8 and 9. 14. Show proposed water and sewer services to buildings. The following comments were received, are ir}ormational and /or may include stipulations: DEV REV ENVIRON. PLANNING 2. Provide a clearing plan on site plan (LDC 3.3.7.1.4; 3.9.4.2.1 -2) Review 1 - 01/15/07: If vegetation removal is required provide a vegetation removal plan and the applicable fee. If vegetation removal is not required please provide the following: note stating that no clearing to the mangroves or native vegetation is required. DEV REV ENVIRON. PLANNING 4. Provide the applicable clearing fee for removal of any vegetation. (LDC 3.9.6.3) DEV REV ENGR H2O MGMT Stipulations for Approval Letter 1. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, a Performance /Maintenance Bond must be submitted based on the estimated cost of the paving and drainage improvements. DEV REV LANDSCAPE PLANNING - �, A Submit Landscape Plans signed and sealed by a Florida Registered Landscape Architect (LDC 10.02.14.A.) - -- REVIEW 1 INFORMATION - -- andscape Plan appears to be incomplete. Unable to provide complete review of all landscape items at this time. Then plans are completed, some review items may generate additional comments beyond those noted below. DEV REV LANDSCAPE PLANNING Provide an accurate irrigation legend. (LDC 10.02.14.13.) - -- REVIEW 1 INFORMATION - -- Incomplete planting plan denies review of irrigation at this time. DEV REV LANDSCAPE PLANNING Provide accurate irrigation notes. (LDC 10.02.14.13.) - -- REVIEW 1 INFORMATION - -- See above comment. DEV REV ENGR UTILITIES Stipulations for approval letter. 12/26/07 1. All preliminary inspections of water and / or sewer shall be coordinated through Sherry Eaton with a 48 hour written notification. All final 1 year inspections of water and / or sewer shall be coordinated through Jodi Pannullo with a 48 hour written notification. 2. An on site pre- construction meeting for water and / or sewer is required prior to construction. Contact Craig allis 252 -2905. All revised plans or new information shall be submitted to the InTake Team Planners. A one -on -one sufficiency review is required for resubmittal. Definition of Review Status PENDING Review is not yet complete REJECT Negative comments were received and need to be addressed COMPLETE Review has been completed, however stipulations may have been added that the applicant may wish to address. Site Development Plans will remain under review so long as a resubmittal in response to the County reviewer's comments is received within 270 days of the date on which the comments were sent. If a response is not received within this time, the application for Site Development Plan review will be considered withdrawn and cancelled. Further review of the project will require a new application subject to the then current Code. (LDC Section 3.3.10) xc: GULF BAY LAND INVESTMENTS, INC DBA PARCEL J JOINT VENTURE 8156 FIDDLERS CREEK PARKWAY NAPLES, FL 34114 FAX: (239) 732 -9402 JA Applicant Response Waterpark Place Phases III & IV SDPA- 2007 -AR -12644 January 16, 2008 (County letter date) March 3, 2008 (Applicant letter date) Q. GRDY MINOR & ASSOCIATA, A. Civil Engineers ■ Land Surveyors is Planners ■ Landscape Architects MARK W. MINOR, P.E. JOSHUA R. EVANS, P.E. MICHAEL T. HERRERA, P.E. DAVID W. SCHMITT, P.E. MICHAEL J. RELATE, P.E. ELIZABETH A. FOUNTAIN, P.E. ANDRES F. CORREA, P.E. March 3, 2008 Intake Planner Collier County Engineering Services Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, I; I! 34104 RE: SDPA -AR -12644 WATERPARK PLACE PHASES III AND IV Dear Intake Planner: D. WAYNE ARNOLD, A.I.CP. KEITH A. STEPHENSON, P.S.M. JUAN A. ARAQUE, P.S.M. HEIDI K. WILLIAMS, A.I.C.P. D. KENT CARLYLE, R.L.A. KENNETH W. PAHUTSKI, P.S.M. PAMELA M. HYYTI SDPA- 2007 -AR- 12644 REV: 2 WATERPARK PLACE PH III & IV Project: 2007120008 Date: 315/08 DUE: 412108 The purpose of this submittal is to respond to the Collier County Development Review dated January 16, 2008, in order to obtain final approval on this application. Enclosed please find the following items: 1) One (1) original and Nine (9) copies of this letter with Architect response letter attached. ) Two (2) copies of letter from Professional Architect; for Michael Sawyer. Y 43) Two (2) copies of elevation & aerial rendering; for Michael Sawyer. ) Two (2) copies of approval letters from Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc., for Michael Sawyer. 5) Two (2) copies of approval letters from St. Laurent Condominium Association, Inc.; for jMichael Sawyer. c)) Two (2) copies of approval letters from St_ Pierre Condominium Association, Inc., for Michael Sawyer. 1 One (1) corrected DEP form for water; for Craig Callis. y16) One (1) corrected DEP form for sewer; for Craig Callis V ) Two (2) signed 7 sealed Water Meter Sizing form; for Craig Callis. 10)'I'wo (2) signed and sealed affidavit relative to traffic: for John Podczerwinsky. 1/j11) Five (5) sets of signed and sealed Architectural Plans. V2) Five (5) sets of signed and sealed Landscape & Irrigation Plans_ 13) Ten (10) sets of signed and sealed Construction Plans. We are currently working on the Waterpark Place Phases III and IV right -of -way permit plan set which consists of modifications to median islands, turn lanes and entrances on to Grenadier Boulevard. These plans will supersede sheets fourteen and fifteen on this Site Development Plan Amendment set. (239) 947 -1144 r FAX (239) 947 -0375 ■ Web Site: www.gradyminor.com 3800 Via Del Rey ■ Bonita � Springs, Florida 34134 -7569 I':''J'RO?- [NC,'SISTLISF)P (Cap D'Anttbes Site Dever tl)l7CJ�f�l i L6W 71r��� 66 GCB Intake Planner RE: SDPA -AR -12644 Waterpark Place March 3. 2008 Page 2 0 0 I-A, .-,Please note staff comments are listed below, followed by our response in bold. U DEV REV CURRENT PLANNING - MICHAEL SAWYER 1) "Common Architectural Theme /Cluster Development": Provide elevations and site plans showing the proposed towers along with the existing towers with a statement clearly outlining the "common architectural/cluster development" theme components of this project (Waterpark Place). Include LDC 4.02.04 and LDC definition for cluster development and how this project addresses all criteria, specifically how this development meets purpose and intent, allowable lot coverage, common open space, and all sections of common architectural theme section. Response: This comment has been addressed by the Architect in the attached letter. 2) Provide use information for the four enclosed areas /elements on the tennis deck level of the parking structures (two elements /areas on each parking structure). See also building height comments below. Response: This comment has been addressed by the Architect in the attached letter. 3) On coversheet, identify ZONING of subject property; include PUD name & ordinance if applicable; if submittal is an SDP AMENDMENT, identify original SDP A. Provide original SDP reference on the site plan for this amendment. Response: The cover sheet identifies the zoning, PUD name and original SDP number. B. Revise title of cover sheet to show that this is a SDPA Site Development Plan Amendment instead of a SDP. Response: Title on cover sheet now reads Site Development Plan Amendment. 4) Review site plans for compliance with LDC Sec 10.02.03.B. L(b).(ii). as follows: A. See review comments above regarding documentation of how this project meets LDC 4.02.04. standards and requirements. Response: This comment has been addressed by the Architect in the attached letter. S) On site plan, provide SITE SUMMARY in chart form, including the following: Response: Site data is included on dwg. 4. 6) Total square footage of impervious area (including parking areas, drive aisles, and internal streets), and its percentage of the total site area Response: Site data is included on dwg. 4. 7) Total square footage of landscape area/open space and its percentage of total site area Response: Site data is included on dwg. 4. 8) On site plan, in chart and on drawing, show all SETBACKS, required by zoning district & provided, for principal & accessory structures Response: Property development regulations are shown on dwg. 4 and setbacks on dwg. 3. F:1PR0.1- ENG\S%STLI SDP (Cap D'Antbes Site Developtmnt P1an)\06DPT2SDPAU- -1st np- 01- 28- 08.doc STLISDPA I Intake Planner RE: SDPA -AR -12644 Waterpark Place March 3, 2008 Page 3 9) On site plan, in chart and on drawing, show SEPARATION between structures, required by zoning district & provided, for principal and accessory Response: Property development regulations are shown on dwg. 4 and setbacks on dwg. 3. 10) On site plan, in chart form, show maximum BUILDING HEIGHT permitted by zoning district and height proposed Response: Maximum building height allowed and provided is shown in chart form on page 4 of 16 below property development regulations. l 1) Revise all building height data on elevations and charts to include the four enclosed areas (two on each parking structure) on the upper level/currently noted tennis deck/parking structure. See also review notes regarding use information for these areas /elements. Response: This comment has been addressed by the Architect in the attached letter. 12) On site plan, show all PARKING AREAS and DRIVE AISLES Response: All parking areas and drive angles are shown on the site plan. First and second garage level plans are also shown on sheet 4 of 16. 13) On site plan, show location of TRASH container(s) or pad(s); if enclosed, show minimum enclosure dimensions of 12 X 12 ft per LDC Sec 5.03.04 Response: Solid waste and recyclable receptacles are located in the trash rooms in the garage. The residents dispose of solid waste and recyclables in their service areas on their respective living floors. The objects travel vertically in "trash chutes" to the garage receptacles. The receptacles are positioned by maintenance personnel in the service area for pick up on garbage days. 14) On site plan, for multifamily residential developments, give means of disposal (dumpster, curbside pickup, compactor) and, if applicable, number of containers approved by Utilities Billing Dept. Response: Solid waste and recyclable receptacles are located in the trash rooms in the garage. The residents dispose of solid waste and recyclables in their service areas on their respective living floors. The objects travel vertically in "trash chutes" to the garage receptacles. The receptacles are positioned by maintenance personnel in the service area for pick up on garbage days. 15) Review for compliance with OPEN SPACE provisions per LDC See 4.02.01 _B Response: This comment has been addressed by the Architect in the attached letter. 16) Provide confirmation from both Pelican Bay Foundation and Pelican Bay Services regarding approval of this project. Response: Approval will be provided upon receipt. FAPR0J- ENGl.S1STLI SDP (Cap D'Antibes Site Development P1an) \06DP102SDPA \L -1st rsp- e1- 2"B.doc STLASDPA Intake Planner RE: SDPA -AR -12644 Waterpark Place March 3, 2008 Page 4 17) Due to the history and nature of this project additional new review comments are likely during the review process. Response: Understood. 18) Provide documentation that this project meets PUD 2.06., 2.08, standards. ,Re,ponse: This comment has been addressed by the Architect in the attached letter. DEV REV ADDRESSING - PEGGY JARRELL 1) NEED UNIT NUMBERS FOR BUILDINGS AND CONDO DOCS NEED TO MATCH WITH THE UNIT NUMBERS Response: This comment has been addressed by the Architect in the attached letter. 2) UNIT /SUITE NUMBERS NEED TO BE SUBMITTED Response: This comment has been addressed by the Architect in the attached letter. DEV REV ENVIRON. PLANNING - SUMMER ARAQUE BROWN 1) Please submit any SFWMD permits assuring that there no negative impacts will affect the water quality to Clampass bay. lResponse: The SFMWD permit modification is forthcoming. v DEV REV ENGR H2O MGMT - STEVE SEAL 1) HOW IS TRASH BEING HANDLED OR DISPOSED OF? Response: Solid waste and recyclable receptacles are located in the trash rooms in the garage. The residents dispose of solid waste and recyclables in their service areas on their respective living floors. The objects travel vertically in "trash chutes" to the garage receptacles. The receptacles are positioned by maintenance personnel in the service area for pick up on garbage days. 2) SUBMIT ROW PERMIT NUMBER Response: We have met with County Transportation Department and agreed on improvements to Pelican Bay Blvd. We are submitting separate plan sets to them and will provide number upon receipt. 3) SHOW WET SEASON WATER TABLE ELEVATION ON CROSS SECTIONS. Provide on CS Detail Sht. 8 Response: Wet season water table elevation now shown on cross section. 4) MINIMUM AISLE WIDTH FOR 90 DEGREE PARKING IS 24 FT. Dimension on plan in front of Bldg. One Response: Additional dimensions added to site plan. 5) Revise Control Structure Detail Sht. 8 to provide a bleeder and a baffle. Show rip -rap slope at a max. 2:1 slope. Show the location of the WSWT. Response: Control Structure detail revised to provide bleeder and baffle. Rip rap slope noted at 2:1 max slope and WSWT shown. P:1PR01- ENGISISTL 1 SDP (Cap D'Antibes Site Developn%"t Plun)104DPHJ25DPA \L- I sl rsp- 01- 28- 08.doc STLI SDPA Intake Planner �7k RE: SDPA -AR -12644 Waterpark Place March 3, 2008 Page 5 6) Dimension parallel parking spaces in front of Bldg. One at a min. 9'x 23'. /DEV • Response: Parallel parking spaces dimensioned. REV ENGR TRANSPORTATION - RUSS MULLER 1) Crosswalks that are not stop controlled need to be high visibility (piano keys) 10' wide. The crossing near the entry monument is in the vehicular queue and an additional stop control may be needed. Response: Non controlled crosswalks are shown 10' wide high visibility (piano keys). The crossing and sidewalk near the entry monument has been moved further west to provide for a larger vehicular queue area. 2) Stop signs at building exits need to have stop bars. Response: Stop bars have been added at all building exits. 3) The handicap parking detail shows 12' space and a 5' aisle but the spaces scale 8'. The parking calculations read 4 HC spaces but only 3 are shown per building. Response: The handicap parking detail has been removed. Handicap spaces conform to FHA standards. There are 3 handicap spaces located on the first parking garage level and 1 on the second parking garage, plans added to sheet 5 of 16. 4) Curb ramps are detailed as CR20 but the plan view shows no locations where CR20 would be the correct ramp. Need to include detectable warnings per FDOT Index 4304, Response: Curb ramps on plan view are shown as CR21 and CR1 1. Details of CR21, CR11 ramps and detectable warning truncated domes are shown on sheets 8 & 9 of 16. JDEV REV TRANSPORTATION - JOHN PODCZERWINSKY t) The applicant must schedule a meeting with staff to discuss the temporary access management plan. Response: Right of way permit set for Pelican Bay Boulevard is being prepared and will be submitted to the appropriate department for review. 2) A right turn lane is required at the projects permanent entrance. Response: Right of way permit set for Pelican Bay Boulevard is being prepared and will he submitted to the appropriate department for review. 3) The temporary access management plan must receive endorsement from the Right -of -Way department. Response: Right of way permit set for Pelican Bay Boulevard is being prepared and will be submitted to the appropriate department for review. 4) Driveways that are ingress only, or egress only, must have the appropriate signage. Response: Plans have been prepared for improvements within the Pelican Bay Boulevard right -of -way and connection to Grenadier Boulevard. 1::IPROJ-ENG\S\STL I SDP (Cap D'Antibes Site Developmnri Plan) \06DP\02SDPAIL -Ist rsp- 01- 2"8.doc STLISDPA Intake Planner RE: SDPA -AR -12644 Water-park Place March 3, 2008 Page 6 5) Egress -only driveways need to be directionalized through the use of curbing. Response: Plans have been prepared for improvements within the Pelican Bay Boulevard right -of -way and connection to Grenadier Boulevard. 6) Please submit a lighting plan compliant with LDC 6.06.03 B Response: The lighting plan is completed and in compliance with LDC 6.06.03B. and included with this submittal. 7) An affidavit stating that there is a net reduction in traffic must be submitted. Response: Affidavit included with this submittal. 8) Please provide copies of any agreements in place between the developer and the County that may have an impact on roadway impacts or access. Response: We have met with County Transportation Department staff members and agreed upon access. We will forward a copy of the approval right -of -way permit upon receipt. DEV REV LANDSCAPE PLANNING - BOB WRIGHT 1) For an SDPA, please provide copy of original approved Landscape Plan for entire site. Document all existing code required plant material for entire site and provide replacement plant material in areas where site fails to meet minimum code standards. Entire site must be brought up to present day code standards to the greatest extent. Highlight area of specific SDP Amendment and provide code minimum plant material for specific amendment area. Response: Attached are 3 previously approved landscape plans this submittals current SDPA IV & III highlighted. 2) Items such as FPL Pads, some lightpoles, southern trellis and eastern property line do not appear to be consistent on Site and Landscape Plans. Please revise. Response: Completed. 3) Please show entrance drive stop bars and clear sight triangles on Landscape Plan. Response: Completed. 4) Please provide buffer re- vegetation plan for temporary construction entrance drives along Pelican Bay Boulevard. Note vegetation protection measures to be used in these areas. Response: Completed as attached (sheet L -P -5). Note has been changed to identify the entrance as temporary and resident access. Re- vegetation is noted to be consistent with existing landscape. 5) Property lines difficult to distinguish on Landscape Plan, please show clearly. Response: Completed. 6) Entire northern perimeter Type 'B' and Type 'A' Buffer trees (Live Oaks) appear to be located directly over existing 36" Dia. culvert. Please revise to avoid root system conflicts. Type 'B' Buffer sluubs labeled on plan but plant material location is not shown. These shrubs are specified as Awabuki Viburnum and listed as a native plant. Please note that all code required plant FAPROJ- ENG \S \STLI SUP (Cap D'Antibes Site Development P1an)106DP \02SDPA \1_- Is[ rsp- 01.29- 08.doc STL (SDPA Intake Planner RE: SDPA -AR -12644 Waterpark Place March 3, 2008 Page 7 material within the Collier County Coastal High Hazard Zone must be 100% native (such as Viburnum obovatum). Response: Completed; see (sheets L -P -1, 2 & 3). The Live Oaks have been moved to avoid confilicts with existing culvert and a root barrier is specified. All vegetation is 100% native. 7) Type 'B' Buffer along southern site perimeter does not appear to meet the minimum required width of 15'. There appears to be about ten feet between the pool deck and the adjacent residential structure. Please provide the minimum buffer width in this area. Please provide height, type, texture and finish of required wall for this buffer. Type 'B' Buffer plant material (shrubs, not shown on plan) must be located so as to screen wall from adjacent residential land use. As noted above, Awabuki Viburnum must be replaced with native variety of shrub for coastal zone. Type 'A' Buffer along remaining portion of southem perimeter does not appear to meet the minimum width of 10' within the property line. Please revise. Response: 15' southern buffer type B section has been modified to provide equal square footage as agreed to at pre - application meeting. The needed square footage of landscape is located and identified to the East and West of Amenities Deck. Additional plants have been added (shown on plan) Type A to East is corrected to 10' width by re- alignment of service drive. 8) Please label Grenadier Blvd. on Landscape Plan and show entrance to site from Pelican Bay Blvd. Type'D' buffer is required along Grenadier, approximately 585 LF less entrance drives or 513 LF. 17 trees and 342 shrubs (double -row) are needed for this buffer. It appears that about 7 trees have been provided. Some shrub areas labeled but not shown, please provide minimum code requirements for this buffer. Existing trees to remain in this area do not appear to be shown on plans, nor is tree protection provided. Response: Planting currently exists between Grenadier and Pelican bay Boulevard and serves as the required buffer and are to remain and to be protected. 195' type D buffer provided as agreed at pre - application meeting. Temporary entrance planting provided. See sheet L -P -S. 9) V.U.A. trees for structures over 20,000 SF must be a minimum of 14' -16' in height (3 "4" Caliper) at time of planting. Response: Has been corrected. 10) Please label types of curbing to be used on Site and Landscape Plans. Response: Types of curbing has been labeled on the grading, paving and drainage plan sheet 7 of 16. 11) Several foundation planting areas around the perimeter of the parking garages do not appear to meet the minimum width of ten (10) feet. Areas which do not meet the minimum width standard (for structures over 10,000 SF) may not be counted towards meeting the foundation planting requirement. Please revise. Response: Corrected by re- alignment of service drives. P: \PR0J- ENG\S\STLI SDP (Cap D'Antibes Sitc Devclopment P1an)\06DP \02SDPAT -1st rsp- 01- 28- 08.doc STLISDPA • • �j}C Intake Planner RE: SDPA -AR -12644 Waterpark Place March 3, 2008 Page 8 12) Foundation planting in the area of the proposed towers appears incomplete. Foundation planting area review is not possible at this time. Response: Completed. 13) B.F.P.A. calculation for proposed parking structure required square footage appears to be in error. Please use Buildings over 10,000 SF section of table, which should provide a required area of about 5,000 SF for each structure. Please revise, noting that planting areas must be a minimum of 10' wide and required trees must be 14' tall at planting. Response: Has been corrected. 14) B.F.P.A. calculation for proposed tower also appears to be in error. Please use Buildings over 50' in height section of table. Rough calculation shows about 6,500 SF of planting area required for each tower. Please revise, noting that the minimum planting area width would be 10' and trees need to be 18' tall at planting. Response: Completed. See calculation sheets L -P -1, section IV of landscape calculations format. 1.5) A. Please see comment above concerning 36" culvert in direct conflict with proposed north buffer trees. Response: Completed. 17) Tree /underground utility conflicts appear to exist at north side of Garage I. (central section) and northeast comer of Garage 2. Response: Trees were relocated where known underground lines are located. Adjacent trees to these areas to be provided with root barrier and noted on plan. 18) Please revise Plant Legend to reflect any changes generated by Review 1 Comments. Note that all code required plant material must be 100% native. Response: Completed. 19) Please provide Tree & Vegetation Protection Barrier Details on Site Plan Sheet 13 of 16. Provide Site Clearing Plan (Site Plan Sheet 13 of 16) and note the locations of existing native vegetation to remain. Designate Tree Protection Barrier installation locations on plan. References: PUD Document: Page 8, Section 2.05 a.4) & Page 13, Section 2.14 Response: Completed. 20) Please revise calculations to reflect any changes generated by Review 1 Comments. Response: Completed. 21) Please completely revise Section V11 of Landscape Calculations to reflect LDC Section 4.06 for Collier County. Response: Corrected as needed. DEV REV UTILITY BILLING - GARY MOROCCO 1) Please include detail on the SDP showing how these units will be service per the LDC 5.03, Response: Solid waste and recyclable receptacles are located in the trash rooms in the F: \PRnJ- F'NG \S \STLI SDP (Cap D'Antibes Site Development P1an) \06DP\02SDPA \L -I st rsp- 01- 28-0B.doc STLISDPA Intake Planner RE: SDPA -AR -12644 Waterpark Place March 3, 2008 Page 9 garage. The residents dispose of solid waste and recyclables in their service areas on their respective living floors. The objects travel vertically in "trash chutes" to the garage receptacles. The receptacles are positioned by maintenance personnel in the service area for pick up on garbage days. 2) Review locations of dumpsters and/or compactors throughout the complex or development. Please show detail on the SDP. Response: Solid waste and recyclable receptacles are located in the trash rooms in the garage. The residents dispose of solid waste and recyclables in their service areas on their respective living floors. The objects travel vertically in "trash chutes" to the garage receptacles. The receptacles are positioned by maintenance personnel in the service area for pick up on garbage days. 3) If a compactor is going to be used, please include detail and specs for the compactor. Response: Solid waste and recyclable receptacles are located in the trash rooms in the garage. The residents dispose of solid waste and recyclables in their service areas on their respective living floors. The objects travel vertically in "trash chutes" to the garage receptacles. The receptacles are positioned by maintenance personnel in the service area for pick up on garbage days. 4) For multi - family developments, ensure that no dumpster will be located more than 250' from the building to be served Response: Solid waste and recyclable receptacles are located in the trash rooms in the garage. The residents dispose of solid waste and recyclables in their service areas on their respective living floors. The objects travel vertically in "trash chutes" to the garage receptacles. The receptacles are positioned by maintenance personnel in the service area for pick up on garbage days. 5) FOR MULTI - FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS, ENSURE THAT EADH BUILDING TO BE DUMPSTER SERVED HAS A DUMPSTER LOCATED WITHIN 250' OF THE BUILDING. Response: Solid waste and recyclable receptacles are located in the trash rooms in the garage. The residents dispose of solid waste and recyclables in their service areas on their respective living floors. The objects travel vertically in "trash chutes" to the garage receptacles. The receptacles are positioned by maintenance personnel in the service area for pick up on garbage days. 6) Ensure the developer is requesting the correct number of dumpsters for the project, please show on the SDP. Response: Solid waste and recyclable receptacles are located in the trash rooms in the garage. The residents dispose of solid waste and recyclables in their service areas on their respective living floors. The objects travel vertically in "trash chutes" to the garage receptacles. The receptacles are positioned by maintenance personnel in the service area for pick up on garbage days. 7) Ensure that enclosures are angled correctly for pick up Response: Solid waste and recyclable receptacles are located in the trash rooms in the F \PRDJ- ENG \S \STLI SDP (Cap D'Antihes Site Dcvclopment P1an) \06DP\02SDPA\L -1s1 rsp -01- 28- 08.doc STLISDPA Intake Planer RE: SDPA -AR- 12644 Waterpark Place March 3, 2008 Page 10 garage. The residents dispose of solid waste and recyclables in their service areas on their respective living floors. The objects travel vertically in "trash chutes" to the garage receptacles. The receptacles are positioned by maintenance personnel in the service area for pick up on garbage days. 8) Ensure that enclosures have proper ingress and egress Response: Solid waste and recyclable receptacles are located in the trash rooms in the garage. The residents dispose of solid waste and recyclables in their service areas on their respective living floors. The objects travel vertically in "trash chutes" to the garage receptacles. The receptacles are positioned by maintenance personnel in the service area for pick up on garbage days. 9) The above statement includes making sure no collection truck has to back -up more than 30' to egress from the enclosure Response: Solid waste and recyclable receptacles are located in the trash rooms in the garage. The residents dispose of solid waste and recyclables in their service areas on their respective living floors. The objects travel vertically in "trash chutes" to the garage receptacles. The receptacles are positioned by maintenance personnel in the service area for pick up on garbage days. 10) Ensure there are no overhead obstacles (14' for minimum travel and 21' for front load service) to avoid possible property damage issues where location of dumpsters, compactors and toters Response: Solid waste and recyclable receptacles are located in the trash rooms in the garage. The residents dispose of solid waste and recyclables in their service areas on their respective living floors. The objects travel vertically in "trash chutes" to the garage receptacles. The receptacles are positioned by maintenance personnel in the service area for pick up on garbage days. 11) When there is a cul -de -sac, put in the stipulation that landscaping in the cul -de -sac should not overflow into travelway creating an obstruction for the truck. This will avoid property damage issues with the solid waste collections hauler. Response: Solid waste and recyclable receptacles are located in the trash rooms in the garage. The residents dispose of solid waste and recyclables in their service areas on their respective living floors. The objects travel vertically in "trash chutes" to the garage receptacles. The receptacles are positioned by maintenance personnel in the service area for pick up on garbage days. 12) Please show where recycling containers will be stored and where they will be placed for pick up. Response: Solid waste and recyclable receptacles are located in the trash rooms in the garage. The residents dispose of solid waste and recyclables in their service areas on their respective living floors. The objects travel vertically in "trash chutes" to the garage receptacles. The receptacles are positioned by maintenance personnel in the service area for pick up on garbage days. F:\PROI- ENG \S \STLISDP (Cal) D'Andbes Site Developnxnt Plan)\06DP \02SDPA \l: lst rsp 01- 2R -0S.doc STLISDPA Intake Planner RE: SDPA -AR -12644 Waterpark Place March 3, 2008 Page t ] DEV REV ENGR UTILITIES - CRAIG CALLIS 1) DEP applications need to show Roy Anderson Public Utilities Engineering Dept, not Stan Chrzanowski. Response: Roy Anderson now shown on DEP application. 2) Engineers report needs to be signed and sealed. Response: Engineer's reports signed and sealed. 3) Provide documentation showing downstream lift station has capacity for project. Response: The project is an amendment to SDPA- 2001 -AR -416. In this amendment we have decreased the total units from approved 182 units to 152 units (30 units less). The decrease in the total number of units significantly reduces the sewage flow from the project. The pump will receive less flow than it would receive if the project was built based on the previous permit. Therefore, the documentation is not required. It was also discussed in a telephone conversation between you and Michael T. Herrera on January 16, 2008. 4) Provide documentation showing downstream master pump station has capacity for project_ Contact Zamira De Toro 252 -6279. Response: The project is an amendment to SDPA - 2001 -AR -416. In this amendment we have decreased the total units from approved 182 units to 152 units (30 units less). The decrease in the total number of units significantly reduces the sewage now from the project. The pump will receive less flow than it would receive if the project was built based on the previous permit. Therefore, the documentation is not required. It was also discussed in a telephone conversation between you and Michael T. Herrera on January 16, 2008. 5. Submit existing and proposed potable flows, show that existing meter has capacity. Response: Collier County Water Meter Sizing forms for both Cap d'Antibes and Cote d'Azure are enclosed within this submittal. 4" water meter sizes are proposed per the calculated flow demand. 6. Submit existing and proposed irrigation flows, show that existing meter has capacity. Response: Existing and proposed irrigation flows showing that the existing meter has capacity has been provided. 7. Change note 10 to Collier County will own and maintain all water and / or sanitary sewer located within CUE/ROW. Response: Note changed to specify Collier County to maintain water and sewer services within CUE /ROW. 8. Add note who will own and maintain water and sanitary on site. Response: Additional note added specifying Association to own and maintain water and sewer utilities within our site. FAPR01- ENC\S \STLi SDP (Cap D'Ataibes Site Development P1an)1 06DP \02SDPA \L -1st rsp -0I- 28- 09.do0 STLISDPA Intake Planner RE: SDPA -AR -12644 Waterpark Place March 3, 2008 Page 12 9. Label manholes 1, 2, and 3 as existing. Response: Manholes 1, 2, and 3 are labeled as existing. 10. All easements whether existing or proposed are to be shown with sizes and type. Response: All easements have been labeled. 11. Plan and profile is showing removing sanitary plug and installing three manholes. Cost of construction and project narrative are showing adjusting manhole rims to finish grade. Response: Plan and profile sheet revised to agree with cost of construction and project narrative. 12. Label size of existing meters. Response: Existing meters now list sizes. 13. Modifications to water distribution system is missing changes 8 and 9. Response: Label eight was miss labeled and number nine was relabeled as number eight. 14. Show proposed water and sewer services to buildings. Response: Proposed water and sewer connectionNare shown on the utility plan. If you have any questions or need additional MWM:cjd cc: Mr. Mark Strain; digital copy QGM file please contact our office. Vet ttly yours, W. Minor F_ \PRO)- ENG \S \STLI SDP (Cap D'Antibes Site Development P1an) \06DP \02SDPA \L -1st nP- 01- 28- 08.doc STLISDPA • L_ miami January 24, 2008 celebration Collier County Development Services 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 0 1A architecture = planning m construction administration Re: SDPA -AR -12644 Waterpark Place The following are the responses and additional clarifications to the SDP application continents received on January 16, 2008: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CURRENT PLANNING STAFF COMMENT: A. "Common Architectural Theme /Cluster Development ": Provide elevations and site plans showing the proposed towers along with the existing towers with a statement outlining the "common architectural /cluster development" theme components of this project (Waterpark Place). Response: The Pelican Bay PUD Ordinance was adopted as an amendment to the zoning code and contains the standards for development of properties within the Pelican Bay PUD. For properties within the Pelican Bay PUD, common architectural theme criteria are addressed by the Pelican Bay PUD. The Pelican Bay PUD Sec. 7.04.03, .subsection C, of the Pelican Bay PUD provides the only regulation that is required to be applied to this SDP Amendment in order to determine compliance with requirements that the clustered buildings have a "common architectural theme. " This SDP Amendment application contains a letter from a professional architect indicating that the four multi- family residential buildings within the Waterpark Place development (the St. Pierre (existing), St. Laurent (existing), Cap d'Antibes and Cote d'Azure) are similar in design character and in use of materials and colors; the project has a signature entrance way that includes a gated structure, landscaping and signage and paving surfaces; street materials, additional signage and lighting of Cap d'Antibes and Cote d'Azure will be complimentary and the same through the project's access ways, providing a unified look when seen from Pelican Bay Boulevard. Lawrence S. Cohan Kenneth L. Tobin Arthur J. Pearl Orlando L. Rio Adan Fons Jr. 4942 S. LeJeu Road Suite 200 Coral Gables, Florida 33146 Tel 305.663.8182 Fax 305.663.8882 +vww. bcarchiterts.com 0 0 7A Page 2 of 7 Additionally, see the attached elevations and aerial rendering; site plan provided with original submittal; and the attached Approval Letters of the Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc. (Foundation) (an assignee of'the applicable powers of the declarant of the deed restrictions governing the property in Waterpark Place), the St. Laurent Condominium Association, Inc. (St. Laurent Association) and the St. Pierre Condominium Association, Inc. (St. Pierre Association), all providing their approval and determination that design of the two high -rise clustered buildings, Cap d'Antibes and Cote d'Azure, is consistent with the common architect theme of the Waterpark Place development. STAFF COMMENT: A. con't • Include LDC 4.02.04 and LDC definition for cluster development and how this project addresses all criteria, specifically how this development meets purpose and intent, allowable lot coverage, common open space, and all sections of common architectural theme section. Response: The Land Development Code (LDC) Sec. 4.02.04 "Standards for Cluster Residential Design" is a provision found in the current LDC allowing clustering of residential development in certain zoning districts. This LDC provision was riot in effect when the PUD zoning for Pelican Bay was adopted many years ago. However, the notion of clustering residential development in exchange for open space is a technique utilized in PUDs and a theme which permeates the Pelican Bay PUD. In the Pelican Bay PUD, buildings were clustered within the overall project and additional open space was afforded when the PUD was initially adopted. The concept of reduced setbacks between buildings of a common architectural theme found in the Pelican Bay PUD document is different and distinct from the clustering of residential development addressed when the Pelican Bay PUD was initially adopted. As to development standards to be applied to specific sites in the PUD, the Pelican Bay PUD Ordinance was adopted as an amendment to the zoning code. The PUD contains the specific standards for development. These PUD standards control the "common architectural theme" .setbacks, not LDC Sec. 4.02.04. Current LDC Sec. 10.02.13 provides that once a PUD is approved, development shall proceed in accordance with development regulations in the PUD Master Plan. The 1991 LDC Sec. 2.2.20.2.1 also provided that the PUD document controls. As to standards for yard, lot, building height, etc, if the PUD document addresses the subject, the PUD document controls. Accordingly, the speck Pelican Bay PUD development standards control for yards and setbacks. For properties within the Pelican Bay PUD, reduced setbacks Jor buildings with a common architectural theme are specifically addressed in Sec. 7.04.03, Minimum Yards, Subsection C, of the Pelican Bay PUD as follows: In the case of clustered buildings with a common architectural theme, these distances may be less than one -half the sum of heights of principal structures], provided that a site plan is approved in accordance with Section 2.05. 0 0 _7A- Page 3 of 7 Although not a term specifically defined by either the Pelican Bay PUD or the LDC, "clustered buildings," under its plain meaning and the facts applicable here, refers to buildings where individual dwellings units of a multi family residential development are "clustered ". That is exactly the circumstances in the Waterpark Place SDP, and other SDPs within the Pelican Bay PUD, where multi- family residential dwelling units permitted by right are gathered or "clustered" together in one or more "multi family residential buildings." In the case of the Waterpark Place SDP, the cluster includes the four multi-family residential buildings of St. Pierre (existing), St. Laurent (existing), Cap d'Antibes and Cote d'Azure. Subsection 7.04.03 A and B of the Pelican Bay PUD provide the criteria for determining the dimensions of minimum yards and the standards for determining the distance between structures for principal and accessory uses. In this application for SDP Amendment, the subject development is designated as "Group 4" on the Pelican Bay Master Plan. Section VII of the Pelican Bay PUD allows the development of multi family residential buildings as a permitted residential use in Group 4. Subsection 7.04.03 C further provides that the minimum yards set forth in Subsections 7.04.03 A and B may be less in the case of clustered multi family residential buildings with a common architectural theme, so long as the site plan is approved in accordance with Sec. 2.05 of the Pelican Bay PUD. This SDP Amendment qualifies for a reduction from the minimum yard requirements for construction of multi family residential buildings under the express terms of the condition set forth in Subsection 7.04.03 C. Section 2.05 of the PUD requires that this SDP Amendment include various materials identified in section 2.05 to demonstrate that staff's approval will be in harmony with the general intent of the PUD. This SDP Amendment contains numerous materials which demonstrate that the site plan is not injurious to the neighborhood or adjoining properties, nor otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Additionally, the Foundation, the St. Pierre Association and the St. Laurent Association have all approved the site plait (see attached Approval Getters), stating that the site plan is consistent with the general uniform plan of development and common architectural theme for Waterpark Place. In sum, this response relies upon previous staff determinations; Approval Letters from the Foundation, St. Laurent Association, and St. Pierre Association; LDC provisions; Pelican Bay PUD provisions and Official Interpretations to determine that the development represented in this SDP Amendment meets the purpose and intent of the PUD and LDC regarding allowable lot coverage, common architectural theme criteria and common open space. STAFF COMMENT: B. Provide use information for the four enclosed areas /elements on the tennis deck level of the parking structures (two elements /areas on each parking structure). See also building height comments below. Response: The use information for the four enclosed areas on the tennis decks was added to drawings A2.04 Building One and A2.04 Building Two. 0 0 1,4 Page 4 of 7 STAFF COMMENT: E. Review site plans for compliance with LDC Sec 10.02.03.13. L(b).(ii). As follows: A.: See review comment above regarding documentation of how this project meets LDC 4.02.04 standards and requirements. Response: See previous response to Staff Comment A. Please note that the Pelican Bay PUD Ordinance was adopted as an amendment to the zoning code and contains the standards for development of properties within the Pelican Bay PUD, including those related to clustering and common architectural theme criteria. STAFF COMMENT: E.2: On site plan, provide SITE SUMMARY in chart form, including the following: A.: See review comments above regarding documentation of how this project meets LDC 4.02.04 standards and requirements. Response: See previous response to Staff Comment A. Please note that the Pelican Bay PUD Ordinance was adopted as an amendment to the zoning code and contains the standards for development of properties within the Pelican Bay PUD, including those related to clustering and common architectural theme criteria. STAFF COMMENT: E.2.e.: Total square footage of impervious area (including parking areas, drive aisles, and internal streets) and its percentage of the total site area. A.: See review comments above regarding documentation of how this project meets LDC 4.02.04 standards and requirements. Response: See previous response to Staff Comment A. Please note that the Pelican Bay PUD Ordinance was adopted as an amendment to the zoning code and contains the standards for development of properties within the Pelican Bay PUD, including those related to clustering and common architectural theme criteria. 0 0 1A Page 5 of 7 STAFF COMMENT: E.2.d.: Total square footage of landscape area/open space and its percentage of the total site area. A.: See review comments above regarding documentation of how this project meets LDC 4.02.04 standards and requirements. Response: See previous response to Staff Comment A. Please note that the Pelican Bay PUD Ordinance was adopted as an amendment to the zoning code and contains the standards for development of properties within the Pelican Bay PUD, including those related to clustering and common architectural theme criteria. STAFF COMMENT: E.5.: On site plan, in chart and on drawing, show all SETBACKS, required by zoning district & provided, for principal & accessory structures. A.: See review comments above regarding documentation of how this project meets LDC 4.02.04 standards and requirements. Response: Per your request, setback information has been provided in this SDP Application. Additionally, please see our previous response to Staff Comment A; noting that the Pelican Bay PUD Ordinance was adopted as an amendment to the zoning code and contains the standards and requirements for development of properties within the Pelican Bay PUD. STAFF COMMENT: E_6: On site plan, in chart and on drawing, show all SEPARATION between structures, required by zoning district & provided, for principal & accessory structures A.: See review comments above regarding documentation of how this project meets LDC 4.02.04 standards and requirements. Response: Per your request, separation information has been provided in this SDP Application. Additionally, please see our previous response to Staff Comment A; noting that the Pelican Bay PUD Ordinance was adopted as an amendment to the zoning code and contains the standards and requirements for development ofproperties within the Pelican Bay PUD. 0 0 -1A- Page 6 of 7 STAFF COMMENT: E_7: On site plan, in chart and on drawing, show maximum BUILDING HEIGHT permitted by zoning district and height proposed. A.: See review comments above regarding documentation of how this project meets LDC 4.02.04 standards and requirements. Response: Per your request, building height information has been provided in this SDP Application. Additionally, please see our previous response to Staff Comment A; noting that the Pelican Bay PUD Ordinance was adopted as an amendment to the zoning code and contains the standards and requirements for development ofproperties within the Pelican Bay PUD, B.: Revise all building height data on elevations and charts to include the four enclosed areas (two on each parking structure) on the upper level /currently noted tennis deck/parking structure. See also review notes regarding use information for these areas /elements. Response: The building height data has been added to drawings A5.01, A5.02, A5.03, A5.04, and A6.01 Building One and Two; to include the four enclosed areas on the tennis decks. STAFF COMMENT: K: Review for compliance with OPEN SPACE provisions per LDC Sec 4.02.0l.B. A.: See review comments above regarding documentation of how this project meets LDC 4.02.04 standards and requirements. Response: Please see our previous response to Staff Comment A; noting that the Pelican Bay PUD Ordinance was adopted as an amendment to the zoning code and contains the standards and requirements for development ofproperties within the Pelican Bay PUD. Page 7 of 7 STAFF COMMENT: DEV REV ADDRESSING 1, Need unit numbers for buildings and condo docs need to match with the unit numbers. Response: Refer to Building Matrix prepared by G. Grady Minor (CivilEngineering drawings). 2. Unit/suite numbers need to be submitted. Response: Refer to Building Matrix prepared by G. Grady Minor (Civil Engineering drawings). DEV REV ENGR TRANSPORTATION The handicap parking detail shows 12' space and a 5' aisle but the spaces scale 8'. The parking calculations read 4 HC spaces but only 3 are shown per building. Response: The accessible parking requirements for this project are governed by FHA (Fair Housing Act). The 12 ' space shown on the Civil Engineering drawings was a standard detail for projects governed by ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act), The Civil Engineering drawings have been revised to comply with the appropriate requirements. END OF RESPONSES 1A Second Round Review Comments and Applicant Response Waterpark Place Phases III & IV SDPA- 2007 -AR -12644 April 10, 2008 (County letter date) April 25, 2008 (Applicant letter date) --� A April 10, 2008 Q GRADY MINOR 3800 VIA DEL REY FAX - (239)947 -0375 RE: SDPA -AR -12644 - WATERPARK PLACE PHASES III AND IV The following comments are provided to you regarding the above referenced project. If you have questions, please contact the appropriate staff member who conducted the review. The project will retain a "HOLD" status until all negative comments are satisfied. NOTE: Any submittal of third and subsequent project review responses must be accompanied by a check for the required fee as follows: 3rd = $1000, 4th = $1500, 5th = $2000, 6th and subsequent review for SDP = $2500 6th and subsequent review for SDPA = $2000 Any submittal not accompanied by the required fee will be left at the receptionist desk for pickup by the applicant, who will be notified. Submittals must also be accompained by a cover letter outlining the response to each negative comment and all drawings must be properly folded (standard engineering fold of 9 "x12" showing title block in corner) Submittals must be a minimum of ten (10) complete sets of Civil drawings and five sets of Landscape or Architectural drawings if needed. The following negative comments were received and need to be addressed as noted: DEV REV CURRENT PLANNING - MICHAEL SAWYER Standard Checklist Item: G. On site plan, in chart form, show PARKING DATA in compliance with LDC Sec. 4.05.04 as follows: Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: - -- REVIEW 2 COMMENTS— A. It appears that the parking data provided on site plan sheet 4 of 16 is not correct. The number of "shared surface parking spaces" on site plan sheet 3 of 16 appears to be 24, however the number on sheet 4 of 16 is 26. Additionally the total number of spaces also is not consistent in the Matrix. The total number of provided spaces should be 356 instead of 355 (or 358 if 26 surface spaces are provided /shown). This reviewer apologizes for not catching this comment on the first review. DEV REV CURRENT PLANNING Standard Checklist Item: H.1. On site plan, for multifamily residential developments, give means of disposal (dumpster, curbside pickup, compactor) and, if applicable, number of containers approved by Utilities Billing Dept. Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: - -- REVIEW 2 COMMENTS - -- A. I understand the proposed means of trash disposal. Please provide a simple note on the site plans to clarify. REV DEV REV ENVIRON. PLANNING - CLAUDIA P. Standard Checklist Item: 2. Provide a clearing plan on site plan (LDC 3.3.7.1.4; 3.9.4.2.1 -2) Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: Review 2 Mar /28/08: Please explain if any vegetation will be removed from the site. Review 1 - 01/15/07: If vegetation removal is required provide a vegetation removal plan and the applicable fee. If vegetation removal is not required please provide the following: note stating that no clearing to the mangroves or native vegetation is required. DEV REV ENVIRON. PLANNING Standard Checklist Item: 28. Additional Comments: Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: Review 2 Mar /28/08: Please provide SFWMD permit. Review I - 01/15/07: Please submit any SFWMD permits assuring that there no negative impacts will affect the water quality to Clampass bay. DEV REV ENGR H2O MGMT - STEVE SEAL Standard Checklist Item: SUBMIT ROW PERMIT NUMBER Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: DEV REV ENGR H2O MGMT Standard Checklist Item: Enter additional comments here: Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: 1. Revise Control Structure Detail Sht. 8 to provide a bleeder and a baffle. Show rip -rap slope at a max. 2:1 slope. Show the location of the WSWT. 3/18/08: Revise CS Detail to show baffle to extend from top of grate elev. to 6" below slot. Revise the height dimension accordingly on the Baffle Detail. 2. Dimension parallel parking spaces in front of Bldg. One at a min. 9'x 23'. OK------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- DEV REV ENGR TRANSPORTATION - RUSS MULLER Standard Checklist Item: Signing /Striping Requirements Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: Crosswalks that are not stop controlled need to be high visibility (piano keys) 10' wide. The crossing near the entry monument is in the vehicular queue and an additional stop control may be needed. Stop signs at building exits need to have stop bars. The handicap parking detail shows 12' space and a 5' aisle but the spaces scale 8'. The parking calculations read I -a 4 HC spaces but only 3 are shown per building. Curb ramps are detailed as CR20 but the plan view shows no locations where CR20 would be the correct ramp. Need to include detectable warnings per FDOT Index 4304. Review 2: According to the FDOT ADA Coordinator any handicap parking space in the State have to be 12' wide with a 5' access aisle. DEV REV TRANSPORTATION Standard Checklist Item: Additional Comments Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: 3/19/08 Review Comments: Please demonstrate the changes agreed to during the 1/22/08 staff meeting on these plans, as stated below: 1. Plans for the Northern -most driveway must show the 'Autotum' evaluation for the largest trucks that would be accessing the project. A right turn lane may not be required, but the SB right -turn radius must be reviewed for sufficiency. 2. The driveway labelled as "2" in the plan set should be closed. 3. The median opening shown at driveway no. "2" should be closed. 4. The NB Left Turn Lane at Driveway no. "1" should be extended. 5. A new median opening, with NB Left Turn Lane, should be created at driveway no. "3" 6. Changes to irrigation and landscaping must be coordinated through the appropriate person or group within Collier County that oversees it (contact PamLulich @Colliergov.net or Pelican Bay Services Division, as applicable) 7. Directional controls are to be added at driveways "4" and "5" (i.e. add 'pork-chop' curbing to preclude left -out turning movements). 8. The median opening at driveway no. "5" is to become a SB left U -turn only; or, alternatively, driveway no. must be closed and the median opening at driveway no. 5 will become a full- access median opining. 1/14/08 Review Comments: Please provide copies of any agreements in place between the developer and the County that may have an impact on roadway impacts or access. DEV REV ENGR UTILITIES - CRAIG CALLIS Standard Checklist Item: Additional Comments. Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: 12/26/07 1. DEP applications need to show Roy Anderson Public Utilities Engineering Dept, not Stan Chrzanowski. 2. Engineers report needs to be signed and sealed. 3. Provide documentation showing downstream lift station has capacity for project. 4. Provide documentation showing downstream master pump station has capacity for project. Contact Zamira De Toro 252 -6279. 5. Submit existing and proposed potable flows, show that existing meter has capacity. 6. Submit existing and proposed irrigation flows, show that existing meter has capacity. 7. Change note 10 to Collier County will own and maintain all water and / or sanitary sewer located within CUE /ROW. 8. Add note who will own and maintain water and sanitary on site. 9. Label manholes 1,2, and 3 as existing. 10. All easements whether existing or proposed are to be shown with sizse and type. all 11. Plan and profile is showing removing sanitary plug and installing three manholes. Cost of construction and project narrative are showing adjusting manhole rims to finsh grade. 12. Label size of existing meters. '3. Modifications to water distribution system is missing changes 8 and 9. t4. Show proposed water and sewer services to buildings. 3/24/08 1. Signed and sealed engineers report is not included. Engineers report shall be revised to show the decrease from 182 to 152. 2. Submit existing and prosposed irrigation flows contact Beth Johnssen 252 -4287. 3. Remove note #16 under utility notes. 4. Sewer laterals are not allowed from an inline manhole. 5. Sewer laterals shall be a minimum of 6 ". 6. Engineers report is proposing one 3" potable water meter and sheet 10 is proposing two 4" potable water meters. 7. Water supply to any cooling tower(s) shall be measured by a separate, dedicated water meter. 8. A grease trap or grease interceptor shall be required to receive the drainage from fixtures and equipment with grease -laden waste. 9. Show the size of existing reclaim water meter "IQ water ". 10. Label size of existing sewer laterals. 11. Label slope and class of pipe for all proposed sewer. 12. Add detail W -13. 13. Use the latest details and only those which apply to the project. - The following comments were received, are in formational and/or may include stipulations: DEV REV ENVIRON. PLANNING 4. Provide the applicable clearing fee for removal of any vegetation. (LDC 3.9.6.3) DEV REV ENGR H2O MGMT Stipulations for Approval Letter Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, a Performance /Maintenance Bond must be submitted based on the estimated cost of the paving and drainage improvements. DEV REV TRANSPORTATION CCAMP (Res. 0l -247) 3/19/08 See "additional comments" section of this review checklist. 1/14/08 Review Comments: The applicant must schedule a meeting with staff to discuss the temporary access management plan. DEV REV TRANSPORTATION Turn Lanes (Ord. 2003 -37) 3/19/08 See "additional comments" section of this review checklist. 1/14/08 Review Comments: A right turn lane is required at the projects permanent entrance. DEV REV TRANSPORTATION A Right -of -Way (Ord. 2003 -37) 3/19/08 See "additional comments" section of this review checklist. 1/14/07 Review Comments: The temporary access management plan must receive endorsement from the Right -of -Way department. DEV REV ENGR UTILITIES Stipulations for approval letter. 12/26/07 1. All preliminary inspections of water and / or sewer shall be coordinated through Sherry Eaton with a 48 hour written notification. All final 1 year inspections of water and / or sewer shall be coordinated through Jodi Pannullo with a 48 hour written notification. 2. An on site pre costruction meeting for water and / or sewer is required prior to construction. Contact Craig Callis 252 -2905. All revised plans or new information shall be submitted to the InTake Team Planners. A one -on -one sufficiency review is required for resubmittal. Definition of Review Status PENDING Review is not yet complete REJECT Negative comments were received and need to be addressed N/A No review by this department is necessary COMPLETE Review has been completed, however stipulations may have been added that the applicant may wish to address. Site Development Plans will remain under review so long as a resubmittal in response to the County reviewer's comments is received within 270 days of the date on which the comments were sent. If a response is not received within this time, the application for Site Development Plan review will be considered withdrawn and cancelled. Further review of the project will require a new application subject to the then current Code. (LDC Section 3.3.10) xc: GULF BAY LAND INVESTMENTS, INC DBA PARCEL J JOINT VENTURE, 8156 FIDDLERS CREEK PARKWAY NAPLES, FL 34114 FAX:(239)732 -9402 -�A Applicant Response Waterpark Place Phases III & IV SDPA- 2007 -AR -12644 April 10, 2008 (County letter date) April 25, 2008 (Applicant letter date) f Q. (WDY MINOR & ASSOCIATL,P.A. Civil Engineers . Land Surveyors ■ Planners ■ Landscape Architects MARK W. MINOR P.E JOSHUA R EVANS, P.E. MICHAEL T. HERRERA, P.E. DAVID W. SCH II1T, P.E. MICHAEL J. DELATE, P.E. ELIZABETH A. FOUNTAIN, P.E. ANDRES F. CORREA, P.E. April 25, 2008 Intake Planner Collier County Engineering Services Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RE: SDPA -AR -12644 WATERPARK PLACE PHASES III AND IV Dear Intake Planner: D. WAYNE ARNOLD, A.I.C.P. KEITH A. STEPHENSON, P.S.M. JUAN A. ARAQUE, P.S.M. HEIDI K. WILLIAMS, A.I.C.P. D. KENT CARLYLE, RLA. KENNETH W. PAHUTSKI, P.S.M. PAMELA M. HYYTI SDPA - 2007 -AR- 12644 REV: 3 WATERPARK PLACE PHASES III AND IV Project: 2007120008 Date: 4/30/08 DUE: 5/28/08 The purpose of this submittal is to respond to the Collier County Development Review dated April 10, 2008, in order to obtain final approval on this application. Enclosed please find the following items: 1) One (1) Original and nine (9) copies of this response letter. 2) Check 413450 (QGMA) in the amount of $1,000.00. 3) Two (2) Revised Engineer's Report; for Craig Callis. 4) One (1) Original and nine (9) copies of the revised SDP submittal plans set. DEV REV CURRENT PLANNING - MICHAEL SAWYER 1) It appears that the parking data provided on site plan sheet 4 of 16 is not correct. The number of "shared surface parking spaces" on site plan sheet 3 of 16 appears to be 24, however the number on sheet 4 of 16 is 26. Additionally the total number of spaces also is not consistent in the Matrix. The total number of provided spaces should be 356 instead of 355 (or 358 if 26 surface spaces are provided/shown). This reviewer apologizes for not catching this comment on the first review. Response: The parking matrix on sheet 4 of 16 was incorrect and changed to reflect what is shown on plan sheet 3 of 16. Phase III parking spaces have changed to 183 and phase IV now shows 172 which equals 355 total spaces. Due to site plan corrections there are 23 shared surface parking spaces. 2) I understand the proposed means of trash disposal. Please provide a simple note on the site plans to clarify. Response: A note has been provided on sheet 3 of 16 concerning the means of trash disposal for both buildings. (239) 947 -1144 ■ FAX (239) 947 -0375 ■ Web Site: www.gradyininor.coin 3800 Via Del Rej' �■ Bonita Sprin s, Florida 34134 -7569 F:\PR0J•ENG\S \STL1 SDP (Cap D'Antibes Site DevelpR ncot ]?�ap�Q6. P1�SDP2� �2A�� tp Q4 S D8 doh / GCB a Intake Planner RE: SDPA -AR -12644 Waterpark Place April 21, 2008 Page 2 0 17k DEV REV ENVIRON. PLANNING - CLAUDIA P. 1) Please explain if any vegetation will be removed from the site. Response: There will not be any vegetation removed from this site and a note has been added concerning mangroves or native vegetation to sheet 3 of 16. 2) Please provide SFWMD permit. Response: We are still in the process of acquiring a SFWMD permit and will provide once obtained. DEV REV ENGR H2O MGMT - STEVE SEAL 1) SUBMIT ROW PERMIT NUMBER Response: Q. Grady minor is working toward obtaining a right -of -way permit and will provide once completed. 2) Revise CS Detail to show baffle to extend from top of grate elev. to 6" below slot. Revise the height dimension accordingly on the Baffle Detail. Response: Baffle revised to be functional for the 3" bleeder and slot. DEV REV ENGR TRANSPORTATION - RUSS MULLER 1) According to the FDOT ADA Coordinator any handicap parking space in the State have to be " 12' wide with a T access aisle. Response: According to Chapter 2 the Fair Housing Act Design Manual, 9' wide spaces with 5' wide access aisles are in compliance and are based on a mutual agreement between BC Architects, the Department of Community Affairs and Dean Perkins (FDOT ADA/Accesibility). 2)Please demonstrate the changes agreed to during the 1/22/08 staff meeting on these plans, as stated below: a) Plans for the Northern -most driveway must show the 'Autoturn' evaluation for the largest trucks that would be accessing the project. A right turn lane may not be required, but the SB right -turn radius must be reviewed for sufficiency. Response: This information will be addressed within Q. Grady Minors Pelican Bay Blvd. Right -of -Way permit set. b) The driveway labeled as "2" in the plan set should be closed. Response: This information will be addressed within Q. Grady Minors Pelican Bay Blvd. Right -of -Way permit set. c) The median opening shown at driveway no. "2" should be closed, Response: This information will be addressed within Q. Grady Minors Pelican Bay Blvd. Right -of -Way permit set. d) The NB Left Turn Lane at Driveway no. "1" should be extended. Response: This information will be addressed within Q. Grady Minors Pelican Bay Blvd. Rigbt -of -Way permit set. F:\PRQJ- ENG\S\STLI SDP (Cap gAntibes Site Development Plan) \06DP\02SDPA\L -2nd resp 04- 25- 08.doc STLI SDP Intake Planner 0 RE: SDPA -AR -12644 Waterpark Place April 21, 2008 Page 3 e) A new median opening, with NB Left Turn Lane, should be created at driveway no. 113 11 Response: This information will be addressed within Q. Grady Minors Pelican Bay Blvd. Right -of -Way permit set. fl Changes to irrigation and landscaping must be coordinated through the appropriate person or group within Collier County that oversees it (contact PamLulich @Colliergov.net or Pelican Bay Services Division, as applicable) Response: This information will be addressed within Q. Grady Minors Pelican Bay Blvd. Right -of -Way permit set. g) Directional controls are to be added at driveways "4" and "5" (i.e. add 'pork -chop' curbing to preclude left -out turning movements). Response: This information will be addressed within Q. Grady Minors Pelican Bay Blvd. Right-of-Way permit set. h) The median opening at driveway no. "5" is to become a SB left U -turn only; or, alternatively, driveway no. "4" must be closed and the median opening at driveway no. 5 will become a full- access median opining. Response: This information will be addressed within Q. Grady Minors Pelican Bay Blvd. Right -of -Way permit set. DEV REV ENGR UTILITIES - CRAIG CALLIS 1. Signed and sealed engineers report is not included. Engineers report shall be revised to show the decrease from 182 to 152. Response: Signed and sealed engineer's report has been included and revised to show the decrease from 182 to 152. 2. Submit existing and proposed irrigation flows contact Beth Johnssen 252 -4287. Response: Ty Goff from JRL Design has contacted Beth Johnssen and will be submitting the existing and proposed irrigation flows. 3. Remove note #16 under utility notes. Response: Note 16 on the utility plan has been removed. 4. Sewer laterals are not allowed from an inline manhole. Response: Laterals have been changed and are now shown connecting to sewer main between existing MH -3 and existing SII -5. 5. Sewer laterals shall be a minimum of 6 ". Response: Sewer laterals have been changed to the minimum dimension of 6 ". 6. Engineers report is proposing one 3" potable water meter and sheet 10 is proposing two 4" potable water meters. Response: Engineer's report has been corrected proposing two 4" potable water meters. F:\PROJ- ENG\S%STLI SDP (Cap D'Antibes Site Development P1an) \06DP \02SDPAIL -2nd resp 04- 25 -0kdoc STLI SDP Intake Planner 0 * �,4 RE: SDPA -AR -12644 Waterpark Place April 21, 2008 Page 4 7. Water supply to any cooling tower(s) shall be measured by a separate, dedicated water meter. Response: A dedicated %" water meter will be provided to each building cooling tower. See detail on sheet 10 of 16. 8. A grease trap or grease interceptor shall be required to receive the drainage from fixtures and equipment with grease -laden waste. Response: Significant amounts of grease -laden waste is not expected which would require a grease trap or grease interceptor. All units are residential without any commercial uses. 9. Show the size of existing reclaim water meter "IQ water" Response: The size of the existing reclaimed water meter is 2" and has been notated in sheet 10 of 16. 10. Label size of existing sewer laterals. Response: Existing sewer laterals are 8" and have been labeled. 8" laterals have been replaced with 12" laterals to accommodate 12" laterals from buildings. 11. Label slope and class of pipe for all proposed sewer. Response: Slopes and class of pipe for all proposed sewer lines have been labeled. 12. Add detail W -13. Response: Detail W -13 has been added to sheet 10 of 16. 13. Use the latest details and only those which apply to the project. Response: The latest and applicable details are shown on the detail sheets. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact our office Very truly yours, Mark W. Minor cc: Mr. Mark Strain; digital copy QGM file F:IPROJ- ENG\SISTL I SDP (Cap D'Antibes Site Development Plan)106DP102SDPAIL -2nd resp 04- 25 -08,doc STL I SDP Q. *ADY MINOR & ASSOCIA19, P.A. Civil Engineers ■ Land Surveyors w Planners ■ Landscape Architects MARK W. MINOR, P.E. JOSHUA R. EVANS, P.E. MICHAEL T. HERRERA, P.E. DAVID W. SCHMI T, P.E_ MICHAEL J. DELATE, P.E. ELIZABETH A FOUNTAIN, P.E. ANDRES F. CORREA, P.E. Utilky Engineer's Report D. WAYNE ARNOLD, A.I.C.P. KEITH A. STEPHENSON, P.S.M_ JUAN A. ARAQUE, P.S.M. HEIDI K. WILLIAMS, A_I.C.P. D. KENT CARLYLE, R.L.A. KENNETH W. PAHUTSKI, P.S.M. PAMELA M. HYYTI The utility infrastructure servicing this project was constructed along with the paving and drainage in 2004. The utilities are private. Sanitary sewer was existing on the site and (3) three manholes were constructed along with 8 -inch gravity mains and an 8 -inch service to each building. The 8 -inch laterals are now replaced by 12 -inch laterals as recommended by TRW Engineers and their building calculations. The project has a dedicated fire line. There is an existing fire service meter at the right -of -way and 10 -inch fire lines with hydrants to each building. The two buildings will be serviced by two 4- inch potable lines from the right -of -way to the buildings that are connected separately to the existing 8 -inch water main. Two 4 -inch water meters will be installed at both 4 -inch potable water services. The FDEP applications were submitted in the first submittal as the original permits have expired. We have enclosed the report that was approved by Collier County under SDPA -2001- AR412 for two buildings with a total of 182 units. In this submittal the total number of units is changed from 182 units to 152 units as shown on site development plan. The proposed buildings have a total of 30 less units so this amendment reduces the demand that was approved under SDPA- 2001 -AR -412 SDPA - 2007 -AR- 12644 REV: WATERPARK PLACE PHASES III AND IV Project: 2007120008 Date: 4/30/08 DUE: 5/28/08 (239) 947 -1144 ■ FAX (239) 947 -0375 x Web Site: www.gradyminor.com 3800 Via Del Rey ■ Bonita Springs, Florida 34134 -7569 EB 0005151 a LB 0005151 ■ LC 26000266 C6t(w 1A Third Round Review Comments and Applicant Response waterpark Place Phases III & IV SDPA- 2007 -AR -12644 June 4, 2008 (County letter date) June 5, 2008 (Applicant letter date) WA June 04, 2008 Q GRADY MINOR 3800 VIA DEL REY FAX - (239)947 -0375 RE: SDPA -AR -12644 - WATERPARK PLACE PHASES III AND IV The following comments are provided to you regarding the above referenced project. If you have questions, please contact the appropriate staff member who conducted the review. The project will retain a "HOLD" status until all negative comments are satisfied. NOTE: Any submittal of third and subsequent project review responses must be accompanied by a check for the required fee as follows: 3rd = $1000, 4th = $1500, 5th = $2000, 6th and subsequent review for SDP = $2500 6th and subsequent review for SDPA = $2000 Any submittal not accompanied by the required fee will be left at the receptionist desk for pickup by the applicant, who will be notified. Submittals must also be accompained by a cover letter outlining the response to each negative comment and all drawings must be properly folded (standard engineering fold of 9 "x12" showing title block in corner). Submittals must be a minimum of ten (10) complete sets of Civil drawings and five sets of Landscape or Architectural drawings if needed. The ollowing negative comments were received and need to be addressed as noted: DEV REV ENVIRON. PLANNING - ANDREW KELLY Standard Checklist Item: 28. Additional Comments: Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: Review 3 May 27, 2008 AK Repeat Comment: Please provide SFWMD permit. Review 2 Mar /28/08: Please provide SFWMD permit. Review 1 - 01/15/07: Please submit any SFWMD permits assuring that there no negative impacts will affect the water quality to Clampass bay. DEV REV ENGR UTILITIES - CRAIG CALLIS Standard Checklist Item: Additional Comments. Reviewer Remarks to Checklist Item: 12/26/07 1. DEP applications need to show Roy Anderson Public Utilities Engineering Dept, not Stan Chrzanowski. 2 Engineers report needs to be signed and sealed. M4 3. Provide documentation showing downstream lift station has capacity for project. 4. Provide documentation showing downstream master pump station has capacity for project. Contact Zamira De Toro 252 -6279. j. Submit existing and proposed potable flows, show that existing meter has capacity. 6. Submit existing and proposed irrigation flows, show that existing meter has capacity. 7. Change note 10 to Collier County will own and maintain all water and / or sanitary sewer located within CUE /ROW. 8. Add note who will own and maintain water and sanitary on site. 9. Label manholes 1,2, and 3 as existing. 10. All easements whether existing or proposed are to be shown with sizse and type. 11. Plan and profile is showing removing sanitary plug and installing three manholes. Cost of construction and project narrative are showing adjusting manhole rims to finsh grade. 12. Label size of existing meters. 13. Modifications to water distribution system is missing changes 8 and 9. 14. Show proposed water and sewer services to buildings. 3/24/08 1. Signed and sealed engineers report is not included. Engineers report shall be revised to show the decrease from 182 to 152. 2. Submit existing and prosposed irrigation flows contact Beth Johnssen 252 -4287. 3. Remove note #16 under utility notes. 4. Sewer laterals are not allowed from an inline manhole. 5. Sewer laterals shall be a minimum of 6 ". 6. Engineers report is proposing one 3" potable water meter and sheet 10 is proposing two 4" potable water meters. 7. Water supply to any cooling tower(s) shall be measured by a separate, dedicated water meter. 8. A grease trap or grease interceptor shall be required to receive the drainage from fixtures and equipment with grease -laden waste. 9. Show the size of existing reclaim water meter "IQ water ". 10. Label size of existing sewer laterals. 11. Label slope and class of pipe for all proposed sewer. 12. Add detail W -13. 13. Use the latest details and only those which apply to the project. 5/16/08 Label how 12" laterals are going to connect to existing manhole. The following comments were received, are irlormational and/or may include stipulations: DEV REV ENVIRON. PLANNING 4. Provide the applicable clearing fee for removal of any vegetation. (LDC 3.9.6.3) DEV REV ENGR H2O MGMT Stipulations for Approval Letter Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, a Performance /Maintenance Bond must be submitted based. on -" the estimated cost of the paving and drainage improvements. DEV REV TRANSPORTATION CCAMP (Res. 0l -247) A 3/19/08 See "additional comments" section of this review checklist. 1/14/08 Review Comments: The applicant must schedule a meeting with staff to discuss the temporary access management plan. DEV REV TRANSPORTATION Turn Lanes (Ord. 2003 -37) 3/19/08 See "additional comments" section of this review checklist. 1/14/08 Review Comments: A right turn lane is required at the projects permanent entrance. DEV REV TRANSPORTATION Right -of -Way (Ord. 2003 -37) 3/19/08 See "additional comments" section of this review checklist. 1/14/07 Review Comments: The temporary access management plan must receive endorsement from the Right -of -Way department. DEV REV TRANSPORTATION Additional Comments 5/28/08 Review Comments: See stipulations for approval. 3/19/08 Review Comments: Please demonstrate the changes agreed to during the 1/22/08 staff meeting on these plans, as stated below: 1. Plans for the Northern -most driveway must show the 'Autoturn' evaluation for the largest trucks that would be accessing the project. A right turn lane may not be required, but the SB right -turn radius must be reviewed for sufficiency. 2. The driveway labelled as "2" in the plan set should be closed. 3. The median opening shown at driveway no. "2" should be closed. 4. The NB Left Turn Lane at Driveway no. "1" should be extended. 5. A new median opening, with NB Left Turn Lane, should be created at driveway no. "3" 6. Changes to irrigation and landscaping must be coordinated through the appropriate person or group within Collier County that oversees it (contact PamLulich @Colliergov.net or Pelican Bay Services Division, as applicable) 7. Directional controls are to be added at driveways "4" and "5" (i.e. add 'pork -chop' curbing to preclude left -out turning movements). 8. The median opening at driveway no. "5" is to become a SB left U -turn only; or, alternatively, driveway no. "4" must be closed and the median opening at driveway no. 5 will become a full- access median opining. 1/14/08 Review Comments: Please provide copies of any agreements in place between the developer and the County that may have an impac+ on roadway impacts or access. DEV REV TRANSPORTATION Stipulation for Approval 5/28/08 Review Comments: As a stipulation for approval, no CO's shall be issued until a Right of Way permit is approved that incorporates all ;quirements stated in the 1/22/08 meeting with staff, as shown below: 1. Plans for the Northern-most driveway must show the 'Autoturn' evaluation for the largest trucks that would be accessing the project. A right turn lane may not be required, but the SB right -turn radius must be reviewed for sufficiency. 2. The driveway labelled as "2" in the plan set should be closed. 3. The median opening shown at driveway no. "2" should be closed. 4. The NB Left Turn Lane at Driveway no. "1" should be extended. 5. A new median opening, with NB Left Turn Lane, should be created at driveway no. "3" 6. Changes to irrigation and landscaping must be coordinated through the appropriate person or group within Collier County that oversees it (contact PamLulich @Colliergov.net or Pelican Bay Services Division, as applicable) 7. Directional controls are to be added at driveways "4" and "5" (i.e. add 'pork -chop' curbing to preclude left-out turning movements). 8. The median opening at driveway no. "5" is to become a SB left U -turn only; or, alternatively, driveway no. "4'' must be closed and the median opening at driveway no. 5 will become a full- access median opining. DEV REV ENGR UTILITIES Stipulations for approval letter. 12/26/07 1. All preliminary and 1 year final inspections of water and / or sewer shall be coordinated through Jodi Hughes with a 48 hour written notification. 2. An on site pre costruction meeting for water and / or sewer is required prior to construction. Contact Craig Callis 252 -2905. 3. CC Inspector shall be present during the installation of the master meters. 4. Proposed meters shall be size by Public Utilities. PU shall hot tap, install service lead, meter box, and meter for all meters 2" and smaller. Meters 3" and larger shall be installed by contractor. All revised plans or new information shall be submitted to the InTake Team Planners. A one -on -one sufficiency review is required for resubmittal. Definition of Review Status PENDING Review is not yet complete REJECT Negative comments were received and need to be addressed N/A No review by this department is necessary COMPLETE Review has been completed, however stipulations may have been added that the applicant may wish to address. Site Development Plans will remain under review so long as a resubmittal in response to the County reviewer's comments is received within 270 days of the date on which the comments were sent. If a response is not received within this time, the application for Site Development Plan review will be considered withdrawn and cancelled. Further review of the project will require a new application subject to the then current Code. (LDC Section 3.3.10) xc: GULF BAY LAND INVESTMENTS, INC DBA PARCEL J JOINT VENTURE, 8156 FIDDLERS CREEK PARKWAY NAPLES, FL 34114 FAX: (239)732 -9402 Applicant Response Waterpark Place Phases III & IV SDPA- 2007 -AR -12644 June 4, 2008 (County letter date) June 5, 2008 (Applicant letter date) Q. &DY MINOR & ASSOCIATIO, P.A. Civil Engineers ■ Land Surveyors ■ Planners ■ Landscape Architects MARK W. MINOR P.E. JOSHUA R. EVANS, P.E. MICHAEL. T. HERRERA, P.E. DAVID W. SCHN=, P.E. ELIZABETH A. FOUNTAIN, P.E. ANDRES F. CORREA, P.E. June 6, 2008 Intake Planner Collier County Engineering Services Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RE: SDPA -AR -12644 WATERPARK PLACE PHASES III AND IV "Minor Submittal" Dear Intake Planner: D. WAYNE ARNOLD, A -I.GP. KEITH A. STEPHENSON, P.S.M. JUAN A- ARAQUE, P.S.M. HIIDI K WILLiAMS, A- I.C.P. D. KENT CARLYLE, P-LA. KENNETH W. PAHUI -SKI, P.S.M. PAMELA M. HYYI1 MINOR SUBMITTAL SDPA - 2007 -AR- 12644 REV: 4 WATERPARK PL PHASES ill & IV Project: 2007120008 Date: 619108 DUE: 7/8/08 The purpose of this submittal is to respond to the Collier County Development Review comments dated June 4, 2008, in order to obtain final approval on this application. The following revised plan sheets are being incorporated into the plan sets. "Only the changes described in this letter have been made to the applicable plans; any additional revisions, alterations or deletions to the plans will render approval of the development order invalid. " 1) Cover sheet indicating "revision No. 5 ". 2) Drawing No. 5 of 16, the utility plan. 3) Drawing No. 6 of 16, the plan and profile. We have also enclosed a copy of the Surface Water Management Permit "Letter Modification" from South Florida Water Management District dated June 6, 2008, our check in the amount of $140.00 as the "Minor Submittal" fee (4 documents X $35.00 each = $140.00), copy of the June 4, 2008 e -mail from Craig Callis allowing the "Minor Submittal" and a copy of the June 5, 2008 e -mail from Michael Sawyer allowing the "Minor Submittal ". rThe following addresses staffs comments. J DEV REV ENVIRON. PLANNING - ANDREW KELLY 1) Please provide SFWMD permit. Response: SFWMD "Letter Modification" dated June 5, 2008 is enclosed. (239) 947 -1144 ■ FAX (239) 947 -0375 ■ Web Site: www..gradyminor.com F:TR01 -ENG \S \Sill SDP (Cap D'Mtibes S te > e meet �i�o�D �o st 'P� '�n es� ' 401 1.7569 GC B 00051 1 . L vuu lsi . 6 0�z66 Intake Planner RE: SDPA -AR -12644 Waterpark Place June 6, 2008 Page 2 „J DEV REV ENGR UTILITIES - CRAIG CALLIS 1) Label how 12" laterals are going to connect to existing manhole. Response: The revised plan sheets 5 and 6 have been changed from upsizing the existing fl- inch sewer laterals to 12 -inch in diameter. The plans now call for utilizing the existing fl- inch laterals and extending them at 0.4% slope to within 5' of the buildings. The 8 -inch diameter laterals have more than enough capacity to accommodate the anticipated sewage flows. If you have any questions or need additional i u cc: Parcel J. Joint Venture; digital copy QGM file please contact our office. ► +M W. Minor -�A- FAPROJ- ENGISISTL.1 SDP (Cap D'Antibes Site Development P1an)106DP102SDPAV -3nd tesp $140 06 -04 -08.doc STLI SDP I 0 I;k lopSOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT L OWBA WEST COAST REGIONAL SERVICE CENTER 2301 McGregor Boulevard, Fort Myers, FL 33901 (239 ) 338-2929 - FL WATS 1-8M- 248 -1201 • Suncvm 748 -2929 - Fax (239) 338 -2936 • www:r.fwmd.gov/lwc/ Environmental Resource Regulation Application No.: 071220 -11 June 5, 2008 PARCEL J JOINT VENTURE 6401 PELICAN BAY BLVD NAPLES, FL 33963 Dear Permittee: SUBJECT- PERMIT NO.: 11- 00065 -S Project : WATERPARK PLACE Location: Collier County, S41T49S /R25E MINOR SUBMITTAL. SDPA - 2007 -AR- 12644 REV: 4 WATERPARK PL. PHASES III & IV Project: 2007120008 Date: 619/08 DUE: 718/08 District staff has reviewed the Information submitted May 30, 2008, for allowing minor differences In the building and garage footprints originally permitted under Permit No. 11- 00065 -S /Application No. 911218- 4. The proposed Improvements include two residential towers, attached two -story parking garages, driveways, surface parking, pools, pool deck and associated infrastructure. The project will result in a net decrease of 0.66 acres of impervious cover within the entire 16.81 acre Waterpark Place development as shown on plan sheets 1--4, 6 -8, and 13 of 16 signed, sealed and dated on May 30, 2008 by Mark W. Minor, P.E_ from Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. No other changes to the surface water management system are authorized by this modification. Based on that information, District staff has determined that the proposed activities are In compliance with the original surface water management Permit and appropriate provisions of FAC Rule 40E- 4.331(2)(b). Therefore, these changes have been recorded In our files. Please understand that your permit remains subject to the Standard Limiting Conditions and all other Special Conditions not modified and as originally issued. Should you have any Sinc0ral Illiam Foley, .E. Sr Supv Engineer Coliler County Service Center WF /cq concerning this matter, please contact this office, DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS; 3301 Gun Club Road, P.O. Box 24680, West Palm Beach, FL 33416 -4680 - (561) 686 -8800 - FL WATS 1- 800 - 432 -2045 0 Q. GRADY NUNOR & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Civil Engineers ■ Land Surveyors ■ Planners r Landscape Architects LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Date: June 9, 2008 Project: Waterpark Place AR -12644 TO: Ms. Danelle Carrel Collier County Development Services 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Items transmitted via: Courier -w We are sending you the following items: 2 — additional sets of plans for the submittal Remarks: As discussed. Signed: C Garin J. Dwyer cc: 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, Florida 34134 (239) 947 -1144 IN Fax (239) 947 -0375 F:\PRO]- ENG \S\STLISDP (Cap D'Anpbes Site Development Plan)\06Dp\02SDPA \T DCu -addl pins -6- 9-08.doc STLI SDP 1-7t Pre - approval and Approval Letters Waterpark Place Phases III & IV SDPA- 2007 -AR -12644 June 12, 2008 (Pre - approval letter) June 19, 2008 (Approval letter date) I A- PROJECT PRE - APPROVAL LETTER June 12, 2008 Q GRADY MINOR 3800 VIA DEL REY (239) 947 -0375 RE: SDPA -AR- 12644, WATERPARK PLACE PHASES III AND IV Please be advised that the above -named project is complete and a COA Certificate has been granted. As required by LDC Section 10.02.07, prior to the expiration of the temporary, one -year capacity reservation previously secured by the applicant upon the County's acceptance of the TIS, the Certificate will be issued upon payment of one -half (50 %) of the estimated transportation impact fees due for the development. Such estimates shall be based on the currently approved impact fee schedule in effect upon issuance of the development order. The fifty percent (50 %) amount due at this time is $309,734.20. A project approval letter will be issued once payment is received and a COA Certificate issued. If the applicable estimated transportation impact fees are not paid within the time frame listed above, the COA application will be deemed denied and the applicant must reenter the COA application process from the beginning. Final calculation of impact fees due will be based on the intensity of the development actually permitted for construction and the impact fee schedule in effect at the time the building permit application is submitted. In addition, impact fees for all other facilities, i.e. Parks, Libraries, School, Government Buildings, Water, Sewer, Fire, EMS, Correctional Facilities, etc. will be due prior to the issuance of the building permit. If you have any questions related to the project approval, please contact the Application Processing and Distribution Department at (239) 252 -6809. If you have any questions related to payment of the impact fees and issuance of the COA Certificate please contact Floris Rogers at (239) 252 -2991 Lea Derence Engineering Technician xc: Floris Rogers, Impact Fee Analyst Phil Tindall, Principal Planner This project is subject to LDC Section 10.02.03 B.4.b which states: Approved site development plans (SDPs) only remain valid and in force for two years from the date of their approval unless construction has commenced, as follows. If actual construction has not commenced within two years, measured by the date of the SDP approval letter, the site development plan approval term expires and the SDP is of no force or effect. The date of this pre - approval letter constitutes the "date of approval ". —I -A COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION Engineering and Environmental Services 2800 North Horseshoe Drive - Naples, Florida 34104 MARK MINOR, P.E. Q GRADY MINOR 3800 VIA DEL REY BONITA SPRINGS FL 34134 (239)947 -1144 Re: Final Site Development Plans Approval SDPA - 2007 -AR- 12644, WATERPARK PLACE PHASES III AND IV Project Number: 2007120008 Dear Mr. Minor: THIS IS YOUR PERMIT AND MUST BE POSTED ONSITE! Engineering and Environmental Services Department has. reviewed the Final Site Development Plan for the referenced project and has no objection to the construction of water, sewer, paving and drainage aspects of the project subject to the following stipulations: 1. General Conditions a) CHANGES IN USE AND /OR DESIGN OF THESE SITE AND ACHITECTURAL PLANS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED WITHOUT WRITTEN APPROVAL BY THE COUNTY. CHANGES SHALL REQUIRE RE— REVIEW IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL CURRENT COUNTY CODES INCLUDING PARKING FACILITIES, UTILITIES, TRANSPORTATION AND THE LIKE. b) A preliminary inspection and approval of the infrastructure for multi - family residential must be done by Engineer Inspections prior to any Certificate of Occupancy being granted. c) All PUD related stipulations shall apply to this project d) Permits from other agencies having jurisdiction over this project shall be obtained prior to start of construction. e) Please call Mr. Rudy Moss at (239) 252 -2391 to schedule a pre — construction meeting a minimum of 48 hours prior to start of construction. f) This Final Site Development Plan is approved due to the issuance of a Certificate of Public Facility Adequacy #08 -0222 with respect to Collier County Ordinance 93 -82. g) All construction activities permitted by this letter shall only occur during the following times: w Phone (239) 252 -5866 Fax (239) 53"201 www.colliergov.net Page 2 6:30 A.M. to 7:00 P.M., Monday through Saturday; no work is permitted on Sundays and the following holidays: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, 4th of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day h) The review and approval of these improvement plans does not authorize the construction of required improvements, which are inconsistent with easement of record. i) Upon completion of the infrastructure improvements associated with a site development plan, and prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the engineer shall provide a completion certificate as to the improvements, together with all applicable items referenced in Section 10.02.04 of this code including electronic disk. Upon a satisfactory inspection of the improvements, a certificate of occupancy may then be issued. j) SIGNAGE RESTRICTIONS: Please be advised that any permanent sign (wall, ground, monument, directory, etc.) requires a separate building permit and must meet the provisions of the Collier County Land Development Code, Section 5.06, and /or the applicable provisions of the governing Planned Unit Development (PUD) document, regardless of any sign placement, dimensions or color depicted on the site and /or architectural plans approved by this letter. 2. Utifily a) See attached Exhibit "A" b) "APPROVAL OF THESE PLANS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE APPROVAL OF THE METER SIZE. SIZING OF THE METER SHALL BE DONE WITH THE APPROVAL OF PUBLIC UTILITIES ENGINEERING DIRECTOR OR HIS DESIGNEE, BASED ON DOCUMENTATION RECEIVED FROM THE ENGINEERING OF RECORD. THE METER DETAIL SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO ENGINEERING REVIEW SERVICE FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO iNSATLLATION ". c) No water or sewer utility construction shall commence until proper DEP permits have been obtained. 3. Subdivision All work shall be in accordance with applicable Collier County ordinances and rules and regulations of other entities having jurisdiction over the project. 4. Environmental Site clearing is conditioned to the stipulations contained on the approved site plan. 5. Water Management a) All work shall be in accordance with applicable State or Federal rules and regulations. Page 3 b) Work area shall be properly barricaded with hay bales and /or silt screens during the entire time of construction, to prevent any siltation during construction. c) The engineer of record, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, shall provide documentation from the stormwater maintenance entity that it has been provided information on how the stormwater system works and their responsibility to maintain the system. d) This project was permitted by SFWMD. e) Whether or not this project was permitted by SFWMD, dewatering shall not occur without a dewatering permit from the South Florida Water Management District" 6. Addressing Pursuant to Ordinance No. 99 -76, no proposed subdivision, street, building, condominium or development may utilize the same name or a similar sounding name as any existing subdivision, street, building, condominium or development, except that the major street within a subdivision may utilize the name of the subdivision. Any changes to the project name shall be reviewed and approved by Community Development and Environmental Services Addressing Section. 7. Landscaping At the time of Preliminary Acceptance the Landscape Architect shall certify that he landscaping has been installed in substantial accordance with the approved plans and specifications. The certification shall be in a form approved by the County Manager or his designee. 8. Fire Protection a) Please note that prior to the accumulation of combustible building materials on site, proposed fire hydrants must be operable with the minimum required fire flows and improved stabilized emergency apparatus access ways (min. 20' wide) must be available to within 100' of the structures. b) No fire appliances shall be obstructed, visually or functionally, by vegetation. Additional Stipulations: 9. DEV REV ENGR H2O MGMT Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, a Performance /Maintenance Bond must be submitted based on the estimated cost of the paving and drainage improvements. I A' 0 Page 4 10.DEV REV TRANSPORTATION No CO's shall be issued until a Right of Way permit is approved that incorporates all requirements stated in the 1/22/08 meeting with staff, as shown below: 1. Plans for the Northern-most driveway must show the 'Autoturn' evaluation for the largest trucks that would be accessing the project. A right turn lane may not be required, but the SB right -turn radius must be reviewed for sufficiency. 2. The driveway labelled as "2" in the plan set should be closed. 3. The median opening shown at driveway no. "2" should be closed. 4. The NB Left Turn Lane at Driveway no. "1" should be extended. 5. A new median opening, with NB Left Turn Lane, should be created at driveway no. "3" 6. Changes to irrigation and landscaping must be coordinated through the appropriate person or group within Collier County that oversees it (contact PamLulich @Colliergov.net or Pelican Bay Services Division, as applicable) 7. Directional controls are to be added at driveways "4" and "5" (i.e. add 'pork-chop' curbing to preclude left -out turning movements). 8. The median opening at driveway no. "5" is to become a SB left U -turn only; or, alternatively, driveway no. "4" must be closed and the median opening at driveway no. 5 will become a full- access median opining. I LDEV REV ENGR UTILITIES a. All preliminary and 1 year final inspections of water and / or sewer shall be coordinated through Jodi Hughes with a 48 hour written notification. b. An on site pre costruction meeting for water and / or sewer is required prior to construction. Contact Crai Callis 252 -2905. c. CC Inspector shall be present during the installation of the master meters. d. Proposed meters shall be size by Public Utilities. PU shall hot tap, install service lead, meter box, and meter for all meters 2" and smaller. Meters 3" and larger shall be installed by contractor. See attached inspection checklist for SDP improvements. (1) sets of approved plans and (2) sets of landscape plans are being returned herewith for your use. Two copies of approved SDP shall be attached to each set of building plans submitted. Two copies of the stamped approved Architectural Plans shall be submitted with the Building Permit Application. If this is a simultaneous submittal it is the applicant's responsibility to insert the approved architectural plans into the Building Department permit set. 1'� Page 5 Be advised that this approval automatically expires twenty —four (24) months from the date of this letter pursuant to Collier County Land Development Code Section 10.02.03. Please call me if you have any questions or need any additional information. S' *hrzanowskki, -4— Stan P.E. Engineering Review and Inspections Manager County Engineer cc: Abe Skinner, Property Appraiser (w /attach.) Engineering Inspections Supervisor (w /attach.) Ivette Monroig, Planning Tech. Mitch Riley, P.E., Principal Project Manager MICHAEL SAWYER, Project Planner Customer Services /Addressing (w /attach.) Jodi Hughes,Technician Diane Deoss, D.O.R. Jacquelyn DeSear, Operations Analyst., Public Utilities Engineering (w /attach.) _ Craig Callis, Engineering Services Fire Review SDP -AR- 12644, (w /attach.) Engineering Reading File P ro j act Fame 4 . Site Development Plan (SDP) VL SDI Specific 1: Handicap parking location, markings, access aisles, ramp to bu4ding, . sites, etc: : - - • ?. Driveway and parking aisle widths, raditi - - 4' d 3. ✓ - P,i�ht -of �y permit eanditions, culvc wale : ' _ � .. .- .�.- -, � � , satale re�t� ration, • - sid-vralk, etc. 4. Parkins Iocation, wheel stops, climetsion 5. Traffic canirol sig3 ,'shiping - 5. site wading , 7. AI2 storm stzuctr�s and all dzain oe piping clean and >ier of d —abzis g'. Landscape,' as per plan - 9, Exotic Rmnoval ; i o m ED? spxii a chi klist U) G d C� O CD o� 0 o� 0 s �W o� p 0 �o --i 0 CD cQ � 3 ®ra 0 Sy CD � \ V m 0 0o 0 r U) z 0 0 0 z 0 0 0 4 3> 70 �i. N N C's co o� N N m ;v r 0 m -v m Z C) 2 a z tD 0 CD 0 rNIPL Z O N O O i N O O O C� lh3 Ln j4h. CO rn cn ®ra 0 Sy CD � \ V m 0 0o 0 r U) z 0 0 0 z 0 0 0 4 3> 70 �i. N N C's co o� N N m ;v r 0 m -v m Z C) 2 a z tD 0 CD 0 rNIPL Z O N O O i N O O O CD cD smomom CD 7n ice► o CDw �� ■ CD V/ n 0 cn D U) 0 o' LO 0 C� CU U) � o Q CL CD a CD cD smomom CD 7n ice► o CDw �� ■ CD V/ n 0 cn D U) 0 o' LO 0 COA #: 08 -0222 AR #• 12644 (Waterpark Place Phases III and M ISSUED DATE: June 17, 2008 COPY OWNERNAME• Parcel J Joint Venture 8156 Fiddler's Creek Parkway, Naples, FL 34114 AT OWNER ADDRESS1 S «G„ AND ,�D„' WATERPARK PLACE AT PELICAN BAY AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 19, AT PAGES GAL DESCRIPTION: A PORTION OF TRACTS "C" CO[JNTY, FLORIDA BEING MORE SOUTH 8ICUL 1' "WEST DESCRIBED LG SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LE PUBLIC RECORDS OF C THENCE RUNS _ 19 THRU 21 OF THE PLACE, THENCE RUN SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT "C" OF SAID W E RUN SO LINE OF TRACT "G" FOR A DISTANCE OF 31.11FEET; 0°HEN WEST .06 FEET; THE RUN SOUTH 49 °59'27" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF TRACT "C" FOR A DISTANCE TRACT "C" FOR A DISTANCE OF 94 _ OF 125.34 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 04 059'52" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY I THENCE RUN SOUTH 49 °59�RO EMENO DISTRICT DRAINAGE WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY PINE OF TAE TOg 7 �� �EET'DISTANCE OF 31.b7 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 49059'43" ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF TRACT "C FOR A DISTANCE RD BOOK 790 PAGES 1814 THROUGH 1815 OS' P�EET, THENCE RUN NORTH 09 °0228 "T WEST ANCE OF LINE OF TRACT "C" FOR A DISTANCE OF 81..42 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LIIVE OF PELICAN B T EASEMENT RECORDED IN OFFICIAL REC THENCE RUN NORTH 27 °43'22" WEST ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE N NOR H 3 FOR A DISTANCE OF 330.34 FEET TO AT LONG SAID PARALLEL SAID EASTERLY LIN E FOR A DISTANCE OF 206.67 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 33 °09'04" WEST ALONG SAID EASTERL S LINE FORA D 206.66 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 14 °29'27" WEST ALONG SAID EAS FLAGS; THENCE RUN NORTH 84 1413 EA SOUTH OF AND PARALLEL TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID WATERPARK DISTANCE OF 8.00 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 68 °58'54" ECSIRTC O THENCE RUN SOUTH 68 °58'54" WEST LINE FOR A DISTANCE OF 401.70 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 21 °01'06" EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF ET, FEET; G OF A TANGENTIAL FOR A DISTANCE OF 6.12 FEET, THENCE RUN SOUTH 22° AST EAST FOR A CE gERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO ERRING OF, SOUTH 13 °41' RADIUS OF 113.00 ARC DISTANCE OF 7.92 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUOTH 21 °01'06" EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF `�.-l' 2 FEET BO THE BEG C OF CURVE CONCAVE WEST; THENCE RUN THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 14 °39'53 "; SUBTENDED BY A CHORD OF 28.84 FEET A SUBTENDED BY A CHORD OF 73.06 LENGTH OF 28 9 2 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE TO A POINT THROUGH OAUCE CURVATURE; OTHENCE 13014'04"; SOUTHENRCLE RUN NORTH 89 042148„ END OF SAUD CURVE; SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HANG A RADIUS OF 317.A FEE ', LENGTH THENCE RUN SOUTH FEET AT A BEARING OF SOUTH 00 °15'48" WEST, POWT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF TRACT�F" OF S C RUN SOUTH 04 °53'19" EAST ALONG SAID EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 50.01 FEET TO A 18 °39'42" EAST ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE OF TRACT "F" FOR A DISTANCE OF A 22.86 CI FEET; WHOSE RADIUS POINT OF TRACT 1231.00 FEET THEREFROM; THENCE RUN SOUTHERLY AI.OLGAID OF Ol °4349 ", SUBTENDED BY WESTERLY LINE OF TRACT "F" FOR A DISTANCE OF 302.35 FEET TO A POINT ON A CIRCULAR CURVE CONCAVE EAST, BEARS NORTH 84 °49'47" EAST, A DISTANCE O , «F" AND THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,231.00 FEET, THROUGH A CE A CHORD OF RC FEET CU A BEARING OF SOUTH 06 002'07" EAST, FOR AN ARC LENGTH OF 37.18 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 5,630 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. certify that adequate Transportation facilities have been determined to be available pursuant to the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance and capacities This is to f}' are hereby allocated for the following use(s): n, ��o nF psuKlAiC 4PACES 7l1Ni CG ACRES UNITS COMMERCIAL SQ. FT. ,• �'•""" _��u�v N/A 5.63 152 NIA PUD of be transferred to any This certificate of adequate public facilities "runs with the land" as described herein. This c;e is refore ferable with the property, but may u other property. ,, *—jC�salda�pirector This Certification Expires: June 17, 2011 n sroortation Plap6ing Department • ,7A y ►-d > N o r n t7l r �� o o F °x o � � 3 o �r N � € uc ? � M n �e a ams� U� mZ O 7 3 : CO) (A o-1 W N CL 3 m 4co .0 o a c� z a � j P � N Z v a c 11 O Hn 91i Z �o W- rn 3 O m m Z R1V Ax€ n °v ai n a V. 3 m min- Rr.� 844 ys in e= N a z Zs� p C z 0 r- 0 a O z a V "I O m z GULF OF MEXICO D M roo', 2 9 T GOODLETTE -F ANK ROAD m k z a p " 0 0 w _ *W � > �lllllllllllllllll�� ll.(llll/l / L 11 C I llllllllllllllllllillil(�� � � I � llljlll a \ tl Q_05 a 8 H b m rr NO �4r^ H H m� m M 2 9 m � � D � C � o v z o z 0 � F ggo gg o -0 3 as 0 Z CL N 1. cr 5go z Nm 5g( o m W a W N�c a a om *W � > �lllllllllllllllll�� ll.(llll/l / L 11 C I llllllllllllllllllillil(�� � � I � llljlll a \ tl Q_05 a 8 H b m rr NO �4r^ H H m� manta end Ssttlnga \Iprmanlmoa \Lecpl Sett inpa\ Iemp \BCPIpt_J90B \0!f)?- A1,02A.1 ll- SITE.ewp (LA YDDTIj Dac 12, 2007 2:11P IARMENI S 2 pO D a H 5 a cr 3 All oil3 n =Na �w a u� J. CL o`_oz ��N f y V Z n m Q�O s S O wN � h! c-P c' � afl m m � � �m c c n _ME-4 a �v m � =0 � m 0 o � 0 � .WiDIN LLnIEI TMGL LEVELS PENNWUSE LEVEL .YNDW LEVEL 1YPICJL 1£YE1.5 PEMHDUSE LEV0. LEVEL 2ND lFVE1 3RD 70 TO1N xlsr LEVEL �� 2ND LEVEL 31m TD 207H 21St lE\41 Z � O _ _ $°. �0 a CL � ¢% e g N F 4�; W 0 N � 7 a � rr � a � a 0 0 a n� � c% a. � F c� i O o N C3 O r- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - / Y\ 1 �J '. � _ _. 5 i k� i� �.�- � U | � | r r -- -----'-- -� 114- ' / ` \ \ ---*w�- - ------ - ---�~� --' r�-- - -- -- - --- - - / og �s �N d �9 T �oF m- 3 � $ 3 z i I I L 17 6 I E >W �n A� iNN � °ate iii iun a go23 ZV mO z y Z 5 ^ zz T r Y mo @ I� � S �J L � O zMM m r L zr N coo n.ltl ■ ■ ME A aF�4 w A CCI 7 3 � QQ a N 3�a a n (� � Cq �3 ANN 3 S I, o Cf� �qs a o� MH �r� n Fo — CD Yy K If 0 i -n 0 r O 7m0 V� Z n a r W a ar N Igo 0-..0 N m 0 m m a r m r- 0 O r a Z CURVF -74 13 ol R c-, T- -7A I' W �n 4 a Ao 8 Co u� a om�m a u� y 25 itl Ypy �o o� d ice+ �r T� l V cn S i m m C� �az-i z::!-q0 Or0 aM 'nMm m r ° a �N i -7k N _I u n 3' A- ii 3 � 3 z g b� i L- N ao �n 3�$ O m'� a zNH o � n 2� o a If C M M m �o 0 0 In M ■ ^ Z 0 Z0m 0 42k* �N •o m ` co CURVE D� o� s oF: F 4 ? �s 11\1 6 N G =p a ANN go og g�o T � ^ c$i g d �r Y � K E.- i- x m o )orn a z-i-4 =' o z �m � � O of $= i �4 ii e W s k �V.11�11 � ill 11 ril lIIJIIIIIIL�I og _uu � � I C I II Nw CA L �lk CD ® ®l l -CD- CD <O z don ■ y'o 1111 lee [MM -' - - - - - ele M 71 TMEMMI-M EMEMI:70111111111111111700170017001-7mmI --Moll EM M ■ amommm unumn ■ EMMONS ■ ■ ■■ Ems ■ mmomom EMMONS ■ ■ OWN ■ 0 OWN M J in EM ■M11 MI ON c 01 11M1MMMMM1 MEN I MI 1MM1M1MM1M1 111111 -�' IM1 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS MI i■1 ����- al- �I_il�l _ 1--"" I�I �_: Ell 'I ■i _Mli_ ■ -011, MILM Ell ■II_MIII ■ 11 oil m :10 -,Mil- NO; 0 In: mom: moml� 0 oll:-Mmil ll -:m I M J -I Mi 7 M E W-0 ■ -0 -A 9 I ■I ■ : ■I I F- I'M �_: m MI -m ■i ■I_� ■I IN: 7,1 -- ■ '■ !:; mi: lisle IM 0 mm Em EM om m m Em mm om ■ ENO, ■ W ONE -Mj mi Mi. M: MI MAR2 D o� o L r�i 1 0 y 9 0� g bs _ I S. a smR r« 31� CD ENV Ao s w aS d F i w CD II M m�D 0 UELEuftur3uu6ru,, K � a F p P i 47� p p i S q m >m I I I I I I I I I O= a z y �: CA o g s g e _ o n F � 3 bs S m � E n =1 a JN eae CD a� zNN A o^ Co °d all � OOCA Cn MM `4-0 aG. z a� m aim a 3: o -H H— CD e all � OOCA Cn MM `4-0 aG. z a� m aim a 3: o Ir_ Iia 1 J a.AJ; M% �q5 I I Y." I ps �� 1� 4 M 4 �� yp5 .g ••J� .i •{ •L •6 `i "i L 8 =i 5i it : d it q� SL �y sf Ry �� .2t :z4 1Sz +z� "�z 'zY p d_Y '� M3 '3 ai '3 L� :Y r� �•dspn.u: � ��H Al I I i I fffl9 UTfl it i� p Ir_ Iia 1 J a.AJ; M% �q5 I I Y." I ps �� 1� WME 0 7k �-7A- °s ry �a F � z v W L 3�a n uP a a� N4 A Z5 CD o w YYYYYY�tttttt K LL�b rp M m rM do rm aM z T C = N N O co D D D D' 9 D p• D D IN z------- - - - -_\ ----- - - - - -- --- Oo v 7A-- D� � 3 z 8 � b • 197' -10' 1' E7(7. JOINT / CONT. FO�IO■9tl1�C PQ Y •p! pY l� 1'- 2� L am �z -u!2z 30 zmo cm mn 0 a d 0 C i y0�g3�n - m A ���R � � i �i �i �•' 4 •zd FO�IO■9tl1�C PQ Y •p! pY l� 1'- 2� L am �z -u!2z 30 zmo cm mn 0 a d 0 C -7A \ I I "I'VE K.I16' -3' -7A g e ngulm � spp x z tt'F1E c � 42,-0, 76'-4)k' 1 T I I I u II L v p iI G zm, - -1 8P Z le un s I, II v1 II � II II \Ty Z `�- A i I -__ - ------ yg£ M / rZ ' -0' 71._3. � Q WFYE -n 0 r 0 070 zn a r O C ° aTm a? N omm. o`M - On KRA ccl . .. .. . .. .. .. .. .... 3 8 Mir on, 101i Lill VIA NJ '1=J E Ell m ml ti;41 'I JIM MOM o . l g n g =� 3 42_L i CURVE DO � gg 8 °s Ig ❑ & z§ s p Q 1 � � g. WINTER KITCHEN • n a WINTER KITCHEN { g a. �,P N wN �gL�O M R�Q 4 o { WINTER KITCHEN at N ti — --Q -� - -- -- MN77F KITCHEN UP IJ.N i 4 w L J �❑ rPi H � Q mp C7 mg x EM M CURVE 310 mom G Z -a Inm= r < 0 r, N rm �S • EEO w 0 00 I 11� I 11F IS. Cc 'In Sm ox Z M 0m 0 om�N € R-111 o pqLU a'� IN o pqLU I • INA � � n 3Nj A n� =mti A S 8 Co � •o QUO a as Sms a A d m� O TN TT r Y v I T--W fl 8 m —r oar z -4 �o z m > s� N cc o O --7A- x IME go t i Y r, --7A- o � of -^ i - 3 R 4 3 GPD n 3� CD rta o Co ��UPa oW� a �;a o- m�� p � CD Yy K sy� Z I7$ 9�; I | . � | � | y\ � L| N' | . i | | -7A- 44 a It C5 Sp 9 M r- Mz <0 z Me 0 o 40h M z 0 M r- M OOC z z 0 M rl M iA Dg g� g� `$ P$ S-1 5 ii ii � €3 srt ��UOa I �U pg Ile � o i i ' CD i��: I, o i I' 81! �I' B!E �i 8i { it 18 f8► �ji�0i 8! Bi Bi!, H1 L,;I m z! i a FM j gs °.�g gp^p e�psp:55��p3 � „s grar gMsM gMs gs gpsp pps s gysM fpsr gpsM g^ fps gMMs grsr as gs Rpap gps eggs � gs =L:S5� .2 �i �i �yF „d Ms +i •d ji i +� •i _i .i =� si Si 'i A id d §E p S 8 7 - - - - - - - - - - M mz am c z a 0 i . /��__ . . � '' ` Cc IR CD ZEM �n O CIO � cn C/) C7• '� M 0 � ■■ Cl) co A) rMIL ID S z z '`� 3 -� N (D Z CD o .. U .. M6 N 1446 Co Cn y .. i U1 CO j a n N C/) o > b5 m N > cn c-•-- a cn o O ° rn o I Cl) � ---. O X o I � N z ? CD a — X � o 0 -_ a 1 ^n • ^+ f IS �,, -- — ,+ /JVllspl /xMAO%R+r�rx xr rJ MY IN ° 11 11 1 ' '1 1 ,%w��__'_\' • "' \\ ;__ 1. �" 4 1" e��y - 1 1 1 1 1 1 I � " "� I ,� I 1, "ey• `, 1 >1 . I A � 1 I "' � >� RSA I � ! • \ - 1 z 1 1 l I 1 1 � •; y/ p b , 1 I 11 11 ll Il i \\ > � i � • // �� �,���.� tot 1 . � �Pa • �� sz , 11 11 1 ' 1\ \\ 4 m r, �. .�yr+ a'�i ~k `— —. "� �(� ^�-• -_ �-� I '"�j�Si ti I �! • M,BL.((.tR � U "a� 5P 3dU6u� yrnllk •• ` / I +I � � 4p. i1 II 1 �I �� \\ `'> �.,\�^ I ''. ®I • �.- ,' .� ,rte � �: ,� ° /�'•. /,' /� s �m Ix I ��_V 1 l 1 \ �- •, 2 1 ul � /S 4 / � zz I I �y 1 1 , I 1 , 1 Y+ I � d c �,�r 4 � � / /' � fi ���`�' la •d I;� •J- ', n l \\ \ l I \\ 1 ` %\b > * 1\ aurl0 «" B"°' nr o ° -: ' �`' � • � ems +, � I I� �' ' 1` 1. \\ \\ 1 \\ '1 � '3 = •• \ ,, � >. , -'�� 1����•e '' // a '��ry � 4 �\ 41 ??" I x I pCjZ1 ° 'k\ ®\\ter -h -9y• a �,$ \ ; ra • I k pq.. • a vj 4 \ zvlln y � � cA3na2 ��a yy o a :f b � o T 47 win o :WWWWWW^ �i , a � m y b a b A � o y�a�,al bot b w y C v �n d w JI ~KI / �e 11 II AI 18 q wl Iq / lap, allG'� 1 Ir + lay'• I I I i \ os� +i"/ �'L ��:, i F 1 b 1 1 1 1 1 + / d, 1'1 I, 1111 1'l,+ I me .`' ` � a � � I 11 11 11 11 1} II'• � > >L`'6� � � leg x q a rg ► 8 i 3 px IRS R� N SRI R 6 S n 8 k3 all i qq a ^ $ ga g x� RZ e y a F �o 9 Ups 0 n v GNU] � � Q _ z z \S \ST -1S0P (CAP m lilt co > q D�x� sa Ry >y� S� >�+•�`���Ra�l $kkhR ��� � � � � r � M� c- D 3E a � L Q_ y..� ��xR v ��R �� Z CD 0 O v 1d gg� �" S A R 6RRRR YR� E � _ O a A � Sq i; N C) .p t- C O i+�lgR4MQ g $ _ Alit m n E. N C O A O C W S O O Z ,'imj z m — m Z O O~ p V=1 C r C Z Z N D m N A Z C r O Z y m D O O Z m N N _ m e m y A = N I D m O D Z Z o D Z b 2 m D Z D X y 0 Co tm/1 m m O Z y O O m Z N r m N > m v n p C co p Z C N m o m o c m o Z N s, ") � GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES, P.A. WA BONITA SPRINGS OFFICE Q fT A fJ Q 0 0 C < Z N CD Fy C r m z Om m N i y _ m O v ^m m � Q O ti O o' n 2 m m D o p b L� lilt co > q D�x� sa Ry >y� S� >�+•�`���Ra�l $kkhR ��� � � � � r � M� c- D 3E a � L Q_ y..� ��xR v ��R �� Z CD 0 O v 1d gg� �" S A R 6RRRR YR� E � _ O a A � Sq i; N C) .p t- C O i+�lgR4MQ g $ _ Alit m n E. N C O A O C W S O O Z ,'imj z m — m Z O O~ p V=1 C r C Z Z N D m N A Z C r O Z y m D O O Z m N N _ m e m y A = N I D m O D Z Z o D Z b 2 m D Z D X y 0 Co tm/1 m m O Z y O O m Z N r m N > m v n p C co p Z C N m o m o c m o Z N s, ") � GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES, P.A. WA BONITA SPRINGS OFFICE N O+ t0 W D v. G7 L7 31 m > m o 0 m D O -Ni v v O m r m Z () C 2 z K Z Z O O a a A m O O O L7 oz m m m B D D T O CQ y y N r O N y z z L1 D Z G) 72 D Z m m z m U1 D o fT A fJ Q 0 0 C < Z N Z 0 0 o m m m C r m z Om m N i y _ m O v ^m m � Q O ti O O m gm m n 2 m m D o p b L� N O+ t0 W D v. G7 L7 31 m > m o 0 m D O -Ni v v O m r m Z () C 2 z K Z Z O O a a A m O O O L7 oz m m m B D D T O CQ y y N r O N y z z L1 D Z G) 72 D Z m m z m U1 A (J N i C r m z Om m N i y _ m v rn O m gm m n 2 m m D o p b q Z E D Z o p' v m a v rFI'� m n� Qp m E F �n < S _ O Pa x i - RK PLACE PHASES III and IV LOCATED IN PELICAN BAY a. O V L r� V � C ^ CD n C o O r--I- � CD -� -..+ -� o o 0 cf)� T O 0 CD c: a O CD K) CD m �- �d ov�> r4 ADA 9f�C 8�am a m A SUBMITTAL DATE: OCTOBER, 2007 SDPA FILE NAME STL -I -COV JOB CODE STLISDP SHEET NUMBER I OF 16 7 y Cn 7� b 7� b C� b x H F-�-I H --�k g n � a � I �y I� �A O ay Rol O I ��O �A�rn H �d �z ? F} O m D r r fTl r D Z U Ih ti ti rv- n z e amp; N Am� i g� A Aw c a) m N N 89'14 G: \ ?ROJ- ERC \t \5ni nn ,r.o n.u7 � o0 A 2 A UO 5 ay n ?D ° ° n Z 0 0 a n A A .uA I I. 1 ` 1 wim o� 0 0 " O.o z1111 G � " N11�1 " x,11 11 1 \ 11 \ a p \ �111�1� Z Fp NI mo0o c N ° A nOO�'�na a F i- u u, y II D D > D D < zgRL,2 3 JIM 00 © !y,mo; to a \ �D () N \ \ \ \ \M~ o ^ C q i I j L I I L o li I II -all ° I I N � N ICI I I . z�� V 'Il 111 W I 1 II >� II ` \ , L �I li u l 11 IL.,I II I I I III II I m 11 1 } III II III 011 ` -- � /��'�� m I :✓ %% /� \�\ \ �`�' 1 I� 1.11 11 � v l �� \. \ \,\\/ / /• // "1� 1 1 111\ 11111\ ' \ \ \ U z Am� i ll� G N 89'14 13 E -7-13.10 0' °— — — — — — — o� 0 0 " O.o z1111 G � " N11�1 " x,11 11 1 \ 11 \ a p \ �111�1� Z Fp NI mo0o c N ° A nOO�'�na a F i- u u, y II D D > D D < zgRL,2 3 JIM 00 © !y,mo; to a \ �D () N \ \ \ \ \M~ o ^ C q i I j L I I L o li I II -all ° I I N � N ICI I I . z�� V 'Il 111 W I 1 II >� II ` \ , L �I li u l 11 IL.,I II I I I III II I m 11 1 } III II III 011 ` -- � /��'�� m I :✓ %% /� \�\ \ �`�' 1 I� 1.11 11 � v l �� \. \ \,\\/ / /• // "1� 1 1 111\ 11111\ ' \ \ \ U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O0 0 0 0 0 0 G O OGI m 0 Ol A W g � i A 'O 51 A N b N b C m N r: J vi w i o�G N�VZ m co G U ° N 2 Z z Z Z 2 o p m u N m F m F F F F F r�pjo G° a N II D° 1 m 1 0M > r 1 T_ z�D� p DA�� m 1 H � Z' C) 11 -10 \ Dm >z Z \ n NOS( 5O 0: \ Z NC 1'1 N\ \\\ �l 0�, D A A O m i \\ m K < <� ,on oti p yqr � A � � � m � ta.\ \ \ `` I = (� ` � -- ♦`� :! \ \ \\ \ cn n � _ Si 00 D \ 0 OOm8 C zAsn rNn nm N� 5 g a m aoA D D O n D r �v m D M C D .Z1 C MP O CD O O Q% D O Fri D , \\1 1\ \ wl� \ \\ L f I I I I I I� • \1� \�" \ m vvz -T) mm0• >�O w n z .n bw0 u z N O u �^ 0 m ')A z Am� i ll� G r�pjo G° a N II D° 1 m 1 0M > r 1 T_ z�D� p DA�� m 1 H � Z' C) 11 -10 \ Dm >z Z \ n NOS( 5O 0: \ Z NC 1'1 N\ \\\ �l 0�, D A A O m i \\ m K < <� ,on oti p yqr � A � � � m � ta.\ \ \ `` I = (� ` � -- ♦`� :! \ \ \\ \ cn n � _ Si 00 D \ 0 OOm8 C zAsn rNn nm N� 5 g a m aoA D D O n D r �v m D M C D .Z1 C MP O CD O O Q% D O Fri D , \\1 1\ \ wl� \ \\ L f I I I I I I� • \1� \�" \ m vvz -T) mm0• >�O w n z .n bw0 u z N O u �^ 0 m ')A K < <� ,on oti p yqr � A � � � m � ta.\ \ \ `` I = (� ` � -- ♦`� :! \ \ \\ \ cn n � _ Si 00 D \ 0 OOm8 C zAsn rNn nm N� 5 g a m aoA D D O n D r �v m D M C D .Z1 C MP O CD O O Q% D O Fri D , \\1 1\ \ wl� \ \\ L f I I I I I I� • \1� \�" \ m vvz -T) mm0• >�O w n z .n bw0 u z N O u �^ 0 m ')A (Z' cf) m ti ..A, 111 l 11 -),A- 7-1 r,-!i, 41.1�-,.-.-j , v) m --j X 1 J1 1 F ilk- m c �— ii— , � , U F I .-I 1 S 1E) — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - — -- — — — — — — — 7500 3.0 II Rj F", Vill 0c) Z> 0 192,36, Vk t5 Co I ai I rn r— Z5 7d rq \\ \\� � s ° ry 3. �� �o u v ® � ® ®" n��i c,p \\ �g •�` � %U II II �, O I II I ® \ IX C) 2.00' > NJ P :5.49, YAR111 %4` > CO VO, 4 Ox AN)\OIDW S\STLISDP \oW \S D P\--p D n m m m n Al ° �p y yoNm� O O '9 ap dr y nN :: _ i� ~NA, n r O E m r ° m r m w r D Z � � m � n m aN � N <Q lip i ( z b zC m D r D Z = O (A -- D Z 0 ti b A g O mil c M M r m m �r G7 D M D m rn v r D Z I z �ma c $ m$ D D F z x @ Z-- -- - -... .... — I . • �. — 1... m,. M Pa h 10 x • $€$ gkg i G 6 CA p i 9 y� D �o 0 m m m O r4 o 3 z y i m y� C C ° 8g O z g� 8 k E IN r Z Z Yyy vs Ns z az cn 0 m m m O r4 o 3 z y i m y� C C ° 8g O z g� 8 k E Z Z Yyy P.' ° 0 m m m O r4 o 3 z y i m y� C C ° 8g O z g� 8 k E Z Z Yyy S 8 ^gg - $ $ ' a E Em j ��4�� > >�z a S z 88� S o Ra' 8 �8„8g $ m 3 88m R N u 0 m m m O r4 o 3 z y i m y� C C ° 8g O z g� 8 k E S 8 - $ $ ' $ $ j ��4�� > >�z a S 8g 88� 8 �8„8g 88m kkkJJl y 8 8 V 0 m m m O r4 o 3 z y i m y� C C ° 8g O z g� 8 k -OG%,G, 0M—, D _W_U, _,tLiRY. __ ";"._ M I \ --` 7m o. CAS I F= .1 1 If z it _Z7 r Lo it If �1 II I J�j —AL — 07 1 Z 01 Z I I. -1 If z 0> If If - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - -- - - - it �o a .111 \1 �" \ \N (5 8 (D G (S G P, E'R -I 80� -1 Nmx 'OE 1 \111 z z i z o. ol El Np Z Ln 55 z 2 21 P OR 60 x rn z n o > CIO z NIP r— p p P > z O FRI C11.1 0 A \N If it Ox AA If I II 1 II 1 11 I \ °�� ��� O-P ff fit if 11 It !'11 it .111 \1 �" \ \N (5 8 (D G (S G P, E'R -I 80� -1 Nmx 'OE 1 \111 z z i z o. ol El Np Z Ln 55 z 2 21 P OR 60 x rn z n o > CIO z NIP r— p p P > z O FRI C11.1 0 A \N R-2 Ii II II i 0 00 01 z G; —ZA EKG II I �Al2 ;�, I � �" 11 `1 p 11 11 -k A Az �2 Z Ag �A of Him v a- U,,Mpll HO. At Up -i A A AIN U N9 9 MAN ;29 2 If it If I II 1 II 1 11 I \ °�� ��� ��� � �� � 11 II III I' l ff fit if 11 It !'11 it 1 It if it 11 II I I If �r�,m� a - l �- r �11 I� (I 1 II it r � II II. If it lj r ,uu;IIII it iI it It it J II R-2 Ii II II i 0 00 01 z G; —ZA EKG II I �Al2 ;�, I � �" 11 `1 p 11 11 -k A Az �2 Z Ag �A of Him v a- U,,Mpll HO. At Up -i A A AIN U N9 9 MAN ;29 2 c.vno�- s�.csun.sov Ic,o o'.�,ew, s.. o...,v..m vw,�n.ovos�n.sovvau o wen�sov.ao.w.o, vv..m, v,imo..�;m..m,w \PR0.1- ENG \S \SILISDP (CM D'ANliBES 9TE DE�ELOPM ENT PI N) \oIowGs\S '- P \pWp \S p P \SILISp -PRO p �N N A 8 n �m I O Z Z N A z N U Z D A A 0 A m 6LZ . . . . ....................- a1__________ _____ AA .............: S..... .. j p O y Nairn +x w �1'' c • n -. �� ml pAOo 3 s s O :..........._ m� ° .................. ....:.. mjs VINO ... ...:_ .:. .: D Z c: nZ�n ---uuu - -—_ ________ _�___ 1 1 msi _ ...:... EXIST. �MH Si 1-5 't - n A v°! q : EXIST :RIM 11.03... JNV. W . yN(T Ij G 1 > .m H �p1 Gov 1 .' . . mvg . N o ° ... oA b() .I11 .:110 m : 30" M IN: .. 8... w Z-9 COVER �; . s. o ... ... . -, oo � 77 (—__ — .. EXIST M 3. :fll . ....:. : : I P : m m . SWB 373.97' z .. ... hJ ..:... INV. 4 : ..:.. ... �. .. _., II I >l RIM NE8 +1438' INV. W - 4.50. Z Ci : fTl 00pp Vx A zz° b �y� b + m 9 O m�m n o N n OZ 6gg _- ___ - EXIST. MH -1 .......... .... m - -- RIM V. E: 9.97' 5.07' a .......... ...... :1.. 3 ;'N aV] .. ...... .. `^y co wm m ,a D y ..... ... :. .........:.... .. ... f D Ib z o . CD �aSpQp :...........: �... ..:... ...:...:. .:... ...:.... ..... ,...,.......;.. :......:... .: N m C e:......... O \PR0.1- ENG \S \SILISDP (CM D'ANliBES 9TE DE�ELOPM ENT PI N) \oIowGs\S '- P \pWp \S p P \SILISp -PRO p N ° D I" m ° �mu0 �N N A 8 �m I O Z Z N A N U Z D A A 0 A m 6LZ a1__________ _____ j p y n +x w �1'' c • n -. �� ml pAOo N 11 VINO COs SA D Z c: nZ�n ---uuu AC A O m is Z 00� yN(T Ij G 1 > .m H �p1 Gov m La Ptl mvg im xI N oo � I S pA�B c O om .1 �n A 0y z 00pp Vx A zz° b O OA~ n Po os my N n OZ 6gg Z n� N ° D I" m ° �mu0 8 i ° 0 0 . o � 1 1 4 r ` � 1 d 1� a o e tTj o 1 z Z � Z 0 Y C m Z 1; M 7�� O n G. \PROJ -FNL\ `DS 1 1 I111�`� 11,1 1111 � 111 11 ,oa 1 1 IMQR� 7A (Jl X ,� �--- —� ,:•fir -- _— �n � fi II �� �,.�� y, I� ; , , ? � I I °l lad f II I — - II II rll —11 jl I I - _- z =" "-i,�y -. — T.tiii•7 � I II CS-1 ��4 i� •o.O S,i I 2 n (� �IAII /- I- - ,9,• P 1 Y? o o> PN i? r : \� E \I I I f� I rev II III II I/ I I y fiII I II ll Ij III II Ili II 1 J u �I I i I S �;�. -� � � I � � �� � I � 1. � II _ , I I I I _ II 11 / 11 1 111 W orn .Z +, s— ° n :$ 'O o �\ / 1 p I jII. II I I II ' 1 11 90 w m 4a \ +9 �I II I +� E� 1 •� R m np + I If q II I II I I I II / I 1 it �I, II II , _II` I II 1 1 0l LL � Njy, s:� i s ��, �� �,�s�',.{ �'I m► � I� � "� I I I I it ' II II I 1 •Y' 'a ° ' u r� n.. J r'.+"ypi.. n . g "' c g "- I I (� °°' I II Il I a I � f' z \ ��J l0� 1'::? O* t�Pca N i r'im ?l u.:wt.:.. D c•,1 tr::l it II /II II cs 31 O n O �0 +Q'II c H Vin, I I I III Il II 1° I I I I. . � � � e � ,�,, +�, rn � � � � . ;� r,�� •. �� I 'I � I I �I 11 III i l o � III I 1 . +'" . +y. _ ;- � I .� ;:; --. \,� •` �, - � � �1' 111 II 1 111 11 • I 1 I �o .r �� ,�� � ,, ��i, v��� ,�I ,1 � 11 11 1111 11 I I 1 _.:. .' " ^ >� +� I ,.;r � � `� � ^. / � � • � , �l ,Vr'"� ;L 1�� 9•J 11 11 11 t 111 1�1 l rT, �� „ ; , �• 11 1 11 � 1 1 Nh C' O N A I z i� myV m2 Z z r Q m U 0 m m to 2 TI u .. o n m S C O O N O D T F m m N L c/i m m Z Z �N O O D n HO Um I ~O m S° n O DZ ti OZ � O O Z r n N m x I � D v lA+I 0 n i N Z O cD m A N � to N A o m N m0 nnonnnnonnn m m m m m mmmlIm�� m m m m S mm I NN m m m A OA O A O O O O A m O O O O v V U O O 4 O O U 4 Z m H °0000000AO. I _ 1 O _ o °, oA A � J J UO� N bN xxxxx�x G <•+ AOO i+ A Ub .a V S U NU°1 U W O1 U 2 °i A ti n <• T£ F n r m m r5 p �tinn G D A YY N O m O K# m V KV11 v � U U G O 4 pp cnw N�o1Omv IAA O O � I O b N N p N ° r A N n O N N tT rn m Irl � U 4 N 2 rn �l U V A �sss•�ssss��� Oi V V rn 0 m m to 2 TI u .. o n m S C O O N O D T F m m N L c/i m m Z Z �N O O D n HO Um I ~O m S° n O DZ ti OZ � O O Z r n N m x I � D v lA+I 0 n i N Z O cD m A N � to N A o m N m0 nnonnnnonnn m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m A I I I I I V I 1 1 O O m:.Od - J J UO� N bN 4 G W G <•+ AOO i+ A Ub .a V S U NU°1 U W O1 U 2 °i A ti <• T£ F h� r rmm�mmmnm i r5 p �tinn nnnn�!�� � rn Nmmmmmmmmmmm"nnmm�n �o mvmin "say cnw N�o1Omv IAA O O � I O b N N p N N U N N W 4 O b 4 A U N N N tT rn -• U 4 �l U V A A OI Oi V V =1 m 2 LA x rn n<mi���nnai� I cxi V gn�r��ncminn V� D r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r o °Smog °°$g$ggSg$o$coii °om°tOv rn Z �_ ; m U A m (/) U m N n n o zZ". ° n m p1n Q i A m Mmb�o OO o m Z Z U U m rn n 2 v C i 1� I 7 I M b p b <• T£ F h� x� i r5 p asotio>s "say i 1� I 7 I M a.w6D�aNCM�sn,sor lap ov�,aa. sa. o«,iors.M'MSln+ovcsssnisovwses o Psn,sw.ey, owsECS. ensaase w.nesun rmpy zo Zv f+lA> „nA 'D A y�� r•1 x - AA m - N Z La o O C m m F LO z ®o t D Z m I^a Im a 2� iy m D N i m ' mill n z ^y �A m > " v V) Z o 0 A 11 K'o os1 o R m�z p 8NV1 N Sj Z c A r0 O � i m W Noo O m � N N >y r oy. -mpg mD Om0 -�D z = A V n C i- n I ra-�AC o i z < o vi II — A A pg `ms z 1� \r�.. 60 �.r m yV z Dy ON� _ - O Z o� D m w M m o Z $ < Fz z ZZ� O O ' V � � � � H ➢ m - m it n° .. A 7 �v `S m �Yy YYY ZS < m m y u ri _D r o znmzNA NA °p°° m ci) aA y �p n° m D ZO (IaSA - m'7 NW' CQ VN o o NO ZCLZ J�C v>(�ba \-�1 - W O F m� eNN v 88 rn f. A �z m E F •'!� aZ AOmO zN u A .Y L7 "`iii m a z; z�° q n °m O C� m N Z o ✓' m m z m ('� m II r ooh � � ,6• m ° r- U mI�.� g `i l +J n vi _� D r o rwna- 2� ;ONNp I A65Nm pAfAf��a mg a s � F a �2 �Ci2 JC .2 �. o acv m _ y O Smo CoN AmZA -y r Rmt AOmmn mA r �.-K Aym nw z° HS i n ys-_e v �1 WWi+��aa �mmm FNy - vmmm ACOn o- o' OoN + m m Am p - y11MM��- y Z A m z >r�y - Z O p� �° NNm o v mZ o m Z mY' iii M� III m Do A � i U. a < m -ai r pAz ZNO II' N A i m m z O y o Z <m ° 70 d o m I � z I a ° v D J ; •;. 17 PH n D m F px 5. 3 Z z b Cl) - 3 mom Z C7 y g N D r ,r f °°• ° p ° D I = z rn e'g o sa 4ai, F5 m no $� o v m t- - $ g > :F as a II !v D i m mp r5 0 s° sF flzp- r M 3s c o��R:� .gym Z °o c N1 o o ® �O A - z Mm? m1 f1 oz ya \ • yO�vl j( O Z - my o II 3 o x i v A '8s ? D N ]' o CZ'7 m Z m o ,e' ova oa IU rw IM R Y Q m m i2 a3 C C °" SS Zj c wno�.r_Nrns�an�sro lu. oA.,00.. s„. w.wgm.N rl.�ro +w.csvn�aom.,«sm o runuw.a..y, cvoocr -a, :MOOS l.nl.rox rM i t+7 z Iv A pp� 3 A f � A - o � r a� A �l v D S z D Z D Z D c� r� ° rn D r Ig�4c >I Flo � �a o i 5,p n o� yM • pO�x r X A to $3 RIO K �e en � "55`y 7 a co a$ �> ND e IARR r� f* N a 1" MIN. J" MAX. 5' MIN. 6" MAX Z" MIN. rri N o Z . r,, � r U 1E EiEI JR JOINT rn T i °Z F $ $ g I film# a v 00000000 J M i�FpS v U, Up( IN 'O o g 'p N a 1" MIN. J" MAX. 5' MIN. 6" MAX Z" MIN. rri 1. o q� U i N JR JOINT Z n = NAB �-Y s�.. °Z F $ $ g I film# a v 00000000 J v U, Up( IN 'O o v Fa "� D D C ' 1 S +ZS o; >� P� yy: $1fz � m ;L lilt m i i N � 73 R-AA U o q 4 co AH ITJ 0 i I T_ �4 Iti � W N - \ All 0 i A \`i � CD z r A sr C m r i 1 3?; �I �s z I 8 I "s n >f �4 / a 1" MIN. J" MAX. 5' MIN. 6" MAX Z" MIN. rri 1. o q� i N JR JOINT Z n = NAB �-Y s�.. °Z F $ $ g I film# a v 00000000 J v U, Up( IN 'O o v Fa "� D ANS10N JOINT 73 R-AA U o q 4 co AH ITJ 0 i I T_ �4 Iti � W N - \ All 0 i A \`i � CD z r A sr C m r i 1 3?; �I �s z I 8 I "s n >f �4 / a 1" MIN. J" MAX. 5' MIN. 6" MAX Z" MIN. LLyj 1Fmsp � L 1. o Z n = NAB �-Y s�.. °Z F $ $ g I film# a v 00000000 J 73 R-AA U o q 4 co AH ITJ 0 i I T_ �4 Iti � W N - \ All 0 i A \`i � CD z r A sr C m r i 1 3?; �I �s z I 8 I "s n >f �4 / a 1" MIN. J" MAX. 5' MIN. 6" MAX Z" MIN. LLyj 1Fmsp � L 1. o Z n = NAB �-Y s�.. N film# a v 00000000 J m U, o v Fa "� D C ' 1 S +ZS o; >� P� yy: $1fz � m ;L lilt m P� r �I • rwFIF11111 1■■■■■►/ 11111111119..11 �.... ■:'I 11111111119 ■ ■:I \ ■■ ■■11. ISM 111111•i1i..L.1.f...:.a. 11■IIIaAI, lid ■,..I■ unucvl n.e■ umuce � i'�.1■ numn,� � .�■m anlnnl.��_ _.n ■u. 1111111111■ ■111 ■ % ■. ■11. 1111111111 ■. \.��..\ ■ ■1 -,1111 1111111 ■�� ■�: ■■� �� WIIYW �g Wing Mr z 0 a s LLyj 1Fmsp � L 1. o �> NAB 000000000 film# �I • rwFIF11111 1■■■■■►/ 11111111119..11 �.... ■:'I 11111111119 ■ ■:I \ ■■ ■■11. ISM 111111•i1i..L.1.f...:.a. 11■IIIaAI, lid ■,..I■ unucvl n.e■ umuce � i'�.1■ numn,� � .�■m anlnnl.��_ _.n ■u. 1111111111■ ■111 ■ % ■. ■11. 1111111111 ■. \.��..\ ■ ■1 -,1111 1111111 ■�� ■�: ■■� �� WIIYW �g Wing Mr z 0 L � VARIES 6 8" g- �N L $� 4' -4" E 00000000 q N N 4 u u �Et n � 6" VARIES B. g g� 8� i$ e P9 $ �o a s LLyj 1Fmsp � L 1. o �> 000000000 pp a v 00000000 J m 'OO4Eo°gg o v Fa "� D 1 S +ZS o; >� P� yy: $1fz � m ;L m L � VARIES 6 8" g- �N L $� 4' -4" E 00000000 q N N 4 u u �Et n � 6" VARIES B. g g� 8� i$ e P9 $ �o LLyj 1Fmsp � L 1. o 000000000 pp 00000000 J v Fa "� � 8 >� P� yy: $1fz � ;L L � VARIES 6 8" g- �N L $� 4' -4" E 00000000 q N N 4 u u �Et n � 6" VARIES B. g g� 8� i$ e P9 $ �o a,�vna.cNOUwn�sov Ic,v o.,�m.. so O.v.wpnw. mm��owossnisow.9u o v�muov.ev, wnron.�a,.RSxos c+.:ee vN 8 °n $v Is � Y 65 A3 All r—� .w'uuN 6ilaay$ �In s 4g. 3 P 11UH sill P a $ 1,y syd 1 PPyg3�@R R° 4 Jill: 9 3 i 9 R� :�1,�• A lld!l1 m �Im s Ai5$ ARgpA NlFF�yy� gpppF�A s $ ilia I i silNo l 6 x yy e 9 A pJAI ' $ �g R yy# 9D it 1. F � � � T � � � � � � A6 € r. Aa� •v ":; � g� ���g � �R 8 �Z R� �� 5A R 111,9 1, 4 N t gig III � A D yb n �a J ` J 0 Z � o b I A- R 3 c �G �y D r 0 s Z 4aK� f C y � hhFF o m � �: \PR(]I— FNf. r \c \[n �cno i�.o n•..•�a�. �,.' ., �... __.._.._ _. .. 0 I �v sgf;ij k Z n I m s E r F ¢ € y C� M1 Z y A # m � O � O Z � � H I �v sgf;ij k Z n I m s E r F ¢ € y C� M1 G.— EIG- 1— (1.P0'MtiM.Sw. MwbpnM vYn)n�oncssnlsorewu a — ,. vl]rzaoE.:ie iM a 3 ti c y a .�o r F ^O 0 k � y m r1j s ) O m n O Z (n I rr^^ K v� cn D � ti qq z T - s s c \PROD- ENG \S \SnjSOP (CAP O'.wn� s "0> >: m F Z 1 r7 ZOOZ HOI," :03SVie Ol —MM �� 3 ova g IX y �p OA mTozzo „nW z 2 GN 4z GG{{ MM Lm p _ O t - a F' F r r zo iz. sz c9 O A Z l Z Z p Z s + +� �PL nC ffi°z 5 � �o m m 88 g go �$ Q �I N gW o og � N Q ° rm �2' 5 N 25 Z; °mO 9002 l.N, :03SV 8 m D n A � q �p OA mTozzo z 2 GN 4z GG{{ MM Lm p _ Fn a F' F r r LfF\ Z 0 m D n A � q �p OA mTozzo z 2 GN 4z GG{{ MM Lm p _ Fn a F' F 0 pj Z CC °r °� K �O- vN.N..> FC f9 9 S QO < iA �q o W — N � < N m O A � n S P m m q m z O A Z l Z Z p Z s + +� �PL 5 � 88 g go �$ Q �I N gW o og � N Q °mO M Z A o a 11 11 ni a❑O❑❑❑❑ z N Nm - ^ 4 4 11 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ p Z --I ❑ ❑ NA 11 0 ❑ :OE 1 1111 o z z 11 11 13 0 A 1 1111 no z ` ` ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ u ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ v ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ O 11 pa❑❑p r-i D ar W W0�l zp"' �. - ggC'�Ngn m AA AzyNU m m ZAO[yl VxmZZ A g {rNma N °n17NA -=i = OnJEIZ d Om { ° ° N N - I �O A I I A Ow > C-) A V D I m m N N H - -Di D z z Z ,All- O Ni A Oyy N� O 8 r S A ;. oFno vFm mom'°' N NK-Ci A N-Ai0 � �A 3: m Z m 0 m I I Z ay Z _m Z ° Oo Zm O r J r / J cci / \ 12. , O lO > >I D C m Z Z Z D O to N fr1 n n D u u; Ir- o rn m °r °� K �O- vN.N..> FC f9 9 S QO < iA �q o W — N � < N m O A � n S P m I All, �T R, IS 41 IN)R X ol aim ire _nl V-1 MM ".'N gl,�`r,14Mlli �lglt c; A�V '0 �;Ol- A- iv, -Z; '4p 7Z� • Nj"� ag y VTI� lid "4,40,� M. vl.� -�g', -V'51 W, j -l-'V-N, X, it; 'Lt Z,-, 14 ANN, . ........... ~.7C7, ;i:! . - DEN Ot. - PkIll tmo M Ll ,t.t_ALF�; _.AAz, .7fn,-7 sn �k &.00-5-RE a Mu"'ON," .3" �4,§--,- "6, Me I M Np- j7 4t MM i AW �,!Tn!,., , 0,7, g lu� D.W Rp }Enpt5t5R�apP �Gp D'Meeu 5r 0"venprnn Wn�vtpNCy�SR�spna"yty o PtpRt.C�0..EROJEp.e,.p, DEMO a EROEIOV polMpl P�.w. L�rzWE �. ».m PR E C7 R Q ZZZO 6, � 8 S 3 ° a > Z D z 0 m O LO O Z C) O Z 70 0 D Z 1�m W O��PRO�- ENC \S \! i m n o 0 � A m Q O x A X m n � d �7 i j� • J h� n l� CD TC w N 1 1 p, I1 .° +,� 47 Il Ii 1 } 1 1 ' � 9 +� �� �j°�I1 jlz II II 11 +, s + O 1 11 1 II + N fl \ J �t4 \\ N\ P \ \ \ ONiravd 'lsix3 II. o, II --TT l o \ \ \�9`\ P9��o2 �I I II II II e, a31N3 °II� II 1 ` - ` + t + o 1 F., z ° zj x +' �0, oz + ° i� -V.TI A1z0N I11O °s °yO Ar I � I I �I 111111 *�'+ +qh° opzog mo 0 11 I, "D my� 1 1 11 ommOm n ° z ° n o v yt mzm n�z� _T1 \ \\ - z-i o 0 0 3' Fy z- �1 O yam om.m Am �'� ° m °� ve�zb D = mom O oLimj it ;o o r7+o (n m �o D'ob A oA O _o v nz z N Ai im oy'� Opm vz y Z � o t"i ra mC� mA AO O ^Sz C7 p >- Slim \ D OyA m m D O I I 1 p, I1 .° +,� 47 Il Ii 1 } 1 1 ' � 9 +� �� �j°�I1 jlz II II 11 +, s + O 1 11 1 II + N fl \ J �t4 \\ N\ P \ \ \ ONiravd 'lsix3 II. o, II --TT l o \ \ \�9`\ P9��o2 �I I II II II e, a31N3 °II� II 1 ` - ` + t + o 1 F., z ° zj x +' �0, oz + ° i� -V.TI A1z0N I11O °s °yO Ar I � I I �I 111111 *�'+ +qh° opzog mo 0 11 I, "D my� 1 1 11 ommOm n ° z ° n o v yt mzm n�z� _T1 \ \\ - z-i o 0 0 3' Fy z- �1 O yam om.m Am �'� ° m °� ve�zb D = mom O oLimj it ;o o r7+o (n m �o D'ob A oA O _o v nz z N Ai im oy'� Opm vz y Z � o t"i ra mC� PM mA AO O ^Sz C7 p >- Slim \ D OyA ��A D O Z O s DQZ�� m . �C o�:• C, Z v�� t� N Z D �a ct? m v PM -0 Ov �t -A my O-i 2yiD Si tin °y ° O rnZ � n AC t=iIO y2Ny2 �0 00 lO V° OZ Op NA A �� .8 - 01°ii° 315F m0 = m OZ. ^ °'� c Vz- oio mz s sm �`� z�mm 'Z m F �o zom ?ov gg z pp� Is —I 00 DA 89 N Z II �rU Os °UI ZZ ANA2 Q A /UlS 03) 0 O o -(� ZN'�O FOO �m SO -a N C <D° OJ Qx N 2> 00Q Dr °n Oy Zr me'°1A m Z� Oym F -ry�� ZmGmm A O-Z-11 ryZ mmm �nNm A °O Z m� OOH OAO Vm ° K Sm -IZ C°O. • n m zo z z ; m c m z° ~° ° g o an^s�* n (n vi °z °c ? i �iin° �fffff��11111A �� �° A m -Ni go m C A p �� v v n m OO mCi"O sZA Zy° AD y CC of o z -Z mO I @ z z; N rn N �� om (nFF F� y Ay FD A �r m -0 O m a N Dm O ° m m9 SAO mZ'in mFO z = A Z DA0 A m~ mA I P"g R m yz g O` -i'�ZS om �h m y° y 00yy. o m o g z ° z v 4E 5- -3 ot. z�'x~ tis Ao OZ A y =mtr=j Sy C v N A�An .0 �+mi _Z yO yCX EV-im= m oU m A O 1�Ay yCnnA yTC y�Ivi -ni >N D m �O m n D Z -i2 A yG O' 2~ Zy A g NA yy � Z O VN A m ZN yAj °y AZ A° C Om NO om i o o m AA o" y° AF g >>Z my m C N Z A C 2 O N 00 o j pm n° z 10 ,o T r mA AO O a p p Z N OyA O Z O yC. n �a v rm m v �F y u1Q y' < m 31 m m A A i ?DC D � 3)O O O O �� Oz 9p =� A A OZ' C m oa Z o mo y yyy O c A N Z F n y N o QZ F y _C°� ° o °cP y g Z Z; v aF m O o O y y2 r pa© rnm z3 F A z U, � o O O 2: z x A O C 5 ON p0 Z °Og Y ° o z C N °o o OA � A 0 S yZ A � D7 S ° D D m to � N A m -0 Ov �t -A my O-i 2yiD Si tin °y ° O rnZ � n AC t=iIO y2Ny2 �0 00 lO V° OZ Op NA A �� .8 - 01°ii° 315F m0 = m OZ. ^ °'� c Vz- oio mz s sm �`� z�mm 'Z m F �o zom ?ov gg z pp� Is —I 00 DA 89 N Z II �rU Os °UI ZZ ANA2 Q A /UlS 03) 0 O o -(� ZN'�O FOO �m SO -a N C <D° OJ Qx N 2> 00Q Dr °n Oy Zr me'°1A m Z� Oym F -ry�� ZmGmm A O-Z-11 ryZ mmm �nNm A °O Z m� OOH OAO Vm ° K Sm -IZ C°O. • n m zo z z ; m c m z° ~° ° g o an^s�* n (n vi °z °c ? i �iin° �fffff��11111A �� �° A m -Ni go m C A p �� v v n m OO mCi"O sZA Zy° AD y CC of o z -Z mO I @ z z; N rn N �� om (nFF F� y Ay FD A �r m -0 O m a N Dm O ° m m9 SAO mZ'in mFO z = A Z DA0 A m~ mA I P"g R m yz g O` -i'�ZS om �h m y° y 00yy. o m o g z ° z v 4E 5- -3 ot. z�'x~ tis Ao OZ A y =mtr=j Sy C v N A�An .0 �+mi _Z yO yCX EV-im= m oU m A O 1�Ay yCnnA yTC y�Ivi -ni >N D m �O m n D Z -i2 A yG O' 2~ Zy A g NA yy � Z O VN A m ZN yAj °y AZ A° C Om NO om i o o m AA o" y° AF g >>Z my m C N Z A C 2 O N 00 o j pm n° z 10 ,o T r c:waw.encvsv;nisov ic.o ow,uws aiu o...xa,.m r�rro��san�sovesa o wn,..anw�ccasa.a.v. rzwcunwnriccess vw+, >r,rsroe :oo:as vrn r to z d 1? p �. z o G V� . a C4 oo o p ti m cn a T7 D � m cn D Z ti ti I q v i opm �mo I � II III maw � V1i I ° Iyi Z C I I 't `1 1 a � I 1� - �=A � o ijli _INI BI III :III fl l \.11111 1. ' Il1z It ji \ \\ I I c°II \ n I �NN'dvd lsix3 J � 0 \\ ➢ f-` I 1�'� I III ao II I I II `I II Is Iw11 P1 oC 11 \ \ m ., o ENS PNG PW�^ \`� W z C4 \ / \\ ,z mz A Y a r��g =F A ° °! n n n o - {gi m z m�a< g� O O o nwzo ul pogo 4i _ r-. ,� I1���1�� �ITli�ln� 1 m t;> Cl) o i c � _ � r I q v i opm �mo I � II III maw � V1i I ° Iyi Z C I I 't `1 1 a � I 1� - �=A � o ijli _INI BI III :III fl l \.11111 1. ' Il1z It ji \ \\ I I c°II \ n I �NN'dvd lsix3 J � 0 \\ ➢ f-` I 1�'� I III ao II I I II `I II Is Iw11 P1 oC 11 \ \ m ., o ENS PNG PW�^ \`� W z C4 \ / \\ ,z mz A Y a r��g =F A ° °! n n n o - {gi m z m�a< g� O O o nwzo ul pogo 4i _ r-. ,� I1���1�� �ITli�ln� 1 G.VVO+ EvcS5S5R�9pP IGD p'MSDPP SDP pmbpmrn Pan)bIGNG 91SRf SpFlMgt9 p Pv9Rt -TEMP AC<ESd pERPq TEMPGMIIYAGGE99 pEEMe. MI�'mD9 S'.OS:tt FM r r� n t� z 0 K g cn p�� v v cn wl � c \PR � ENC \5 \STLt SDP (CAP D'ANTf SITE v ^ . I p l 4 I �I I II II I I !I I �I la II ow � d IIj I y A I�I II II II II IQ LQ I I 88 A S Z • O II cc S C7 Ali I IM IM I � C+1 V I a� II ( o IIII I I I I I I o t a� ,y � -; I�� Ip o D -O °hb �I 1 I � n D m fTl o-� L Lo I ' I ^ I I. II D V ti < b \ c g cn p�� v v cn wl � c \PR � ENC \5 \STLt SDP (CAP D'ANTf SITE v I `II IIII I p l 4 I �I I II II I I !I I �I la II ijj III IIj I y A I�I II II II II IQ LQ I I II cc I I I I Ali I IM IM I � k p I a� II ( o IIII I I I I I I o z � � -; I�� Ip o D � �I 1 I C) o-� II . I I ' I ^ I I. II < r l " U) \ C) i '► Z °° III I III m II �� I I I a Z� : i III II II C I I � W •. a� I� _� I I W � o-o-a 7 C , z y z mA II U IIII I II IIII oDII 1 Z o� o. I I Ili it 'i� 1 l Ip / I i II one I �N II wl II`I I mo I I rn I I x n I � I_ I, P I11 I IIWDC D II IIII:. rT rT II rn �. r v - - -J II I L m II lµ �. II p Ijl I II n� III � it I ���•� I I�"�� I I z I \ 1 11 I To 11.1 11 f' 1 1 11 1 11 � O D o �m O$ f = nn Z O NZ y40 9 z Z N ° C tyL�'^� Syr k"r cs,ay' � far raw N' c............... ..........,�7n C >w � ti A� x N II II i III I I I I �F A y A I�I II II II II LQ cc I' g= III l IM IM - � k p I a� II ( o IIII I I I I I I o z � � -; I�� Ip o D � t ��, ' i : °v I glI I .I I� C) c II . I ° ti rp- I I. II < r l " U) \ C) i '► I m II �. n D II X \ fo I'i a 1141 I —I W I I I 0 , z y z mA II U IIII I II IIII oDII Z o� / I z II one I -26 ° � ZG ► I I I ii 11 - °I O L C tyL�'^� Syr k"r cs,ay' � far raw N' c............... ..........,�7n C >w � ti A� O E�1 t1 Ar- �F A °C ��I vv I k p I a� II ( o IIII I I I I I I o � � -; I�� Ip I „ � t ��, ' i : °v I glI I .I I� It 3 I II . I ° ti rp- I I. II C) i I Z II �. n D II X \ fo I'i a 1141 I W I I I 0 I z y z mA II U IIII I II IIII oDII Z / I I I II I II -26 ° � ► I I I c.vnw enaysun� sov tuv or„ex. sro• o�aro^»nl vl.,ldlowssn.sove,.a�s o wn.sov.xsrew.e..c. ww.i almw.:es:.e vn. z d 0 I' 7 � z n 0 � < Q O D cyA d 6 a N Sr D D � r D r✓j Z ti rr,l Y4 �D� N C m N � � Ig f O ZOA D y °Ox C C _ OAS' ; m CNCp A ➢zlo m ' pD l mpr mD C ➢ \ %� I rn N S Z N�r D A DZ r m �o� o, A tD C a o D ~ ti m CA ZDO uoi�P _ v➢iN� NNN N I T r S N C I m N ' m p � A A N x m �Am fcn o °: m m ��Iz D c o A I x Z m 0 z z o i i - 7A- C �Ao O ➢ Z N O N � N A O N D C m m D a OZ°O \z� p% W A N\ A O p N Z(n°A • �N V1 O A W N V 0. rn �°z nro 0 mtn �:o Z �DZ mx ,>z y O� p F8 VJ 00 Ny C I, m, . AAp A OA E I � N A O A D D xr - mDln u>MCn -+ o z a°mo oz r n D D F r �mD AzF Nny DNn —0— U \D pD l mpr • � D X G n m N Om O • O A n�o T N z A z D z r I o a rn Z n m cL O O y A m m g god �- zoNooc% ➢O�z„ m o w I. O D 2 m Z y O 2sm C N o£� o Z I Z q o I ZO m Q O VARI 3' TO 5' N OD A AONx Of Nu �°mm ON 2q n o yz-�j . °mz N mm A n z ° °v x A czi m�z. A�Im N oN n m °� - 7A- C �Ao O ➢ Z N O N � N A O N D C m m D a OZ°O \z� p% W A N\ A O p N Z(n°A • �N V1 O A W N V 0. rn �°z nro 0 mtn �:o Z �DZ mx ,>z y O� p F8 VJ 00 Ny C I, m, . AAp A OA E I � N A O A D D �➢o mNm xr - mDln u>MCn -+ o z a°mo oz r n D D F r �mD AzF Nny DNn —0— U pD l Nsm m m Z p >z Zn2 m a CD3r ^Zp� n ozc ° VJ°C mz Z n�o -< z >, —. z °z < NND r n22 y.x = n:0 DOn �4m AA co AAA A �oAAA� ➢n µ god �- zoNooc% ➢O�z„ m o w I. O D 2 m Z y O 2sm C N o£� �OD n Z D N ° Z q o mm� ZO m Q O Oi A Z OD A D D9v rZ �A(n �pN rOmA nz 'gym ON 2q 'H—, , O yz-�j TI nC Z m0�m'UrQ N Am pA zo n z ° °v m�z. o �Z�A N C E5 i o m � � m ht c D m °n o y p A co Am P 2 Or D n Z z A N N A m ZN O z m :t Z 0m zo r A 5 � o g 0 o 0 m 1 s czi m ^� w Z1 m I. I o � � J \ zi N N Z D X mD x App �N I N� r r °v A I ;o, C °p lT yy O A A O N„ Apx N� AAx A n�i. < O A m NNp y01 m \wD eC AA A O�m x> �m NI vx A O• o of N s �➢o mNm xr - mDln u>MCn -+ o z a°mo oz r n D D F r �mD AzF Nny DNn OF =Z Zl C) UI= D Nz pD l Nsm m m Z p >z Zn2 m a CD3r ^Zp� n ozc ° VJ°C mz P N m n�o -< z >, I,A-II.�0,( k� D —2n m 'O z °z < NND n:0 DOn �4m AA m AAA A �oAAA� ➢n µ god mm m o O D 2 m Z y 2sm C N o£� �OD n Z D N ° An o mm� ZO m Q O Oi A Z OD v x p D D9v rZ �A(n �pN rOmA nz 'gym ON 2q u' N r z TI nC Z m0�m'UrQ N Am pA zo n z ° °v m�z. o m' z E5 i o m � � m ht c D m °n o y p A co Am P 2 Or ➢ n Z z A N N A m ZN O I m :t Z 0m zo : A 5 � o g 0 o 0 1 s V r D Z A II• rn g. b > z D A D --I m0 s N µ m ni ,o H n O D 2 V Am QO z y N A m ��z �o 0 Cl r. o X ice.. 0 N O ` • \ M tN 70 �'' Z 0 • p c� sv r-*► z a, C 0 z N .. (D z o r 0 v� co m to v m -= 00 0 CD aQ 0) �° �, M Z3 O cn oa N z � —�- � v � .� cn ID M co 40 4 4(wy m� "om o a ooaA;000 cn O C °° o D D O� 11. O AO 0 0 O O r T J O f� ° n n z c > x m A 205 A III /I Z m D 2 Z p A rn A I / D -O Oo V P 6 A x W N I R � p s 7_ -Zi < y m 7, 3 D Y m Z n M < €� a N N 5m 0 o cm D =' m Z D ^' rn m D i; / 5 ly D r 'n m n fl FyW� A�v Z Q° p Z , N Z <Z� O"'"'zz�� / >N� 7 MoD 3- / 1 07 b a <D o<n (ZZ /�Z God o M < - D� -0�9. va s O O O r O °N / Z 0 _ 0 rm Z Q O< m - Z D' D/ M/ - n 5o. 63 3 F° n NO ea D O °Q n 5! �a_�> a gm HT a, <O 9 $ ; A � m gm m o m'" miM< V A >~ N = A !Z OPUn 27 �o > �^ m � A O <n rr7. 4%o`D n <G o ,� O'3 o Q ° OV O 6' o j,', A ms �n oOz R 3 3.ng ZO A Via$& <OA,mb nes z � pgp1N zo O Ko v0 Gl g a <`�So�� > 20- o Sc��a,� g$ s a i m�A¢ x3 � > n m5 R o ^ -z o yAA00 � $� g . n >'�g on 3 S >Sm°goo >$a a 3 -0 a' S mb O j N A tnN Q = ' P NUtNii o d V mD n ° n > o 9 °��aRR�p�eo ^ ° n n a ooj Z Q° 50 s >P D 3 a�d"d',rommmoo'R, cc 0 mTO3 °s'� �p xv �v 'R Ea 3`� 'D aBl �o pZ° m� m g Ap �. Q o m Q F N 0 T� N i �ii�N Q �mjfKT1 >n � o mm �"o3� �f -aoo oo 3 z -_ _ 0 y= n 3 Q q m o' o g n a c. Z a �+ww0 q oww v AO90 "�000po°ov 3 'Npr- w- 3 O ac' O c as �? �D O?� ^ D > ; S wn 0 wC �wy ZQ nom' °mn ; L�n n o � w ao A'a �"� e 03 �B H��0 Z > O o o °- ! m �° m' m °Q n 5! �a_�> a gm HT a, <O 9 $ ; A Site Development Plan - SDPA m JO1ma o m�SF miM< V A >~ N = A �5O 27 F' > �^ 6897 Grenadier Blvd g A A ? s ° OV O A Jo��QQ Am000 <OA,mb nes o pgp1N Ko <`�So�� > 20- Sc��a,� g$ a i � 4 S >Sm°goo >$a a 3 ° 0 a' S ° �P tnN P NUtNii d V 9 °��aRR�p�eo ^ ° n n a ooj s >P a�d"d',rommmoo'R, - �p xv �v r- Q T� N i �ii�N mT �mjfKT1 Z H m O 4 3 3 3 0 m �? < <= om n � 'H 0 m W's NR Roo p 4m `m A'.vM —ga R x 3'� a R z _ HT a, <O 9 $ ; A Site Development Plan - SDPA r T a o m�SF WATERPARK PLACE PHASES III & IV V A Q1 N = A rn 6897 Grenadier Blvd g A A ? s Naples, Florida 34102 7-k i D a> Oz 4 gg �ail- Rq 11 B aggBSbo w�a'�'g a m 8o'Yi �8 ',;8- �_" D�3.� x �� C (� ®�jF °��3 ®�� r �F5s5' j: �0 owe ^ - H � B` �� s,�ox _SR Pn °D -n m �A - g Asa S cr 5 ®aB B ° �o S or o o Q O g n n �Z--=i py w 9 Z Gl MM = M o ° ` -a— ?o° am3�m s� m� DO 30 QN y0 NQ S3 nQ Qry ° 0 N.. �❑ S � cD O N ° 0 3 0 0 an 3> Ea �g ° s0 47 ❑ ❑ C D- 0 ' v" o o0 o o ° —m' n �, m a � � r �H ❑ it m0 3 a % >n °°o v cn D �n� m° J❑ Y cin� N ❑ =oar "m rCD C o_ 5 � � ❑ i/ � ,pC A/ m � - T "T - �o rD fTl ,,Opp O .g g D Cn C O 0oD 7A m W U r�o `° rt Site Development Plan - SDPA Q v p I M 3 tL1 & IV �C), �G g' �Q tl = Z T 5:0 p Z m_ a ° g 6897 Grenadier Blvd °�Sr a y z n Maples, Florida 34102 z m m ° rJ -D 1 A A A m rn D c N m — - --4 m 1 TCNLINE SEE SHEET L -P - 1 1 g y / • `` r s _ _ . /.._" � �I I �Nyjl l mR� j �� RZ �m P � , / / m mmz� �p ❑ ❑ n c _ n n ❑ u ` .! o INE SEE SHEET L -P -4 � o'oo- �- Nd aer o' a asvN� cv r \ ❑ ❑ ❑ s— u g- D � y z n o n c ❑ �. �uLZ1 z l 1 t , ON 1� _ p \ _ f �i I — �— F7 - q — — r N A n N r Aay ,, N O 3 gg s A �ti. Nj a DER �°a, / : ♦ J/ 1✓ II•�p� -��.� °'° aka ° v�,.,.. o Iq ' r m0 n N� d iii \ °O N ry ry p np :2 - i Q D n o Ln 3 (D h W < v d ��I c p M Z z0 mm �o om :E nB �o o� Ol'7 v D O j< A 2 O D 0 �n Eq R m » <n o o. ^m n 00 A � '$ NZ m �o O 0 4 O' 3.a �s <n o' � S f� pp Y Oz CIO =o 'z <n 4:AZ Q wo pF, ro o -VOa 0 00 �z <O o. na m a p o c -0 D 0 33 „p <OT o ;p0 j n mL n R Cn o B oa Zw o C a 03 p om i � rt �^ D z p o n CD 4 ^, 2 S n a$ o O D o ° = 5z: g o zn s n A O Oc r 00 Z; Q° Q 3 vn 2 2 O O 0 ' 0 ; ; 3 z o c a Om 3 ? c ? O z CL r o E �� a D rnc;i �Ai .�38 A A W W W W A DD N N N RR ' r' H j R o m m Non T n �amgs RR A ak o am a'o as R z a z z O O A 3 o a 1` 0 U^ G7 C3 Zx y Q p a m Z U ,O H 2 O :2 - i z a a p o �3 t ° Y Y{� Ln 3 (D h W < v d ��I O O j o �3 t ° Y Y{� Z D Z A m p T6 n\ ��I c p M Z z0 O CO A D O j< A 2 O D 0 �n o S m » o. �wWW A � '$ NZ z �o O 0 4 O' D D <n o' � S f� AT p OHOO dIn W_N-• <n 4:AZ Q wo <0 -VOa 0 �z <O o. na 0 mDOn A o c <OT o ;p0 j n mL z c c y DO om i A �^ z a z o o n ^, 2 m n m A o O A Or zn s n A O Oc r O 2 2 O O ON y ; 3 rn CL o E 12V a D D m A A W W W W N N N RR ' r' D ��R T o z RR R do z z O O j o �3 t ° Y Y{� Z D Z A m p n\ ��I c p M Z z0 O CO D O j< A 2 O D D D o m O m » A � '$ c Z O 4 O' D D D n S f� D g g <n 0 <0 i 0 d 0 0 0 o c <OT o OT j n mL z c L� z D z rD- m z -e{ , , z ��� OO O* Om -n PW o� oO m-A10 A-lo _T v p Onn �li OAmT '^ nn n 5 Nm K A Om -zi ➢ p D O n n � z x ¢ m D L1 N N zo �+ o �3 t ° Y Y{� Z D Z A m p m R c p M � z0 O CO D O j< A 2 O D D D o m O m m o O m m o 0 o p Z 4 4 D D D n S f� D g g 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H 3 Z A f<1 n mL z c c y om i A o Z A z o o n ^, 2 m Z m A H A O A Or A O Oc r O 2 2 O O ON y ; 3 rn s A D D m < m O Site Development Plan - SDPA WATERPARK PLACE PHASES III & IV z 6897 Grenadier Blvd Naples, Florida 34102 '] A y _ s G G T�2z EI Z m n t ° Y Y{� Z D Z A m p m R c� o r rn � 0 N Z� A 2 C 00 03: 00r- 7 woo — MAT°HLINE BEE SHEET L -P -2 -a n rn r om A ng a o r m -mm d 'AtA z I m� 79 d MA OmNrn N CM 3NA0 NA 61�m� �'A— c n a7. 9.D 3f °a" CID OP O n 4 a R n Am \ z N T p 0 T A > y y p o p p p 3 F pm A c� f 03 F ° -A ? ? n n n 75 n °z On'; - mpm eLJnN r� p OP =z 1 ° r� pp FJn cn 3. Q A D E O z p C p ' A w 14 3 on D ^? v � A< z uw O2- � -p O1.T 'Z ApO < n n � n n A �o o z c 3O x 7p i i z c �� 0283 a -.� oS o n a > 3o sp �z ° o r "' m A A _ _ v a m v 0' _ v �Ip pp 3 v 3 7o . ° Q 2 S3 A Z. n yZy3 m0 Z D nn m� S° mn g n o Q dl n m z00 �' z S R a n> m K ss ° H zip o °Api o ° a m z A D o n zyn n zZ,) 3 n �0 oIp 3i '"0 o 50 mO E z ° o a ',3 O 0 o a 3° O ° A D 3 M o D x n D0 ^m y 4 3 �M ° � f n - Aoo oD ° a -J � m v o mafv 0 n n D Y 2 Q 33 p ° D wR z w �z _ Z Doi ° z °a a3 5505 ° ° ° �G1 � rye pO r� n z �^ o m ��� (� Km O O n° o_ a 0> m m m CO a W I� O z 0 I Z 0 �. v N Q _ � P o e r 'D Qj Site Development Plan - SDPA 17) c WATERPARK PLACE PHASES III & IV ;- � T �"z a 2 w A 6897 Grenadier BlvdT�� OZ z _ > �� �s z NaploS, Florida 34102 M � , � m O a ro O o z ; O z D 0 mo Z t� n 0 0 6 z m 11 f! Il f� lf� 11 'i r� i Y I /, oc / f/ f� Pfpp, y ,Dr -Fn° a�� co 40 az a k > mo / o .mv O o u o a K D D 0 01 A >�9.�'o oa zf7 i D - �p� °nom a� � > > D p"Ar��pR�Q m o 9.1 DA rt1 W _mnn in 33 o Z � a a� o 3 z O ° N Z a o n Q'o A 0Do' m Q 0 p r'7 z v Site Development Plan - SDPA s° r =� a WATERPARK PLACE PHASES III & IV `T fag ° = Z Zoo w� 6897 Grenadier Blvd C,� t ���b ° ? Q n " n a - 3 Z H o Naples, Florida 34102 s ui s z m M R T-7X 1 2 w r , /f yl % olAm ti Pfpp, y ,Dr -Fn° a�� co 40 az a k > mo / o .mv O o u o a K D D 0 01 A >�9.�'o oa zf7 i D - �p� °nom a� � > > D p"Ar��pR�Q m o 9.1 DA rt1 W _mnn in 33 o Z � a a� o 3 z O ° N Z a o n Q'o A 0Do' m Q 0 p r'7 z v Site Development Plan - SDPA s° r =� a WATERPARK PLACE PHASES III & IV `T fag ° = Z Zoo w� 6897 Grenadier Blvd C,� t ���b ° ? Q n " n a - 3 Z H o Naples, Florida 34102 s ui s z m M R T-7X "-7A m rn -D-i m m rn v 0 D N O 2 m Z C T T m ii I� 1 li 7' e ~. +r OO = m m C w cn m M Z N Z_ Z OZ O- ^T T ` / O Z N � rn c N Z O0 On O T N m m � O -D ZJ O 70 ram 1 prl Ial W N i a .� _ I� ❑ I a 19 NAA �umW 1 ❑ i � ❑ e I� d,a�%�1 ➢y U O I 00 0 D Site Development Plan - SDPA 9„ y o a � _ Z WATERPARK PLACE PHASES III & IV w I� w 7 Grenadier Blvd Op ). - z n y fD 689 O� Z r x3 0 Naples, Florida 34102 N�sS. z m" s m 3 cb o� o Zy� Z>raa 3`° ? nc 1— 0 a S?`n m aKRI m" D mo 33 g° °n "� Gonna o`m-a r °o D� E; 43 'O 50 �$0 z ^ a a m o „^ a ab O \- i z o- o +r OO = m m C w cn m M Z N Z_ Z OZ O- ^T T ` / O Z N � rn c N Z O0 On O T N m m � O -D ZJ O 70 ram 1 prl Ial W N i a .� _ I� ❑ I a 19 NAA �umW 1 ❑ i � ❑ e I� d,a�%�1 ➢y U O I 00 0 D Site Development Plan - SDPA 9„ y o a � _ Z WATERPARK PLACE PHASES III & IV w I� w 7 Grenadier Blvd Op ). - z n y fD 689 O� Z r x3 0 Naples, Florida 34102 N�sS. z m" s i J, i i I/r. NZDiM/' I\ o 77 O T n 77 M; ;;0 m M m x x > a N " ��Z n Fn 8 z O O Z z v Naples, Florida 34102 z m rn g$ D O O W m y o o D o Cn S I I tl • 1 I � I. > < D ov 8 O y� I O� ,I y r \� a 00D f-P r— ii II FO?? 99�jj j.pj1_ $Z` pAp� $D ON m r; >i Site Development Plan - SDPA e" a � ° � Z WATERPARK PLACE PHASES III & IV a � _ ° _ z w " ��Z n 6897 Grenadier Blvd c A; A v Naples, Florida 34102 z m rn I I tl • 1 I � I. IC JJ I r I� I , I_ y� I ,I FO?? 99�jj j.pj1_ $Z` pAp� $D ON m n LO >i Site Development Plan - SDPA e" a � ° � Z WATERPARK PLACE PHASES III & IV a � _ ° _ z w " ��Z n 6897 Grenadier Blvd c A; A v Naples, Florida 34102 z m rn N E g9g oU �� oA r rt _ P9 F �a Z I Gn `" �s e a m m i II n C r '_.n rD !n eN I 2 z a g ZZLIII-IM n Nom�4m �ANc C AONN < -D m N A, �cm A rn �rLAz m�n�Dg O -Z' F�n(�1,� 1 � A - D m (J) rn O O nn c c A 'U ul c➢ DA Z m �n No rn (P v� n m nrr0 � m �n O ON Z Z my �O F' g N N m = rn D v A n c m 4 N D Cm n W A L m rt m O. O I W r I � I sTV. MI N D g 3 m �a A m A n i g N N m A A pg Y Z ➢ g U fIN N m • m v F D ' m X1 m yip �A mOm -^I N➢ 1 Z^ < NC CA L O 0 W v 3 d L 0 � N r'+ pJ rrD Abu ia- I -n i i R 5� oF �E x' sW'• 2 rr =A �3r T" C ° „ �Ll Tai 1 I -_I v z N XN Icr ,_ B BUILDING/ WALL c � ,, ,. r l ➢ �I <� - LO m> � N _. N rr 0 5A B BUILDING/ WALL c � ,, ,. r Dl n (D o g O m (D &g coo£ n� O s� g A v z mg-,D OZOA' 4m 4 i O � g��D � • p �A mn4� 5 "R III I I,II' . � III I:IIII II,IL.I -II� �I III —_ - II I- I i III AJ l ➢ �I <� U -�{ZA Ate? m> � N i m i 0 -( 5A ° O d Gtr;UZ $ (D oA C im O M z ➢ � 4! � •-� R Tr$ rt s O < G � tD NA(P�� SAN �mAm AmC� O =-i -n p fir ➢CO yn�> °- °�R T�-n�1 mAAZ DSO yy DOrm4� °p m 3 11�P 7�OA rn/ri (l m Dl n (D o g O m (D &g coo£ n� O s� g A v z mg-,D OZOA' 4m 4 i O � g��D � • p �A mn4� 5 "R III I I,II' . � III I:IIII II,IL.I -II� �I III —_ - II I- I i III AJ - LW C GylN p Nii'im �� m0 1 �p0 i�-i•1 l ➢ �I <� U -�{ZA Ate? m> � N @ @p XOXOXO -( 5A ° y A xA P M Q AGnr CJ 120�i T(D fir ➢CO yn�> °- °�R yy m s N��Z � 3'1�C7 3 N imP (D OTC ym i iyiN O r - LW C GylN p Nii'im �� m0 1 �p0 i�-i•1 A 1 Q H X3 � l ➢ �I <� U -�{ZA Ate? m> � N @ @p XOXOXO -( A 1 Q H X3 � l ➢ �I <� x -�{ZA Ate? AJ N �� 5A ° a _ Site Development Plan - SDPA xA rt WATERPARK PLACE PHASES III & IV �'� = Z ° 6897 Grenadier Blvd 3 -s° s w y Z m n " CID c� - A _ Naples, Florida 34102 §= z A m > 3 -�Ik —ru mmC ST �po N (n � 5T ZAm i" �m I h till _ } T � z 0, -U �o >� Fx? z I �' "Tvo— ! RR m F R 15, p - !! N 1 a 1' 11 OIIn na -- I if A p it if n A II II. II Il- /�,` s n' i o II u ;u p 11 u - II '�� 11 ill A II II II ll \ 11 11 Il' i I� Ill it It • 1 11 11 Il �_ 11 U.. it 11 �1 U 1 11 U U U 1 111 R \\ 1 U R •� Ik 1 111 \ \\ 11 111 \% 11 .. *'P , 1lt 1N L(V .� 1 Ilt 11 ,1 z 01 11 A N n 0 y m �. .. mz.. O �.. •. �> , 1 7'TT1- > S a0 w - oQ. I I I U I I 11-1 �1 i i i Ipj� kj Ay H 0 ➢ ?' ��� ti ! I I; l i l t (1 t l l i l t.(i /LIJIILU.� �IJ .7.I L.IJ il_t111t -1 IL b D m p N N r -+ 1A O D o ; 0 M W y °cnys O r m _ Y o � > 1 1 s a a o = o WATERPARK PLACE PHASES III & IV ~ ° Z 0 4 I f1 d �d���9 M = z I I \s� fill �� ° n • jp Naples, Florida 34102 of Z A m o SI 9 A m g g 1 "' II�rn1� Ir - o �I Iii A p I �' "Tvo— ! RR m F R 15, p - !! N 1 a 1' 11 OIIn na -- I if A p it if n A II II. II Il- /�,` s n' i o II u ;u p 11 u - II '�� 11 ill A II II II ll \ 11 11 Il' i I� Ill it It • 1 11 11 Il �_ 11 U.. it 11 �1 U 1 11 U U U 1 111 R \\ 1 U R •� Ik 1 111 \ \\ 11 111 \% 11 .. *'P , 1lt 1N L(V .� 1 Ilt 11 ,1 z 01 11 A N n 0 y m �. .. mz.. O �.. •. �> , 1 7'TT1- > S a0 w - oQ. I I I U I I 11-1 �1 i i i Ipj� kj Ay H 0 ➢ ?' ��� ti ! I I; l i l t (1 t l l i l t.(i /LIJIILU.� �IJ .7.I L.IJ il_t111t -1 IL b D m p N N r -+ 1A O D o ; 0 M W y °cnys O r m _ Y o q > Site Development Plan - SDPA s a a o = o WATERPARK PLACE PHASES III & IV ~ ° Z 0 4 I f1 d �d���9 _ Hin = z A897 Grenadier Blvd �� ° n • Naples, Florida 34102 Asr Z A m o 9 A m g 7n D:EN TT, ' C) -V vDy_ m -i S,m °-i vv � o m 0 ' 3 m m�.AA�T a 'U <�AZ 0 1; Z _-I ' Ormm� w - pX 42 m cn A D Z N r Z 0 m O T 3 m 0 O 10 c ° O m z m O �v c T X c AZK �z Nmcn N M. X 0Am o' rn '• -1 m m OX> Dm m-� Arc Z m m D X mZ - rN+ A > z <'n �X m � cn M z mr� m , E: gm m m-Ni Az O S m m N YI D I PI II 'I I II I L - a i a Dm Ml M ;0 m r r- 2 z m m - — .0- -i--n IIIII/II III �� ' / �I • - • • . • co Dj /� / • .. •,,� ., •�I • • • VIII' n . N O -0 cn N m Z � A W=� 00 j =< N In O D x _ < cn o m c< z v c c 3 o „ m 0 q m co m N = m " < O \ L e \/ 0 d v I @x d C I(D Z -o N O_ _ C C, (n o' D m v 0 0 r m 0 I � v n d� c. N m °- d v w oAl E3svHd n 36Zd z ° °m0 0-0 x (:) to r � z � 'u -1 �Tv5 �z 1 m0ZZ O D =Oc m v, C70m�fT OVA• E MC C 5-. C 0 0A"0' z mm z m z Az�m M, x a T T = CO m D = .0 o 0 M O O rt n v M 0 X m z0 j -vW 1 0 v Fu 0 D m rn K m z -a a m I� �m 0 m Xcn m� fJ W cn m m m AZZ1 a�myr M A XE M O N T n z y m °,cnz 0 �D0^' ()am�a r-`D" D r z r mcZCv A�mIMO � O -y-ju) mm -Dial �-0 m nzaX 0ADm < (n M> 00 ° X m " 0 ° o y I m o � $$ D I g C 5r,� P I o D OD f Site Development Plan - SDPA �v _ a WATERPARK PLACE PHASES III & IV ��,r ° = Z n Ul 6897 Grenadier Blvd �. t z n 4 s Naples, Florida 34102 z m m A z s m _7A- M -OCHtINE A EE StittI z ----^ -- a� Zi aq n a' L c t g a G F'A I�TI y � 1 _ t r4 aa � v � o r 9, n r�1 ; m _ _ 71 gg q r i Zp � ? �' d� 18 ny s£ 9-. d a R9 a 9 40 cS m i m ,.F � ag 8n -r� a '�. ,� O �.. �- S I l w',:x — / ,- 2 ?. i In - m ✓' Q a _ FU_— _-ruRE °r+lv¢ � � 99 a a 0 vV a T W c _ o - r °r . > m 1 z iJ m _ G _Y I ` Y ^ • � I � j� Ij LIMIT OF WORK 0 SOD uprsia'j., " i �r r - BERi..`_1QOGY� SOD (BAMIA) € �C v ENTRANCE BOULEVARD O 1 S ED r Z ! IV BEACH ACCESS EASEMENT O g o �`4 \✓ $ Fn 00o D �\ N L o o m -a 4 r o (D o iO � .. Site Develcpment Plan - SDPA WATERPARK PLACE PHASES III & IV 6897 Grenadier Blvd Naples, Florida 34102�� a agi 0 aD 5 € Zoo . • tYk� Z m ➢ 7A- Rii.. n 0 0 3 f a m 'o � o J 3 x O 2 o 3 A F S fi 3 a tl O xO"'"On wS m 1Z�F"C— zDG10D ZZ�OOO 6M3 y o�ooAZZ zxxxxxx QOC) O c off >�ov�ooa P: 0 C N c y O j Z n D z<< D D^' `nn on coo= Qp<p �� z O D D a D D x m ; A Smmt�N o 0 0 0 o n- ���ww� '�fhfinhnn gggigsg $� �3mm mm _- Oo pO 000 pO �«os �Ezz�z�g Q4— z 0c Z z #m 4r 41 N O ut� N SS Ap H�4k1 e A> w n n z A A A i N3- 'i -bBRRR FA���iS�i= =xxx o88��a <��aaaa <<< jao !. 0 € DIDiD ZZmrTi wm OO OO ri'im o00o mN vo o m GG GG GG GG 2 i0 ' C10 DDD ryi r_ G7 G) 1, I " � �` �. 1 \ �G \x, 1 \ E r m � � � � 11' Fes\ . \ •` � \\ ��..:. \\ - r A 1 \, _ A r _ f� )� a // � ,' o� "tip 1•� "b � C F oz ACID Ij /di 7< rn r 55 O RR P:w� R > RI A MID M �emt-r�tmt��prpC 1\ RIP mfPACz-zt \ AZi 3RAC ry �,.• m�e]AD \ ADD p4Ag DD R r •° r .r Z� Z ny, lDaq zz I R ry/ ° ryF N N NrN NrN P � 1- „Z R � ppO a /i r /, ° Pit R. r (r r R I L TJ I I nDZ'�'8 In O ` ; p� -YY I . y . r— 0 y o �a- ryRk /6 � c _ Z R O — ^' /� .F Y r w ry •t � •t I I .!._ _ � _ �"_.I r .f. ,1 im O w / `,�/ R �SR ry �li /Y R .r -eY� -tW� ._._1_ __ —I �� teN � m � Z R Tr�l 7! R4� ,p '4� , R I � n I \\ _ ' « 'nq � _'R• _ • '� 4� �• _ IPy m m ri 7 / ti /; � �Pi �� R ° ry a ry RI I rt c� ,.r `rR •r r�°'4.rr � __. —� � � � -� - -_,\ y.•�`� �• _ j ., •r l r Try RR i ' �°°_— .""' °� -I� •.u-.,r... ' rr o J� � -,.- -. • ooui� N. R; _ r /rr R. ,r n P/` I. y �.�.•- ._.. —.\4. R 3Q Nx LD O �'1 R �h •� R `R.�R ° ,.7 Y RR %11, R :/ / Y �O. 'r Y r �'° 1� 7D0?� a G R Pi r el PR _ q� R 3� 0 R R ry ry r t •r . r ey A N O 47- ._.. A -V g cp o . D C) CO m 0 IL Site Development Plan - SDPA A o m t_rt iii Q O Wareraark Place Phase Ill & IV Z ��, 5. SSSS z rn Q . �- z NZ f 6897 Grenadier Blvd o o e �9 Q> • h� qi oP 8 rW� ��c'S „ �� z p. r rn" 7A- am m m' 0 3 F oD1O o.� o ❑ Fco >o oa'mmo n � o p> 'm- mo 3m 3 p 2aS pS o � > -- 0 0 Q W �3 a om v 0 p o0 o �a o n -3 o° S d2 om 0 o � Q� n� > o ao 1p� m m J � m n 3 0 3 ° - =�om o - m ao am O � � 0o o, 3 m ,a a ° '> 2 � m m ° a s� N p N O O �A O = rtJ� > A D A_ OSS PZ . D II II O O O 0 Z 0 C) CD Waterpark Place Phases IV & V2�� 0 ,� 'Y ^ O O = ° m w < � m m CD < � o n O n 0 a. V C C 00D F u c / > A D A_ OSS � AG1 Z O � D II II O O O 0 Z 0 C) CD Waterpark Place Phases IV & V2�� CDC ,� 'Y ^ O O = ° m w < � m m CD < � o n O `� 22ff x Naples, Florida 34112 c Z 3 3 3 3 F u c / gw jig n 5'j 40� W g�R a 0 9. �o �$ x Oa RIB Ro .ZI D _1 O rN y O Z Z O M � � a 0 r Waterpark Place Phases IV & V2�� P °� =Z . T 0 ,� 'Y Z ,v I . �� 6897 Grenadier Blvd . ks �I' � z n > - "�s Z r. `� 22ff x Naples, Florida 34112 3 3 3 3 3 D 33 d M w s A 3 3 n °a OzY N D 3 Q = - gw jig n 5'j 40� W g�R a 0 9. �o �$ x Oa RIB Ro .ZI D _1 O rN y O Z Z O M Site Development Plan -SDPA 0 r Waterpark Place Phases IV & V2�� P °� =Z . T 0 ,� 'Y Z ,v I . �� 6897 Grenadier Blvd . ks �I' � z n > - "�s Z r. E Naples, Florida 34112 m D 33 n A 3 3 n °a OzY N D 3 gw jig n 5'j 40� W g�R a 0 9. �o �$ x Oa RIB Ro .ZI D _1 O rN y O Z Z O M Site Development Plan -SDPA 0 r Waterpark Place Phases IV & V2�� P °� =Z . T 0 ,� 'Y Z ,v I . �� 6897 Grenadier Blvd . ks �I' � z n > - "�s Z r. E Naples, Florida 34112 m