Agenda 06/10/2008 Item #17C
Agenda Item r-,Jo. 17C
June 10,2008
Page 1 of 224
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PUDZ-2007-AR-12581: Florida Non-Profit Services, Inc. and The Empowerment Alliance
of Southwest Florida Community Development Corporation represented by Heidi K.
Williams, AICP, Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., request a PUD rezone from the
Rural Agricultural (A-MHO) Mobile Home Overlay Zoning District to the Residential
Planned Unit Development Zoning District, to be known as Esperanza Place RPUD. The
31.63~ acre site is proposed to be developed for a maximum of 262 dwelling units; and
consideration and approval of an Affordahle Housing Density Bonus Agreement. The
subject property is located on the north side of Immokalee Drive, approximately 1/2 mile
west of Main Street (SR-29), in Section 32, Township 46 South, Range 29 East, Immokalee,
Collier County, Florida.
OBJECTIVE:
To have the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) consider an application to rezone the
subject property from A-MHO to RPUD as noted above and to consider adopting the companion
Affordable Housing Density Bonus agreement and to ensure the project is in harmony with all
applicable codes and regulations in order to make certain that the community's interests are
maintained.
CONSIDERATIONS:
The petitioner is proposing to rezone the subject 31.63~ acre site from the Rural Agricultural
with Mobile Home Overlay (A-MHO) Zoning District to the Residential Planned Unit
Development (RPUD) Zoning District for a project known as the Esperanza Place RPUD with a
proposed density of 8.28 dwelling units an acre. The Immokalee Arca Master Plan provides a
base density of 4 dwelling units an acre and if the Affordable- WorkfiJrce Housing Density Bonus
(AHDB) agreement (Attachment A) is approved, it will grant an additional 4.28 dwelling units
an acre for a project consisting of 262 single-family and multi-family residential units. The
petitioner proposes to develop both a rental and an owner-occupied project. The Florida Non-
Profit Services, Inc., will develop an affordable rental multi-family residential community
consisting of 176 units on the western half of the site, and the Empowerment Alliance of
Southwest Florida Community Development Corporation will develop affordable owner-
occupied homes consisting of 85 units on the eastem portion of the property. Also on the
southeastern comer ofthc RPUD will be a 2-acre tract for one single-family residence, this home
currently exists and will remain. The projcct provides for a clubhouse, as well as a recreational
tract, and the developer has opted for payment in-lieu instead of constructing sidewalks. Access
to the proposed project is on Immokalee Drive.
Relationship to Existing and Future Land Uses: The subjcct site is zoned A-MHO and has 2
homes on site, one will be demolished and the other will remain as a rental horne. The adjacent
parcels are zoned A-MHO, RSF-4 and Village Residential (VR). The request to rezone the
~- property to a RPUD will providc for a more cohesive residential comrnunity. The proposed
density for this request is consistent with the Future Land Use Elen1cnt (FLUE) as well as the
Page] of7
!lerr; [;0. i 7C
JJ~;Sl CL 2J08
2 of 2:'4
existing and future developrnent pattem in the area and the goals of the Growth Management
Plan (GMP) for affordable housing.
The applicant is requesting 2 deviations from the Land Developmcnt Code (LDC) which are as
follows: 1) seeks relief tium Section 5.05.08, which requires non-residential components of any
PUD to meet architcctural design standards. This deviation would allow the non-residential
component of Tract A to be exempt from these standards; 2) seeks relief from Section 3.05.07
which requires on-site preservation of 25 percent of the native vegetation. This deviation would
allow off-site preservation or payment in lieu to the Conservation Collier Trust Fund.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The rezone hy and of itself, will have no fiscal impact on Collier County. There is no guarantee
that the project, at build out, will maximize its authorized level of development, however, if the
proposed Esperanza Place RPUD is approved, a portion of the land could be developed.
The County collects impact fees prior to the issuance of building permits to help offset the
impacts of each new development on public facilities. These impact fees are used to fund
projects identified in the Capital Improvement Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP)
and/or the Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) as needed to maintain adopted Levels of
Service (LOS) for public facilities. Additionally, in order to meet the requirements of
concurrency management, fifty percent of the estimated Transportation Impact Fees are required
to be paid for approval of any Site Plan or Plat associatcd with the project. If qualified,
affordable housing projects may enter into deferral agreements that stand in lieu of the required
impact fee payments.
Please note that the inelusion of impact fees and taxes collected are for informational purposes
only; they are not included in the criteria used by staff and the Planning Commission to analyze
this petition.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) IMPACT:
Future Land Use Elemcnt (FLUE) and thc Immokalee Area Mastcr Plan (lAMP): The
project is located in the Immokalee area which is designated Urban on the Future Land Use Map
specific subdistricts and development standards are contained within the Immokalee Area Master
Plan (lAMP). The subjcct sites are located within the lAMP Low Residcntial Subdistrict
designation.
Esperanza Place RPUD proposes 262 dwelling units on 31.63 acres, which equates to a gross
density of 8.28 units per acre. Thc Density Rating System (DRS) allows the subject propeliies a
base density of 4 dwelling units an acre and the potential of an Affordable-Workforce Housing
Dcnsity Bonus (AHDB), by public hearing, of up to 8 dwelling units an acre. The subject
petition includes a companion Agreement Authorizing Atlordable-Worklorce Housing Density
Bonus that indicates the requestcd project density is allowed subject to Housing & Human
Services Department review for accuracy and Board of County Commissioners approval. Staff
deems the proposed project to be consistent with the lAMP subject to the approval of the
companion agreement (see Attachment A) authorizing the AtTordable- Workforce Housing
Density Bonus.
Page 2 of7
!\;j2\ida item No. 17C
.June '10, 2CJ08
Fage 3 of 2::::4
Transportation Element: Transportation Division staff has reviewed the petition's Trame
Impact Statement (TIS) and the RPUD document to ensure the appropriate language has been
added to address the project's potential traffic impacts and to offer a recommendation regarding
GMP Transportation Element, Policy 5.1. The Esperanza RPUD application can be deemed
consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP subject to the required
mitigation in the form of a fair share contribution towards intersection improvements at SR-29
and Lake Trafford Road (CR-890). Thc petitioner has agreed to provide this mitigation and has
incorporated this condition in Exhibit F-Developer Commitments of the CPUD document.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPACT:
The Housing and Human Services Department staff has reviewed the petitioner's Affordable
Housing Density Bonus Agreement (AHDBA) which is attached to the ordinance and the RPUD
document and they tind the following: Approval of the RPUD rezone to provide a maxirnurn of
262 affordable residential units at a density of 8.28 units per gross acre is consistent with the
intent of GMP Housing Element. The Affordable Housing Density Bonus Program provides for
moderate, low and very low income housing through the use of density bonuses which allow an
increase in the number of residential dwelling units per acre, thereby decreasing the per unit cost
of land and development, in turn expanding the housing opportunities for affordable housing
throughout the County.
The requested density is consistent with the allowable limits. The project must be monitored
during construction phase and delivery of atTordable housing component as outlined in the
Bonus Density Agreement Item (4) and must provide the Housing and Human Services
Department annual reports on progress for compliance with LDC 2.06.05.A. MonitOling will be
kcy during the development, celiificate of occupancy (CO) stage, and occupancy of the units.
Documentation fOlms will be provided by Housing and Human Services for monitoring and
yearly rcpOliing. Based upon the above analysis, staff concl udes that the proposed uses and
densities may be deem cd consistent with the lAMP, and FLUE of the GMP, subject to the
approval of the Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreemcnt (Attachment A).
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:
Environmental Services staff has reviewcd the petition and notes that the applicant has complied
with staff s recommendations and safeguards have becn addresscd within the RPUD document,
and for this rcason the rczone is consistent with the LDC and GMP.
ENVIRONMENT AL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDA TION:
The Envirollli1ental Advisory Council (EAC) heard this petition on April 2, 2008. During the
hearing, the preservation requirements and quality of existing native habitat were extensively
discussed. The rcsults of the discussion were inconclusive at the time. The final motion of the
EAC was to continue thc rcview which resulted in the project being heard on May 7, 2008.
During this meeting the EAC voted 8-0 to forward petition PUDZ-2007-AR-12581 to the BCC
with a recommendation of approval with the following conditions, all of which are included in
the CUITcnt version of the PUD document:
Page 3 of7
i:srn r,jo. 17 C
.June ~ 0, 2:)03
.:; of 224
A. A Florida Black Bear management plan shall be provided to the County Manager or
designee during site development plan (SDP) or plat review process.
B. The site cUITently contains 1.26ct acres of native vegetation (O.52ct acres of upland
and 0.73ct acres of wetland native vegetation onsite); a minimum of 25 percent, 0.32
acres, must be preserved. For the O. I 3 acre portion of the upland vegetation, the applicant
will donate an equivalent off-site preserve to be accepted by a public agency or contribute
a monetary payment to Conservation Collier equivalent to the average per-acre value
fclUnd in an appraisal of the entire site, multiplied by the number of acres to be preserved
off-site, plus 15 percent of that amount as an endowment for management of off-site land.
The appraisal shall be based on the fair market value of the land as if the desired zoning
were in place. Twenty-five percent of the 0.73 acre wetland native vegetation will be
preserved and appropriately managed off-site at an approved mitigation bank. All
preservation must be accomplished prior to SDP/PPL approval. This off-site prescrvation
may be utilized as part of the required off-site mitigation rcquirement of the Environment
Resource Permit.
C. The subject property was used for agricultural purposes and incurred clearing for
which no pennit can be located. In order for clearing to be considered legal and re-
creation of removed vegetation not be required, an after-the-fact clearing fee will be paid
for the clearing of approximately 23.6 acres prior to approval for the SDP or PPL for
relevant acreage.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC\ RECOMMENDATION:
The CCPC heard petition PUDZ-2007-AR-125S1 on May 15, 200S, and by a vote of 8-0
recommended to forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a
recommendation of approval subject to the following conditions that have been incorporated in
the RPUD document:
I. Revise Exhibit B-Table 1 of the RPUD document to add a footnote that requires the 23-
fcJot garage setback from the sidewalk. The RPUD document has been modified to reflect
this condition.
2. Revise Exhibit B-Table I of the RPUD document to add "greater than" for the 20-foot
distance between multi-family buildings. The RPUD document has been modified to
reflect this condition.
3. Revise Exhibit B- Table I of the RPUD document to have the side setbacks for single-
t,nnily, attached and duplex to be 6 feet and 12 feet for the minimum distance between
structures. The RPUD document has been modified to reflect this condition.
4. To modify the EAC recommendation for item "C" that says the applicant is not required
to pay the atkr-the-fact clearing fee. 'The standard clearing fee will apply to the after-
the-fact clearing pcrnlit." The RPUD document has been modified to reflect this
condition.
5. Add an additional TranspOJiation Developer Commitment in Exhibit F of the RPUD
document. The dcvclopcr has the option to convey the intcrnal roads to the County for
maintenance. If the developer chooses this option than the internal roads shall be built in
accordance with County construction standards for local roads. The RPUD document has
been modified to retlect this condition.
Page 4 of7
item iJo. Ie
J;Jne ~ CJ 2CJCig
5 c,~ 224
Since this petition received unanimous support from EAC and CCPC, and statf has not received
letters of objection, this petition has been placed on Summary Agenda.
LEGAL CONSIDER.\ nONS:
This is a site specific rezone from a Rural Agriculture with Mobile Home Overlay (A-MHO)
Zoning District to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning District for a project
to be known as the Esperanza Place RPUD. Site specific rezones are quasi-judicial in nature. As
such the burden falls upon the applicant to prove that the proposed rezone is consistcnt with all
the criteria set forth below. The burden then shifts to the Board of County Commissioners
(BCC), should it consider denying the rezone, to detern1ine that such denial would not be
arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable. This would be accomplished by finding that the
proposal does not meet one or more of the listed criteria below.
Criteria for RPUD Rezones
Ask yourself the followillg questiolls. The allswers assist you ill makillg a determination for
approval or Ilot.
I. Consider: The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development
proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic
and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities.
2. Is there an adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of agreements,
contract, or other instruments or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as
they may rclate to arrangements or provisions to be madc for the continuing operation
and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained
at public expense'? Findings and recommendations of this t1'pe shall he made only
alier consultation with the County AlIomc1'.
3. Consider: Confon11ity of the proposed RPUD with the goals, objectives and policies
of the Growth Management Plan.
4. Consider: The internal and extcmal compatibility of proposed uses, which
conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on
design, and buffering and screening requirements.
5. Is there an adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve
the devclopmcnt'?
6. Consider: The timing or sequence of development (as proposed) for the purpose of
aSSUrIng the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and
pri vate.
7. Consider: The ability of the subject propeliy and of surrounding areas to
accommodate expansion.
Page 5 of?
tteri"': ~'Jo. j-?C
Ju':? :J 2C1Cl8
PZige 6 of 224
8. Considcr: Conformity with RPUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of
such regulations in the particular case, based on deternlination that such modifications
are justilied as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal
application of such regulations.
9. Will the proposed change be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and
future land use map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan?
10. Will the proposed RPUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use
pattern ?
] 1. Would the requested RPUD Rezone result in the possible creation of an isolated
district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts?
] 2. Considcr: Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to
existing conditions on the property proposed for change.
13. Consider: Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the
proposed amendment necessary.
14. Will the proposed change adversely intlucnce living conditions in the neighborhood?
] 5. Will the proposed change create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create
types of traffic deemed incompatible with sUlTounding land uses, because of peak
volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction
phases of the development, or othenl,ise affeet public safety?
16. Will the proposed change create a drainage problem?
17. Will the proposed change seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas?
18. Will the proposed change adversely atfect propcliy valucs in the adjacent area?
19. Will the proposed change be a detelTent to the improvement or development of
adjacent propcliy in accordance with existing regulations')
20. Consider: \Vhether the proposed change will constitute a grant of.\pecial privilege
to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare.
21. Are there substantial reasons why the propeliy cannot ("reasonably") be used III
accordance with existing zoning? (a "core" question...)
22. Is the change suggested out of scale with thc needs of the neighborhood or the
county?
23. Consider: Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the
proposed use in districts already pemlitting such use.
Page 6 of7
!i::~rT, l"JO. 17C
,June 1 D. 2~)D9
7 cd' ==-'4
24. Consider: The physical charactcristics of the property and the degree of site
alteration which would be rcquired to make the property usable for any of the range
of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification.
25. Consider: The impact of development resulting from the proposed RPUD rezone on
the availability of adequate publiefileilities and sendees consistent with the levels of
service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and
implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance [Code
ch.l06, art.Il]. as amended.
26. Are there other factors, standards, or criteria relating to the RPUD rezone request that
the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the
public health, safcty, and welfare?
The BCC must base its decision upon the competent, substantial evidence presented by the
written materials supplied to it, including but not limited to the Staff Report, Exccutive
Summary, maps, studies, letters from interested persons and the oral testimony presented at the
BCC hearing as these items relate to these criteria. (MMSS)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners (BeC) approve Petition PUDZ-
2007-AR-12581 Esperanza Place RPUD and the attached Affordable Housing Density Bonus
Agreement subject to the conditions of approval as recommended by the Collier County
Planning Commission (CCPC) which includes their recommendation not to charge the applicant
an after-the-Iact clearing fce. The standard clearing fee will apply to the after-thc-fact clearing
pC1111it.
PREPARED BY:
Melissa Zone, Principal Planncr
Dcpm1mcnt of Zoning and Land Dcvelopment Revicw
Page 7 01'7
Item Number:
Item Summary:
Meeting Date:
Page I 01'2
item No. :7C
June 10 2008
Page 8 of 224
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
He
This :!em requires that all participants be sworn In and e): parte disclosure be provided by
Comrnission members. PUDZ-2007-AR-12581 Florida Non-Profit Services. Inc. and The
Empowerment Alliance of Southwest Florida Community Development Corporation
represented by Heidi K Williams. AICP, Q. Grady Minor and ASSOCiates, PA., request a
PUD rezone from the Rural Agricultural (A-MHO) Mobile Home Overlay Zoning District to the
Residential Planned Unit DevelDpment Zoning Dislrrct. to be known as Esperanza Place
RPUD. The 31_63 acre site is proposed to be developed for a maximum of 262 dwelling units;
and consideration and approval of an Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement The
subject property IS located on the north side of Immokaiee Drive approximately 1/2 mile west
of Main Street (SR-29), in Section 32, Township 46 South, Range 29 East, Immokalee,
Collier County. FlOrida
6/10/20089:00:00 AM
Prepared By
Melissa Zone
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Principal Planner
Date
Zoning & Land Development Review
5/28(200811 ;04:50 AM
Approved By
Judy Puig
Community Deveiopment &
Enyironmenta! Services
Operations Anaiyst
Date
Community Development &
Environmenta! ServJces Admin.
S:28f200811:t:5 AM
Approved By
Roy Bellows
Community Development &
Environmental Servi:es
Chief Planner
Date
Zoning & Land Development Review
5/:::9r2008 9:06 AM
Approved By
Nid Casaianguida
Transportation ServiGes
MPO Director
Dzte
Transportation Planning
5/29/2008 1 :56 PM
Approved By
ril1arjorie M. Student-Stirling
County Attorney
Assistant County Attorney
Date
County Attorney Office
5/29/20082:14 PM
Approved By
Joseph K. SchmJtt
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Community Development &
Environmental Services Adminstrator
Date
Communrty Development &
~nvjronmental Services Admin.
5/29120082:31 PM
Approved By
file://C:IAgendaTestIExportll 09-June%20 I 0,%2020081 17.%20SUMMARY%20AGENDAIl." 6/4/2008
Susan Murray, AI:::::?
Community Development &
~nvironm'2-ntal Services
Page .2 01':2
item r~o. ': i'C
,1:Jne 1 0 ;~CJ(!3
Page Self :224
Z:Jning & Land Development Director
Date
Zoning & Land Develooment Review
5i2S/2008 2:34 PM
Approved By
OMB Coordinator
County Manager's Office
OMS Coordinator
Date
Office of Management & Budget
5/30!2008 8:t:3 AM
Approved By
Mark IsacKson
County M.mager's Office
Budget Analyst
Date
Office of Management & Budget
5/30/2008 9:54 AM
Approved By
James v. Mudd
Board of County
Commissioners
County ro/,an3ger
Date
County w,anager's Office
6i2!2008 6:55 PM
lile://C:\Al!cndaTest\ExDort\ I 09-Junc%20 I 0.%202008\ 17.%20SUMMARY%20AGENDA\1... 6/4/2008
A Gl':N'j);!? 1i'~A.'4'jj 7C
J'Jrie'ld.2008
Page i 0 of 224
c~1tr County
r;;,.~.,,~.:t'i,~'~...,..p4~#'*t~~~~
STAFF REPORT
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
HEARING DATE: MAY 15, 200S
SUB,JECT:
PUDZ-2007-AR-12581; Fsperanza Place RPUD
APPLICANTS/CONTRACT PURCHASERS:
Florida Non-Profit Scrvices, Inc, The Empowelment Alliance of Southwest Florida
900 Borad A venue SOUdl, Suite #2 750 S. Fifth Street
Naples, FL 34102 Immokalee, FL 34142
OWNERS:
Jose and Norma Lopez
P.O. Rox 445
Immokalee, FL 34143
Carol A, Caruthers
P.O. Box 324
lmmokalee, PL 34143
AGENTS:
Heidi K. Williams, AICP
Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A.
3800 Via Del Rey
Bonita Springs, FI, 34134
REOlJESTED ACTION:
The subject application is requesting a rezone from the Rural Agricultural with Mobile Home
Overlay (A-MHO) Zoning District to Residential Plmmcd Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning
District to bc known as thc Esperallza Place RPUD. As pm1 of thc rczoning action, the pctitioner
is also seeking approval of an Affordable Housing Density Ronus Agrcemcnt (Attachment C)
authorizing un Affordable Housing Dcnsity Bonus.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subj ect 31.63010 acre site is in Immokalce and is located on the north side of Immokalce
Drivc, wcst of S.R. 29 and Y, mile east of Carson Road in Section 32, Township 46 South, Range
29 East. (Scc location map on following page)
Page 1 of 12
~g~
N_
O .0
70..,-
-~
:::: ill
Cii,-(!)
:::::3~
mJo..
~
;;
:oJ
<(
z
o
III -
t:t:i:
",0
o
~
0"
EI
,
!i
I
~
.
"
~
o
"
:s
.l:
~
~
i
~
o
"
:;
.0:
a:
>
~
- ~
.
"
lIVW ~SVd L3
~
I
~
g
~
-f
o~
"ffi
c..i
.
OHiII-V
:n.':>SllI.l..... /
-
E--
- [;Y
C ; ~ . ~ ~ N ~ ~
N
"
0
W . .. nV
W ~
0 ~ ~ -IN ~ 8 ~ ~
<C ..." /"
f;32
~ ~ ,-
0"
~ ",0
'-9 "
.
. . " :2:~ ,.~ ;,;; .. . . N
f9~ ,
" .,fS ,
-/ " ~~ . . ~ 0
~ N ~ N
--~ - -
0 w N . .
~ ~ ~ ~ h
". "
" <!
1/" ..---
0 ~ ~ ~ - ~ " ~ ~
"
U
/~
-.-- ( '-._~
J " , +~r ~ ) 0 :!: ~
",0
<'"
~~
\ 11 +- I
a..
<(
~
C)
Z
Z
o
N
"'
10
N
'"
.0:
,
....
0
0
N
,
N
0
"
c..
..
z
0
>=
>=
"'
c..
a..
<(
~
Z
0
-
I-
<(
()
0
--1
.rqenda item r~o. ~i 7C
June 10,2008
Page 12 of 224
PURl'OSE/DESCRlPTION OF PROJECT:
The subj~ct application is requesting a rezone from the Rural Agricultural with a Mobile Home
Overlay (A-MHO) Zoning District to Residential Planned Unit DevelopJ11~nt (RPUD) Zoning
District. The Esperaoza Place RPUD will consist of 262 single-family and multi-family
residential units at a gross dcnsity of 8.28 dwclling units on 3 I .63010 acrcs, The A-MHO Zoning
District allows a base dcnsity of 4 dwclling units an acrc and thc Affordablc- Workforce Housing
Density Bonus (AHDB) allows the applicant to request up to 8 additional dwclling units an acre
for a maximum of 12 dwelling units an acre. The petitioner proposes to develop both a rental and
an owner-occupied project. The Florida Non-Profit Services, Inc., will develop an affordable
rental multi-family residential community on the western half of the site, and the Empowelm~nt
Alliance of Southwest Florida Community Dcvclopment Corporation will develop affordable
owner-occupied homes on the castcrn portion of the property. Also on the southeastern corner of
the RPUD will be a 2-acre tract for one single-family rcsidcncc, this homc currcntly cxists and
will remain.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North: Single-family residential, zoned Residential Single-family & Agriculture- Mobile
Home Ovcrlay (RSF-4)
South: Single-Fmllily residential, zoned Agriculture-Mobile Home Overlay (A-MHO)
East: Single-Family & Multi-family residential, zoned Agriculture-Mobile Home
Ovcrlay (A-MHO) and Davenport PlID
West: Manufactured & Mobile Home, zoned Agriculture-Mobile I\ome Overlay (A-
MHO)
R ';;i'
.1-1 I
~ ~~Lin.g:,MH.U
~, Ilr
''III '1' I Iii')
rLJ!
J:'MI ,~'/n
~s
TUGKAH ~ DR
I
""
"",.' I
-
L Q
r
.~
=~
-~ ~
:r,-""l
... I
P1 I
=- ::l:l.!
. '
'--'.-. ....cr---
". ~~.-
~~r)
f%"'~
I. :l1~ ~"
I, - '-r '--.
I I
,
. ...,.
. ,
S?;::r'lng I,IP 0 E U
,.,~.-
>' i1iOiiiaf6---
::.' ,lin CoIttte
ij'
L,
~J, I
nITi
'')
{._~"",",.,J 6
I~ T:4f .
"~'2~j'-"'" .,'
.., ~'''1 /'
"-",i'~,,,-- t l
\..-1
"
!
l:S!;~ ~!,J~"
I
Z~!'tll)tl: P'UD
z..'nlil{j:C-4
f-
@
.
z
12
"
o
,
~
". ~,
III t
"
~
II.L
~~ -~~
i-?. c:
-'I' .'0;.
B~;'~ ~"
.'"
i"\
;.
:;
~ ,.
?Q~:MH d
II'"
H,A\7E_
Ir~l
Itt1i::l=1
,j z,:'ning: ~I~q-j C:Jj
. PUO.DAI>ENM":~
" - I j\'
'-,' .. ------, ,t8
J "
:j lUHItO J e DR 12:;
,
:.... '; :, ,1
:'-,". ,::
Zor'lng: 11-1.1 (I
n
j.'
:4
l'f
u:>n:f"lg:A.MHO
~.... 111-
.. ~:
-e """;ng'R"f'~
-U') - I
,,~ ~ ~
~~.. ~
~f l [-
I '
..' '- ==i
ZONING MAP
Page 3 of 12
--r'.---'-----""
!~err l\Ja, 17'':
JU:-ie 1 I), ::':CJ'J8
F'~';Je : 3 [)~ 224
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSTSTRNCY:
Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The project is located in the Immokalee area which is
designated Urban on the Future Land Use Map - specific subdistricts and development standards
are contained within the Immokalce Arca Master Plan (lAMP). The subject sites are located
within the lAMP Low Residential Subdistrict designation.
The purpose of the low rcsidcntial subdistrict is to providc for low density residential
development. Residential dwellings are limited to single-family structures and duplexes.
However, multi-family dwellings are permitted provided they are within a Planned Unit
Development. Density less than or equal to 4 dwelling units per gross acre is permitted.
Esperanza Place RPUD proposcs 262 dwclling units on 31.63 acrcs, which equatcs to a gross
density of 8.28 units per acre. The Density Rating System (DRS) allows the subject propel1ies a
basc dcnsity of 4 dwelling units an acre and the potential of an Afrordable- Workforce Housing
Density Bonus (AHDB), by public hearing, of up to 8 dwelling units an acre. The subject
petition includes a companion Agreement Authorizing Affordable-Workforce Housing Density
Bonus that indicates the requested project dcnsity is allowed (su~jcct to Housing & Human
Services Depa11mcnt rcvicw for accuracy and Board of County Commission approval).
Density analysis:
. Pcrmitted Base Density - 3 J .63 acres x 4 units per acre = 126.52 units
. AHDB Dcnsity Eligibility 31.63 acrcs x 8 units per acre = 253.04 units
. Total Possible Units = 379.56 (12 dwelling units per acres)
. Rcqucstcd Units = 262 units (8.23 dwclling units per acrcs)
The following FLUE policies and objectives apply to the subject use with respect to potential site
utilization (staff comments in parenthesis):
fLUE Policy 5.4 requires ncw land uscs to be compatible with thc surrounding arca.
Comprchcnsivc Planning leavcs this dctcrmination to thc Zoning and Land Development Review
staff as part ofthcir rcview of the petition in its entirety.
Objective 7 of the FLUE states: "In an effort to SUPPOlt the Conullunity Character Plan for
Collicr County, Florida, promotc smart growth policies, and adhcrc to the existing developmcnt
chm'aetcr of Collier County, thc following policics sha1J bc implcmcntcd for ncw dcvelopmcnt
and rcdcvelopmcnt projects, whcrc applicablc."
Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their
properties to fronting collector and arterial roadsl except where no such conrlection C,U1 be Inade
without violating intersection spacing requirements of thc Land Dcvclopment Code (LDC). (Thc
sitc's existing access is to Imlllokalce Drivc, a co1Jcctor road; no new access is proposed.)
Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help
reduce vehicle conge~tion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic
P,lgC 4 or 12
..!\ge~\ja item No. i 7C
June 10, 2008
Page 14 of 224
signals. (In the project narrative, the applicant indicates that there will be internal connections
between the multi-family residential p0l1ion ofthc sitc and the single-family portion of the site
after reviewing the Masler Plan provided in sheet two of the large location map submittals, this
has bccn confirmed.)
Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect thcir local streets
and their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardlcss
of land use type. (As stated in the projcct narrativc, the applicant notes that interconnections will
be explored, but may not be possible givcn thc surrounding development conditions. Upon
review of thc site aerial, staff concurs that it does not appear to be feasible. There is a potential
pedestrian interconnection shown on the Master Plan.)
Policy 7.4: The County shall cncourage new developments to provide walkable communities
with a blend of densities, common opcn spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and
types. (The subject proposal provides a blend of single and multi-family densities in conjunction
with being a dcvelopment with a proposed affordable housing componcnt. The project allows a
clubhouse, includes a recrcational tract, and includes the required opcn spacc. Sincc no deviation
is being requested, sidewalks must be provided as required in the LDC).
Staff deems the subject PUDZ-2007-AR-12581 to be consistent with the lAMP subject to the
approval of the companion agreement authorizing the Affordable-Workforce Housing Density
Bonus.
Transportation Element: Transportation Division staff has reviewed the petition's Traffic
Impact Statement (TIS) and the RPUD documcnt to ensure the appropriate language has bccn
added to address the project's potential traffic impacts and to offer a recommendation regarding
GMP Transportation Element, Policy 5.1. That Policy rcquircs the rcview of all rezone requests
with consideration of its impact on the overall transportation system and spccifically notes that
the counly shall not approve any rcquest that significantly impacts a roadway segment alrcady
operating or is projected to operatc at an unacceptable Level of Service (LOS) within the five-
year plmming period, unless specific mitigating stipulations m'e approved. A Traffic analyses was
conducted to determine if the project significantly impactcd thc local road network. The results
of that analysis are as follows:
The Esperanza RPlJD application can not be considered consistent with Policy 5.1 of the
Transportation Element of the GMP because the adjacent roadway network has insufficient
capacity to accommodate this project's site generatcd traffic within the five-year planning
period. However, if the applicant provides mitigation in tl1e form of a fair share contribution
towards intersection improvements at SR-29 and Lake Trafford Road (CR-890), this petition can
be found consistcnt with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Elemcnt of thc Gro",'th Management
Plan.
lmmokalee Drive:
Thc proposed development produces 96 I'M peak hour, peak direction trips on lmmokalee Drive
west of SR-29, which represents a significant impact of 12.81 percent on the first link. Level of
Service is not currently analyzed by Collier County on this collector road.
Page 5 of 12
::2m t~o_ j 7C
June 10.2:)(13
?a;J8 Ej of :224
SR-29 (lst link impacted)
The project proposcs 36 I'M pcak hour, peak dircction trips on SR-29 bctwccn N. 1511> Street and
"CR-29A NOJ'th" (known as the Northerly inter~ection of New Market and SR-29), which
represents an impact of 4.1 I percent. This segment of SR-29 has a service volume of 850 trips,
and has a remaining capacity of 170 trips. This segment is anticipated to fail within the 5 year
planning window. A requirement for fair share contribution to the intersection of SR-29 and
Lakc Trafford Road (CR-890) has been spccified by staff as mitigation to satisfy requirements
Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Elcment.
SR-29 (2nd link impacted)
The project proposes 26 PM pcak hour trips on SR-29 between N. 15th Street and "CR-29A
South" (known as the easterly intersection of New Market and SR-29), which represents an
impact of 1.4 percent. This segment of SR-29 has a service volume of 1,860 trips and has a
remaining capacity of I, 101 trips, and operates at LOS "B".
Conservation & Coastal Manal!cment Element (CCME): Objective 2.2 of the Conservation
and Coastal Management Elcmcnt (CCME) of the GMP states, "All canals, rivers, and flow
ways discharging into cstuaries shall mcct all applicable fcderal, state, or local water quality
standards".
To accomplish that, the petitioner shall comply with Policy 2.2.2 that states "In order to limit the
specific and cumulative impacts of st01111watcr runoff, storm water systems should be designed in
such a way that dischargcd water docs not dcgradc rccciving watcrs and an attempt is made to
enhance the timing, quantity, and quality offrcsh watcr (dischargc) to thc cstuarine systcm."
According to the applicant the proposed RPUD attempts to mimic Dr enhance the quality and
quantity of water leaving the site by utilizing intercOlmected dry detention areas and lakes to
providc watcr quality rctention and pcak flow attcnuation during storm events. As a result
Staff toured the site and discussed variou~ option~, and dctcrmincd that O.7H acrcs of the
wetland and 0.52,[ acres of the uplomd vegetation meet the definition of native vegetation. For
this project to be found consistent with the CCME Policy 6.1.1, a minimum of 25 percent (a
minimum of 0.31 acre--O.18 acre of wetland and O.B acres of upland) of this area must be
prescrvcd.
The applicants stated for the upland pOltion that eithcr a 0.13 acre prescrvc would be crcated on
site or an off-site alternative preserve consistent with CCME Policy 6.1. I (10) would bc
provided. For the wetland preserve, mitigation at an approved mitigation bank l'equired by South
Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) as part of the Environmental Resource Permit
can also bc used to mcct thc County's prcscrvation rcquircment. Thesc options are consistent
with the OMP rcquircmcnt~ for vcgctation rctcntion sincc thc OMI' docs not cxprcss1y prohibit
mitigation banks as an off-site option.
Thc PUD document has been mnended to acknowledge the preservation requirement and spccify
that thc rcquircd preservation will be met using off-site alternatives accomplished prior to
rnge 6 of 12
;~g~nda item No. i7e
June 10,2008
Page 16 of 224
development approvals. As a result, staff is of the opinion that the subject pctition is consistent
with the CCME.
Housing Element: Approval of thc RPUD rezone to provide a maximum of 262 affordable
residential units at a density of 8.28 units per gross acre is consistent with the intent of GMP
Housing Element Objective], which states:
The number of new qffordable housing units shall inerease by 500 units each year in
an effort to continue ta meet the housing needs of all current and fUrther very-low,
low and moderate income residents of the County, . . . .
The Aflordable Housing Density Bonus Program provides for moderate, low and very low
income housing through the use of density bonuses which allow an increase in the number
of residential dwelling units per acre, thereby decreasing the per unit cost of land and
dcvclopment, in turn expanding the housing oPp0J1unities for affordable housing throughout
the County.
The requested density is consistent with the allowable limits. Thc projcct must be monitored
during construction phase and delivery of affordable housing component as outlincd in the
Bonus Dcnsity Agreement Item (4) and must provide the I-lousing and Human Services
DepaJ1ment annual rcports on progrcss for compliance with LDC 2.06.05.A. Monitoring
will be key during the development, certificate of occupancy (CO) stage, and occupancy of
the units. Documentation f01111S will be provided by Housing and Human Scrvices for
monitoring and yearly reporting.
Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes that the proposed uses and densities may be
deemed consistent with the lAMP, and FLUE of the GMP, subject to the approval of the
Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agrecmcnt (Attachmcnt C).
ANALYSIS:
Staff complctcd a comprehensive evaluation of this land llse petition and the criteria upon which
a detennination is based. The critcria are noted in Sections 10.02.13 and lO.02.13.B.5 of the
LDC. The staff evaluation establishes an accuratc basis to support the rccommendations. The
Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) uses the samc critcria as thc basis for thcir
recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BeC), who in turn use thc critcria to
support thcir action on the rezoning request. These evaluations are completed as separate
documents and arc attach cd to thc staff rcport (Attaclunent "A" and Attachment "B").
Environmental Analvsis: In the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the applicant asse11s,
"since this project does not have any native habitats a tree count was conducted". Thc applicant
did not provide staff with enough scientilic evidence to substantiate this statement. After several
mcctings betwcen the applicant and staff, William Lorenz, Engineering and Enviromnental
Services Department Dircctor, wrote a lettcr which stated, "vegetation retention requirement will
be based on ihe vcgetation cUl"rcntly on sitc sincc there is little change from aerials in 1997 to
today," and the refel1'ed letter is Exhibit "Environmental Services Director Letter" in the EIS.
Staff requested the E1S to be revised to elaborate and justify the statement that native vcgctation
present on site should not be preserved. The applicant declined because they felt the ElS
Page 7 of 12
, ..'---r--'~--
Ile,r1 r'~:). i 7C
..June 10. 2DU-3
?age ': 7 of 224
document was sufficient for the Environmcntal Advisory Council (EAC) review. The EAC
revicwed the proposed Espcranza Placc RPUD on April 2, 2008 and continucd their rcview to
the May 7, 200g EAC meeting. Their motion for the continuance was for the applicants to revise
their EIS and to work with stall' to reach an agreement about the amount of preservation required
and for the applicant to contact EAC members for a tour of the property.
As previously mentioned, staff did not initially agrec with thc E1S bccausc it did not support thc
statcmcnt that no native vegetation is locatcd onsite. Since thc rcviscd ElS, staff is in agrecment
with the ElS and has incorporated safeguards in the RPUD document and Mastel' Plan.
Esperanza Place RPUD contains 0.52 acres of uplmld vegetation on site and 0.73 acres of
wetland. The GMP and LDC require a minimum of 25 percent of this vegetation be preserved.
The applicant has revised the RPUD document and Mastcr Plan which now satisfy the
requiremcnt by providing the minimum 25 percent, O. I 3 acrcs of upland and 0.18 acres of
wetland as preserve.
EnviroJUllental Services staff now recommends approving Esperanza Place PUDZ AR-l2581
with the following conditions, all of which are included in thc CUlTent version of the PUD
documcnt:
A. A Florida Black Bear management plan shall be provided to the County Manager 01' designee
during SDP or pIal review process.
B. Thc site cUlTcntly contains 1.26", acrcs of nativc vcgctation (0.52+1- acrcs of upland and
0.73"' acrcs of wetland nativc vcgctation onsite); a minimnm of 25 perccnt, 0.32 acres, must bc
preserved. For the 0.13 acre portion of the upland vegetation, the applicant will donate an
equivalent ofT-site preserve to be accepted by a public agency or contribute a monetary payment
to Conservation Collier equivalent to the average per-acre value found in an appraisal of the
entire site, multiplied by the number of acres to bc prcscrvcd off-sitc, plus 15 pcrccnt of that
amount as an cndowmcnt for managcment of off-sitc land. The appraisal shall be based on the
fair market value of the land as if the desired zoning were in place. Twenty-five percent of the
o.n acre wetland native vegetation will be preserved and appropriately managed off-site at an
approved mitigation bank. All preservation must be accomplished prior to SDP/PPL approval.
This off-site preservation may be utilized as pari of the required off-site mitigation requirement
of the EnvirolUllent Resourcc Permit.
C. The subjcct properly was uscd for agricultural Pl111'0SeS and incurrcd clearing for which no
permit can be located. In order for clearing to be considered legal and re-creation of removed
vegetation nol be required, an after-the-fact clearing fee will be paid for the clearing of
approximately 23.6 acres prior to approval for the SDP or PPL for relevant acreage.
Utility Analysis: The Public Utili tics Division staff has revicwcd the petition. The projcct does
not impact the Collier County Water - Sewer District. Based on the 2005 Water and Wastewater
Mastel' Plan Updates, the project location is not within Collier County Water and Sewer Service
Area. This development is within the Immokalee Water - Sewer District. \\Then this project
reaches the site development plan (SDP) process, a letter from the franchised utility system must
be submitted to Collicr County Community Dcvclopmcnt Engineering Scrviccs ])epmiment
stating thc available capacity.
Page R (If 12
!(em r\lo. 17C
June 10,2008
Page i 8 of 224
Transportation Analvsis: Trmlsportation Services Division staff has reviewed the petition and
the petitioner's have agreed to the mitigation terms and incorporated them into Exhibit F-
Developer Commitments of the CPUD document.
Zoning: and Land Development Analvsis: Relationship to Existing and Future Land Uses: The
subject site is zoned A"MHO and has 2 homes on site, one will be demolished and the other will
remain as a rental home. The adjacent parcels are zoned A-MHO, RSF-4 and Village Residential
(VR). The request to rezone the property to a RPUD will provide for a more cohesive residential
community. The proposed density for this request is consistent with the FLUE as well as the
existing and fuh\re development pattcrn in the arca and the goals of the GMP for affordable
housing.
The development standards contained in Exhibit B- Table I m'e designed to reilect a compact
urban environment that will allow smaller more affordable family homes. The proposed
development standards a front yard setback of 20 feet, and a rear setback of 15 fect. The side
yard setback varies depending on the dwclling unit; 7.5 fcct for singlc-family detached and 10
feet for multi-fmllily; single-family attached and duplex will have a zero (0)/5 feet side yard
setback and the zero-lot line, townhomes will be zero (0)/6 feet setback The development
standm'ds are compatible with Arrowhead PUD (Ord. 05-13) which is located to the west and
also compatible with Davenport PUD (Ord. 87-75) which is located to the east.
Recruested Deviation from the Land Development Code (LDC): The petitioner is seeking 2
deviations from the requirements of the LDC. The. petitioner has provided justification in supp01i
of the deviations, and staff has evaluated the deviation requests and recommends approval of the
deviations as enumerated below:
Deviation #1 sccks rclicf from Scction 5.05.08, which rcquircs nOIH'csidcntial components
of any PUD to mcct architectural dcsign standards. This dcviation would allow the non-
residential component of Tract A to be exempt from these standards.
Petitioner's Justification: The recreation centcr that will be developed in Tract A will be located
internal to thc project. The building will be a minimum of 430 fect from Immokalee Drive, and
the residential dwelling units are located away from the site of the recreation ccnter. The center
will be bordered by an internal drive with parking on the opposite side, an on-site water
management lake, and a building that is Oliented to the road rather than the recreation site.
Approval of this deviation request will not endanger public health, safety or welfare.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff agrees that thc proposcd deviation for the
applicability from LDC 5.05.08, for the recrcation ccntcr is justificd because the structure will
not be visible to the general public. Furthermore, in Section 5.05.0S, "The purpose of these
standards is to supplement existing development criteria in order to complement, enhance und
emich the urban fabric of Collier County 'Nith an abundunt variety of architecture." However, the
cost associated with these standards can place an undue financial burden on the applicant who is
providing affordable housing to a much nceded population.
Dcviation #2 sceks relief from Section 3.05.07 which rcqnires on-site preservation of 25
percent of the native vegetation. This deviation would allow off.site preservation or
Page 9 of 12
:!e!T1 r'\)o. ~ 7C
J'.Yie1'J. 2008
r:'Z'i=-:S :9 of :24
paymcnt in licu to the Conservation Collicr Trust llnnd. This deviation is specificd in
Commitment IIl-B, locatcd in Exhibit F of this RPUD.
Petitioner's Justification: Most of the subject propcrty has bccn impactcd from years of
agricultural use. The native vegetation that remains is scattered throughout the site in a
configuration that precludes the efficient use of the property. The proposed developmcnt is an
in fill project that is not bordered by any other native vegetation preserve. To ensure maximum
use of the property for affordable housing thc applicant has committed to meet this requirement
by providing an equivalent area of preservc off-site or by providing a contribution to the
Conservation Collier Trust Fund. This deviation and the related commitment are consistent with
Policy 6.1.1(10) of the Conservation and Coastal Management Elemcnt (CCME), which was
adopted to allow off-site preserves in certain situations. The Land Development Code has not
yet been updated to include a ncw process for approval, so a deviation must be granted through
the zoning approval process. The CCME lists somc considerations for allowing preserves to be
relocated away from the development, including: the intcndcd use of the propetty, including
affordable housing; whether the required preserve is a small area; and what type of vegctation is
on-site, among others. This project meets all the criteria in the GMP to allow prcservc off-site.
Staff Analvsis and Rccommcndation: Environmental staff agrees with this request because a
deviation from the LDC is required for thc off-site prcscrvation of thc wetland and for the option
of the otl~site upland preservation, This is a discrepancy because currcntly the LDC does not
provide for off-site preservation. This will soon be ratified because the LDC is scheduled to be
amended for consistency with the GMP requirement for olf-site preservation.
NEIGIlBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NlM):
The agent/applicant held the required NIM on March 3, 200S, 5:30 PM at the lmmokalee
Library, 417 N01ih I" Street. Approximately 10 people [rom the public attended as well as thc
applicant's team and county staff.
TIle agents Jor the applicant presented an overview of the proposcd project, explaining that the
site will consist of three tracts. Tract "A" will consist of multi-family homcs; Tract "8" will
consist of single-family homes; mld Tract "c" will consist of one single family home which
alrcady cxists on the property. To provide water management, the agent stated that there will bc
two lakes on the sitc; a half-acre lakc and a three and a half acre Jake. The agent also stated that
there will be a 15 inch pi pc to the road 1'01' drainage and a 6 inch hole for discharge. When
questioned about the minimum size of thc single-family homcs, the agent stated tllat the
minimum size of a single-family home will be 1,000 squarc fcct. Qucstions and concerns from
the sunounding neighbors were over water management and were spccifically related to
drainage, flooding and water run-off.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMISSION (EAC):
The Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) heard this petition 011 April 2, 2008. During the
hcaring, the preservation requirements and quality of existing native habitat wcre cxtcnsiveIy
discussed. The results of the discussion were inconclusive at the time. The final motion of thc
EAC was to continue the rcvicw which rcsulted in the project being heard on May 7, 200R. For
PagelOnrl2
,A.genda i1em No. 17e
Jun,= 1020GB
Page 20 of 224
that rea~on, the EAC recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (Be C) will have
to be presented verbally to thc Collier County Planning Commission (CepC).
It was determined during the EAC hcaring that staff and the applicant should discuss the
prcserve requirement for this project; also the applicant was instructed to invite the EAC
membcrs to visit the site to verify the existing upland native vegetation and current conditions of
existing wctland. Community Development and Environmental Services (CDES); Principal
Planner, Environmental Planner and Environmental Reviewer visited the site on April 10, 2008.
The outcome of the site visit was an agreement to resolve the native vegetation issue. The
RPUD document has been revised to rcflcct that agreement. The EAC members were invited (0
visit the site on Thursday, April 24 and Friday, April 25.
RECOMMENDATION:
Zoning & Land Development Review staff recommends that the Collier County Plmming
Commission forward Petition PUDZ-2007-AR-12581 Esperanza PJacc to thc Board of County
Commissioners with a recommendation of approval with the following stipulations:
1. Remove the word "potential" on the Master Plan which shows the intercOlUlection to the
west.
2. An updated Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement with signatures needs to be
providcd to staff prior to the Board of County Commissioners hearing on June 10, 2008.
3, Approval of Dcviation #1 which seeks relief from Section 5.05.08, which requires non-
residential componcnts of any PUD to meet architectural dcsign standards. This deviation
would allow the non-residcntial componcnt of Tract A to be exempt from these standard~.
4. Approval of Deviation #2 which ~eeks relicf from Section 3.05.07 which rcquires on-site
preservation of 25 pcrcent of the native vegetation. This deviation would allow off-site
preservation or paymcnt in lieu to the Conservation Collicr Trust fund.
Attachments: A. Rezone Findings
13. RPUD findings
C, Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agrccmcnt
Page II or 12
item :'10, l7C
J~}'le ~!O, 2CJ(J8
::::iJf 224
PREPARED BY:
'p(p (C- :2-
~:t-;j '-.,')... _-~ C3,~___
MELISSA ZON~IP AL PLANNER
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND
LAND DEVELOPMENT REVlEW
~6
REVIEWED BY:
"(, ) l "1 clJ~J..t- ~'"
MARl EM. STUDENT-STIRLING \J
ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
stz/cs
DATE
5 ~2.(gt_
ffAc~T/
5/:/0'6
D TE
~ SUS M_ ISTENES, AICP, DIRECTOR
1 DEP RTMENT OF ZONING AND
LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
APPROVED BY:
---"-
EPH K. ScHMITT, ADMINISTRATOR
MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND
,NVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
~
. ;,4
A:J'E
Tentatively scheduled for the June 10,2008 Board of County eonUllissioners Meeting
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMM1SS10N:
/71
'\ l' ilf
,.. ;/ -;,.." ~
Ij / 1 f/<..)J (,,'\L;\/;L.-~...;.
I 1------------
MARK'P. STRAIN, CHA1RMAN
I I
C;i I c;/ o'fJ
DATE
Page 12 of 12
EXITIBITA
lqenda item No. l7e
June 10. 200S
Page 22 of 224
REZONE FINDINGS
PETITION PUDZ-2006-AR-12581 Esperanza Place RPlm
Chapter 10.03 .05.G of the Collicr County Land Dcvelopment Code requir",s that the repOli and
recommendations of the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners shall
show that the Planning Commission has studied and considered the proposed ChmlgC in rclation
to the following, whcrc applicable:
t. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, & policies
of the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and the clements of the Growth Management
Plan (GMP).
Findings: The subject property is designatcd Rural Agricultural with a Mobile l-lomc
Ovcrlay (A-MI-IO) Zoning District, as identified on thc FLUM of the GMP. Thc
applicant's are requesting a gross density of 8.28 dwelling units on 31.63", acres.
Pcrtinent to this petition, this Subdistrict permits residential dcvelopmcnt (variety of unit
types) at a base dcnsity of up to 4 rcsidcntial units pcr gross acre and the Affordable-
Workforce !lousing Dcnsity Bonns (AHDB) allows the applicant to request np to 8
additional dwclling units an acrc; therefore, the project is consistent with the GMP. Pagc
4 of the staff repOJi presents further details about how this pctition is consistent with the
FLUM and the elements ofthc GMP.
Although, Transportation Scrviccs Division staff has determined that this RPUD is not
consistent with Policy 5.1 of thc TranspOlialion Element of the GMP. If mitigatcd, thc
projcct can be found consistent with the GMP. These provisions arc fowld in
Commitmcnt II, Exhibit F of the RPUD document and if thc Developcr adheres to them,
this RPUD will be eonsistent with all clcmcnts ofthc GMP.
2. The existing land use pllttcl'n;
Findings: The cxisting patlcrn to the north is single-family residential dwclling units
zoncd Single-Family Residential (RSF-4); the lmld use to thc south is Agriculture and is
zoned A-MHO Zoning District; the propelty to the cast is Single-Family & Multi-family
residential, zoned A-MHO and DavcnpOli PUD; and thc propelty to the west is
Manufactured & Mobilc Home, zoned A-MHO. The proposed project is consistent with
the existing residential land use patterns as explained in the staff report bccause the
rczonc complics with the (iMP, the Immokalee Area Master Plan (lAMP) and the Land
Dcvelopmcnt Code (LDC) requircmcnts.
3. The possible crelltion of an isolatcd district unrclated to adjacent and nearby
districts;
Findings: An isolated district from the neighborhood is usually determined by
topography and inadequate public facilities. Because the proposed Residential Planned
Unit Development (RPUD) rezone is consistent with the GMP with regards to adeqnatc
public facilities ordinance, the rezone will not create an isolated district. In regards to the
nearby districts thc location map on page 2 of the staff rcport ilIustratcs that there are
scveral othcr PUD developments in the area with similar land uscs. For those reasons, the
rczone request will not create an isolated district to the adjacent districts,
Page I of4
:tern r~o. 1 ('C
June 10. 2008
EXHIBIT A Flags 23 of .224
4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation 10 cxisting
conditions on the proper'ty proposed for change.
Findings: The location map on pagc 2 of thc staff rcporl illustratcs the pcrimcter of the
outer boundary of the subjcct parcel. The proposed RPUD boundaries are consistent with
the majority of boundaries within the Immokalee area. Furthennore, the 2 access points
for the properly will be on Immokalee Drive which is a collector road in Inlllloka!ee and
access onto this road will not alter the conditions of the community.
5. Whether changed or changing conditions makc the passage of the proposed
amendmcnt necessary.
Findings: The proposed RPUD rezone is not obligatory at tlus location. Howcver, the
request is reasonable because the FLUM dcsignates this area as the Urban. Ccrtain
subdistricts and development standards are contained within the lAMP and this project
adhcres to thosc standards. The subject sitc is located within the lAMP Low Residential
Subdistrict designation, and the proposed RPUD rezone is appropriate because it is
consistent to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and the lAMP.
6. Whether the proposed change will advcrscly influcncc living conditions in the
neighborhood;
Findings: The development will not adversely affect the living conditions in the
neighborhood because the requested development standards me similar to the
development standards contained in the lAMP and the LDC. Furthermore, the
developmcnt standards are similar to the Arrowhead PUD and Davenport PUD
developl1lcnt in the area.
7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively incr'ease tmllic congestion
or create types of tr'affic deem cd incompatible with surrounding land uscs, bccausc
of peak volnmes or projected typcs of vchicular traffic, including activity dnring
construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety.
Findings: The site generated trips will lower the Leve! of Service (LOS) below thc
adopted LOS standard for SR-29 between N. 15th Street and "CR-29A North. This
segment of SR-29 has a scrvice volume of 850 trips, and a rcmaining capacity of 170
trips. This segmcnt is anticipatcd to fail within the 5 year planning window. A
requirement for a fair share contribution to the intersection of SR-29 and Lake Tralford
Road (CR-890) has been incorporated into the RPUD document as mitigation to satisfy
requirements Policy 5. I of the Transpoliation Elemcnt. Thc Transportation Services
Division has revicwcd the proposcd PUD and has rccollullcnclcd approval of the petitioll
bascd upon thc mitigation commitmcnt in Exhibit F oftlte RPJJD.
8. Whether' the proposed change will create a drainage problem;
Find~; The proposed changc should not crcate drainage or surfacc water problems
bccausc thc Section 4.03.01 of thc LDC spccifically addresses prerequisite development
standards that are designed to reduce [he risk of' Ilooding on nearby properties. The
proposed water management and drainage is designed to prevent draiuage problcms on
site and is compatible with the adjacent water management systems. Additionally, the
Page 2 of4
.p..:.Jer-::Ja item No. 17e
.> June 10. 2008
EXHIBIT ^ Page 24 of 224
LDC and GMP havc rcgulations in place that will ensure revicw for drainagc on new
dcvelopmcnts.
9. Whethcr the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas;
Findings: As dcpicted on thc RPUD Mastcr Plan (Exhibit B) thc buffcrs surrounding thc
propcrty providc a sufficient setback from the external propcliics which will facilitatc
ample light and air distribution to adjacent propcliies. Therefore, the proposcd change
will not have an adverse impact on adjaccnt properties. Thc proposed development
requires the site to conform to the devclopmcnt standards which are in Chapter 4 of thc
LDC, specifically in scction 4.06.01 which is intcndcd to improve enviromTIcntal quality
by reducing and rcversing air, noise, heat, and chemical pollution through thc
preservation of canopy trees and the creation of shadc and microclimate to protcct thc
adj acent areas.
10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect propcrty values in the adjacent
area;
Findings: This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results which may be
intcrnal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of
factors including zoning; however zoning by itself mayor may not affect values, since
value determination is drivcn by markct value. ll1ere is no guarmltcc that the projcct will
bc l11arkctcd in a manner comparable to the surrounding developments.
II. Whether thc proposcd change will he a dctcrrent to thc improvement or
dcvelopment of adjacent pl"Opert)' in accordance with existing regulations;
Ein<iil~: The adjacent propel1ies are also designated Urban Residcntial on the FLUE
and thcy allow for similar dwclling types. Thereforc, thc proposcd dcvclopment will not
bc a dctcncnt to the improvement of adjacent propertics.
12. Whether the pl"Oposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to lln
individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare;
Findings: Land Use application are subject to the public hcaring process 10 assure that
thc rezonc thcreby authorized shall not constitute a grant of spccial privileges inconsistent
with the limitations upon othcr propertics in thc vicinity in which the propeliy is situated.
The proposed rczonc complies with the land use designation of thc FLUM as well as the
lAMP, and this Rl'UD was deemed to be consistent with thc GMP.
13. Whcther there are substantinl rcasons why thc property cannot be used III
accordance with existing zoning;
Findings: The subject property could not develop residential dwelling units 111
accordance with the existing zoning becausc the currcnt zoning is A-MIlO and that
zoning does not allow tIllS typc of residential development. The proposed RPUD rezonc
conforms to the GMP because it will be developed in accordance with the lAMP.
Page3of4
..----,..-...
!T8m J'.Jo. 17e
J~ne 10, 2CJCJ8
EXH1BIT A Page 25 of 224
14. Whether the change suggcsted is flut of scale with thc needs of thc neighborhood or
the County;
Findings: Thc proposed rezone, subject to stafT stipulations denoted on page 11 and 12 of
the staffrepOll will ensure that this RPUD will comply with all objcctive critcria set fOlth
for residential zoning districts in the LDC and conform to all thc goals and objectives of
the OMP.
15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed
use in districts already permitting such use.
Findings: There are many sites which are zoned to accommodate the proposed
development but this is not the dctclmining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of
a rczoning decision. The detcrminants of the zoning are with consistency with all the
elemcnts of the OMP. The proposed RPUD document was reviewed on its own mcrit for
compliance with the GMP and the LDC. The proposcd RPUD is consistcnt with the
FLlJM because it meets all thc critcria within the lAMP of the GMP,
16. The physical characteristics of the propcrty and thc degree of site alteration, which
would bc J'cquired to makc the property usable for any of the mnge of potential uses
undel' the proposed, zoning classification.
Finding~: Any dcvelopmcnt would rcquire some site alteration and [he Esperanza Place
RPUD will havc to be cvaluated during a site development plnn or plans and plat
approval to cxecute the RPUDs development strategy.
17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities aud
services consistent with the levels of scrvicc adopted in the Collier Count). Growth
Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County
Adequate Pu blie Facilities Ordinance, as amended.
Findings: The proposed RPUD petition will have to meet all objective criteria set fOJlh in
Section 6.02.00 Adequate Public Facilities for residcntial zoning as well as (0 conform to
the goals and objcctives of the GMP and all its elements. This petition has been reviewed
by county staff that is responsible it)!" jurisdictional elements of the OMP and thcy have
concludcd that no LOR will be adversely impacted because the proposcd dcvclopmcnt is
consistent with all Elements of the GMP.
Page 4 of.1
EXHIBIT B
i\:1enda item ~Jo. ~i 7e
~ June 10,2008
Page 26 of 224
FINDINGS FOR }'UD
PUDZ-2006-AR- 12581 Esperanza Place RPUD
Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County Land Development Code requires the Planning Commission
to make a finding as to the PUD Master Plans' compliance with the following criteria:
1. The suitability of the area for thc type and pattel'D of dcvelopment proposed in
relation to ph)'sical characteristics of the land, sUlTounding areas, traffic and access,
drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities.
Findings: 'TIle RPUD rezone will intcnsify the land but relative to public facilitics this
project will be required to comply with all county regulations rcgarding drainage, sewer,
water and other utilities pursuant to Section 6,02.00 Adequate Public Facilities of the
LDC. Exhibit A ofthc RPUD document states that the Espcranza Place RPUD shall be in
accordance with all applicable sections of thc Land Development Code (LDC) and
Growth Management Plan (GMP) at the time of issuance of any development order.
2. Adequacy of evidence of unificd eontl'Ol and suitability of any proposed agreements,
contract, or other instrumcnts, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as
thcy may relate to armngements or provisions to be made for the continuing
operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or
maintained at public expense.
Findings: The application has indicated that the RPUD will bc divided into tlu'ee Tracts
with different ownership, and each entity will have unified control over their Tract. The
documents were submitted with the Esperanza Placc RPUD application and are provided
as supporting cvidence of unified control.
3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objeetivcs
and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP).
Findings: Thc project as proposed is consistent with the Future Land Use Map (FLUM)
which designated the subject property as lAMP Low Residential Subdistrict. The subject
petition has been found consistcnt with the goals, objectives and policies of the GMP,
Page 4 of the staff report expounds in detail of how the projcct is decmed consistent with
the GMP.
4. Thc intcrnal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may
include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and
buffering and screening ..equirements.
I'inciil1illi: Thc RPUD Master PlaIl has bcen designed to optimize internal land use and
thc cxtcrnaj relationships are regulated by Section 4.07.02 of the LDC has spccific
requirements for Developmcnt within a PUD district shull be compatible with cstablished
or planned uses of surrounding neighborhoods and propclty. In addition to Chapter 4
regulations, the Dcvelopmcnt Commitments containcd in Exhibit F of the RPUD
docmncnt provide additional guidelines the developer \vill have io fuliill.
Poge t of2
EXIIIIlIT II
iI9r;: I~CJ, '17C
J'Jne '10, 2008
F'age '27 of 224
5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to sen'e the
development.
Findings: The amount of opcn space set aside on the Master Plan of Exhibit C of the
RPUD document is a wet dctcntion area that is the projects surface water management.
While the proposcd residential development is appropriate for this site, eareful
consideration must be given to the protection of new rcsidential uses from potential
impacts rcsulting from over crowded developmcnt and limited internal roadways.
6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of
available improvements and facilities, both public and private.
Findings: The only capacity issues that are known at this time is for the projcct is thc
traffic impacts this RPUD will impose on thc adjacent roadway nctwork and the
developers have agrecd to mitigate the insufficient capacity through a fair share
contribution towards intersection improvements at SR-29 and Lake Trafford Road (CR-
890).
In addition, this petition has been reviewed by all the required county staff and they have
dctermined that no Level of Service (LOS) standards will be adversely affected. Policy
23 of the GMP mandate, "Continue the CerliJicate of Adequatc Public Facility
Adequacy regulatory program, whi eh requires the celiification of public facility
availability prior to thc issuance of a Iinal local devclopmcnt ordcr." Because of this
provision, the development must be in compliance with applicable concurrency
management regulation.
7. The ability of the subject propcrty and of surrounding areas to accommodate
expansion.
findings: Currcntly, the utility and roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to scrvc
thc proposed RPUD as well as thc surrounding development at the time of build-out of
this project.
8. Confol'mity with pun I'egulations, or as to desirable modifications of such
regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications
arc justified as meeting public purposcs to a degrcc at least equivalent to literal
application of such regulations.
fil1djl1g~: Staff has reviewed (his petition for adcquatc public scrvices and levels of
service and found it is consistent with thc future Land lJse Element (FT ,UE) and it meets
all the elements ofthe GMP. Additionally, Espcranz.a Place RPUD contains dcvelopment
standards that are comparable to the development standards contained in thc A1Towhead
pun and Davenport PlJD. The proposed building heights, sctbacks and development
commitments ensure a similar product to that ofthc adjaccnt propcrtics.
Page 2 of2
Agenda item h!o. 17C
June 10, 2008
Page 28 of 224
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
DRIVE
DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
WWW.COLLlERGOV.NET
643-6968
2800 NORTH HORSESHOE
(i)
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
(239) 403-2400 FAX (239)
PETITION NO (AR)
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT NUMBER
DATE PROCESSED
ASSIGNED PLANNER
To be completed by staff
NAME OF APPLICANT (S) FLORIDA NON-PROFIT SERVICES. INC.
ADDRESS 900 BROAD AVENUE SOUTH. SUITE #2-C ClTY_NAPlI~ STATE FLORIDA ZIP
34102
TELEPHONE # 239-434-6001,
CEll # ____________________ FAX # _ 239-434-
7318
E - MAl l ADDRESS: ______________________________________________________________
NAME OF APPLICANT IHE EMPOWERMENT ALLIANCE OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.
ADDRESS 7S0 S. FIFTH STREET CITY IMMOKAlEE STATE FLORIDA ZIP 34142
TELEPHONE # __239-658-331 5____ CELL # ____________________ FAX # _239-657-
3084___
E-MAIL ADDRESS: ________________________________________________________________
Application for PUblic Hearing For rUD Rezone
fNPSP. EAIDP
_nw.__.---r-__"
:tsm No. 17C
NAME OF AGENT HEIDIK. WILLIAMS. AICP. O. GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES. g;J;;;r:oO}~~~
ADDRESS 3800 VIA DEL REY CITY BONITA SPRINGS STATE FLORIDA ZIP 34134
TELEPHONE # 239-947-1144 CELL # _________________ FAX # 239-947-0375
E-MAIL ADDRESS:HWILLlAMS@GRADYMINOR.COM
._.__.,-,~- -~
BE AWARE THAT COLLIER COUNTY HAS LOBBYIST REGULATIONS. GUIDE
YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY AND ENSURE THAT YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH
THESE REGULATIONS.
Complete the following for all Association(s) affiliated with this petition.
Provide additional sheets if necessary.
NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: IMMOKALEE ROTARY CLUB
MAILING ADDRESS _P.Q. BOX 5274____ CITY _lJv1MOKALEE- STATE __FL__ ZIP 34143
NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: IMMOKALEE CIVIC ASSOCIATION _________
MAILING ADDRESS _502 E. NEW MARKET RD CITY .lli'1_MOI(ALEE STATE JL_ ZIP34 142
NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: ____________________________________________
MAILING ADDRESS ____________________ CITY _____________ STATE _______ ZIP ______
NAME OF MASTER ASSOCIATION: _______________________________________________
MAILING ADDRESS _________________________ CITY ___________ STATE ____ ZIP _____
NAME OF CIVIC ASSOCIATION: __________________________________________________
MAILING ADDRESS _________________________ CITY ___________ STATE ____ ZIP _____
a. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by
. the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties
Application For Pvblic l'learing For PUD Rezone
fNPSP. EAIDP
fl,Cjenja :i8m No, 17e
- June 10 2008
with an ownership interest as well as the percentage oPa!i'~Cfiof 224
interest. (Use additional sheets if necessary).
Name and Address
Percentage of Ownership
See Attached Ownership List
b. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and
stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each.
Name and Address
Percentage of Ownership
See Attached Ownership List
c. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of
the trust with the percentage of interest.
Name and Address
Percentage of Ownership
d. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the general and/or limited partners.
Name and Address
Percentage of Ownership
Application For PublIc Hearing For Pl,JD Rezone
FNPSP, EAIDP
iTem f\jo. l7e
June 10, .20rJ8
:'3;1831 of 224
e. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or
individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names
of the contract purchasers below, including the officers,
stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners.
Name and Address
Percentage of Ownership
Please see attached
Date of Contract:________________
f. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional
parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership,
or trust.
Name and Address
g. Date subject property acquired 0 leased 0 Term of lease
_________ yrs.! m 0 s.
If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following:
Date of option: __See Attached_________________
Date option terminates: ___________________, or
Anticipated closing date __________________
h. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for
purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone
FNPSP, cAIDP
.L\genda Item l..Jo. 17e
h d f h f I bl' h . .. h b I f ....june 10, 2008
t e ate 0 t e ina pu IC eanng, It IS t e responsi i ity 0 tll>::age 32 of 224
applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental
disclosure of interest form.
Detailed leqal description of the propertv covered bv the application:
SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT D, LEGAL DESCRIPTION
NOTE: The applicant is responsible for supplying the correct legal description. If
questions arise concerning the legal description, an engineer's certification or sealed
survey may be required.
Section/Township/ Range
Lot: Block:
32 /46 /29
Subdivision:
Plat Book _____ Page #: ___________ Property 1.0. #: 00076040007, 00076200009.
00076080009 and 00076160000
Metes & Bounds Description:
Size of property: _1 060_ft. X _1300__ft. = Total Sq. Ft. _________ Acres 31.6+
Address/general location of subject property: The subiect propertv is located on the
north side of Immokalee Drive, west of S.R. 29 and east of Carson Road.
PUD District (LDC 2.03.06): [gJ Residential D Community Facilities
D Commercial D Industrial
Zoning
Land use
N RSF-4, MH
S A-MHO
E A-MHO
W MH
Sinqle-fa111i1v residential
Single-familv residential
Sinqle famllv,residential
Mobile Home/Manuf<jcture,d Home Subdivision
Does the owner of the subject property own property contiguous to the
subject property? If so, give complete legal description of entire contiguous
property. (If space is inadequate, attach on separate page). No
Application For PUblic Hearing For PUD Rezone
fNPSP. FAIOP
item t~C). i 7e
June '10, 2008
Section/Township/Range _____/ ______/ ______ ?age 23 of 224
Lot: _________ Block: _______ Subdivision: _______________________________
Plat Book _____ Page #: ______ Property I.D. #: _____________________________
Metes & Bounds Description:
This application is requesting a rezone from the A-MHO, Rural Aqricultural - Mobile
Home Overlav zoning district(s) to the RPUD. Esperanza Place Residential Planned
Unit Development zoning district(s).
Present Use of the Property: Aqricultural. sinqle-familv residential
Proposed Use (or range of uses) of the property: Multi-familv, sinqle familv detached
and town home dwellinq units
Original PUD Name: _______________________________ Ordinance No.: _______________
Pursuant to Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County Land Development Code, staff's
analysis and recommendation to the Planning Commission, and the Planning
Commission's recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners shall be
based upon consideration of the applicable criteria noted below. Provide a narrative
statement describing the rezone request with specific reference to the criteria
noted below. Include any backup materials and documentation in support of
the request.
PUD Rezone Considerations (LDC Section 10.02.13.B)
1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed
in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic
and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities.
The proposed peD will be developed with a mixture of single-family and multi-family dwelling
units with a community center. The site is currcntJy bordered on the west by a mobile
home/manufactured home subdivision and by single-family dwelling units on the north and east.
Agricultural uses are located south of the property, across the Immokalee Drive right-{)f-way.
The lmmokalee Area Master Plan has designated this area as an appropriate location for
residential development. such as this. Pockets of higher-density residential developments have
been constructed as agricultural tracts are converted over time. The land has been cleared and
altered for v'azing pU1l'oses and is therefore, suitable for subdivision and development. Access
points have been designated OIl the master plan to facilitate a safe, efficient travel pattern.
Adequate utilities are available and the site plan accommodates drainage needs.
2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitabmty of any proposed
agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for a111endments in those
proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be
Applico1ion For PUblic Hearing For PUD Rezone
FNPSP. EAIDP
blgenda item [\10. 17C
June 10 2008
made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such ar~gs'i31;iIof 224
facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense.
Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after
consultation with the county attorney.
Proper documentation has been provided to demonstrate to the County Attomey that the project
will be developed and maintained under unified control.
3. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the
growth management plan.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is analyzed in an attached analysis, which concludes
that the Esperanza Place RPOO is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions
may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design,
and buffering and screening requirements.
The proposed development contains a mixture of single-family and multi-family uses as well as a
community center. Intemally, these have been arranged to minimize potential negative conflicts
between the uses. To minimize impacts to external uses, appropriate landscape buffers and
setbacks have been proposed. Single-family dwellings are proposed along the eastern property
line, which is adjacent to existing single-family residential units. The multi-family uses are
concentrated in the westem portion of the site. Higher density mobile homes are located along
that property line. The community center will be located internal to the dcveJopmcnt. The
boundaries of the 1'00 will be appropriately landscaped to minimize the effects of development.
The existing single-family home located in the southeast corner of the property will remain and
will be buffered from the neighboring development tract. The proposed development is
consistent with this requirement.
5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to
serve the development.
The proposed development will comply with LDC Section 4.07.02.0, which requires sixty
percent open space within Residential Planned Unit Developments and ensures that adequate
open space areas are provided.
6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the
adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private.
The proposed development will be reviewed and approved by staff in accordance with
regulations that ensure the provision of adequate public facilities. TIle Traffic Impact Statement
and Statement of Utility Provision included with this petition demonstrate there are no
anticipated level of service problems due to this development.
7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate
expansion.
Once the Esperanza Place RPOO is approved and constructed, no additional expansion is
anticipated. The property is bordered on all sides by existing development and by the Immokalee
Drive right-of-way. There are additional lands in the vicinity that may continue to be developed,
hmvever, they arc not under the control of the applicant.
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone
FNPSP. EAIDP
L\::ie:-iJa Item 1....]0. 17C
8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modificatio-ns o-t~~~f~~~
regulations in the particular case, based on determination that -such
modifications of justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least
equivalent to literal application of such regulations.
The Esperanza Place RPUD is consi..tent with the Land Development Code, except as modified
by the requested deviations. Each deviation request has been justified in a separate document.
Deed Restrictions: The County is legally precluded from enforcing deed
restrictions, however, many communities have adopted such restrictions. You may
wish to contact the civic or property owners association in the area for which this
use is being requested in order to ascertain whether or not the request is affected
by existing deed restrictions.
Previous land use petitions on the subiect propertv: To your knowledge, has a
public hearing been held on this property within the last year? 0 Yes [g] No
If so, what was the nature of that hearing? _______________________________________
NOTICE:
This application will be considered "open" when the determination of
"sufficiency" has been made and the application is assigned a petition
processing number.. The application will be considered "closed" when the
petitioner withdraws the application through written notice or ceases to supply
necessary inforroation to continue processinq or otherwise actively. Ryrsue the
rezoninq fOLiLReriod of six (5) months. An application deemed "closed" will
not receive further processing and an application "closed" through inactivity
shall be deemed withdrawn. An application deemed "closed" may be re-opened
by submitting a new application, repayment of all appiication fees and granting
of a determination of "sufficiency". Further review of the project will be subject
to the then current code. (LDC Section lO.03.05.Q.)
Applicafion For Pvblic Heming For PUO Rezone
FNP$P. EAIDP
J\genda item 1\10. i 7C
June 10.2008
Page 36 of 224
STATEMENT OF UTILITY PROVISIONS
FOR PUD REZONEREQUEST
NAME OF APPLICANT (S) FLORIDA NON-PROFIT SERVICES. INC.
ADDRESS 900 BROAD AVENUE SOUTH. SUITE 2--C CITY NAPLES STATE FLORIDA ZIP
34102
TELEPHONE # _ 239-434-6001______ CELL # _________________ FAX # _239-434-
7318
E-MAIL ADDRESS: ______________________________________________________________
NAME OF APPLICANT (S) EMPOWERMENT ALLIANCE OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
ADDRESS 750 SOUTH FIFTH STREET CITY IMMOKALEE STATE FLORIDA ZIP 34142
TELEPHONE # _239-658-331 S_______ CELL # ___________________ FAX # 239-657-
3084_
E-MAIL ADDRESS: _____________________________________________________________
ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY (IF AVAILABLE): 2210,2702 lmmokalee Drive
Section /Township /Range
Lot: Block:
32 /46/29
Subdivision:
Plat Book _______ Page #: _______ Property 1.0. #: 00076040007. 00076200009.
00076080009 and 00076160000
Metes & Bounds Description:
see attached survev
-ii,;,.::':i'f:4.~;.;:;b\i&~:'\lf~j.~.--;,:-.iDi..!iE.,...1'~:S.".!!!J!..~M'"".'!i7~"'.-.iJi\;m:'.~i1~"'.'i:<1. ..'i\j~".;..:';';;;i'B'f'ri)iii'l~'\~!iiii~.':,1i]i"i.j!~.~.C;"l;;~i~",:j~;;yl!::~~\;,.."~,,,
.!,.::1,:',,\'d"T--"'-"""!_'~ffi.~' #-,,~..~. . ~~iI?'?,., ,. ".t:).j,~,;:;, ~'J;:i~':'V!. ~.~ "! "g~u,?Jrj;'Jli' .:a\i,",iJ.}'i:,J7U:ID!' ,'('---",,,. '"'0'-"jt,~, ':"1R~I' ""~h~ '
.>;,.:,,,,,5~,,,,,,.,~~'~,'1i).'<l"'Zt5.-t"""''1;l~~~"W,i;:<;;1~~,..~ ,.,,,,,,;~L"',"'~"'ll'.;'.,',;"..,.w.,,'.;.,.,,..:.'.~r,'''''';'_._",,,,.;''~"',;"""'.,i.,'"h',;;,,,, ':,';"'''';'''',.;,:",,;.;~:"''',.'=c&r"C,..,"'',.,"''''~,~''''~,..,',","C,'~,;~t.k;.~<i';1',.,%,;:"';ii>.;,y,~::,i,,,"~;.!.;,,;~~
(Check applicable system):
COUNTY UTILITY SYSTEM
a, CITY UTILITY SYSTEM
b. FRANCHISED UTILITY SYSTEM
PROVIDE NAME Iml110kalee Water and Sewer District
d. PACKAGE TREATMENT PLANT
(GPO capacityL__________________________
o
D
~
D
Applica1ion For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone
FNPSP. EAIDP
e. SEPTIC SYSTEM
o
[tGirl No, -: 7C
,)U:19 10, 2ClCi3
Page 37 of ~24
a. COUNTY UTILITY SYSTEM 0
b. CITY UTILITY SYSTEM 0
c. FRANCHISED UTILITY SYSTEM 0
PROVIDE NAME Immokalee Water and Sewer Districc
d. PRIVATE SYSTEM (WELL) 0
STATEMENT OF UTILITY PROVISIONS - page 2
.=. ".';='''"'-m~ '~-~!li."" '.', ".~'.'.. ~~.~~'~. ''''"-. ~'''~
~"~''''m~'':"''''
;''l":,~;'j,, '!'Qr,"'if'-" J ' ." .' "iE ~'./ - ~';S' '~.' ,~
'~~''"",~,..:,'-~',..'.", , ,-Jj:,,,, '~,' .- ~'8iP
500
WATER-PEAK 450.000 GPD
SEWER-PEAK 450.000 GPD
AVERAGE DAILY 150,000 GPD
AVERAGE DAILY 150.000 GPD
IF PROPOSING TO BE CONNECTED TO COLLIER COUNTY REGIONAL
WATER SYSTEM, PLEASE PROVIDE THE DATE SERVICE IS EXPECTED TO BE
REQUIRED _
~~RRi~~i:r~~1"ij'N:1Tlml~ Provide a brief and concise narrative statement
~Y~._,","~.S~~_~~~i~~Wi"",,~.=..._W!
and schematic drawing of sewage treatment process to be used as well as
a specific statement regarding the method of affluent and sludge
disposal. If percolation ponds are to be used, then percolation data and
soil involved shall be provided from tests prepared and certified by a
professional engineer. N I A - connect to central sewer.
~~liRi,~,j@~\)!ii~'l\Iflffim~~rm;g'i1\\fi'tlh:jfJiiilg~rr~\i'!Bi~!j~ If the proJ' ect is
'~~,""~,e-,",>~.,.=,",'._,.,,_ ~"~~,,,,,,,,,~~~.,;=,,,,,1~liJN'i.=,,,,,,,,,='~;.M;:,,",_<;;:~d~lL.,,,,<..,,-~!L,,,,'iM.'.El~t1!~E!d!~
located within the services boundaries of Collier County's utility service
system, written notarized statement shall be provided agreeing to
dedicate to Collier County Utilities the water distribution and sewage
collection facilities within the project area upon completion of the
construction of these facilities in accordance with all applicable County
ordinances in effect at the at time. This statement shall also include an
agreement that the applicable system development charges and
connection fees will be paid to the County Utilities Division prior to the
issuance of building permits by the County. If applicable, the statement
shall contain shall contain an agreement to dedicate the appropriate
utility easements for serving the water and sewer systems.
Applicalion for Public Hearing For PUD Rezone
FNPSP, cAIDP
Agenda Item t'<lo. i 7e
~'o/K~;r;'~B~~!Z~)~~~",4T~g1frm~(~fjf:1j1!f~;B~ROZ@JI:~I1fii~~'tif[i;\,Ig1?:'@~;1-o:lbf~~~
*~J:if~~l~=~~J~~,ri!::\~."i:,'t:,,,,ml.~""'~~'o,,,\,_.$!%!~'f""/~"'_'~-~'x;:":~"~;tJ!..,~,i;'l.o~1~N'4i~!~k."JtJ'R:\~,;;",.I~~!;WJ;~L\!,;:",,,:',,,",~>>.,,:~'li~~~.,,.,.. --
Unless waived or otherwise provided for at the pre-application meeting,
if the project is to receive sewer or potable water services from any
provider other than the County, a statement from that provider indicating
that there is adequate capacity to serve the project shall be provided.
Application for Public Hearing For PUD Rezone
FNPSP, EAIDP
i1em l\iD. i7C
June 10 2C108
Page ':;9 of 224
List of Property Owners and Contract Purchasers
Folio Number: 00076040007; 00076200009
Property Owner:
Jose and Norma Lopez
P.O. Box 445
Immokalee, FL 34143
Date Acquired: November 6, 2006
Contract Purchaser:
Florida Non-Profit Services, Inc
c/o Real Estate Technology
900 Broad Avenue South, #2C
Naples, FL 34102
Board of Directors:
Carl J. Kuehner, Chairman
Alan Parker, Vice Chairman
Harriet Lancaster, Secretary
Frank Proto, Treasurer
Sister Maureen Kelleher, Member
Sylvia Munoz, Member
Datc of Option: May 10, 2007
Date Option Terminates; JWle ],2008
Anticipated Closing Date: June], 2008
Folio Number: 00076080009
Property Owner:
Date Acquired:
Empowerment Alliance of Southwest FIOJida Community Development Corporation
750 South 5th Street
Immokalee. FL 34142
August] 0, 2007
}lolio Number: 00076160000
Property Owner:
Date Acquired:
Contract Purchaser;
Esperanza Place RPUD
Carol A. Caruthers
P.O. Box 324
]mmokalee. FL 34143
October ]0, 1982
Empowerment Alliance of Southwest Florida Community Development Corporation
750 South 5'h Strcct
Immokalee, FL 34142
Date of Option: Septcmber 13, 2007
Date Option Terminates: October 13, 2008
i\nticipatcd Closing Date: October 13.2008
!\g9nda !t::;m r'~o, 17C
.June 10.2008
P2ge 40 of 224
COVENANT OF UNIFIED CONTROL
The undersigned do hereby swear or affirm lhat we are the fee simple titieholders and owners of record of property
commonly known as 2702 West ImmokaJee Drive. Immokalee, Florida, 34142
(Street address and City, State and Zip Code)
and legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto.
The property described herein is lhe subject of an ap.plication for Esperanza Place Residential
planned unit development ( RPUD) zoning. We hereby designate Q. Gradv Minor & Associates. PA legal
representative thereof, as the legal representatives 01 the property and as such, these individuals are authorized to
legally bind all owners of the property in the course of seeking the necessary approvals to devalop. This
authority includes, but is not limited to, the hiring and authorization of agents to assist in the preparation of
applications, plans, surveys, and studies necessary to obtain zoning approval on the site. These representatives
will remain the only entity to authorize development activity on the property until such time as a new or amended
covenant of unified control is delivered to Collier County.
The undersigned recognize the following and will be guided accordingly in the pursuit of deveiopment of the proiecl:
1. The property will be developed and used in conformity with the approved master plan including all
conditions placed on the development and all commitments agreed to by the applicant in connection with the
planned unit development rezoning.
2. The legal representative Identified Ilerein is responsible for compliance with all terms, conditions,
safeguards, and stipulations made at the time of approval of the master plan, even if the property is subsequently
sold in whole or in part, unless and until a new or amended covenant of unified control is dellvered to and recorded
by Collier County. .
3. A departure from the provisions of the approved plans or a failure to comply with any requirements,
conditions, or safeguards provided for in the planned unil development process will constitute a violation of the Land
Development Code_
4. All terms and conditions of the planned unit development approval will be incorporated into covenants
and restrictions which run with the land so as 10 provide notice to subsequent owners that all development activity
within the planned unit development must be consistent wilh_those,terms and conditions.
5. So long as this covenant is in force, Collier County cali, upon the discovery of noncompliance with the
terms; safeguards, and conditions af tile planned unit development, seek equitable relief as necessary to
compel compliance. The County will not issue permits, certificates, or licenses to occupy or use any part of the
planned unit development and Ihe County may stop ongoing construction activity until the project is brought into
compliance with all terms. conditions and safeguards of the planned unit development.
"~ ~
Owner
!We/rYUJ -J~
Owner
Jose Looez
Printed Name
Norma Lopez
Printed Name
STATE OF FLORIDA)
COUNTY OF COLLIER) jJoV, 2.m1-
Sworn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me ihis _Q__ day Of-Ovt"IJ~I, ,,"v07, by JOSE
AND NORMA LOPEZ who are personally known to me, or have produced a
as idenflflcation.
,~\j\t/l!* PERLA Y. CNUlEN.\s
,,{'tIJ.- i"i MYCOMMISSION'DD677285
~~${ EXPiRES: Fool1lal)'28,20IO
"P.l'..~~,. BrxldedThAlNoWy~U1XlerNrltorLI
Application For Public Hearing For FUD Rezone 01/18/07
(Serial Number, if any)
r'\;jerE::a Item No. i 7e
,June 10. 2C1CJ3
41 of 224
COVENANT OF UNIFIED CONTROL
The undersigned do hereby swear or affirm that we are the fee simple ttleholders and owners of record of property
commonly knovffi as 2702 West lmmokalee Drive, Immokalee, Florida. 34142
(street addr.,,;s and City, State and Zip Code)
and legally described in Exhibit A allached hereto.
The property described herein is the subject of an application for Esperanza Place Residential
planned unit development ( RPUD) zoning. We hereby designate Q. Gradv Minor & Associates. PA legal
representative thereof, as the legal representatives of the property and as such, these individuals are authorized to
legally bind all owners of the property in the course of seeking the necessary approvals to develop. This
authority includes, but is not limited to, the hiring and authorization of agents to assist in the preparation of
applications, plans, surveys, and studies necessary to obtain zoning approval on the site. These representatives
will remain the only entity to authorize development activity on the property until such time as a new or amended
covenant of unified control is delivered to Collier County.
The undersigned recognize the follOWing and will be guided accordingly In the pursuit of development of the project:
1. The property will be developed and used in conformity with the approved master plan inclUding all
conditions placed on the development and all commitments agreed to by the applicant in connection with the
planned unit development rezoning.
2. The legal representative identified herein is responsible for compliance with all terms, conditions,
safeguards, and stipUlations made at the time of approval of the master plan, even If the property is subsequently
sold in whole or in part, unless and until a new or amended covenant of unified control is delivered to and recorded
by Collier County.
3. A departure lrom the provisions of the approved plans or a failure to compiy with any requirements,
conditions. or safeguards provided for in the planned unit development process will constitute a violation of the land
Development Code.
4. All terms and conditions of the planned unit development approval will be incorporated Into covenants
and restrictions which run with the land so as to provide notice to subsequent owners that all development activity
within the planned unit development must be consistent with those terms and conditions.
5. So long as this covenant is in force, Collier County can. upon the discovery of noncompliance with the
terms, safeguards, and conditions of the planned unit development, seek equitable relief as necessary to
compel compliance. The County will not issue permtts, certificates, or licenses to occupy or use any part of the
planned unit development and the County may stop ongoing construction activity untii the project is brought into
compliance with all terms, conditions and safeguards of the planned unit development.
B
------
Owner
FLORIDA N
Owner
Carl J. Kuehner. Chairman
Printed Name
Printed Name
STATE OF FLORIDA)
COUNTY OF COLLIER)
Sworn
KUEHNER wh 0 . s
identification.
25" day of October, 2007, by CARL J.
as
Application For Public Hearing For PUD R~zone 01/18107
Y Public
NOTARY PUBIJC. STATE OF FLORIDA
...."..
}~,t T~anne R ROOlang
(Name typ~. .~~~~S2293
',,,,,,,,' ExplfeS. MAY 02, 2011
(Serial NumoNlill!)"""lllWmcBONDIl/G <.0., INC.
COVENANT OF UNIFIED CONTROL
,;:'.Qsnda item ~\!o. '17C
- June, 0.2008
Page 42 of 224
The ondersigned do hereby swear or affirm that we are the fee simple titleholders and own= of record of property
commonly known as Fo I "0 1t 000 7GtoeoOOQ
Immo<ale.. p_, 'mmo~..lu FL '341+z.
(Street address and City, State and Zip Code)
and legally descnDed in ExluDil A allaebed hereto.
The property described herein is the subject of an application for Esperanza Place Residential
planned unit development @uP) zoning. We hereby designate O. Gmdv Minor & Associates. P.A. . IOb..1
representative thereof, as the legal representatives of the property and as such, those individuals are authorized to legally
bind all own... of thc property in the course of seeking the ncoe8OillY approvals to dCV<llop. TIlis authority includes, but
is not limited to, the hiring and authorization of agents to assist in the preparation of applications, plans, surveys, and
studies necessary to obtain zoning approval on the site. These representatives wiD remain the only entity to authorize
development aclivity on the property Wltil such time: as a new or amended covenant of Wlitied control is delivered to
Collier ColUlty.
The undersigned recognize the following and will be guided accordingly in the pursuit of
development of the project:
1. The property will be developed and used in confomrity with the approved master plan inoluding all conditions
placed on the development and all commitments agreed to by the applicant in connection with the planned lUlit
development rezoning.
2. . The legal representative identified herein i. responsible for conlpliance with all terms, conditions, safeguards, and
stipulations made at the time of approval of the master plan. even if the property is subsequently sold in whole or ie
part, unless and onill a new or amended covenant ofLnlified control is delivered to and recorded by Collier County.
3. A departure from the provisions of the approved plans or a failure to comply with any reqniremenlB, conditions, or
safeguards provided for in the planned lUlU development process wiD constitute a violation of the Land Development
Codc.
4. All terms and conditions of the planned unit development approval will be incorporated into covenants and
restrictions ..moo nm with the land so as to provide noli"" to subsequent 0"""'"' tbet all developnrent activity within
the planned lUlit development must be consistent with those tmns and conditions.
5. So long as this eoVCDJU1t is in force, Collier Coonty can, upon the discovery of noncompliance with the terms,
safeguards, and conditions of the planned unit development, seek equitable relief as neccssary to compel
compliance. 'The County will not issue pennits, certificates, or licenses to occupy or use any part of the planned unit
developmen and the County m y ongoing construction activity IUltil the project is brought into compliance
. ds of the planned lUlit development
---
0=
Edward R. Olesk.y . dhai...
Printed Name Prin1ed Name
fm\'lllOm,u.n.I" AIIia.nCe of Sf.<.> Fl.il. CCC
STATE OF FLORIDA)
COUN1Y OF COU-IER.)
Sworn to (oraffinned) and subscribed before me thi. A day of "~1l........J".(' . 2002. by
. r: C/ kJa rei f!. 0/ e; 1 Y who is personally known to mc or has produeed
as identification.
-:nf!r
(N e typed, printed or stamped)
"....~ A. SALAZAR
~~ MY COMMISSION' DD3452l6
~~y EXrlRES: August 09, 2008
1-8J:.-'~arAII.Y Ft NoW)' [lj~count k:!;oc. Co.
(Serial Number, if any)
Appllc:::ttion For Public Heating For PUD Rezone O1/l8!01
<>=.~
':'2lT: f\!Q, -'i 7e
June 10 2008
F'9;J8.o13 of 224
COVENANT OF UNUilED CONTROL
The undersigIled do hereby sw~ or affirm that we are the fee ,simple titleholders and owners ofrecord of property
commonlyblQwnas Q2fO Immolcaiee. Dlr,ve.
Immatalee Fe V414Z
(Street address and Cily, Stale and Zip Code)
and legally described in Exhibil A attached berelo.
The properly described h<<ein is Ille subject of an application for EsIleranza Place Residential
plarmed unit development @uD)zoning. We hereby designate O. Gradv Minor & Associates_ P.A. .Iegal
representative Ihereot as the legal representatives of the property and as such, these individuals are authorized to legally
bind all owners of Ibe properly in the """"'" of seeking the ncccssary approvals 10 dr:veIop. This authority includes, but
is not limited to, the hiring and atithorization o(agents to assist in tho preparation of applications, plans, surveys, and
studies necessary 10 obtain 2<DIiD& appro>tlil-on tho site. These representatives will remain tho only errti1y ro aulhorize
development aetivily on the property until sneh time as a new or amended covenant of unified control is delivered to
Collier Counly.
The undersigned recognize the following and will be guided accordingly in the pursuit of
development of the project
1. The propaty will be developed and used in confunnity with the approved master plan including all conditions
placed on the developmenl and all commitments agreed to by the applicant in connection with the planned unit
developmenl rezoning.
2. ,The legal repn:sentalive identified h<<ein is responsible foc compliance with all terms. conditions, safeguards, and
stipulations made at the time of approval of the master pI... even iflhepropertyis subsequently oold in whole or in
part, unless and until a new or amended COVCIIlIllt ofunificdcontrol is dclivcrod to and recorded by Collier County.
3. A departure from 1he provisions of1he approved plana.... falIure to comply wilb any requinments, conditions. or
safeguards provided for in the planned unit devdopmmt process wiD ~ a vioJatioo of the Land Development
Code.
4. All tmms and conditions of the planned unit development approval will be incorporated inlO covenants and
restrictions which run with !he land 00 as to provide notice to subsequent own.... that all development activity within
1hc plam.ed unit devclClplIlalt must be consistalt with !ho.. tmns and conditions.
5. So long as this oov.....,t i. in fon:e, Collier County can. opun lbe discovery of noncompliance wilb !he tenDS,
safeguards, and conditions of the planned unit developmen~ seek cquilable relief as necessaty 10 compel
compliance. The County will not issue pernrits, certificates, or I.iccnses to occupy or .,., any part of the planned unit
dcvclopment and lhe County may stop ongoing construction activity UIlill the project is brought inlo compliance
/} with aD tcrmiJconditions and srilcguard. of Ihe planned unit developmenl.
Lik~l \.' r1A~
Owner Owner
C!a..r.d (! M L<. J4.... Y r
Printed Name
Printed Name
STATE OF FLORIDA)
COUN1Y OF COIJ.IER)
Sworn to (or aflinned) and subscribed before me this ~day of
CWII c'i0'r(;..A-J1W5
~.r.;dt1 ( I) ~ KOlWn .Jzo-bfL as identification.
N6'1'A1tY I'UllIJ~<STA'l'E OF !'LOlUJ)A
~... Maudie L. Sage
. co=Isslcn #PD395108
Expires: MAlt 22, 2009
Bonded ThnJ Atlantic Bonding Co,) Inc.
N bl.)
.200~by
who is personally known to me or has produced
At !!Mdt ~ ~ iJt&f
N'lfalY Publip .
...!Yl.d.1L!1 t ~ L. 51-V of..-
(Name typed, prinled or s131Dped
(Serial Number, if any)
Applicalion Forl'ubVcHearlngForPUD Rt:zooeOl/JMJ7
Agenda Item ~~o. 17C
June 10, 2008
Pa;!8 44 of 224
J
[=
AFFIDAVIT
We, JOSE AND NORMA LOPEZ, being first duly sworn, depose and say that we are the owners of
the property described herein and which is the subject matter of the proposed hearing; that all the
answers to the questions in this application, including the disclosure of interest information, all
sketches, data, and other supplementary matter attached to and made a part of this application,
are honest and true to the best of our knowledge and belief. We understand that the information
r~quested on this application must be complete and accurate and that the content of this form,
'Nhether computer generated or County printed shall not be altered. Public hearings will not be
advertised until this application is deemed complete, and all required information has been
submiited.
As property owner We further authorize Q, Gradv Mino'r & Associates, P.A, to act as our
representative in any matters regarding this Petition.
A)tr./YY2a ~
Signature of Proper y 0 er
Norma Looez
Typed or Printed Name of Owner -:J
, AJ017. 'L~-r
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this j!,JI. day of Th.luLc, ,';;:607, by JOSE
AN D NORMA LOPEZ who are personally known, to me, or have produced a
___________________________as icientificatlon --t
Jo.se Looez
Typed or Printed Name of Owner
State of Florida
County of Collier
( ignalure of Notary Public. State of
Florida)
..."I",~.
<P:~'f..;:
€~: :.\
;,,\ 'its
,,~...w
'11r.,~i.'
l'BllA Y.CARDENAs
MY COMMlSSIClN I DD 677285
EXPIRES: February 28, 2010
!3or\dOOThruNolaryPWlieU/'ldlMWltt8fS
~~\C'..\ ,Cn\del0~
(Print, Type, or Stamp Commissioned Name of
Notary Public)
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone o1t18t07
r;.s :12m ~"jo 17C
June 10, 2UU8
~~, of 224
~l
AFFIDAVIT
I, CARL J. KUEHNER, being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the owner of the property
described herein and which is the subject matter of the proposed hearing; that all the answers to
the questions in this application, including the disclosure of Interest information, all sketches, data,
and other supplementary matter attached to and made a part of this application, are honest and
true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand that the information requested on this
application must be complete and accurate and that the content of this form, whether computer
generated or County printed shall not be altered. Public hearings will not be advertised until this
application is deemed complete, and all required information has been submitted.
As property owner I further authorize Q. Gradv Minor & Associates P.A. to act as my representative
in any matters regarding this Petition.
Signature of Property Owner
Carl J. Kuehner. Chairman
Typed or Printed Name of Owner
Typed or Printed Name of Owner
The foregoing ins w dged before me this 25th day of October, 2007, by CARL J.
KUEHNER who' personally known to me, has produced a as
identification.
State of Florida
County of Coliier
ure of Notary Pub ic - State of
)
NOTARY PuBLIC. STATE OF FLORIDA
ii'" Jeanne R. Rohland
~. }Colllmission #DD6S2293
......."... Exp1l'e~ MAY 02. 2011
(Print, T~,E'lYjH1Stlllllj!l1~!l;!8l<J!tiM Name of
Notary Public)
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 01/18/07
RECEIVED
OCT 2 7 2007
Q. <<;f:~ <)y t\,~;j,'.,
& ftlsB0dateS,
Aaenda Item No. 17C
~ June 10, 2008
Page 46 of 224
We/I, being fin;! duly sworn, depose and say that wejl
am/are the owne.. of the properly described herein and which is lhe subject matter of the proposl>d
hearing; that all the answen to the questions in this application, including the disclosure of interest
information, 011 sketches, data, and other supplementary matter attached to and made 0 part of this
application, are honest cmd true to the best of our knowledge and belief. We/I understand that the
information requested on this application must be complete and accurate ond that the content of this
form, Whether computer generated or County printed shall not be altered. Public hearings will not be
advertised until this application is deemed complete, and all required Information has been submitted.
As properly owner Wejl further authorize Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A.
oor /my representative in any ma s regarding this Pelitlon.
to act crs
r
Signature of Property Owner
E'dula..d R, Olesbt. 010.,',-
Typed or Printed Name of Owner
fm)X>llJcrnuttf All lance ,fr 'SuJ fla.
Typed or Printed Name of Owner
CDC
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this I L..\ day of ""I ~
2002-., by f:c\ ,.Y. cct ~ (',ll's k~ who is personally known to '!!'" or has produced
as identification..
State of Florida
County of Collier
Public - State of
J!"'"'1t, A SALAZAR
~~ MY COMM1SSJON# DD345256
~I' EXPIRES, Au"",, 09.2008
1-B~~&rMY F1.NcluyDi&:CUl1rA=J,;.Co.
J) So.../ a Z,-V(
(Print, Type, or Stamp Commissioned
Name of Notary Public)
Application For Public HearingForPUD lU:2.onc 0111&'07
""""'=<::. ..,' ..._~.
item :~a. 17e
J'.Jne 10, 2CJOB
Page 47 of ~24
We/I, OM..,I C... .....*'."f' being first duly sworn, depose and soy that we/I
am/are the owners of the property described herein ond which is the subject molter of the proposed
hearing; 1hot 011 the answers 10 the questions in fhis application, including the dhclosUTe of interest
informotlon, on sketches, data, and other supplementary matter attoc:hed 10 and made a part of this
opplicotlon, are honest ond true to the best of our knowledge ond belief. We/I understond that the
informotlon requested on this application must be complete one! accurote and that the content of this
fonn, whether computer generated or County printed sholl not be altered. Public hearings will not be
advertised until this applicolion is deemed complete, and all required infonnalian has been submitted.
As property owner We/! further atrthorlze Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A.
our/my representotive in ony motters regarding this Petition.
to act as
~
Signoture of Property Owner
Signature of Property Owner
C,vDI C/l.n...thu,S
Typed or Printed Name of Owner
Typed or Printed Name of Owner
fh
The foregoing Instrument wo. acknowledged before me this If., - doyof N ~ U .
200~ byeW b I C ..,>'(...,1-11 e.y S who is personally known fa me or has produced
pl>v5tTI'> J" .Il~ K "6WJ1l -#/n ~ os idenfifieotion.
Stote of Florida
County of Collier
'ttt d-ub ~ ;5,(y
(Signature of Notory Public.. Stote of
Florido)
NOTARY I'UBUe.s'fA'l'lJ (If l'WlUDA
~ Maudie L. Sage
. CoIll1ll1ssion # DD395108
Expires: MAR.. 22, 2009
Bonded Thru Atlantic Banding: Co., ln~1
M{{..u.d;6 L. ~e...-
(print, Type, 0( Stomp Comml Sloned
Name of Notory Public)
Application For Pnblic H=aring For PUD Re-tcJne 01/1&107
Aqenda Item No. 17e
- Jun~ 10.2008
Page LiS of 224
ORDINA.NCE NO. 08 -_
AN ORDINANCE OF TIIE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY.
FLORIDA. A!l1ENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER
2004-41. AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH
ESTABLISHED TIIE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING
REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED
AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA. BY
AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS
MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING
CLASSIFICATION OF TIIE HEREIN DESCRIBED
REAL PROPERTY FROM A RURAL
AGRICULTUR.I\L ZONING DISTRICT WITH A
MOBlLE HOME OVERLAY (A-MHO) TO A
RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
(RPUD) TO BE KNOWN AS ESPERANZA PLACE
RPUD, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION
32, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. CONSISTING OF
31.6+1- ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS. Heidi K. Williams. AICP, of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A.,
representing Florida Non-Profit Services, Inc., and The Empowennent Alliance of Southwest
Florida Community Development Corporation, petitioned the Board of County
Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property.
NOW. THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. that:
SECTION ONE:
The zoning classification of the herein described real properry located in Section 32
Township 46 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from a Rural
Agricultural Zoning District with a Mobile Home Overlay (A-MHO) to a Residential
Planned Unit Development (RPUD), in accordance with Exhibits A through F attached
hereto and incorporated herein and by reference made part hereof. The appropliate zoning
atlas map or maps, J..<'; described tn Ordinance 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land
Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly_
SECTION TWO:
This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State.
Page 1 of2
iteTi No. i 7C
June 1 rJ 2008
FJage 49 of 224
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by a supermajority vote of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this
day of ____, 2008.
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
BOARD OF COUNTY COMNIlSSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
By:
TOM HENNING, CHAIRMAN
. Deputy Clerk
Approved as to form
and legal sufficiency
~r
-r!' Marjorie M, Student-Stirling
Assistant County Attorney
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Exhibit C:
Exhibit D:
Exhibit E:
Exhibit F:
Permitted Uses
Development Standards
Master Plan
Legal Description
List of Request Deviations from LDC
List of Developer Commitments
Poge 2 of2
,L<J'2nda :tem ~'~o. 17C
~ June 0 2008
Pa';1E 50 of 224
Esperanza Place Residential Planned Unit Development
Exhibit A
TIle Esperanza Place RPUD is a total of 31.63 +/- acres that will be developed with up to 262
dwelling units. This amounts to a gross density of 8.28+/- units per acre. The base density is 4
units per acre and the affordable housing density bonus is used to make up the difference.
1. Tract A:
Tract A of the Esperanza Place RPUD is approximately 15.83", acres, which are to be
developed with up to 176 dwelling units and related accessory uses.
A. Pemlitted Uses
No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, in whole or in
part, for other than the following:
I. Principal Uses
a. Multi-family dwelling wlits;
b. Zero-lot line Wlits, including townhomes;
c. Community center;
d. l\ny other use that is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted
principal uses, as dctcrmined by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) according to
the process described in the Land Development Code (LDC).
2. Accessory Uses
a. Garages;
b. Carports;
c. Recreation facilities, including but not limited to, swimming pools, tennis courts,
playground equipment or other amenity;
d. Essential services, in accordance with Section 2.0I.03 of the LDC;
e. Any other use that is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of pcrmitted
uses, as determined by the BZA according to the process described in the LDC.
B. Development Standards
Table I and Table 1.1, contained in Exhibit B, set forth the development standards for
land uses within Tract A of the Esperanza Place RPUD. Stmldards not specifically set
forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the
date of the date of approval of the site development plan (SDP) or subdivision plat.
#
EsperaJlza Place RPUD Document. 5-27-2008 per CAO Page J of II
:teTI ~'JO, 1 :/S
,June ~! Cl 2C1D8
Page :; i Jf 2:::4
II. Tract B:
Tract B of the Esperanza Place RPUD is approximately 13.H acres, which are to be
developed with up to 85 dwelling units and related accessory uscs.
A. Permitted Uses
No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected. altered or used, in whole or in
part, for other than the following:
I. Principal Uses
a. Single-fmnily, detached dwelling units;
b. Single-family, attached dwelling units;
c. Any other use that is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted
principal uses, as determined by the BZA according to the process described in
the LDC.
2. Accessory Uses
a. Garages;
b. Carports;
c. Essential services. in accordance with Section 2.01.03 of the LDC;
d. Community clubhouse;
e. Recreation facilities, including but not limited to, swimming pools. tennis courts,
playground equipment or other amenity;
1'. Any other lIse that is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of pelmitted
uses, as detennined by the BZA according to the process desclibed in the LDC.
B. Development Standards
Table I and Table I. I, contained in Exhibit B, set forth thc dcvelopmcnt standards for
land uses within Tract B of the Esperanza Place RPUD. Standards not specifically set
fOJih herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the
date oflhe date of approval of the SDP or subdivision plat.
III. Tract C
Tract C of the Esperanza Place RPUD is approximately 2.0io acres, which m'e to be
developed with up to 1 single-family dwelling unit and related accessory nses.
A. Permitted Uses
No building or structure, or palt tllereof, shall be erected, altered or used, in whole or in
part, for other than the following:
1. Principal Uses
flif$'\'r{;(
Esperanza Place RPUD Document, 5..27.2008 per CAO Page 2 of 11
.0\genda item No, 17C
June '10. 20(18
Page 52 of 224
a. Single-family dwelling unit
2. Accessory Uses
a. Garages;
b. Carports;
c. Storage sheds;
d. Recreation facilities, including but not limited to, swimming pools, tennis conrts,
playground equipment or other amenity;
e. Essential services, in accordance with Section 2.01.03 of the LDC;
f. Any other use that is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted
uses, as determined by the BZA according to the process described in the LDC.
B. Development Standards
Table I and Table 1.1, contained in Exhibit B, set forth the development standards for
land uses within Tract C of the Esperanza Place RPUD. StaJ1dards not specifically set
forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the
date of the date of approval of the SDP or subdivision plat.
/~y
Esperanza Place RPUD Document, 5-27-2008 per CAQ Page 3 oflI
ltsrn r\Jo. 'Ire
June 10 20C3
~3 or 224
Exhibit B
Development of the Esperanza Place RPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this
Ordinmlce and applicable sections of the LDC and Growth Management Plan (GMP) in effcct at
the time of issuance of mlY development order, such as, but not limited to, final subdivision plat,
final site development plan, excavation permit and preliminary work authorization, to which
such reh'lllations relate. \Vhere these regulations fail to provide developmental standards, then
the provisions of the most similar distriet in the LDC shall apply.
Table 1 - Principal Structures
Tracts A, B & C Development Standards
Minimum Lot nla n/a
Area
---.- -.".------
Minimulll Lot 50 feet 35 feet n/a l5 feet n/a
Width _I
-~---,-
Minilllum Floor I 1 .DOO s.f. 750 s.t: 750 s.f. 750 s.f. n/a
Area
--------".,-~,---_.-
Minimum i__
Setbacks:
Front (see Note 2) 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet I 20 feet 20 feet
Side 7.5 feet o feet and 6 10 feet Lo feet or ~ feet 10 feet
feet
Rear l5 feet 15 feet 15 feet I 15 feet 15 feet
;:;:-1------.---
Minimum J Greater ,
Distance Between 15 feet 12 feet than 20 12 feet 10 feet
Structures feet
- -------.~-_.". -i
Maximum 35 feet 35 feet I 45 feet 45 feet 45 feet
"Zoned" Height I
Maximum 40 feet ._......._~ 50 feet 50 feet
"Actual" Hei"ht 40 fcet i 50 feet
. '" ~--- -~--~_._." -~
1) Principal structures located on corner lots may reduce one of the two front setbacks by 50 percent. The
remaining setback must meet the full fl.ont setback standard.
2) Driveways shall be a minimum of23 feet in length from the sidewalk to the garage door or fa,ade of the
structure to aHC'.-v vehicles room to park "vithout ob:;tructing the sid6\valk,
.~~
Esperanza Place RPUD Document, 5-27~2G08 per CAO Page 4 of II
,6.gsnda item No. 17C
..June 10, 2008
Page 54 of 224
."",--
Table 1.1 - Accessory Structures
Tracts A, B & C Development Standards
Minimum
Setbacks:
Front (see Note 1) 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 10 feet
Side 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet
Rear 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet
Maximum 35 feet 35 fcet 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet
"Zoned" Hei ht
Maximum 40 feet 40 feet 40 feet 40 feet 40 feet
"Actual" Hei'ht
1) Driveways shall be . minimum of 23 feet in length from the sidew.lk to the garage door or f.,ade ofthe
structure to allow vehicles room to park without obstructing the sidewalk
~ Esper,,",. Pi", Rl'UD Dooument. 5-27-2008 per CAO Peg' 5 of 11
,.. <., ".~.-.-..-..,....-.>~<--'._. .
r':. ~ ~
;:::, )N
N
c
Z
~
2
ro
~
ii:i
::lO
<t
'0
c~
CD
Q)
::n
ro
"-
II
(
!
.
1
!
,
w
"
g
w
~ gj
:::0 ...
:;;: ~ i
~ ~
~~ ~
N::> I jr!
i
i
CD
I-
o
~
I-
~
~~
~~
~z
OWl.1J
~B~
"'~w
.;:({1l0:::
ij
z
zw
O~
N~
r .
!
.
<
1
CD <l CD ~~J ~
.
l- I- .
0 0
<( ~
a::
l- I-
C~) c:J
/ ,
I
- r
0 ~
I-
0 I
<(
a:: I
I-
"
o ~
~ J ~ ~
Ii ij g ~ ~
i s=, ~
8 ..
~
~
~
~
o~
x'"
,,~
<~
ij
z
6~
N~
~
~
lj
~
~
~
~
~
z
oj
roD..
mr>:
xl:!
X",
W<
::;
~
<t
~
/----~_____-----__--...... I
" \1 I
\ Jl;
I ---Tt1
, "
v~-) ~ I )i
<81-\ 0 I
o ] ~ \
~ ' , .
n I- (_----__-_.::x'
U L-=:J 'wi i
"
5
~
z
w
o
V,
w
~
>
"
~
"
w
'r"
~~
<roo
::;
z
zw
O~
N~
o
.
,
-liJ
~~~
55((:
",<u
~o~
...$0
2~~
g~~
wffi<l)
5~~
o:(;.;::~
P.~fl
~~~
~ti~
"
~
'"
o
.,
"
<C::i0
~~~
000
;;;""
~~~
~
w
x
u
<
"
~
~
~
~
~
c
~
w
5'
w
~
~ (l)U)
a.(f.l~~
~i{!U()
~u<(<(
~~ci2
Ze II II
S~~g
<("'00
tu~~t-
~IJJI.U
>w~
g:5:i
-"'"""
~ "
_ N .
_~c
~?D
3:~5
t; s~.
~5~
\1i
'<
'"
~
'"
~
<
,-
o
~
jJ
a:
'"
w
>
"'
w
"'
w
x
~
o
w
"
s
&;
"
<(
I-
o
<(
rr:
I-
ij
z
zUi
0<0
N~
,;;
i5
~
~
~
<
u
~
'"
z
w
U
"'
~"'
~~
~~
iiJ3
~~~
;e~5
-~-
.:tiC;:..
;-.....1.-
uuo
riti~
~-~
w
~
~
a:
w
~
'"
~
"
~
"
~
N
~
"
'"
w
a:
o
<
~
~
;;
in
~
:2
~
"'
z
~
w
>
6
N
~
N
.
.
z
2
~
"
u
~ (]
tj
,
,
"
.
a:
o
z
~u)
~
oz
~w
1-:1:
ow
wa:
;;j5
00
~w
",x
-~
DZ
~i:
~~
~~
z>-
_0
~z
~w
<~
::Jc,(
:;:0
'"~
ow
z~
00
oz
",0
~~
~g
",5
~~
z
o
~
<
o
"
5
o
"
~
~
u
~
m
o
II) ,J
0<
z>
<0
w~
,~
$~
=.....
55
On
n a:
:? 0
~~
<"'
835
~ljJ
~~
iY......
Uw
<I
" "
~c
ol;'''i
"
oJ
,;;
z
Q
<
5
w
o
- .
:L
:: .2
,<
0"
0"
"~
~c
O.
'0 ~
4[
. E
t~
:;; "
p 'F-
~~
~ ~
.. n
,0
1.
g~
'" <5
~~
"'50
~-
~-r~
u' "
E ~j.
. ,
."
<=!c"'
"..,,,,0>
~~~
]o~
~~~
~:~ ~
"U
""i
~ ~
~ ~
o~.g
~~~
:::""""
~~e
~ji
g [g
~o~
~"'~
~~ ~
:~ i g
..~
~5.~
~ii ~
'Si:-.
~~~
~~~
fo~
,:;~ .
:3$iJjg
~s8~
<::.c:::2'
""g,g=6
:';2 "'u.
VJ :ffi ~.:
>=0>"'.....,
e g'8~
u..o.:.)1JJ
<l
<:s i
"''' ,
"0 ,
U')::! !
Ul ~ ~m I
f-- u ~~ !
-<s -
- ;:~~
U:l
o. I
\/J"'. ,
"'~ , "
<C -<:!~ . ,
. ,
08 ~ ~f ,
~ ~~
o~ ,
z ~.
- .
~ ~~
... ....:2
..-- . ~
Q'^ .
. "
< ~ 5
ex:: n '"
c::~
.~
aD
" ".
~B
~
I
~
2
~:s1;i
~z~
>
.
.
@ I .
0
. . mmm
i l!~ .
.
00 0
. ,
-Nn ..
..
~
~ .,-~." -- - '.'
f\;jsnda Item t~o. 17C
,June 10. 2008
Page 56 of 224
Exhibit D
Legal Description
PARCEL 1
OR 4242 PG 2471
A PARCEL OF LA..ND LOCATED IN SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE P ARTICULARL Y DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
THE WEST 264.70 FEET OF THE EAST 1058.10 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST 114 OF THE
SOUTHWEST 1/4, OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS THE SOUTH 30.00 FEET THERSOF FOR ROAD RIGHT -OF- WAY.
CONTAINING 7.90 ACRES, PLUS OR MINUS.
TOGETI-IER WITH
PARCEL 2
OR 4242 PG 2470
A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE P ARTlCULARL Y DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST J/4 UF SECTION 32, To\VNSHIP 46 SOUHI,
RANGE 29 EAST, ALL LYING AND BEING IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS AND
EXCEPT THE EAST 1,058.80 FEET THEROF AJ-'D THE SOUTH 30.00 FEET FOR ROAD RIGHT
OF WAY, CONTAINING 7.92 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
TOGETHER WITH
PARCEL 3
OR 1596 PG 43
A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTlON 32, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING ~ lORE P ARTICULARL Y DESCRIDED AS FOLLOWS:
THE WEST 264.70 FEET OF THE EAST 794.10 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST ]/4 OF THE
SOUTH\VEST 1/4, OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHJP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS THE SOeTII 30.00 FEET THEREOF FOR ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY.
CONTAINING 7.90 ACRES, PLUS OR MINUS.
TOGETHER WITH
PARCEL 4
OR 1007 PG 1558
THE WEST 264.70' OF THE EAST 529.40' OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32,
TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST ALL LYING AND BEING IN COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, LESS THE SOUTH 30.00' FOR ROAD R/W, CONTAINING 7.90 ACRES, MORE OR
LESS.
BEING MORE PAR TICULARL Y DESCRIBED AS:
A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
f\\\#
Espcran7.a Place RPUD Document:, 5-27-2008 per CAO Pllge 7 of 11
IterTi ~"o, : 7C
c_!u:le 1 Q. 2'JU8
57 of :=:4
COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHWEST COR.c"<ER OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE
29 EAST THENCE RUN NORTH 89'15'36" EAST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION
32, ALSO BEING THE CENTERLINE OF IMMOKALEE ROAD (60' RIGHT-OF-WAY), FOR A
DISTANCE OF 1323.92 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 00044'24" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF
30.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED,
THE SAME BEING A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT -OF- WAY LINE OF IMMOKA.LEE
DRIVE; THENCE RUN NORTH 00"51 '21" ,VEST ALONG THE ViEST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST
1/4 OF THE sounrWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 32, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,299.83 FEET;
THENCE RUN NORTH 89016'27" EAST, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,060.74 FEET; THENCE RUN
SOUTH 00047'35" EAST, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1299.57 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SAID
NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF- WAY LINE OF IMMOKALEE DRIVE; THENCE RUN SOUTH 89015'35"
WEST ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1059.31 FEET TO THE POINT
OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 31.63 ACRES. MORE OR LESS.
~4Y
Esperanza Place RPUD Document, 5-27-2008 per CAO Puge 8 of J I
,~\(
,!',genda Item ""0. 17C
June 10,2008
Page 58 of 224
Exhibit E
Deviations from the Land Developmcnt Codc
1. A deviation from Scction 5.05.08 of the LDC which requires non-residential components
of any PUD to meet architectural design standards to allow the non-residential
component of Tract A to be exempt from these standards.
2. A deviation from Section 3.05.07 of the LDC which requires on-site preservation of 25
percent of the Ilative vegetation on the site to allow off-site preservation or payment
toward the Conservation Collier Trust Fund, in accordance with Commitment IlLB,
described in Exhibit F of this RPUD.
Esperanza Fiacc RPUD Document, 5-27.2008 pereAO Page 9 of 11
!19nl fJiJ, ilC
L:une ~ 0.2008
~'3ge 59 01224
Exhibit F
List of Developer Commitments
1. Affordable Housing:
A. As documented in the Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement, the developers
have agreed to construct 60 ovmer-occupied dwelling units for residents in or below the
workforce income category (6J-80 percent of County median income) and J 76 rental
units for resident~ in or below the low income category (51-60 percent of County mediml
income).
II. Transportation:
A. If any entrance is to be gated, the face of said gate shall be located to maintain no less
than a 100-foot throat length to the northerly edge of the pavement at its intersection with
Immokalee Drive.
B. TIle developers shall pay a proportionate fair sharc contribution toward the cost of
construction of improvements to the intersection of S.R. 29 and Lake Trafford Road.
This contribution shall be made prior to the approval of the first site development plan
(SDP) or plans and plat (PPL), whichever occurs first.
C. Because the dcveJopers anticipate using public funding to constl1lct internal roads, they
shall have the option of turning roads built in accordance with County construction
standards for local roads over to the County for maintenance.
Ill. EnvirOlUllental:
A. A Florida Black Bear Management Plan shall be provided to the County Manager, or
designee, during SDP or plat review process.
B. The site currently contains 1.26", acres of native vegetation (0.52+/- acres of upland and
0.73", acres of wetland native vegetation on site); a minimUlll of 25 percent, 0.32 acres,
must be preserved. For the O. ] 3 acre portion of the upland vegetation, the applicmlt will
donate an equivalent off-site preserve to be accepted by a public agency or contribute a
monetary payment to Conservation Collier equivalent to the average per-acre value found
in an appraisal of the entire site, multiplied by the number of acres to be preserved off-
site, plus 15 percent of that amount as an endowment for managemcnt of ofi~site land.
The appraisal shall be based on the fair market value of the land as if the desired zoning
were in place. Twenty-five percent of the 0.73 acre wetland native vegetation will be
preserved and appropriately managcd off-site at an approved mitigation bank. All
preservation must be accomplished prior to SDP/PPL approval. This off-site prcservation
may be utilized as part of the required off-site mitigation requirement of the Environment
Resource Permit.
(;r":v Espcranza PlaG~ RPUD Dcx:ument, 5-27-2008 per CAO Page 10 of]!
/"j1'''{\~
Agen,ja item No. 17C
June 10.2008
Page 60 of 224
C. TIle subject property was used for agricultural purposes and incurred clearing for which
no permit can be located. In order for the clearing activities to be considered legal and
re-creation of the removed vegetation not be required, an after-the-fact permit will be
issued for the clearing of approximately 23.6 acres prior to approval for the SDP or PPL
for relevant acreage. No after-the-fact clearing fee will be assessed against the
developers. The regular clearing fee shall apply.
'1i"~ E'pec'llza Pin" RPUD Document, 5.27.2008 pcrCAO Page II of II
Item ~Jo, lie
Junsi 0 2008
Page i31 of 224
This space for recording
AGREEMENT AUTHORIZING AFFORDABLE-WORKFORCE HOUSING
DENSITY BONUS AND IMPOSING COVENANTS AND
RESTRICTIONS ON REAL PROPERTY
THIS AGREEMENT is made as of the 1 Dth day of June, 2008, by and between
Florida Non-Profit Services, Inc. and the Empowerment Alliance of Southwest Florida
Community Development Corporation (the "Developers") and the Collier County Board
of County Commissioners (the "Commission"), collectively, the "Parties."
RECITALS:
A The Developer owns a tract of real property described in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto and incorporated herein (The "Property"). It is the Developer's intent to construct
a maximum of 262 residential units (the "Units") at a density of 8.28:1: units per
gross acre on the Property. The gross acreage of Property is 31.63:1: acres. The
number of affordable-workforce-gap housing units constructed by Developer shall be
236 ,representing 90 percent of the total number of residential Units approved in the
development, or 175_ percent of the approved bonus units.
B. In order to construct the Units, the Developer must obtain a density bonus
Page 1 of 30
4/29/100g
Attachment "A"
A';Jsnda Item r~o. 17C
June 10. 2008
Page 62 of 224
from the Commission for the Property as provided for in the Collier County Affordable
Housing Density Bonus Ordinance No. 90-89, now codified by Ordinance 04-41, as
amended, as Land Development Code (LDC) S 2.06.00 et seq., which density bonus
can only be granted by the Commission and utilized by the Developer in accordance
with the strict limitations and applicability of said provisions.
C. The Commission is willing to grant a density bonus to the Developer
authorizing the construction of 135 bonus Units on the Property, if the Developer
agrees to construct affordable, workforce, and gap Units as specified in this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the approval and grant of the density
bonus of 4.28 units pet acre requested by the Developer and the benefits conferred
thereby on the Property, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Developer and the Commission
hereby covenant and agree as follows:
1. Recitals. The above Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated
herein by reference.
2. Developer Aqreements. The Developer hereby agrees that he shall
construct up to 262 units, not to exceed 90 percent of the approved residential
density as affordable-workforce housing units, which Units shall be sold in accordance
with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and as specified by the attached
Appendices A & B, Exhibits A, B, & C, and Appendix C, which Appendices are
incorporated by reference herein and which constitute a part of this Agreement.
a. The following provisions shall be applicable to the affordable, workforce
and gap Units:
(1) Defined terms: In the event of a conflict between terms as defined in the
LDC or in Ordinance No. 90-89, Section 4, the definitions of the LDC will control when
applying or interpreting this Agreement. In addition to these defined terms and the
applicability of LDC S 2.06.04 "Phasing" shall mean: (a) the phased construction of
Page 2 of 3D
:ten~ i'.Jo, i 7e
June -: 0, 2008
Pa~lE:: 23 of :;::24
buildings or structures in separate and distinct stages as shown on a PUD master plan,
subdivision master plan Ot site development plan; or (b) in developments where phased
construction is not depicted on a PUD master plan, subdivision master plan or site
development plan, the construction of buildings or structures in a clearly defined series
of starts and finishes that are separate and distinct within the development.
(2) Median Income. For the purposes of this Agreement, the median income
of the area as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) shall be the then current median income fot the Naples Metropolitan Statistical
Area, established periodically by HUD and published in the Federal Register, as
adjusted for family size as shown on the tables attached hereto as Appendix A, Exhibit
C, which Exhibit shall be adjusted from time to time in accordance with any adjustments
that are authorized by HUD or any successor agency. in the event that HUD ceases to
publish an established median income as aforesaid, the Parties hereto shall mutually
agree to another reasonable and comparable method of computing adjustments in
median income.
(3) Eliqibility and Qualification of Owner. Family income eligibility is a
three-step process: 1) submittal of an application by a prospective Owner; 2)
verification of family housing unit provided under the affordable, workforce, and gap
housing density bonus program prior to being qualified at the appropriate level of
income (very low, low, workforce, or gap income) in accordance with this Section; 3)
certification of eligible Owner by the Financial Administration and Housing Department.
The Developer shall be responsible for qualifying Owners by accepting
applications, verifying income and obtaining income certification for all affordable,
workforce, and gap units in the subject development. All applications, forms and other
documentation required by this Agreement shall be provided to Housing and Human
Services Department. Qualification by the Developer of any persons as an eligible
Owner family shall be subject to review and approval in accordance with the monitoring
Page 3 of 30
,~genda item No, ~llC
clune 10.2008
Page fA of 224
and enforcement program in LDC &s 2.06.05 and 2.06,06, respectively.
The Developer and Commission acknowledge and agree that once the
developer has delivered all affordable, workforce, and gap units contemplated under
this Agreement to approved purchasers, the Developer shall no longer be required to
provide progress and monitoring reports, and shaH no longer be liable for enforcement
action under this Agreement.
(a) Application. A potential owner shall apply to the developer, owner,
manager, or agent to qualify as a very low, low, workforce, or gap income family for the
purpose of owning and occupying an affordable-workforce-gap housing unit pursuant to
the affordable-workforce housing density bonus program. The Preliminary Application
fot affordable-workforce housing unit shaH be provided to Collier County Housing and
Human Services Department as shown in Appendix B, Exhibit A, attached to this
Agreement and incorporated by reference herein.
(b) Income Verification and Certification. No affordable-workforce housing
unit in the development shaH be sold whose household income has not been verified
and certified in accordance with this Agreement and LDC S 2.06.05.
(c) Inc0111e Verification. The Developer shall obtain written verification from
the potential occupant (including the entire household) to verify all regular sources of
income (including the entire household). The most recent year's federal income tax
return for the potential occupants (including the entire household) may be used for the
purpose of income verification, attached to the affordable-workforce housing applicant
Income Verification form, including a statement to release infor111ation, occupant
verification of the return, and a signature block with the date of application. The
verification shall be valid for up to one hundred eighty (180) days prior to occupancy.
Upon expiration of the 180 day period, the information may be verbally updated from
the original sources for an additional 30 days, provided it has been documented by the
person preparing the original verification. After this time, a new verification form must
Page 4 of 30
!:SIT; i'~o. 'i ie
.;~;:!e 10, 2:}:J8
Page C5 of 224
be completed. The affordable-workforce housing Applicant Income Verification form
shall be provided to the Housing and HU111an Services Department as shown in
Appendix B, Exhibit B, attached to this Agreement and incorporated by reference
herein.
(d) Income Certification. Upon receipt of the Preliminary Application for an
affordable-workforce housing unit and Applicant Income Verification form, the
Developer shall require that an income certification form be executed by the potential
occupant (including the entire household) prior to occupancy of the affordable-
workforce housing unit by the occupant. Inc0111e certification shall assure that the
potential occupant has an appropriate household income which qualifies the potential
occupant as an eligible family to occupy an affordable-workforce housing unit under the
affordable-workforce housing density bonus program. The affordable-workforce
Housing Applicant Income Certification form shall be provided by the Housing and
Human Services Department as shown in Appendix B, Exhibit C, is attached to this
Agreement and is incorporated by teference herein.
Random inspection of files containing required documentation to verify
occupancy in accordance with this Agreement and LDC S 2.06.00, may be conducted
by the Housing and Human Services Department upon reasonable notice.
(4) Annual Proqress and Monitorinq Report. The Developer shall provide the
Housing and Human Services Department an annual progress and monitoring report
regarding the delivery of affordable-workforce-gap housing units throughout the period
of theit construction and occupancy. The annual progress and monitoring report shall,
at a minimum, provide any information reasonably required to insure compliance with
LDC S 2.06.00, or subsequent amendments thereto. The report shall be filed on or
. before September 30 of each year and the report shall be submitted by the Developer
to the Housing and Human Services Department. Failure to complete and submit the
monitoring report to the Housing and Human Services Department within sixty (60)
Page 5 of 30
D,gsnda Item f'Jo. 17C
June 10, 2008
;:-'8ge 66 of 224
days from the due date shall result in a penalty of up to fifty dollars ($50.00) per day
unless a written extension not to exceed thirty (30) days is requested prior to expiration
of the sixty (60) day submission deadline. No more than one such extension may be
granted in a single year.
(5) Occupancy Restrictions. No affordable-workforce unit in any building or
structure on the Property shall be occupied by the Developer, any person related to or
affiliated with the Developer, or by a resident manager.
3. Density Bonus. The Commission hereby acknowledges that the
Developer has met all required conditions to qualify for a density bonus, in addition to
the base residential density of ....1.... units per acre, and is therefore granted a density
bonus of 4.28 density bonus units per acre, for a total density (total'" density bonus
units per acre X gross acreage) of 8.28 units/ac, pursuant to LDC S 2.06.00 The
Commission further agrees that the Developer may construct thereon, in the aggregate
a maximum number of 262 units on the Property provided the Developer is able to
secure building permit(s) from Collier County.
4. Commission Aqreement. During the term of this Agreement, the
Commission acting through the Financial Administration and Housing Department or its.
successor(s) covenants and agrees to prepare and. make available to the Developer
any general information that it possesses regarding income limitations and restrictions
which are applicable to the affordable, workforce, or gap Unit.
5. Violations and Enforcement
a. Vioiations. It shall be a violation of this Agreement and LOC S
206.00 to sell or occupy, or attempt to sell or occupy, an affordabie-workforce housing
unit provided under the affordable-workforce housing density bonus program except as
specifically permitted by the terms of this Agreement; or to knowingly give false or
misleading information with respect to any information required or requested by the
Housing and Human Services Department or by any other persons pursuant to the
Page 6 of 30
::-2rL \io, ~7C
.!une '10, 2008
67 of 224
authority which is delegated to them by LOC S 2.06.00. Collier County or its designee
shall have full power to enforce the terms of this Agreement. The method of
enforcement for a breach or violation of this Agreement shall be at the option of the
Com111ission by criminal enforcement pursuant to the provisions of Section 125.69,
Florida Statutes, or by civil enforcement as allowed by law.
b. Notice of Violation for Code Enforcement Board Proceedinqs.
Whenever it is determined that there is a violation of this Agreement or of LDC ~
2.06.00, that should be enforced before the Code Enforcement Board, then a Notice of
Violation shall be issued and sent by the appropriate department by certified return-
receipt requested U.S. Mail, or hand-delivery to the person or developer in violation.
The Notice of Violation shall comply with the requirements for such Notices.
c. Certificate of Occupancy. In the event that the Developer fails to
maintain the affordable-workforce units in accordance with this Agreement or LDC S
2.06.00, as amended, at the option of the Commission, building permits or certificates
of occupancy, as applicable, may be withheld for any future planned or othelWise
approved unit located or to be located upon the Property until the entire project is in full
compliance with this Agreement and with LDC S 2.06.00, as amended.
6. Assionment by Commission. The Commission may assign all or part of
its obligations under this Agreement to any other public agency having jurisdiction over
the Property provided that it gives the Developer thirty (30) days advance written notice
thereof. The Developer may not assign, delegate or othelWise transfer all or part of its
duties, obligations, or promises under this Agreement to any successor in interest to the
Property without the express written consent of the Commission, which consent may be
withheld for any reason whatsoever. Any attempt to assign the duties, obligations, or
promises under this Agreement to any successor in interest to the Property without the
express written consent of the Commission as required by this Section shall be void ab
'. 'I-"
I/JleIO.
Page 7 of 30
Aoerida iterr, t\Jo. 17C
~ June ~I 0, 2008
Page 68 of 224
7. Severability. If any section, phrase, sentence or portion of this Agreement
is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction,
such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision, and all
other provisions shall remain effective and binding on the Parties.
8. Notice. Any notices desired or required to be given under this Agreement
shall be in writing and shall either be personally delivered or shall be sent by mail,
postage prepaid, to the Parties at the following addresses:
To the Commission:
Collier County Housing and Human Services
Department
3050 North Horseshoe Drive Suite 110
Naples, Florida 34104
To the Developer:
Florida Non-Profit Services, Inc
900 Broad Avenue, Suite #2-c
Naples, FL 34102
Empowerment Alliance of Southwest Florida
Community Development Corporation
750 S. Fifth Street
Immokalee, FL 34142
Any Party may change the address to which notices are to be sent by notifying the
other Party of such new address in the manner set forth above.
9. Authoritv to Monitor. The Parties hereto acknowledge that the Collier
County Financial Administration and Housing Department or its designee, shall have
the authority to monitor and enforce the Developer's obligations hereunder.
10. lndemnifv. The Developer hereby agrees to protect, defend, indemnify
and hold Collier County and its officers, employees, and agents harmless fr0111 and
. against any and all claims, penalties, damages, losses and expenses, professional
fees, including, without limitation, reasonable attorney's fees and all costs of litigation
and judgments arising out of any claim, willful misconduct or neglige'lt act, error or
Page 8 of 30
!lerr, r'~o, ',7C
juw; ! O. 20~13
Page S~! of 2:24
omissiDn, Dr liability of any kind made by Developer, its agents or employees, arising
out of or incidental tD the perfDrmance Df this Agreement.
11. Covenants. The Developer agrees that all Df its DbligatiDns hereunder
shall constitute covenants, restrictiDns, and cDnditions which shall run with the land and
shall be binding upon the Property and against every person then having any
ownership interest at any time and frDm time to time until this Agreement is terminated
in accordance with Section 14 belDw. However, the Parties agree that if Developer
transfers Dr conveys the Property to another person or entity, Developer shall have no
further obligation hereunder and any person seeking to enforce the lerms hereof shall
look solely to DevelDper's successor in interest for the performance of said obligations.
12. Recordinq. This Agreement shall be recorded at County's expense in the
official records of Collier County, Florida.
13. Entire Aqreement. The Parties hereto agtee that this Agreement
constitutes the entire Agreement between the Parties hereto and shall inure tD and be
binding upon their respective heirs, successors, and assigns.
14. Termination. Each affordable, workforce, or gap housing unit shall be
restricted to remain and be maintained as the required affordable, workforce, and gap
housing as provided in the LDC 32.06.04.
15. Modification. This Agreement shall be modified or amended only by the
written agreement of both Parties.
16. Discrimination.
a. The Developer agrees that neither it nor its agents shall
discriminate against any owner Dr potential owner because of said owners race, color,
religion, sex, national origin, familial status, or handicap.
b. When the Developer advertises, sells or maintains the affordable-
workforce housing unit, it must advertise sell, and maintain the sa111e in a non-
discriminatory illanner and shall make available any televant information to any person
Page 9 of 30
Aoenda Item No. 17C
" .June 10. 2008
Page 70 of 224
who is interested in purchasing such affordable-workforce housing unit.
c. The Developer agrees to be responsible for payment of any real
estate commissions and fees for which it is liable in the purchase and sale of
affordable-workforce units.
e. The affordable-workforce housing units shall be intermixed with,
and not segregated from, the market rate dwelling units in the development.
f. The square footage, construction and design of the affordable,
workforce, and gap housing units shall be the same as market rate dwelling units in the
development. All physical amenities in the dwelling units, as described in item number
seven (7) of the Developer Application for affordable-workforce housing Density Bonus
shall be the same for market rate units and affordable-workforce units. For
developments where construction takes place in more than one phase, all physical
amenities as described in item number seven (7) of the Developer Application for
Affordable-Workforce Housing Density Bonus shall be the same in both the market rate
units and the affordable-workforce units in each phase. Units in a subsequent phase
may contain different amenities than units in a previous phase so long as the amenities
for market rate units and affordable, workforce, and gap units are the same within each
phase and provided that in no event may a market rate unit or affordable-workforce unit
in any phase contain physical amenities less than those described in the Developer
Application.
17. PhasinQ. The percentage of affordable-workforce housing units to which
the Developer has committed for the total development shall be maintained in each
phase and shall be constructed as part of each phase of the development on the
Property. Developer commits to ..llil_ percent affordable-workforce-gap housing units
fot this project, with ~ percent of the units in each phase consisting of affordable-
workforce units.
18. Disclosure. The developer shall not disclose to persons, other than the
Page 10 of 30
:ierri I'~o. ! 7C
June 1) 2008
~ag9 71 of224
potential buyer or lender of the particular affordable-workforce housing unit or units,
which units in the development are designated as affordable-workforce housing units.
19. Consistency. This Agreement and authorized development shall be
consistent with the Growth Management Plan and land development regulations of
Collier County that are in effect at the time of development. Subsequently adopted laws
and policies shall apply to this Agreement and to the development to the extent that
they are not in conflict with the number, type of affordable-workforce housing units and
the amount of affordable-workforce housing density bonus approved for the
development.
20. Affordable-Workforce Housinq Densitv Bonus Development Aqreement.
This Agreement is a distinct and separate agree111ent from "development agreements"
as defined by Section 163.3220, Fla. Stat., as amended.
21. Pre-application. Developer has executed and submitted to the
Development Services Department the Developer Application for Affordable-Workforce
Housing Density Bonus, a copy of which is attached to this Agreement as Appendix C
and incorporated by reference herein.
22. Governinq Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of Florida.
23. Further Assurances. The Parties hereto shall execute and deliver, in
recordable form if necessary, any and all documents, certificates, instruments, and
agreements which may be reasonably required in order to effectuate the intent of the
Agreement. Such documents shall include but not be limited to any dOCU111ent
requested by the Developer to exhibit that this Agreement has terminated in
accordance with the provisions of paragraph 14 above.
Page 11 of30
,LJ.,Genda item No. 17e
~ June 10,2008
Page 72 of 224
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed as of the day and year first above written.
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Deputy Clerk
By: Tom Henning, CHAIRMAN
Approved as to form and legal sufficiency:
~m.~-/kWl~
ASsiSt~Tcounty Attorney
Witnesses:
2~ GurtQJO
FLORIDA NON-PROFIT SERVICES, INC.:
~
By:
~
Witness c:\" \
Printed Na111e \OJ\(',
Ccfl1~3
By:
Witness
Printed Name
Page 12 of 30
:lem !JO. 'i;C
Juri8 'i 0 20!J8
73 of 224
STATE OF FLORIDA )
COUNTY OF COLLIER )
The foregoing Agreement Authorizing Affordable, Workforce, and Gap Housing Density
Bonus And Imposing Covenants And Restrictions On Real Property was acknowledged
AI01"\ k '?c\'\l0(", .
before me by 'A. as \ill ~--lli~\,(rG0 who is personally known
to me or has produced 8..0((\~Olo-39-d1S-O as identification.
WITNESS my hand and official seal this 20 day of ~ \ ~
~1 ~i ChlO v\00
Notary Public
2008.
",''if!.';j:'.,-.. PERLA Y. CARDENAS
'(.1"A '~f.1; MY COMMISSION f DD 677285
w~"" EXPIRES:FebllJ,ry28,2\J10
My Commission Expires "Ir;,~I.:~'ti-~ B_Th."".P"'~""d"".'"
EMPOWERMENT ALLIANCE OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION:
,DD/v'A,LD K 73 LA Loc..k
Witness~ ~? () ,,'
Printed /'am ' , 7~
Witnesses:
By dd~~J R 010.5 r~
Witness
Prinied Name
STATE OF FLORIDA )
COUNTY OF COLLIER )
The foregoing Agreement Authorizing Affordable, Workforce, and Gap Housing Density
n~-us ^ _.-J 1~""O"";""g "'0..........an4'..... ^.....J n_~,j....:_,j.;......... n~ R--I p.o............$..' ,..,..... ......'.......,...'..",...,d~~rl
DUll r\IIU Illlf-J i:1111 \.; VC;11 Ili:1I\IIU r\t;t>1IIvLlUII" UII'l.t;C1 -I !-1wllY vva~ C1\...or\lIVVVI'V ~c;u
Page 13 of 30
before me by V\G..Y...un:12 ~
to me or has produced 1) Q)'L.Dt'-" <h.Q 0,-
\ .
WITNESS my hand and official seal this
200tS NOr.r,m'romc.~ OFROOlJ).A
WEthel Sharon Rodgers
. . Commission # DD52SMO
Expires: MAR, 14, 2010
llonded TbruAIlantk llondlng Co.,lm:.
A'dsnda item No, 'l7e
June 10, 2008
Page 7..+ of 224
who is personally known
as identification.
My Commission Expires:
'-rY\CJ.JLLh I tj I ;;;:vo I 0
Page 14 of 30
5 day of rna7 '
YyJb~~
Notary Public
, "-'--~--""""4"
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRJPTION
APPENTIIX A, EXHIBIT A
NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE-WORKFORCE
HOUSING lJl,'ITSIMONTHLY BASE RENTS
NUMBER OF UNITS
Single Multi
Family Family
BASE RENT
Single Multi
Fanlily Family
GAP INCOME
(81-150% MI)
Efficiency
J Bedroom
2 Bedroom
3 Bedroom
4 Beclrool11
TOTAL
~-
o
WORKFORCE INCOME
(61-80% MI)
Efficiency
1 Bedroom
...--.,- ---,-
2 Bedroom -- ]5 -- --
3 Bedroom ~- --~
-..----
4 Bedroom _J2_ -- --
TOTAL _30 -1Q__
Page 15 of 30
::ern r~o, ~i i'C
June 10 20Cl3
Pa;18 75 of 224
LOW INCOME
(51 %-60% MI)
Efficiency
1 Bedroom
2 Bedroom 103
3 Bedroom --1-L
4 Bedroom
TOTAL
o
176
VERY LOW INCOME
(50'Yo OR LESS MI)
Efficiency
1 Bedroom
2 Bedroom
3 Bedroom
4 Bedroom
TOTAL
~_ ---.JL_
b,C!8nda item r~o. 17C
~ J~me 10, 2008
Pa'ge 76 of 224
(1) Base residential density allowed in this development: ....:L- units/acre
(2) Gross acreage: 31.6J* acres
(3) Maximum number of affordablc-workforce-gap housing density bonus units allowcd in
this development purSUllilt to LDC Section 2.06.00: ~ units
(4) Gross residential density of this development (including affordable-workforce-gap
housing density bonus units): 8.28 units/acrc
(5) Percentage of affordable-workforce housing units pledged by the developer (as a
pcrcent of the total number units in the development): 90%
Page 15 of 30
Jterr: rJ:::J. 17C
June '1 Q, 20G8
t=)3ge 1"'7 of 224
APPENDIX A, EXHIBIT B
AFFORDABLE-WORKFORCE HOUSING
DENSITY BONUS RATL....G SYSTEM
LDC 9 2.06.03, provides for calculation of a density bonus for developers pledging to
construct affordable-workforce-gap units within their development. Included in this Exhibit B arc
instructions for and the tables with which to calculate the density bonus for a particular project.
Exhibit C contains the CUlTent median income and acceptable rents for very low, low, workforce,
and gap income households in Collier County,
The affordable-workforce housing density bonus rating system shall be used to deiem1ine
the amount of the affordable-workforce housing density bonuses which may be granted for a
development based on household income level and percentage of affordable, workforce, and gap
housing units in the development. To use the affordable-workforce housing density bonns rating
system, Table A, below. shall be used. Table A shall be reviewed and updated jf necessary on an
annual basis by the Board of County Commissioners or its designee.
First, choose the household income level (very low, low, workforce, or gap) of the
affordable-workforce housing unites) proposed in the development, as shown in Table A. Next,
determine the percent of that type of alfordable-workforce housing lmit(s) proposed in the
development compared to the total number of dwelling units in the development. From this
determination, Table A will indicate the maximum number of residential dwelling units per gross
acre that may be added to the base density.
1bese additional residential dwelling units per gross acre are the maximum affordable-
workforce housing density bonus (A \VHDB) available to that development. Developments with
pcrcentages of affordable-workforce housing units which fall in between the percentages shown on
Table A shall receive an affordable-workforce housing density bonus equal the lower of the two
percentages it lies between plus 1/10th of a residential dwelling unit per gross acre for each
additional percentage of affordable-workforcc housing rcntal units in the development. For
example, a development which has 24% of its total residential dwelling units as affordable-
workforce housing units, and which has an affordable housing density bonus fating of "four" will
receive an affordable-workforce housing density bonus (A WHDB) of 4.4 residential dwelling
units per gfOSS acre for the development.
ln no event shall the affordable-workforce housing density bonus exceed eight (8) dwelling
units per gross acre.
Page 17 of 30
,;;genda Item hJo. 17C
June 10,2.008
Page 78 of 224
APPENDIX A, EXIDBIT B
AFFORDABLE-WORKFORCE HOUSING
DENSITY BONUS RATING SYSTEM
Please calculate your density bonus in the space provided below. Attach additional pages if
necessary .
TABLE A: AFFORDABLE-WORKFORCE
HOUSING DENSITY BONUS RATING
I MAXIMUM ALLOW ABLE DENSITY BONUS BY PERCENT OF DEVELOPMENT
DESIGNATED AS AFFORDABLE-WORKFORCE HOUSING
Household ;
Product Income 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
(% median
81-150%
Gap MI* ** I 2 3 4 5 6 6 6 6 n/a
(Gap) ---~..,.
61-80% I
Workforce MI' 2 3 5 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
i
I I
51-60% I I I
Low MI 3 4 6 8 8 8 8 8 I 8 8
- .. I
50%
Very Low or Jess 4 5 7 8 8 I 8 8 8 8 8 J
MI
.'
*Owner-occupied only
**May only be used in conjunction with at least 10% at or below 80% MI
Total Maximum Allowable Density = Base Density + Affordable-Workforce Housing Density
Bonus.
In no event shall the maximum gross density allowed exceed 16 units per acre.
Base Density = 4 units per acre
23% Workforce = + 3 units per acre
670;', Low = + 8 units per aere
Total Bonus Density = + 8 units per acre (maximum permitted)
Total Allowable Density = 12 units per acre
Page 18 of 30
:tem r~o. 17e
.Iune 10,2008
?age 7~' of 224
APPENDIX A. EXHIBIT C
INCOME AND RENT LEVELS FOR THE LOW AND MODERATE INCOME.
Pursuant Chaptcr 74, Seciion 74-402 (a)(1); Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances,
moderate income is 61 % to 80% of the median income, low income is 5] % to 60% of the
median inc.ome and very low income is less than 50% oftbe median income.
MEDIAN INCOME 2007
$63,300 Naples, MSA (Collier County)
NUMBER Ol? MEMBERS IN F AMIL Y
1 2 1 :! ~ i! 1 ~
J 50'Yo 73,350 83,700 94,200 104,700 113,100 ]21.500 129,900 ]38,150
80% 39.100 44.650 50,250 55,850 60,300 64,750 69,250 73,700
60% 29,340 33,480 37,680 4].880 45,240 48,600 51,960 55.260
50% 24,450 27,900 31,400 34,900 37,700 40.500 43,300 46,050
35(10 17,] 15 19.530 21,980 24,430 26,390 28,350 30,310 32,235
25% 12,225 13,950 15,700 17,450 18,850 20,250 21,650 23,025
RECOMMENDED RENTAL RATES
The Florida Housing Finance Corporation (FHFC) calculates rents to use in the State ApaJ1ment
Incentive Loan (SAIL) and the Low-Income Rental Housing Tax Credit (LlHTC) programs. The
rents given below are based on 2001 data from FHFC. Utility costs are provided from the
County's Section 8 Rental Assistance Program which is administered by the Collier County
Housing Authority.
HOUSING COSTS BASED ON 30% FAl\ULY INCOME
C'
I
[1500/0 .
80%
ONE
BEDROOM
UNIT
- ...-~. -._.. I FOUR
TWO THREE
BEDROOM BEDROOM I BEDROOM
UNIT UNIT UNIT
,
$2,355 $2,720 $3,034 --
$1,256 $1,45] $1,618 .-
$942 $1,089 $1,2]5 -..
$785 $907 $J,OJ2
60S-o
50%
35%
; 5~/o
$1,961
1$1,046
_1$785
$654
1$458
I ~,')7
I ~'--- ,
$549
\-$392
4 $635
: $453
u~~~
Page 19 of 30
,to.,genda Item No. 17C
Jure 10. 2008
Page 80 of ~24
UTILITY ALLOWANCES
ONE B/R TWOB/R THREE B/R FOUR B/R
LOCATION UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT
Naples and Coastal
Collier COWlty 71.00 91.00 128.00 156.00
1mmokalee and East of
Everglades Blvd. 67.00 106.00 148.00 173.00
Golden Gate 96.00 144.00 186.00 21 1.00
YOU MUST DEDUCT UTILITIES TO CALCULATE NET RENTS.
Page 20 of 30
-_.-r--~_N
:l3nl hJD. 17C
jun'2 10, 2Cl03
PCi~je 3 Df 224
APPENDIX B, EXHIBIT A
PRELIMINARY APrLICATIO~ FOR AFFORDABLE-WORKFORCE I-lOUSING UNIT
Date Occupancy Desired: .
Your Name:
Date of Application:_____ Am!. Of Sec. Deposit:_
Race/National Origin: Handicap: Yes _ No_
Race/National Origin: Handicap: Yes _ No_
Co-Tenant Name
Present Address:
Street
Name of Landlord
City
State
Zip
Telephone No.
How Long at this Address:
Landlord's Address:
Street
City
State
Zip
Telephone No.
If you have resided at your present address less than 3 years, please state previous address:
" Street
City
State
Zip Telephone No.
Name of Previous Landlord
Strect
City
State
Zip
Telephone No.
AI'PLICANT:
Present Employers Name
Address and Telephone No.
How long with Present Employer:__.
Job Title
Gross Salary: Hourly $_ Weekly $_ Every 2 Weeks $.__ Monthly $__
Social Security Number __
Previous Employers Name
Address and Telephone No..
How long with Previous Employer
Birth Date
Job Title
CO-TENANT:
Present Employers Name __."
Address and Telephone No.
How long with Present Employcr:___
JOD Title ___...._._
Page 21 of 30
l',.genda Item [\10. -: 7C
June 10,2008
Page ,"2 of 224
Gross Salary: Hourly $_ Weekly $
Social Security Number
Previous Employers Nanle
Address and Telephone No.
How long with Previous Employer
Every 2 Weeks $
Birth Date
Monthly $
---
Job Title
NAMES OF ALL WHO WILL OCCUPY APARTMENT BIRTH DATE SEX AGE SOCIAL SECURITY
1.
2.
3.
PERSONAL REFERENCES (Not Relatives)
J. Name: Address:
2. Name: Address:
How Long Known:
How Long Known:
Page 22 of 30
~~----l"--
item lb. i 7e
JU'le i 0, 2D08
Psge 63 of 224
APPENDIX B. EXHIBIT B
AFFORDABLE-WORKFORCE HOUSING APPLIC~"'T INCOME VERlFICA nON
Date:
Applicant's Name:
Co-Tenallt's Name: :
Social Security Number
Social Security Number
Present Address:
Street City State
I hereby make application for a single family unit at
I hereby declare and reveal all of my sources of income.
I am aware that to leave out, omit or fail to report my assets or forms of income from pensions,
stocks, bonds. real property rent, sale or ownership is a fraudulent act punishable by law.
Knowingly falsifying information on tJlls form is cause for refusal of occupancy.
Zip
Telephone No.
] hereby certifY that this will be my penmment residence and that I have no other assisted
housing.
I understand that this information is for the purpose of computing my annual income (0
determine my qualification to buy ml affordable, workforce, or gap housing unit. I understand
that I am not required to surrender my ownership or rights or claimed property, pensions or
capital gains, etc.
Applicant
AmDunt Frequency
Received of Pay
Co-Occupant
.~ount Frequency
Received of Pay
Wages/Salary $ $
Bo n uses $ -------- ----- $ ---.
Tips $ --_._-~ $ ---~---- ~----
----
Commissions $ $
lntcrest Income $ $
Trust Fund Income $ $ _._--~
Unemployment $ --- $ -"--
Workmml's Compensation $ $ -"- ----
Welfare $ $ ----
Food Stmnps $ --- $ --
Social Security $ --- $ ~---~
---
Social Security Disability $ $------ -----
Supplemental SSI $ $ ----
Fami Iy Assistance $ $
--
Child Support $ $ ---- _,,,,_m..__
Veterans Bcnefits $ --..--..-.-- $ --- ----
WidDws Benefits $ -,--- $ -
_._--~-
Page 23 of 30
l\genda 118m No. 17C
June 10,2008
Page 84 of 224
Union Pension $ -,-,- $
Self-Employment Business,
Silent Partner, etc. $ $
Private Insurance Pension $ $
TOTAL ANNUAL INCOME $ $
THE VERIFICATION HERE REQUESTED MAY TAKE THE FORM OF THE MOST RECENT
YEAR'S INCOME TAX RETURN FOR EACH OCCUPANT WHO HAS FILED AND WILL
OCCUPY THE AFFORDABLE, WORKFORCE, OR GAP HOUSING UNIT.
THE SAME MUST BE EXECUTED FOR EACH OCCUPANT OF THE HOUSEHOLD WHO
CONTRIBUTED TO THE ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME. FAILURE TO REPORT ALL
SOURCES OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME WILL RESULT IN DISQUALIFICATION FOR TENANCY
IN AFFORDABLE, WORKFORCE, OR GAP HOUSING UNIT
Page 24 of 30
. ."..._,.-1"
iif..:iTi 1\10. ~l 7C
June. 10, 2008
~jage 85 of 224
APPENDIX B. EXHIBIT C
AFFORDABLE-WORKFORCE HOUSING APPLICANT INCOME CERTIFICATION
APPLICANT:
Present Employer:
Job Title:
Address:
Street
City
State
Zip
I,
,hereby authorize the release of information requested
(Applicant)
on this certification fODn.
Signature of Applicant
STATE OF FLORlDA )
) ss
COUNTY OF COLLIER)
The foregoing was acknowledged before me by
Who is personally known to me or has prodnced ....
identification.
as
Witness my hand and official seal this
day of _0_
__,20_.
(notal)' seal)
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
Page 25 of 30
,L.genda Item No. i 7C
June 10. 2008
Page 36 of 224
EMPLOYER CERTIFICATION
Applicant's Gross Annual Income or Rate of Pay: $
Number of Hours Worked (Weekly):_. Frequency of Pay:
Amount of Bonuses, Tips, or other Compensation Received: $
$
Monthly
Annually
Supervisor
STATE OF FLORlDA )
) ss
COUNTY OF COLLIER)
The foregoing was acknowledged before me by
Who is personally known to me or has produced
identification,
as
Witness my hand and official seal this
day of
,20_.
(notary seal)
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
THE CERTIFICATION HERE REQUESTED MAY TAKE THE FORM OF THE MOST RECENT YEAR'S
INCOME TAX RETURN FOR EACH OCCUPANT WHO HAS PILED AND WILL OCCUpy THE
AFfORDABLE-WORKfORCE-GAP HOUSING UNIT.
Page 26 of 30
itelli No, 17C
June 10. 20Ci8
Pa;]8 87 of 224
APPENDIX C
DEVELOPER APPLICATION FOR AFFORDABLE-WORKFORCE
HOUSING DENSITY BONUS
Pursuant to LDC S 2.06.01 please complete this form and submit it with any accompanymg
documentation to the Community Development & Environmental Serviccs Division, 2800 North
Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104. A copy mnst also be provided to the Collier County
Housing and I-Iuman Services Department.
All items requested must be provided.
I. Please state what zoning districts are proposed by the applicant, if any, on the property and the
acreage of each;
Residential Planned Unit Development; 31.63== acres.
2. Has an application for rezoning been requested in conjunction with the affordable, workforce
and gap housing Density bonus?
_X___ Yes
No
If yes, state date of application
number N/A.
and if the request has been approved, state tbe Ordinance
3. Gross density ofthe proposed deve1opmcnt. 8.28 units per acre
Gross acreage of the proposed development. 31.63== acres
4. Are affordable-workforce-gap housing density bonus units sought in conjunction with an
application for a planned unit development (PUD)? _~..__ Yes __No.
If yes, please state name and location oftbe PUD and any other identifying information.
~gM;[a.J'Jg.ce RPUD: 2702 and 2210 II]Jmokalee Drive
5. Name of applicant _Florida Non-Profit Services, In",-a.nd Empowerment Alliance of
Southwest Florida Communitv Development CO!I'Qmt.i_Q1L._
Name ofland developer if not the same as Applicant:__
Page 27 of 30
6. Please complete the following tables as they apply to the proposed development.
TABLE I
Total Number of Units iQ Development
Type of
J..!ni.L_
Owner
Occupied
Rental
Efficiency
One Bedroom
Two Bedroom
lQL
~
30
56
Three Bedroom
Other Bedroom
TOTAL
l1L
86
TABLE II Number of Affordable- Workforce Housing Units
Total Number of Proposed Use for
Afford able- Work- Density Bonns Units
force U nits
in Development
Owner Ovmer
Rental Occupied Rental Occupied
GAP INCOME
81-150% MI
Efficiency
1 Bedroom
2 Bedroom
3 Bedroom
Other -~- -.cL ----L .JL
Page 28 of 3D
-..-....----r--"w~.--
Item ~Jo. 17C
J~1ne 10. 2008
PEq8 88 of 224
TOTAL
WORKFORCE INCOME
61-80% MI
Efficiency
1 Bedroom
2 Bedroom
3 Bedroom
Other
TOTAL
LOW INCOME
51-60% MI
Efficiency
I Bedroom
2 Bedroom
3 Bedroom
Other
TOTAL
VERY LOW INCOME
50% OR LESS MI
Efiieiency
I Bedroom
It3m l~o, 7C
June 10, 2 88
PaGe t;g of 24
~ In accordance with LDC Section 2.06.03.D. - All owner
occupied
60
O\i\'ner.
103
--.11...
__ill-
30
~
~
In accordance with LDC Section 2.06.03.D. - All
occupied
~....L
Page 29 of 30
103
73__
ElL
--L
A;lsnda item ~~o" 17C
J'Jne 10, 2008
Page 9D of 224
2 Bedroom
3 Bedroom
Other
TOTAL
~~
~
~
7. Please provide a physical description of the affordable-workforce units by type of unit (very low
income, low income, workforce income, gap income) and by number of bedrooms. Include in
your description, for example, the square footage of each type of unit, floor coverings used
throughout the unit (carpeting, tile, vinyl flooring); window treatments; appliances provided such
as washer/dryer, dishwasher, stove, refrigerator; bathroom amenities, such as ceiling exhaust fans;
and any other amenities as applicable. Attach additional pages as Exhibit "D" if needed.
The proposed dwelling units have not been designed at this time and therefore this
information is not yet available.
8. Please supply any other information which would reasonably be needed to address this request for
an affordable, workforce, and gap housing density bonus for this development. Attach additional
pages if needed.
The co-applicants are partneling in their development efforts to ensnre the highest level of
efficiency during the entitlement phase for these organizations. If approved, this
development will provide housing to aid in meeting the large demand for affordable
housing in Collier County.
Page 30 of 30
--,.
11em No. "IYC
June 10. 2DC18
81 of 224
Mel110randum
To: Environmental Advisory Council Members
From: Susan Mason, Principal Environmental Specialist - Engineering and
Environmental Services Department
C: Joseph Schmitt, William Lorenz, Barbara Burgeson, Summer Araque, Melissa
Zone -Community Development and Environmental Services Division
Date: 4/21/2008
Subject: Planned Unit Development Rezone No. PUDZ-2oo7-AR-12581 -Summary of
minimum required native vegetation preservation
Claudia Piotrowicz, Melissa Zone and I met on site with representatives from the
Empowerment Alliance and Florida Non-Profit Services and Marco Espinar on April 10, 2008.
On this site visit, staff verified and explained to the applicants that a portion of the wetlands
and uplands on site meet the definition of native vegetation.
At a meeting in the office later that same day attended by numerous staff including Joe
Schmitt and William Lorenz, additional representatives from both the applicants and the
agents, it was further agreed that:!: 0.73 acre of the wetland and 0.52 acre of the upland
vegetation meet the definition of native vegetation. For this project to be found consistent
with Growth Management Plan (GMP) Conservation and Coastal Management Element
(CCME} Policy 6.1.1, a minimum of 25% (a minimum of 0.31 acre--0.18 acre of wetland and
0.13 acre of upland) of this area must be preserved.
The applicants stated for the upland portion either a 0.13 acre preserve would be created on
site or an off-site alternative preserve consistent with CCME policy 6.1.1 (10) would be
provided. For the wetland preserve, Mr. Schmitt agreed to allow mitigation at an approved
mitigation bank required by South Florida Water Management District as part of the
Environmental Resource Permit can also be used to meet the County's preservation
requirement. These options are consistent with the GMP requirements for vegetation
retention since the GMP does not expressly prohibit mitigation banks as an off-site option.
The PUD document has been amended to acknowledge the preservation requirement and
detailed that the required preservation will all be met using off-site alternatives to be
accomplished prior to development approvals.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approving Esperanza Place PUDZ AR-12581 with the following
conditions, all of which are included in the current version ofthe PUD document:
Engineering and Environmental Services Department
Community Dcvelopment & Environmental Services Division
,4,Genda item r~o. 17C
~ .June 10 2D08
Page 92 of 224
Environmental:
A. A Florida Black Bear management plan shall be provided to the County manager or
designee during SOP or plat review process.
B. The site currently contains +/- 1.26 acres of native vegetation (0.52+/- acres of upland
and +/- 0.73 acres of wetland native vegetation onsite): A minimum of 25%,0.32 acres,
must be preserved. For the 0.13 acre portion of the upland vegetation, the applicant will
donate an equivalent off-site preserve to be accepted by a public agency or contribute a
monetary payment to Conservation Collier equivalent to the average per-acre value found in
an appraisal of the entire site, multiplied by the number of acres to be preserved off-site,
plus 15 percent of that amount as an endowment for management of off-site land. The
appraisal shall be based on the fair market value of the land as if the desired zoning is in
place. Twenty-five percent of the O.73-acre wetland native vegetation will be preserved and
appropriately managed off-site at an approved mitigation bank. All preservation must be
accomplished prior to SOP/PPL approval. This off-site preservation may be utilized as part
of the required off-site mitigation as part of the Environment Resource Permi!.
C. The subject property was used for agricultural purposes and incurred clearing for
which no permit can be located; In order for clearing to be considered legal and re-creation
of vegetation removed not be required an after-the-fact clearing fee will be paid for the
clearing of approximately 23.6 acres prior to approval for the SOP or PPL for relevant
acreage
Call me at 252-2987 if you have any questions. Thank you very much.
Engineering and Environmental Services Department
Community Development & Environmental Sen'ices nivision
item r'Jo. i7C
June 10, 2008
Page 93 of 224
Item VI. C.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MEETING OF APRIL 2. 2008
I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT
Petition No.:
Petition Name:
Applicant/Developer:
Engineering Consultant:
Environmental Consultant:
PUDZ-2007-AR 12581
Esperanza Place PUDZ
Empowerment Alliance of SW Florida
Q. Grady Minor & Associates
Collier Environmental Consultants
II. LOCATION
The subject properties are located on the north side of Immokalee Drive, west of S.R. 29
and Y. mile east of Carson Road in Section 32, Township 46 South, Range 29 East, Collier
County, Florida.
Ill. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
The site is currently bordered on the west by mobile home/manufactured home subdivision.
The property to the south and east are developed with single-family dwelling units. South of
the property is vacant but used for agriculture uses.
ZONING
DESCRIPTION
N - RSF-4, Garden Lake Apartments PUD,
and MH
Single-family residential units,
apartments & Mobile Homes
S - A-MHO
Single-family residential units
E - Davenport PUD
Single-family residential units
w- MH
Mobile Homes & Manufacture Homes
IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The petitioner is requesting a rezone from the Rural Agricultural (A-MHO) zoning district
with Mobile Home Overlay to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD), Esperanza
Place RPUD zoning district. The Esperanza Place RPUD is a total of 31.63:1: acres that will
be developed up to 262 dwelling units per acre. This amounts to a gross density of 8.28:1:
dwelling units per acre. The base density is four (4) dwelling unils per acre and the
affordable housing density bonus is used to make up the remaining dwelling units. The
Florida Non-Profit Services, Inc will develop an affordable multi-family residential community
EAC Meeting
,L,asnda iterTl No. 17C
- June 10 2008
Page 94 of 224
Page 2 of8
on the western half of the site and the Empowerment Alliance of Southwest Florida
Community Development Corporation will develop affordable owner-occupied homes on the
eastern portion of the property, and a two (2) acre tract will be for one (1) single-family
residence, this home currently exists and will remain.
V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY
A. Future Land Use Element
The project is located in the Immokalee area which is designated Urban on the Future Land
Use Map - specific subdistricts and development standards are contained within the
Immokalee Area Master Plan (lAMP). The subject sites are located within the lAMP Low
Residential Subdistrict designation.
The purpose of this subdistrict is to provide for low density residential development.
Residential dwellings are limited to single-family structures and duplexes. However, multi-
family dwellings are permitted provided they are within a Planned Unit Development.
Density less than or equal to four (4) dwelling units per gross acre is permitted.
Esperanza Place RPUD proposes 262 dwelling units on 31.63 acres, which equates to a
gross density of 8.28 uMs per acre. The Density Rating System (DRS) allows the subject
properties a base density of four (4) units per acre and the potential of an Affordable-
Workforce Housing Bonus (AHDB), by public hearing, of up to eight (8) units per acre. The
subject petition includes a companion Agreement Authorizing Affordable-Workforce
Housing Density Bonus that indicates the requested project density is allowed (which is
subject to Housing & Human Services' review for accuracy and Board of County
Commission approval as a companion item to this RPUD).
A density analysis is as follows:
. Permitted Base Density - 31.63 acres x 4 unitslacre = 126.52 units
. AHDB Density Eligibility - 31.63 acres x 8 unitslacre = 253.04 units
. Total Possible UnITS = 379.56 (12 dula)
. Requested Units = 262 unITS (8.23 duta)
The following FLUE policies and objectives apply to the subject use with respect to potential
site utilization (note various staff comments italicized and bolded below):
FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with the surrounding area.
Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to the Zoning and Land Development
Review staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety.
Objective 7 of the FLUE states: "In an effort to support the Community Character Plan for
Collier County, Florida, promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing
development character of Collier County, the following policies shall be implemented for
new development and redevelopment projects, where applicable."
EAC Meeting
;\:ienda hem r'~o. 17C
~ ,June 10.2008
Page 95 of 224
Page 3 Drg
Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their
properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be
made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code.
(Staff Comment: The site's existing access is to Immokalee Drive, a collector road; no new
access is proposed.)
Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help
reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for
traffic signals. (Staff Comment: In the project narrative, the applicant indicates that there
will be internal connections between the multi-family residential portion of the site and the
single-family portion of the site - after reviewing the Master Plan provided in sheet two of
the large location map submittals, this has been confirmed.)
Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local
streets and their interconnection points with adjoining neighbothoods or other developments
regardless of land use type. (As stated in the project narrative, the applicant notes that
interconnections will be explored, but may not be possible given the surrounding
development conditions. Upon review of the site aerial, staff concurs that 'it does not appear
to be feasible. There is a potential pedestrian interconnection shown on the Master Plan.)
Policy 7.4: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable
communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of
housing prices and types. (Staff Comment: The subject proposal provides a blend of single
and multi-family densities in conjunction with being a development with a proposed
affordable housing component. The project allows a clubhouse, includes a recreational
tract, and includes the required open space. Since no deviation is being requested,
sidewalks must be provided as required in the LDC).
CONCLUSION: Staff deems the subject PUDZ-2007-AR-12581 to be consistent with the
lAMP subject to the approval of the companion agreement authorizing the Affordable-
Workforce Housing Density Bonus.
B. Conservation & Coastal Manallement Element
Objective 2.2 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth
Management Plan states "All canals, rivers, and flow ways discharging into estuaries shall
meet all applicable federal, state, or local water quality standards.
To accomplish that, policy 2.2.2 states "In order to limit the specific and cumulative impacts
of stormwater runoff, stormwater systems should be designed in such a way that
discharged water does not degrade receiving waters and an attempt is made to enhance
the timing, quantity, and quality of fresh water (discharge) to the estuarine system.
According to the applicant the projecl attempts to mimic or enhance the quality and quantity
of water leaving the site by utilizing interconnected dry detention areas and lakes to provide
water quality retention and peak flow attenuation during storm events.
EAC Meeting
Agenda item No. 17C
June n 2008
Page 96 of 224
Page 6 of8
3. Preservation Reauirements
Despite of providing the following statement "since this project does not have any native
habitats a tree count was oonduoted." The applicant did not provide enough scientific
evidence to sustain this statement. After several meetings between the applicant and staff,
William Lorenz Engineering and Environmental Services Department Director wrote a letter
in which it is stated that "vegetation retention requirement will be based on the vegetation
currently on site since there is little change from aerials in 1997 to today'~ the referred letter
is the EIS document Exhibit "Environmental Services Director Letter".
Staff has requested the EIS to be revised to elaborate and justify their statements regarding
why the native vegetation present on site should not be preserved. The applicant has
declined and decided that the EIS document is sufficient for the EAC review.
4. Listed Species
A Listed Species Survey is included as Exhibit "Listed Species Survey" in the EIS
document. No evidence of listed species was observed during the survey. Since the site is
located within the Black Bear habitat tange a Florida Black Bear Management Plan is
required and is inoluded in the ErS as Exhibit "Black Bear Management Plan".
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends not approving the EIS for Esperanza Place PUDZ AR-12581 for the
following reasons:
Stormwater Manaaement:
None
Environmental:
1. Staff recommends the EIS be revised to include the justification of the applicant's
contention that no preservation is required. The EIS does not demonstrate compliance with
CCME Policy 6.1.1 (1) "For the purpose of this policy, native vegetation is defined as a
vegetative community having 25% or more canopy coverage or highest existing vegetative
strata of native plant species. The vegetation retention requirements specified in this policy
are calculated based on the amount of native vegetation that conforms to this definition"
2. If the EAC deems the EIS sufficient and recommend approval, staff recommends the
following condition of approval:
After the Fact Vegetation Removal/Clearing is required in order for historical clearing
without permit to be in compliance with required native preservation. For this site staff
knows that 2 acres for each existing house and :i: 4 acres were legally cleared from the site.
Applicant has to provide calculation in the EIS document and include the After the Fact
Vegetation RemovallClearing lotal acreage in the PUD exhibits.
EAC Meeting
:rsm ~"jo, 1712
June 1 0,2008
Page 97 of 224
Page 5 0[8
B. Environmental
1. Site Description
The site comprises :1:31.70 acres and although it has been partially cleared some of the
existing trees are remnant specimens from the vegetation that originally occurred on site,
The upland vegetation canopy is composed of mature slash pines (Pinus elliottl) and other
associated upland species such as live oak (Quercus virginiana). The secondary strata is
composed of winged sumac (Rhus oopallina), cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), Paw-paw
(Asimina retioulata ) etc. There is a wetland area :1:1,7 acres iooated at the southeast portion
of the site; the existing vegetation is composed of Carolina willow (Sa/Ix oaroliniana),
primrose willow (Ludwigla peruviana), swamp fern (Bienonum serrlanturn), and other native
species.
The historic aerials reveal that native vegetation on site has been oleared on different
occasions and years without obtaining the necessary permits and/or documents for the
removal of native vegetation. According to the applicant the site has been used for row
crop production and eventually, the entire parcel was used for cattle production/grazing.
Currently the site is vegetated with some scattered slash pines, oaks and cabbage palms
and the ground cover consists of bahiagrass and native ground cover species, additional
information on existing vegetation can be seen on the EIS exhibit "FLUCCS code vegetation
inventory". Approximately, 121 Slash pines and 11 oaks were identified on site according to
the tree inventory provided by the appiicant.
Soillypes on site are mostly non-hydric soils composed by Myakka Fine Sand; Urban Land
- Immokalee - Oldsmar; Limestone Substratum, Complex; Pomella fine sand. At the area
where the wetland is located the soil is hydric: Chobee, winder and Gator Soils,
Depressional.
The subject parcels have two single family residences within the project boundary.
2. Wetlands
As required by policy 6.2.1 and 6.2.2, the South Florida Water Management District
(SFWMD) will conduct a site visit and field verify the wetland jurisdictional boundaries for
the proposed project.
The :f: 1.73 acres onsile wetland area has been partially impacted and the offsile portion of
this wetland has been completely impacted. Existing native vegetation onsite is composed
of: Carolina willow (Salix caroliniana), Primorose willow (Ludwigia peruviana), Swamp fern
(Blechnum serrulatum), Wax myrtle (Myrica cerfera), Broom sedge (Andropogon virginicus),
etc.
Please see more details on the FLUCFCS code map provided as exhibit "FLUCCS code
vegetation inventory". The project as proposed will impact 100% onsile wetland and the
appropriate wetland permits will be necessary prior to the next development order approval.
EAC Meeting
Agsnda Item No. 17C
June 10, 2008
Page 98 of 224
Page 4 of8
This project does not show consistency with CCMElPolicy 6.1.1 (1) 'For the purpose of this
policy, native vegetation is defined as a vegetative community having 25% or more canopy
coverage or highest existing vegetative strata of native plant species. The vegetation
retention requirements specified in this policy are calculated based on the amount of native
vegetation that conforms to this definition."
Throughout the EIS document the applicant states that there is no existing native vegetation
onsite and therefore there is no native preservation requirement. However, in Exhibit
"FLUCFCS Code Vegetation inventory" in the EIS document the applicant does provide a
comprehensive list of native vegetation found on site. This is inconsistent with the
applicant's conclusion that there should be no preserve requirement. The applicant did not
provide reasons based on biological knowledge that mature slash pines (Pinus elliotft) and
other associated upland species such as cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), live oak (Quercus
virginiana), winged sumac (Rhus copal/ina) and wetland native vegetation such as Carolina
willow (Salix caroliniana), Primorose willow (Ludwigia peruviana), Swamp fem (Blechnum
selTulatum), Wax myrtle (Myrica certera) , Broom sedge (Andropogon virginicus), etc. do not
qualify as native habitat. Please see more details about existing vegetation on the pictures
attached to this staff report.
An ErS has been submitted and is not consistent with Policy 6.1.8 since the EIS document
lacks important technical aspects, therefore iI is not sufficient. Staff has requested
compiementary explanation about the information contained in the EIS document and the
applicant has declined the opportunity to provide the requested information and required
that the EIS document be reviewed by the EAC.
A wildlife survey for listed species in accordance with Policy 7.1.2 is included, no evidence
of listed species was observed during the survey. Staff conducted site visit to verify existing
vegetation and FLUCFCS code and existing listed species and wildlife onsite.
VI. MAJOR ISSUES
A.
Stormwater ManaQement
Esperanza Place was submitted to SFWMD on 7 Feb 2008 and
Environmental Resource Permi! (Application Number 080207-26).
Addilional Information letter (RAI) was sent out by SFWMD on 7 Mar 08.
processed for an
The Request for
Section 8.06.03 0.2. of the Collier County Land Development Code states "The surface
water managemenl aspects of any petition, that is or will be reviewed and permitted by
Soulh Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), are exempl from review by the EAC
except to evaluate the criteria for allowing treated stormwater to be discharged into
Preserves as allowed in Section 3.05.07."
Since this project does not intend using preserves for slormwater trealment, the water
management aspects are exempt from review by the EAC.
For lhe record, the project uses a standard slormwater management design employing
interconnected swales, catch basins, culverts, and wet detention areas to achieve water
quality detention and peak flow attenuation. A seven page set of the permit plans can be
accessed on the SFWMD website. The drawings show discharge into the rrnmokalee Drive
swale.
Item t'JD, 'iTS
June 10,2008
EAe Meeting
S!2 or 224
Page 6 of8
3. Preservation Reauirements
Despite of providing the following statement "since this project does not have any native
habitats a tree count was conducted." The applicant did not provide enough scientific
evidence to sustain this statement. After several meetings between the applicant and staff,
William Lorenz Engineering and Environmental Services Department Director wrote a letter
in which it is stated that "vegetauon retention requirement will be based on the vegetation
currently on site since there is little change from aerials in 1997 to today", the referred letter
is the EIS document Exhibit "Environmental Services Director Letter".
Staff has requested the EIS to be revised to elaborate and justify their statements and the
applicant has declined and decided that the EIS document is sufficient for the EAC review.
4. Listed Species
A Listed Species Survey is included as Exhibit "Listed Species Survey' in the EIS
document. No evidence of listed species was observed during the survey. Since the site is
located within the Black Bear habitat range a Florida Black Bear Management Plan is
required and is included in the EIS as Exhibit "Black Bear Management Plan".
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends not approving the EIS for Esperanza Place PUDZ AR-12581 for the
following reasons:
1. Stormwater ManaQement:
None
2. Environmental:
1. Staff recommends the EIS be revised to include the justification of the applicant's
contention that no preservation is required. The EIS does not demonstrate compliance with
CCME Policy 6.1.1(1) "For the purpose of this policy, native vegetation is defined as a
vegetative community having 25% or more canopy coverage or highest existing vegetative
strata of native plant species. The vegetation retention requirements specified in this poiicy
are calculated based on the amount of native vegetation that conforms to this definition."
2.1 Condition ofapproval:
After the Fact Vegetation Removal/Clearing is required in order for historical clearing
without permit to be in compliance with required native preservation. For this site staff
knows that 2 acres for each existing house and i: 4 acres were legally cleared from the site.
Applicant has to provide calculation in the EIS document and include the After the Fact
Vegetation RemovallClearing tolal acreage in the PUD exhibits.
EAC Meeting
Page 70f8
PREPARED BY:
)$/- i '.' .
" '/, < I
itiA...-L i l..;;:',C{,.~_. IA_. ,
STAN CHRZANOWSt4r,'P.E.
ENGINEERING REVIEW MANAGER
ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
XlClUdACL rioP<o!..UtCZ-
CLAUDIA PIOTROWICZ
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
~~~-
MELISSA ZONE
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
Agenda item hio. 17C
June 10, 2008
Page 100 of 224
tf. If1 i( (,'~'
DATE
.5 / Iii 108
DATE
~//~/~~
DATE
EAC Meeting
item r'b. 17e
,June 10,2008
r' age 1C11 of 224
Page II of II
REVIEWED BY:
SON
AL ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
IRON MENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
3-dJ -()f'
DATE
.hl~/l .,~~~ 3-2.0.'08
~. LOR Z, Jr., .E. DATE
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
.
IGH
NT COUNTY ATTORNEY
OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ATTORNEY
'5/1,lo&,
DATE .
APPROVED BY:
c3j;" /6 ('
J S PH K SCHMITT DATi!
o MUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR
Agsnda Item No. 17C
June 10,2008
F'age 102 of 224
:J./)~;ida Item 1\)0, ! 7C
" ,June 10, 2008
Page 103 of 224
Agenda Item I'h 17C
June 10, 2008
Page 104 of 224
~genda Item r~o. 17C
June 10, 20Cl8
Page 105 of 224
l-\C1enda item No. i7e
- June 10,2008
Pa';J8 105 of 224
Supplemental Information for Environmental Advisory Council
Esperanza Place RPUD
PUDZ-2007-AR-1258l
"r~-'-'-._'. ,..
item r~o. ~17C
.)u:--leiO.2008
PaJc 107 of 224
Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Civil Engineers . L~md Surveyors _ Planners _ Landscape Architects
To:
From:
Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) Members
Marco A. Espinar, Collier Environmental Consultants, Inc.
Heidi K. Williams, MCP, Q, Grady Minor & Associates, P.A.
April 18, 2008
PUDZ-2007-AR-12581 . Additional Information on EsperallZa Place RPUD
Date:
Subject:
During the regularly-scheduled EAC meeting on April 2, 2008, the Council discussed the proposed
Esperanza Place RPUD rezoning petition. The Council did not achieve consensus on the project and
requested additional information be provided for review, Each of these items is listed below with the
applicant's response. The applicant also walked the property with staff to discuss the project. The PUD
Exhibits have been revised to reflect our agreement on the outstanding native vegetation issues,
1, Ovmership infonnation:
Please see Exhibit A, attached, for a list of owners and contract purchasers.
2. Additional information on the wetland area:
The onsite wetland is approximately 1.73+/. acres, The applicant applied for a pemut from South
Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) to completely impact this wetland, We anticipate the
pemlit will be approved and off-site nlitigation of impacts will be allowed. SFWMD staff has
indicated that this will be approved due to the poor quality of the wetland and the alteration of its
natural state due to agricultural use of the property and the existing development of the property west
of the subject site, The vegetation in and around the wetland consists primarily of Brazilian pepper,
Carolina willow and Primrose willow, A full list of vegetation is included in the EIS, Most of the
plants are native; however, they are considered nuisance species and are indicators of the disturbed
nature of the wetland. Due to its condition and MWRAP score of 0.40, thc area would not qualify as
an on-site native vegetation preserve, The entire wetland area will be mitigated off-site at an
approved mitigation bank We met with County staff to discuss this approach on April] Olh, and staff
had no objcction to off-site nlitigation and preservation,
3, CCME 6,1.1(1):
Policy 6,1.1 of the Conservation and Coastal Managen1ent Element contains nnmmum native
vegetation preserve reqnirements for new developments within Collier County, Sub-policy numhcr
Dne, which is cited by staff, states:
"(1) For the purpose of this policy, "native vegetation" is defined as a vegetative community
having 25% or more canopy coverage or highest existing vegetative strata of native plant species,
The vegetation retention requirements specified in this policy are calculated based on the amount
of "native vegetation" that confoITIlS to this definition,"
Based on our site visit with staff and a subsequent meeting on April 10"', and in the interest of making
progress on the project, the applicant agreed to consider 0,52 acres as native upland habitat Due to
the small amount of vegetation required to be retained, the applicant will provide an equivalent
preserve off-site, or will contribute an amount equivalent to ] 15 percent of the post-7011.ing f~ir
EAC Memo, 4~JS.2008
Page I 01'2
FNPSP/EAIDP
/\aenda Item No. 17C
.. June 10, 2008
Page 108 of 224
market appraised value of 0.13+/- acres within the PUD to the Conservation Collier Trust Fund. A
comnlitment has been added to the PUD that states:
"The site currently contains +/- 1.26 acres of native vegetation (0.52+/- acres of upland and
+/- 0.73 acres of wetland native vegetation onsite); a nlinimum of 25%, 0.32 acres, must be
preserved. For the 0,13 acre portion of the upland vegetation, the applicant will donate an
equivalent off-site preserve to be accepted by a public agency or contribute an amount
equivalent to 115 percent of the post-zoning fair market appraisal value within the 1'00 to the
Conservation Collier Trust Fund. Twenty-five percent of the 0.73-acre wetland native
vegetation will be preserved and appropriately managed off-site at an approved nlitigation
bank. All preservation must be accomplished prior to SDP/PPL approval. This off-site
preservation may be utilized as part of the required off-site mitigation as part of the
Environment Resource Permit."
4, Soil samplinglborings:
The soil sanlpling report was provided to staff on February 20, 2008. It was inadvertently omitted
from the EAC information, The report is attached to this memo as Exhibit B. The western half of the
PUD was subject to both a Phase I and a Phase II Environmental Assessment. Both of these reports
indicate the site is suitable for residential development. Due to the volume ofthese reports, they are
not included; however, we will provide a copy to any EAC member who wishes to review them,
5. Habitat of east haWsite visits:
County staff visited the property on Aplill Otb with the applicant. During a subsequent meeting, the
applicant agreed to consider 0.52 acres as upland native habitat. The EAC requested that members be
invited to visit the site; the applicant would be happy to accommodate members during individual
appointments to review the status of vegetation on the property,
6. Precedent of detennination that the site was used for agriculture and therefore not subject to native
vegetation requirelnents:
A determination that tins site does not contain native vegetation does not set a precedent for other
properties. Each zoning petition is reviewed on its own set of circumstances and merits, Staff and
the applicant identified lin1ited areas of the property that contain native vegetation. Most of the site
has been disturbed for cattle grazing; other grazing lands may be barren of trees, or may have full
cypress domes in the grazing area. These projects will need to be rcviewed individually to determine
whether individual sites contain native vegetation commmuties,
7. Deviation from on-site prescrve in PUD document:
Exhibit F of the PUD contains a new deviation that allows the applicant to preservation of habitat off-
site, or allows Ille applicant to contribute to the Conservation Collier Trust Fund. A full justification
of this deviation has been snbnlitted to staff. A commitment has also been added to the PUD.
EAC Memo, 4-1 8-2008
Page 2 of2
FNPSP/EAIDP
Lc~s"ja [(em N:Emtibit A
~ .June 10, 20Cl8
?2;J8 1 C~9 of 224
List of Property Owners and Contract Purchasers
]<'olio Number: 00076040007; 00076200009
Property Owner:
Jose and Norma Lopez
P.O. Box 445
Immokalee, FL 34143
Date Acquired: November 6, 2006
Contract Purchaser:
Florida Non-Profit Services, Inc
c/o Real Estate Technology
900 Broad Avenue South, #2C
Naples, FL 34102
Board of Directors:
Carl J, Kuehner, Chairman
Alan Parker, V ice Chainnan
Harriet Lancaster, Secretary
Frank Proto, Treasurer
Sister Maureen Kelleher, Member
Sylvia Munoz, Member
Date of Option:
Date Option Tenninates:
Anticipated Closing Date:
May 10, 2007
June I, 2008
June 1,2008
Folio Number: 00076080009
Property Owner:
Date Acquired:
Empowennent Alliance of Southwest Florida Cormnunity Developmcnt
Corporation
750 South 5'" Street
1mmokalee,FL 34142
August 10, 2007
Folio Number: 00076160000
Property Owner:
Date Acquired:
Contract Purchaser:
Carol A. Caruthers
1',0, Box 324
Irrnnokalee, FL 34 I 43
October 10,1982
Empowennent Alliance of Southwest Florida Community Development
Corporation
750 South 5'h Street
1rrnnokalee, FL 34142
Date of Option:
Date Option Tenninates:
Anticipated Closing Date:
September 13, 2007
October 13,2008
October 13, 2008
FNPSPiEAIDP
ji.gc2nda Iten#r'h~IDt B
June it~LVU~
Page 110 of 224
D"
via email and mail
mdelate@gradyminor.com
Mr. Michael J, Delate, P,E.
a. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A.
3800 Via Del Rey
Bonita Springs, Florida 34134
18 February 2008
Subject:
Geoenvironmental Services
Sediment Sampling at Esperanza Place
Immokalee, Collier County, Florida
ASC Project No, OE3003
Dear Mr. Delate;
Per authorization lrom the Client, ASC geosciences, inc. sampled lor sediment at two locations on the
project site relerenced above (refer to Figure 1). One hand auger boring was advanced near the
southwest portion (labeled "SW"), within a proposed pond area. Samples at the SW location were
initially collected at a 1 It and 2 It depth below existing ground surlace and screened in the field with an
organic vapor analyzer (OVA) in accordance with FDEP guidelines. The purpose of the field screening
was to determine if petroleum contamination was present at the locations sampled. Because no OVA
readings were detected, laboratory analyses for petroleum was not required. A duplicate hand auger
boring was advanced lor the collection 01 sample SWat a 1 It depth. This sample was laboratory.
analyzed lor organochlorine pesticides and metals (results attached). A second sample was collected
near the "NE" portion of the project site at a 1 It depth. The NE sample was laboratory-analyzed lor
arsenic (results attached).
All analytes 01 interest were reported as below detection limits or 8DL The reporting of these results
completes the services requested for this phase 01 the project.
Sincerely,
Ase geosciences, inc.
A'
"" ,....
,-- "..
'''.,~.
," :'. "\.'
", ,'~ ..'. ,
-'.) . ",'
tl
,":1
.
Anu Saxena, P .E.
Senior Project Manager
Florida Registration No, 45601
attachments:
Figure 1 - Project Layout and Test Location Plan
Laboratory test results
. physical address:
ASC ge[}sciences, inc.
5811 Corporation Circle
Fort Myers, Florid. 33905
. contacts:
phone: 239,693.6334
fex: 239,693,8852
n.ples: 239.598.3833
~ww. aSCWOrJd.ne:;
,,_~_,'t...,
~
OCO-:::r
I'~ON
:'-.ON
N_
O .0
z2.-
Ca;..--
ID=m
'::::-::::i:n
ro -, ro
v [L
c
(!)
en
<(
,
~ i
, ,
!
, ,
. ,.
~i to
I ;i
~ 15 .,
"t'B 1-
.
" ,-
I" gl
~O ~. ]]
"
.
,-
~
o
o
~
:ll
'0
I
..:
0:
0:
,,-
~o
'0 c .D'g
l:;:l"tJln
00:: ~~
] g .~~
~::;; 5.,-
......: S 0. g
..... 0 0'-
~ -' e::;:;:
E] ~-&
:1.1- 02
~ ro z.,
i i
,
~
,
~
~
..::<lIl.g
0-'1:
0' 0
u.~
41gg
g~]
~c~
-"OlE
~-
.
,
g
,
u
"
8 ~
.!!
Q.-u.i
2g5
<:D:8
~ ~ '-
~]~
,0
~ ,u
" , .
~- *
.. t
i ~
i
ii
il
"
,
,
~
,
.
~:
~
" Sl!
"
W!~ ~
! l!l
"
r-
~
!
i
.
,
I
f,-II 'XCO!'W\flt\t:u;s 800V6If{ '....~ Wli~.Vid '(.,.,IfI'roo88{)\ro"'<l-:)SVI"''''d.IJ:f\..-''d"nOO8B\1\lN/)t'ISJ.:r,lCO'dd\TI''lN3rl~IO\lWa\p~1~:''
,
,
PES Phoslab Environmental Services, Ine.
806 west Bene,", Road. L.k"""'d, FI33003. (863) 682-5897 . Fax: (863) 683.3279
1lIl1lEE1-IIUI!-il11
roOD 0>: E84925
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
Client;
MDM S.rnces
1055 Kathleen Rd.
Lakeland, FL 33805
AttenUon:
Phone Number:
Fax Nwnber:
Project Nome:
Project Number:
Project Location:
Sampled By:
Date Sampled:
Dale Received:
Dote Reported:
Lab. Report It:
Mike Alexander
863-646-9130
863-648-1106
Esperanza Place
22443
IlI1!llokoJee. FL
M.L/MDM
02105108
02105108 16:00
02108108
020508-00z
Project Description
The analytical results for the samples identified in this repl)rt were suhrnitted for analysis as
outlined by the attached Chain of Custody. The results for the quality control samples were
reviewed and found to meet the acceptance crlteria for precision and accuracy or properly
nagged. Unless noted in this repDrt or a case narrative, aU data in this analylicaJ report is in
comp!iao~e with NEU..C standards. This report may not be fr'{}roduced in part or whole
without tbe pemlission of PES,
Notes: Sample results reported at the Practical Qu
Samples reported on wet weight basis
Approved By: David Pornella
David Pamella. Laboratory Director
Approved By: Megan Ske<.
Megan Skeen, Quality Assurance offictr
PES Repon: 6
DataQ\tali-f1er:: I
COC: I
SarnplcLog.[Il: I
Total Pag~ 9
coe: 020508.002 Page I of 6
Agenda item hlo, 17C
June 10. 2008
Page 112 of 224
_."'0""""'\
~ ' ' : ~
..... . ..t
./
,
,
Hem hJo. i 7e
June 10, 2008
f=':::\;]'3 1 -: 3 of 224
'PES PhoslDb I!:nvironmenta:} Services, Inc.
806 West Deacon Road - LllkeJand, FI 33803. (863) ()S2..5891. Fax: (863) 6S3.3Z75J
TIlUIEEl-IIHn-5IU
FDOR ill: E84925
.""".""'"
~" , ,.- ';
J t
',- .. , ~
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
EPA 6010B - MeW.
Sample ill: 020508-(14 020508-03
Sample DcscripfionfMatrix: SW Soil NE Soil
Sample Dale, 02105/08 13:45 02105108 13:20
Preparation Date: 02106108 02106108
Analysis Datefl'ime: 02106/08 14:07 02106/08 14:02
Melbod: 6OIOB 60lOB
Batch: 821 821
Dilution: 1x Ix
Initials: MS MS
Analytes: Cns No. Results Units Results Units MDl" PQL
Arseni:: (As) 7440-3~-2 0.25 U mg/Kg 0.25U mg/Kg 0.25 1.00
Barium (Ba) 7440-39-3 1.00U mglKg 1.00 Loo
Cadmium (Cd) 7440-43-9 0,25 U mg/Kg 0.25 1.00
Chromium (Cr) 7440-47-3 2,00 (I mgIKg 2.00 5,00
Lend (Pb) 7439-92-1 0,25 U mglKg 0.25 1.00
Selenium (Se) 7782-49.2 l.OOU mg/Kg 1.00 1.00
Silver (Ag) 7440-22-4 2,OOU rug/Kg Lao 5,00
Sample ill, 020508-04
Sample Desctiption!M:atdx: SW Soil
Sample Date: 02105108 13:45
Prepnr.ation Dnle: 02/06ID8
Anal:.rsfs Datc!rime: 02108/08 13:15
Metbod: 7470
Uatclt: 399
Dilution: Ix
Initials: MS
Analyte: Cas No. Rc~m1ts Units 1\lDL PQL
Mercury (Hg) 7439-97-6 0,050 (I mg/Kg 0,050 0.20
cae: 020508-002
Page 2 of6
/\;jenda 11em No. 17e
June 10, 2008
Page 114 of 224
PES Phoslab Environmental Services, IDe..
806 West Beac<>n R""d . Lakel""d, Fl33803. (863) 682-5897 . Fax: (1163) 68HZ19
IIU lItE 1-1.....2-5..'
FDOH ID: E84925
i8""""""
~ ^
,. -
.; '!
:;' ..:7
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
EPA 8081 Pesticides
SlUIlple ID: 020508-04
S.",ple DescriptionIM.trlx: SW Soil
Sample D.te: 02105108 13:45
Preparation Da!flMethod: 02107/08 EPA8081
Analysis Dattfl'ime: 02107/08 20:46
Method. EPA 8081
B.tch No. 035
Dilution: Ix
Initilds: IT
Analy!es: Cas No. Resl1l1s Units MDL PQL
Gamma BHC(Undane) 58-89.9 0.002U mg/kg 0.002 O.OtO
Heptw:hlor 76-44.8 0,002U mg/kg 0.002 0.010
HepI~Jor Epoxide 1024--57-3 0.003U mg/kg 0.003 0.010
Endrin n-2o-8 O,OO4U mg/kg 0.004 0,010
Methoxychlor 72-43-5 o.rom mg/kg 0.004 0,010
TClUIphene 8001.35-2 o.olm mglkg 0.011 0.100
Technical ChklTwHle 0.006U mg/kg 0.006 0.100
Surrogate: % Recovery Limits
TCMX 114 70-130
D!Q::hlombl;iliecjfl 106 70-139
(x}c:020508-002
Page 3 of6
Item I~O. 17(::'
,L.me 10,2008
?2C-fe i -: 5 of 224
PES Pboslab EDvlromnental Services,. Ine.
806 West Beacon Road. Lakeland, Fl33803. (863) 682-5897. Fax: (8(l3) 683-3279
TlUlmHlUU.Un
FDOH ID: E8492S
,..Ie""..
lB.,. "',
" ~
l . ' ~
'. _I'
CERTIF1CA TE OF ilNAL YSIS
Gen....1 Analyles (Wet Chemistry)
Analytes:
Sample Description:
Sample Dare:
Preparation Date/Method:
Analysis llate/Time:
Method:
Bakh No.:
Intials:
Solids
Esperanza Place
02/05108
02106I08 8M 2540B
02106/08
8M 2540B
PDS-291
RV
Sample ID
020508-03
020508-04
FieldID
NE
SW
Results
97.2
%.5
Units
%
%
coc: 020508.002
Page 4 of6
PES Phoslab Environmental Senices~ Ine.
SOli West B''''''ln Road . L.1reland, F13381l3. (863) 6ll2-5897. F..: (863) 683-3279
IIUlIHl-IlHl2-Un
roOB ID: E849ZS
SPIKE DATA (EPA6lJI6B)
Analysis DateITime:
Batch:
InltJaIs,
Parameter
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Cadmium (Cd)
Chromium (Cr)
Lead (Ph)
Seknium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
SPIKE DATA (EPA 7470A)
Analysis DatelTlme:
Dolch:
Initia1&~
Analyte,
Mercury (Hg)
Mercury (Hg)
Mercury (Hg)
LAB BLANK
AnaJl'si5 Datdfime:
R8Im:
Initials:
Analytes:
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Cadmium (Cd)
Chromium (Cr)
Lead (Ph)
Mercury (Ilg)
Selenium {Se)
Silver (Ag)
MS = Matrix. Spike
MSD", Matrix Spike D'lIplic:\le
lCS '" Lo1oornrory Control Swmlard
COCo 020508-002
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
EPA6010BMctals
02106/08 12;44
821 + 822
MS
mglKg Found
Spike @ Spike Spike Dup RPD
10,0 9,67 9.92 3
10.0 9.35 9.52 2
10,0 10.7 10.7 0
10,0 9.79 9,81 0
10,0 10.0 10.2 2
10,0 10.1 10.1 0
25.0 2l.3 22.8 7
12/06/07 09;45
381
MS/GF
Spike @ Spike
mgIKg mglKg R....
LCS 0,250 0.260
MS 0,125 0,134
MSD 0.125 0,137
02106/08 12;44
821+822
MS
Reslllls
0.25 U
l.OOU
0,25 U
2.00U
025 U
0,050 U
l.OOU
2,OOU
Unils
lUg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
lUg/Kg
lUg/Kg
mglKg
mglKg
mg/Kg
Page 5 of6
I\aewja Item r,o, 17C
~ June 10, 2008
Page 116 of 224
."'''.'''~':'
" .
.~ '!
::. '. .;
% Recovery
Spike Spike Dup Range Flog
97 99 80-120
94 95 8().120
107 107 8()'120
98 98 80-120
100 102 80-120
101 101 81H20
85 91 80-120
Spike
% Recov Umits Flag
(1J4 90-tlO
107 85-115
109 85.115
item tJo. ~17C
June 10. 2UCia
Page ~ 17 of 224
PES Phoslab EDvirorunental Services, Ine.
806 WtSt 8eacon Road _ Lakeland. E133803. (863) 68:;2.5897. Fax: (863} 683-3279
1.UlEE 1-1'''''2-1'11
FDOH ID: E84925
."'" """"
.:i ';;J ('>..
.~ .t
.:. ...;
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
EP A 8081 Pesticides
SPIKE DATA
Analysis DatelTime.: fJ2I07108 22:46
Batch No. 035
Inilials: JT
LCS 1\15 M5D RPD Flags
Parameter 80.120% 70-130% 70-130% 0-20
Gamma BHC(Lindaue) 84 90 78 14
Hepta<:hlor 116 1I4 93 20
Heptachlor Epoxide 82 103 89 15
Endrin 98 t12 98 13
Methoxychlor 99 105 98 7
LAB BLANK
Analysis Dato/l'ixn.: 021071U8 22:4<;
Batch No. 035
Initials; iT
Analyles: RemUs Units
Gamma BHC(Lindano) 0.C02U mgikg
Heptachlor OJJ02U mgikg
Heptachlor Epoxide O.OQ3U mglkg
Enclrin O.004U rngikg
Methoxychlor OJ){)4U mglkg
Toxaphene om!U mglkg
Technical Chlordane O.OO6U mglkg
Surroeat:e % Recovery Limits
TCMX ]03 70.]30
Decachlorobiphcnyl 1]5 70-]30
;.,rs"'Mntr;..;Spike
MSD = Matrb. Spike DupJk-att
LCS '" ~t>o::UO:jCOl\trolStandercl
'""Excet$.qullli:yccnttolJimits
U = Compoun.d.nnnly;<l:C bUI !lot delt.:led 1tl thr.levr.J .\llown
COCo 020508-002
Page 6 of6
,L\aenda :tem r~o. 17C
~ .June i 0,2008
Page 1 ~18 of 224
DATA QUALIFIER CODeS
SYMBOL MEANING
A Value reported is the arithmetic mean (average) of two or more delermlnations. This code shall be
used if the reported value is the average of results for two or mOT$ discrete and separate samples.
These samples shall have been processed and analyzed Independenlly. Do not use this code K the
data are the result of replicate analysis on the same sample aHquo~ extreot or digestate.
H Value based on field kll determination; results may not be aoourate. This code shall be used II a field
screening test (Le.. field gas chromatograph data. Immunoassay, vendor-suppHed field ld~ etc.) was
used to generate the vaiue and the freld kit or method has not been recognized by the Department as
equIvalent 10 laboratory methods.
The reported value is between the laboratory method ck>tecHon limft and tho laboratory pracUcal
quanti\aUon limit
J Estimated value. A' J' value shall be aooompanled by a narrative justlllcalion for its use. Where
possible, the organization shall report whether the actual value is less than or greater than the reported
value. A' J' value shall not be used as a substitute for K, L, M, T, V or Y, however, ff addlHonal reasons
exist for idontifying tho value as estimate (o.g" matrix spiked failed to meet acceptance criterta), the 'J'
code may be added to a K, L, M, T, V, or Y. The tollowlng are some examples of narrative ck>scrtptions
that may accompany a 'J" coda:
. No known quality control criteria Gxlst tor the component;
. The reported value falied fo meet the established quality control criteria for eithor precIsion or
accuracy (the specific failure must be Idantified);
. The sample matrix Interfered with the ability to make any accurate determination;
. The data are queslionable because of Improper laboratory or field protocols (e.9.. composite
sample was collected instead of a grab sampla).
. The field calibration verlflcation did not maal calibration acceptance crlterta.
K Off-scale low. AClllal value Is known to be lass than the value given. Thls code shall be used ff:
t , The value is less than the lowest calibration standard and tha calibration curve is known to be non-
Jinear; or .
2. The value is known to be lass than the reported vaiue based on sample size, dilution.
This coda shall not be used to report values that are less than Ihe laboratorY practical quanlitatlon limit
or laboratory method ck>tecUon Iimil
L Off-scale high. Actual value is, known to be greater than value given. To be used when the
concentration 01 the analyte is above the acceptabla level for quantllatlon (exceeds lhe linear range Dr
highest calibration standard) and the calibration curva )s known to exhibit a negative deflection.
M When reporting chemical analyses: presence of material is veliHed but not quantified; the a91ual value Is
'less than the value given. The reported value shall be the laboratory practical quantiletlon limit This
code shall be used if the level is 100 iow to permit accurate quantification, but the esUmatad
concentration Is greater than the melhod detection lim~. It the value Is less than the method detection
IIm1l use "T" below.
N Presumptive evidence of presence of material. This qualilier shall be used if:
1. The component has been lentallveiy identified based on mass spectral library search; or
2. There Is an Indication that the anaJyte is present, but quality controi requirements for confirmation
were not met (I.e., presence of analyte was not confirmed by alternative procedures),
o Sampled, but analysis lost or not performed.
Q Sample held beyond the accepted holding lime. This code shall be used if the vaiue is derived from a
sample that was prepared or analyzed after the approved holding time restrictions for sample
preparation or analysis.
T Value reported is less than the laboratory method detection limit. The value is reported for informational
purposes only and shall not be used in statistical analys'IS.
U indicales that the compound was analyzed tor but not detected. This symbol shall be used to indicate
lhatthe specified component was not ck>lected, The value associated with the qualifier shall be the
iaboratory method detection limit. Uniess requested by the client, less than the method detection limit
values shall not be reported (see "T" above).
V Indicates that the anaiyte was detected in both the sample and the associated method blank, Note: the
value in fhe blank shall not be subtracted from associated samples.
Y The laboratory analysis was from an improperty preserved sample. The data may not be acourate.
? Data are rejected and should not be used, Some or all of the quality control data for the analyte wer.
outside crileria, and the presence or absence of the anatyte cannot be determined from the data.
Not currently accredited for this anaiyte.
Not within scope of meU1od.
,'.~ co ""T
~N
-<>eO>N
ON_
,to') . D
~~
!!'O~
<<;%
~:.rn
~""
O'Er
e~ 5
QQ
U..,
""
I"l
Q
...
:j;
E~~
t:: ....;::.
, '.Y
I~ <2Q
~11. ft'
!:I!,,; ~
--
.0
j
~
o
/O.l
!-<
<<:
!:I
~
~~
~J-- ~(Q 70
!3 rll fi
CI~I ~ 'f'
;:j 1\
-
-g
"
~ fi J1
... 0 >.
~ '8
d ~
~ ~
~ 0
* ,~
E e
~ 0
0.. '"
~ ~
~ E
~ ~
:j;
Cl
~
"
o
s
e
JJ
Zo Qj
m
:< ~
CI >
'" ~p
~ -
~) IS
~ u <<:
Z .gf
13 :=t
.~ ~
"" '"
'" ,
'" 0
~ Z
l! ~
. y
Q 0:;
-E (:L;
" <il
'" Cl
UJ 0..
"i~
~,\ "
~! j ~ \
~
~ ~
?
u
~
~ ~
o g
" ~
o ';:'
...
-5
'0 0
m ~
eJ
B ~
ttj .~
~ +
" -0
~ 'g
u
]
B "3
'" U)
~ 1/
" '"
u
<tj
" 0
[/) .g
" +
;:: -0
en .~
u
"" -,9
J5 Z
H 11
o Z
VJ
tV
$
~
Q
oJ
Q
~
N
o
6
Z
:2
!Of
~
~
00
-
-
.~Il? ?
f-< '" ...0
~~
-;;
~- "0'
8 ~
g g
..!!:- 4>
~ ~
~ ~
.~- i
.. ~ -;;;
g ~I-- ~
"" -'liJ7f/ g
Igsag
?1JY~ 'x
""
~ '~
t: ~ ~ ~
8 ~ ~ I~
~ .r. '.l .;:j;
,sl ~~ ~
~ ' ~~I~ ~
~ ~~(~;o
_ <il
- ;-<
~;
-
u
i2
.j ~ ...
8S;~
~ ~~
"
-S e;
~ ,~
s " IL.
~ .g ~ '
~ ~ ~~
1, 0'" I
] ~ ~I
-"
.~ \..
f
:? "
~ )1, ~
'\
", r\
'X
'::'<
I--
G '-<
0_ 0
~:Y
a IS
oj
S
", -
13 .e;
" Q
;~ ~ 0
'::- .m ~
';,;; "'d-
d ~ ~
~.J~
I~,. "' ...
.<<+- .~
VII
(Il
[\:;
I--
"-< ~
o ~
~ ~.5
, .. ~ ~~""I""
.::Ig~ ~.g 1 ~ z u
~. ~ g '" ~ ! K'ii j \
~ ~ H 11) -c '"00 ::: '::!
b"t)t:g f- ~u~......
.0 .~ J ~ ":1' '1) '" ~
~~~'-~~I;" :':!'I;
I ~ ! ~ ;! '\ .g ~!~ ! ~
'"'i~:~ ,~ 0,3'"
~! ~ o'::S c ~ ~.~ ~~~
.:: ' N ~ l ~ I,,, ~ :" -
-: ~ '" 8"-"'-13 -
\l~, </'. ~2:?~
v :,. \.l.. ~ R I" 1'", 23 ~ ~
~ \.I<;I~ ~t~
~ ~ <! IE'" g
~ .~.~j\: I~ ~ ~
;~ ~~gi i
o "d ..8 ~ fJ
u <. ~ r:/) co
+
t: -0
~ 'g
'"0 .S:
3 "
~ ~
Ii ~
is: ;r1
[) II
~I
~l
,
~
""
.-
N
'?
,.,
""
'0
,
,.,
.-"
...""
"" -.
'1 :.l
:;if'<
""""
~ ~ ot'1 l--
:2 0 to') C'\
~"'ca~
~ d '1;j I
" 3'~ ~
'" 0 '0
~ ~ rz J
~ ~ ,,(2
......":100
. Jl ~ ..
I::::~~
'0-""
~~;s~
"
"
,
~
;;
o
I~~
o -"
;;/~
:; \~
~T
~ "
o
~)
~
,
3
,
,
~
~
~
II ~
<<: Cl
o
u
[j g:
8 ~
~ ~
~ <>1
f-< '"
~ ~
'0
..@ ii
" :>
"'
E
~ ~
tillj ~I : -g fi
c E: -5
B ~
_ .~ ... n
o
z
9
Ilr:.\J
~klJ
E' I
~~~.....
'-
.Aaenda item l\Jo. 17e
~ June 10, 2008
Page 120 of 224
,
PES Pboslab Environmental Servkes, Ine.
Shipping Method:
Sample Log-in Checklist
0~l,~ Daterrime of Receipt: (l) 2~iJ
\6 '. a..o
Cooler Check
Ice in cooler CustodY Seal
Cooler # Yes No If No Temo. Yes No Intact Not Intact
\.6 / C It "c..
,,"v
Note. If the temperature of a cooler IS above 6 C or a custody seal IS damaged
then identify the bottles in the affected cooler and note on "Improper Sample List"
1)
2)
Custody Seal on Bottles present Yes
Condition of Sample contai*er
Headspace (Volalifes) N
Bubble> 5mm rJ A
Loose caps Yes
, Broken Containers Yes
No K
No ><;:-'
No2
3)
Chain of Custody included
Yes
/
No
No 'N/A
4.) Acid preserved: pH less than 2 Yes
Coolers Unpacked/Checked by: ~
~l\J ""< - ;.-, ,
Client: . '\ ~
Date: 0 Z.Q..\'b'J'
Project: &~ \)4.
Improper Sample List
Bottle # Outo! Improper Seal Intact Loose Gap Damaged Damaged pH>2 Sample Action
Hold Containers Bottle CaD Volume
.- j--. ._-~
I I
[t,:;ni I'Jo. ilC
,iur,e 10, 2008
121 of 224
Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Civil Engineers . Land Surveyors . Planners . Landscape Architects
To:
From:
Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) Members
Marco A, Espinar, Collier Environmental Consultants, Inc,
Heidi K. Williams, MCP, Q, Grady Minor & Associates, P,A,
April 18, 2008
PUDZ-2007-AR-12581 - AdditionallnfoITIlation on Esperanza Place RPUD
Date:
Subject:
During the regularly-scheduled EAC meeting on April 2, 2008, the Council discussed the proposed
Esperanza Place RPUD rezoning petition. The Council did not achieve consensus on the project and
requested additional information be provided for review. Each of these items is listed below with the
applicant's response, The applicant also walked the property with staff to discuss the project. The PUD
Exhibits have been revised to reflect our agreement on thc outstanding nativc vegetation issues,
I. Ownership information:
Please see Exhibit A, attached, for a list of owners and contract purchasers,
2. Additional information on the wetland area:
The onsite wetland is approximately 1.73+/- acres. The applicant applied for a pennit from South
Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) to completely impact this wetland, We anticipate the
pennit will be approved and otl~site mitigation of impacts will be allowed, SFWMD staff has
indicated that this will be approved due to the poor quality of the wetland and the alteration of its
natural state due to agricultural use of the property and the existing development of the property west
of the subject site, The vegetation in and around the wetland consists primarily of Brazilian pepper,
Carolina willow and Primrose willow, A full list of vegetation is included in the EIS, Most of the
plants are native; however, they are considered nuisance spccies and are indicators of the disturbed
nature of the wetland, Due to its condition and MWRAP score of 0.40, the area would not qualify as
an on-site native vegetation preserve. The entire wetland area will be mitigated off-site at an
approved mitigation bank We met with County staff to discuss this approach on April 10th, and staff
had no objection to off'-site mitigation and preservation,
3. CCME6.Ll(l):
Policy 6.1.1 of the Conservation and Coastal Managcmcnt Element contains mlmmum native
vegetation preserve requirements for new developments within Collicr County, Sub-policy number
one, which is cited by staff, states:
"(I) For the purpose of this policy, "native vegetation" is defined as a vegetative community
having 25% or more canopy coverage or highest existing vegetative strata of native plant species.
The vegetation retention requirements specificd in this policy are calculated based on the amount
of "native vegetation" that conforms to this definition."
Based on our site visit with staff and a subsequent meeting on April I 01h, and in the interest of making
progress on the project, the applicant agreed to consider 0.52 acres as native upland habitat. Due to
the small amount of vegetation required to be retained, the applicant will provide an equivalcnt
preserve off-site, or will contribute an amount equivalent to 115 percent of the post-zoning fair
EAC Memo, 4-18-2008
Page I 01'2
FNPSP/EAIDP
,Aqenda item No. 17C
~ June 10, 20Cl8
Page 122 of 224
market appraised value of 0,13+/- acres within the PUD to the Conservation Collier Trust Fund, A
connnitment has been added to the PUD that states:
"The site currently contains +/- 1.26 acres of native vegetation (0,52+/- acres of upland and
+/- 0,73 acres of wetland native vegetation onsite); a nlinimum of 25%,0.32 acres, must be
preserved, For the 0,13 acre portion of the upland vegetation, the applicant will donate an
equivalent off-site preserve to be accepted by a public agency or contribute an amount
equivalent to 115 percent of the post-zoning fair market appraisal value within the PUD to the
Conservation Collier Trust Fund. Twenty-five percent of the 0,73-acre wetland native
vegetation will be preserved and appropriately managed off-site at an approved nlitigation
bank. All preservation must be accomplished prior to SDP/PPL approval. This off-site
preser'vation may be utilized as part of the required off-site nlitigation as part of the
Environment Resource Pennit."
4, Soil samplinglborings:
The soil sampling report was provided to staff on February 20, 2008. It was inadvertently onlitted
from the EAC infoITIlation, The report is attached to this men10 as Exhibit B. The western half of the
PUD was subject to both a Phase I and a Phase II Environmental Assessment. Both of these reports
indicate the site is suitable for residential development. Due to the volume of these reports, they are
not included; however, we will provide a copy to any EAC member who wishes to review them,
5. Habitat of east half/site visits:
County staff visited the property on April lOth with the applicant. During a subsequent meeting, the
applicant agreed to consider 0,52 acres as upland native habitat. The EAC requested that members be
invited to visit the site; the applicant would be happy to accommodate members during individual
appointments to review the status of vegetation on the property,
6. Precedent of determination that the site was used for agriculture and therefore not subject to native
vegetation requirements:
A detenmnation that this site does not contain native vegetation does not set a precedent for other
properties. Each zoning petition is reviewed on its own set of circumstances and merits, Staff and
the applicant identified linlited areas of the property that contain native vegctation. Most of the site
has been disturbed for cattle grazing; other grazing lands may be barren of trees, or may have full
cypress domes in the grazing area, These projects will nccd to be reviewed individually to determine
whether individual sites contain native vegetation communities,
7. Deviation from on-site preserve in PUD document:
Exhibit F of the PUD contains a new deviation that allows the applicant to prescrvation of habitat off-
site, or allows the applicant to contribute to the Conservation Collier Trust Fund, A full justification
of this deviation has been subnlitted to staff. A commitment has also been added to the PL;D,
EAC Memo, 4~18~2008
Page 2 of2
FNPSP/EAlDP
List of Property Owners and Contract Purchasers
item r\C,Eoc1iibit A
,Line 10. 2008
F~a;Je 123 ,:]f 224
Folio Number: 00076040007; 00076200009
Property Owner:
Jose and Norma Lopez
P,O, Box 445
lmmokalee, FL 34143
Date Acquired: November 6, 2006
Contract Purchaser:
Florida Non-Profit Services, Ine
c/o Real Estate Technology
900 Broad Avenue South, #2C
Naples, FL 34102
Board of Directors:
Carll Kuehner, Chairman
Alan Parker, Vice Chairman
Harriet Lancaster, Secretary
Frank Proto, Treasurer
Sister Maureen Kelleher, Member
Sylvia Munoz, Member
Date of Option:
Date Option Terminates:
Anticipated Closing Date:
May] 0, 2007
June 1, 2008
June 1, 2008
Folio Number: 00076080009
Property Owner:
Date Acquired:
Empowerment Alliance of Southwest Florida Community Development
Corporation
750 South 5u, Street
lmmokalee, FL 34142
August 10, 2007
Folio Number: 00076160000
Property Owner:
Date Acquired:
Contract Purchaser:
Carol A Caruthers
P,O, Box 324
Immokalce. FL 34]43
October 10, 1982
Empowerment Alliance of Southwest Florida Community Development
Corporation
750 South 5ili Street
InmlOkalee, FL 34142
Date of Option:
Date Option Terminates:
Amicipated Closing Date:
September 13, 2007
October 13, 2008
October 13. 2008
FNPSP/EAlDP
..genda Item IDh1Wt B
June ,~X~!1Jbl
Page 124 of 224
via email and mail
mdelate@gradyminor.com
Mr. Michael J, Delate, P.E,
Q, Grady Minor & Associates, P,A,
3800 Via Del Rey
80nita Springs, Florida 34134
18 February 2008
Subject:
Geoenvironmental Services
Sediment Sampling at Esperanza Place
Immokalee, Collier County, Florida
ASC Project No. OE3003
Dear Mr, Delate:
Per authorization from the Client, ASC geosciences, inc. sampled for sediment at two locations on the
project site referenced above Irefer to Figure 1), One hand auger boring was advanced near the
southwest portion (labeled "SW"), within a proposed pond area, Samples at the SW location were
initially collected at a 1 ft and 2 ft depth below existing ground surface and screened in the field with an
organic vapor analyzer IOVA) in accordance with FDEP guidelines. The purpose of the field screening
was to determine if petroleum contamination was present at the locations sampled. Because no OVA
readings were detected, laboratory analyses for petroleum was not required, A duplicate hand auger
boring was advanced for the collection of sample SWat a 1 ft depth, This sample was laboratory-
analyzed for organochlorine pesticides and metals (results attached), A second sample was collected
near the "NE" portion of the project site at a 1 ft depth. The NE sample was laboratory-analyzed for
arsenic {results attached}.
All analytes of interest were reported as below detection limits or BDL The reporting of these results
completes the services requested for this phase of the project,
Sincerely,
Ase geosciences. inc.
R~
~~
Anu Saxena, P.E,
Senior Project Manager
Florida Registration No, 45601
. physical address:
ASC geosciences, inc.
5811 Corporation Circle
Fort Myers, Florida 33905
. contacts:
phone: 239,693.6334
fax: 239,693.8852
naples: 239.598,3833
f;ww .ascworld ,ne!.J
".:"
attachments:
Figure 1 - Project Layout and Test Location Plan
Laboratory test results
I
^-n 'xwl'~ ....'l'X'S llOOV6.fl: '~~Id <SO.l t#6tl 'DMj)'EIlO(3BO\5/iMa-:;IS'II.a:l'lj..(mJi.I3ds3-E008801ll00tISD3(Qljd\ l\llN3W~OlllrlN3\PUe'1"~n-osY.:^
~
OCJ-:r
1,,-0('\1
~ON
N~
o .0
ZOI....,,)
~-N
-m-
Ci.i C'Q.l
.=::J:J)
ro -, ro
" CL
ill
'"
<{
;
1
i I
s
, .
. ,.
,.
~. ~8
n .'
]~
~~ -
:5 ~. ~~
~ H
.
I~
~
o
o
~
w
,m
,0
.;
a:
oui
.
,-
~c
1:) c: .D"g
52 1: ~
~ ~~
~ 5 .~~
.3':g 0.5
...., g g..~
.~::: E~
o In aJ-o
... V III 0
Q..f-- 0,-
i wo
I i
o
~
,
o
"
.
-,<"'.g
O-'C
000
O.,G:
"gg",
_0.
~~]
o
.;~ E
~.E
~-
,
o
~
.
~
~
o
~
.
.
o
5:",.i
000
NO>
.~O
e "
8.Jit
<00,_
~-6'6
"E"
~ E -
&. - 1;
, c
~ t
E
E
I I
I
, i'
,
~
~
~
~
! III
! . ..
1111
,.
,
!
l I
I I
"
;\Jenda item No. 17C
~ Jun9 10, 2008
Page 126 of 224
PES Phoslab Environmental Services. Inc.
806 West BeacoD Road. Lakeland. F133803. (863) 682-5897 . Fax: (863) 683-327~
TIU 1llit-ftH.z.i.11
FDOH !D: E84925
ijB"..."'....+
..'" .. ....
.:: " ~
::..-.. . -'~
CERTlF1CATEOF ANALYSIS
Oient;
MDM Services
1055 Kathleen Rd,
Lakeland, A.. 33805
Attention:
Phone Nwnber:
Fax Number:
Project Name:
Project Number:
Project Location:
Sampled By:
Date Sampled:
Dale Received:
Dale Reported:
Lab. Report #:
Mike Alexander
863-646-9130
863-M8-1l06
Esperanza Place
22443
l!Illl1<lkalee.FL
M.L I MDM
02105108
02105108 16:00
02108108
02050S.(]()2
Project Description
The analytical results for the samples identified in this report were submitted for analysis as
outlined by the attached Chain of Custody. The results for the quality control samples were
reviewed and found to meet the acceptance criteria fOf precision and accuracy or properly
flagged, Unless noted in this report or a case narrative. all data in this analytical report is in
compliance with NELAe srandards. This report may not be reproduced in part or whole
without the pennission of PES.
Notes: Sample results reported at the Practical Qu
Samples reported on wet weight basis
Approve'll By; Da>id Pomella
David Pomella. Laborntory Director
Approved By: Megan Skeen
Megan Skeen, Qualify Assurance officer
rp.$ Report: 6
Dam Qualifier: 1
COC: JiSample Log-In: I
TOOlI Pages: ,
COCo 02050S-002 Page I of 6
"
itern r"~o, i 7e
j',me 10 2008
P2;:j8 127 of 224
PES Phoslab Enviromnental Services, Inc..
806 West Deacon Road. Lakeland, Fl33803. (863) 681-5897. Fax: (863) 683-3279
mJ.1E ,.....12-5.0
FDOH ID: E84925
_':<':'\"~(".".'l'~~
.:~ . ';
:; '":.
... ..
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
EPA 6lI1DB - Mml.
Sample ID: 020508-04 020508-03
Sample DescriptionlMatrix: SW Soil NE Soil
Sample Dale: 02105108 13:45 02105108 13:20
Preparation Date: 02106108 02/06108
Analysis Dateffime: 02106/08 14:07 02106108 14:02
Method: 60 lOB 60108
Batch: 821 821
Dilution: 1. Ix
Initial!.:: MS MS
Analytes: Cas No.. R<SU!ts Units Results Units MIlL PQL
Ars.enic{As) 7440-38-2 0.25 U mglKg 0,25 U mg/Kg 0,25 1.00
Barium ffia) 7440-39-3 1,00 U mg/Kg l.oo 1.00
Cadmium (Cd) 7440-43-9 0,25 U mgIKg 0,25 1.00
Chromium (Cr) 7440-47-3 2,00 U mglKg 2.00 5,00
Lead (Ph) 7439-92-1 0,25 U mglKg 0.25 1.00
Se;lenium (Se) 7782-49-2 Loo U mg/Kg UJO 1,00
Silver (Ag) 7440-22-4 2.00 U mg/Kg 2.00 5,00
Sample ID: 020508-04
Sample D~cription/Matrix: SW Soil
Sample Date: 02/05108 13:45
Prep.aration Date: 02/06/08
Analysis Dateffime: 02/08108 13:15
Method: 7470
Batch: 399
Dilution: Ix
Initials: MS
AnaJ)'1e: Cas No. Results Units I'rIDL PQL
Mercury (Hg) 7439-97-6 0,050 U rngtKg 0,050 ()20
COe: 020508-002
Pagc2of6
,';genJo Item t~o. 17C
June 10, 2008
Page 128 of 224
PES Phoslab Environmental Servic~ Ioe.
806 West Beaco. Road. Lakeland, Fl33803. (~) 682-5897. Fax: (&;3) 683-3279
1111 IlEEU.I-Ut-5111
FDOR ID: E84925
~ ,,, ~t~c.
fill."'..
.." . ~
.; ~
.. - ... ~
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
EP A 8081 Pesticides
Sample ID: 020508-04
Sample Description/Matrix: SW Soil
Sample Date: 02105/08 13:45
Preparation DatfIMethod: 02/07/08 EPA8081
Analysis Date!Time: 02/07/08 20:46
Method: EPA 8081
Batch No. 035
Dilution: Ix
Initials: IT
Analytes: Cas No. ResnIls Units MDL PQL
Gamma BHC{llDdanel 58-89-9 0,002U mgikg 0.002 0.010
HeplllChlor 76-44-8 0,002U mg!kg 0.002 0.010
HqJI:~chIOl' Epo"ide 1024-57-3 0.003U mg!kg 0.003 0.010
Endrin 72-20-8 O.OO4U mglkg 0.004 0,010
Methoxycb.lor 72-43-5 O,0Q4U mg!kg 0,004 0,010
Toxaphene 8001.35-2 0,01l U mg!kg 0.011 0,100
Technical Chlnnhne O,OO6U mglkg 0.006 0.100
Surrogate: % Rocovcry Limits
TCMX 1I4 70-130
Dec=hlorobiphenyl 106 70.,130
coc: 020508-002
Page 3 of6
---....-....--t
Item r'Jo. 17e
,J:.me ~IO, 2003
P?;J':; 129 of 2:4
PES Phoslab Environmental SCNices, Inc.
806 West Beacon Road . Lakcland, F[ 33803. (863) 682-58!Ti'. Fax: (863) 683-327'
1I11F1ElHIUCHm
FDOB ID: E8492S
tR.,"" """"
,'f' ,t;.
; ~
. - - - ~
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
General Analyles (Wet Chemi<lrr)
Analytes:
Sample Description:
Sample D.te:
Preparation DateIMethod:
Analysis Date/Time:
Method:
B.tcb No.:
mtials:
Solids
Esperanz3. Place
02/05/08
02106/08 SM 2540B
02106/08
SM 2540B
PDS-29I
RV
Sample ID
020508-03
020508-04
Field ID
NB
SW
Results
97.2
%.5
Units
%
%
coc: 020508-002
Page 4 of 6
PES Pboslab Enl'ironmentaJ. Services" Inc.
806 West Beoeon Road . Lakeland. F133803. (863) 682-5897. Fax, (863) 683-3279
1lU1l1E1-I1U.Hm
FDOR ill: E84925
SPIKE DATA (EPA6010B)
Analysis Datelfime:
Batch:
Initials:
Parameter
Arsenic (As)
Barium (B.)
Cadmium (Cd)
Chromiwn (Cr)
Lead (Pb)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
SPIKE DATA (EP A 747QA)
Analysis DatelTlme,
B.tch:
Initials:
Analyte'
Mercury (Hg)
Mercury (Hg)
Mercury (Ug)
LAB BLANK
Analysis DaWTime:
Batch:
Initials:
Analytes:
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Cadmium (Cd)
Chromium (Cr)
Lead (Pb)
Mercury (Hg)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
MS == MatriJ( Spike
MSD ... !\.1mrix Spike Duplicate
l.CS = LaboralO1)' Control Stanoord
coc: 020508-002
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
EPA 6010B Metals
02106108 12:44
821 + 822
MS
mglKgFound
Spike @ Spike Spike Dup RPD
10,0 9,67 9.92 3
10.0 9.35 9.52 2
10.0 10.7 10,7 0
10,0 9.79 9,81 0
10,0 10.0 10,2 2
10,0 ]0.1 ]0.1 0
25,0 21.3 22.8 7
] 7J06107 09:45
381
MS/GF
Spike @ Spike
mgIKg mg/Kg Reoo'Y
LCS 0.250 0,260
MS 0,125 0,134
MSD 0,125 0,137
02106/08 12,44
82] + 822
MS
ResuJtc;
0,25 U
1.00 U
0,25 U
2,OOU
Q,25 U
0,050 U
I.00U
200U
Uults
mg/Kg
mglKg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mglKg
mg/Kg
rng/Kg
Page 5 of 6
l"';:lenda item No. 17C
,June 10, 20Cl8
Page 130 of 224
111,.,,..4.....,.
./ ~
; j
% Recovery
Spike Spike Dup Range Flag
97 99 80-120
94 95 80-120
107 107 80-120
98 98 80-120
100 ]02 80-120
10] ]01 80-120
85 9] 80-t20
Spike
% Recov Limits Flag
104 90-110
107 85-115
109 85-1]5
PES Phoslab Em'ironmental Services, lnc.
806 Wesi BearoD Road. Lake1und. F133803. (863) 682.5897. Fax: (863) 683-327t
lIIlIUEHIHlI-i11J
FDOH ID: E84925
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
EP A 8081 Pesticides
SPIKE DATA
Analysis Dawrune: 02107/08 22:46
Batch No. 035
Initials: IT
LCS MS MSD RPD Flags
Parameter 80-120% 70-130% 70-130% 0-20
Gamma BHC(Lindane) 84 90 78 14
Heptachlor 116 114 93 20
Heptachlor Epoxide 82 103 89 15
Endrin 98 112 98 13
Methoxychlor 99 105 98 7
LAB BLANK
Analysis DaWl':ime, 02107108 22:46
Batch No. 035
Initials: JT
Analytes: Results Units
Gamma BHC(Lindane) O,002U mglkg
Heptacb.lor 0,002U mgikg
Heptachlor Epoxide 0,003U mglkg
Eudrill O,OO4U mg/kg
Methoxychlor O,OO4U mg/kg
Tm;aphene O,OIlU mglkg
Technical Chlordane 0,0060 mglkg
SuITogRte % RKuvery Limll$
TCMX 103 70-130
Decachlorobiphenyl 115 70-130
MS...MatrixSpike
MSD = Mimi"- Spikr Duplicat
LCS = Laburalory Control Standard
J",Exceemqua1ltycflnU'ollimiu
U=cornpoundattllyzedbmI)Ofdtt<!cledlOlhele\tcl~hOWll
COCo 020508-002
Page 6 of6
Item No, 17C
June 10. 2008
PcJge 1 :-31 of 224
jB'C"''''''''
,. e
. -
i. _ _ _\
:lsrn r~o. 'i 7'2
,^;'Jne 10, 20C)8
'i ~)2 of 224
DATA QUALIFIER CODES
SYMBOL MEANING
A Value reported is fhe arithmetic mean (average) of two or more determinations. This code shall be
used if the reported value is the average of results for two or more discrete and separate samples.
These samples shall have been processed and analyzed independently, Do no! use this code if the
data are the result of replicate analysis on the same sample aliquot, extract or digestate.
H Value based on field kit detennination; results may no! be accurate. This code shatl be used if a field
screening lest (I.e., field gas chromatograph dala, immunoassay, vendor-supplied field ki4 etc.) was
used to genarale the value and the field kit or method has not been recognized by the Department as
equivalent to laboratory methods.
The reported value is between the laboratory method detection limit and the laboratory practical
quantltation limit.
J Estimated value. A" J" value shall be accompanied by a narrative justifICation for its use. Where
possible, the organization shall repon whether the actual value is less than or greater than the reported
value. A "J" value shall not be used as a substitute for K, L, M, T, V or Y, however, if additional reasons
exist for k1entitying the value as estimate (e.g., matrix spiked failed to meet acceptance criteria), the -.j
code may be added 10 a K, L, M, T. V. or Y. The following ara some examples of narrative descnptions
that may accompany a "J" code:
. No known Quality control criteria exist for the component;
. The reported value failed to meet the established quality control criteria for either precIsion or
accuracy (the specific tailure must be identified);
. The sample matrix interfered with the ability to make any accurate determination;
. The data are questionabkJ because of improper laboratoty or field protocols {e.g., composite
sample was colleated inslead of a grab sample).
. The field calibration verification did not meet callbration acceptance criteria.
K Offwscale low. Actual value is known to be less than the value given. This code shall be used if:
1 . The value is less than the lowest calibration standard and the caJibration curve Is known to be noow
linear; or
2. The value is known to be less than the reported value based on sample size. dilution.
This code shall not be used to report values that are less than the laboratory practical quanUtation Urnit
or laboratory method detection limit
L Oft-scale high, Actual value Is known 10 be greater than value given. To be used when the
concentration of rhe analyte is above the acceptable level for quantitation (exceeds the linear range or
highest calibration standard) and the calibration curve Is known to exhibit a negative defk3ctlon.
M When reporting chemical analyses: presence of material is verified but not quantified; the a~tual value is
-less than the value given. The reported value shall be the laboratory practical quantilatlon IimiL This
code shall be used jf the level is too low to permit accurate quantification, but the estimated
concentration is greater than the method detection limit. If the value is less than the method detection
limit use "T" below_
N Presumptive eVidence of presence of material. This qualifier shall be used if:
, . The component has been tentatively identified based on mass spectral library search; or
2. There is an indication that the anatyte is present, but quality control requirements for confirmation
were not met (i.e.. presence of analyte was not confirmed by altemative procedures).
o Sampled, but analysis lost or not performed,
Q Sample held beyond the accepted holding lime. This code shall be used if the value is derived from a
sample that was prepared or analyzed after the approved holding time restrictions for sample
preparation or analysis.
T Value reported is less than the laboratory method detection limit. The value is reported for infonnational
purposes only and shall not be used in statistical analysis.
U Indicates thai the compound was analyzed for but not detected. This symbol shall be used to indicate
that the specified component was not detected. The value associated with the qualifier shall be the
laboratory method detection limit. Unless requested by the client, less than the method detection limit
values shall not be reported (see"T" above).
V Indica!es that the analyle was detected in both the sample and the associated method blank, Note: tha
value in the blank shall n01 be subtracted from associated samples.
Y The laboratory analysis was from an improperty preserved sample. The data may not be accurate.
? Data are rejected and should not be used. Some or all of the quality control data lor the analyte were
outside criteria, and the presence or absence of the anatyte cannot be determined from the data.
Not currently accredited for this analyte.
Not within scope of method.
.
s-E-:t
~_ N
~N --
. <:N_
',0
>-
_w!;l ~
0
=.,ll''':r' -
QO::~
~o'l 'E
1;> 0
- ~ . (:!. ~
(;0'- "- 0
0 ~
::::;i:l.. == ~ ~
<a 0 ,;
~ ~ v
'" Q ~ u 0 ci
U ... :;j 0
~ ~ ;z;
... 0
~ " 0 ~ :i
Q rJ '. v
E ,0 ~ ~ m
... 0 u
$ ~ ~ '" '" ;z;
a. . "" t;
"' ;:: .~ ...
" ! ;; IU ,~
~ '" '" Q E
. ~
'" "' "" ...
"
=
.
'"
...
...
'?
..,
""
'"
,
'"
...'"
...""
"" ..
'1 ~
go<
'Coo
~ 0:1 M t-
::I 0 ~ Q\
__, ez::: r;'Q: ~
g~N
~ .. 00
'" '" '"
~~~
- . '"
-'Coo
~ -
1;.3uz
1\J;J~g
~~~
"
"
"
;:
;:
o
~
,
;
,
,
ci
Z
.D
..
..J
Vf:;)j
,5~
b "-
'ci'ro
;;~~
Qe;,~
""
f-<
..:
Q
gj
~ ~ ~~~ Z
CY > UJ al" 0
~ ~ gl/f ~ ?
%..: ~ \
,5
0.
8
..
UJ
x
g,~
~~j \
m
o
Q
ol
o
~
l-
i--
..
~ ~ ~I- ""
0 s
u ~
I~ ~ ~ t- v
"
:!: "
~ . ~ ~ '"
u ~
~ "':; .~- v
'" 1
I~ ~I~ ~ .. t '"
o 11 .;!
;z;~-
I. ~~ ~ ~g 1'><
I~ :r ~ . € -
.~ .~~{--\ I$<?!? I'?<
Vi -
'" ?!~x.
;,.
II' ..1
n
.~Il? ?
b -'1 -.0
~~
'>::l
...
Q
""
.,
~
>>
'>::l
o
...
'"
=
U
....
o
=:
.-
001
-
o
-'"
~ ~ ~
z,I.."O ~.~ ~
:;~J~~~~
.Q) .~ .~ ~
E 0 0 'S:
~ 0. 0:: ct u.1
~
~
o
~
!l
,"
!l
"
o
U
""'
o
~
"
.0 :e
~ .~I;
] c
~ .g ~I\
.~ (,)
~ IE ~,\
:::: ~:\
~ ~
.!! ""
~ 0"
s
-~)
( "-
':---'i- '\
t<::...,
oe
"r
;;; 0 a
Q N ~
Cl()
.... ~
'" ~
t .5
~ ~........
zu
'-i;
Eil-!-J
m u ~ ~
~ ~ '" '"
~\ :::
101\ ~ ~ '\" 5 '1 ~ ~
,",i~il ~ ~ ~I ~ 81"f,
~ \ .~ ~ " : ,\~ {~~
~ \ N ~,g ~ ~ "" ~I :.,j ?
~1' ""s" ..'J ,-
\~ I,..: ~ .\l1~1~
\f ;. \.l.. Q, 2:: . UJ Oln ~
~ tl<;l~ ~ :}
~I~I~ I~ ~ ~
~; '" jl~ ~ ~
'" ~ "1i<1
~ v-
Ei -i3 "il' 8
o '"0 0_
u < ~ tY5 ~
ci
i
o
;2:
9 i--.
~~ ~
'" 1'\1
1'-'
8~
'8 OJ OJ~ ~
11:>:> V
;-; f'-.~
t: Vi
u E
S "-.. ......... 1)
.~ g
...<;:..; ....... ...... l:;
'" B
-0 ]
6 E .g
.a ~
~ '"
'" ..:
s 0
.!:! Z ":t '"
-----
~
:;--..
G '-!
'_ 0
~I:r
~ Ii
El
B
Ei '
~'-
~
;;
:2':J
j
C)
c
Z
9
E
8
e
.l%
'"
c
;z;
;;j
,m
s
Ei
'"
'"
~
'G
~
Jj ~
o u
II ~
o '2
u
-B
-;;; 0
~ II
il 0
~
;; "
.,.::> .~
~ +
II :-g
~ '"
u
~ ]
.2 :;
'" UJ
~ "
" UJ
~ ~
rn .~
" +
~ '"
rn .~
"
'j;
Z
II
;2:
'-
'0
UJ
"
o
'"
- ~
il 0
,9 Il
"" -
" II
UJ _
"
~ .9
+
~ -0
- '[)
~ t'j
"" "
3 'g
8 :a
<::> g
II '1?
15 ::5
CJ II
:r:
."
-<
II '"
..: i!l
o
u
UJ '"
'" ...
Q i=:
o ..:
u ;>
x '"
C;l '"
'< ~
2: ...
'-
[lem ~~o. ~,7C
~!une 10 2008
l~A of 224
,
PES PhosIab Environmental Senrices, Inc.
Shipping Method:
Sample Log-in Checklist
0~s DatefTime of Receipt
(j)2~;j'
\6\ClD
Cooler Check
Ice in cooler Custody Seal
Cooler # Yes No If No Temo. Yes No Intact Not Intact
\11' / tt: It "c-
,0,
Note. If the temperature of a cooler IS above 6 C or a custody seal IS damaged
then identify the bottles in the affected cooler and note on "Improper Sample List"
Custody Seal on Bottles present Yes
No K
1)
2)
Condition of Sample container~.
Headspace (Volatiles) ~
Bubble> 5mm r..l (A
Loose caps Yes
. Broken Containers Yes
3)
Chain of Custody included
Yes
No ><::"
No ::>
/ No
No >-J!A
4.) Acid preserved: pH less than 2 Yes
Coolers Unpacked/Checked by: C1L
Client: ~~ ~
Date: oz-o.n:\Y
prOject:&~ \!~
Improper Sample List
Bottle # Out of Improper Seallntaot loose Cap Damaged Damaged pH>2 Sample Action
Hold Containers Bottle CaD Volume
"
,ll.:Jsnca liern r'~o. ': 7C
- June 10 2008
Fage 125 of 224
jmb transportation engineering, inc.
traffic/transportation engineering & planning
TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR
ESPERANZA PLACE RPUD
(project No. 071011)
Revised March 8, 2008
Prepared By:
JMB TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING, INC.
76121sT StreetNW
Naples, Florida 34120
239-919-2767
3-~-o@
. Banks, P.E. Date
. No. 43860
TABLE OF CONTENTS
RESPONSE TO REVIEW COMMENTS
CONCLUSIONS
2
PURPOSE OF REPORT
3
METHODOLOGY MEETING
3
SCOPE OF PROJECT
4
PROJECT GENERATED TRAFFIC
5
EXISTING + COMMITTED ROAD NETWORK
6
PROJECT GENERATED TRAFFIC DISTRIBffiTION
7
AREA OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
8
EXISTING & 2011 BUILD-OUT CONDITIONS
9
SITE ACCESS ANAYLSIS
10
2011 LINK LEVEL OF SERVICE DETERMINATIONS
10
2011 INTERSECTION LOS DETERMINATIONS
10
2012 PROJECT BillLD-OUT CONDITIONS
11
2012 LINK LEVEL OF SERVICE DETERMINATIONS
11
2012 INTERSECTION LOS DETERMINATIONS
11
CONCURRENCY REVIEW
12
APPENDIX
13
j~ern ~'h. 7C
J:)ns "10. .20(':8
i 36 uf 2~~4
,6,c;snda Item fJo, Ai 7C
~ JUriS! 0,2008
Page i 37 of 224
RESPONSE TO COLLIER COUNTY REVIEW COMMENTS DATED 2-12-08
The following is in response to Collier County's review comments concerning the
Esperanza PlaceRPUD Traffic Impact Statement, dated January 14,2008. In addition to
the following response, an updated Traffic Impact Statement, revised March 8, 2008, has
been included for review.
County Comment - Turn Lanes (Ord 2003-37)
Response:
Refer to Figure 2B-2 of the attached Report for a graphic of turning movement
volumes at the site accesses. This graphic was included with the TIS, dated
January 14,2008, but not in the body of the Report. As sllch, the graphic
depiction of turning movement volumes are now located in the body of the Report
for Staffs review.
Based upon turn lane warrants pursuant to Collier County's RIW Handbook a
right turn lane will be warranted at the East and West Site Access. The Report's
Engineer of Record previously requested a waiver to turn lane requirements based
upon:
"the fact that Immokalee Drive is a local road having a posted speed limit
of30 MPH. The existing and anticipated future traffic along Immokalee
Drive is and will continue to be relatively low in volume. We respectfully
request turn lane warrants also consider the road classification, applicable
speed limit and conflicting traffic volumes. The Engineer offers the
opinion that the lack oftum lanes at the site accesses will not result in a
threat to public safety. As such, the Applicant requests that the
Transportation Scrvices Administrator grant a waiver to the turn lane
requirements pursuant to paragraph III.A.2. of Collier County's Right of
Way Handbook. "
However, the Applicant will accept the final decision of Collier County Staff
regarding this matter. The Applicant is hopeful that the waiver will be granted,
but will abide by their decision.
County Comment - Traffic Circulation - (LDC 5.05, 10.02.03)- Connection to El Paso
Response:
This isslle has or will be addressed by others.
County Comment No, 1- General Comments-Location of tables &figures.
Response:
Pursuant to Staffs request, the Report has been arranged to include tables and
figures v.ithin the body of the Report. Raw traffic counts and HCS data sheets
have been placed in the Appendix.
:te,ij Na. ~17c:, ,
J~me 10_ 20C:g
~ =-;3 :Jf ==4
County Comment No, 2 - Trip Generation...
Response:
The computations of the Report ~ based upon the correct trip rates (i.e. 114).
However, page 5 ofthe TIS did incorrectly refer to the number of project trips as
104 versus the 114. The Report has been revised to reflect the 114 trip ends
generated.
County Comment No,] - ... ...Figures in the body a/the Report... .... Examples2A through
2C a/the..... TIS Guidelines,
Response:
Figures have been included in the body of the revised Report pursuant to Staff's
request. The Report's figures have been prepared similar to those of the TIS
Guidelines., which include existing and B/O traffic volumes and lane
configuration.
County Comment No, 4 - Turn Lane Analyses.
Response:
The Report has relied upon the turn lane warrants of the Collier County RJW
Handbook as requested. Also, refer to Applicant's previous response to turn lane
requirement.
County Comment NO.5 - Intersection analysis.
Response:
Lake Trafford Road @ State Road 29 has been included in the revised Report.
It was previously agreed that the intersection of Carson Road @ Immokalee Drive
would not be required to be included in the Report's analysis. '
All analysis sheets have been placed in one location in the Report's Appendix.
A summary of the intersection LOS fmdings have been placed in the body of the
report as requested.
The Report has been revised to account for: Pedestrian actuation is "with" the
eas1Jwest thru and north/south thru green times at both signalized intersections
under study. There is no all ped actuation at either intersection. The minimum
mainline green time exceeds the pedestrian W, FDW & Red Clearance (17
seconds total). Therefore, the analysis reflects the minimum mainline green time
is activated upon ped crossing actuation. The analyses reflect conflicting ped &
bike crossing of lOpeI' direction per hour. Based upon field observation during
traffic counts, it is the Reports opinion that this is a conservative estimate of the
possible ped conflicts.
Amber and Red Clearance have been revised at signalized intersection analyses to
conform to Collier County's standards.
11
Agenda Item No. 17C
June 10,2008
Page 139 of 224
A 2% truck volume has been included at all signalized and stop controlled
intersection analyses.
Peak hour factor has been revised to an average of 0.96 at all signalized and stop
controlled intersection analyses, which 1's consistent with traffic counts.
County Comment No.6 - Net new trips on concurrency segments....
Response:
A Figure has been provided which details the net new project trips on
concurrency links.
County Comment - Regardingfair share contributions......
Response:
Based upon the results of the attached Report, the Applicant concludes that
Esperanza RPUD will not have any negative impact upon the surrounding
roadway infrastructure that warrant special mitigation needs. All roadway links
and intersections that are within the project's area of significant impact will
operate at acceptable levels of service for 2011 project build-out conditions. This
conclusion is based upon no roadway or intersection improvements being needed
to maintain acceptable levels of service.
Those off-site impacts that will be created by the project-generated traffic shall be
mitigated through the payment of road impact fees as set forth by the Collier
County Governrilent's Impact Fee OrdiDance. This conclusion is primarily based
upon the fmding that the development does not significantly and negatively
impact the surrounding roadway infrastructure to a greater extent than what
should be considered mitigated via payment of impact fees. Payment of impact
fees are for the purpose of ensuring that new developments fund their fair share of
the cost associated with the existing a future road network.
iii
:tc',-;--, r!o. 'ire'
Ju::e 10 2D03
Pc<l~ ~ C;-o of ~24
CONCLUSIONS
Off-Site Road Impact Mitigation Reauirements
Based upon the analyses conducted by this Report, it can be concluded that Esperanza
RPUD will not have any negative impact upon the surrounding roadway infrastructure
that warrant special mitigation needs. All roadway links and intersections that are within
the project's area of significant impact will operate at acceptable levels of service for
2011 project build-out conditions. This conclusion is based upon no roadway or
intersection improvements being needed to maintain acceptable levels of service.
Those off-site impacts that will be created by the project-generated traffic shall be
mitigated through the payment of road impact fees as set forth by the Collier County
Government's Impact Fee Ordinance. This conclusion is primarily based upon the fmding
that the development does not significantly and negatively impact the surrounding
roadway infrastructure to a greater extent than what should be considered mitigated via
payment of impact fees.
Pursuant to the Collier County Traffic Impact Statement Guidelines. the Report also
reviewed the operation of all roadway links and intersections within the project's area of
impact based upon a 5-year horizon from the time of the zoning application. (The zoning
application was filed during the year 2007). Therefore, a 5-year horizon analysis of 20 I 2
traffic conditions was also pr~rormed by the Report.
It was determined that all roadway links and intersections would operate at acceptable
levels of service for 2012 traffic conditions, except for State Road 29 (between
Immokalee Drive and Lake Trafford Road). The Report determined that the anticipated
peak direction traffic volume (i.e. 895 vph) would exceed the roadway's allowable
service volume (i.e. 875 vph) resulting in a vie ratio of 1.02.
It should be noted that this particular transportation deficiency will occur as a result of
the continued growth in the area, which is expected to occur one year later than the
completion of this project. It was concluded that there is adequate capacity on the road
network to support the traffic associated with this project through its completion.
Therefore, any transportation deficiencies that may occur after the completion of this
project should not warrant mitigation by the applicant. Consequently, Esperanza RPUD
should not be responsible for any off-site roadway mitigation and/or contributions in
order to receive approval for development.
Site-Related Roadwav Improvements
Turn Lanes - Based upon the criteria set forth by the Collier County RJW Handbook, an
ingress right turn lane will be warranted at the project's East and West Site Access onto
Immokalee Drive. The Applicant requests that the Transportation Services Admirlistrator
consider granting a waiver to the turn lane requirements pursuant to paragraph III.A.2. of
Collier County's Right of Way Handbook.
2
/\gencia 118m t'Jo. 17e
June 10 2008
?age '141 of 224
The request for a waiver is based upon the fact that Inunokalee Drive is a local road,
having a posted speed limit of 30 MFH. Furthermore, the existing and anticipated future
traffic along Inunokalee Drive is and will continue to be relatively low in volume. The
Report respectfully requests that Collier County Government consider the road
classification, applicable speed limit and conflicting traffic volumes. It is the Report's
opinion that the lack of turn lanes at the project's accesses onto Immokalee Drive will not
result in a threat to public safety.
Signal Warrants - A cursory review of signal warrants for the site accesses was
performed by the Report. It was determined that the approach volwnes that can be
expected for 2011 and 2012 project build-out conditions at these intersections will be
significantly less than the thresholds that would satisfY signal warrants as set forth by the
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
It was determined that the project's site accesses would operate at acceptable levels of
service for 2011 and 2012 project build-out conditions. The level of service/capacity
standards were based upon the criteria set forth by the Highway Capacity Manual, dated
2000. Consequently, no additional site access improvements will be required of the
proj ect.
Concurrencv Review
It was concluded by the Report that all roadways within the project's area of impact will
operate at acceptable levels of serve for 2011 project build-out conditions. As such, this
project will be in conformance to the Collier County Government's Concurrency
Management System.
PURPOSE OF REPORT
. The following Report has been prepared pursuant to the criteria set forth by the Traffic
Impact Statement Guidelines for zoning applications as adopted by the Collier County
Government. More specifically, this Report examines the potential transportation related
impacts which may occur as a result of the completion of this project.
The project's zoning application and development plans have been prepared by Q. Grady
Minor & Associates, Inc. This Report is a supplement docwnent to the project's permit
application as submitted by Q. Grady Minor.
METHODOLOGYMEETlliG
Prior to preparing the project's Traffic Impact Statement, a methodology meeting was
conducted at the office of Collier County's Transportation Department. Attendees of this
meeting were the Applicant's representative (Mr. James M. Banks & Ms. Heidi
Williams) and Collier County Government's representatives (Mr. John Podczerwinsky
and Mr. Michael Greene). Copies of the agreed upon methodology have been provided in
the Report's appendix.
3
:~ern r-JC), 'i7C'
,June 10. 2ClCiS
1';2 .Jf 224
SCOPE OF PROJECT
The project (referred to as Esperanza RPUD) is being planned as an affordable residential
housing community. At its completion, the project is envisioned to have a total of 50
single-family dwelling units, 36 condominium/townhouse units and 176 apartments.
Project build-out is anticipated to occur within the year 201 I. In addition to the dwelling
units, the project will have an on-site community center for the residents of Esperanza.
For additional details regarding the site plan, refer to site plans prepared by Q. Grady
Minor & Associates, Inc.
The subject property is located along Immokalee Drive and approximately three-quarters
of a mile west of the State Road 29, (Refer to Figure I -Location Map/Roadway
Classification).
4
Lake Trafford Rood
"
o
o
0:
C
o
~
~
o
u
Immokalee Drive
LEGEND
4-lANE DIVIDED ARTERIAL - - -
2-LANE ARTERIAL
2-lANE COLLECTOR/LOCAL
Immokalee Rood
ESPERANZA RPUD
'"
N
'0
o
o
'"
"
~
o
(i)
'%,
...
%
o"'f.
.{'
~
0",
,C
~
'"
z
OCTOBER 29, 2007
Agenda Item ~'~o. 17C
I, .~._ ~" ",.'"n
Page 143 of ~24
NORTH
N.T.S.
'0
o
o
0:
"
"
"0
""
o
E
E
J'~
0",
~
00-
"'<9
PROJECT LOCATION
& ROADWAY CLASS.
FIGURE 1
:lE.'iL No. 'i7':::: .
,LJne 10. 2008
1"':4 cd 224
PROJECT GENERATED TRAFFIC
Traffic which can be expected to be generated by ilie project has been estimated based
upon ilie guidelines established by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip
Generation Manual, 7''' Edition. That is, historical traffic data collected at similar type
developments was relied upon in estimating the project's traffic. Unfortunately, ilie ITE
manual does not contain traffic data for affordable housing projects. Therefore, for ilie
purpose of completing this Report it was concluded that Land Use Code "Single-Family
Detached Housing" (LUC 210), "Apartments" (LUC 220) and "Residential
Condominiurn![ownhouse" (LUC 230) was most appropriate in estimating the
anticipated traffic generations.
NOTE: The Report's Engineer of Record believes that the use of the ITErates grossly
exaggerates the trip ends that will be generated by this project. During the required
Methodology Meeting, the Engineer of Record proposed that a 25% reduction of
estimated trips be considered appropriate to correct the overstatement of traffic demands
of an affordable housing project, Collier County Staff acknowledge the possible
discrepancy of actual traffic versus the results of the ITE rates and suggested that an
independent study be performed in order to realize the reduction in traffic demands. As
an independent trip generation study would be cost-prohibitive, the Report basis its
findings and conclusions on the results obtained via the ITE trip rates.
Table I of this report provides a detail ofilie calculations which were performed in
estimating the project's anticipated trip generations. As shown in Table 1, trip generation
volumes for the AM and PM peak hours of the adjacent street, as well as, toW daily
periods were conducted. The following summarizes the results of Table I.
Land Use Build-out Daily (AD1) AM Peak (VPH) PM Peak (VPH)
LUC 210 50 d.u. 550 ADT 44 VPH 57 VPH
LUC 220 176 d.u. 1,183 ADT 90 VPH 114 VPH
LUC 230 36 d.u. 269 ADT 23VPH 26 VPH
TOTALS = 2,002 ADT 157 VPH 197 VPH
Based upon ilie results described in Table I, the Report concludes that ilie project \vill
generate more than 100 trip ends during the highest peak hour. As such, the Report will
investigate ilie traffic impacts associated wiili ilie project based upon the criteria set forth
by the Collier County Traffic Impact Ststement Guidelines for developments generating
"More Than 100 Trips",
5
TABLE 1
Esperanza RPUD
Raw Trip Generation Computations
Land Use Code
LUC 210
LUC 220
LUC 230
Land Use Code Description
Single-Family Detached Housing
Apartment
Residential CondominiumlTownhouse
DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT)
LUC 210
Daily Traffic = Ln(T) = 0.92Ln(X)+2.71= 0.92Ln(50)+2.71 =
LUC 220
Daily Traffic = T = 6.72(X) = 6.72(176) =
LUC 230
Daily Traffic = Ln(T) = 0.85Ln(X)+2.55= 0.85Ln(36)+2.55 =
Total =
AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC (VPH)
LUC 210
AM Peak Hour = T = 0.70(X) + 9.43 = 0.70(50) + 9.43 =
25%Enter/75%Exit =
LUC 220
AM Peak Hour = T = 0.49(X) + 3.73 = 0.49(176) + 3.73 =
20%Enter/80%Exit =
LUC 230
AM Peak Hour = Ln(T) = 0.80Ln(X)+O.26 = 0.80Ln(36)+O.26 =
17%Enter/83%Exit =
AM Total =
PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC (VPH)
LUC 210
PM Peak Hour = Ln(T) = 0.90Ln(X)+O.53 = 0.90Ln(50)+O.53 =
63%Enter/37%Exit =
LUC 220
PM Peak Hour = T = 0.55(X)+17.65 = 0.55(176)+17.65=
65%Enter/35%Exit =
LUC 230
PM Peak Hour = Ln(T) = 0.82Ln(X)+0.32 = 0.82Ln(36)+O.32 =
67%Enter/33%Exit =
PM Total =
.!:;'''';:;o,r.,.,.ia I,.em "0 . -('~
'8' _It'__ ,. ~~..r ~r'-'
June IlJ. '::'Ju8
Page !~5 of 2::4
Build-out Schedule
50 Dwelling Units
176 Dwelling Units
36 Dwelling Units
550 ADT
1,183 ADT
269 ADT
2,002 ADT
44 vph
11/33 vph
90 vph
18/72 vph
23 vph
4/19 voh
157 vph
33/124 vph
57 vph
36/21 vph
114 vpb
74/40 vph
26 vpb
17/9 voh
197vph
127170 vph
item i'Jo. ~i 7C'
JUI\8 i O. 20Ci8
?~~de i .~6 of 224
EXISTING+ COMMITTED ROAD NETWORK
Figure I and Figure 2A depict the project's surrounding roadway conditions and the
existing intersection lane configuration, respectively. There are no significant 5-year
committed roadway improvement projects which are relative to this project.
As previously discussed, access to the project will be provided via two points of access
onto Immokalee Drive. lmmokalee Drive is a two lane local road having a posted speed
limit of 30 MPH. The road has an open drainage system and a sidewalk that extends
along the roads southern boundary.
As a local road, Immokalee Drive has a performance capacity of 850 vph for the peak
hour peak direction conditions.
Table 2A provides a description of all the roadways within the project's area of impact
and their respective level of service performance standards.
6
/\;;enda item No. lye
June! 0,2008
J
NORTH
N,TS.
-0 Lake Trafford Rood ~tt-
),
1~ ~llr
~
OJ
N
" "0
0 "
0 0
0: '"
C
0 " 0
~ -
0 " 0
() iil <D
N
ESPERANZA PROJECT SITE
. .
.
. .
0 .
0
0 0
'" '"
.!l 2 3,290'
v; v;
-
. -
. .
0
,. w
~~ L
.... '" Immokolee Driye J150'
- - or'
1~'- llr
LEGEND ~
.
000 = AM Peak
(000) = PM Peak
. = Stop Control Intersection
0= Signalized Intersection
+-= Lone Geometry
ESPERANZA RPUD
REVISED MARCH 6, 2008
EXISTING ROADWAY
& LANE GEOMETRY
FIGURE 2A
';
iTem I'JD. 17C'
JWiG 10, 2CJCJ8
i="'a';J8 ~ 0:8 of 224
PROJECT GENERATED TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION
The project's traffic was distributed to the surrounding roadway network based upon
logical means of ingress/egress; current and future traffic patterns in the area; business
opportunities and competing markets; as well as, growth trends for the surrounding areas.
Figure 2B-I provides a detail of the resultant traffic distributions based on a percentage
basis. Figure 2B-2 depicts the turning movement volumes that will occur at the site
accesses on Immokalee Drive, as well as, the project traffic at the intersections under
study.
7
lake Trafford Road
LEGEND
'0
o
o
0::
C
o
00
a
u
.10::>;.
~1
Immokalee Drive
1110% ~ ~ .. 5% It
:Z.
'"
N
'0
o
o
0::
~
:s
(/)
90::>;
~1
,L\gen,js Item ~~o, 17C
.June 10.2008
NORTH
N.T.S.
"
~
~
ill
40::>;
l':1
~ 12%
J't.
0,,-
11,
"",
"'",
: l':1
c 0
o ...
~
~
o
'"
D
<<
l':
o
.
.
'0
o
o
0::
"
"
-0
""
o
E
E
. 65::>; . PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION BY PERCENT
ESPERANZA RPUD
REVISED JANUARY 10. 2008
PROJECT-GENERATED
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION FIGURE 2B-1
!\;y=nca !:sm ~JD. IlC-
June 10. 2008
- r' - ~. ~ .
,
~
~ t t
PROJECT TRAFflC "-
SIDE STREET/LAND USE " '"
1 0% ABSORPTION OF TOTAL ~ ~
~ NORTH
"
~ N,T,S-
~
~ "- e; +-0(0)
e-
o 0
0 o (0)
-1 L ~
0
-~
o (0) 0
_ 4(12)
Lake Trafford Rood O(O)~ l r
12 (7) -+ e--+
o (O)j 0
e '"
o (0) ~ e
0 ~
" 0
"'
'"' t
"
~ '"
~
~
"
m
"
~
0
0
~
.
"0
"' Ui
. ESPERANZA PROJECT SITE '"'
:? t
00 " PROJECT TRAFFIC ~
m 00
. . SIDE STREET/LAND USE '"
u u
u u ~
"' "' 13% ABSORPTION OF TOTAL
$ $ ~
"
iii iii
~ m ~- "'
_ m . '"' e e LO(O)
~ ~ . !3.!j.L3
-!.!3.~ :-r 0;
" "' "' " 0 3 (12) -:::;.
~ ~ L
1 1 "
.L'6 (6+) .L 13 (+8) rO(O)
5 (3) 16 (6+) _ 26 (96)
. Immokalee Drive ~ r
2 (7) -1... 2 (5) -1... l ~
"
36 (20) -+ ~
2 (5) 65 (34) 96 (53) -+ 12 (7) j :::!
I ~ e
LEGEND +8 (26) e-
o 0
:::'
000 = AM Peak
(000) = PM Peak '" t
e= Stop Control Intersection ~ ;;;
~ .:':.
0= Signalized Intersection ~
:::'
-= Lane Geometry ~
ESPERANZA RPUD PROJECT TRAFFIC
FIGURE 28-2
REVISED MARCH 6, 2008 & LANE CONFIGURATION
4g.:nda item No. 17C
June 10, 20D8
Page 151 of224
AREA OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
The area of significant impact was determined based upon Collier County's 2% and 3%
criteria (i.e., if the project's traffic is 2% or more of a roadway's adopted level of service
capacity, then the project has a significant impact upon that link). Table 2A describes the
project traffic distributions and the level of impact on the surrounding roadways. As
shown, the roadways which were found to be impacted by 2% or greater than its adopted
level of service volume are:
Roadwav Links within Proiect's Area of Impact
Immokalee Drive (Site to State Road 29)
State Road 29(North of Lake Trafford Road)
State Road 29(North of Immokalee Drive)
State Road 29(South of Immokalee Drive)
Intersections within the Proiect's Area of Impact
East Site Access @ lmmokalee Drive
West Site Access @lmmokalee Drive
lmmokalee Drive @ State Road 29
Lake Trafford Road @ State Road 29
8
:lem r~o. Ie
c!UrT9 i O. 2C:rc18
:: <:1;;8 i 52 uf 224
'E
~I
" " (f)o 0 (f)(f)(f)o
",~o
'2 _ Z ~z z wwwz
",,5 >->->-
ii)
"
'" if',
s Iif', if', if', if', ~ ~ ~
~ 0 0 0
C:~N <Xl N '" <0 '" 0 <0
5 E"':: ": ~ '<t ~ <0 <q
;_..- N ~ ~ ,.; '<i N ~
a.
- 'tl
-
" ~ ~ ?fl.~ if', '#.'#.'#.'#.
~'tl
Co c: 0
E S N NN '" ("")NNM
-en
" c: I"
E: 0
I! ""
" "'N
>- ~ CD 0<0 <Xl '"
- E~ ~~ ~ "'''' '<t ~
" is
'" "
,- " '0
ell. >
a.
" c:
is ,12
I! :; ~ cf!.?J!. if', a?'# '#-~
>- .Q
." 0
- 0 00 '" "'a ON
,,- ~ '" ~ ~ "'''' '<t~
...!!
'cO
I- _ 0
(,) a. D
<( .. c: I"
" 0
0.. .~ :;:;
:i " 0 0 0 "' '" 0 '"
.. I! <0
en E~ '" '" <0 ..... ..... <Xl .....
is '" '" co co co <Xl
(J) " ~
U- 0" ~
0 ..Jll.
~ <( " 'tl
W E Ii
N "
0:: '0 'tl
W c:
<( > .!!l w w w Cl ()()()()
..J ..
lD en "
'~ en
~ ~ 0
" ..J
(,) (J)
UJ
.., 'tl 01- ~ 1j
0 ~ .. ~ :J ::>::> 0::>
~ "
0 _ 0 0 .3 N NN '<t'"
0:: tr (.)..J ..J
0..
...
N
...
" '" ;;;
,~ N ;;;
is '" '" '0 '0 1il i!! i!!
N N ~ ~ ~ u;
" U '0 0 0 Z?
" ~ 0:: 0:: ;;
" 0 ~ E ;;
'"' 0:: 0 " 'E
0 0:: 1ii ,g 0 ""
E " .!l cii II: "5 ""
11 1ii ~ ~ "5
:2 5 cii ~ ,g ,:: ,:: 0 0
u; '"
c- '0 '0 '0 - - (I)
~ - ~ 0 0 '0
~ ;; 0 "" ""
;;
~ '" " ;; '" '5 ~ ;;
.g 0 s: ro is 0 0 ro
Z l1J Z (I) W
"
~
Ci
'"'
ro
" " u
0.. ,~ ~
,;< i5 0 '"
" 'tl 0:: N
ro
ro 0 " " 'tl
,:: 0:: " " ~
" <i 0
- 0::
" 5 '"' x
. 0 0 "
'5' ~ E E 5
Ii. . E E
() '"
f\:Jenda item ~~o. 17e
~ June 10. 2008
Page 153 of 224
EXISTING, 2011 BACKGROUND & 2011 PROJECT BUILD-OUT CONDITIONS
In order to establish 20 II project build-out traffic conditions, traffic count data was
adjusted for peak season conditions, peak honr conditions, peak direction, and an annual
growth rate was then applied. The 20 II peak season/peak hour/peak direction factor as
shown on Table 2B(a) was derived from the 2007 Collier County Traffic Count Report.
The annual growth rate was derived from historical traffic counts also described in the
Traffic Count Report. After the correct adjustments were computed, the project generated
traffic was then added to the 2011 Background Traffic.
Figure 2B-2 provides a detail of the turning movement volumes which can be expected at
the site access. Background traffic along Immokalee Drive was extrapolated from turning
movement counts performed at the intersection of Immokalee Drive @ State Road 29.
Intersection turning movement counts were performed at the intersection of Immokalee
Drive @ State Road 29 (traffic counts are provided in the Appendix). In order to establish
20 II project build-out traffic conditions, the intersection turning movement counts were
adjusted for peak season conditions, peak hour conditions and an annual growth rale was
then applied. The adjustment factors were derived from the 2007 Collier County Traffic
Count Report. The annual growth rate was derived from historical traffic counts also
described in the Traffic Count Report. After the correct adjustments were computed, the
proj'ect generated traffic was then added to the 20 II Background Traffic (Figures 2C, 2D
and 2E provide a graphic of the 2007, 2011, project traffic and 2011 plus project traffic
conditions, respectively.
Intersection turning movement counts were performed at the intersection of Lake
Trafford Road @ State Road 29 (traffic counts are provided in the Appendix). In order to
establish 2011 project build-out traffic conditions, the intersection turning movement
counts were adjusted for peak season conditions, peak honr conditions and an annual
growth rate was then applied. The adjustment factors were derived from the 2007 Collier
County Traffic Count Report. The annual growth rate was derived from historical traffic
counts also described in the Traffic Count Report. After the correct adjustments were
computed, the project generated traffic was then added to the 2011 Background Traffic
(Figures 2C, 2D and 2E provide a graphic of the 2007, 2011, project traffic and 2011 plus
project traffic conditions, respectively.
9
. -
i:arn hiD. ~ -7::::::
,kiil'.? 1 0 2C~C)8
'1:,-4 c-f ::.'4
- e
. 0
0 '" ~
~ :I: " ~ '" '" .... '"'
~ !
c ... "' "' "' ;;; ;;;
'" ~ i5 .. .. '"
~
Q. '"
Q.
- e
. 0
0 '"
.... i :I: " ~m '" '"
'" ! '" '"
c 0 ... Q. m :; '" .... ;::
'" ?- m 5 > '"' .. "'
Q. '"
Q.
en '~1
w '" '" '" 0 '"
I- III '" .. '" '"
:E
::J - e
..J '0 . 0
0 e 0 .,
.... . :I: " ~m 0 0 0
c 0 ! <:>
> l'l a. ... Q. '" l:l ~ N '"'
.. 5 > '"' '" '"
... ~
~ " Q. '"
_Z &l Q.
l'll- .= ~~
~..J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ '"' '"' :;! '" m
lD >- 0 0: OX! '" .. "'
I ~ i5 '"' .; a; '" .;
N
W '0
..J 0 10
lD <( l!! .. .. .. ..
..
~ 0 GO
a:: >-
.... :;
0 ~<:> "' co
.... '" C) <Z ..
c "' '" 0
0 0 ~ N :; '"
N ~ 0 ~
N l! '"
I-
~ C
r-- .
N 0 ~o m .... '" ..
0 <:> C) .. m "' co
0 c " "' <:> co '"
N == "' 0 $! ~
N I!
l-
e t~
,2 <:> '"' '"' ..
~ N "' m '"
o z '" '" "' '"
.J
'" 0;
N
'" '0 '0 '" l!!
N ~ ~ ~
'0 0 0 0 u;
rn " " 0: 1;i
0 .. '0 'E
" ~
.'!! m ,g g ,c
J!I u; .. .. -;
.9 ,:: ,:: 0
(/) (/)
'0 "0 - -
" 0 0
"ii s: E E 1ii
" GO
s: i5 0 0 s:
z (/)
GO
,i?:
o
~
GO
;;;
...
o
E
B
'0
..
o
0:
~
~
;;;
...
o
E
B
'"
'"
'0
..
o
"
~
1!
(I)
/\;J~nGa ilem No. lye
June 10, 2008
<0
'"
~ t J
"-
m ,
.. ..,.
~ '"
e
'" NORTH
..,. m "
m '" '" H.T.S,
0 ~ C
~ +-'6 (14)
'" ~
m '" '" "
"- '" '" 110 (263) '"
-l L - ~
7 (11) '"
::!
-0 Lake Trafford Road _ 365 (745)
97 (94) ~ '- I r
;n-
"
517 (421) _ ' .::.-
169 (115l-r ~ ~ ~ *
0 "' '" '"
" E;, C
251 (212) C
ii' '" 0 :'1
e c: "
.. t
"
"'
~ :;
e
..
'"
'"
"
0
ci1 m
N
c ~.
a
0 0
0 '"
- .
0 <0
(J "6
'" Iii
e
ESPERANZA PROJECT SITE m
'" t
'"
. 0 ~
. . ..,.
. .
0 0 m
u :i. t:-
o:
.!l .!l ;:::' ~
in in <0 '" ;0-
~
;; ;; C c L 53 (75) ~
~ a '" "
w "- "' L 72 (172) "-
N "' ~
-l -
"'
r4<l(32) c:
"- tmmokalee Drive _ 162 (334)
II" - 32 (27) ~ ../ r
l ;0-
'"
-+
291 (277) -+ 114 (112)-r "'
N
'" " <0 '"
'" '"
LEGEND 145 (138) ~ e-
N '" "-
'" '" '"
000 - pJJ. Peak '"
<0 t
(000) - PM Peak '"
e
e- Stop Control Intersection ~
'" "'
.. 0
0- Signalized Intersection " e
~ "'
'"
-- lone Geometry ..
ESPERANZA RPUD
REVISED MARCH 6, 2008
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
& LANE CONFIGURATION
FIGURE 2C
""""~".--!,,."
-0
Lake Trafford Road
"
o
o
'"
c
o
~
"
c
u
ESPERANZA PROJECT SITE
. .
. ~
0 0
0 0
'" 0
'"
B B
Vi Vi
;;; ;;;
. c
;: w
-
LEGEND
000 = AM Peok
(000) = PM Peak
. = Stop Control lnter~ection
o "" Signalized Intergection
+- '" Lane Geometry
ESPERANZA RPUD
lmmokalee Drive
REVISED MARCH 6, 2008
+- 408 (83<)
578 (<71)_
+- 188 (388)
338 (322) _
i
~
N
N
'"
t
~
<0
m
e
~
~ :;-
" .., ~
8. "
:::. '" 8. +-'8 (16)
~:g ~ illL 123 (29<)
8 (12)
""
....
..,
--yv
108 (105) I
189 (129)--r 1j'
281 (237) + ~
+ .... 0
" m m
e
r
w ~
.:!. -
..,
"
<0
f
~
:;
e
'"
o
+
m
N
~
0
0
'"
~ .
N "0
N in
e
<0
~ t
~
~
<>
"
e
o
o
'"
;;;-
; in
-!.. ~ t 73 (87)
mL ~8< (200)
... r<6 (37)
t'-' r
37 (32) --.J I
133 (130)--r ~;;;- ~
168 (160)" .::. b ~
~ g ~
f
~
N ..
:-J
~
m
..,
t:.
~
OJ "
<0 ..,
" eo
~
m
~
2011 TRAFFIC VOLUMES
BACKGROUND TRAFFIC
& LANE CONFIGURATION
~
item i'Jo. 17C '
): In::> 1/\ r)()nq
"age 'j ~tJ 01 U4
NORTH
N.tS.
~
_e
'"
..
~
....
o
~-
<0
~
OJ
;;;
OJ
- e
..
0
N
~
'"
..
- -
~
"
N
FIGURE 2D
i\aSil,ja :tem No. i 7C
o June 10, 2008
~
N
PROJECT TRAfFIC e t J
N
SIDE STREET IlAND USE .,
"' ~
10:>: ABSORPTION OF TOTAL J ~
e
" NORTH
;n- o "
N ~ ., N,T.S.
~ <0
"" ~ f-'8(16)
" ~
<0 N ~
<0 " ~ 123 (294)
-l L .,
+--
8 (12) '"
+- 412 (846) :!
Lake Trafford Road 108 (105) ~ r
590 (478)-+ l ;;:
0
t!.-+
189 (129)-r '"
~ 10 a N
" N
281 (237) .!- ~ :!:.
:!:.
'0 ~ ~ :!1
N '" '"
e ~ '"
" t
~
<0 ~
~ <0
e-
~
~
'"
~
0
0
'"
~ 1!
<0 ..
"'
ESPERANZA PROJECT SITE e "'
'"
<0 t
N
w 00 PROJECT TRAfFIC ~
00 00
" " SIDE STREET ILAND USE ~
0 0 w
)}, )}, 0
13:>: ABSORPTION OF TOTAL e-
.!i .!i N' <0
in in :3
~ .. ~
~ w ~~ N e <0
_~w 10 ~ 1-73 (87)
-;1;" '" '" 0 ;;;-
-!.........3: --w N
N .. L 67 (212) '"
""' "' N .. <0 +-~
'" .. -l
1 N
r 46 (37) 0
..L 16 (64) 1 ..L 13 (48) '"
47 (97) _._ 62 (159) +- 214 (484) ^
-- Immokalee Drive ~ .- 1
2 (7) --L.. 2 (5) r--1... l -
<0
7 (86) 149 {1,a 73 (52) ~
-+
434 (375) -+ '"
145 (137)~ '"
~ <0 N
LEGEND ~ '" ;:;i
216 (186) 10
" 0 "
N
000 ~ AI.l Peak <0 ~
(000) - PM Peak 2' f
t:.
. - Stop Control Intersection 0 ;;;-
;;; <0
0- Signalized Intersection e-
N
+-= Lone Geometry 0
"'
8
~
ESPERANZA RPUD
2011 TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Wi PROJECT TRAFFIC
& LANE CONFIGURATION
FIGURE 2E
REVISED MARCH 6, 2008
item I-b. ~7C,
..June 10. 2008
?age 158 of 224
SITE ACCESS ANAYLSIS
Turn lanes warrants based upon Collier County's R!W Handbook were performed as
follows:
East & West Site Accesses @ Immokalee Drive
DecelJRight Turn Lane Warrants for a Two-Lane Facility
Right turn volume (VI) ;;: 40 vph
Yes No
X
Right Tum Lane Warrant Satisfied: YES
2011 LINK LEVEL OF SERVICE DETERMINATIONS
Refer to Table 2C(a) and Figure 3A for 2011 level of service determinations for all
roadways within the project's area of impact. As shown, all roadway links will operate at
acceptable levels of service for 20 II project build-out traffic conditions. This conclusion
is based upon no roadway improvements being needed to maintain acceptable levels of
service for project build-out conditions.
2011 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DETERMINATIONS
Refer to Table 2C(a) for 2011 level of service determinations for all intersections within
the project's area of impact. As shown, all intersections will operate at acceptable levels
of scrvice for 2011 project build-out traffic conditions. This conclusion is based upon no
intersection improvements being needed to maintain acceptable levels of service for
project build-out conditions.
Existing 2011 Background 20 II Project B/O
LOS LOS LOS
Intersection AM PM AM PM AM PM
East Site Access N/A N/A N/A N/A B B
West Site Access N/A N/A N/A N/A A B
Immokalee Dr @ SR 29 B B B B B C
Trafford Rd @ SR 29 C B C C C C
10
Agenda ltem r~o lye
June 10. 20~8
~ PaJe 1 :,9 Jf 224
:; - (; ~ -
~
0 ;l ~ :E:
~ 9 :E: u 910 ~ ~ '" ~m
~ :!! '" ! () 0 w () ~ .. III () ()
~ <>
~ . 6 N 'S :Ii
G
.. " III ..
..
.~ :; -
:E:
~ <0 '" '" ... '" ~ q '" 91 Cl
o::"! '" ... '" '" ~ :!! .. <( III ()
ci ci ci ci <>
u <> N '3 :Ii
" III <
'0 - c
~ 0
> 0 ;l ~~
rJ) Il :E: u 0 '" '" 0
! '" ... ... '"
en ~ '" 13 '" '" '" '"
. ~ ~
>- G ~ "
'" .. rJ)
-l >-
c( - c -l - '0
:; ~ .g c
Z 0 c( :E: ~
~ 9 :E: u ~~ ~ co '" ~ '" e~<{ ~
c( c; :!! ... ! co '" ;;; z c; .. ~..Jz III ()
N . 6 '" co '" '" N :Ii z
>- '3 G <( ~
III .. " ..
I- .. ~ III
(3 - c - '0
.-,<C - ~ .2 U :E: C
u 0 U ~
G :E: ~'" ~ ... e ~I~ ~
nsCl.. ! ~ 0 co '" <C ~
2".:.: "0 '" '" '" <> .. '" ()
--c( .. : 13 >~ Cl.. N :Ii Jl..J
U
UU .. " c( .. m
I ii:i .. III
N U
:liS 3 c '0
W .2 c Z
0 u ~
-l ::J ~ :E: e "'/ 0
IIJ -l ~ '" ! '" 0 U () '" W ()
<> 13 i=
'" :: ... ..J
~ 0 u
.. " . U
> .. III
W
il::: - C '0 rJ)
~ .2 c -
Z 0 tl ~ c::: :E:
~ :E: o~_ '" '" ... '" ... '" "'1< ~
::i - ! - .. '" co co ;0 ;0 W <> .. 0- III III
<> ... a ~>v '" co <> ..J z Z
N m l- N :Ii
G ~
i .. " z ..
.. III
- C
~ 0 -
CI 0 ;l .... :E:
... :E: u 9U .... ... ... ~~ ~
c( <> ! () () () 10, <> .. 10 ()
<> '" 0 <>
0 '" m a N :Ii ..J z Z
G N
.. " ..
c::: ..
5 c ~
.... 0 ,g r-...
.... ... J: u ~" '" co 0 '" ~ G
<> !! .. '" '" ... 0 > > '"
0 <> '" :; ;: is N
N m 6 > '" '" '" 0 " co
N ~ 0 '" '0
.. " N : .
~ '0 ~
.. ~ j m
.. ~ 2
'" 0
0 E 3 J!
'" E '"
N ;; E E @)
co '0 '0 '0 1: '"
'" m . . @)
'0 0 0 & U) @) @) '0
rn 0:: 0:: ;; .. .
& 'E .. .. . 0
2 'E .. ~ .<: 0::
.. ,g ,g .c . u 0
2 u E
Vi '5 u u
.'1! ! .. <( ,g
,:: 0 .. ~
U) B I- U) .'1! .'1! ~
j ..
'0 ~ '0 '0 '0 u; Iii ,::
;; .c ;; to 0 .
~ 5 '5 ~ ;; . E '"
:;: 6 0 :;: m ;: E .
z U) W ..J
~ '0
> ~
'C '"
'" N
" " '0
" " m
.. .. 0
'" '" 0::
0 0 .'1!
E E
E E .'!I
U)
"0
o
o
'"
c
o
~
~
o
u
LEGEND
715 - B
(813 - C)
[861 - C]
I
715 - B ^ .....
(813 - C)~ ~
[861 - C]
486 - C
(665 - D)
[696 - E]
Lake Trafford Rood
670 - C
(817 - E)
[853 - El
388 - C
(451 - C)
[560 - cl
Ol
N
"0
o
o
'"
~
15
ill
'%.
'"
%
'+~
l'
'%
"<>,
-
~
~
~
-
If)
.c
0;
z
-
--
"0
o
o
'"
~
~
"5
-"
o
E
.s
415 - C
(469 - C)
[484 - Cl
2007 PK HR/ PK DIRECTION T~AFFlC - LEVEL OF SERVICE
2011 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC - ,_EVEL OF SERVICE
2011 BACKGROUND + PROJECT TRAFFIC - LEVEL OF SERVICE
ESPERANZA RPUD
REVISED JANUARY 10, 2008
2007 & 2011
LEVEL OF SERVICE
:!ern !'~O. lye
June 10. 2D08
~C>"'Cl ",~~n e,.!: .~'')''
NORTH
'u.s.
~
"t~
'%
"<>,
"'-9
FIGURE 3A
~\Jsn:-ja :t-2:11 hJo. i lC
- J,me 10, 2008
Page 161 of 224
2012 PROJECT BUILD-OUT CONDITIONS
Pursuant to the Collier County Traffic Impact Statement Guidelines, the Report also
reviewed the operation of all roadway links and intersections within the project's area of
impact based upon a 5-year horizon from the time of the zoning application. (The zoning
application was filed during the year 2007). Therefore, a 5-year horizon analysis of 20 12
traffic conditions was also preformed by the Report.
In order to establish 2012 project build-out traffic conditions, traffic count data was
adjusted for peak season conditions, peak hour conditions, peak direction, and an annual
growth rate was then applied. The 2012 peak season/peak hour/peak direction factor as
shown on Table 2B(b) was derived from the 2007 Collier County Traffic Count Report.
The annual growth rate was derived from historical traffic counts also described in the
Traffic Count Report. After the correct adjustments were computed, the project generated
traffic was then added to the 2012 Background Traffic.
2012 LINK LEVEL OF SERVICE DETERMINATIONS
Refer to Table 2C(b) and Figure 3B for 2012 level of service determinations for all
roadways within the project's area of impact. As shown, all roadway links will operate at
acceptable levels of service for 20 II project build-out traffic conditions, except for State
Road 29 (between lmmokalee Drive and Lake Trafford Road). The Report determined
that the anticipated peak direction traffic volume (i.e. 895 vph) would exceed the
roadway's allowable service volume (i.e. 875 vph) resulting in a v/c ratio of 1.02.
It should be noted that this particular transportation deficiency will occur as a result of
the continued growth in the area, which is expected to occur one year later than the
completion of this project. It was concluded that there is adequate capacity on the road
network to support the traffic associated with this project through its completion.
_ Therefore, any transportation deficiencies that may occur after the completion of this
project should not warrant mitigation by the applicant. Consequently, Esperanza RPUD
should not be responsible for any off-site roadway mitigation and/or contributions in
order to receive approval for development.
2012 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DETERMINATIONS
Refer to Table 2C(b) for 2012 level of service determinations for all intersections within
the project's area of impact. As shown, all intersections will operate at acceptable levels
of service for 2012 project build-out traffic conditions. This conclusion is based upon no
intersection improvements being needed to maintain acceptable levels of service for
project build-out conditions.
Existing 2012 Background 2012 Project B/O
LOS LOS LOS
Intersection AM PM AM PM .AM PM
East Site Access N/A N/A N/A N/A B B
West Site Access N/A N/A N/A N/A A B
Immokalee Dr @ SR 29 B B B B B C
Trafford Rd @ SR 29 C B C C C C
II
.~~-~-,.
~ten; f'J::-.L '; 7e
June 10. 20U8
~i 52 of =24
~ "
~ 0
0 '"
~ :l: ~ ~., <') N '" 0
0 ... "- '" ., '" '"
N .. is > .. .. .... ., .,
"
"- oc
"-
~ "
~ 0
0 '"
.... :s :l: " ~., '" '" '" '"
0 I!!
0 0 ... "- '" :t '" .... ;:
N ... .. is > <') '" '"
"
"- oc
"-
en a. ~o '"
W 1: '" 0 '"
... '" '" '" '"
:ii
::::> "
..J ~
"S! ~ 0
0 3 0 '"
.... :l: " ~'" '" 0 0 0
0 e I!!
> 0 ... "- ., "' :r OJ "'
N ~ .. c > "' "' '" '"
~ "
" "- oc
.. "-
.-..Z III
J:l - .c i~ *'
~ ..J ii *' "" *'
.
- '" '" OJ '" '"
III i 0 ., '" 0> .. '"
I <!i M M a; .0 M
N
W '0
..J 0 10
III <( I!! .. .. .. '"
~ 0 m
0:: ,..
N 3
0 ~o '" 0> ~ ..
..... <D (J
0 '" 0> <5
0 0 ,~ @j :t '"
N 0 '"
N .. OJ ~
l!
...
~ -
"
"'" "
N 0 ~o "' 6; '" ..
0 0 (J ~ '" '"
0 0 " 0 '" '"
N ;: "' ~ '" ~
N ~
I!
...
" j ~
0 '" "' "' '$
'" " 0 :;j '" "'
3 o z '" '" '"
'" -'
'" 1U
OJ
'" "" 'C 'C !!!
OJ ro .. .. u;
'C 0 0 ci!
ro '" '" u;
0 ~ E E
'"
~ ;; g g '"
;; iii .. ~ '5
u; jJ i=- ... 0
Cf)
'0 <; - '0
0; 0
;;; s: '" .c ;;;
" '5
~ 0 0 ~
s: i5 z Cf)
.
,~
<5
.
.
..
'"
o
E
.5
""
..
o
a:
.
.
..
'"
o
E
.5
'"
N
'C
..
o
a:
.
S
"'
L\gsnda Item ~~o. i7e
June 10,2008
Page 163 of 224
~ c ~
." ~ 0 ." ::l:
0 "
'" q :c u glc '" 0 '" ~w
~ :!! ! CJ wu.CJ ;; ;g a. III CJ tl
'" '"
'" '3 . is '" '3 II!
.
III a. " III a.
a.
0 ~ ~
" ::l:
~ '" '" <D N '" N q '" 3m
<D '" ., ~ ... - :!! a. "" III tl
0 0 0 0 c
0 N '3 II!
;: III <(
'5 ~ c
" ~
> 0 c
!Q . ::l: ~o 0 '" '"
u ! a. '" <D ~ .... <D
'" ~
~ : is > ., ., ., '" C/)
C/)
::i .. a. "
'" a. C/)
>-
<t ~ c -' ~ "
:l " ,g c
Z 0 <t :x: "
N 0 :x: u ~r: '" ~ '" ., N '" e9l<( <(
<C - ;g ! '" '" ., Z - a. 2...Jz Z III tl
'" '" is > '" ... ~ '" '" c
'" '3 . <t N :;;
~ . a. u
III a. " ..
a. >- III
U S c !:: ~ "
_<t 0 <:
u 0 tl U ::l: "
.. ::l: ~'" N '" e~~ ~
..cD.. '[.#:. ! a. g ~ 0 :fl '" <t ;; a. ~...Jz III tl
<"> ... z
--<t a. : is D.. N II! u
UU a. " <t "" ..
a. III
NW u
:!E ~ c " Z
W " 0 c
0 " "
-' ::::> '" ::l: 0 o "'I 0
~ ! ~ 0 u u w w u
a:l -' lil '" Jf..J i=
.. is
~ 0 .. 0
a. " .. U
> a. III
W
~ ~ c " C/) ~
~ .2 c
Z 0 11 e~" 0:: :x:
N ::l: M '" 0 ... '" 91~ ~
::i ~ ! .. a. <D '" OJ '" ;2; W c a. '" lD
c 'a '"
N is '" > ... ... ~ '" l- N ::e ..J z
u
~ a. " .. Z Q.
a. '"
s: - c -
" 0 N ::l:
C 0 ~
... ::l: 910 .... ... '" 91~ ~
<t c CJ U U III c Q. '" tl
lil '" 0 C ..J Z Z
. is '" :t
0 . N
a. "
0:: a.
- c o!l
0
N " "
0 .....
.... :x: 0 ~'" '" :8 '" '" .. .. 01
.... C e 0 ~
0 c '" a. '" ::; ~ ~ ~ N
'" .. is > <"> ... <D .... 0 15 0 '" "
N . N N ..
a. x: .. : " 0
a. .. " .. a:
10 0
'" a: .!l
'" 0
0 E .!l S
co ~ E .5 .l!l '"
'" .. .E @)
co " '0 '0 .2l '"
N .. . . @) @) @) "
'0 0 0 ~ '"
.. a: 0:: ... .. ..
0 'E .. : .. ~
0:: .!! 'E ~ : .~
.. ,g ,g s ::l u 0 "
2 u
.'!! iii e ~ " <( "" .. ~
0
'" .s >- '" .!l .!l ..
'ii e
'0 ~ '0 '0 '5 in in '" >-
"in " -c "in ~ ... 0 ..
.. '" ;; ~ .. .. E '"
;: 6 0 0 .. ;:: .E ..
z '" W ..J
.
>
-c
Q
..
.
"
'"
o
E
.E
"
l!J
'"
"
..
~
o
E
.E
'"
'"
"
..
o
0::
..
Jj
'"
~ ..-,--'-'- ~-
'"
o
o
'"
c
o
~
~
o
u
388 - C
(468 - C)
[577 - 01
LEGEND
715 - B
(813 - C)
[861 - C)
I
715 - B ^ ,
(840 - C)~
[888- C)
486 - C
(721 - E)
[751 - E)
Lake Trafford Rood
670 - C
(859 - E)
[895 - F)
'"
'"
'"
o
o
'"
v
'0
U;
'%,
..
1<
o~+.
"'~
~
0",
"
~
ill
ESPERANZA RPUD
,C
~
en
::i
-
--
'"
o
o
'"
v
v
o
""
o
c
~
415 - C
(483 - C)
[499 - Cl
2007 PK HR/ PK DIRECTION TRAFFIC - LEVEL OF SERVICE
2012 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC - LEVEL OF SERVICE
2012 BACKGROUND + PROJECT TRAFFIC - LEVEL OF SERVICE
REVISED JANUARY 10, 2008
2007 & 2012
LEVEL OF SERVICE
:tern I'JO. i Ie.
June 10 28']8
C1~ __~ ~ ,r. A __.f' r,", A
NORTH
N.T.S.
J),
",,-
~
"",
"-9
FIGURE 38
Agenda Item hlo. 17e
June 10,2008
?age "165 of 224
CONCURRENCY REVIEW
It was concluded by the Report that all roadways within the project's area of impact will
operate at acceptable levels of serve for 2011 project build-out conditions. As such, this
project will be in conformance to the Collier County Government's Concurrency
Management System.
Figure 4 depicts the net new project trips on each concurrency segment within the
project's area of impact.
12
"
0
0
'"
c
0
I '"
~
0
~ (,)
I
I
f
I
20 (15)
I
I
I
I
'"
N
"
o
o
'"
"
-
o
Vl
56 (36)
,
'It.
~
Lake Trafford Rood %
0'1>
"I'
20 (15) 16
56 (36) 00-
Drive
I
"
74 (48)~-
LEGEND
00 = TWO-WAY NET NEW PROJECT TRAFFIC
(00) = PEAK DIRECTION NET NEW PROJECT TRAFfIC
ESPERANZA RPUD
March 8, 2008
;;
"
~
Vl
.c
0;
:Z
L:74 (48)
I!sn~ !~:) ~f'C ,
JU:-le 10. 2:JCJ8
'>36:')f ~24
NORTH
N.T$.
"
o
o
'"
"
"
i5
""
o
E
1';
"'~
0>,&
16
00'
""09
26 (17)
NET NEW PROJECT TRAFFIC
ON CONCURRENCY LINKS
FIGURE 4
,.\gsnc;a Item l\IJ. 17e
June 10 2008
167 of 224
APPENDIX
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES
HCS LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSES
METHODOLOGY MEETING REPORT
13
~(en-, [~o. '; 7C .
June 1 0 20i~13
Pa::Je -; 68.'Jf 224
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
Intersection: State Road 29 @ Immokalee Drive
Date of Count: 11/6/2007
I Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound I Total All
AM Period I b ! R b ! R b I R b ! R I Aoorch's
7:00 - 7:15 I 7 14 20 8 7 12 8 44 3 9 ' 99 6 237
7:15 - 7:30 I 10 20 35 9 13 18 15 77 4 15 120 8 344
7:30 - 7:45 I 6 30 46 12 21 20 18 79 1 17 145 9 404
7:45 - 8:00 I 7 37 34 8 17 8 12 83 7 26 t53 1 393
8:00 -8:15 I 7 22 23 9 18 14 14 81 10 22 113 8 341
8:15 -8:30 I 8 16 20 8 20 7 10 77 6 12 107 5 296
8:30 - 8:45 I 6 21 12 14 14 4 18 82 9 12 123 7 322
8:45 - 9:00 I 6 12 14 5 22 11 7 83 20 16 130 1 327
I
I Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
PM Period I b ! R 1: ! R b ! R b ! R
4:00 - 4:15 I 6 15 20 13 30 16 22 131 8 5 112 4 382
4:15-4:30 I 6 20 22 12 24 12 24 142 10 6 122 4 404
4:30 - 4:45 I 10 13 33 11 32 29 30 145 6 9 125 6 449
4:45 - 5:00 I 4 19 32 7 43 20 28 151 2 9 111 9 435
5:00 - 5:15 I 6 25 31 6 51 21 21 186 8 6 105 9 475
5:15 -5:30 I 8 31 38 8 36 16 32 131 2 8 101 8 419
5:30 - 5:45 I 8 32 30 9 34 14 39 162 5 8 128 8 477
5:45 - 6:00 I 6 25 33 12 32 18 31 137 6 6 110 9 425
HIGHEST PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES
I Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbound
Ib! Rib! Rib! Rib! R
AM Period I I I I
7:15 - 7:30 I 30 109 138 I 38 69 60 I 59 320 22 I 80 531 26
I I I I
~~I I I I
4:45 _ 5:45 I 26 107 131 I 30 164 71 I 120 630 17 I 31 445 34
SR29IMMOK- 1
l\;je-ncla :tem r'~o, '17C
June 10,2008
169 of 224
Intersection:
Date of Count:
State Road 29 @ Immokalee Drive
11/6/2007
2007 PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES
I Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbound
I 1. I R I 1. I R I 1. I R I 1. I R
AM Period I 30 109 138 I 38 69 60 I 69 320 22 I 80 531 26
I I I I
PM Period I 26 107 131 I 30 164 71 I 120 630 17 I 31 445 34
2007 PEAK SEASON PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENTS
SeasonalAdjusbnentFactor~ 1.05
I Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
I 1. I R 1. I R 1. I R 1. I R
AM Period I 32 114 145 40 n 63 62 338 23 84 558 27
I
PM Period I 27 112 138 32 172 75 126 662 18 33 467 36
2011 PEAK SEASON PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENTS
Annual Growth Rate = 3.8%
I Eastbound Westbound I Northbound Southbound
I 1. I R 1. I R . I 1. I R 1. I R
AM Period I 37 133 168 46 B4 73 I 72 390 27 98 647 32
I .1
PM Period I 32 130 160 37 200 87 I 146 768 21 38 542 41
PROJECT BUILD-OUT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
I Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbound
I 1. I R I 1. I R I 1. I R I 1. I R
AM Period I 36 12 48 I 0 3 0 I 13 0 0 I 0 0 10
I I I I
PM Period I 20 7 26 I 0 12 0 I 48 0 0 I 0 D 36
2011 PEAK SEASON PEAK HOUR "+" PROJECT TRAFFIC
I Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbound
I 1. I R I 1. I R I 1. I R I 1. I R
AM Period I 73 145 216 I 46 87 73 I 85 390 27 I 98 647 42
I I I I
PM Period I 52 137 186 I 37 212 87 I 194 768 21 I 38 542 77
SR29IMMOK- 2
Intersection: State Road 29 @ Immokalee Drive
~tem f~o. : 7C .
June 10 2D(l8
?;::-~J8 ~i 7D c;f 224
^ ^
669 1 I 536 1
1 1 I I I
1 431 1 1 763
V 1 V
27 558 B4 1 36 467 33
I 1 1 1 I I I
I I I I 1 1 I
<- V -> 1 <- V ->
^ ^ I ^ ^
162 32-1 1-63 175 I 334 27-1 I -75
<- <-I <- <-- 278
114-> 2007 AM PEAK HOUR <: -72 1 112-> 2007 PM PEAK HOUR < -172
-> -> 1 -> 163->
291 145-1 1-40 2261 277 138-1 I -32
V V I V V
<- ^ -> I <- ^ ->
1 I 1 I 1 I I
I 1 1 1 1 I I
62 336 27 I 126 662 18
^ 1 ^
742 1 I 636 I
I 1 1 I I
1 425 1 I 805
V V
---_._-----------------------------~------------------------~------------------
^
188 37-1
<-
133 ->
-->
338 168-1
V
^
776 1
1 1
1 500
V
32 647 98
I I I
1 1 I
<- v ->
^
I -73
2011 AM PEAK HOUR < - 54
BACKGROUND TRAFFIC
1 -46
V
<- ^ ->
I I I
I 1 1
72 390 27
^
862 1
1 1
1 489
V
1
1
I
1
1
1
I
1
1
204 1
<-I
1
-> 1
257 I
I
I
^
622 I
1 I
1 886
V
41 542 38
I 1
1 I
<- V --->
^
388 32-1
^
1 -87
<-
<- 323
2011 PM PEAK HOUR
BACKGROUND TRAFFIC
130->
<: -200
189 ->
->
322 160-1
V
I -37
V
<- ^ ->
1 I 1
I 1 1
146 768 21
^
739
I
1 935
V
SR29IMMOK- 3
f\asnda item r~o. ~i7C
- June 10. 2008
Page 171 of 224
Intersection: State Road 29 @ Immokalee Drive
^ ^
10 1 1 36 1
1 I I I 1
1 36 1 I 20
V I V
10 0 0 1 36 0 0
I I 1 I I
1 1 1 1 I
<- v -> 1 <- v ->
^ ^ 1 ^ ^
26 36-1 1-0 3 1 96 20-1 I -0
<-- <-I <- <-12
12-> PROJECT BIO TRAFFIC < --3 1 7-> PROJECT BIO TRAFFIC < -12
-> AM PEAK HOUR -> I -> PM PEAK HOUR 7->
96 48-1 1 --0 121 53 26-1 1 -0
v v 1 v v
<- ^ -> 1 <- ^ ->
I I 1 I 1 I 1
1 1 1 I 1 I 1
13 0 0 1 48 0 0
^ I ^
48 1 1 26 1
I I 1 1 1
1 13 1 I 48
V V
----~~-~----~~-~---~-~-------~---------~-------~----~-----~------~--~----------~~-
^
214 73-1
<-
145->
->
434 216-1
V
^
786 I
I 1
1 536
V
42 647 98
1 1 1
I 1 1
<- v ->
^
1 -73
^
658 I
1 I
1 906
V
77 542 38
1 1 1
1 I 1
<- v ->
2011 AM PEAK HOUR < -87
BACKGROUND TRAFFIC
"+" PROJECT TRAFFIC I - 46
V
^ ^
207 484 52-1 1 -87
<- <- <~- 335
137-> 2011 PM PEAK HOUR < -212
-> -> BACKGROUND TRAFFIC 196->
269 375 186-1 "+" PROJECT TRAFFIC 1 -37
V V
<- ^ ->
I I 1
1 I 1
85 390 27
^
910
1 1
1 502
V
SR29IMMOK- 4
^ ~_._-t.
:~:-;n; >Jo, -: 7C
.J:YE! 10 2003
i72 of 224
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
Intersection: State Road 29 @ Lake Trafford Road
Date of Count: 3/5/2008
I Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound I T olal All
AM Period I 1, I R 1, I R 1, I R 1, I R I AODrch's
7:00 - 7:15 I 24 36 52 2 25 4 34 44 6 18 88 14 I 347
7:15 - 7:30 I 29 49 72 3 32 5 46 31 6 21 98 16 I 408
7:30 - 7:45 I 27 49 64 2 28 4 50 40 2 16 80 23 I 385
7:45 - 8:00 I 20 37 59 2 23 5 43 47 4 3 72 22 I 337
8:00 -8:15 I 21 34 56 0 27 2 37 52 4 22 76 18 I 349
8:15 -6:30 I 15 26 50 1 14 3 36 68 4 2 60 17 I 296
8:30 - 8:45 I 16 15 42 1 15 3 36 53 2 5 60 17 I 265
6:45 - 9:00 I 18 27 31 0 16 2 23 40 1 3 50 12 I 223
I I
I Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
PM Period I 1, I R 1, I R 1, I R 1, I R
4:00 - 4:15 I 6 15 20 13 30 16 22 131 8 5 112 4 362
4:15 - 4:30 I 20 29 36 6 44 4 65 95 7 6 83 22 417
4:30 - 4:45 I 19 33 53 9 44 13 77 99 9 9 93 19 477
4:45 - 5:00 I 21 31 49 0 56 11 64 106 10 8 79 26 465
5:00 - 5:15 I 22 26 57 2 65 1 75 110 6 10 72 33 501
5:15 -5:30 I 32 31 42 3 56 5 76 94 9 10 70 18 446
5:30 - 5:45 I 17 25 55 1 57 1 115 100 8 5 96 22 502
5:45 - 6:00 I 23 31 58 5 65 7 114 121 13 9 61 30 537
HIGHEST PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES
I Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbound
I!" I Rlk I Rlk I Elk I R
AM Period I I I I
7:15 - 6:15 I 97 169 251 I 7 110 16 I 176 170 16 I 62 326 79
I I I I
~~odl I I I
5:00-6:00 I 94 115 212 I 11 263 14 I 380 425 36 I 34 299 103
SR29L TR-
,'~\gBnda item ~Jo. ~i 7C
June 10, 2008
Page 173 of 224
Intersection: Stata Road 29 @ Lake Trafford Road
Date of Count: 3/5/2008
2008 PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES
1 Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbound
1 b I B I b I B I b I B I b I B
AM Period 1 97 169 251 I 7 110 16 1 176 170 16 I 62 326 79
I I I I
PM Period I 94 115 212 1 11 263 14 I 380 425 36 I 34 299 103
2008 PEAK SEASON PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENTS
Seasonal AdjusbnentFactor= 1
I Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
1 b I B b I B 1: I B 1: I B
AM Period I 97 169 251 7 110 16 176 170 16 62 326 79
I
PM Period I 94 115 212 11 263 14 380 425 36 34 299 103
2011 PEAK SEASON PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENTS
Annual Growth Rate = 3.8%
I Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
1 b I B 1: I R b I B 1: I B
AM Period I 108 189 281 8 123 18 197 t90 18 69 365 88
I
PM Period I 105 129 237 12 294 16 425 475 40 38 334 115
PROJECT BUILD-OUT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
I Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbound
I b I B 1 1: I B I 1: I R I 1: I R
AM Period I 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 I 0 36 0 I 0 10 0
I I I I
PM Period I 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 I 0 20 0 I 0 36 0
2011 PEAK SEASON PEAK HOUR "+" PROJECT TRAFFIC
I Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbound
I 1: I R 1 1: I R I b I B I 1: I B
AM Period I 108 189 281 I 8 123 t8 I 197 226 18 I 69 375 88
I I I I
PM Period I 105 129 237 I 12 294 16 I 425 495 40 I 38 370 115
SR29LTR- 2
....".~...~_.--,...----'-~... .--.-
_j~;~~; ~~)o.26~~;'~ '
17401224
Intersection: State Road 29 @ Lake Trafford Road
^ ^
467 1 1 436 I
1 1 1 1 1
I 283 1 1 533
V I V
79 326 62 1 103 299 34
I I 1 I I I 1
1 1 I 1 I I I
<- v -> 1 <- v -->
^ ^ 1 ^ ^
365 97-1 1 -16 133 I 746 94-1 1 -14
<- <-I <- <- 288
169 -> 200B AM PEAK HOUR < -110 1 115-> 2008 PM PEAK HOUR < - 263
-> -> 1 -> 185->
517 251-1 1 -7 2491 421 212-1 1 -11
V V I v v
<- ^ -> I <- ^ ->
1 I I I 1 1 I
1 1 1 I 1 1 1
176 170 18 I 380 425 36
^ 1 ^
584 1 1 522 I
I 1 1 1 1
1 364 1 1 841
V V
-------~------------------------~-----~~----------~--------
^ ^
522 1 I 488 1
1 1 1 I 1
1 317 1 I 596
V 1 V
88 365 69 1 115 334 38
1 I I 1 1 I
1 1 1 I I I
<- v --> I <- v ->
^ ^ I ^ ^
408 106-1 I -18 149 I 834 105-1 1 -16
<- <-I <-- <- 322
189-> 2011 AM PEAK HOUR < -123 I 129-> 2011 PM PEAK HOUR < -294
-> BACKGROUND TRAFFIC -> I -> BACKGROUND TRAFFIC 207 ->
678 281-1 I -8 276 I 471 237-1 I --12
V V I v v
<- ^ -> I <- ^ ->
I 1 1 1 1 1 I
I I 1 I I 1 I
197 190 18 I 425 475 40
^ I ^
653 I I 584 1
I 1 1 I 1
1 405 I 1 941
\! V
SR29L TR- 3
Intersection: State Road 29 @ Lake Trafford Road
^
10 1
I I
I 36
V
0 10 0
1 I I
1 I 1
<- v ->
^ ^
0 0-1 1-0
<-
0-> PROJECT 8/0 TRAFFIC < -0
-> AM PEAK HOUR
0 0-1 1 -0
v v
<- ^ ->
I I I
1 I I
0 36 0
^
10 1
1 1
1 36
V
I
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
o I 0
<-I <-
1 0 - > PROJECT BIO TRAFFIC
-> I -> PM PEAK HOUR
01
1
I
1
1
I
I
I
1
I
/-\g-::;nda item No. 17C
June 10, 2008
Pa;]e 175 of 224
^'
36 1
I I
I 20
V
0 36 0
1 r 1
1 1 I
<- v ->
^ ^
0-1 I -0
<:----0
< -0
0->
0 0-1 1 -0
v v
<- ^ ->
I I 1
1 I 1
0 20 0
^
36 1
I I
I 20
V
^ ^
532 I I 524 1
1 1 1 I I
I 353 1 I 616
V 1 V
88 375 69 1 115 370 38
I I 1 1 1 1 1
I I I 1 1 1 I
<- v -> 1 <-- v -->
^ ^ I ^ ^
408 108-1 1 -18 149 I 834 105-1 1 -15
<- <-I <- <- 322
189 -> 2011 AM PEAK HOUR < -123 1 129-> 2011 PM PEAK HOUR < -294
-> BACKGROUND TRAFFIC -> I -> BACKGROUND TRAFFIC 207 ->
578 261-1 "+" PROJECT TRAFFIC 1-8 2761 471 237-1 "+" PROJECT TRAFFIC 1 -12
V V 1 v v
<- ^ -> 1 <- ^ ->
I I I 1 1 I I
1 1 I 1 1 1 I
197 226 18 1 425 495 40
^ I ^
663 1 I 620 I
I 1 I I I
I 441 I I 961
V V
SR29L TR- 4
"--..,....-.--'.-.
!i;:;,,-n ~In ~7r
i""'!:f": "lIf" ~ ,
.)U:-I_, 'I ,,,-tlD8
Pa,;]e ~176 Df 224
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information , Site Information
Analvst MB Intersection lEas/ Site Access @
Aoencv/Co, Immokalee D
urisdiction
Date Performed 316/2008 nalvsis Year 2011 Prolec/BIO
Analvs;s Time Period qM PEAK HOUR
Proiect Descrintion
EastlWest Street Immokalee Drive INorth/South Street East Site Access
Intersection Orientation: East-West !Studv Period (hrs); 1,00
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Maior Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume (vehlh\ 2 149 62 13
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.96 0,96 0,96 0,96 0,96 0,96
Hour';tlow Rate, HFR 2 155 0 0 64 13
veh/h
Percent Heaw Vehicies 2 -- - 0 - -
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration LT TR
UDstream Sianal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
tvolume (vehlh\ 47 5
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0,96 0,96 0,96 0,96 0.96 0,96
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 48 0 5
veh/h)
Percent Heaw Vehicles 0 0 0 2 0 2
Percent Grade (%) 0 . 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0
Confiauration LR
Delav, Queue Lenalh, and Level of Service
Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT LR
" (veh/h) 2 53
C (m) (veh/h) 1496 743
vie 0.00 007
95% queue length 0,00 0.23
Control Delay (s/veh) 7A 10,2
LOS A B
~pproach Delay (s!veh) -- -- 10.2
Approach LOS - -- B
Copyright@2005 University of Florida, AI! Rights Reserved
HCS+1M Version 5,21
Generated: 3/8/2008 8:33 AM
1+-1
t, ~""nja 't~ITl t\iO 17('
r'8\::" ; '1 'a5'" 1 Vl-l
June -10,2008
Page 177 Df 224
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information ite Information
. !Analyst LIMB Intersection East Site Access @
IlAcencv/Co. Immokalee D
urisdiction
Date Performed 3/6/2008 Analvsis Year 2011 Proiect B/O
IAnalvsis Time Period !PM PEAK HOUR
Proiect Description
EastlWest Street Immokalee Drive INorth/South Street: East Site Access
Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudv Period Ihrs\: 1.00
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Maior Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume (yeh/hl 5 118 159 48
Peak-Hour Factor. PHF 0,96 0,96 0,96 0,96 0,96 0,96
Hourty Flow Rate, HFR I 5 122 0 0 165 50
(vehlli\ .
Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 - - 0 - -
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration LT TR
~stream Sicnal 0 0
inor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume (veh/h) 27 3
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0,96 0.96 0,96 0,96 0,96 0.96
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 28 0 3
vehlli \
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 2 0 2
Percent Grade ("!o) 0 0 .
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0
Configuration LR
Delav. Queue LenQth, and Level of Service
Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 to 11 12
Lane Configuration LT LR
r.. (veh/h) 5 31
~ (m) (vehih) 1333 655
Ie 0,00 0,05
95% queue length 0,01 0,15
Control Delay (s/veh) 7,7 10,8
LOS A B
,pproach Delay (siveh) -- -- 10,8
pproach LOS -- - B
Copyright e 2005 University of Flonda, All Rights Reserved
HCS+™ Version 5.21
Generated: 318/2008 8:31 AM
It- l-
.r:l".lfl'.\T"\,,,.......................4.... n.....~ C'.....+-i.:....-.-....\U'U r\~n......""'...\l "'....",,) <:''''+1-:......0'"<...\',''''.............\..'')1"..7.:;;1:;' +.,..,......
1fQ/'lOf\Q
-:::: !tc>...~ /.in ~ 71'
,~" r 0'"" :t'Vl f
June- 1U, .:::t)(J8
'[ 78 of 224
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information lSite Information
Analvst liMB Intersection West Site Access @
Aaencv/Co. Immoka/ee 0
urisdiction
Date Performed 3/6/2008 nalvsis Year 2011 Proiect B/O
Analvsis Time Period lAM PEAK HOUR
Proiect Description
EastlWest Street Immokalee Drive INorth/South Street: West Site Access
Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudv Period (hrs); 1,00
Vehicle Volumes and Adiustments
Maior Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume (veh/h) 2 87 47 16
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0,96 0,96 0,96 0,96 0,96 0.96
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 2 90 0 0 48 16
(veh/h\
Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 - - 0 - -
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
onfiguration LT TR
Uostream Sianal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume (veh/h) 65 7
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0,96 0,96 0,96 0.96 096 0,96
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 67 0 7
(veh/h)
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 2 0 2
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0
Confiauration LR
Delav, Queue LenQth, and Level of Service
Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
ane Configuration LT LR
v (veh/h) 2 74
C (m) (vehlh) 1513 818
:VIe 0,00 0,09
95% queue length 000 0.30
Control Delay (slveh) 7.4 9,8
LOS A A
Approach Delay (slveh) -- -- 9,8
Approach LOS -- -- A
"~-,~~-~--~~--..-....
Copyright@2005 Universily of Florida, All Right.. Reserved
HCS-t TM Version 5.21
Generated: 316/2008 9:11 AM
rl..I!",-.'.T"">._
._-1" ........____ITTT\ 1"'\___ __..IT ___1 C'_.L.L~__~__\'T'__ .\_J~l""""""'^'
,L,;}snda itnm N~. 17r.t
,J~@!lRJ 2~5
Page 179 of 224
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Information
,^,nalvst MB ntersectio~ West Site Access @ .
,^,cencvICo. Immokalee D
Date Performed 1//6/2007 urisdiction
~nalvsis Time Period PM PEAK HOUR nalysis Year 2011 Project B/O
Project Descriotion
EastlWest Street: ImmokaJee Drive INorthlSouth Street West Site Access ..
Intersection Onentation: East-West IStudy Period Ihrs\: 1.00
!Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
!Major Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5. 6
L T R L T R
Volume (vehlh) 7 86 97 64
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0,96 0,96 0.96 0,96 0,96 0,96
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 7 89 0 0 101 66
vehlh)
Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- 0 - -
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration LT TR
Upstream Sional 0 0
~inor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
olume (vehlh) 34 4
Peak-Hour Factor. PHF 0,96 0.96 0,96 0,96 0,96 0,96
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 35 0 4
veh/h)
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 2 0 2
Percent Grade (%) 0 . 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 . 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0
ConfiQuration LR
Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT LR
(veh/h) 7 39
C (m) (vehlh) 1387 730
Ie 0,01 0,05
95% queue length 0,02 0,17
Control Delay (slveh) 7.6 10,2
LOS A B
","pproach Delay (slveh) -- - 102
!Approach LOS - - B
,
Copyright@2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
HCS+™ Verslon 5.21
Generated: 3/8/2006 8:24 AM
H- t
filp../lr.\f)....."n......a.rot-... "......--1 C'''''.f+~........,.,,\l.ln (\......__IT ___1 ('1_-,-,-~__ _ \"1"'
......1 ,., ~ T"" ,
'-'HUll J\...t::}Jun
~:ern No. I f'C
P"~ HI ')fco9
~ " li"'e 1 0":"
--,.-._~,:;;, 5>-1(, '-" ""4
' O:J~ I':.JV'. .:.....:....
SHORT REPORT
Generallnform.tion Site Infonn.tion
Analyst JMB Interseclion Immokalee Drive @ S.R. 29
Agency or Co, Area Type caD or Similar
Date Performed 3/112008 Jurisdiction
Time Period AM PEAK HOUR Analysis Year 2007 Traffic Conditions
Volume .nd TiminQ Input
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Number of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
Lane Group L TR L TR L TR L TR
Volume (vph) 32 114 145 40 72 63 62 336 27 84 558 27
% Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
PHF 0,96 0,96 0,96 0.96 0,96 0,96 0,96 0,96 0,96 0,96 0,96 0.96
Prelimed/Actuated (PIA) A A A A A A A A A A A A
Startup Lost Time 2.0 2,0 2.0 2.0 2,0 2,0 2,0 2,0
Extension of Effective Green 2,0 2.0 2,0 2,0 2,0 2.0 2,0 2,0
Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Unit Extension 3,0 3.0 3,0 3,0 3.0 3,0 3,0 3,0
PedlBike/RTOR Volume 5 5 25 5 5 8 5 5 3 5 5 4
Lane Width 12,0 12,0 12,0 12,0 12.0 12,0 12.0 12.0
Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N
Parking/Hour
Bus Stops/Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Minimum Pedestrian Time 3,2 3,2 3,2 3.2
Phasino EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08
Timing G - 20,0 G - 0,0 G = 0.0 G = 0,0 G = 40.0 G= 0,0 G = 0,0 G= 0,0
Y= 6 Y = 0 Y = 0 Y = 0 Y= 6 Y - 0 Y= 0 Y= 0
Duration of Analvsis (hrs) = 0,25 Cvcle Lenoth C = 72,0
Lane Groue CaDacitv. Control Delav, and LOS Determination
EB WB NB S8
Adjusted Flow Rate 33 244 42 132 65 375 88 605
Lane Group Capacity 311 422 251 429 302 921 470 925
v/c Ratio 0.11 p.58 0.17 0.31 0,22 0.41 0.19 0,65
Green Ratio 0.28 0.28 0.28 0,28 0,56 0,56 0,56 0,56
Uniform Delay d 1 19,3 22.4 19.7 20,5 8,1 9.2 7.9 11.2
Delay Factor k 0,11 0,17 0,11 0,11 0,11 0,11 0,11 0,23
Incremental Delay d, 0,2 2.0 0,3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0,2 1.7
PF Factor 1.000 1,000 1,000 1.000 /,000 1,000 1,000 1.000
Control Delay 19.5 24,3 20,0 20.9 8.4 9,5 8.1 12,8
Lane Group LOS B C C C A A A B
Approach Delay 23,8 20,7 9.3 12.2
Approach LOS C C A B
Intersection Delay 14.4 Intersection LOS B
-, . A______,.._.
Copyright@2oo5Universfiyof Florida, AJI Rights Reserved
HCS+™ Version 5_21
Generated: 3/812008 8:19 AM
H -- 5lt
oaCK -o!-\,,,ueue W OrKSneet
t:.,genda Item r~o. 17C
JBltge d. ofJd.8
Page 121 of 224
BACK-OF-QUEUE WORKSHEET
Generallnfbrmation
Project Description
Average Back of Queue
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Lane Group L TR L TR L TR L TR
Initial Queue/Lane 0,0 0,0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0
Flow Rate/Lane Group 33 244 42 132 65 375 88 605
Satflow/Lane 1119 1520 903 1544 543 1657 846 1665
Capacity/Lane Group 311 422 251 429 302 921 470 925
Flow Ratio 0,0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0,1 0.4
v/c Ratio 0,11 0,58 0.17 0,31 0.22 0.41 0,19 0,65
I Factor 1.000 1,000 1.000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1.000 1.000
Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Platoon Ratio 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00
PF Factor 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 roo 1.00 1,00 1.00
Q1 0,5 42 0,6 2,1 0,7 4,3 0,9 8.4
kB 0,3 0.4 0,3 0.4 0,3 0,6 0.4 0,6
Q2 0,0 0,5 0.1 0.2 0,1 0.4 0,1 1,1
Q Average 0.5 4,7 01 2.2 01 41 1.0 9,5
Percentile Back of Queue (95th percentile)
fa% 2,1 2,0 2,1 2,0 2.1 2,0 2,1 1.9
Back of Queue 1.1 9.2 1.4 4.6 1,5 9,2 2,0 17.6
Queue Storage Ratio
Queue Spacing 25,0 ~50 '5.0 25.0 25,0 25,0 25,0 25,0
Queue Storage 195 1320 150 1320 250 1320 225 1320
Average Queue Storage 0,1 0,1 0.1 0.0 0,1 0,1 0.1 0,2
Ratio
95% Queue Storage Ratio 0,1 0,2 0,2 0,1 0,2 0,2 0,2 0,3
Copyright @ 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
HCS+Tt.A Version 5,21
Generated: 3/8/2008 8:17 AM
ft - .s-'7
"'Hun .r...t:pon
.t8m No. Ile .
.J>age'!} OfJjJ8
Page 182 of :24
SHORT REPORT
Generallnfonnation Site Infonnation
Analyst JMB Intersection Immokalee Drive @ S.R. 29
Agency or Co. Area Type CBD or Similar
Date Performed 3/1/2008 Jurisdiction
Time Period PM PEAK HOUR Analysis Year 2007 Traffic Conditions
Volume and Timinlllnput
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Number of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
Lane Group L TR L TR L TR L TR
Volume (vph) 27 112 138 32 172 75 125 552 18 33 457 36
% Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
PHF 0,95 0,96 0,95 0.96 0.96 0,96 0,96 0.96 0,96 0,96 0,96 0,96
Pretimed/Actuated (P/A) A A A A A A A A A A A A
Startup Lost Time 2,0 2,0 2,0 2,0 2,0 2,0 2,0 2,0
Extension of Effective Green 2,0 2,0 2,0 2,0 2,0 2,0 2,0 2,0
Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Unit Extension 3,0 3,0 3,0 3.0 3,0 3,0 3,0 3.0
Ped/Bike/RTOR Voiume 0 0 19 0 0 8 0 0 3 0 0 8
Lane Width 12.0 12,0 12.0 12,0 12,0 12,0 12,0 12.0
Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N
Parking/Hour
Bus Stops/Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Minimum Pedestrian Time 3,2 3,2 3,2 32
Phasinq EW Perm 02 03 04 N5 Perm 06 07 08
Timing G = 20.0 G= 0.0 G = 0,0 G - 0,0 G = 40,0 G = 0,0 G= 0,0 G - 0,0
Y = 6 Y= 0 Y = 0 y= 0 Y - 6 Y = 0 Y - 0 Y - 0
Duration of Analvsis (hrs) = 0,25 Cvcle Lenqth C - 72,0
Lane Group Capacity. Control Delav, and LOS Determination
EB WB NB 5B
Adjusted Flow Rate 28 241 33 249 131 706 34 515
Lane Group Capacity 249 430 255 446 366 926 234 923
v/c Ratio 0,11 0,56 0,13 0,56 0,36 0,76 0,15 0,56
Green Ratio 0,28 0,28 0.28 0,28 0,56 0,56 0,56 0.55
Unifonn Delay ct, 19.4 22.2 19,5 22,2 8,9 12,3 7.7 10,3
Deiay Factor k 0,11 0,16 0,11 0,16 0.11 0,31 0.11 0,16
Incremental Delay d2 0,2 1,7 02 1.6 0,6 3.7 0,3 0,8
PF Factor j,Q00 1,000 1.000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
Control Delay 19,6 23,9 19.7 23,8 9,5 16,1 8,0 11,1
Lane Group t.os B C B C A B A B
Approach Delay 23,5 23,3 15,0 10.9
Approach LOS C C B B
Intersection Delay 16,2 Intersection LOS B
Copyright e 2005 University of Florida, AU Rights Reserved
HCS+™ Version 5.21
Generated: 3/8/2006 8:16 AM
/1- b
l:lack-01Cl.,,1ueue Worksheet
Agenda item hJo. 17C
~ .!f>atse,Q ~Q8
c'age ,83 of L24
BACK-OF-QUEUE WORKSHEET
Generallnfo'rmation
Project Description
AveraCle Back of Queue
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Lane Group L TR L TR L TR L TR
Initial Queue/Lane 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0.0 0,0 0,0
Flow Rate/Lane Group 28 241 33 249 131 706 34 515
Satflow/Lane 895 1547 917 1606 658 1671 421 1662
Capacity/Lane Group 249 430 255 446 366 928 234 923
Flow Ratio 0,0 0.2 0.0 0,2 0,2 0.4 0.1 0,3
v/c Ratio 0.11 0,56 0.13 0,56 0.36 0,76 0,15 0,56
I Factor 1.000 1,000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1,000 1.000 1.000
Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Platoon Ratio 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00
PF Factor 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00
Q1 0.4 4.1 0,5 4,3 1,5 10,9 0,3 6,6
kB 0,3 0.4 0,3 0.4 0,3 0,6 0.3 0,6
Q2 0,0 0,5 0,0 0,5 0.2 1.7 0.0 0.7
Q Average 0.5 4,6 0.5 4,7 1.6 12,6 0.4 7.4
Percentile Back of Queue (95th percentile)
m% 2,1 2.0 2,1 2,0 2.0 1,8 2,1 1.9
Back of Queue 0.9 9,0 1,1 9,3 3.4 22,6 0,8 14.0
Queue Storage Ratio
Queue Spacing 25.0 25.0 25,0 25.0 25,0 25.0 25.0 25,0
Queue Storage 195 1320 150 1320 250 1320 225 1320
Average Queue Storage 0,1 0,1 0,1 0.1 0,2 0.2 0.0 0,1
Ratio
95% Queua Storage Ratio 0.1 0,2 0.2 0.2 0,3 0.4 0.1 0.3
Copyright 0 2005 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved
HCS+™ Version 5,21
- .-." ..----r-~---
Generated: 3/8/2008 8:16 AM
)f-7
~hort Report
i!err ~'Jo, 'j 7e .
c Pag~ 100it~08
r "J6'"!04 ot ~24
SHORT REPORT
General Infonnation Site Infonnation
Anaiyst JMB Intersection Immoka/ee Drive @ SR 29
Agency or Co. Area Type CaD or Similar
Date Performed 318/2008 Jurisdiction
Time Period AM PEAK HOUR Analysis Year 2011 WIO Project Traffic
Volume and Timinq Input
E8 W8 N8 S8
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Number of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
Lane Group L TR L TR L TR L TR
Volume (vph) 37 133 168 46 84 73 72 390 27 98 647 32
% Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
PHF 0.96 0,96 0.96 0,96 0,96 0,96 0,96 0.96 0,96 0,96 0,96 0,96
Pretimed/Actuated (P/A) A A A A A A A A A A A A
Startup Lost Time 2.0 2,0 2,0 2,0 2,0 2.0 2,0 2.0
Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2,0 2,0 2,0 2,0 2.0 2,0 2,0
Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Unit Extension 3,0 3,0 3,0 3,0 3.0 3,0 3,0 3,0
Ped/8ike/RTOR Volume 5 5 35 5 5 20 5 5 6 5 5 10
Lane Width 12,0 12.0 12,0 12.0 12,0 12,0 12.0 12,0 "
Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N
ParkinglHour
Bus Stops/Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Minimum Pedestrian Time 3,2 3.2 3.2 3,2
Phasino EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08
Timing G - 20,0 G = 0,0 G - 0.0 G= G 40,0 G = 0,0 G= 0,0 G=
Y= 6 Y 0 Y = 0 y= y = 6 Y = 0 Y= 0 Y=
Duration of Analvsis fhrs) - 0,25 Cvcle Lenoth C 72,0
Lane Grouo Caoacitv. Control Delav, and LOS Determination
E8 WB NB SB
Adjusted Flow Rate 39 278 48 143 75 428 102 697
Lane Group Capacity 308 423 225 433 240 923 429 926
v/c Ratio 0,13 0,66 0.21 0,33 0,31 0.16 0,24 0.75
Green Ratio 0.28 0.28 0,28 0.28 0.56 0.56 0,56 0,56
Uniform Delay ct, 19.5 23,0 20,0 20.7 8.6 9,6 8.2 J2,2
Delay Factor k 0.11 0.23 0.11 0,11 0.11 0,11 0,11 0,31
Incremental Delay ct2 0,2 3.7 0,5 0.5 0.7 0.4 0,3 3.5
PF Factor 1,000 1000 1.000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1.000 1.000
Control Delay 19.6 26.7 20.4 21,1 9.4 9,9 8,5 15,7
Lane Group LOS B C C C A A A a
Approach Delay 25.8 21,0 9.9 14,8
Approach LOS C C A B
Intersection Delay 160 Intersection LOS a
Copyright ~ 2005 University of Ftoric1a. All Rights Reserved
HCS+™ Version 5.21
Generated: 3/B/2008 8:13 AM
1-1- gA
tlaCk-oH.lueue Worksheet
,l\g~~nja item No. 17C
Jpc<fg~ il 0f~8
?age i t5 o? 2,,4
BACK-OF-QUEUE WORKSHEET
General Information "
Project Description
Average Back of Queue
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Lane Group L TR L TR L TR L TR
Initial Queue/Lane 0,0 0,0 0,0 0.,0. 0..0 0,0. 0,0 0,0
Flow Rate/Lane Group 39 278 48 143 75 428 10.2 697
Satflow/Lane 110.8 1523 810 1558 432 1661 773 1667
Capacity/Lane Group 308 423 225 433 240. 923 429 926
Flow Ratio 0,0. 0.,2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.,3 0.,1 0..4
v/c Ratio 0..13 0,66 0,21 0.33 0.31 0..46 0..24 0.,75
I Factor 1,0.0.0. 1,0.0.0 1.0.0.0 1.00.0. 1.000. 1,000. 1.000. 1.0.0.0
Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Platoon Ratio 1.0.0 1.0.0 1.00 1.00. 1,00 1,0.0. 1,00 1.0.0.
PF Factor 1,00 1,00 1.0.0. 1.00. 1.0.0 1.0.0 1.0.0. 1.0.0
Q1 0..6 4,9 0.7 2,3 0..8 5,1 1.0. 10,6
ks 0,3 0.4 0.,2 0.4 0.,3 0.,6 0..4 . 0.6
Q2 0,0 0..7 0.,1 0.,2 0..1 0.5 0,1 1.7
Q Average 0.6 5,6 0.8 2,5 0.9 5,6 1,2 12,3
Percentile Back of Queue (95th percentile)
mOl, 2.1 1.9 2.1 2.0. 2.1 19 2,1 1,8
Back of Queue 1,3 10.,8 1,7 5,0 1,9 10.,9 2.4 22,2
Queue Storage Ratio
Queue Spacing 25,0 25,0. 25,0 25,0 25,0 25,0. 25,0 25.0.
Queue Storage 195 1320 150. 1320. 250 1320. 225 1320.
Average Queue Storage 0.,1 0..1 0..1 0.,0 0.,1 0.,1 0,1 0.,2
Ratio
95% Queue Storage Ratio 0.,2 0.,2 0.,3 0.,1 0,2 0.2 0.,3 0.4
Copyright (Q 2005 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved
HC$+ ™ Version 5.21
Generated: 31812008 8:13 AM
H-g3
:tern I'h. 'i7e
Mort Keport
., P:!lf5e, 1pof~98
~ 0';]8 1 db of ,,"~'4
SHORT REPORT
Generallnfonnation Site Infonnation
Analyst JMB Intersection Immokafee Drive @ SR. 29
Agency or Co, Area Type CaD or Similar
Date Performed 3/6/2008 Jurisdiction
Time Period PM PEAK HOUR Analysis Year 2011 W/O Project Traffic
Volume and Timina Inout
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Number of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
Lane Group L TR L TR L TR L TR
Volume (vph) 32 130 160 37 200 87 146 768 21 38 542 41
% Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
PHF 0,96 0,96 0,96 0,96 0,96 0.96 0,96 0.96 0.96 0,96 0,96 0,96
Pretimed/Actuated (P/A) A A A A A A A A A A A A
Startup Lost Time 2,0 2.0 2,0 2,0 2.0 2,0 2,0 2,0
Extension of Effective Green 2,0 2,0 2.0 2,0 2,0 2,0 2,0 2.0
Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3,0 3.0 3.0 3,0 3,0 3,0
PedIBike/RTOR Volume 5 5 35 5 5 20 5 5 6 5 5 10
Lane Width 12,0 12.0 12.0 12,0 12.0 12,0 12.0 12,0
Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N
Parking/Hour
Bus Slops/Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Minimum Pedestrian Time 3.2 3,2 3.2 3.2
Phasina EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08
Timing G - 20.0 G. 0,0 G = 0,0 G = 0.0 G - 40,0 G - 0,0 G = 0,0 G = 0,0
Y = 6 Y = 0 Y= 0 Y = 0 Y = 6 Y - 0 y = 0 y= 0
Duration of Anaivs;s (hrs) = 0.25 Cvele Lenath C = 72,0
Lane Group Capacity, Control Delav, and LOS Determination
EB . WB NB SB
Adjusted Flow Rate 33 265 39 278 152 816 40 597
Lane Group Capacity 225 424 235 444 307 928 162 923
v/c Ratio 0,15 0,63 0,17 0.63 0,50 0,88 0,25 0,65
Green Ratio 0.28 0.28 0,28 0.28 0.56 0,56 0,56 0,56
Uniform Delay d, 19,6 22,7 19,7 22,7 9.8 13.9 8.2 11,1
Deiay Factor k 0,11 0.21 0,11 0,21 0,11 0.41 0,11 0,22
Incremental Delay d2 0,3 2,9 0,3 2.8 1.3 9.7 0,8 1,6
PF Factor 1,000 1.000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1.000 1,000 1,000
Control Delay 19.9 256 20.0 25,5 11,1 23,6 9.0 12.7
Lane Group LOS a c C C a C A a
Approach Delay 25,0 24,8 21,7 12,5
Approach LOS C C C B
Intersection Delay 19,9 Intersection LOS B
_~__.._.___'.'..""_.'C~___'~__" __'. ------
Copyright@2005 University or Florida, NI Rights Reserved
HGS+™ Version 5.21
Generated: 318/2008 8: 11 AM
ff-qA
tlaCK-OI-\"Iueue WorKsheet
f\gsnda Item No. 17C
JcI"m!:eCI afc!.3
Page te7 of 224
BACK-OF-QUEUE WORKSHEET
General Information
Project Description
Averaae Back of Queue
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Lane Group L TR L TR L TR L TR
Initial Queue/Lane 0,0 0,0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0,0 0,0 0,0
Flow Rate/Lane Group 33 265 39 278 152 816 40 597
Satflow/Lane 810 1526 845 1599 553 1671 292 1661
Capacity/Lane Group 225 424 235 444 307 928 162 923
Flow Ratio 0.0 0.2 0,0 0,2 0.3 0.5 0,1 0.4
v/c Ratio 0,15 0,63 0.17 0,63 0,50 0.88 0.25 0,65
I Factor 1.000 1.000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1.000 1.000
Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 100 1,00 100 1.00 1,00 1.00
PF Factor 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Q1 0.5 4.6 0,6 4,9 1.9 14.2 0.4 8.3
kB 0,2 0.4 0,3 0.4 0,3 0,6 0.2 0,6
Q2 0,0 0,6 0.1 0,6 0,3 3.4 0.1 1.0
Q Average 0,5 5,2 0,6 5.5 2,2 17,6 0.5 9,3
Percentile Back of Queue (95th percentile)
fB%1 2,1 1,9 2,1 1,9 2,0 1.7 2,1 1,9
Back of Queue 1.1 10.2 1,3 10,6 4.4 30,3 1,0 17,3
Queue Storage Ratio
Queue Spacing 25.0 25,0 25,0 25,0 25.0 25,0 25,0 25,0
Queue Storage 195 1320 150 1320 250 1320 225 1320
Average Queue Storage 0.1 0.1 0,1 0,1 0.2 0,3 0,1 0,2
Ratio
95% Queue Storage Ratio 0,1 0,2 0,2 0.2 0.4 0,6 0,1 0,3
Copyright ~ 2005 University of Florida, All Rights ReselVed
HCS+™ Version 5.21
Generated: 3/8f2008 8:10AM
)i - q l~
::ihort Keport
:3 !terc r~C). 'i 7e ,
l''''~e lGot'Cl03
?age 188 of 224
SHORT REPORT
Generallnfoonalion Site Infoonation
Analyst JMB Intersection Immokalee Drive @ S.R. 29
Agency or Co. Area Type CaD or Similar
Date Performed 3/612008 Jurisdiction
Time Period AM PEAK HOUR Analysis Year 2011 Project Build-Out
Volume and Timina Inout
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Number of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
Lane Group L TR L TR L TR L TR
Volume (vph) 73 145 216 46 87 73 85 390 27 98 647 42
% Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
PHF 0,96 0,96 0,96 096 0,96 0.96 0,96 0,96 0,96 0,96 0.96 0,96
Pretimed/Actuated (P/A) A A A A A A A A A A A A
Startup Lost Time 2,0 2.0 2.0 2,0 2,0 2,0 2,0 2.0
Extension of Effective Green 2,0 2,0 2,0 2.0 2,0 2,0 2,0 2,0
Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Unit Extension 3,0 3,0 3,0 3,0 3.0 3,0 3,0 3,0
Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 5 5 41 5 5 20 5 . 5 6 5 5 10
Lane Width 12,0 12,0 12,0 12,0 12,0 12.0 12,0 12,0
Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N
Parking/Hour
Bus Stops/Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Minimum Pedestrian Time 3.2 3.2 3,2 3,2
Phasina EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08
Timing G = 20,0 G - 0,0 G = 0,0 G = 0,0 G = 40,0 G= 0,0 G - 0.0 G= 0,0
Y = 6 Y 0 y= 0 y = 0 Y = 6 Y - 0 Y= 0 Y = 0
Duration of Analysis (hrs) - 0,25 Cvcle Lenath C = 72,0
Lane Group Capacity, Control Delav, and LOS Determination
EB WB NB SB
Adjusted Flow Rate 76 333 48 146 89 428 102 707
Lane Group Capacity 307 419 184 434 233 924 431 925
v/c Ratio 0.25 OJ9 0,26 0,34 0,38 0.46 0.24 0.76
Green Ratio 0.28 1.28 0,28 0,28 0,56 0,56 0,56 0,56
Uniform Delay d, 20,2 4,1 20,2 20J 9,0 9,6 8,2 12.4
Delay Factor k 0,11 0,34 0,11 0,11 0,11 0,11 0,11 0,32
Incremental Delay d2 0.4 10,2 0,8 0,5 1.0 0.4 0,3 3,9
PF Factor 1,000 1,000 1.000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1.000
Control Delay 20.6 34,3 21.0 212 10,1 9.9 8,5 16,2
Lane Group LOS C C C C B A A B
Approach Delay 31.7 21,1 10.0 15,2
Approach LOS C C A B
Intersection Delay 17.9 Intersection LOS 8
Copyright@2oo5 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
HCS+™ Version 5.21
Generated: 3/812008 8:09 AM
)-I-Io-A
l:laCK-OH,.Iueue Worksheet
!\genda item No. 17C
_ J:p~'6: 1 C\. 2r'C\8
r-'a:;tea~.lo? .::.24
BACK-OF-QUEUE WORKSHEET
General Jnformation
Project Description
Average Back of Queue
EB WB NB S8
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Lane Group L TR L TR L TR L TR
Initial QueuelLane 0,0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0,0 0.0
Flow Rate/Lane Group 76 333 48 146 89 428 102 707
Satflow/Lane 1105 1509 663 1561 420 1664 775 1665
Capacity/Lane Group 307 419 184 434 233 924 431 925
Flow Ratio 0.1 0.2 0.1 0,1 0.2 0,3 0,1 0.4
v/c Ratio 0,25 0.79 0,26 0,34 0.38 0.46 0,24 0.76
I Factor 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1.000 1,000 1.000 1.000
Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Platoon Ratio 1,00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00
PF Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00
Q1 1.2 6,2 0,7 2.3 1,0 5,1 1,0 10,9
ks 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.4 0,3 0.6 0.4 0.6
Q2 0,1 1.2 0,1 02 0,2 0,5 0,1 1.8
Q Average 1,3 7.4 0,8 2,5 1,2 5.6 1,2 12.7
Percentile Back of Queue (95th percentile)
fB% 2,1 1,9 2,1 2,0 2.1 1,9 2,1 1.8
Back of Queue 2,6 14,1 1.7 5,1 2.4 10,9 2.4 22,8
Queue Storage Ratio
Queue Spacing 25,0 '5.0 25,0 25,0 25,0 25,0 25,0 25,0
Queue Storage 195 1320 150 1320 250 1320 225 1320
Average Queue Storage 0,2 0.1 0,1 0,0 0,1 0.1 0.1 0,2
Ratio
95% Queue storage Ratio 0.3 0.3 0.3 0,1 0,2 0.2 0.3 0.4
Copyright 16l 2005 University of Florida, Ah Rights Reserved
HCS'" ™ Version 5.21
Generated; 3/8/2008 8:09 AM
H. i Di?
item r~o. I iC .
:Short Keport
P"= ~C """8
h a"" L'OI-~u
['""".o'dSe i:JU 01 ,,-24
SHORT REPORT
Generallnformatlon Site Information .
Analyst JMB Intersection Immoka/ee Drive @ S.R. 29
Agency or Co, Area Type CBO or Similar
Date Performed 3/6/2008 Jurisdiction
Time Period PM PEAK HOUR Analysis Year 2011 Project Build-Out
Volume and Timina InDut
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Number of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
Lane Group L TR L TR L TR L TR
Volume (vph) 52 137 186 37 212 87 194 768 21 38 542 77
% Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
PHF 0,96 0,96 0.96 0,96 0,96 0,96 0,96 0,96 0,96 0,96 0.96 0,96
Pretimed/Actuated (P/A) A A A A A A A A A A A A
Startup Lost Time 2,0 2,0 2.0 2,0 2,0 2,0 2.0 2,0
Extension of Effective Green 2,0 2.0 2,0 2,0 2,0 2,0 2.0 2.0
Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Unit Extension 3,0 3,0 3,0 3.0 3,0 3,0 3.0 3,0
Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 5 5 40 5 5 20 5 5 8 5 5 25
Lane Width 120 12,0 12.0 12,0 12,0 12,0 12.0, 12,0
Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N
Parking/Hour
Bus Stops/Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Minimum Pedestrian Time 3,2 3.2 3,2 3,2
Phasina EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08
Timing G - 20.0 G ~ 0.0 G ~ 0.0 G - 0,0 G ~ 40,0 G ~ 0,0 G ~ 0,0 G - 0,0
Y ~ 6 Y~ 0 Y~ 0 Y~ 0 Y ~ 6 Y~ 0 Y= 0 Y - 0
Duration of Analvsis (hrs) , 0,25 Cvcle Length C = 72,0
Lane Group Capacity, Control Delav, and LOS Determination
. EB WB NB SB
Adjusted Flow Rate 54 295 39 291 202 814 40 619
Lane Group Capacity 215 422 212 445 292 928 163 917
vlc Ratio 0.25 .70 0,18 0,65 0,69 0,88 0.25 0,68
Green Ratio 0.28 ,28 0.28 0.28 0,56 0,56 0,56 0,56
Uniform Delay d, 20.2 23,3 19,8 22.9 11.6 13.9 8,2 11.4
Delay Factor k 0,11 0,27 0,11 0.23 0.26 0.40 0,11 0.25
Incremental Delay d2 0,6 5,1 0.4 3.4 6,8 9,5 0.8 2,0
PF Factor 1,000 1,000 1.000 1.000 1.000 /,000 1,000 WOO
Control Delay 20,8 28.4 20,2 26.4 18.4 23.4 90 13.4
Lane Group LOS C C C C B C A B
Approach Delay 27.2 25,7 22.4 13,1
Approach LOS C C C B
Intersection Delay 21.0 Intersection LOS C
Copyright@2oo5 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
HCS+™ Version 5,21
Generated: 3/6/2008 8:08 AM
J-t--JIA
tlacK -O!-l.lueue WorKsheet
.Agenda :tem No. 17C
!anA 1fl ?pn8
P~gsa~~11o<flJz14
BACK-OF-QUEUE WORKSHEET
Generallnformatiori
Project Description
Averaae Back of Queue
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Lane Group L TR L TR L TR L TR
Initial Queue/Lane 0.0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0.0
Flow Rate/Lane Group 54 295 39 291 202 814 40 619
Satflow/Lane 775 1519 764 1602 526 1671 294 1651
Capacity/lane Group 215 422 212 445 292 928 163 917
Flow Ratio 0.1 0,2 0,1 0.2 0.4 0.5 0,1 0.4
v/c Ratio 0,25 0,70 0.18 0.65 0,69 0,88 0,25 0,68
1 Factor 1.000 1,000 1,000 1.000 1.000 1,000 1.000 1,000
Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Platoon Ratio 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1,00
PF Factor 1,00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00
Q1 0,8 5,3 0,6 5,1 2.9 14,1 0.4 8,8
kB 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.4 0,3 0.6 02 0,6
Q2 0,1 0,8 0,1 0.7 0,6 3,3 0,1 1.2
Q Average 0,9 6,1 0,6 5,8 3,5 17,5 0,5 10,0
Percentile Back of Queue (95th percentile)
fs% 2.1 1,9 2,1 1,9 2,0 1,7 2,1 1.8
Back of Queue 1,9 11.7 1,3 11,2 70 30,1 1.0 18.4
Queue Storage Ratio
Queue Spacing 25,0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25,0 25,0 ~5.0 25,0
Queue Storage 150 1320 150 1320 200 1320 200 1320
Average Queue Storage 0,2 0.1 0.1 0,1 0.4 0.3 0,1 0,2
Ratio
95% Queue Storage Ratio 0,3 0.2 0.2 0,2 0.9 0.6 0,1 0,3
Copyright Q 2005 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved
HCS+™ Version 5.21
Generated: 318/2008 8:08 AM
It-I) B
. ...-... I
::'hon KepOn
[[8m hi;), 17C
""CO h. n fC~Cig ,
~ ,II e, :0 ~
rag~ I ~ or .::24
SHORT REPORT
Genera/Information Site Information
Analyst JMB Intersection Immbkalee Drive @ SR. 29
Agency or Co, Area Type caD or Similar
Date Performed 3/612008 Jurisdiction
Time Period AM PEAK HOUR Analysis Year 2012 Project Build-Out
Volume and Timino Input
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Number of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
Lane Group L TR L TR L TR L TR
Volume (vph) 74 150 223 48 90 76 88 405 28 101 672 43
% Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
PHF 0,96 0,96 0,96 0,96. 0,96 0,96 0.96 0.96 0,96 0.96 0,96 0,96
Pretimed/Actuated (P/A) A A A A A A A A A A A A
Startup Lost Time 2.0 2,0 2,0 2,0 2,0 2,0 2,0 2.0
Extension of Effective Green 2,0 2,0 2,0 2,0 2,0 2,0 2.0 2,0
Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Unit Extension 3.0 3,0 3.0 3,0 3,0 3,0 3,0 3,0
Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 5 5 40 5 5 25 5 5 8 5 5 10
Lane Width 12,0 12,0 12,0 12.0 12,0 12,0 12.0 12.0
Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N
Parking/Hour
Bus Stops/Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Minimum Pedestrian Time 13,2 3,2 13.2 13,2
Phasino EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08
Timing G = 20,0 G = 0,0 G = 0,0 G = 0.0 G - 40,0 G = 0,0 G= 0,0 G= 0,0
Y - 6 Y = 0 y= 0 Y = 0 Y = 6 Y= 0 Y= 0 Y - 0
Duration of Analvsis (hrs) ~ 025 Cvcle Lenath C - 72,0
Lane GrouD Caoacitv, Control Delav, and LOS Detennination
EB WB NB . S6
Adjusted Flow Rate 77 347 50 147 92 443 105 734
Lane Group Capacity 307 419 174 435 216 923 418 924
vlc Ratio 0,25 0,83 0,29 0,34 0.43 0.48 025 0.79
Green Ratio 0,28 028 0,28 0,28 0.56 0,56 0,56 0,56
Uniform Delay d, 20,2 4.4 20.4 20.7 9,3 9.7 8,3 12.7
Delay Factor k 0,11 0,37 0,11 0,11 0,11 0,11 0,11 0,34
Incremental Delay d, 0.4 130 0,9 0,5 1.4 0.4 0.3 4,9
PF Factor 1,000 1,000 1.000 1,000 1.000 1,000 1,000 1,000
Control Delay 20,6 37.4 213 21,2 10.7 10,1 8.6 17.6
Lane Group LOS C D C C B B A B
Approach Delay 343 21,2 10,2 16,5
Approach LOS C C B B
Intersection Delay 19,0 Intersection LOS B
Copyright@ 2005 UnIversity of Florida, All Rights Reserved
HCS+™ Verskm 521
Generat9d: 3fBI200B 8:52 AM
I) J -> A
I, ~ L.rt
tlaCK-ot-\.!ueue Worksheet
AGenda Item ;'0, 17C
o J 9"tigtlCl <)!jr.J8
P3]8 ,S3 of 224
BACK-OF-QUEUE WORKSHEET
General Information
Project Description
Averaae Back of Queue
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Lane Group L TR L TR L TR L TR
Initial Queue/Lane 0.0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0
Flow Rate/Lane Group 77 347 50 147 92 443 105 734
Satflow/Lane 1104 1508 626 1566 388 1662 752 1663
Capacity/Lane Group 307 419 174 435 216 923 418 924
Flow Ratio 0,1 0,2 0.1 0.1 0,2 0,3 0.1 0.4
v/c Ratio 0,25 0,83 0,29 0,34 0.43 0.48 0,25 0.79
I Factor 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Platoon Ratio 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1,00
PF Factor 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00
Q1 1,2 6,5 0,8 2,3 1.1 5.4 1,1 11.7
ks 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.4 0,2 0,6 0.4 0.6
Qz 0.1 1,5 0,.1 0,2 0.2 0,5 0,1 2,0
Q Average 1.3 8,0 0,9 2,5 1,2 5,9 1.2 13.7
Percentile Back of Queue (95th percentile)
fa% 2,1 1.9 2,1 2.0 2.1 1,9 2,1 1.8
Back of Queue 2.7 15,1 1.8 5.1 2.6 11.4 2.5 24.4
Queue Storage Ratio
Queue Spacing 25,0 25,0 25,0 25.0 25,0 25.0 25,0 25,0
Queue Storage 195 1320 150 1320 250 1320 225 1320
Average Queue Storage 0,2 0,2 0,1 0.0 0.1 0,1 0.1 0,3
Ratio
95% Queue Storage Ratio 0,3 0,3 0.3 0.1 0.3 0,2 0,3 0.5
Copyright (1:l 2005 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved
HCS+™ Version 5.21
Generated: 31812008 8:52 AM
)-f~12B
...-."~.,_,",,._m
~nort Kepon
r\gsrida item No. 17C .
Pa~ 100i'QCi8
Page 1 SA of 224
SHORT REPORT
Generallnfonnation Site Infonn.tion
Analyst JMB Intersection Immokalee Drive @ SR 29
Agency or Co. Area Type CBD or Similar
Date Performed 3/612008 Jurisdiction
Time Period PM PEAK HOUR Analysis Year 2012 Project Build-Out
Volume and Timina InDut
EB WB NB S8
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Number of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
Lane Group L TR L TR L TR L TR
Volume (vph) 53 142 192 38 220 90 200 797 22 101 672 43
% Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
PHF 0,96 0,96 0,96 0,96 0,96 0.96 0,96 0.96 0,96 0,96 0,96 0,96
Pretimed/Actuated (P/A) A A A A A A A A A A A A
Startup Lost TIme 2,0 2,0 2,0 2,0 2,0 2,0 2,0 2.0
Extension of Effective Green 2,0 2,0 2,0 2,0 2,0 2,0 2.0 2.0
Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3,0 3,0 3,0 3,0 3.0 3.0
Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 5 5 40 5 5 25 5 5 8 5 5 10
Lane Width 12,0 12,0 12,0 12,0 12,0 12,0 12.0 12.0
Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N
Parking/Hour
Bus Stops/Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Minimum Pedestrian Time 32 3,2 3,2 3.2
Phasina EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08
Timing G = 20,0 G = 0.0 G = 0.0 G = 0,0 G = 40,0 G= 0,0 G = 0,0 G - 0,0
Y = 6 Y = 0 Y = 0 Y 0 Y - 6 Y = 0 Y - 0 Y = 0
Duration of Analvsis (hrs) - 0,25 Cvcle Lenath C = 72.0
Lane Groue Caoacitv, Control Delav, and LOS Determination
EB W8 NB SB
Adjusted Flow Rate 55 306 40 297 208 845 105 734
Lane Group Capacity 211 430 205 446 216 928 143 924
v/c Ratio 0.26 OJ1 020 0,67 0,96 0,91 0]3 0.79
Green Ratio 0.28 0,28 0,28 0,28 0,56 0.56 0,58 0.56
Uniform Delay d, 20,2 23.4 19,9 23,0 15,3 14.4 12,0 12,7
Delay Factor k ,11 0,28 0,11 0,24 0.47 0.43 0,29 0,34
Incremental Delay d, OJ 5,5 0,5 3,8 50,6 12,9 17,7 4,9
PF Factor 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1.000 1,000 1.000 1.000
Control Delay 20.9 28,9 20.3 26,8 65,9 273 29,7 176
Lane Group LOS C C C C E C C B
Approach Delay 27,6 26,0 34,9 19,1
Approach LOS C C C B
Intersection Delay 27,6 Intersection LOS C
.-. ,..._..-._---~" .w__....
Copyright@2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
HCS+™ Version 5.21
Generated: 3/8/2008 8:46 AM
H-13A
]jaCK-or -I..lueue W orKsneer
Agenda item No. 17e
.Jl:lage'!m.<l'lJID8
Page 195 of 224
BACK-OF-QUEUE WORKSHEET
General Information
Project Description
Averaae Back of Queue
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Lane Group L TR L TR L TR L TR
Initial QueuefLane 0,0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0,0 0,0
Flow Rate/Lane Group 55 306 40 297 208 845 105 734
Satflow/Lane 759 1547 738 1606 388 1671 258 1663
Capacity/Lane Group 211 430 205 446 216 928 143 924
Flow Ratio 0,1 0.2 0,1 0,2 0.5 0,5 0.4 0.4
v/c Ratio 0,26 0.71 0,20 0,67 0.96 0,91 0.73 0.79
I Factor 1,000 1,000 1.000 1.000 1,000 1.000 1,000 1,000
Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Platoon Ratio 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PF Factor 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00
Q1 0.9 55 0,6 5.3 4,0 15,2 1,6 11.7
kB 0.2 0.4 0,2 0.4 0.2 0.6 0,2 0,6
Q2 0,1 0,9 0,1 . 0,7 2,0 4,2 0,5 2,0
QAverage 0,9 6.4 0,7 6.0 6,0 19.4 2,0 13,7
Percentile Back of Queue (95th percentile)
fB% 2.1 1,9 2,1 1,9 1.9 1,7 2,0 1.8
Back of Queue 1,9 12,2 14 11.5 11,6 33,0 4.2 24.4
Queue Storage Ratio
Queue Spacing 25,0 25,0 25,0 25.0 25,0 25,0 25,0 25,0
Queue Storage 195 1320 150 1320 250 1320 225 1320
Average Queue Storage 0.1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,6 0.4 0,2 0,3
Ratio
95% Queue Storage Ratio 0.2 0,2 0,2 0,2 1,2 0,6 0,5 0,5
COpyright Q 2005 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved
HCS+™ Version 5.21
Generated: 3/6/2008 8:45 AM
r' I ~~ ;:
H~I.5 {~
:Short Keport
It8m 140. :7C
-o~-Jl!1'lgl;1par;;Q8
'c,ge 1~6 at d4
SHORT REPORT
General Information Site Infonnation
Analyst JMB Intersection Lake Trafford Road @ SR.
29
Agency or Co, Area Type CaD or Similar
Date Performed 3/612008
Time Period AM PEAK HOUR Jurisdiction
Analysis Year 2008 Background Traffic
Volume and Timinn Innut
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Number of Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
Lane Group L TR LTR L TR L TR
Volume (vph) 97 169 251 7 110 16 176 170 18 62 326 79
% Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
PHF 0,96 0,96 0,96 0,96 0,96 0,96 0,96 0.96 0,96 0,96 0,96 0,96
Pretimed/Actuated (PIA) A A A A A A A A A A A A
Startup Lost Time 2,0 2.0 2,0 2,0 2,0 2,0 2,0
Extension of Effective Green 2,0 2,0 2,0 2.0 2,0 2,0 2,0
Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Unit Extension 3.0 3,0 3.0 3,0 3.0 3,0 3,0
Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 5 5 40 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 20
Lane Width 12.0 12,0 12.0 12,0 12,0 12.0 12.0
Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N
Parking/Hour
Bus Stops/Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Minimum Pedestrian Time 13.2 13,2 13,2 13.2
Phasinn t:.WPerm 02 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08
Timing G = 229 G = 0,0 G = 00 G = 0.0 G = 10.0 G - 25.1 G = 0,0 G = 00
Y = 6 Y = 0 Y = 0 Y = 0 Y = 0 Y - 6 Y = 0 Y = 0
Duration of AnalvsiSlhrSl = 0.25 Cvcle Lenath C = 70,0
Lane Group Capacltv, Control Dela,,; and LOS Determination .
EB WB NB SB
Adjusted Flaw Rate 101 396 133 183 193 65 401
Lane Group Capacity 372 494 528 456 828 380 584
vIe Ratio 027 0,80 0,25 0040 0,23 0,17 0,69
Green Ratio 0.33 0.33 0.33 0,59 0.50 0.36 0,36
Uniform Delay d1 1704 21,5 17.3 82 9,9 15.3 19.1
Delay Factor k 0,11 0.35 0,11 011 0,11 0,11 0,26
Incremental De!ay d2 0.4 92 03 0.6 0,1 0.2 3.4
PF Factor 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1.000 I 1.000 1.000
Control Delay 17.3 30.7 17.5 88 10.0 15.D 72.5
Lane Group LOS B C B A ^ B C
n
!Approach Delay . 28.1 17.5 94 21,5
Approach LOS C B A C
Intersection Delay 20,3 Intersection LOS C
, -- .._---_..~---_.__._--~-----_..._- -.-....
Copyrlghl (\:) 2005 University of FIQrida, AlIl:'-:ights Res.erved
f-lCS....M \I~rslon 521
Generated: 3/8i2008 9:31 AM
/1-IJ../A
tlaCK-OI-l..lueue worKsheet
,t\;]enda item t~o. 17C
JI1agtJ U.llf1Q8
Page 1 97 of 224
BACK-OF-QUEUE WORKSHEET
General Information
Project Description
Average Back of Queue
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
. L TR LTR L TR L TR
Lane Group
Initial Queue/Lane 0.0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0.0 0.0
Flow Rate/Lane Group 101 396 133 183 193 65 401
Satflow/Lane 1136 1509 1613 778 1652 1061 1630
CapacitylLane Group 372 494 528 456 828 380 584
Flow Ratio 0,1 0,3 0.1 0,2 0.1 0,1 0.2
vlc Ratio 0,27 0,80 0,25 0.40 0.23 0,17 0,69
I Factor 1,000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1,000 1,000 1,000
Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Platoon Ratio 1,00 1,00 1.00 roo 100 100 1,00
PF Factor 100 1,00 1.00 roo 1,00 100 100
Q1 1,5 7,0 1.9 1,6 2,1 0.9 6,6
kB 0,3 0.4 0.4 0,3 0.5 0,3 0.4
Q2 0,1 1.4 0,1 0,2 0,2 0.1 0,9
Q Average 16 8.4 2.0 1,8 2,3 0,9 7.5
Percentile Back of Queue (95th percentile)
faOf(l 2,0 1.9 2,0 2,0 2.0 2,1 1.9
Back of Queue 3,2 15,8 4,1 3.6 4,6 1,9 14.3
Queue Storage Ratio
Queue Spacing 25.0 ~5,0 25,0 25.0 25.0 25,0 25.0
Queue Storage 135 1320 1320 225 1320 165 1320
Average Queue Storage 0.3 0.2 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,1 0,1
Ratio
95% Queue Storage Ratio 0.6 0,3 0,1 0.4 0,1 0.3 0,3
Copyright@2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
HCS-l-™ Veffiion 5.21
-,._.._---~--'
Generated: 3/8/2008 9:31 AM
H~14S
;)hOI1 KepOI1
:;=e~i=;a Item !'Jo. "i ie
~ Page KurnUB .
Page 138 of 224
SHORT REPORT
Generallnfonnation Site Infonnation
Analyst JMB Intersection Lake Trafford Road @ SR
Agency or Co, 29
Date Performed 3/6/2008 Area Type CBD or Similar
Time Period PM PEAK HOUR Jurisdiction
Analysis Year 2008 Background Traffic
Volume and Timino InDut
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Number of Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
Lane Group L TR LTR L TR L TR
Volume (vph) 94 115 212 11 263 14 380 42'5 36 34 299 103
% Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
PHF 096 0,96 0,96 0,96 0,96 0,96 0.96 0,96 0,96 0,96 0.96 0,96
Pretimed/Actuated (P/A) A A A A A A A A A A A A
Startup Lost Time 2,0 2.0 2,0 2,0 2,0 2,0 20
Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2,0 2,0 2,0 2.0 20 2.0
Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Unit Extension 3,0 30 30 3,0 3.0 3,0 3,0
Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 5 5 40 5 5 5 5 5 8 5 5 30
Lane Width 120 12,0 12,0 12.0 12,0 12,0 12,0
Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N
Parking/Hour
Bus Stops/Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Minimum Pedestrian Time 13,2 132 13.2 13.2
Phasina EWPerm 02 I 03 04 NB Onlv NS Perm 07 08
Timing G - 18.9 G = 0,0 ! G = 0.0 G = 00 G - 10,9 G = 28,2 G;:: 0.0 G = 0.0
y - 6 Y = 0 IY - 0 Y - 0 Y - 0 Y= 6 Y = 0 Y = 0
I Duration af Analys;s (hrs) - 0.25 I I Cycle Lenath C - 70.0
Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination
T EB \V8 N8 I 88
Adjusted Flow Rate T98 1299 f 1294 398 1472 35 387 I
LRne Group C"'racity !210 1403 I I 1442 r 538 926 332 1651
, , I ,
vIe RaUo 1047 0.74 0.67 ,0,74 0.51 ,0 II 0.59
Green Ratio 1027 1027 0,27 10,64 0,56 1040 040 I
Uniform Delay d.j i213 !23_3 22.7 7.6 9,5 1130 164
Delay Factor k /0.11 0,30 1 1 024 I jo 29 0,12 !o 11 0.18 I
Increment31 Delay d;:: 1.5 7.2 3.8 53 0.5 0,1 1.5
PF Factor 1000 '1.000 1.000 t 000 1000 '1.000 1,000
Control Delay 1230 30,5 --I 126_5 I 12,8 10.0 13.2 17.9 I
I Lane Croup LOS IC e Ie I B B B B
I I I I I I
,
I Approach Delay
I Anpro::lch ! 0:':::
Ie - - ~
I intersection Delay
I
I
-L
28.7
c
18.4
26.5 11.3
r B
intersection LOS
17.5
B
B
:2r:sr::;:5d- J.'Si:C-IJE 9::::3 _~,,\,)
Cc;:JVr:ght ~ 2005 l}"'~!'.'BtE-i!y:Jf S::fcri::Jz, .~J! Ri.g!'-ts Peset'.'ed
;,:c~, ;';' ,;,2",;',:.". .~. :c.;
h - \5' A
tlaCK-OI-\.lueue WorKSheet
Agenda tte;ll No. 11C
4'ageiQ eltlQ8
Paoe '199 of 2?4
~ -
BACK-OF-QUEUE WORKSHEET
Generallnformati,pn
Project Description
AveraQe Back of Queue
EB WB I NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Lane Group L TR LTR L TR L TR
Initial Queue/Lane 0.,0. 0..0. 0..0. 0.,0. 0.,0. 0.,0. 0,0.
Flow Rate/Lane Group 98 299 294 396 472 35 387
Satflow/Lane 777 1493 1637 835 1658 823 1617
Capacity/Lane Group 210. 40.3 442 538 926 332 651
Flow Ratio 0..1 0..2 0.,2 0.,5 0.,3 0.,0. 02
v/c Ratio 0..47 0..74 0.,67 0.74 0,51 0.,11 0.59
I Factor 1.0.00 1,00.0 1,0.00. 1,00.0. 1.0.0.0. 1.0.0.0 1.0.00.
Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Platoon Ratio 1,0.0 1,0.0 rOo. 1.0.0 1,0.0. 1,0.0. 1.00
PF Factor 1.0.0. .1.0.0 1.00 1,0.0. 1,0.0. 1,0.0 1.00
Q1 1,6 5,3 5.1 3.1 5.7 0.4 5,9
ka 0,2 0,3 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.5
Q2 0,2 0.9 0.7 1,0 0,6 0,0 0.7
Q Average 1.8 6,2 5.8 4,1 6,2 0.5 6,6
Percentile Back of Queue (95th percentile)
fB% 2,0 1,9 1,9 2,0. 1,9 2,1 1,9
Back of Queue 3,7 12.0 11,2 8.1 12,0 1.0 12.6
Queue Storage Ratio
Queue Spacing 250 250. 25.0 25.0 25,0. 25,0 25.0
Queue Storage 135 1320. 1320. 225 1320. 165 1320
Average Queue Storage 0..3 0.,1 0.,1 0..5 0..1 0.1 0,1
Ratio
95% Queue Storage RatiQ 0..7 0..2 0.,2 0.,9 0..2 0.1 0,2
Copyright <tl2005 University of Florida, AH Rights Reserved
HCS+™ Version 5.2i
Genci2ted: 3/8/2008 9:33 AM
~ -15&
;:,non Kepon
Item t..;o, i 7 C
I'age l00fJCi8 '
P2Jg-2 2(iO of 224
SHORT REPORT
General Information Site Information
Analyst JMa Intersection Lake Trafford Road @ SR
29
Agency or Co, Area Type CaD or Similar
Date Performed 3/6/2008 Jurisdiction
Time Period AM PEAK HOUR Analysis Year 2011 Background Traffic
Volume and Timinq Input
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Number of Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
Lane Group L TR LTR L TR L TR
Volume (vph) 108 189 281 8 123 18 197 190 18 69 365 88
% Heavy Vehicies 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
PHF 0,96 0,96 0,96 096 0,96 0,96 0,96 0,96 0,96 0,96 0,96 0,96
Pretimed/Actuated (P/A) A A A A A A A A A A A A
Startup Lost Time 2,0 2,0 2.0 2.0 2,0 2,0 2,0
Extension of Effective Green 2,0 2,0 2,0 2,0 2,0 2,0 2.0
Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Unit Extension 3.0 3,0 3,0 3,0 3,0 3.0 3,0
Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 5 5 40 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 20
Lane Width 12,0 12,0 12.0 12,0 12,0 12,0 12.0
Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N
Parking/Hour
Bus Stops/Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Minimum Pedestrian Time 13.2 13.2 13.2 13.2
Phasinq EW Perm 02 03 04 NB On Iv NS Penn 07 08
Timing G = 22,9 G- 0,0 G = 0,0 G = 0,0 G = 10,0 G - 25,1 G= 0,0 G - 0.0
Y = 6 Y= 0 Y = 0 Y = 0 Y - 0 Y - 6 Y - 0 Y = 0
Duration of Analvsis (hrs) = 0,25 Cvcie Lenqth C - 70,0
Lane Group Caoacity, Control Delav, and LOS Determination
EB WB NB SB
Adjusted Flow Rate 113 448 150 205 214 72 451
Lane Group Capacity 372 493 525 420 829 373 584
v/c Ratio 0.30 0,91 0,29 0.49 0,26 0,19 0.77
Green Ratio 033 0.33 033 0,59 0.50 0.36 0.36
Uniform Delay d, 17.6 22,5 17,5 9,0 10,0 15,5 19,9
Delay Factor k 0,11 0.43 0,11 0,11 0.11 0,11 0.32
incremental Delay d, 05 20,7 0,3 0,9 0.2 0.3 6.3
PF Factor 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
Control Delay 18.1 43.3 17.8 99 10,2 15.7 263
Lane Group LOS a 0 B A B B C
Approach Deiay 38,2 17.8 10,0 248
Approach LOS 0 a a c
Intersection Delay 25,0 Intersection LOS C
---- -.-.--..--..------- - ------------..-- ----.----.
Copyright@2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
HCS+ ™ Version 521
Ger>el"l3ted: 3/8/2008 9-27 AM
'f4 llA,
~ ... i i"'_" ~
~ _ o.....cr,
!:laCK -or -<..Jueue W orKSneet
i\;jsnda Item f'Jo. 1 i'C
J"ne 10. 2018
:>Pea"e,L"~, 4
' o:JE fPv I UT L-
BACK-OF-QUEUE WORKSHEET
General Information
Project Description
Average Back of Queue
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Lane Group L TR LTR L TR L TR
Initial Queue/Lane 0,0 0,0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0,0 0,0
Flow Rate/Lane Group 113 448 150 205 214 72 451
Sattlow/Lane 1136 1507 1604 716 1654 1041 1629
Capacity/Lane Group 372 493 525 420 829 373 584
Flow Ratio 0,1 0,3 0,1 0,3 0,1 0,1 0,3
v/c Ratio 0.30 0.91 0,29 0.49 0.26 0,19 0.77
I Factor 1,000 1.000 1.000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Platoon Ratio 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00
PF Factor 1,00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Q1 1,6 8,3 2,2 1.8 2.4 1,0 1,8
I<B 0,3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0,5 0,3 0.4
Q2 0.1 2.6 0,2 0,3 0,2 0,1 1,3
Q Average 1,8 11,0 2,3 2 1 2,6 1.0 9,1
Percentile Back of Queue (95th percentile)
fe% 2,0 1.8 2,0 2,0 2.0 2,1 1,9
Back of Queue 3,6 20,0 4.7 4,2 5.2 2,2 11,0
Queue Storage Ratio
Queue Spacing 25,0 25,0 25,0 25,0 25,0 25.0 25,0
Queue Storage 135 1320 1320 225 1320 165 1320
Average Queue Storage 0,3 0.2 0,0 0,2 0,0 0.2 0.2
Ratio
95% Queue Storage Ratio 0.7 0.4 0.1 0,5 0.1 0,3 0.3
Copyright ~ 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
HCS+™ Version 5.21
Generated: 3/812008 9:27 AM
,
l~,,16B
....-.-'.--r
"non Kepon
:telTi ~-Jo. '17e
c Pap J!'~f~C.!8
,'ag~.~\.:L O! .:24
SHORT REPORT
Generallnfonnation Site Infonnation
Analyst JMB Intersection Lake Trafford Road @ SR
29
Agency or Co. Area Type CBD or Simifar
Date Performed 3/612008 Jurisdiction &j i(..6rziJ~ ,0 (t;'rFrll-
Time Period PM PEAK HOUR Analysis Year 2011f'r",. (au"" g~
Volume and Timina InDut
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Number of Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
Lane Group L TR LTR L TR L TR
Volume (vph) 105 129 237 12 294 16 425 475 40 38 334 115
% Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Pretimed/Actuated (P/A) A A A A A A A A A A A A
Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 5 5 40 5 5 5 5 5 8 5 5 30
Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N
Parking/Hour
Bus Stops/Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Minimum Pedestrian Time 13.2 132 13.2 13.2
Phasina EW Perm 02 03 04 NB Onlv NS Perm 07 08
Timing G = 18.9 G - 0.0 G = 0.0 G 0.0 G = 10.9 G - 28.2 G = 00 G = 0.0
Y = 6 Y= 0 Y = 0 Y - 0 Y = 0 Y = 6 Y= 0 Y - 0
Duration at Analvsis Ihrs) = 0.25 Cvcle Lenqth C = 70.0
Lane Group Capacity, Control Delav, and LOS Determination
EB WB NB 5B
Adjusted Flow Rate 109 339 330 443 528 40 437
Lane Group Capacity 189 403 410 501 926 315 851
v/c Ratio 0.58 0.84 0.80 0.88 0.57 0.13 0.67
Green Ratio 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.64 0.56 0.40 0.40
Uniform Delay d, 22.1 24.1 23.8 8.8 10.0 13.2 17.1
Delay Factor k 0.17 0.38 0.35 0.41 0.16 0.11 0.24
Incremental Delay d2 43 14.8 11.2 17.0 0.8 0.2 2.7
PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Control Delay 26.4 38.9 35.0 25.8 10.9 13.3 19.8
Lane Group LOS C D 0 C B B B
Approach Delay 35.8 35.0 17.7 19.3
Approach LOS D 0 B B
Intersection Delay 24.2 Intersection LOS C
Copyright@ 2005 University of Fbrida, All Rights Reserved
HCS+™ Version 5.21
Generated: 3/8/2006 9:23 AM
)-\-/],.::\'
DaCK -UI-\..1UCUe W OrKSncct
Agenda Item r-Jo. 17C
JFalZe~. &1)'1.8
?age 203 of 224
BACK-OF-QUEUE WORKSHEET
General Information
Project Description
Averaae Back of Queue .
EB WB NB S8
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Lane Group L TR LTR L TR L TR
Initial Queue/Lane 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Flow Rate/Lane Group 109 339 330 443 528 40 437
Satfiow/Lane 700 1491 1520 777 1658 782 1615
Capacity/Lane Group 189 403 410 501 926 315 651
Flow Ratio 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.3
vlc Ratio 0.58 0.84 0.80 0.88 0.57 0.13 0.67
I Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PF Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Q1 1.8 6.2 6.0 3.6 6.6 0.5 7.0
ks 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.5
Q2 0.3 1.5 1.3 2.1 0.7 0.0 0.9
Q Average 2.1 7.8 7.3 5.7 7.4 0.5 7.9
Percentile Back of Queue (95th percentile)
fs% 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.1 1.9
Back of Queue 4.3 14.7 13.8 11.0 14.0 1.1 14.8
Queue Storage Ratio
Queue Spacing 25.0 125.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 '25.0 25.0
Queue Storage 135 1320 1320 225 1320 165 1320
Average Queue Storage 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.1
Ratio
95% Queue Storage Ratio 0.8 0.3 0.3 12 0.3 0.2 0.3
Copyright I:J 2005 University of Florida, All Righ1s Reserved
HCS+ ™ Version 5.21
Generated: 3/8/200a 9:23 AM
H-178
uHun 1'\.epUn
..';:i.~ rioja Item r\!o. Ire.
~age 1CQf!1C!8
:::'2<]8 204 of 224
SHORT REPORT
General Information Site Infonnation
Analyst JMB Intersection Lake Trafford Road @ S.R.
29
Agency or Co. Area Type CBD or Similar
Date Performed 3/6/2008
Time Period AM PEAK HOUR Jurisdiction
Analysis Year 2011 Project Build-Out
Volume and Timina Inout
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Number of Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
Lane Group L TR LTR L TR L TR
Volume (vph) 108 189 281 8 123 18 197 226 18 69 375 88
% Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Pretimed/Actuated (P/A) A A A A A A A A A A A A
Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2,0 2.0 2.0
Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Ped/Blke/RTOR Volume 5 5 40 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 20
Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N
Parking/Hour
Bus Stops/Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Minimum Pedestrian Time 13.2 13.2 13.2 13.2
Phasino EW Perm 02 03 04 NB Onlv NS Perm 07 DB
Timing G = 22.9 G = 0.0 G = 0.0 G 0.0 G = 10.0 G = 25.1 G = 0.0 G - 0.0
y - 6 y= 0 Y = 0 Y = 0 Y = 0 Y - 6 Y= 0 Y = 0
Duration of Analvsis (hrs) = 0.25 Cvcle Leflrlth C - 70.0
Lane Group Capacity, Control Delav, and LOS Determination
EB WB NB S8
Adjusted Flow Rate 113 448 150 205 251 72 462
Lane Group Capacity 372 493 525 412 831 361 584
v/c Ratio 0.30 0.91 0.29 0.50 0.30 0.20 0.79
Green Ratio 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.59 0.50 0.36 0.36
Uniform Delay d, 17.6 22.5 17.5 9.1 10.3 15.5 20.1
Delay Factor k 0.11 0.43 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.34
Incremental Delay d2 0.5 20.7 0.3 0.9 0.2 0.3 7.3
PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Control Delay 18.1 43.3 17.8 10.1 10.5 15.8 274
Lane Group LOS B 0 B B B B C
Approach Delay 38.2 17.8 10.3 25.8
Approach LOS 0 B B C
Intersection Delay 25.0 Intersection LOS C
Copyright@2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
rfCS+T~ Version 5.21
Generated: 318/2008 9~OO AM
)--1-/8 A
Ow..:;A.-Vl-\.lUr.:Ut: VVUrK~meet
t\:1enda 11em No. ire
~ c ~lI'''e Cl "ifq9
'"
Pa';J8 Lu5 of 224
BACK-OF-QUEUE WORKSHEET
General Information -
Project Description
Averaae Back of Queue
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Lane Group L TR LTR L TR L TR
Initial Queue/Lane 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Flow Rate/Lane Group 113 448 150 205 251 72 462
Satflow/Lane 1136 1507 1604 702 1657 1007 1630
Capacity/Lane Group 372 493 525 412 831 361 584
Flow Ratio 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.3
v/c Ratio 0.30 0.91 0.29 0.50 0.30 0.20 0.79
I Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PF Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Q1 1.6 8.3 2.2 1.8 2.9 1.0 8.0
ks 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.4
Q2 0.1 2.6 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 1.5
Q Average 1.8 11.0 2.3 2.1 3.1 1.0 9.5
Percentile Back of Queue (95th percentile)
fB% 2.0 1.8 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 1.9
Back of Queue 3.6 20.0 4.7 4.2 6.2 2.2 17.7
Queue Storage Ratio
Queue Spacing 125.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0
Queue Storage 135 1320 1320 225 1320 165 1320
Average Queue StDrage 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2
Ratio
95% Queue Storage Ratio 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.3
Copyright@2005 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved
HCS+ ™ Version 5.21
--"-"~--r---"
Generated: 3/812008 9:00 AM
H-lgB
01lUll I\..t;pUn
A:>sn:ia ~l9ir: r..;O. ~17C
J P-age 1DOl(l:J8
Pa;J8 206 of 224
SHORT REPORT
General Information Site Infonnation
Analyst JMB Intersection Lake Trafford Road @ S.R.
29
Agency or Co. Area Type CBD or Similar
Date Performed 3/6/2008 Jurisdiction
Time Period PM PEAK HOUR Analysis Year 2011 Project Build-Out
Volume and TiminlllnDut
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Number of Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
Lane Group L TR LTR L TR L TR
Volume (vph) 105 129 237 12 294 16 425 495 40 38 370 115
% Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Pretimed/Actuated (P/A) A A A A A A A A A A A A
Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 5 5 40 5 5 5 5 5 8 5 5 30
Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N
Parking/Hour
Bus Stops/Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Minimum Pedestrian Time 13.2 13.2 13.2 13.2
Phasinll EW Perm 02 03 04 NB Oniv NS Perm 07 08
Timing G= 18.9 G= 0.0 G = 0.0 G = 0.0 G = 10.9 G = 28.2 G= 0.0 G = 0.0
Y = 6 Y = 0 Y = 0 Y = 0 Y = 0 Y = 6 y= 0 Y = 0
Duration of Analvsis (hrs) = 0.25 Cvcle Lenoth C = 70.0
Lane GrouD CaDacitv, Control Delav, and LOS Determination
EB WB NB SB
Adjusted Flow Rate 109 339 330 443 549 40 474
Lane Group Capacity 189 403 410 475 927 309 653
v/c Ratio 0.58 0.84 0.80 0.93 0.59 0.13 0.73
Green Ratio 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.64 0.56 0.40 0.40
Un.iforrn Deiay d, 22.1 24.1 23.8 9.6 10.2 13.2. 17.6
Deiay Factor k 0.17 0.38 0.35 0.45 0.18 0.11 0.29
Incremental Delay d2 4.3 14.8 11.2 25.5 1.0 0.2 4.0
PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Control Detay 26.4 389 35.0 35.1 11.2 13.4 21.7
Lane Group LOS C 0 0 0 B B C
Approach Delay 35.8 35.0 21.9 21.0
Approach LOS D 0 C C
Intersection Delay 26.3 Intersection LOS C
Copyright@2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
HCS+™ Version 5.21
Generated~ 3/8/2006 9:20 AM
(-... ';',A
.....J "'! !,~ .\
JJClvA.-V,l-'lUc;Uv VY Vl!\.::':iUCCl
item t'Jo. 17C
"tlage1~.GtJa8
Page 207 of 224
BACK-OF-QUEUE WORKSHEET
General Information
Project Description
A veraqe Back of Queue
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Lane Group L TR LTR L TR L TR
Initial Queue/Lane 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Flow Rate/Lane Group 109 339 330 443 549 40 474
Satflow/Lane 700 1491 1520 736 1659 767 1620
Capacity/Lane Group 189 403 410 475 927 309 653
Flow Ratio 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.3
v/c Ratio 0.58 0.84 0.80 0.93 0.59 0.13 0.73
I Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PF Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ql 1.8 6.2 6.0 3.6 70 0.5 7.8
ks 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.5
Q2 0.3 1.5 1.3 2.8 0.8 0.0 1.2
Q Average 2.1 7.8 7.3 6.4 7.9 0.5 8.9
Percentile Back of Queue (95th percentile)
fa% 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.1 1.9
Back of Queue 4.3 14.7 13.8 12.3 14.8 1.1 16.7
Queue Storage Ratio
Queue Spacing 25.0 ~50 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0
Queue Storage 135 1320 1320 225 1320 165 1320
Average Queue Storage 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.2
Ratio
95% Queue Storage Ratio 0.8 0.3 0.3 1.4 0.3 0.2 0.3
Copyright ~ 2005 Uni\lersity of Florida. All Rights Reserved
HCS+ ™ Version 5.21
Generated: 3/8/2006 9:20 AM
/1-)q8
Short Report
Itern ~Jo. 17C
.' ",,0 11 7~q8
::>aXIille,. ^OI.;;j~
. ~t::--5ju UI LL"-f
Generallnfonnation
Analyst JMB
Agency or Co.
Date Perfonned 31612008
Time Period AM PEAK HOUR
Votume and Timina InDut
SHORT REPORT
Site Infonnation
Lake TrafforrJ Road @ S.R.
29
cBD or Similar
Intersection
Area Type
Jurisdiction
Analysis Year
2012 Project Build-Out
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Number of Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
Lane Group L TR LTR L TR L TR
Volume (vph) 112 196 291 8 127 19 204 234 19 71 388 91
% Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
PretimedlActuated (PIA) A A A A A A A A A A A A
Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3. 3
Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
PedlBike/RTOR Volume 5 5 40 5 5 5 5 5 3 5. 5 20
Lane Wtdth 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0'
ParkinglGradelParking N 0 N N 0 N. N 0 N N O' N
ParkingIHour .
..
Bus StopslHoUf 0 0 0 0 0 ' .0.. 0
Minimum Pedestrian Time 13.2 13.2 13.2 13.2
Phasino EW Perm 02 03 04 NB Onlv . NS Perm .. 07 08
Timing G = 22.9 G- 0.0 G= 0.0 G= 0.0 G = 10.0 G= 25.1 . .G- 0.0 G- 0.0
Y - 6 Y= 0 Y- 0 y- 0 Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= 0
Duration of Analvsis (hrsl = 0.25 Cvcle Lenolh C = 70.0
Lane Grouo Caoacitv, Control Delay. and LOS Detennination .
EB WB NB SB
Adjusted Fiow Rate 117 465 155 213. 261 74 ...478..
Lane Group Capacity -c- 372 493 524 401 831 358 584
vIe RallO 0.31 ~.94 0.30 0.53 0.31 ~.21. 0.82
Green Ratio 10.33 0.33 0.33 .59 0.50 .... 0.36 0.36
Uniform Delay d, 17.7 22.9 17.5 9.4 10.3 1p.6 20.4
Delay Factor k .11 b.46 0.11 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.36
Incrementa' Delay do 0.5 26.9 0.3 1.4 0.2 0.3 9.0
PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Control Delay 18.2 49.8 17.9 10.8 10.5 15.8 29.4
Lane Group LOS B 0 B B B B C
Approach Delay 43.5 17.9 10.7 27.5
Approach LOS D B B C
Intersection Delay 27.4 Intersection LOS C
".~....~---
Copyright@2oo5 Univer!;ity of flork:Ia, All Rights Reserved HCS+llA Ver.3iOn 5.21 Genefated: 31912008 9:32 AM
1t- ZD 1-\
BACK-OF-QUEUE WORKSHEET
General Information
Project Description
A veraae Back of Queue
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Lane Group L TR LTR L TR L TR
Initial QueuelLane 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Flow Rate/Lane Group 117 465 155 213 261 74 478
SatllowlLane .-.,' 1136 1607 1603 683 1667 998 1630
Capacity/Lane GrollP':: 372 493 624 401 831 368 684
Flow Ratio 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.3
vie Ratio _ 0:31 0.94 0.30 0.63 0.31 0.21 0.82
I Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Arrival Type 3. 3 3 3 3 3 3
Platoon Ratio 1.00 .1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PF Factor .. , 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ql . . . 1.7 8.8 2.2 1.9 3.0 1.0 8.4
kB ... 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.4
'. ,
.. 0.1 3.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 1.7
Q2 ..
Q AVerage 1.9 12.1 2.4 2.2 3.2 1.1 10.2
Percentiie Back of Queue (95th percentil!'l)
fa% .
2.0 1.8. 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 1.8
Back of Queue 3.8 21.9 4.9 4.5 6.6 2.2 18.7
Queue Storage Ratio
Queue Spacing 26.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 126.0 25.0 26.0
Queue Storage 136 1320 1320 225 1320 166 1320
Average Queue Storage 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2
Ratio
95% Queue Storage Ratio 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.3 0.4
Back-of-Qucue Workshcet
Copyright@ Z005 University or Florlda. An Rights Reserved
HCS+™ Version 521
.._...~--
.'\genda Item "0. 17C
jb:'-- 'tiJ,,*,10S
Pag~09 of224
Genernted: 3/ll1Z006 9:32 MI<
H~Z{)g
Short Report
~,.;;sncja 118iTl ~~o. I"7C
Page LOU08 .
Page 210 of 224
SHORT REPORT
General Information Site Information
Analyst JMB Intersection Lake Trafford Road @ SR.
29
Agency or Co. Area Type CBD or Similar
Dale Perfonned 3/612008
Time Period PM PEAK HOUR Jurisdiction
Analysis Year 2012 Project Build-Out
Volume and Timina Inout
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Number of Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
Lane Group L m LTR L TR L TR
Volume (vph) . 109 134 246 12 305 16 440 513 41 39 383 119
% Heavy Vehicles ~. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Pretimed/Actuatl'd (PIA)" A A A A A A A A A A A A
Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Extension of Effective Green .2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Arrival Type . 3 , 3 3 3 3 3 3
Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 13.0
Ped/BikeJRTOR Volume 5 5 40 5 5 5 5 5 8 5 5 30
Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Parking/Grade/Parking N .. 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N
..
ParkinglHour :;.
Bus Stops/Hour . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Minimum Pedestrian ,Time 13.2 13.2 13.2 13.2
Phasina EINPerm 02 03 04 NBOn Iv NS Penn 07 08
Timing . G= 18.9 G= 0.0 G= 0.0 G- 0.0 G = 10.9 G = 28.2 G- 0.0 G- 0.0
y- 6 Y= 0 y- 0 Y- 0 y- 0 y - 6 y= 0 y= 0
Duration of Anatvsis (hrs\ = 0.25 Cvcle Lei,-iiih' C - 70.0
Lane GrouD CaDacitv, Control Delav, and LOS Determination
EB WB NB SB
Adjusted Flow Rate 114 355 342 458 568 41 492
Lane Group Capacity 182 403 399 462 927 304 653
vlc Ratio 0.63 .88 0.86 0.99 0.61 0.13 0.75
Green Ratio 0.27 '.27 0.27 0.64 0.56 0.40 0.40
Uniform Delay d, 22.4 "4.5 24.3 11.0 10.4 13.2 17.9
Delay Factor k 0.21 0.41 0.39 0.49 0.20 ,0.11 0.31
Incremental Delay d2 6.7 19.7 16.7 39.5 1.2 0.2 5.0
PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Control Delay 29.1 44.1 41.0 50.5 11.6 13.4 22.9
Lane Group LOS C D D D B B C
Approach Delay 40.5 41.0 29.0 22.2
Approach LOS D D C C
Intersection Delay 31.4 Intersection LOS C
Copyright@2005 Univamty of Florida, AU Rights Reserved
HCS+ TM Version 5.21
Generated: 31912006 9:35 J'.lM
1-1- '2 i A
. Back-of-Queue Worksheet
j\Jenda item No. 17C
~ PJigJe'iDCifJD8
Page 211 of 224
BACK-OF-QUEUE WORKSHEET
General Information
Project Description
A veraae Back of Queue
EB WB NB SB
IT TH RT IT TH RT LT TH RT IT TH RT
lane Group L TR LTR L TR L TR
Initial Queue/Lane 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0,0
Flow Ratellane Group 114 355 342 456 568 41 492
Satflow/lane ,..~:' 675 1491 1476 717 1659 754 1620
Capacity/Lane Group', 182 403 399 462 927 304 653
Flow Ratio . 0.2 0.2 0,2 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.3
v/c Ratio .. a.63 0,88 0.86 0.99 0.61 0.13 0.75
I Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Platoon Ratio .. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PF Factor .. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Q1 ,".! 1.9 6.6 . 6.3 3.7 7.4 0.5 8.2
I<B " 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.5
.. .
02 .. 0.3 ui 1.7 4.2 0.9 0.0 1.3
..
Q Average ..
2.3 8.5 8.0 7.9 8.3 0.5 9.5
Percentile 6ack of Queue (95th percentile)
1.9 .. 1.9 1.9 1.9
fa% 2.0 2.1 1.9
Back of Queue 4.6 16.0 15.0 15.0 15.6 1.1 17.6
Queue Storage Ratio
Queue Spacing 125.0 125.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 '5.0
Queue Storage 135 1320 1320 225 1320 165 1320
Average Queue storage 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.2
Ratio
95% Queue Storage Ratio 0.9 0.3 0.3 1.7 0.3 0.2 0.3
Copyllglrt <:> 2005 University or Florida. All Rights Reserved
HCS+ 1M Version 521
--.----r--'-~_.
Generaled: 3/912008 9:35 AM
H=218
item lb. 17C
June 10.2008 .
Page 212 of 224
jmb transportation engineering, inc.
traffic/transportation engineering & planning
?
TRAFFIC STUDY - METHODOLOGY REVIEW
FOR
ESPERANZA RPun
(project No. 071011)
October 29, 2007
Prepared By:
JMB TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING, INC.
761 21ST Street NW
Naples, Florida 34120
239-919-2767
Applicant's Representative:
James M. Banks, P.E. Date
Collier County Representative:
Date
Collier County Rcprescntativc:
Date
!tern hio. 17C
June 10, 20li8
Pa;j2 213 of =24
APPENDIX A
INITIAL MEETING CHECKLIST
Suggestion: Use this Appendix as a worksheet to ensure that no important elements
are overlooked. Cross out the items that do not apply.
Date: 1 0-29-2007
Time: 9:30 AM
Location: Collier County Government Offices (Horseshoe Drive)
People Attendin2:
Name, Organization, and Telephone Numbers
1) James M. Banks, JMB Transportation Engineering, Inc., 239-919-2767
2) Michael Greene, Collier County Government, 239-774-8192
3) John Podczerwinsky, Collier County Government, 239-774-8192
4) Heidi Williams, Q. Grady Minor
5)
Study Preparer:
Preparer's Name and Title: James M. Banks. P.E.. President
Organization: JMB Transoortation Engineering. Inc.
Address & Telephone Number: 761 21st Street NW Naoles. Florida 34120 (239)-919-
2767
Reviewer(s):
Reviewer's Name & Title: Michael Greene. Planning Manager
Collier County Transportation Planning Department
Reviewer's Name & Title: John Podczerwinskv. Proiect Manager
Organization & Telephone Number: Collier County Transportation Planning Department
Arllllicant:
Applicant's Name: _
Address:
Telephone Number: _
Proposed Development:
Name: Esoeranza RPUD
Location: lmmokalee Drive and one mile west of S.R. 29
Land Use Type: Residential
lTE Code #: LUC 210. LUC 220 and LUC 230
Proposed number of development units: 50 single-f3l);li.lY dwrlling units. 168 apartments
and 36 multi-family dwelling units
Other:
'.. ''',_,,,"'." _""" ei!," "",:~. "-',,_":_'; ';- ,\,,'.. .'..,.... "':''''.1'''' ,,-j.... {' !"" . -il'"
"1'-"':' ..,.".,j'
"".'
.'
!12iT I'~J, 17C
June 10, 2CJ08
21401224
Description:
TIlls is an affordable housing residcntial dcvclopmcnt with an on-sitc private community
ccntcr.
,
Zoning
Existing: _
Comprchensive plan recommcndation: _
Requestcd: RPUD
Findings of the Preliminary Study:
Sec Attachcd
Study Tvpe:
D
Minor TIS
Small Scale TIS
Maior TIS
x
Study Area:
Boundaries: See Attached Map
Additional intcrscctions to be analyzed: Immokalee Drive (ciJ State Road 29
Horizon Year(s): 20II
Analysis Time Period(s): AM and PM Peak
Futurc Off-Site Dcvclopments: Nonc
Source of Trip Gencration Rates: ITE Trip Gcncration Ratcs
Reductions in Trip Generation Rates:
None: None
Pass-by trips:
Intcrnal trips (PUD):
Transmit use:
Othcr:
Horizon Year Roadwav Network Improvements:
Intcrsection Improvcmcnts for Immokalce Drivc riiJ. State Road 29
Methodolol!V & Assumptions:
Non-sitc traffic cstimatcs: Scc Attachcd
Site-trip generation: See Attached
Trip distribution mcthod: Manual
Traffic assignment mcthod: Manual
Traffic growth rate: Scc Attached Table 2A
,';" ',f", ,.,,_,-
Agenda Item No. 17C
June 10, 2008
215 of 224
Special Features: (from preliminary study or prior experience)
Accidents locations: _
Sight distancc: _
Queuing: _
Access location & configuration: _
Traffic control:
Signal systcm location & progrcssion nccds: _
On-site parking needs: _
Data Sources:
Base maps: _
Prior study rcports: _
Access policy and jurisdiction: _
Review process: _
Requircments: _
Misccllaneous:
Small Scale Study - No Fee_
Minor Study - $750.00
Major Study - $1500.00
Includes 2 intersections
Additional Intcrsections - $500.00 cach
All fees will be agreed to during the Methodology meeting and must be paid to Transportation prior to
our sign-off on the application.
=
SIGNATURES
Study Preparer
Reviewers
Applicant
",C."
f' ~, .:- '.' . r;-,,; ,"'~, :;. 't., -~ " .;/ - ,,,':' 'II ~'f' ..".:
. .' ~ ,: .' ',".
M -' "---r---'--.~"-
AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC (VPH)
LUC 210
AM Peak Hour = T = 0.7000 + 9.43 = 0.70(50) + 9.43 =
25%Enter/75%Exit =
LUC 220
AM Peak Hour = T = 0.49(X) + 3.73 = 0.49(168) + 3.73 =
20%Entcr/80%Exit = .
LUC 230 __ /'
AM Pcak Hour = Ln(I) = 0.80Ln00+0.26 = 0.80L~)+0.26 = 23 vph
17%Entcr/83%Exit = / 4/19 vph
/ AM Total Tj 153 vph
~ "'\ (j' 32/121 vph
~ iL~'~ ('.
PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC cvPZ CO /\ ~,D 'J
LUC 210 '~/
PM Peak Hour = Ln(I) = 0.90Ln0 +0.53 = 0.90Ln(50)+0.53 =
63%Enter/37%Exit = /
LUC 220 /
PM Peak Hour = T = 0.6~ = 0.62(168) =
65%Enter/35%Exit = /
LUC 230
PM Pcak Hour = Ln(I) = 0.82Ln(X)+O.32 = 0.82Ln(36)+0.32 =
67%Enter/33%Exit =
TABLE llA.
Esperanza RPUD
Raw Trip Gcncration Computations
Land Use Code
LUe 210
LUe 220
LUC 230
Land Use Code Description
Single-Family Detached Housing
Apartment
ResidentiaJ Condominiumff ownhousc
DAILY TRAFFIC (ADI)
LUe 210
Daily Traffic = Ln(T) = 0.92Ln00+2.71= 0.92Ln(50)+2.71 =
LUC 220
Daily Traffic = T = 6.72(X) = 6.72(168) =
LUe 230
Daily Traffic = Ln(1) = 0.85Ln00+2.55= 0.85Ln(36)+2.55 =
Total =
PM Total =
'1:.;-:rc !'JO. '1 -7e
JUi^12 '0. 2DDS .
216 of 224
Build-out Schedule
50 Dwelling Units
168 Dwclling Units
36 Dwelling Units
550 ADT
1,129 ADT
269 ADT
1,948 ADT
44 vpi}
11I3?, vph
86 vph
17/69 vph
57 vph
36/21 vph
104 vph
68/36 vph
26 vph
17/9 vph
187 vph
121/66 vph
;\genda item t~o, 17C
June! 0, 2008
Page 217 of 224
\.
\.
\.
TABLE lB
Esperanza RPUD
Adiusted Trip Generation Computations
Land Use Coc:Ie Description
Single-Family I?etached Housing
Residential Condominiumffownhouse
,
Build-out Schedule
50 Dwelling Units
104 Dwelling Units
\
An affordable housing dev~ment docs not generate the volume of traffic as a typical
single-family and multi-family 1fsi~;mtial development. The 1TE trip generation results
were based upon typical single~I~y and multi-family residential developments. As
such, the computation results obtained as a result of the 1TE rates should be adjusted to
more accurately reflect the traffic as~iated with an affordable housing development.
Realistically, a reduction of the trip c putations equal to or greater than 50% is
justified. However, for the purpose of 's report a reduction in trips of25% was
employed. \
\
\
.,
D~YT~C(~~ \
Daily Traffic = (1,214 AD1) x (75%)=\ 91lADT
AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC (VPIl)
AM Peak Hour = (97 vph) x (75%) =
EnterlExit =
PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC (VPII)
LUC 210
PM Peak Hour =
EnterlExit =
89 vph
(J Y r 59130 "ph
O r ~ (/ ( /J tP" ?/-cI'""(
--- J~ JG S., O'f
() .' Ov C. \ I ((LV N ,\v) rr; f"
l'---"<- /" {\f CU') lr
. ,vO \ \t..{\. OJcyr'
(O'-v CO:J ()~/
I[flb S, /.0
//
(119 vph) x (75%) =
73 "ph
15/58 "ph
Of -
1.-
(0'
1/_10-1
5
._~--'" ,,_.^,,~-,-"-,,'----.-"'--' .
iterll r'~o. 17e
JUriS; 0, 20C18
?~'0e 2 S of 224
....
~~ (1)0 (1)(1)(1)0
=Mo 0
'2 :: Z ~z Z wwwz
.~ .: >->->-
UI
..
Cl ~
S ~~ 0 ~ ~ '#.c?'#~
~ 0
"co '" ct) '" '" <Dl.OOID
B E "d': ": ~ "t"..-CDCO
;-~ N ~ ~ M...tN~
0.
....11
" co ~ '#rfl. ~ #.#.?f!.ef?
co "0
o.~ 0 0
E 19 N "'''' '" MNN('I")
-UI
.2 " I"
::: 0
l! :=
" 0>",
.... .~ <0 0 <0 co '"
'S E~ ~~ ~ '" '" ...
.. a "
.~ >: '0
e 0. >
0.
'1
1;:: 0
~ ~,~ '#.;#:. ~ ?F.***
....-0 00 '" lOQON
CJ'(;)..- 0> ~ ~ NC"')"';f..-
Gl_
I- 'eO
u 0. 0
<( "I
a. 'i: ::::i > 0",
:a; fD~d)O 0 0 0 '" '"
en .!: E :g '" '" <D r- r- <Dr-
- co co co ct) co ~co
(1)0"
U. 0:':-
0 ..Ja..g
<( <( .. I
. W E
N " !w
w a::: g
...J <( .. ill ill 0 0000
OJ C/) "
'E
<( ~ .. g
I- U UI
W
..., "0 zp 13 13
0 co ::> ::>::>0::>
0 ~ 0 0 0 N NN~N
a::: 0:: u-' -' -'
a..
~
N
~
.. '" ;;
.~ N ;;
i5 '" '" '0 U '0 ~
N N co '" '" U) ~
.. u 0 0 0 <J>
.. '" '0 a: a: a:
.. 0 '" 1ii 1ii
0 .. u 'E ~
'" a: a: .. ,g ,g
0 <=
" E .. .. Ui '5 <=
.5 ... 1ii '" ~ 0 '5
U) Ui B ~ ?- m 0
'1i m
'0 '0 'ii '0 '0 -
Z. '0 0 '0
E 1h 0; <= <= 1h
c .. 1h " '5 .. 1h
0 0 0; '" 6 0 0 0; '"
" z w z m w
"
.g
'"
'"
'"
.. .. U
0. 1: '"
U '0 is 0 m
iE " a: N
'" 0 .. .. u
.= a: .. .. '"
... .. 0
~ c 0:
u '" '"
.. 0 0 0 J!l
J l! E E J!
i~ E E ,"
(J)
w
:!E
::;)
..J
o
>
lI::::
z
:J
lJil~
N;:!:
we
..J<(
aJo
~a::
- :$
:> '"
o "~
;~!~~
~ lG i5 ~
if. '"
'"
~E
~ t2
:; ~
o tl
~ I!
: is
'" '"
'"
~'"
"''''
> '"
c.1
-;: ::: 0
... III
-g !;
,.... '::1.2
" 0 ~
!? to. Ji(
'... ~ l'a
" ..
~ '"
III
c
o
'"
~ ~~
'"
'"
~ ~ ~
2. n:: co
" .;
~ 10
~ ~
~ "
1:
:>
<D 0
" <.>
" "
'" 0:
I!
...
~o
~
c
:>
'" 0
" <.>
~ "
~
...
~o
~ ~~ g
'" 0 Z
..J
'"
'"
'0
'"
o
0:
2
.s
U)
'0
~
"
~
..
>
'"
o
..
..
~
o
E
.a
'"
'"
...
"'... '"
~ w ;:;
'"
;;:
~ g ~
... "'...
'"
'"
~ ~ :g
o
'"
'"
" 0 "
; ~ f3
'"
'"
'"
.;
*,*'$.
&1 ~ ~
a::i Lri c<i
...
...... ...
"'
'"
'"
"
~
m ~ ~
~ ~ lO
'"
;i;
'"
lii f8 3;
C> '" '"
o (0 ~
C>
'"
'"
~ 16 ;'b
<D '" '"
'"
N
'0
'"
~
..
1ii
U5
.9
" '0 ~
~ ~ en
~ 0:
"E "E! ~
g g .c
l\'l rll "5
~ ~ g
'0'0'0
.:::..s t;;
" = "
~ ~ $:
1ii
s:
{5
'0
~
o
'"
..
..
~
o
E
.5
'"
Of
'0
~
o
'"
J!l
S
en
, ----r-~--
.t\genda Item No. ~,lC
.June 10. 2008
?3J8 219 of 224
![em r'jo. lie
June 10 2008
Page 2:20 of 224
~ - (;
~ ~
c;> 0 '"
~ J: u ~o
~ !
=> !! '" t.l Q W t.l
Of ':; m a
III 11. '"
11.
~
- <D <D '" >- <D
<D '" t- '" '"
u ci ci ci ci ci
.,
'0 - c
~ 0
> 0 '" ~
!!l .. J: u 0 g '" '" 0
u '" ~ '" t- t- "'
(/) 'E .. a "' "' a) a) a)
..
>- .. 11. '"
'" 11.
...J
<l: - c
Z :l " .12
~ ~ 0 1:l ~
<l: ~ J: ! 0 ... "' '" <0
=> '" "' '" '" '"
'" ':; .. a '" '" "' a) a)
~ ..
III Il. '"
Il.
() 3 c
<l: 0
u 0 '"
a. .. J: u ~'"
'[.a= ! Il. $! ~ 0 <D <<>
<l: Il. : a M M '"
() () Il. '"
. - Il.
N W
w ::iE - C '0
" 0 c
...J ;:) 0 '" "
~ J: u o "'I
to ...J ~ '" ~ - 0 t.l t.l Q wo
=>
'" m a If...
~ 0 U
Il. '" ..
> Il. III
is::: - C '0
Z " 0 c
0 '" "
:J ~ J: u o~~ '" '"
<; ! - Il. '" t- ~
'" ~>'<:' '" '" ~
'" .. a .. '" '" a)
>- .. "
Il. " ..
~ 11. III
- C
C ~ .S!
t- o 1:l
<l: => J: ! gfu
=> '" " 0 0 III
0 '" :I a
0::: Il. '"
Il.
3 c
.S!
t- o 1:l ~
0 J: ! '" '" '" 0 '"
=> '" '" :; '" ~ ;::
'" .. 5 M .. "'
..
Il. '"
Q.
'" "
'"
'" '0 '0 '0 ~
N .. .. '" iil
'0 ~ 0 0
'" 0: 0: ;;
e .. '0 '0
0:
.. 1;j 5 5 '"
iJj '" '"
1;j ~ e ;;
iil .9 l- e
I- CI)
'0 0; '0 '0 '0
;; ;; '" '" ;;
.. " ;; ..
;; <5 e 0 ;;
Z <D
"
~
.;:
a
..
..
'iU
'"
o
E
S
'0
..
o
0:
:
'iU
"
o
!;
.s
..
'"
'0
3
0:
=
..
iij
Lake Trafford Road
A:Jsn::la item t'Jo. 17C
~ June 10. 2008
Paae 221 of 224
NORTH
H.T.S.
a.
'"
"
o
o
'"
~
'0
-
Vl
"
a
o
'"
c
o
'"
~
o
u
~
~
%:
o~
"t'
11,
00-
lmmokalee Drive
""
m
:i
"
o
o
'"
J'~
oil,
11,
00-
"".9
~
~
'5
x
o
E
f
LEGEND
4-lANE DIVIDED ARTERIAL - - -
2-lANE ARTERiAL
2-lANE COUECTOR/LOCAL
Immokalee Road
ESPERANZA RPUD
OCTOBER 29, 2007
PROJECT LOCATION
& ROADWAY CLASS.
FIGURE 1
'_.t-.~"
Lake Trafford Road
LEGEND
~l
0>
'"
'0
0
0
0::
v
"
~
Ul
'0
a
0 gl
0::
c:
0
'"
~
0
u
10%
if .
90%
gl
~
"
"
~
. U)
I" I" .c
,"') 0)
lmmokolee Drive z
~~f~
. 65%. PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION BY PERCENT
ESPERANZA RPUD
OCTOBER 29, 2007
't
'"'
1<
o,+-
&1
1b
0"
~
~\.
\
'0
o
0'
0::
"
v
'0
'"
a
E
E
) 9
(Go(, ,~o
C,,,p., {I"'" \
~{,~ f'V/lt,\"J\
:r'\' ,0
1::"
i'"
PROJECT-GENERATED
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION
i1em No. 17e
June 10. 2008 I
D.:>nA ')'J? r.f ?~).1
NORTH
N,T,S.
'%
01&
1b
0"
"',9
FIGURE 2A
Supplement to Traffic Impact Statement
Esperanza Place RPUD
PUDZ-2007-AR-12581
"--"C'-_r"'__~__"'_""""_'_
,L\gsnda item f~o. l7e
June 10 20Cl8
?a;]8 223 of 224
il9il1 I-Jo. 1~,"'"
It'.....
J:Jrl8 10 2008
F'age 224 Df 224
" c
, 0 ;; lo
0 ~
~ Q " 0 310 ;l Q ~ ~~
~ ~ . U ill ~ " 0 ~ ~ '" u U
N . 15 N '3 "
'" . '" ~ ~
~ ~
gl= ;; ,
=
0 ~ ~ m ;l 0 ~ gja1
D! "': 0 m 0 ~ ,., ~ .. '" "
o 0 " " " 0
N S "
. '" ..
~ , c
~
0 " 0
rn s " ~o 0 " :;;
~ . ~ " " i;; ~
en " . Q > 0 0 ~ rn
.
>- . ~ '" ~
0 ~
..J
<( , c ..J lo "
;; " .2 c
Z ~ 0 " <( "
~ " ~" ~ m " ~ ~ ~:31 ~ ~
<( ~ ~ . ~ m '" '" ~ ~ Z ~ z ~ "
. a > " " ~ -" Z
>- ;; :. <( ~ 0
'" '" .
f- ~ >- ~
U " c f- "
-<( 0 13 lo c
0 0 0 "
.~ :r E ~m ~ ~ E ~l< ~
..on. ~ " ~ 0 ~ 00 <( :;j ~ 00- ~ "
o ~ ~ ~ Z
-<( , . c n. " ~...J Z
~ . ..
00 ~ '" j .
N - ~ '"
W
:;; " 5 " Z
W c
0 0 "
..J ::> g " 0 e ~ () 0
III ..J ~ . U ill '" "
. c !f~ 1=
<( 0 . 0
~ '" . 0
f- > ~ '"
w
~ " c ~ rn
0 lo
Z 0 0 ~~(D ~
~ " 0 m ~ ~ ~ ~ 001 .. ~
:J . ii' w 0 ~ '" '"
~ ~ % w ~ g is 0 g Z
N . c f- N "
>- . ~
~ '" . Z
<( ~ '"
;:: " c ~
0 M
Cl ~ 0 tl ~ ~
" g! u ~ T' ~
<( 0 . U U " '" 0 ~ 0- '" "
" " 0 :<l
. c " ~ Z
0 . N
~ '"
~ ~
" c O/S
M .2
0 U .... .
~ i;; " ~o m " 0 m .~ m
0 " ~ . ~ m ~ " , 0 "' N
~ C >M . W ,- a ,0 C m 1ii
N N
~ " N ~ ~ 1ii 0
~ '"
~ ]! Ii 2
" 0 * .
m ~ E ~
m N " " g ~ @l
" " ,
N . . . @l
1ii 0 0 0 $ @l @l "
OC OC '" . ~ . .
0 . " ~ . . > &
'" N ~ ~ il 0 c "
. ~ 0 "
" 00 " . ;; .. .. ~ ~
$ 0 ~ 0
~ 00 2 ~ ~ .
'0 " " '0 '0 ;; 00 ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~
< " . E
~ 0 g
~ 6 00 ~ ill ~ ~
. "
> .
c 0 m
" '" N
. . "
. . .
" ~ 0
~ '"
0 0 2
E E .
.5 _E ~