The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 06/24/2008 Item #10A Agenda Item No. 10A June 24, 2008 Page 1 of 52 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Essie Serrata, the Executive Director of the Collier County Housing Authority reqnests approval of deviations from the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) through the Site Development Plan (SDP) approval process in order to rehabilitate residential dwelling unit structures within the Farm Workers Village pursuant to a 9.2 million dollar Federal Grant on property located in the Residential Multi-family (RMF-6) District located off of SR 29, in Section 11, Township 49E, Range 29S Collier County, Florida OBJECTIVE: To review and approve if warranted, the applicant's requested deviations from the development standards of the Coliier County Land Development Code via the Site Development Plan Amendment review process, while ensuring that the community's interests are maintained and health, safety and welfare standards are upheld. CONSIDERATIONS: The petitioner appeared before the Board of County Commissioners on February 12, 2008 under a public petition item to discuss a planned redevelopment project for the Farm Workers Village located in Immokalee. In 2006, the Collier County Housing Authority received slightly more than 9.2 million dollars in grant monies to rehabilitate its oldest section of the Farm Worker Village. The Farm Worker Village is a community of 61 I dwelling units on 182 acres that was developed in phases starting in 1974; the last units were complete in 2001. The Village is a farm labor housing community. The monies received to date are planned to rehabilitate the oldest section of ISO dwelling units. Specifically, the applicant's conceptual plan indicates that for the first phase of redevelopment, 104 units will be demolished and rebuilt and 46 units will be rehabilitated. The Executive Director (Essie Serrata) appeared before the Board on February 12, 2008 and requested that the Board of County Commissioners grant staff the flexibility to come up with a solution that will allow her to rehabilitate ISO dwelling units in a phased plan without having to bring the entire site up to the current standards of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) as is required. Zoning staff noted on the record that the LDC does not clearly provide for the ability to phase improvements or to deviate from the majority of the required development standards through the Site Development Plan approval process, which is an administrative review and approval process. At the Board of County Commissioner's meeting it was decided that staff and the petitioner would meet to gather more information about the details of the requested deviations and bring back the items to the Board of County Commissioners for consideration as soon as possible. The petitioner and her agents met with County staff and submitted a conceptual plan outlining the proposed changes and requested deviations for the Village. Structural changes to individual dwelling units were discussed, however the meetings were oriented towards the requirements of the LDC and not the Florida Building Code or applicable Fire Codes, which are related to actual building construction. The applicant will be required to comply with the Florida Building Code and Fire Codes as part of the building permit application review for each structure; the Board of County Commissioners does not have authority over these regulations. The results of the staff review of the conceptual plan provided by the applicant are attached as back up to this executive summary. Based on staff review of the petitioner's conceptual site plan and the requested .- deviations, staff has summarized the applicant's requested deviations below in the Agenda Item No. 10A June 24, 2008 Page 2 of 52 "Recommendations" section of this report and has indicated whether or not they recommend approval of each deviation request. FISCAL IMPACT: The applicant will be required to pay for all applicable site development plan amendment application review fees per the Collier County Fee Resolution No. 2007-357. Those fees are estimated to total approximately $17,050. Fees paid to date are $0. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMP ACT: Staff has conducted a preliminary evaluation of the proposed use and its relationship to the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The subject property is designated Urban on the Future Land Use Map and is located in the Urban Residential Subdistrict of the Future Land Use Element of the GMP. Staff notes that there are several existing commercial uses on the property that are not permissible in the Residential Multi-family zoning district; nor would they be permissible under the Urban Residential designation of the GMP. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: The County Attorney has no legal issues with respect to staff's recommendations. -JAK RECOMMENDATION: The applicant has proposed a list of deviations from the Land Development Code which are attached as Exhibit A to this executive summary. Staffs recommendations follow the applicant's request on the same table, Exhibit A. PREPARED BY: Susan M. Istenes, AICP, Director, Zoning and Land Development Review Landscaping Landscaping Vehicular Use Area Landscape Island Curbing/Radii LDC SECTION 4.06.05 4.06.03 B.1/B.2 4.06.03 B.1 RMF-6 REOUIREMENTS Required (1 tree per 2000 SF pervious area) Required Required EXISTING Tree Survey Pending Varies Varies Exhibit A DEVIATION REQUESTED We are requesting a deviation from the addition of canopy trees for the following reasons: A) there are many existing trees on the site which will be preserved wherever possible. B) pending a tree survey, we may already meet this requirement. C) there is no current or planned irrigation system for the site making viability of sapling trees questionable. D) the additional cost for this requirement would reduce our ability fiscally to make the necessary improvements to the existina units. We will provide landscaping as required by code for all newly constructed parking areas. We are requesting a deviation from additional plantingllandscaping in the existing parking areas for the following reasons: A) we will preserve all native vegetation in the existing parking areas except where it will intertere with the existing or established drainage ways, storm water management facilities or utilities. B) the additional cost for this requirement would reduce our ability fiscally to make the necessary improvements to the existina units. We will provide curbing and landscape islands as required by code for all newly constructed parking areas. We are requesting a deviation from adding curbing and landscape islands in the existing areas for the following reasons: A) we will preserve all native vegetation in the existing parking areas except where it will intertere with the existing or established drainage ways, storm water management facilities or utilities. B) the existing drainage in all parking areas is entirely over land sheet flow and curbing and islands would intertere with drainage patterns C) the additional cost for this requirement would reduce our Ability fiscally to make the necessary improvements to Agenda Item No. 10A June 24, 2008 Page 3 of 52 STAFF RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL APPROVAL APPROVAL Agenda Item No. lOA June 24, 2008 Page 4 of 52 the existinq units. Landscape 4.06.05 B.4 10% of proposed Varies We will provide foundation Foundation floor area perimeter planting as required Perimeter adjacent to by code for all newly Primary constructed units. We are Entrance requesting a deviation from APPROVAL adding foundation perimeter planting for the existing and/or renovated units for the following reasons: A) there is currently no irrigation system on site and the viability of plantings would be at risk B) the additional cost for this requirement would reduce our Ability fiscally to make the necessary improvements to the existina units. Irrigation 4.06.05.K Required None We are requesting a deviation from providing irrigation in the existing and new construction DENIAL - ALL NEW areas for the following LANSCAPED AREAS reasons: SHALL HAVE IRRIGATION A) there has never been an IN ORDER TO ASSURE irrigation system for the site. SUSTAINABILlTY OF B) the additional cost for this PLANT MATERIAL. requirement would reduce our ability fiscally to make the necessary improvements to the existinq units. Landscape 4.06.02 North 15' Type 'B' No buffers currently exist. Buffers 4.06.01 East 10' Type 'A' Required buffers can be 4.06.01 South 10' Type 'A' established without deviation 4.06.01 West 10' Type 'A' for dimensions. The buffers will be established on the sdp submittal plans. We are APPROVAL requesting a deviation from additional planting ;n the established buffer areas for the following reasons: A) we will preserve all native vegetation in the established buffers except where it will interfere with the existing or established drainage ways, storm water management facilities or utilities. B) the buffer along the east boundary line will overlap an existing ditch used for site drainage. C) we will provide additional landscaping ;n newly constructed areas as outlined in the comment responses to above. D) the additional cost for this requirement would reduce our ability fiscally to make the necessary improvements to the existinQ units. Allowable 2.04.03 Residential, No changes in existing uses APPROVAL FOR Uses Office RESIDENTIAL. DENIAL Retail, FOR OFFICE, RETAIL, Daycare DAYCARE Permissible Duplexes, Based upon the original site Townhouses plans of section A prepared by Educational Gunderson & Wilson Traffic Calming Device Sidewalks/Bike Lanes/ Payment in lieu of Road/Site Liahtina Accessory I Conditional 4.03.05 6.06.02 6.06.03 Plants Essential Services Family Care Facilities Recreational Facilities Child Day Care Civic Cultural Facilities Education Services Public I Private Schools As approved in the NTMP Required Required per IES RP-8-00 Varies None 23 Street Liahts architects in 1971, the Laundry Facility, Office, Day Care, Maintenance and Utility Buildings were approved as part of the development. Approved plans for the remaining sections also show Day Care Facilities, Laundry Facilities, a Post Office and Community Center. We will ask the BCC for approval to allow all these facilities, as well as the store, to remain and continue to serve their intended function. We will provide speed "humps" for all newly constructed roads I parking drives as required by code. We are requesting a deviation from replacing existing speed bumps with speed "humps" for the existing roads/parking drives for the following reasons: A) the current speed bumps are functioning very well to reduce vehicle speed without damaging vehicles. B) the additional cost for this requirement would reduce our ability fiscally to make the necessary improvements to the existina units. We will provide a 5' sidewalk on one side of the road on farm worker way and alexander circle as requested. We are requesting a deviation from providing 5' sidewalks on both sides of all roads or providing payment in lieu of for the following reasons: A) the development has functioned well without dual sidewalks since it was built B) there is already an existing walkway bisecting the site. C) the additional cost for this requirement would reduce our ability fiscally to make the necessary improvements to the existing units We are also requesting a deviation from providing bike paths or providing payment in lieu of for the following reasons: A) the development has functioned well without bike paths B) there will now be proposed sidewalks C) the additional cost for this requirement would reduce our ability fiscally to make the necessary improvements to the existinQ units We will evaluate the existing street Iiahtina svstem for Agenda Item No. 10A June 24, 2008 Page 5 of 52 DENIAL THE RETAIL ESTABLISHMENT AND THE DAY CARE CENTER ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE RMF-6 ZONING DISTRICT STANDARDS AND THE COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. APPROVAL DENIAL - THE LDC PROVIDES FOR THE REQUIREMENT OF ONE OR THE OTHER (SIDEW ALKS OR PAYMENT). . DENIAL. Staff disagrees, and recommends adherence Agenda Item No. 10A June 24, 2008 Page 6 of 52 Idelies compliance and add to access lighting additional lighting at requirements. However, if intersections and pedestrian the minimum lighting levels facilities. A partial deviation is stated by the LDC and/or requested as suggested. IES RP-B-OO are greater than required, then staff recommends the deviation can be accepted in part. In this case, staff recommends that at least the project's intersections and pedestrian facilities (crosswalks) are lit to the minimum standards. Parking Areas 4.05.02 90. aisle (one- We will provide a minimum 24' way) 22' drive aisle for all new parking Aisle (two-way) areas. We are requesting a APPROVAL 24' deviation for wheel stops for the following reasons: A) the rest of the development does not have them. B) there will be little landscaping to protect C) the additional cost for this requirement would reduce our ability fiscally to make the necessary improvements to the existinq units. Parking 4.05.04 177 Spaces 90%%d SPACES Office (3390 1 per 300 S.F. 20 Parking Already meet code for spaces APPROVAL S.F.) (11 Spaces) Spaces - deviation requested for islands and parking stops. We will cut back the existing throat width of the collier county housing authority office parking lot entrance to 24'. No deviation is reauested. STORE (3962 1 per 250 1 per 250 S.F. 52 Parking Already meet code for spaces. DENIAL - USE NOT S.F.) S.F. .,(16 (16 Spaces) Spaces Deviation requested for PERMITTED. Snaces islands and parkina stons. Daycare (2204 1 per employee 1 8 Parking Deviation requested for DENIAL. DAYCARE USE IS SF.) for every 10 Spaces islands and parking stops. NOT PERMITTED IN children and ZONING DISTRICT. adequate drop off and pick-up areas shall be orovided Laundry (1260 1 per 2 Washing 4 Spaces Already meet code for spaces. APPROVAL SF) Machines provided Deviation requested for islands and oarkinn stons. Multi-Family 1.75 perUnit(105 90 spaces We will provide the code Units Spaces) provided required parking spaces for aU At units, new 117 construction. We plan to add additional 1 additional space for each CONDITIONAL APPROVAL: spaces in duplex and triplex building (not THE LDC PROVIDES FOR parking per unit). We are requesting a AN ADMINISTRATIVE over- "partial" deviation from PARKING REDUCTION Flow guest providing the amount of code THROUGH A MORE lots required parking spaces for THOROUGH ANALYSIS existing and/or renovated units AND A SEPARATE for the following reasons: APPLICATION. extra parking is available in ADDITIONALLY, THE the existing store parking lot STORE USE IS NOT and a truck/guest parking lot PERMISSIBLE IN THE across the street from the RMF-6 ZONING DISTRICT. store. The additional cost for this requirement would reduce Agenda Item No. 10A June 24, 2008 Page 7 of 52 our ability fiscally to make the necessary improvements to the existinq units. Min. Dwelling 2.05.01 750 S.F. 1 Bedroom The existing/renovated one- Size 400 S.F. bedroom units are currently 2 Bedroom 400+ s.t. we are requesting a 600 S.F. deviation to allow the square APPROVAL 3 Bedroom footage of existing/renovated 791 S.F. units to remain unchanged 4 Bedroom (outside of the laundry 968 SF additions) and for the newly constructed units to be comparable to the existing/renovated units for the following reasons: A) to maintain equal housing for all residents/applicants. B) the additional cost to increase the minimum unit size would re-duce our ability fiscally to make the necessary improvements to the existing units. Building 4.02.01 15' or 1/2 the sum All >15.0' All existing units meet this Separation of the requirement and all new units Building heights. will also whenever possible. DENIAL - REQUIRES whichever is Weare requesting a deviation VARIANCE PER THE LDC. greater to allow the Laundry Room additions to the Setbacks 4.02.01 existing/renovated units to Front . Multi- 30' Min. Varies encroach into the setback Family areas where necessary: the Rear - Multi. 20' Min. ALL >50' existing units currently meet Familv the required setback and Side - Multi. 15' Min. ALL >15' separation distances, but most Family likely will not regardless of where on the unit (side or back) we provide the laundry additions. Item Number: Item Summary: Meeting Date: Page ] of I Agenda Item No. 10A June 24, 2008 Page 8 of 52 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS lOA This item to be heard at 11 :00 a.m. Essie Serratta, the Executive Director of the Collier County Housing Authority requests approval of deviations from the Collier County land Development Code (lOC) through the Site Development Plan (SOP) approval process in order to rehabilitate dwelling units structures within the Farm Workers Village pursuant to a 9.2 million dollar Federal Grant on property located in lmmokalee and for the BCC to review and determine if the requested deviations are warranted while ensuring that the communitys interests are maintained and health, safety and welfare standards are upheld.(Susan M. Istenes. AICP, Director, Zoning and land Development Review, CDES) 6/24/2008 90000 AM Prepared By Susan Murray. AICP Community Development & Environmental Services Zoning & Land Development Director Date Zoning & Land Development Review 6/2/200810:19:01 AM Approved By Jeff Klatzkow County Attorney Assistant County Attorney Date County Attorney Office 6/3/2008 10:22 AM Approved By Judy Puig Community Development & Environmental Services Operations Analyst Community Development & Environmental Services Admin. Date 6/3/200811:20 AM Approved By Joseph K. Schmitt Community Development & Environmental Services Community Development & Environmental Services Adminstrator Date Community Development & Environmental Services Admin. 6/4/20064:50 PM . Approved By OMB Coordinator County Manager's Office OMB Coordinator Date Office of Management & Budget 6/12/20082:47 PM Approved By Mark Isackson County Manager's Office Budget Analyst Date Office of Management & Budget 6/13/2008 4:56 PM Approved By James V. Mudd Board of County Commissioners County Manager Date County Manager's Office 6/16/20086:59 PM file:1 /C:\Agenda T est\Export\ II 0-June%2024, %202008\ I O. %20COUNTY%20MANAGER... 61l 8/2008 Agenda Item No. 10A June 24, 2008 Februarlr~ 2'66~ planned to install the line, After our survey was done, there were several utility lines installed in that area, so we had to relocate from the west side of the road to the median of the road. And there have been various other smaller items along the way. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, now this was done without increasing the budget. Tell me how that was accomplished. MR. DILLARD: Well, the budget on here is the -- included a 10 percent contingency, so there was an actual increase in the contract amount of $270,000, but that fell within the 10 percent contingency. It's actually one-and-a-halfpercent of the total construction project. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. All right. So it's going to be completed on April 15th then. Are you far enough along that you can determine that there won't be any other unforeseen circumstances? MR. KLINE: I mean, it's hard to say, but more than likely, yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. All right, thank you. MR. KLINE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Item #6A PUBLIC PETITION REQUESTED BY ESSIE SERRA T A FROM COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY TO DISCUSS PROPOSED REHABILITATION OF FARM WORKER VILLAGE- TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO FUTURE BCC MEETING WITH DETAILED OUTLINE OF RETROFITTING OF PROPERTY UPDATES MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to public petitions, paragraph 6. And the first public petition is by Essie Serrata from the Collier County Housing Authority to discuss proposed rehabilitation Page 21 Agenda Item NO.1 OA June 24, 2008 FebruarY"f~,1 ~'()08 of Farm Worker Village. MS. SERRA T A: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Essie Serrata, executive director of Collier County Housing Authority. In 2006, the Housing Authority received a little over 9.2 million to rehab its oldest section of Farm Worker Village, And to give you some background information on Farm Worker Village, Farm Worker Village is a community of 611 units that were built, the first phase in 1974 and the last units in 2001. It's a farm labor housing community. The money that we received, as I said, is to rehab the oldest section, which is 150 units that were built in 1974. And we're already running into some road blocks because we've had our first meeting with the county staff, and we're being told based on the Land Development Code, there is no guidance for rehab, just for new construction. And basically we're being told we'd have to bring the whole development, which is over 200-plus acres, up to code, instead of just that one phase that we're going after to rehab, which is what we received the money for. If we'd have to use the money to rehab the -- all the sections, we wouldn't be able to do much. So we're here today to ask for the board to give staff the flexibility to come up with a solution that we'd bring back to the Board of County Commissioners at a later date. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions? Commissioner Coletta, Commissioner Halas, Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I have a question. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think he called my name first, SIr. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Did I? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I heard it first, yes, if I may. Well, staff, Mr. Schmitt or yourself, it doesn't matter. This is very disconcerning (sic). We have a limited pot of money to work Page 22 Agenda Item No. 10A June 24, 2008 F ebruarY'~,12~d8 with, and it's for reconditioning that part of the project that's the oldest part of the project. If they're ever forced to renovate the whole project at one time to bring it all up to code then, of course, none of this will work and they'll have to return the funds, in all likelihood, back to the federal government and things would have to remain as they are, and it's desperately needed. What can we do, as the county commission, to be able to make this thing go forward? MS. ISTENES: Good morning. Susan Istenes, zoning director. Thank you, Commissioner. I don't have any issues with what Essie said. I'm not overly familiar with the project, so I'm basing my knowledge based on what staff told me and what Essie just described today. She is correct in the fact that our Land Development Code is very weak when it comes to addressing what staff commonly calls retrofits, and that's older structures where people want to come in and redevelop them or use them for a separate -- a different use, and they have difficulty meeting the current requirements of the Land Development Code. But we're also not just talking about the Land Development Code here. And I want to make you aware of that as well. You're also talking about the Florida Building Code, fire code, and things of that nature too. So I don't -- I don't want you to think that it's strictly -- that the requirement to come up to current code is strictly a Land Development Code issue. There are other issues that I can't really speak to you about because I don't work in that area. Let me just give you a little bit of background and maybe you -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have to interrupt you for just a moment. MS. ISTENES: Sure. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Estie (sic), at any point in time, Page 23 Agenda Item No. 10A June 24, 2008 FebruarYaf~;26~ did the construction that you're planning to do, are you asking for relief from the fire codes and the -- MS. SERRATA: No. We are fully aware that we would have to bring anything that deals with health and safety up to code, COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. So that's not an issue. MS. SERRATA: No. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just wanted to make sure we all understood that. MS. ISTENES: Sure, and that could include widening streets, for example, to allow fire trucks to go through. Again, I'm not fire code, COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But once again, too, specific to the project that they're working with, the phase in the project that they're working with, they can't afford to do the whole development. That's the whole contender here. MS.ISTENES: I understand. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If you could address that, that would be the most important part of this conversation. MS.ISTENES: Okay. Well, I guess what I'm saying is, the code is very weak there, and I guess what I would ask is, if the board is endorsing that process where only a portion of the project can corne up to code rather than the whole thing, we could certainly work with Essie. I would request maybe that she set up a meeting with myself and Joe Schmitt and we can walk through and see what she's trying to do and help her from that perspective. She met with staff and then carne directly to you, so I don't have any of that background other than what was presented today, and we'd be happy to work with her to try to make that happen. Weare going to be coming forward with a code amendment either this year or beginning of next to address these retrofit situations so that in the future we can meet with petitioners and have a specific Page 24 Agenda Item NO.1 OA June 24, 2008 FebruarYaf~;~0S plan or specific set of guidelines that they can abide by and so we can make it happen. It's really hard, it's -- economically for people to bring sites up to current standards. And if there's a way we can address that incrementally so that in the long run we end up with a building that's up to current standards and doesn't cost somebody an arm and a leg to do, I agree with you, Commissioner, the whole community is benefitting. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But, of course, we've got a time frame here that's very narrow so we can't wait for a tremendous change of our direction where we could -- MS. ISTENES: I understand. All I'm asking is that the board endorse -- because we don't have anything really well structured in the code, that if the board endorses what I would call kind of a piecemeal upgrade, that we would work towards that with Essie. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle and then Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I agree that we need to do something, and I think Susan's suggestion about a phasing plan would be appropriate, particularly here. Essie, do you have plans to upgrade the entire facility? MS. SERRATA: Yes, we do. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do you -- MS. SERRA T A: If there's funds available, yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do you have a general time frame? MS. SERRA T A: For the whole development or -- no, we don't. It's contingent on funds availability. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Would five years or 10 years -- MS. SERRA T A: Well, we're -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- be reasonable? MS. SERRA T A: -- working on doing a 20-year plan based on Page 25 Agenda Item No. 10A June 24, 2008 F ebruarYar~;~~ what USDA is asking us to do based on some items that were done. We did a capital needs assessment as part of our application for this funding, which basically listed the needs of all -- of the total units, and that's what we're working on at the moment. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I thinks that's the key, at least in my opinion. If someone has a long-range plan to upgrade an entire facility, perhaps the staff could come up with a Land Development Code change that would permit the staff to approve that in phases so that if you wanted to define the first phase as being this particular project, you could get approval to do that and proceed, but would have developed a long-range plan for addressing the entire facility. So I'm looking for -- I'm trying to suggest that we develop a Land Development Code change or provision that will address all users in a similarly situated position so we wouldn't have to be doing this individually, and I think that's what you have in mind. MS. ISTENES: Exactly. And I appreciate your feedback, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. So I think if we required a long-range plan and then a phased approach, then the staff could approve the phased approach and everybody would be happy. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Does the USDA have similar requirements that FEMA has in regards to a certain percentage of rebuilding a project, kicks in where you have to bring everything up to code? MS. ISTENES: I can't answer that, Commissioner. I-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can anybody from -- MS. ISTENES: I'm not sure what you're referring to. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- development services answer that? CHAIRMAN HENNING; County Manager can. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, I'm sorry. Page 26 Agenda Item No.1 OA June 24, 2008 FebruarYaF~;'2'6~ MR. MUDD: Can I try to get -- I think we're missing a point here. Essie, how many single family homes you got out there? MS. SERRA T A: We have 611 units. MR. MUDD: Okay. And you're going to bring up to speed the 150 -- MS. SERRA T A: Of the first development. MR. MUDD: -- worst of the worst, and you're going to bring those up to modem code, every bit of modem code? MS. SERRATA: Right, and that may be a two phase development. MR. MUDD: Okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: All right. I was thinking that we were trying to circumvent anything that was put into place. And so if we were going to exceed a certain percentage of -- okay, answered. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Essie, do you have any, like, resolution or minutes where the authority approved your petition? MS. SERRA T A: No, I don't have. I have authority as the director to basically put the plan together for the rehab of the Section 8. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. Usually at our level, we have, you know, in this case appointed officials petitioning the board, and I just don't know how the five-member authority feels about what you're proposing, not only -- I don't know what you're asking. Our code deals with a lot of issues, and I'm assuming you're just asking for a deviation for things of landscaping. MS. SERRA T A: Correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't know if you're talking about water retention, you know. Those things I don't know about. I don't know if you're talking about health, safety, and welfare issues. MS. SERRA T A: We haven't gotten that far in the plan. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, So in my perspective, that's Page 27 Agenda Item No. 10A June 24. 2008 F ebruarYa~~: "1658 more important to me than landscaping, but I just don't know what you're asking about deviation of the Land Development Code because there is so much that it refers to. So we really need more information. Ms. Istenes doesn't have the information on your particular petition, so on and so forth. We do not accept public speakers on petitions. This is an item, I think the board, what I'm hearing, wants to come back at a future time so that we can get some details of what the petition is saying. But most important, I want to know how the authority thinks. They're actually in charge of the decision making of the authority. MS. SERRATA: They're pretty up to speed on what's going on because our board only meets quarterly. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's a choice. MS. SERRATA: They have given me, by resolution (sic), to move forward with this project, making the decisions. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, That's a choice when you meet. Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner Coletta. But I understand what -- the consensus is, we want some more information to bring it back. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, And we certainly want to see this project move forward because we want people to be living in a safe environment, obviously. Will -- just a question. We were talking about an LDC amendment to solve this problem. Is that really the way to go? If they only have dollars coming in and they're only good for a certain amount of time, is there another way for us to get this process moved forward once we have the complete information like an ordinance or something? MS.ISTENES: Well, I think -- if! understood the discussion so far, I think the idea is that we're going to meet again with Essie, and Essie needs to have a definitive plan about what she wants to do, and then we're going to outline that, and she's going to have a long-range Page 28 Agenda Item NO.1 OA June 24, 2008 FebruarYap~;2'60~ plan for us and then she's going to show us what phases she wants to do, and then we're going to have a better idea of what the requirements of the code and other entities are going to be. For example, South Florida Water Management District. Obviously there's things that we don't have authority over that they're going to have to abide by regardless. So we'd like to just outline that to you at a later meeting, and then basically get you all -- your support, I guess, or endorsement, of that plan, The LDC amendment is for -- is a long-range plan to address projects like this or projects that are similarly situated throughout the county, and that's something we've been talking about with DSAC for a number of years now. We've just now got some help -- some assistance from them in the form of a subcommittee and we also have our contract attorney coming in this week, and that is one of the items that we had presented before to you as a priority, that and dealing with nonconforming structures, which are -- nonconforming situations, which are very related to this. So that's more of a long-range plan in order to address this. In the interim we'll need to come back to you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But we could move forward with this phase once this information comes in, and they work with you on a plan, right? MS. ISTENES: That's my understanding, from what I'm hearing. MS. SERRATA: And that's why we're here today, is to get that flexibility to work with staff to bring something back to the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Estie (sic), just to clarify a couple points. How much money's involved from the federal government? MS. SERRATA: Just a little over 9,2 million. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And this $9,2 million, Page 29 Agenda Item No.1 OA June 24, 2008 F e bruarYaf~: ~'()O~ you have to have action underway by what point in time? MS. SERRATA: Twenty-four months, and we were obligated the money in December of 2006. So that's when the time clock really starts. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So in 2008 -- December of2008 IS -- MS. SERRA T A: Is when we -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- the do or die date? MS. SERRA T A: We have to have something going by that time, yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Is this -- how's this going to work with our schedule? Of course, an LDC change is impossible. That would never work. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, as soon as Essie can get those documents together, okay, she'll meet with Susan, Susan will go over it with staff and get what issues resolved, and we'll get it back to the board as fast as we can. And as soon as the board chops off on the plan and the phasing, they can go about doing their business irrespective, and the Land Development Code change will come at a future time. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One last question, if! may. And I do appreciate your patience. Suppose this -- for some reason there's some technical delay and you miss out on it, do you have to return the money? MS. SERRA T A: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the project would have to remain in the state that it's in now? MS. SERRATA: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Great, thanks. Thank you. MS. SERRATA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next petition? Page 30 Agenda Item No. 10A June 24, 2008 FebruarYap2,1~~08 Item #6B PUBLIC PETITION REQUESTED BY MARISOL MACIAS TO DISCUSS RATES FOR ROTATION WRECKER COMPANIES- COUNTY MANAGER TO BRING BACK TO FUTURE MEETING AND PETITIONER IS TO PROVIDE PROOF OF COST INCREASE MR. MUDD: Petition -- the next petition is 6B. It's a public petition request by Marisol Macias to discuss rates for the rotation wrecker company. And I hope I pronounced your name right. And if I didn't, I'm very sorry. MS. MACIAS: Macias. It's okay. Not a problem, Good morning, Commissioners. As he said, I'm Marisol Macias. lawn Carlos Towing here in Naples, Florida, and we are on the north side rotation for the Sheriffs Office wrecker services. I'm here today to ask your consideration in raising the nonconsent towing rates as they're in the Florida Statutes 9938. It's been almost a decade since they have been raised. And as you know, the cost of living and the cost of doing business here in Naples continues to rise, so have our tow trucks and our insurances and everything else. I don't know how we go about it as far as how to change this. I've not been involved in this. I'm just asking to get some feedback in that way, of how I can go about that, along with my colleagues, in changing that situation. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Can I ask you a question? MS. MACIAS: Sure. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I can't base a decision on what you write down here. MS. MACIAS: Right. Page 31 ... . ,tr ~. (i) Agenda Item NO.1 OA June 24, 2008 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE D~i>3iO of 52 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 403-2400 FAX (239) 643-6968 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW WWW.COLLlERGOV.NET PRE-APPLICATION MEETING NOTES & SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST ~ ~g~ Amendment Date: Jl!J!J 1\"\ Firm: l-\Sll. APPliC~(}'""\ L u" ,~ Project Name: f\\1\'\ W\:'i~E-Il U\U ""c..1O - ~C"tlu'" 1>. kUOL.....~ Proposed # of Residential Units: ,2.. Proposed Commercial Square Footage:-1!..J" Project Addr/Location: shbb f><1..11'::l\:: Ll\I.ie Size of Project Site: 'Yi . En kif>. U."^-f....~ acres SDP # for Amendments Zoning/Condo Use/PUD: (Circle One) Is SDP within a plat? Provide name and AR#: r.lA Ord.lRes.#: hlA Meeting Attendees (attached sign in sheet) Assigned Planner: C.H I (, \) 'A VD Page 1 of 9 G:\Current\Pre-Application Forms 2006\SDP-SDPA Site Development Plan Pre-application.doc SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (SDP) APPLICATION (SDPA) APPLlCATI()N SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST .HIS 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 Cover letter briefl ex lalnin the roject SDP op Iication (completed & si ned SOP re-a Iication meetin notes LOe 10.02.03.8 Site Development Plan signed & sealed) Includ!n cover sheet (lDC 10.02.03.B.l.b. PUD document if zoned PUD) or Conditional Use Addressin Checklist ADDITIONAL COPIES OF SITE PLANS, as needed: Architectural Review is required - 1 additional set Located in Pelican Bay Services Distrid - 1 additional set Located in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area. 1 additional se' Located within the RFMUD or RLSAO areas.. 1 additional set Affordable Houliing proiect - 1 additional set TO BE INCLUDED ON SITE PLANS: 'five ve etation retention mitigation lan, Section 3.05.07.8 ~ clearing Ion va etation inventor , (LOC 1 O.02.03.B.l.i.xil, LDe lO.02.03.B.l.d. Aerial photographs {taken within the previous 12 months min. scaled 1"-200'), showing FLUCCS Codes, le end, and ro'ect boundar Preserve management pion "'.15 *"'15 **15 Boundary & topographic survey (1 of 7 signed & sealed) per LOC 1 0.02.03.B.l.b.li.(e) (LESS THAN 6 MONTHS OLD) Including opinion of title or property owner statement/Affidavit per lDC 10.02.03.B.l.b.ii.(e) Notarized letter of authorization from property owner desigFlating applicant as agent (lDC 10.02.03.B.1.0) Recorded Deed or contract for sole (LOC 10.02.03.B.l.0.) (non~recorded deeds or Propert Ap raiser rint-outs will not be aece ted PUD monitorin re art Pro ert 10 number and Ie 01 description Fee Calculation Worksheet & Review fees, signed landscape Plans (signed & sealed), (lOC 10.02.03. B.1.o.) (lDC 4.06) Irrigation Plans (LOC 1 0.02.03.B.l.c) (lDC 4.06) 7 7 a n o. June 24, 2008 Page 21 of 52 NOT REQUIRED IS 15 IS IS IS 1 1 I I I 1 1 X X X X X &I\.~ cA-t ..\) 7 X X X 2 4 1 I X X X X X Page 2 of 9 G:\CurrentIPre-Application Forms 2006\SDP-SDPA Site Development Plan Pre-application. doc Aaenda Item No. 10A June 24, 200 Page IilOpf 5 REQUIRED / For projects subiect to Architectural Review: Architectural pions must be 1 /S" scale minimum (signed & sealed), including 1 color rendering, (LDC 1 0.02.03.B.1.II.1.) including, 6 '" Every Fo~ade of each building must be shown on Architectural pIons ~ Building cross sections or typical woll sections (LDC 5.05.0B.C.l 0 and LDC 05.0B.E.3) ~ Dumpster details, heigh1, material and color (LDC 5.05.0B.E.3) ~ Ligh1 pole details or cut sheet, height, material and color (LDC 5.05.0B.E.6) '" Color paint chips and roof color paint chips or samples (lDC 5.05.08.C.S.a) w' Floor plans and building elevations o This project qualifies for 0 separate "Alternative Architectural Design" submiffal per S.OS.OB.F. Additional fees ($500.00) and submittal a plication is re uired. For proiects not subiect to Architectural Review: For projects not requiring architectural review; Floor plans and elevations with dimensions. This information, showing floor orea 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. showina floor area bv use is intended onlv to determine that the us@ is comoatible with the %anino. establish oarkina reauirements and show buildina heiaht meetina Code. If the project is nof 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 drawin s are not needed. INEE'UNG.I,.ORMWAJER"*~'.''''~''l';;ii.i'ii::,,,,".,,''h'#I/' 'II.. '~~"'I' '''1'0''''.' .' <i2~"~,".' '''',.. ""'ow .~;,,':Jtf <,,", "'~'" '1"" r."" "'\~~~!'" ' w ,,\~';:ii;!li'~J. '''< .. '''' " ~1W' "",^t~~1'" ")~7",'*',),',." ,! '0"" <.i,~;;':';f:; . " i"/W'-"i..4' ''',';. ", '"'."~"";1"",1?,:_''';~:::'''~',::,,,,,"' < ::,:::,1:-~lh:~ ,);'::~.."iili_'c';":;;':",0'~IL~;_~ri1~'~-""""^' ",'~?",~:;.,:,h'v"'tip_,t.".,,,,,,,,~,^,,_,,,, :;;c,i":--\'""-:,,,,;, ,<<I<, Drainage colaJlations signed and sealed by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Florida Estimated cost of construction of Roadwa s, Pavin & Draina e SFWMD permit, permit modification, or waiver (lDC 1 O.02.03.B.l.j.) including staff report exhibits .... Engineer's Report with Assumptions & Explanations per Ord. 2001-57 include 25-yeor 3-day storm routin Excavation permit a Iication H draulic Grade Line Pi e calculations for culverts li htin Plan multi-famil Engineering Review Checklist Signed by a Professional Engineer 3 ./' 1 " 3 ,/ I '. 4 ,/' Estimated cost of utilities construction, Water & Sewer calculations signed & sealed by 0 Professional En ineer licensed in the State of Florida IF COLLIER COUNTY. Engineer's Report, signed & sealed, containing the following: ./ Sewer Hydraulics ./ Lift station hydraulics to first downstream master station ./ lift station buoyancy calculations ./ Chloramine Dissipation Report ./ Fixture Count Water and or Sewer availabilit letter Fixture Count DEP vtilit installation ermits (woter sewer flOC 10.02.03,8.1 :.i Utility Review Olecklist 3 Page 3 of 9 G:\Current\Pre-Application Forms 2006\SDP-SDPA Site Development Plan Pre-application. doc '. Environment 1m act Statement - rinted copies Environment 1m oct Statement in electronic format Conservation easement inc:luding signed and sealed legal desaiption and boundary survey for preserve - include protective language, sketch and description in construction plans; contact review staff for current version (attoa. cover letter to documents) listed Species Survey; less thon 12 months old. Include copies of previous surveys 'f' Fire Flow Test from Fire Department (no more than 6 months old), (lOe lO.02.03.B.l.b.ii.(d}(ii) 2 Location of existin and fa osed fire h drants 2 Information in the Standard Building Code, type of construction, total square footage under roof, occuponcy fuse, fire sprinkler doto (NFPA 1141 I, (LDe 1 O.02.03.B.1.ii.d.) PLEASE INCLUDE THIS INFORMATION ON EITHER THE COVER PAGE OR SHEET 1 OF THE SITE PLANS S'CO' -C-ompleted Certificote of Adequate Public Facilities Application (LDel 0.02.07), including the plication fee and estimated Transportation Impad Fee calculations. Review b Utili BUlin is uired for verification of trash container virements If located in RFMU {Rural Frinae Mixed Use} Receivina Land Areas: Applicant must contact Mr. Gerry J. lacavera, State of Florida Division of Forestry @ 239-690-3500 for information regarding "Wildfire Mitigation & Prevention Plan", tOe Section 2.03.08.A.2.0.(b)i.c. 2 x MISCELtANEOU ';'""')l!{,~."!i'.^,~ 1i;:fi!,g!~l:t~"!mii!>>>ft"~"",, Other required permits: Applicant/Agent Signature Daf. Page 4 of 9 G:\Current\Pre-Application Forms 2006\SDP-SDPA Site Development Plan Pre-application.doc Notes required on the SOP: Agenda Item No. 10A June 24, 2008 Page 24 of 52 ra-:'Exotic vegetation as defined by the Collier County Land Development Code shall be removed from the si V;~d 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. tE;'\vegetation to remain shall be protected with approved barricading (detail shown) and barricading will remain Vin place until completion of construction. NOTES: VI ,haJl 11/(.. ~ '1 ll.e~AlLctl \'\A-~ roLruf) IV,..., R.>I.lsTUt(~ S~ ~ PO,L \~S ~nc ~lE F-&E "tths. N.o'1~ 1't:\."'....,,'T ,1,f' ~I S,\WfI !>.l\l.D f\t..LlS'\ lbE 4H ~D? -;-~\<<--, .\>IL('\,~~ 1<:.. I Glt..-~) Lo.l\\"H-IU f'oll""'t t:)al..'S.i6f'\t')bf">'l E,(.(\ ,.~ Pluwt'r<.,t l.urN..t \\\/111)1 liES. {",All'" ~ ~~'i1..\LO \J (J'f 't\+-t. n......L...IO. A L", <;.\'u,- 6;4 C 'FoIL \~l~ S"',,?e ()~ Lal(',"i.t) lot" 1/ ~I" \lE("LttQ.F,,) C::,'\J s.TaL4c..TUD~ 6}..1 'Tlt-E euTu1.e fGLI= ~l.tsT %1: SHOWN. (U ~ul1. 1,)fl-1~ NA~ ~I'" N No'S ~l )\Iv\~~~ Po."-lE"'> \ 1'N (\~ - N~ f.\.f>t::::~~f'H-F!J ~~FF'\ ~A V\A..~ "E\'\.'l;~'r\.",e..nictl &'N,'Ce~: - r.leo.S"C. ~Rs;)'I";ck 0...... -\-1-14> c()hSfRuc.;~.h..1(a"... yJo;-e.s: "q,'" ~ .. eo" Q.S ~ h cJ:olrf> t - ?Rl:::>\{;~ ""FLvccS Cock. (~e-€.. Ih.V'Cn1-o R.'f) ova ~ CVR.Q.n-.t aC..R.\Q. \ ; ~sc:J(.\("t.. ~R-cA: Pl~f Lctbt..l .the. P!l...seR.'I-e. o...k~~I\ccbB~* rR.<.ten.\r-t" ~d tL~-\~~e.:s ~u R-\L"-f...Y ~ d~~~ih~ ~~ Q,y-..J "-t.dd:o..~~ l ~o(.~~~~.~ . .. ~~Rovld-e.~ ,1:.:&.)>cu.r.<.RVe.- M~~"nCK\f 'p'ratl-\.~ ..'"".~ .s:fu.)k.1) ~. ~~ CQe~ D{ b~. Fmt-fs- Agenda Item No. 10A June 24, 2008 Page 25 of 52 NOTES: hie: (j) ~",-a.c/ i'rtP"'I/El)~I!7~~~/.J(~Z") w rtr'lJ~ .?~~ ar~.,. $6e>'cz.Jn;7!-;' (jJ &4:k,f.:-.J .f~,1.4 i1 rE" ~' ~ {' FJ7"aL -;e, Ca>~ O~ IkA~fir ('/if;P J7t+) / . I ' ,t4J/~! '1.tJ T'I~ tJ f?lj;::~--tC Aw"v4 II N.4'j Z9 ~!-/t:~.b ~ -:C;i'y737rJ PA/2/(ld4 Ar A-t:V1//L/, !3UIt-J(}.-v4-Au oTHt-dL BtJPFae..5C/?:-~/"'n?7b--rZ) /cl" 7YPL:r'4 ' --rR/-~b)( {~)p/f//75 b/IU '&--cp..#~ot..l/~tJ//v,::> ;:OvlVOAno.r.J /JL1NTINtr/P..cI1s(li:R era-I: 2006 MbM::?J AtJ/t,,J/ L./f(../lI-IMy * n.4//vT: CUIt.-.it?-; ~THE.re TI'I~ ?I~LE ~ ~"J/1.&~ ,.(>6-3/0,\ ~cJ h2O, 8.F:l?A, - UE#,{t.J1-4,e t/5~ ~/2~ &e:;VIREf) Fd/2 ,,4-u ;3vI/.-i!J1MJ> THAT I/'-bu{.;,j i?eReQ (/ n t#?VC G;;:;f?4, -/lEAse /r,att//LJE" ExJ>T/~t; vEZt?T/JrranJ/lU/tl-'Td"c'l 7V - tt:JC'77h,J ~A.J~.-9~ ,c::-hl!)1 T5 "7ZJw~5 ffc~7/"-"'0 ;"ft/N, CO~e- ReQ , b'n.viROUM ElJff\.L -SEl<'vr'ct.,. _YRovic:X. Q.. ~u.)~-t ([t'.:tk~l ju."\-kflihtf -l-he.. Rf'a...\o,,", ~ ~(Q:).ic-<:.t .~hou(~ ~ 4'X:e.h-..t'+ {?R.crr.. ~ f~,,~ RiQ'r\'m~tQ.L~L - oS" uo ~ \O~~ ~.e.C.-ttOh 10 - o~- oa. - t:.. '7 o~ -tk-t.... 10trJt -:b(,Ve.\9p't'T'\{A., \" ~~- - ~nllCL ;J0 R.~ ~Q~ ~i-k. ',s, K:~';)t~ R~-L .,fn.f'>'rn mVl'll ,,: ve. ~ 0\; c.'\ p\ an-. -\ s ~~I\Z4).JSPO'R- i4'Tlo,o - n: ""f1-lEu:.AtE. tJo *bJ>ITJ~ ,..,j::>~- '5"~ t\ I, A us TTel:... s.-.,A.-nAJG THe NlJtI~ ~ ()AJI'T"- '"f)CIEto~'T ,-'-'c.tl5o(Soe OL I~Ao..e I" 1-/<"110' '.E.. T~ }lV~L ~ S l~ F"l"l,.... V""T~ , "'(;t;s ,<:err ,,...."-~~ 'T.."'" T~ o-YE:~LL "",,v"-'T S. '111 '-s:4"1I\.y)!i A)b v ~c- (.I1fAc.T ~T476"'''''-'r WOV~ .:;1~ N~C€"s;..,tJI/. 11= 1?,t:V'/e(..::)(!;':f:>. 4s. -r;;;." ).ca; ':;)'? \...I"..,.rt--'t:> IS "\fpl... C4~LE;(t.:D'- 6.a. Ds) / ?LE-A~ ~t<m4CT 1\~?S Hu LLEJt@. CoLL-I~()'1I. 1>'E.7 i='o1C:..- 'S tl>G""~"lC ~V'~M<=NT~. Agenda Item No. 10A June 24, 2008 Page 26 of 52 NOTES: YLII. f-lult.1l_ \Ue U 1\1 E. t' 'n \\ tJ tAlI I I iA.\' I::: ON ( ~ ^.\ ~ I \ C...... \A-r...-s. ~aM 1>-5. kF- t>-'\ 1'rtf M.a 't"1A./ ~ 'tl-Vt:. M'Y 1 _ """.1 C~A-I(. !ff:\vl"-. (,v\..l-F'~ 'i\.l.-.f:'1 l')vTE\2..tw..\M.~ T1.::) ~..- MAil _~___.__ ~l'>\.A) -t\rS' '1 IA)\ <....\1 '1(:) p\t.o (..l==~c.......... jI,.."'D ~11A\eE<;'c:::... 'r\H' ~~I \CA-MI "'1\-1.1<:" ~1l.A'I~.I'.::r Iv-A-:..... ,t..,rt-"-IC'I,J.!;.Il.1E , \ Fee Calculation Worksheet - Site Development Plans Agenda Item NO.1 OA Residentialonlv: $5,000.00 Plus $100 per residential structure, plus $40 per dwelling unit $ Number of Buildings:_ Number of DIU: .J Non-residential onlv: $5,000.00 Plus $200 per non-residential structure, plus $0.10 per sq.fl. $ Number of Buildings:_ Total Square footage: o 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 unn $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 01 floor area (sq.ft. x$0.10) (sq. ft. )($0.05) $ $200 Fire review $ Residential onlV: $2,500 Plus $100 per residential structure plus $40 per dwelling unit $ Number of Buildings: Number of D/U: o Non-residential onlv: $2,500 Plus $200 per non-residential structure, plus $0.10 per sq. fl. $ Number of Buildings: Total Square footage: o 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 unn $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. )($0.10) (sq. fl. x$0.05) $ o $150 Fire review $ Construction document review - 0.75% of probable roadway, paving & drainage construction costs Cost Estimate $ $ ~ Construction inspection - 2.25% of probable roadway, paving & drainage construction costs Cost Estimate $ $ o $20 Environmental Health Review Fee, if applicable $ (grease trap, septic tank or underground storage tank) o $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) . . Construction document review - 0.75% of probable water/sewer construction costs Cost Estimate $ $ o Construction inspection - 2.25% of probable water/sewer construction costs Cost Estimate $ $ g Methodology Review - $ 500.00 o Minor Study Review - $ 750.00 11= NO l' l~ IS- te~ 1 ~ 5-+"'F." (Yo/' o Major Study Review - $1,500.00 1....p""t..T5./ T"''''-I./ ,....,,,. I, lv/I+- Right-of-way Permit- contact Transportation (774-8260) for required fees (submit this directly to the Transportation Department) r ~ ~ $2,500 Environmen19llmpact Statement review O.~$l,ClOO I..;s-\ed .s~c.le.s .5~'R.\(ev """j::'9 COA applica!ion fee $20d '!' $25 per D.U. or pet 1 ,000 sq. fl. commercial ($!i,OOO max.) IF A1:>t> L T~f+,c. ()1f'A'-7$~"IS-r. I<"/JOT ""J,JeiJrH'<;" I'" ,"A,,,€17. I o Excavation Permit Fees (see next page for calcuiations) 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.) Total Fees Required (Make checks payable to Board of Co. Commissioners or BCC) ~ ,~ f52 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Page 6 of 9 G:\Current\Pre-Application Forms 2006\SDP-SDPA Site Development Plan Pre-application.doc " Agenda Item No. 10A June 24, 2008 Page 28 of 52 Additional Review Fees for SOP (resubmittals): 3rd Review = $1000 4th Review = $1500 5th Review = $2000 6th and subsequent reviews = $2,500 Additional Review Fees for amendments to SOP (resubmittals): 3rd Review = $1000 4th Review = $1500 5th and subsequent reviews = $2,000 Additional Review Fees for Insubstantial Change to SOP (resubmittals): 3rd Review = $1000 4th Review = $1500 5th and subsequent reviews = $2,000 Additional Review Fees for EIS (resubmittals): 3rd Review = $1000 4th 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 staff's 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 Y, hour thereafter. 2. Additional Planning Department staff attending meeting per applicant request, $75.00 per Y, 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 Y, hour thereafter. Page 7 of 9 G:\CurrentIPre-Application Forms 2006\SDP-SDPA Site Development Plan Pre-application. doc EXCAVATION REVIEW FEES Agenda)tem NO.10A Page 29 of 52 REVIEW FEES: o Private: o Commercial: o Development: o Modification: o Annual Renewal $400.00 $2000.00 $400.00 $300.00 $300.00 o Cubic Yardage Fee: $200 first 5000 c.y.; $10 per additiDnal1000 cy; maximum of $20,000.00 o Inspection fee: $150 per month payable yearly at the time of the annual report 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 "CO -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 flDoding for the range of planted elevations with the LSPA; a plant list to include the appropriate range of elevations for each specified 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 infDrmation 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:\Current\Pre-Application Forms 2006\SDP-SDPA Site Development Plan Pre-application.doc SDP/SDPA DATA TABLE, RECOMMENDED FORMAT f ~ ZoninQ. Subject ProperlY & SurroundinQ (example) SUBJECT PROPERTY PUD (Westview Plaza) SURROUNDING N: I (Industrial) E: RSF-3 (Residential) S: Gail Blvd ROW, then E (Estates) W: PUD (Westview Plaza) SITE DATA REQUIRED PROVIDED Setbacks. Interior Lots (example) FRONT YARD 25' SIDE YARD #1 (N') SIDE YARD #2 (S) REAR YARD 15' or Y, BH (BH = 30) 50' 15.5' 15' or Y, BH (BH = 30) 25' 25' (PRESERVE SETBACK") 25' Setbacks. Corner lots/lots havinQ more than one street frontaQs (example) FRONT YARD #1 (NE') 25' 25.5' FRONT YARD #2 (SE) 20' (REDUCED 2ND FY SETBACK 20' PER PUD DOC, SEC 3.4.5") / SIDE YARD #1 (SW) 15' 5.5' SIDE YARD #2 (NW) 15' 30' , Use closest corresponding compass point: N, NW, S, SE, etc. " Explain special yard requirements or allowances & cite PUD document where applicable Separation of structures (example) 15' 17' or 15 'or Y, sum of building heights (SBH) Building height (example) 20' (SBH = 40', Y, x 40' = 20') 75' 50' Residential minimum floor area (example) 1,200 sq ft 1,850 sq ft . , Page 9 of 9 G:\Current\Pre-Application Forms 2006\SDP-SDPA Site Development Plan Pre-application.doc Pre app Data Sheet Agenda Item No. 10A June 24, 2008 Page 31 of 52 Preliminary: Subject to Confirmation bv Applicant Date of pre app:~ Q") '1: Hch1\ Applicant: Il.lc~C.q.CI I ~W~ Phone: 'i J:.I'... '1 c:c. :h Issues Discussed: c..J"c>vr. 6"" I. I l"U Projectnarne: ~\ll.I. WbU-t-12..'- \.J\LLt\.(,'€. . Sie.iION tI Firm: f\s'A Called: E. l... I I 11.1 ,olD") f,.l,.s,,\ l\\.i/.\eIL 1 ~~",\U)jl,.~\.E ~O 11 '1IV-~ '"? (please remember to bring complete addressing check-list and check.) Folio number: ODI.3."'lDClClbO "i Type of Application: S:.b\' SIC Check zoning: '( ""- f- C" Permitted use: _ Code(s): Adjacent Use/Zones: N p..'\-k"O E lMl-C. S ~ l#.f'-(" W OMF-C (o.!J '\ Collect the following: Property record: ./" GIS: ---- Zoning map: __ Aerial maps: ./ POO: ~ I -A Ord. #: It 111I Previous SDP Original (include SDP AlSDPI): -HJ 1\ . "etbacks S. f' \>I.I.\>LE.'/.. ,front): I!;' I 5' (rear): 20' lo' (side): ") S' ID' (special): Building Height: ~-:1:.<;;', blJ.hf)l. :h~ Separation: IS' Parking: S:f - 'L \>€-a.. u.~ l'\ ,Du.lL~' 1- *-L u,,,, l'l Overlays/activity center(s): I.f If!. Open space: Notes: .;". v"j\.. 1"..,'\1.. Mctt;.s.D\.~ ~'\ll...l.lal(,1t..l:. 16' f)J.r,~ Sr1Pt:M EtuaD&...L~ IS. ::,.~..s iltLl '-Lt." IJo oU ~ 1....;:'. ~"',,^f 'folZ.. '\) IJ \'ll E'i Contact list when review section does not attend pre app. meeting: Engineering: Steve Seal Stan Chrzanowski Nick Casalanguida Susan Mason Peggy JarreI Ken Abler Craig Callis Bob Wright Bruce McNall Transportation: Environmental: Addressing '.--'~re ~ tiIities' Landscape Architecture 659-5753 659-575 I 417-6064 213-2987 213-2967 403-2498 213-2905 403-2408 213-2398 steveseaI@colliergov.net stanchrzanowski@,coIIiergov.net nickcasalanguida@colliergov.net susanmason@coIIiergov.net peggyj arrel(aJ,co IIiergov .net kenabler@,colliergov.net Bob W rightrglcoIIiergov . net brucemcnall@coIIiergov.net Agenda Item No. 10A June 24, 2008 Page 32 of 52 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT ADDRESSING DEPARTMENT (i) 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 ADDRESSING CHECKLIST Please complete the following and fax to the Addressing Department at 239-659-5724 or submit in person to the Addressing Department at the above address. Form must be signed by Arldressing personnel prior to pre~app1icatjon meeting. Not all items will apply to every project. Items in bold type are required. Forms older than 6 months will require additional review and approval by the Addressing Department. PETITION TYPE (check petit/on type below, complete a separate Addressing Checklist for each Petition Type) o BL (Blasting Permit) o BO (Boat DOCK Extension) o CamivallCircus Permit o CU (Conditional Use) o EXP {Excavation Permit) o FP (Final Plat o lLA (Lot Line Adjustment) o PNC (Project Name Change) o PPL (Plans & Plat Review) o PSP (Preliminary Subdivision Plat) o PUD Rezone o RZ (Standard Rezone) o SOP (Site Oevelopm"nt PIBn) o SOPA (SDP Amendment) o SDPI (Insubstantial Change to SDP) o SIP (Site Improvement Plan) o SIPI (Insubstantial Change 10 SIP) o SNR (Street Name Change) o SNC (Street Name Chanye - Unpl""~d) o TOR (Transfer of Development Rights) o VA (Variance) o VRP (Vegetation Removal Permit) o VRSFP (Vegetation Removal & Site Fill Permit) o OTHER LEGAL DESCRIPTION of subject property or properties (copy of lengthy description may be attached) 11 4729 SW1/4 of NE1/4, LESS S 60 FT RNV, SE1/4 OF NE1/4 80 AC OR 483 PG 372 & 681 PG .1995 LESS PEDESTRIAN OVERPASS SR 29 FOLIO (Property 10) NUMBER(s) of obovo (attach to, orOGsoe/oto with, logol doscripUon if moro thon one) 00137000009 STREET ADDRESS or ADDRESSES (as applicabl". if a/reaay assigned) 8808 ANISE LN, IMMOKALEE, FL 34142 . LOCATION MAP must be allached showing exact iocation ofprojecllsite in reiation to nearest public road right-of.way . SURVEY (copy - needed only for unplatted properties) PROPOSED PROJECT NAME (if applicablo) FARM WORKER VILLAGE SECTION A PROPOSED STREET NAMES (if applicable) SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NUMBER (for axisting projects/snas only) SOP. ___._. .________ or AR # Page 1 of2 Agenda Item No. 10A .June 24, 2008 Page 33 of 52 ADDRESSING CHECKLIST - PAGE TWO Project e>r development names proposed for, or already appearing in, condominium documents (if application: indicate whether proposed or eKlsling) Please Check One: [2] Checklist is to be Faxed back o Personally Picked Up APPUCANT NAME: RICHARD G. LEWIS, P .E. PHONE: 239-936-4003 FAX: 239-936-0819 Signature on Addressing Checklist does not constitute Project andlDr Street Name approval and is subject to further review by the Addressin9 Department. FOR STAFF USE ONLY Primary Number Address Number Address Number Address Number Approved by: Date: Updated by: Date: IF OLDER THAN 6 MONTHS, FORM MUST BE UPDATED OR NEW FORM SUBMITTED Page 2 of 2 G:\Currenl\Applicalion Fonns\Addressing Checklist rev 020207.doc C) " z j:: w w :e ... 0 _w ... <( Q bJl c D = C ~ 0 U ~ N II> diI ~ - II> (U 0 QI r:-l ~ =s - "D C ~. QI "D C <( = - 't2 ~ ~ VJ. D D ':C :E .oi: ~ QI I C\.; ~ Q W Sf .. u := 0 ~ Z ..! '" .0;. < ~ ..::s:: I (U '2 lroI (.J ~ .. ~ ~ II> ~ ";; "- 0 N Q 0- N I 0 M ~ - U N a: 0- W M Z N Z <( ~ .... QI ll. .Q Q C ;) W Z Z C> QI Vi C 0 ~ .c <( Cl.. <(~~ N o en """: a o " z~ 01 E 1 OJ OJ 0) _ <1l -;;.= n. " iii Cll <( ~ QI ";; QI a: - C QI C W ,:E <( z g i'i ~ '" ,; i!! ~ !e co -ij Q) '" 'S: Q) ~ " o 'C 0> '0; l> ;; Q) -" (/) .s " '" u; W ...J u: a. o ~ Ii: ~ ~ g W a: ~ Q Q <( .... < :E I W '... ,a: g1 W ra ~ :E ;:) I Z ~ W i;J Z I 0 \l' :J: ~ - ll. .... I~ ~ I~:E j ~ !l2! ~ ., >... 2i ~ >- 0 .... z ;:) o u ~ - lD ~~ COCUER COUI'lTY HOUSING AUTHORI1Y OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FUND . . A/C NO. EMPlDYEE NO. II. t;> -'-.1+...,...... 1>.1.... -ff'\^ .. . , EXPLANATION OF YOUR EARNINGS WE PAID OUT THE ITEMS LISTED BELOW FOR YW ne 4, 2008 .. ~ERIOD ENDING TOTA.L Page 54r AMOUNT OVERTIME EARNINGS F.I.CA HOlm RATE EARNEDA.T AND TAX WIlHHOl.OfNG TOTAL DEDUCTIONS OF CHECK .- REGUl.AARATE OTHER - CODE DR. CR. PRE-APPLICATION hlannn t;nn hn , MEETING 12/04/07 , , , , , , . : . , , , , , , , DETACH AND RETAIN THIS STATEMENT THE ATTACHED CHECK IS IN PII\'tMENT OF 1ttMS DESCRIBED BELOW IF NOT CORRECT P\..EASE NOTIFY US PROMPTL't NO RECEIPT DESIRED. COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY 1 BOO FARM WORKERS WAY IMMOKALEE, FLORIDA 34142 941-657--3649 32230 63-392-67D DECEMBER 3, 2007 PAY TO THE OROER OF BCC I $ 500.00 FIVE HUNDRED AND ................................ MP FLORIDA COMMUNITY BANK IMMOKALEE. FLORIDA 34142 11'0:12 nOli' 1:01;700:1'1271: 5'" 500"'OB 7110 \ Agenda Item No. 10A June 24, 2008 Page 36 of 52 May 19, 2008 From: Craig Davis, Planner Jane, We can't accept and review another submittal of the plans. Please see the paragraph below taken from my response to Regina dated April 23, 2008. In order for Susan to prepare the Executive Summary in time for the Board hearing, we need your input as described below as soon as possible. How soon do you think you'll be able to get that to us? Regina, the following are the comments received from reviewers in regards to the conceptual plans you have provided and are based solely on the information provided. Please be aware that what you gave us was more a conceptual plan than a formal SDP submittal, and that staff reviewed it as such. The actual SDP submittal will be more detailed and could result in additional comments, and the need for additional deviations. Staffs response is based entirely on what you submitted. Please identify individually all staff comments below you wish to deviate from. In your response to this e-mail, please enumerate each requested deviation and~ in bullet format, why it's being requested, and what, if any, alternative, compensating or mitigating measures you propose. If none, please state that. This is most likely what will be given to the Board with the Executive Summary. If all deviations have not been identified and approved by the BCC, staff's formal review will otherwise require the project to be Code compliant. Craig R. Davis Planner Department of Zoning and Land Development Review Phone (239)-252-2927 Fax (239)-530-6356 eraigdavis@eolliergov.net From: Kelly, Jane L. [mailto:JKelly@hsa-env.com] Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 12:53 PM To: daviscraig Subject: Farm Worker Village (4519-03-00) Craig, We are ready to respond to the Collier County comments regarding the Farm Worker Village project. In our last submittal to Collier County,we sent you 15 sets of drawings. Is that the number of drawings we should submit to you again? Also, how many copies or originals of our response letter do you need? Thank you for your help. Jane Kelly HSA Engineers & Scientists (239) 936-4003 Agenda Item No. 10A June 24, 2008 Page 37 of 52 From: daviscraig [mailto:CraigOavis@colliergov.netj Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 11:46 AM To: Britton, Regina M. Cc: Istenes5usan; gochenaur_r; soter_c Subject: RE: Farm Worker Village (4519-03-00) Regina, the following are the comments received from reviewers in regards to the conceptual plans you have provided and are based solely on the information provided. Please be aware that what you gave us was more a conceptual plan than a formal SOP submittal, and that staff reviewed it as such. The actual SOP submittal will be more detailed and could result in additional comments, and the need for additional deviations. Staffs response is based entirely on what you submitted. Please identify individually all staff comments below you wish to deviate from. In your response to this e-mail, please enumerate each requested deviation and, in bullet format, why it's being requested, and what, if any, alternative, compensating or mitigating measures you propose. If none, please state that. This is most likely what will be given to the Board with the Executive Summary. If ail deviations have not been identified and approved by the BCC, staffs formal review will otherwise require the project to be Code compliant. Planning- Craig Davis: 1) 00 the requested deviations apply to only Section A and not to Sections B-E? 2) Some uses on the property (such as grocery store and day-care facility) are not permitted uses in RMF-6 and must be approved by the BCC to continue. 3) The day-care facility must have an adequate (safe) drop-off and pick-up area. 4) The required parking for multi-family units is 1.75 per unit for a total of 105 required spaces not 80. S) Separation in RMF-6 zoning is 15' or Y, the sum of the building heights, whichever is greater. 6) This project is a multi-family development. Only the RMF-6, multi-family development standards apply. The single-family and duplex development standards do not apply to this project. 7) The required rear yard setback is 20' not 25'. 8) The addition of the 24sq.ft. -100sq.ft.laundry areas (renovated units only) will change the building footprints. These additions cannot create or increase non-conforming setbacks or building separations. 9) If this is a phased project (Phase 1 and Phase 2 within Section A) the phase lines must be shown. Utility Review- Craig Callis 1) Provide water and sewer availability letter. Structural Plans Reviewer- James Fleming 1) Provide (on the SOP) the building code in effect at the time of construction and the equivalent FBC 2004 with the 2006 Supplements type of construction. Addressing- Peggy Jarrell 1) Buildings and units must be numbered and street names approved. Water Management- Steve Seal 1) A copy of the SFWMO Permit Mod. must be submitted. 2) All parking areas with 90 degree will require wheel stops and a minimum 24' drive aisle. 3) Stop signs are required at all exits from parking areas and cul-de-sac side streets. 4) An Erosion Control Plan will be required for all new construction. S) Plans must be signed and sealed by a P.E. Fire Review- Ken Abler Agenda Item NO.1 OA June 24, 2008 Page 38 of 52 1) Per Ordinance 2005-32 Amend subsection of NFPA 1 to read - An approved turn around for fire apparatus shall be provided where an access road is a dead end and in excess of 150ft. in length. The turnaround shall have a minimum centerline radius of 40ft, The grade surface and location of the fire lane shall be approved by the authority having jurisdiction. At least one elevation of each building shall be accessible to the fire department. IE: It shall be 40ft. from the center of the turnaround to the center of the roadway, so with a 20ft, minimum road the turnaround shall measure a minimum 100ft. from road edge to road edge across the diameter. 2) Fire access roads shall be a minimum 20ft, In clear width. Stormwater Management- Robert Wiley 1) I have reviewed the three drawings submitted for the Farm Workers Village proposed rehabilitation of the original Phase A. There was no information provided on the location, capacity, design criteria, or current operating condition of any stormwater management facilities for this proposed application. As stated in the pre-application meeting, redevelopment projects now have to address the provision of stormwater management facilities at a rate of 150% of the normal water quality treatment requirement. Before I can make an assessment of their project, I need the basic existing facilities information provided. Based upon the amount of demolition, new construction, and rehabilitation, it appears that they exceed the threshold, and will require them to provide a properly designed stormwater management system, Also, knowing the capacity constraints of the SR-29 canal, I would not recommend a deviation from County's maximum allowable discharge rate of 0,15 cfs/acre, but would consider a deviation from the findings of the Immokalee Stormwater Master Plan study that recommended a maximum allowable discharge rate of 0.05 cfs/acre. Transportation Engineering- Russ Muller 1) The applicant will need to upgrade the ADA accessibility standards outlined in the Fair Housing Act Design Manual. 2% parking and sidewalk connections to the buildings and the public road (SR29) for transit. Transportation Pathways- David Buchheit 1) Build a 5 foot sidewalk on one side of the road on Farm Worker way and Alexander Circle. 2) The code would require a 5 foot sidewalk on both sides of all roads or payment in lieu. Landscape- Bruce McNall 1) The applicant has asked for a deviation from all buffer requirements and has stated the following in the application under 'Required Deviations' pertaining to landscape buffers. 2) "No buffers currently exist. Required buffers can be established without deviation for dimensions. Deviation needed to avoid additional planting, Handicap parking as required" Staff interprets this to mean the required buffer width has been established but that the required plant material will not be provided, North Buffer Required 15' Type 'B' LDC 4.06,02 East Buffer Required 10' Type 'A' LDC 406.01 South Buffer Required 10' Type 'A' LDC 4,06.01 West Buffer Required 10' Type 'A' LDC 4,06.01 3) Additional landscape requirements are: a) Vehicular use area requirement for parking LDC 4.06,03.B.1. and 2, b) Provide curbing around radii and landscape Islands LDC 4,06,03.B, 1. c) Building foundation perimeter landscaping for multi-family developments LOC 4,06,05BA. and 5, No deviations have been proposed for the additional requirements listed above. Transportation Operations- John Podczerwinsky 1, Curbing requirement- Stated as LDC 6.06.01 by the applicant. Staff agrees, and recommends that adherence to the requirements for curbing is not necessary on a rural road. Agenda Item No. 10A June 24, 2008 Page 39 of 52 2. Pavement Width- Stated as LOC 6.06.01 by the applicant. Staff agrees, and recommends that adherence to anything greater than the 20' minimum driveway width is not necessary on a rural street. 3. Cul-de-sac radius- Stated as LOC 4.02.04 by the applicant. Staff agrees, but defers review to Fire Code Review. Little or no truck traffic is anticipated in this neighborhood that would require the larger radii. However, Transportation staff recommends meeting the minimum radius requirements of the local fire district in any areas where existing pavement is being removed and replaced. or where any new pavement is installed. 4. Access Lighting- Stated as LOC 6.06.03 by the applicant. Staff'disagrees, and recommends adherence to access lighting requirements. However, if the minimum lighting ievels stated by the LOC and/or IES RP-8-00 are greater than required, then staff recommends the deviation can be accepted in part. in this case, staff recommends that at least the project's intersections and pedestrian facilities (crosswalks) are lit to the minimum standards. Also, we have the following recommendations that are not noted in the deviation request table in these plans: 1) Any existing speed bumps should be removed and replaced with "speed humps" as recommended by NTMP guidelines. 2) The throat width at the 'accessory structure' parking lot entrance on Farmworker Way (lower left corner of sheet C400) should have a maximum throat width of 24' to facilitate safe vehicular movement in and out of the parking iot. Environmental- Chris 0' Arco 1) Environmental comments are based on this project being submitted as an SOP. Environmental staff will require preservation of all the existinq native veqetation currently on site. The site cannot become more legally non-conforming (LOC requirement). As an SOP the remaining vegetation would need a preserve management plan, listed species survey, exotic note etc. and if the land is Collier County owned, protective covenants on the plans. If not owned by the county, then a CE would be required over the preserve. 2) The applicant will also need to show on the plans if any county or district (if wetlands are present) preserves/easements were set aside at the time of development. 3) The easiest route for the applicant to go is to leave the native vegetation as is if possible. If some vegetation needs to be impacted, then recreation will be required. If the applicant chooses to apply for offsite retention for preserves under one acre, then any state easements that may exist would need to be vacated and the SOP would not be approved until all offsite requirements were met for the county and whatever offsite mitigation/permit modifications the state may require is fulfilled. Offsite retention would only be an option once it is put forth in the LOC (later on this summer possibly) as an SOP. If the applicant wants to consider offsite retention now, this would need to be rezoned to a PUO first since this is allowed under the current GMP. Architectural- Bruce McNall- 1) At this time no architectural deviations have been requested for the non-residential structures on this site. Craig R. Davis Planner Department a/Zoning and Land Development Review Phone (239)-252-2927 Fax (239)-530-6356 craigdavis@colliergov.net From: 8ritton, Regina M. [mailto:RBritton@hsa-env.com] Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 1:11 PM Agenda Item No. 10A June 24, 2008 Page 40 of 52 To: daviscraig Cc: Kelly, Jane L. Subject: RE: Farm Worker Village (4519-03-00) Thank you Craig! Regina M. Britton, P. E. Civil Department Manager HSA ENGINEERS & SCIENTISTS A member of the CRA-HSA Family of Companies 1520 Royal Palm Square Boulevard Suite 260 Fort Myers, Florida 33919 T el.-(239)936-4003 Fax-(239i936-0819 From: daviscraig [mailto:CraigDavis@coiliergov.netj Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 1 :07 PM To: Britton, Regina M. Subject: RE: Farm Worker Village (4519-03-00) I've received the plans for Farm Worker Village; i'1I contact you if we have any questions. Thanks Craig R. Davis Planner Department of Zoning and Land Development Review Phone (239)-252-2927 Fax (239)-530-6356 craigdavis@colliergov.net From: daviscraig Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 10:01 AM To: 'Britton, Regina M.' Subject: RE: Farm Worker Village (4519-03-00) Regina, does this meeting have an impact on our discussions of the SOP and the role of the BeC in this project? Is anything required on our part? Craig R. Davis Planner Department of Zoning and Land Development Review Phone (239)-252-2927 Fax (239)-530-6356 erai gdavis@colliergov.net Agenda Item No. 10A June 24, 2008 Page 41 of 52 From: EssieS630@aol.com [mailto:EssieS630@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 11:54 AM To: RBritton@hsa-env.com; daviscraig ee: DLewis@hsa-env.com; JKeliy@hsa-env.com; davidm@mooreandspence.com; bcacch ione@comcast.net Subject: Re: Farm Worker Village (4519-03-00) I went ahead and told Marcy Krumbine with the county that we would not make it for the Affordable Housing Commission this Monday, April 7th... they had already sent out the agenda to the commission members. The change of meeting date and iocation happened as the iast item on the agenda at their March meeting, which I recall ieaving just a few minutes before. . The meetings have been moved to the first Monday of the month at 3 p.m. at the Board of County Commissioners board room located at the main government building at 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida. Marcy has added us to the May meeting agenda. Essie Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides. Agenda Item No. 10A June 24, 2008 Page 42 of 52 ~HSA ENGINEERS & SCIENTISTS A member of the CRA Family of Companies May 21, 2008 Collier County Government Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 Horseshoe Drive North Naples, Florida 34104 Attention: Craig R. Davis, Planner (239)-252-2927 RE: Farm Worker Village - Phase A Rehabilitation Immokalee, Florida Responses to Collier County Staff Comments regarding Conceptual Plan (Email from your office dated April 23, 2008) HSA Project No.: 4519-03-00 Planning- Craig Davis: 1) Do the requested deviations apply to only Section A and not to Sections B-E? Response: The deviations will apply to all Sections. 2) Some uses on the property (such as grocery store and day care facility) are not permitted uses in RMF-6 and must be approved by the BCC to continue. Response: Acknowledged. Based upon the original site plans of Section A prepared by Gundersen & Wilson Architects in 1971, the laundry facility, office, day care, maintenance and utility buildings were approved as part of the development. Approved plans for the remaining sections also show day care facilities, laundry facilities, a post office and community center. We will ask the BCC for approval to allow all of these facilities, as well as the store, to remain and continue to serve their intended function. 3) The day care facility must have an adequate (safe) drop-off and pick-up area. Response: The day care facilities (in all Sections) have adequate areas designated for drop off and pick up. Please note that these facilities are licensed and regularly inspected; Department of Children and Families comes quarterly, the County Health Department every other month, the Fire Marshal annually, plus the monthly visits by local area management teams to ensure the safety of the children being served. Striping can be added to the parking lot to direct traffic and designate walkways if necessary. 4) The required parking for multi-family units is 1.75 per unit for a total of 105 required spaces not 80. Response: Acknowledged. We will provide the code required parking spaces for all new construction. We plan to add one additional space for each duplex and www.hsa-env.com Client Focused. Solution Oriented. Quality Driven 1520 Royal Palm Square Boulevard, Suite 260 . Fort Myers, Florida 33919 Tel: (239) 936-4003 or (239) 936-0789 . Fax: (239) 936-0819 Offices in: Cape Canaveral. Charleston. Ft. Myers. Hilton Head. Orlando. Pensacola. Savannah. Tampa. West Palm Beach Collier County Government Farm Worker Village Phase A Rehabilitation Responses to Collier County Staff Comments ==-= regarding Conceptual Plan ~ HSA Project # 4519-03-00 May 21,2008 Page 2 of 10 Agenda Item No. 10A June 24, 2008 Page 43 of 52 triplex building (not per unit). We are requesting a "partial" deviation from providing the amount of code required parking spaces for existing and/or renovated units for the following reasons: a. extra parking is available in the existing store parking lot and a truck/guest parking lot across the street from the store. b. the additional cost for this requirement would reduce our ability fiscally to make the necessary improvements to the existing units. 5) Separation in RMF-6 zoning is 15' or Y, the sum of the building heights, whichever is greater. Response: Acknowledged. All existing units meet this requirement and all new units will also. No deviation is requested. 6) This project is a multi-family development. Only the RMF-6, multi-family development standards apply. The single-family and duplex development standards do not apply to this project. Response: Acknowledged. We will comply with the multi-family development standards. 7) The required rear yard setback is 20' not 25'. Response: Acknowledged. All existing units meet this requirement and all new units will also whenever possible. We are requesting a deviation to allow the laundry room additions to the existing/renovated units to encroach into the setback areas where necessary for the following reason: the existing units currently meet the required setback and separation distances but most likely will not, regardless of where on the unit (side or back) we provide the laundry additions. 8) The addition of the 24sq.ft. - 100 sq. ft. laundry areas (renovated units only) will change the building footprints. These additions cannot create or increase non-conforming setbacks or building separations. Response: Acknowledged. All new units will meet this requirement. We are requesting a deviation to allow the laundry room additions to the existing/renovated units to encroach into the setback areas where necessary for the following reason: the existing units currently meet the required setback and separation distances but most likely will not regardless of where on the unit (side or back) we provide the laundry additions. 9) If this is a phased project (Phase 1 and Phase 2 within Section A) the phase lines must be shown. Response: Section A will not be a phased project. Collier County Government Farm Worker Village Phase A Rehabilitation Responses to Collier County Staff Comments ==-= regarding Conceptuai Pian ~ HSA Project # 4519-03-00 May 21,2008 Page 3 of 10 Agenda Item NO.1 OA June 24, 2008 Page 44 of 52 Utility Review- Craig Callis: 1) Provide water and sewer availability letter. Response: Acknowledged. We will provide a water and sewer availability letter. No deviation is requested. Structural Plans Reviewer- James Fleming: 1) Provide (on the SDP) the building code in effect at the time of construction and the equivalent FBC 2004 with the 2006 Supplements type of construction. Response: We will provide this information on the SOP. No deviation is requested. Addressing- Peggy Jarrell: 1) Buildings and units must be numbered and street names approved. Response: Acknowledged. We will obtain approval of proposed unit numbers and street names. No deviation is requested. Water Management- Steve Seal: 1) A copy of the SFWMD Permit Modification must be submitted. Response: Acknowledged. We will submit a copy of a SFWMO Permit Modification before approval of an SOP. No deviation is requested. 2) All parking areas with 90 degree will require wheel stops and a minimum 24' drive aisle. Response: We will provide a minimum 24' drive aisle for all new parking areas. We are requesting a deviation for wheel stops for the following reasons: the rest of the development does not have them there will be little landscaping to protect the additional cost for this requirement would reduce our ability fiscally to make the necessary improvements to the existing units 3) Stop signs are required at all exits from parking areas and cul-de-sac side streets. Response: Acknowledged. We will provide stop signs at all exits from parking areas and cul-de-sac side streets. 4) An Erosion Control Plan will be required for all new construction. Response: Acknowledged. We will prepare an erosion control plan for all new construction. 5) Plans must be signed and sealed by a P.E. Response: Acknowledged. All plans will be signed and sealed by a P.E. Agenda Item No. 10A June 24, 2008 Page 45 of 52 Fire Review- Ken Abler: 1) Per Ordinance 2005-32 Amend subsection of NFPA 1 to read - An approved turn around for fire apparatus shall be provided where an access road is a dead end and in excess of 150ft. in length. The turnaround shall have a minimum centerline radius of 40ft. The grade surface and location of the fire lane shall be approved by the authority having jurisdiction. At least one elevation of each building shall be accessible to the fire department. IE: It shall be 40ft. from the center of the turnaround to the center of the roadway, so with a 20ft. minimum road the turnaround shall measure a minimum 100ft. from road edge to road edge across the diameter. Response: Acknowledged. All existing cul-de-sacs meet these criteria and all proposed roads will also. No deviation is requested. 2) Fire access roads shall be a minimum 20ft. In clear width. Response: Acknowledged. All existing roads meet these criteria and all proposed roads will also. No designated fire access roads are proposed. No deviation is requested. Stormwater Management- Robert Wiley: 1) I have reviewed the three drawings submitted for the Farm Workers Village proposed rehabilitation of the original Phase A. There was no information provided on the location, capacity, design criteria, or current operating condition of any stormwater management facilities for this proposed application. As stated in the pre-application meeting, redevelopment projects now have to address the provision of stonmwater management facilities at a rate of 150% of the normal water quality treatment requirement. Before I can make an assessment of their project, I need the basic existing facilities information provided. Based upon the amount of demolition, new construction, and rehabilitation, it appears that they exceed the threshold, and will require them to provide a properly designed stormwater management system. Also, knowing the capacity constraints of the SR-29 canal, I would not recommend a deviation from County's maximum allowable discharge rate of 0.15 cfs/acre, but would consider a deviation from the findings of the Immokalee Stormwater Master Plan study that recommended a maximum allowable discharge rate of 0.05 cfs/acre. Response: The stormwater management facilities are existing on site and will be modified as necessary to obtain SFWMD Permit Modification. No deviation is requested. Transportation Engineering- Russ Muller: 1) The applicant will need to upgrade the ADA accessibility standards outlined in the Fair Housing Act Design Manual. 2% parking and sidewalk connections to the buildings and the public road (SR29) for transit. Response: We will meet ADA requirements for parking and sidewalks for all newly constructed units. We are requesting a deviation to allow the existing parking and sidewalks to remain unchanged because the additional cost for this requirement would reduce our ability fiscally to make the necessary improvements to the existing units. Collier County Government Farm Worker Village Phase A Rehabilitation Responses to Collier County Staff Comments ==-== regarding Conceptual Plan ~ HSA Project # 4519-03-00 May 21, 2008 Page 5 of 10 Agenda Item No. 10A June 24, 2008 Page 46 of 52 Transportation Pathways- David Buchheit: 1) Build a 5 foot sidewalk on one side of the road on Farm Worker way and Alexander Circle. Response: We will provide a 5 foot wide sidewalk on one side of the road on Farm Worker Way and Alexander Circle. 2) The code would require a 5 foot sidewalk on both sides of all roads or payment in lieu. Response: We will provide a 5 foot wide sidewalk on one side of the road on Farm Worker Way and Alexander Circle as requested above. We are requesting a deviation from providing 5 foot wide sidewalks on both sides of all roads or providing payment in lieu of for the following reasons: a. The development has functioned well without dual sidewalks since it was built. b. There is already an existing walkway bisecting the site c. The additional cost for this requirement would reduce our ability fiscally to make the necessary improvements to the existing units. Please note: We are also requesting a deviation from providing bike paths or providing payment in lieu of for the following reasons: a. The development has functioned well without bike paths b. There will now be proposed sidewalks c. The additional cost for this requirement would reduce our ability fiscally to make the necessary improvements to the existing units. Landscape- Bruce McNall: 1) The applicant has asked for a deviation from all buffer requirements and has stated the following in the application under 'Required Deviations' pertaining to landscape buffers. 2) "No buffers currently exist. Required buffers can be established without deviation for dimensions. Deviation needed to avoid additional planting". Staff interprets this to mean the required buffer width has been established but that the required plant material will not be provided. North Buffer Required East Buffer Required South Buffer Required West Buffer Required 15' Type 'B' 10' Type 'A' 10' Type 'A' 10' Type 'A' LDC 4.06.02 LDC 4.06.01 LDC 4.06.01 LDC 4.06.01 Response: Your interpretation is correct. We will establish the above buffers on our SOP submittal plans. We are requesting a deviation from additional planting in the established buffer areas for the following reasons: a. We will preserve all native vegetation in the established buffers except where it will interfere with existing or established drainage ways, storm water management facilities or utilities. b. The buffer along the east boundary line will overlap and existing ditch used for site drainage Collier County Government Farm Worker Village _ Phase A Rehabilitation Responses to Collier County Staff Comments ~ regarding Conceptual Plan ~ HSA Project # 4519-03-00 May 21,2008 Page 6 of 10 Agenda Item NO.1 OA June 24, 2008 Page 47 of 52 c. We will provide additional landscaping in newly constructed areas as outlined in the comment responses to follow. d. The additional cost for this requirement would reduce our ability fiscally to make the necessary improvements to the existing units. 3) Additional landscape requirements are: a) Vehicular use area requirement for parking LOG 4.06.03.B.1. and 2. Response: Acknowledged. We will provide landscaping as required by code for all newly constructed parking areas. We are requesting a deviation from additional planting/landscaping in the existing parking areas for the following reasons: a. We will preserve all native vegetation in the existing parking areas except where it will interfere with existing or established drainage ways, storm water management facilities or utilities. b. The additional cost for this requirement would reduce our ability fiscally to make the necessary improvements to the existing units. b) Provide curbing around radii and landscape islands LOG 4.06.03.B.1. Response: Acknowledged. We will provide curbing and landscape islands as required by code for all newly constructed parking areas. We are requesting a deviation from adding curbing and landscape islands in the existing parking areas for the following reasons: a. We will preserve all native vegetation in the existing parking areas except where it will interfere with existing or established drainage ways, storm water management facilities or utilities. b. the existing drainage in all parking areas is entirely over land sheet flow and curbing and islands would interfere with drainage patterns c. the additional cost for this requirement would reduce our ability fiscally to make the necessary improvements to the existing units. c) Building foundation perimeter landscaping for multi-family developments LOG 4.06.05B.4. and 5. Response: Acknowledged. We will provide foundation perimeter planting as required by code for all newly constructed units. We are requesting a deviation from adding foundation perimeter planting for the existing andlor renovated units for the following reasons: a. There is currently no irrigation system on site and the viability of plantings would be at risk b. The additional cost for this requirement would reduce our ability fiscally to make the necessary improvements to the existing units. No deviations have been proposed for the additional requirements listed above. Collier County Government Farm Worker Village Phase A Rehabilitation Responses to Collier County Staff Comments ::::!!!III::: regarding Conceptual Plan ~ HSA Project # 4519-03-00 May 21,2008 Page 7 of 10 Agenda Item No. 10A June 24, 2008 Page 48 of 52 Response: Please note deviations requested above. Transportation Operations- John Podczerwinsky: 1. Curbing requirement- Stated as LDC 6.06.01by the applicant. Staff agrees, and recommends that adherence to the requirements for curbing is not necessary on a rural road. Response: Acknowledged. 2. Pavement Width- Stated as LDC 6.06.01 by the applicant. Staff agrees, and recommends that adherence to anything greater than the 20' minimum driveway width is not necessary on a rural street. Response: Acknowledged. 3. Cul-de-sac radius- Stated as LDC 4.02.04 by the applicant. Staff agrees, but defers review to Fire Code Review. Little or no truck traffic is anticipated in this neighborhood that would require the larger radii. However, Transportation staff recommends meeting the minimum radius requirements of the local fire district in any areas where existing pavement is being removed and replaced, or where any new pavement is installed. Response: All existing cul-de-sacs meet these criteria and all proposed cul-de-sacs will also. No deviation is requested. 4. Access Lighting- Stated as LDC 6.06.03 by the applicant. Staff disagrees, and recommends adherence to access lighting requirements. However, if the minimum lighting levels stated by the LDC and/or IES RP-8-00 are greater than required, then staff recommends the deviation can be accepted in part. In this case, staff recommends that at least the project's intersections and pedestrian facilities (crosswalks) are lit to the minimum standards. Response: Acknowledged. We will evaluate the existing street lighting system for LOe/IES compliance and add additional lighting at intersections and pedestrian facilities as required. A partial deviation is requested as suggested. Also, we have the following recommendations that are not noted in the deviation request table in these plans: 1) Any existing speed bumps should be removed and replaced with "speed humps" as recommended by NTMP guidelines. Response: We will provide speed "humps" for all newly constructed roads/parking drives as required by code. We are requesting a deviation from replacing existing speed bumps with speed "humps" for the existing roads/parking drives for the following reasons: a. The current speed bumps are functioning very well to reduce vehicle speed without damaging vehicles. b. The additional cost for this requirement would reduce our ability fiscally to make the necessary improvements to the existing units. Collier County Government Farm Worker Village Phase A Rehabilitation Responses to Collier County Staff Comments ~ regarding Conceptuai Pian ~ HSA Project # 4519-03-00 May 21, 2008 Page 8 of 10 Agenda Item NO.1 OA June 24, 2008 Page 49 of 52 2) The throat width at the 'accessory structure' parking lot entrance on Farmworker Way (lower left corner of sheet C400) should have a maximum throat width of 24' to facilitate safe vehicular movement in and out of the parking lot. Response: We will cut back the existing throat width of the Collier County Housing Authority office parking lot entrance to 24 feet. No deviation is requested. Environmental- Chris D' Arco: 1) Environmental comments are based on this project being submitted as an SOP. Environmental staff will require preservation of all the existina native veaetation currently on site. The site cannot become more legally non-conforming (LOC requirement). As an SOP the remaining vegetation would need a preserve management plan, listed species survey, exotic note etc. and if the land is Collier County owned, protective covenants on the plans. If not owned by the county, then a CE would be required over the preserve. Response: We will preserve all native vegetation except where it interferes with the new construction in which case we will mitigate by planting a new tree for every one removed. We are requesting a deviation from the requirement to prepare a preserve management plan, listed species survey, etc. for the following reasons: a. This is not a new development and the "preserve areas" are not well- defined as the native vegetation is spread throughout the site. b. We would not be encroaching on listed species habitat as the development has been here for 30 years. c. We would be willing to provide a protective covenant that states that native vegetation and animal habitat cannot be disturbed. d. The additional cost for this requirement would reduce our ability fiscally to make the necessary improvements to the existing units. 2) The applicant will also need to show on the plans if any county or district (if wetlands are present) preservesleasements were set aside at the time of development. Response: We have researched the original plans and no preserves or easements were set aside at the time the development was constructed. 3) The easiest route for the applicant to go is to leave the native vegetation as is if possible. If some vegetation needs to be impacted, then recreation will be required. If the applicant chooses to apply for offsite retention for preserves under one acre, then any state easements that may exist would need to be vacated and the SOP would not be approved until all offsite requirements were met for the county and whatever offsite mitigationlpermit modifications the state may require is fulfilled. Offsite retention would only be an option once it is put forth in the LOC (later on this summer possibly) as an SOP. If the applicant wants to consider offsite retention now, this wouid need to be rezoned to a PUO first since this is allowed under the current GMP. Collier County Government Farm Worker Village Phase A Rehabilitation Responses to Collier County Staff Comments :::::BI!::: regarding Conceptual Plan ____ HSA Project # 4519-03-00 May 21,2008 Page 9 of 10 Agenda Item No. 10A June 24, 2008 Page 50 of 52 Response: We will preserve all native vegetation (meaning trees, as the remainder of the site is maintained grass) except where it interferes with the new construction in which case we will mitigate by planting a new tree for every one removed. We do not wish to consider off-site mitigation or retention. No deviation is requested unless the requirement calls for more than 1 to 1 mitigation of trees. Architectural- Bruce McNall: 1) At this time no architectural deviations have been requested for the non-residential structures on this site. Response: No deviations are requested at this time for the non-residential structures on the site. To all reviewers: Listed below are deviations we previously requested that had no comments issued as well as any additional deviations we are requesting. Landscaping - 4.06.05 General Landscaping Requirements Multifamily developments - one canopy tree per 2,000 sf of pervious site area excluding preserves We are requesting a deviation from the addition of canopy trees for the following reasons: a. there are many existing trees on the site which will be preserved wherever possible. b. Pending a tree survey, we may already meet this requirement c. There is no current or planned irrigation system for the site making viability of sapling trees questionable. d. the additional cost for this requirement would reduce our ability fiscally to make the necessary improvements to the existing units. Dwelling size - 2.05.01 For RMF-6 Mulit-family, the minimum dwelling size is 750 square feet. The existing/renovated one-bedroom units are currently 400+ square feet. All newly constructed units will be one-bedroom units. We are requesting a deviation to allow the square footage of existing/renovated units to remain unchanged (outside of the laundry additions) and for newly constructed units to be comparable to the existing/renovated units. The newly constructed units will in no case contain less square footage than the smallest existing unit. We are requesting this deviation for the following reasons: a. To maintain equal housing for all residents/applicants b. The additional cost to increase the minimum unit size would reduce our ability fiscally to make the necessary improvements to the existing units. Landscaping - 4.06.05 General Landscaping Requirements K. Cultivated iandscapes shall be provided with an automatic irrigation system... Collier County Government Farm Worker Village Phase A Rehabilitation Responses to Collier County Staff Comments ==-== regarding Conceptual Plan ..... HSA Project # 4519-03-00 May 21,2008 Page 10 of 10 Agenda Item No. 10A June 24, 2008 Page 51 of 52 We are requesting a deviation from providing irrigation in the existing and new construction areas for the following reasons: a. There has never been an irrigation system for the site. b. The additional cost for this requirement would reduce our ability fiscally to make the necessary improvements to the existing units. Should you have questions or require additional information, please contact this office. HSA ENGINEERS & SCIENTISTS jJ 'J . I:r-"-~: Jrj;;ez:-t;:) i Regina M. Britton, P.E. Senior Civil Engineer c: Dick Lewis, PE Essie Serrata Dave Moore \\hsa-ftm-fp2\Projects\4519\03-00IPrqect InformalionlGeneral Corres\Response Letter 08-04-28 RMB.doc <l:'" 00 , ~O~ NO ci .C\J Z~L.() Emm me'" == :Jrf. ",-' '0 C m '" <l: snl~lS YCI>Illj'lJl\''''''' NVld NOll V lIlIBVH3l:l V 3SVHd lN3Vld013^30 elNISnOH 3elVlll^ l:l3>1l:l0M Vll:lV ~ ,...-.<"""." ""''''''''''-.0 ..", _b -"11'" "'... -~...- -~-,."'..,~ , isiP ':1 ,I i~ ~~~I ~~~. ~; ~/r ~! ~i~ ., ~~~iI~.~ir ~~'~I ei! ~~e~i. ~~~ !' :~~~~~:i~ ~~..~~ ~~ ~.~;,- i~i F. fi ~ ~;5!:lr_1 ~il~= !ij !;;U~ .~ ~ " &~.~ !'j 'I! .~~ '~U~a ~if ; I {ll'a~J'~ ~' ~ SI: ~~l!.~11 ~~I,~i } rba'~.i ~.~.~ ;l~~l . .. i-ilij~f~ ~;I'l ~J:li l~~~ ~S ~i!'~i! i ~~i*~H~: ;~~;I i!~ i;:~ili e. ~e! ! ~:il'I~1 ~~h ,9~~i i.I~:.1 '''.,!~ 1I0-1~' e h~-l' ("'-"1" :~il~~~j i~Jf ~!~~Ji ii"" ti~-~ S~~!r ',i .,l",~; i,",ll; !il i ,hijSI~'~ ~'i!idril; ~QII"!!I _' ;t ..~1~~~9.1j~ h _~w.... i ~~ h ~,~ i ~ I th~ ~~~i ~! !i ,~!~n~ ~~n i i ~tL i ! ~ ~i~~ ," , , ,!I'I . ; ~m~~J '"!I . 0 I ~ -Ii " " l!lJ; i~ i' w ~i < . ~ Ii I ~ ~ ~. ~ " 0"" d~ J. i 11 i; ~! E~~ i~~ ~~ ;;i~ r"; it ~! .~'.! ! ~J !~ ~, ~h~ ~~. e ~J ~~;~~~i ! ~ ;! ii :1; i~i ~i Uj i~i !i ~~I: ~i~ ! ~i i;i;~i ;~!~ !li i ~!!i ~~ii~a ~ i ~~iil~iL ~~l ii ~:. ,,1 ;Q i ::~:: ii ~~il ~;.! ,~1 i :~il ib;~I! ::jlihii!i'I!II,li;I';l!@I!IIi:!!i'!'iilii!!1 ::1":' !' .1''" .'. ,iI., 1I,!'i! I, '" I.,,',,' "I'" 1:,1"1 dll" <;,11,/ ~ i' ;"'1lJ '''1 lie ~, -L! fit .'.1 U ~~~ai-1J H l!J ~.~ ~.... ~~- iJ ~~~i.~J~ ;~lil>~~~! ~ ~.; ~.~. 110 ~~oJ '! ~! ~"~-w;~'i ;!~~! ~X~J !~J ~~~~~I ~ :1!Bi:~ ~~~~; ~~~ ~~ ~. l~ i 1 ~~~ H:.Q~~ ~ ~~. ;~~. '~1 J~e ~~ ~ 'i_~'~- n;~!h~j~lil~~I'I;! ~~~ n~idiJ;~I~~ !~~~!;lh !;;~h ~~IU!~L!~~!I~~ ~ !!nh~~ ~t' ~; ~hl iJ id~e€~ h~~i~'~~~'~c~ hig~~i~. ~ ~~>~ ~~ !l.~~~a~i~ ~l i ~~"'~~"~, ~= ~~!~~!;;,!:~~~::m~'~ :;~~:m:d~f~::d;~;'~ ~Igs~ ;!:;~:;~~;!~f~'! ~~i~:~b~ !! " e~ ~~!~ ~': ~ l!~: ~!; ~,~h "I- ii' I~ ~.~ !.""I . I ," :j!!! II Iii I ~i! ,:.;,,!!11'jll'i' w i~i I.~ ~J!h~ "~~ !~.~ ~fJ'~ f= ,,~ Ill! :~i ~;d~i U! ~ fi!:~~~ I'~.~~ ~~il ,!,:i.~!~i:U:.!~! ~I~ """."1",";"'1' ~~:H!~i!: ~: ;!~,! :d 'I ~~ ~; ~: ~I a ,I 'I !I! ~i I;: I~~ "~1 . ~1I~ il iii, :~! ~:jl . , "'I' m. .. Q . , < ' a ' " o ~ ~ ~ c o. ~. . ... ~~ i , I . I , ~m_ " p ~. -, ,- " , ~ I ~ - , , ; ~ ~ s; ~ i \, ~ .;i E! ,- f~ III , ' .! I i IH I b~~ ~ Iii: Ii !!I ,,' ~~I ,il n. j ~I Ii, H~ ~:~i ~B~~ -. r " Ii, ~ ..I w c" ~~ a ~ ~ w I Ii! 1, < i "6H m! '" Ii \ ! 1~1 I - ~ I ill![, 'In IJ \ill . I il i;I'i ',i'i' III ~ It ~~i ~ j k 1 IU lID \ 'f) m ___J U iJ ", Eii! )'" <t> ilf-;il~:;-~'\\(-\'-=C-' ~;'" @] (( 4> [!] i I!I lID)' lID ,\ ~~ &~ IiJ I IiJ III 0:) f!I @ l() @ ~~ I, ,~,~~1' CilI g IiJ ,~, :' <( ~ ,$ ,,~i; I!,=c--r l~ ~'iJ i8lI ~;n i8lI'n ;~ ,~, I., ~ ') m ~ [;l .,~ ..,&,! &'! 1111"l1 I ., - ill ~ ~ ~~~!;~ -J';'~ ~~Il,IEJr'~; L?S" -, 13 "g ~ :~lliiJ~( \L- -'; m ~ ~ ~ l'j, L~ '__ J LJI,-----, - --~'f~" A~;J ~L "',"'oc,,,,' l-J1 '~l.i-~'~ \Y 4>~' ~ r ]'If '''' '" ~ @(6)' ~ ~ l~; ,&~I~/'!" ~~.Jmt&);'i:.~ "" A I; ~\\1 )2, ,~ &J. " " "- 'V rn V/ i:: 2~ ~~ '~ ~~ L '" '- '" ~,~~ ,ljl_~_---m..- -- -- -I !~ ;1 'I ~~;' ~~~ i i . ! i,A!;.! -~~~i~ -~~ !~~,' ,.i~~~l ~~~ "-a~~~ mHih~i d Ii II~ tJ z ...,"""'...".-.,,,........... J - "'."" --...-.... .....- -...- "'.""" ........-- -- - . ---- --:-='::='--:.:=.-"$ o o '" U NOI.l::>mUSNO:J 1:10:/ .iON i. , ~ ~ ~ ' ~~: ~~: ~ ~! ...!.,- ~~" i ,,~ I""" ,,111'1' '.,. I; ~~iH!.1 ~:~iL:r ~!u~n~ !ill!;!!! :h~~,,~H I 1i z < ~ ~ z 0 ~ ~ .,... i~1 < < ~ '" ~ z m 0 < &~ ~ ~ < w " < 0, < ~ . w , ",. < ' ZE ~ .."""""',"'-.,..........,...\.-'" ...."'_M_ ''''''''''-