Agenda 03/11/2008 Item # 8A
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 1 of 273
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PUDZ-2006-AR-10171, Eastbourne Bonita, LLC, represented by Laura Spurgeon, of
Johnson Engineering, Inc., and Patrick G. White, Atty, of Porter, Wright, Morris &
Arthur, LLP., requesting a rezone from the Rural Agricultural (A) aud Special Treatment
(ST) Overlay Zoning District to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning
District for project known as Brandon RPUD, for the development of 204 single-family and
multi-family residential units. The subject property consist of 51.1 acres, and is located on
the southeast corner of the intersection of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial
Boulevard, Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida
OBJECTIVE:
To have the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) consider an application for a rezone, to
permit the Brandon Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) 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 request is for a rezone from the Agricultural (A) Zoning District with a Special Treatment
Overlay (ST) to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning District for a project
known as the Brandon RPUD with a proposed density of 3.99 dwelling units per acre, for the
development of 204 single-family and multi-family residential units. Access to the proposed
project is from Livingston Road (CR-881) and Veterans Memorial Boulevard.
The parcel to the north is Mediterra PUD, a golf course community with a Village Center
approved for 20,000 square feet of commercial space. The Village Center is surrounded by 123
single-family dwelling units and 216 multi-family dwelling units. Mediterra was approved for a
total of 750 residential dwelling units at a gross density of 0.56 units per acre. The parcel to the
south is vacant but was approved for a Conditional Use for a fire station. Further south is Royal
Palm International Academy, which has permitted 550 multi-family dwelling units at a gross
density of 3.40 units per acre.
The applicant originally requested six (6) deviations however, during the Collier County
Planning Commission (CCPC) the applicant agreed to remove three (3) of the requested
deviations. The following deviations from the Land Development Code (LDC) were approved by
the CCPC: I) seeks relief from LDC, Section 6.06.01 (Code of Laws and Ordinances, Section 2-
12.C.13.e), which requires a minimum local street right-oj:.way width of 60 feet; 2) seeks relief
from Code of Laws and Ordinances, Section 2-12.C.13.j, which requires tangents for all streets
between reverse curves, unless otherwise approved by the County Manager, or his designee,
pursuant to LDC, Section 10.02.04; and 3) seeks relief fTom Code of Laws and Ordinances,
Section 22-112, which requires for excavated areas to have a maximum four to one slope from
existing grade to a breakpoint at least 10 feet below the control elevation. Below this breakpoint,
slopes would be no steeper than two to one.
Page 1 on
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 2 of 273
FISCAL IMPACT:
The rezone by and of itself, will have no fiscal impact on Collier County. There is no guarantee
that the project, at build out, will maximize its authorized level of development, however, if the
new Brandon 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 as
needed to maintain adopted Levels of Service (LOS) for public facilities. Additionally, in order
to meet the requirements of concurrency management, the developer of every local development
order approved by Collier County is required to pay 50 percent of the estimated Transportation
Impact Fees associated with the project. Other fees collected prior to issuance of a building
permit include building permit review fees and utility fees associated with connecting to the
County's water and sewer system.
Please note that the inclusion of impact fees and taxes collected are for informational purposes
only; they are not included in the criteria used by staff and the Planning Commission to analyze
this petition.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) IMPACT:
Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is designated Urban (Urban Mixed Use
District, Urban Residential Subdistrict), as identified on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of
the County's Growth Management Plan (GMP). Relevant to this petition, this Subdistrict permits
residential development (variety of unit types) at a base density of up to four (4) residential units
per gross acre and recreation and open space uses. The proposed Brandon RPUD project
includes a maximum of 204 residential dwelling units of varying types as described in the
application and the PUD document, on 51. let acres ofland. The overall density is proposed not
to exceed 4.0 dwelling units per acre. The proposed development includes residential land uses,
lakes, preserves, and street right-of-way with sidewalks.
Conclusion: The Comprehensive Planning Department finds the proposed RPUD Document
consistent with the GMP.
Transportation Element: The proposed project is within the Northwest Transportation
Concurrency Management Area as identified within the Transportation Element of the Growth
Management Plan. Transportation Division staff has reviewed the Traffic Impact Statement
(TIS) and the RPUD document to ensure the appropriate language was added to address the
project's potential traffic impacts. The surrounding roadway network was analyzed on the basis
of projected build-out traffic conditions. Based upon the TIS submitted, all roadway segments
that will be impacted as a result of the Brandon RPUD project will operate at an acceptable level
of service. The Brandon RPUD is consistent with Policies 5. I and 5.2 of the Transportation
Element of the GMP.
Page 2 of?
Agenda Item No. SA
March 11, 2008
Page 3 of 273
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPACT:
During the CCPC hearing, the developer agreed to contribute $ ] ,000 to the Collier County
Affordable Housing Trust Fund for each residential dwelling unit constructed within the project.
This sum shall be paid prior to the issuance of the CO for each residential unit. The $1,000
contribution for each residential unit shall be a credit aguinst uny affordable housing fees that
may be later adopted by the County and applicable to this project.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:
Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petition and notes that the applicant has complied
with staff's recommendations and safeguards have been addressed within the RPUD document,
and for this reason the rezone is consistent with the LDC and GMP.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION:
The EAC reviewed this petition on November 7, 2007. With a vote of 7-], the EAC forwarded
petition PUDZ-2006-AR-1017l to the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) and the
Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of denial.
Mr. Penniman moved to deny the petition, asserted that seventy-eight (78) percent existing
wetland and intense development of such uncertain development specifications being put on the
site is probably not the appropriate way to develop this kind of land. In addition, Mr. Bishof has
concerns regarding the wetlands.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION:
The CCPC heard petition PUDZ-2006-AR-I0171 on February 7, 2008 and by a vote of 7-2
recommended to forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a
recommendation of approval subject to the following conditions that have already been
incorporated in the RPUD document:
1. Include Exhibit Z access locations; costs for providing access through each access point
for interconnection will be determined by the developer and such landowners as may
desire to use anyone or more access point(s), or in the alternative as provided for by
general law. The applicant will show the access "arrows" on the Master Plan and add
commitment in Exhibit F.
2. Add Multi-family limit of 3 stories to Exhibit B Table.
3. Replace buffers and north and east boundary with 15' Type B Buffers on Master Plan.
4. Add Multifamily actual height of 55' to Exhibit B Table.
5. Adjust distance between structures to match sum of setbacks in Exhibit B Table.
6. Strike footnotes 4 and 5 in Exhibit B Table.
7. Note that additional preserve will be contiguous. Noted on Master Plan and Exhibit A,
Preserve Area.
8. Proportionate fair share payment will be determined by a traffic study and will be paid by
the developer to Collier County prior to SDP or PPL approval consistent with the terms
of the attached Exhibit G, entitled "Interlocal Agreement by and between Collier County
and the School District of Collier County".
Page 3 of7
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 4 of 273
9. Accept staff recommendations, which are:
. Buffers of 15' Type B at north and east (Addressed on Master Plan per #3 above).
. Deny sidewalk deviation (Withdrawn in Exhibit E Deviations per #] 0 below).
. Provide hold hannless agreement (Addressed in Exhibit F Commitments per #13):
That the property owner will agree to indemnifY, defend, and hold hannless the
County in the event of the County being named in any suit brought by adjacent or
nearby land owners of undeveloped property to establish lawful access, including
defending the County's interest at hearing or trial; except that the property owner
will not be responsible for any expenses for outside counsel that the County may
otherwise seek to retain in such matter.
. Deny fence or wall height deviation (Withdrawn in Exhibit E Deviations per #]0
below).
]0. Deviations 1,3, and 6 are denied Withdrawn in Exhibit E Deviations.
] 1. Show turn lane at Livingston Road as "'Potential turn lane with compensating right-of-
way" on Master Plan.
]2. Add actual heights of 40' for all 35' zoned heights in Exhibit B Table.
13. Provide hold hannJess agreement. Added Indemnity Agreement in Exhibit F.
]4. Provide commitment for $],000 donation to Affordable Housing Trust Fund upon
issuance of building permit. Added commitment in Exhibit F Commitments.
] 5. Move guardhouses/gates provision from Residential Tract uses to a General Uses
category Revision in Exhibit A.
] 6. Move the connector road west and fill the preserve to west on Master Plan Shown on
Master Plan and noted in Exhibit A Preserves.
] 7. Add "'greater than" for the 20 foot distance between multi-family buildings in Exhibit B
Table.
Since the CCPC approval recommendation was not unanimous and letters of objection have been
received, this petition has been placed on the regular Agenda.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:
This is a site specific rezone from an "A" Agriculture Zoning District with a Special Treatment
(ST) Overlay to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning District for a project
to be known as Brandon RPUD. Site specific rezones are quasi-judicial in nature. As such the
burden falls upon the applicant to prove that the proposed rezone is consistent 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 determine 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 following questions. The answers assist you in making a determination for
approval or not.
1. 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.
Page 4 of7
Agenda Item No. SA
March 11, 2008
Page 5 of 273
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 relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation
and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained
at public expense? Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only
after consultation .with the county attorney.
3. Consider: Conformity of the proposed RPUD with the goals, objectives and policies
of the Growth Management Plan.
4. Consider: 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.
5. Is there an adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve
the development?
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
private.
7. Consider: The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to
accommodate expansion.
8. Consider: Conformity with RPUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of
such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications
are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal
application of such regulations.
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?
II. Would the requested RPUD Rezone result in the possible creation of an isolated
district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts?
12. Consider: 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 influence living conditions in the neighborhood?
15. Will the proposed change create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create
types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak
Page 5 of?
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 6 of 273
volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction
phases of the development, or otherv,ise affect 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 affect property values in the adjacent area?
19. Will the proposed change be a deterrent to the improvement or development of
adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations?
20. Consider: Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege
to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare.
21. Are there substantial reasons why the property cannot ("reasonably") be used m
accordance with existing zoning? (a "core" question...)
22. Is the change suggested out of scale with the 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 permitting such use.
24. Consider: The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site
alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range
of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification.
25. Consider: The impact of development resulting from the proposed RPUD rezone on
the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of
service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and
implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance [Code
ch.! 06, art.II], 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, safety, 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, Executive
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 (BCC) approve Petition PUDZ-
2006-AR-10171 Brandon RPUD subject to staff and the CCPC conditions of approval. All of the
Page 6 of7
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 7 of 273
deviations and conditions have been incorporated into the RPUD document which has been
reviewed by the County Attorney's Office for legal sufficiency.
PREPARED BY:
Melissa Zone, PrL.'1cipal Planner
Department of Zoning and Land Development Review
Page 7 of?
Item Number:
Item Summary:
Meeting Date:
Page I of2
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 8 of 273
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
8A
This item has been continued from the February 26,2008 Bee meeting, This item requires
that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
members. Petition: PUDZ-2006-AR-10171 Eastbourne Bonita, LLC, represented by Laura
Spurgeon, of Johnson Engineering, Inc., and Patrick G. White, Atty. of Porter, Wright. Morris
& Arthur, LLP., requesting a rezone from the Agricultural (A) and Special Treatment (ST)
Overlay Zoning District to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning District
for project known as Brandon RPUD, for the development of 204 single-family and multi.
family residential units. The subject property, conSisting of 51.1 acres, IS located on the
southeast corner of the Intersection of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard
Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. Collier County, Florida.
3/11/200890000 AM
Prepared By
Melissa Zone
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Principal Planner
Date
Zoning & Land_ Development Review
2/14/20085:31 :57 PM
Approved By
Judy Puig
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Operations Analyst
Community Development &
Environmental Services Admin.
Date
A pproved By
2/27/20084:27 PM
Ray Bellows
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Chief Planner
Date
Approved By
Zoning & Land Development Review
2/27/20084:41 PM
Susan Murray, AICP
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Zoning & Land Development Director
Date
Approved By
Zoning & Land Development Review
2/28/200811 :57 AM
Date
Marjorie M. Student-Stirling Assistant County Attorney
2/28/200812:27 PM
Approved By
County Attorney County Attorney Office
Jeff Klatzkow
County Attorney
Assistant County Attorney
Date
County Attorney Office
2/28/20084:29 PM
Approved By
Nick Casalanguida
Transportation Services
MPO Director
Date
Transportation Planning
2/28/2008 4:37 PM
file://C :\Agenda T est\Export\ I 02-March%20 I 1,%202008\08. %20ADVER T1SED%20PUBLI... 3/5/2008
Page 2 of 2
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 9 of 273
Approved By
Joseph K. Schmitt
Community Development &
Environmental Services Adminstrator
Date
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Community Development &
Environmental Services Admin.
21291200810:46 AM
Approved Ry
OMS Coordinator
Applications Analyst
Date
Administrative Services
Information Technology
212912008 2:19 PM
Approved By
Mark Isackson
Budget Analyst
Date
County Manager's Office
Office of Management & Budget
313120088;23 AM
Approved By
James V. Mudd
County Manager
Date
Board of County
Commissioners
County Manager's Office
313120089;55 AM
file://C:IAgendaTestIExportl I 02-March%2011 ,%202008108. %20ADVERTISED%20PUBLI... 3/5/2008
Agenda Item No. 8A
AGENDA IrwlMttl.A, 2008
Page 10 of 273
........Cq~~unt~
STAFF REPORT
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
HEARING DATE: FEBRUARY 7, 2008
SUBJECT:
PUDZ-2006-AR-IOI71, BRANDON RPUD
OWNER:
Eastbourne Bonita, LLC.
550 Essjay Drive, Suite 400
Williamsville, NY 14221
AGENTS:
Laura Spurgeon
Johnson Engineering, Inc.
2350 Stanford Court
Naples, FL 34112
Patrick White, Esq.
POlter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, LLP
5801 Pelican Bay Boulevard
Naples, FL 34108
REOUESTED ACTION:
The petitioner seeks to rezone the subject 51.1 +/- acre site from the Rural Agricultural Zoning
District (A) with a Special Treatment Overlay (ST) to the "RPUD, Brandon Residential Planned
Unit Development" with a proposed density of 3.99 dwelling units per acre for the subject
propelty.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject property is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Livingston Road
(CR-881) and Veterans Memorial Boulevard, Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East,
Collier County, Florida. See location map on the following page.
Page t of 14
<CO""
",or-
.ON
ON-
2,....:0
r~~
ffi.c ~
=::::::~O'l
coroco
-g:2:o..
OJ
OJ
<
~~
I;
,.
J
~~I
.
~I
I
!
eo
.,
~~t
~~;
'I
1
I ~~
~b ~{~
",
I
i
~i
1
I
d
(/("" ..........
ovo~
N01S~N~n
/)
;;
<
ntaSOl.J.OII / _______
- --
(:: I!
" 'I' .
=> li ' -
0 I-
'-' >--z
00
w UJ- IO;IlOt<ll/l'f'
W .t(
~ 0,-,
itg .rm.....llOOO.n:o.OOQro~
W,-1UYJ.t:IIl1M
Iii . II"
- I [
Ii 'I:
Ii
,
I.
gh
r
!.
i" "
II I
I i
jl
I Ii I
ili . i Ii ~
.. i. j!iIlll
d OWOll~~~j ~I it .~
! Ii
liP 1
II jl
I
,
'=-=
!i \ .,......
!I! · h
I;i
i
~
Ii"
lIt......~ 1
a..
<(
::2:
c:>
z
z
o
N
~
....
~
o
~
rr
<:
,
'"
o
o
'"
,
N
Cl
:0
ll..
..
Z
o
I-
i=
w
"-
a..
<{
~
z
o
I-
<{
()
o
---l
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 12 of 273
PURPOSEIDESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The request is for a rezone from the Agricultural (A) Zoning District with a Special Treatment
Overlay (ST) to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning District for a project
known as the Brandon RPUD with a proposed density of 3.99 dwelling units per acre, for the
development of 204 single-family and multi-family residential units. The RPUD Master Plan for
this petition depicts generalized areas of development, water management, and traffic and
pedestrian circulation. Access to the proposed project is from Livingston Road (CR-88!) and
Veterans Memorial Boulevard.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
Subject Parcel: Vacant, zoned Rural Agricultural (A) with Special Treatment Overlay (ST)
Surrounding parcels:
North: Single-family residential dwelling units, undeveloped parcels and Veterans
Memorial Boulevard, zoned Rural Agriculture (A) and Mediterra PUD
South: Multi-family residential dwelling units and undeveloped parcels, zoned Royal Palm
Academy PUD (V crona Pointe townhomes)
East: Undeveloped parcels, Florida Power & Light (FPL) Easement and The Links
single-family and Trophy Club multifamily residential dwelling units, zoned Rural
Agricultural (A) with a Special Treatment (ST) Overlay and The Strand (Pelican
Strand DRl/PUD)
West: Livingston Road (CR-88 1), undeveloped parcels, North Naples Middle School and
proposed Fire Station, zoned Rural Agriculture (A) and Della Rosa RPUD
Zoninl!: Map
"'~
PUD
Page 3 of 14
Agenda Item No. SA
March 11, 2008
Page 13 of 273
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY:
Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is designated Urban (Urban Mixed Use
District, Urban Residential Subdistrict), as identified on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of
the County's OMP. Relevant to this petition, this Subdistrict permits residential development
(variety of unit types) at a base density of up to four (4) residential units per gross acre and
recreation and open space uses. The proposed Brandon RPUD project includes a maximum of
204 residential dwelling units of varying types as described in the application and the PUD
document, on 51.1:1: acres of land. The overall density is proposcd not to exceed 4,0 dwelling
units per acre. The proposed development includes residential land uses, lakes, preserves, and
street right of way with sidewalks.
Compliance with Objective 7 and Policies Regarding Smart Oro",'!h (interconnections, loop road,
sidewalks/trails, etc.), Staff notes the following: The adjoining land to the east of the subject site
is between the subject site and the FPL easement, and no proposcd interconnections with this
adjoining tract(s) of land are proposed in the Brandon RPUD Mastel' Plan. This RPUD will be
found consistent with the OMP if the RPUD Master Plan is modified to show that future
interconnections from the subject development will be available to the tract(s) of land to the east.
The adjoining land to the west of the subject site will be provided with access from both
Livingston Road and from Veterans Memorial Blvd. This RPUD will be found consistent with
the OMP conditioned upon the RPUD Master Plan being modified to show a pedestrian
connection from the approximate centcr point of the pl'l1ject so that there can be a future
pedestrian interconnection between the Brandon RPUD and the development(s) that occur to the
west.
The Comprehensive Planning Dcpattment finds the proposed RPUD Document consistent with
the OMP.
TranspOltation Element: The proposed project is within the Northwest Transportation
Concurrency Managcment Area as identified within the Transportation Element of the Orowth
Management Plan. Transportation Division staff has rcviewcd the Traffic Impact Statement
(TIS) and the RPUO document to ensure the appropriate language was added to address the
project's potential traffic impacts. This project can also be considered consistent with policy 9.3
of the TranspOltation Element of the OMP, as it shows required intcrconnections wherever
feasible.
The surrounding roadway network was analyzed on the basis of projected build-out traffic
conditions. Based upon the TIS submitted, all roadway scgments that will be impacted as a result
of the Brandon RPUD project will operate at an acceplable level of service.
The Brandon RPUD can be considered consistent with Policies 5,1 and 5.2 of the Transportation
Element of the OMP. The proposed PUD produces 127 PM peak hour, peak direction (south-
bound) trips on Livingston Road, and the adjacent roadway network has sufficicnt capacity to
accommodate this project throughout the five-year planning period. Livingston Road has a
service volume of 3,260 trips, with a rcmaining capacity of approximately 2,036 trips between
Pllge 4 of 14
1
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 14 of 273
Imperial Boulevard and Immokalcc Road (CR-846); it is currently operating at Level of Service
(LOS) "8" as stated by the Draft 2007 Annual Update and Inventory Rep011 (AUIR),
Note that the current (and old) TIS illustrates 77 PM peak trips northbound (NB), which was
apparently the peak direction of the roadway when it was originally approved. The PM Peak
direction of the background traffic is now southbound in the 2007 data; meaning the peak
direction impact is now southbound. Staff recommends approval of this petition.
Conservation & Coastal Management Element: Objective 2.2 of the Conservation and Coastal
Management Element (CCME) of the GMP 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 tlle specific and cumulative impacts of
st01mwater runoff, stormwater systems should he 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 offresh water (discharge) to the estuarine system."
This project is consistent with the objectives of Policy 2.2.2 in that it attempts to mimic or
enhance the quality and quantity of water leaving the site by utilizing interconnected retention
and detention areas to provide water quality retention and peak flow attenuation during storm
events prior to discharging into a wetland preserve.
ANALYSIS:
Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition and the criteria upon which
a determination is based. The criteria are noted in Sections 10.02.13 and ]0.02.13.B.5 of the
LDC and required staff evaluation and comment. The staff evaluation establishes an accurate
basis to support the recommendations of staff. The Collier County Planning Commission
(CCPC) uses the same criteria a~ the basis for their recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners (BCC), who in turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning
request. These evaluations are completed as separate documents and are attached to the staff
report (Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B").
Environmental Analvsis: Environmcntal Services Staff has reviewed the petition and notes the
following. Bccause the subject property is equal to or greater than twenty (20) acres, a minimum
of twenty-five (25) percent of the native vegetation is to be preserved, A total of 47.2 acres of
native vegetation habitat are found on the subject site, as outlined in Table 2 of the
Environmental Impact Statement (ElS). Therefore, the minimum preserve requirement is ] 1.8
acres. The proposed site plan illustrates seventy-five (75) percent of the preserve requircmcnt,
which is approximately 8.86 acres of onsite preserve. The preserve is composed of 7.76 acres of
existing native vegetation and ].1 acres that will require replanting after exotic removal to meet
the native vegetation requirement (Exhibit K of EIS). In an effort to create one contiguous
preserve and include those areas within the ST Overlay, the 1.1 acres containing a high level of
exotics was included in the preserve. FurthemlOre, staff has incorporated safeguards within the
RPUD document to ensure compliance with the environmental regulations.
Page 5 of 14
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 15 of 273
Utility Analysis: The Utilities Division staff has reviewed and approved the petition. The RPUD
Document requires the Developer to meet all applicable County Ordinances in effect at the time
construction documents are submitted for development approval. Design and construction of all
improvements shall be subject to compliance with appropriate provisions of the LDC.
TransDOltation Analysis: Transportation Services Division staff has reviewed the petition and
notes that they are requiring the proposed RPUD to interconncct to the parcel to the south which
is the Royal Palm Academy PUD (Verona Pointe townhomes),
Collier County School District Analysis (CCSD): This development is currently in the school
zones of Veterans Memorial Elementary (VME), North Naples Middle (NNM) and Gulf Coast
High School (GCHS). Based on the numbcr of dwelling units the petitioner is proposing (204
units), CCSD estimate they will generate approximately forty-one (41) new elementary school
students, sixteen (16) new middle school students and eighteen (18) new high school students,
Month 2 Membership reports (Sept 18, 2007-0ct. ] 5, 2007) show the following el11'ollment at the
schools:
VME - 871 students (CAPACITY: 932 with addition complcted this summer)
NNM - 921 studcnts (CAPACITY: 984)
GCHS - 2135 students (CAPACITY: 1900)
There is cUl1'ently capacity at the elementary and middle school levels, but not adequate capacity
at the high school level. The School District will be monitoring the number of students generated
by this development along with the overall el11'ollment of these schools to ensure future capacity.
Zoning and Land Development Analysis: The proposed RPUD will allow a maximum of 204
single-family and multi-family residential dwelling units which will result in a gross density of
3.99 dwelling units per acre. The proposcd RPUD is in the Urban Residential Subdistrict which
has a base density of four (4) residential dwelling units per gross acre, As mentioned previously,
the permitted principal uses will be single-family and multi-family residential dwelling units. As
they apply to the RPUD document, the development standards contained in Exhibit Bare
designed to reflect the design approach for a development that will allow a larger footprint for
each dwelling unit. The single-family and zero-lot line dwelling units would have a minimum lot
area of 4,500 square feet per unit and a lot width of forty-five (45) feet. The proposed single-
family attached units and townhouses minimum lot area would be 1,700 square feet per unit with
a minimum lot width of seventeen (17) feet. The proposcd two-family dwelling units would be
4,000 square feet per unit with a lot width of forty (40) feet. The duplex properties would be
8,000 square feet in area and a lot width of ninety (90) feet. The multi-family dwelling units
would be 1,700 squarc feet per unit with a lot width of ninety (90) feet. It should be noted that on
cui de sac lots and lots on the inside of curved streets, the dimensions would be reduced by thirty
(30) percent, provided the minimum lot arca requiremcnts are maintained. Furthermore, the front
yard setback of twenty (20) feet is closer to the right-of-way (ROW) than the typical 25 foot
front setback.
The maximum zoned building height is thirty-five (35) fect for all the residential dwelling units.
Page 6 of 14
Agenda Item No. SA
March 11, 2008
Page 16 of 273
The building height will be measured from the fmished floor to the highest point of the roof
surface of a flat or Bermuda roof and to the deck line of a mansard roof and the mean height
level between the eaves and ridge of a gable roof. The petitioner did not provide for an actual
height because they wanted to wait lUltil the designs of the structures were determined.
The PUDs in the surrounding area have various ranges of building heights. The Pelican Strand
DRIJPUD lies east of the propelty and situated west of 1-75. Pelican Strand DRIIPUD has a
maximum building height of thirty-five (35) feet for single-family and multi-family dwelling
units. The Tuscany Reserve PUD, which is situated northeast of the subject propelty and just
west of 1-75, has a maximum building height of fifty (50) feet for the multi-family structures.
The Royal Palm International Academy POD, which is southwest of the subject property and
immediately west of Livingston Road (CR-881), has a maximum height of fOlty-five (45) feet
and three (3) stories for the multi-family structures. The propelty to the northwest is Della Rosa
RPUD, which was recently approved for 107 multi-family residential dwelling units at a density
of seven (7) dwelling units per acre and a maximum zoned building height of fifty (50) feet.
The parcel to the north is Mediterra PUD, a golf course community with a Village Center
approved for 20,000 square feet of commercial space. The Village Center is surrounded by 123
single-family dwelling units and 216 multi-family dwelling units. Mediterra was approved for a
total of 750 residential dwelling units at a gross density of 0.56 units per acre. The parcel to the
south is vacant but was approved for a Conditional Use for a fire station. Further south is Royal
Palm International Academy, which has permitted 550 multi-family dwelling units at a gross
density of 3 .40 units per acre.
A concern has been raised regarding this petition and six adjacent property owners on its eastern
boundary. There are six propelty owners whose parcels are undeveloped and who believe that if
this petition is approved they will be landlocked. These propelty owners wish to seek access to
Livingston Road (CR-881 ) for ingress and egress through the proposed Brandon RPUD property.
The landlocked properties are situated between the FPL easement on the east and the proposed
Brandon RPUD on the west. On the following page is a diagram of the Brandon RPUD and the
properties involved.
Attomey Craig Blume, who represents the six property owners, contends that his clients are
entitled to an access easement over the petitioner's property.
Chief Assistant County Attomey Jeff Klatzkow contacted Mr. Blume and Patrick White, the
attorney for the proposed Brandon RPUD, and requested they work out a private arrangement,
failing which the County Attorney may recommend that, as a condition to the rezone, the
applicant grant the County a hold harmless agreement. This agreement would require the
applicant to step in and fully pay all costs of litigation, including actual attorney's fees, and fully
indemnifY the County against any claim by the six property owners related to this petition.
Altematively, the petitioner could be required to grant access to the six adjacent property owners.
Correspondence regarding the property owners to the east is included as back-up to this staff
repmt.
Page 7 of 14
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 17 of 273
Six Landlocked Landowners
1) PI# 00149120003
Robert & Barbara Chervenak
2923 Birehwood Street
Trenton, MI 48183-3681
(sister has interest-Constance M. Butler)
3) PI#00150n0007
Ha[eakala Capital Partners Ltd! Mark Nichols
2335 Tamiami Trail N - Suite #402
Naples, FL 34103-4458
5) PI#OO 14844000 1
Amalia Harazian
8348 Salem Lane
Dearborn Heights, MI 4127
(sister has interest-Nargeze Sarkissian)
(sister has interest-Margaret Martyniuk)
2) PI#00149040002
Jan Forszpaniak
430 Cove Tower Drive-Apt 803
Naples, FL 34110-6089
4) P1#00150240008
Richard & Jeanette Govig
8475 E. San Marino Drive
Scottsdale, AZ 85258-2446
6) PI#00[48360000
Mohammed & Fahmida Rahman
[3056 Valewood Drive
Naples, FL 34119-8577
Requested Deviation from the Land Development Code (LDC): The petitioner seeks approval of
six deviations from the requirements of the LDC and/or Code oC Laws and Ordinances. The
petitioner has provided written justification in support of the deviations below. Staff evaluated
the deviation request and recommends approval or denial of the deviations as specified below:
Page 8 of 14
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 18 of 273
Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC, Section 6.06.02, which requires construction of five-foot
wide sidewalks on both sides of local streets in order to allow a single five-foot wide sidewalk on
one side of the street where preserves abut the internal road right-of-way.
Petitioner's Justification: If an access road is designed to connect to the existing 40-foot wide
public access easement located at thc nOlthwest boundary of the Verona Pointe subdivision, the
applicant requests a single five-foot sidewalk within the minimum right-of-way width of 40 feet
for that section that is an extension of the existing public access easement.
Staff Analvsis and Recommendation: The development standard for sidewalks per County
regulations requires the petitioner to construct the sidewalk or make a payment in-lieu of
construction. LDC, Section 6,06.02 states that if the petitioner wants relief from the LDC
regulation then payment in-lieu is required for any sidewalk that is not being constructed on
either side of the road, or as an alternative a ten (l0) foot wide sidewalk throughout the RPUD
on one (l) side of the road, is allowed.
Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC, Section 6.06.01 (Code of Laws and Ordinances, Section 2-
12.C.13.e), which requires a minimum local street right-of-way width of60 feet.
Petitioner's Justification: The minimum right-of-way width of fifty (50) feet is requested for
local strects within the Brandon RPUD, The applicant believes the deviation is justified because
of the small-scale setting of the neighborhood. This addresses concerns that a larger road right-
of-way is conducive to higher speeds, and physical design of the broader road right-of-way
becomes less articulated and does not relate to the neighborhood scale. A fifty 50-foot right-of-
way for a residential street can successfully facilitate movement of the vehicular, pedestrian and
bike traffic while accommodating all utility and drainage needs. The fifty 50-foot right-of-way
accomplishes traffic calming to provide a safer transportation system within the neighborhood,
This dimension for a neighborhood right-of-way accommodates all the standard roadway
functions so that the development is compact, the native vegetation is less impacted, and open
spaces can be concentrated in areas of the property for enhanced environmental quality.
Additionally, if an. access road is designed to COlillect to the existing fOlty 40-foot wide p\lblic
access easement located at the nOlthwest boundary of the Verona Pointe subdivision, the
applicant requests a minimum right-of-way width of fOlty (40) feet for the section of the access
road that is an extension of that existing public access easement.
Staff Analvsis and Recommendation: Engineering Staff agrees that under the proposed
development scenario of fifty (50) feet is safer for pedestrian traffic because it shortens the
crossing distance and discouragcs higher speed traffic. Staff also SUppOlts the taper from the 50-
foot wide internal road section to the 40-foot wide public access easement located at the
northwest boundary of the Verona Pointe subdivision for the purpose of an intercOlillection
between the subj ect property and Verona Pointe. This is because the 40- foot wide easement
would be the same width as the existing public access easement on the Verona Pointe property
and also it poses no safety concems.
Pnge 9 of 14
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 19 of 273
Deviation #3 seeks relief from Code of Laws and Ordinances, Section 2-12.C.13.h, which
requires a minimum 25-foot radius (from edge of pavement) for local street intersections, and a
minimum 40-foot radius for arterials. The Code also states that lesser radii may be approved by
the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator.
Petitioner's Justification: Street intersections are requested to provide a minimum of a 20-foot
radius (face of curb) for all internal project streets and a 35-foot radius for intersections at project
entrances. This deviation is justified because it is consistent with the Code provision for
administrative approval of lesser radii. Florida Department of Transpol1ation's Florida
Intersection Design Guide (FIDG) indicates that a 20-30 foot corner radius serves for low speed
turns for passenger vehicles, which is the speed level desired for this residential neighborhood.
At a 40- foot radius, the FIDG lists moderate turn speeds for passenger vehicles, which is not
desired for this neighborhood. The smaller radii requested will accommodate the small-scale
nature of the neighborhood, provide for traffic calming and increased open space without any
compromise to traffic mobility.
Staff Analvsis and Recommendation: Engineering Staff agrees with this request for the same
reason as Deviation #2, because it is safer for pedestrian traffic since it sh011ens the crossing
distance and discourages higher speed traffic, under this development scenario.
Deviation #4 seeks relief from Code of Laws and Ordinances, Section 2-12.C.13.j, which
requires tangents for all streets between reverse curves, unless otherwise approved by the County
Manager, or his designee, pursuant to LDC, Section 10.02.04.
Petitioner's Justification: Tangents are requested not to be required between reverse CUlves on
any project street. This deviation is justified because it is consistent with the Code provision for
administrative discretion. The streets within the Brandon RPUD are not at a traffic capacity or
speed level to requirc tangents between reverse curves. The site is designed with straight section
curves and no super-elcvated curves. With a speed limit of 25 mph, the design promotes traffic
calming.
Staff Analvsis and Recommendation: Engineering staff does not object to this request because at
low speeds, tangents between reverse curves are not required for safety.
Deviation #5 seeks relicf from Code of Laws and Ordinances, Section 22-112, which requires
for excavated areas to have a maximum four to one slope from existing grade to a breakpoint at
least 10 feet below the control elevation. Below this breakpoint, slopes would be no steeper than
two to one.
Petitioner's Justification: Lake cross sections will adhere to South Florida Water Management
District (SFWMD) minimum standards as identified in Drainage Details & Cross Sections, Sheet
11. Additional reductions in that cross sectional area of the lake beyond the standards required
by SFWMD will reduce the water quality coming out of the proposed lake.
rage 10 of14
t
Agenda Item No. SA
March 11, 2008
Page 20 of 273
Staff Analvsis and Recommendation: Engineering staff does not object to this request as long as
the break point is at least three (3) feet below dry season low water. The three (3) feet break
point is the minimum criteria for the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD).
Deviation #6 seeks relief from LDC, Section 5.03.02, which limits fence or wall height to 6 feet
measured from unaltered ground level at the fence or wall location.
Petitioner's Justification: A maximum perimeter fence or wall height of 8 feet is requested, as
measured from the finished floor elevation of the nearest residential structure within the
development or from the top of belm elevation if constructed on a landscape belm, This
additional height allows the fence or wall to function relative to the graded site elevation and the
Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard elevations. The two additional feet in height
and adjustment to the measurement reference points responds to the site conditions so that the
perimeter fence or wall functions to visually and physically define and protect the neighborhood
edge.
Staff Analvsis and Recommendation: Staff disagrees with this request because the regulations in
the LDC for a fence are "The height of a fence or wall located outside of the building line shall
be measured from the ground level at the fence location." Furthermore, the LDC also states that
"Fences or walls on lots greater than one (l) acre in area may reach a maximum height of six (6)
feet; except for raw water wells, for which the allowable height is eight (8) feet." This provision
is very specific and does not appear to contemplate deviations.
If this request is approved, the wall will be higher than the eight (8) feet the applicant is
requesting. The center line of the road will be at least one and a half (1 Yz) feet higher than the
base elevation. Plus, the belm will be no less than one and a half (1 y,) feet high. These two (2)
minimum elevations would result in a total height of at least eleven (11) feet above the base
elevation, Staff does not recommend placing a higher fence on a residential property that is
adjacent to residential property.
Fences are permitted accessory uses in residential zoning districts but the accessory use should
not dominate the development. If the applicant still maintains that a higher wall is needed and the
ccpe agrees then it should be measured from the crown of the ROW.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMISSION (EAC):
The EAC reviewed this petition on November 7, 2007. With a vote of7-1, the EAC forwarded
petition PUDZ-2006-AR-10l71 to the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPe) and the
Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of denial.
Mr. Penniman moved to deny the petition, asserted that seventy-eight (78) percent existing
wetland and intense development of such unceltain development specifications being put on the
site is probably not the appropriate way to develop this kind of land. In addition, Mr. Bishof has
concerns regarding the wetlands.
Pagel1of14
Agenda Item No. 8A .
March 11, 2008
Page 21 of 273
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING CNIM):
First NIM: The agent for the applicant held the required NIM on October 23, 2006 at the North
Naples Middle School cafeteria, at 5:30 p.m. Ten people attended, including the applicant's team
and County staff. Ms. Laura Spurgeon of Johnson Engineering gave a brief overview of the
proposed zoning request and development plan. Of those in the audience who spoke, no one
voiced any objections to the proposal. When asked if there are any plans for affordable housing
units, Ms. Spurgeon replied, "There is not a plan for affordable housing at this time." Some
comments were made regarding problems with affordable housing at the development near
Sam's Club and the new County park, although no one offered a detailed explanation.
Additional questions were relative to:
. water retention and drainage
. access to and from the project, and
. residential unit size and/or square footage.
The agent and/or applicant's representatives answered:
. They have set aside twelve (12,") acres of on-site preserves for wetlands
. There are, or will be, sheet flow outfall culverts under Livingston Road (CR-881)
. There are plans for foUl' lakes on site for water management and storage purposes
. We'll take steps to protect the cypress head (special treatment area) to the east of tlle
project
. There are (wo (2) purposed access points to the project: one from Livingston Road (right
in, right out) and one fi'om Veterans Memorial Blvd. (limited access road)
. The residential unit sizes have not yet been determined.
Second NIM: The NlM was held on Monday, September 16,2007 at 6 p.m. at the N0I1h Naples
Middle School cafeteria. Approximately 30 people attended, including the applicant's team and
county staff. Ms. Laura Spurgeon of Johnson Engineering gave a brief overview of the proposed
zoning request. Ms. Spurgeon made it elear that there were no requests for any housing density
bonuses, While there were no direct objections to the development there were questions relating
to access to and from the project as well as interconnectivity, water retention/drainage and
buffering requirements. The agents explained that the interconnection to adjacent parcels was not
feasible and the retention/drainage concerns would be addressed during the site development
plan (SDP) process. Staff confirmed that all development projects in the County have to follow
strict regulations regarding water retention and drainage.
A couple of neighbors expressed concern about the amount of buffering required and requested
that the developer be required to increase the buffering along the northeastel'l1 boundary. The
agents for the applicant stated tlley will plant the required buffer per County regulations and
nothing more. Staff assured the residents that this concern would be address in the staff rep0l1
and would be requested as a stipulation for approval. Staff is requesting to have an enhanced
buffer along the eastem boundary incorporated into the RPUD document,
Page 12 of 14
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 22 of 273
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward petition
PUDZ-2006-AR-10171 to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation
of approval subject to the following staff conditions.
1. The developer shall provide a fifteen (15) foot wide type B buffer along the north and
east boundary of the Brandon RPUD property line to address the concerns of the
surrounding neighbors that was discussed during the second (2"d) NIM.
2. Deny Deviation #1 which seeks relief from LDC, Section 6.06.02, which requires
construction of five-foot wide sidewalks on both sides of local streets. If Deviation #1 is
approved, then the developer shall provide payment in-lieu for sidewalks that are not
being constl'Ucted on both sides of the internal roads or the developer shall provide a ten
(10) foot wide sidewalk throughout the RPUD on one (I) side of the road, prior to the
first development order approval.
3. The developer shall submit a hold harmless agreement prior to the BCC hearing. The
hold hmmless agreement would state that the applicant (Eastbourne Bonita, LLC) would
pay all costs of litigation, including actual attorney's fees, and fully indemnify the
County against any adverse judgmcnt, arising out of the contentions concerning ofthe six
(6) property owners to the east of the proposed project.
4. Deny Deviation #6 which seeks relief from LDC, Section 5.03.02, which limits fence or
wall height to 6 feet measured from unaltered ground level.
Exhibits:
A. Rezone Findings
B. RPUD Findings
l)age 13 of 14
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 23 of 273
PREPARED BY:
/
~~
MELISSA ONE, ~RINCgJAL PLA
DEPARTMENT oP'zcJN1NG AND
LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
REVIEWED BY:
7J1g~i~. ~~:;;~i'N1-~
ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
I11.s(08
DATE
I h~s(o'(;-
DATE '
RA Y B LOWS, ZONING MANAGER
DEP AR MENT OF ZON ING AND
LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
~ j iJvI ~-ln. ~'\U)
USAN M. ISTENES, AICP, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND
LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
)J1!~:;
~E
APPROVED BY:
..-----~ ~
o EPH K. SCHMITT, ADMINISTRATOR
C MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND
NVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
//31 /cf~
DATE'
Tentatively scheduled for the February 26, 2008 Board of County Commissioners
Meeting
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION:
,^l1wty ~
~ P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN
]/7/03
DATE
Page 14 ofl4
r
EXHIBIT A
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 24 of 273
REZONE FINDINGS
PETITION PUDZ-2006-AR-I0171 Brandon RPUD
Chapter 1O.03.05.G of the Collier County Land Development Code requires that the report and
recommendations of the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners shall
show that the Planning Commission has studied and considered the proposed change in relation
to the following, where applicable:
1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, & policies
ofthe Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan.
Findings: Page 3 of the staff report expounds in detail how this petition is consistent with
the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and the elements of the Growth Management Plan
(GMP). The subject property is designated Urban (Urban Mixed Use District, Urban
Residential Subdistrict), as identified on the FLUM of the GMP. Relevant to this petition,
this Subdistrict permits residential development (variety ofumt types) at a base density of
up to four (4) residential units per gross acre; therefore, the project is consistent with the
GMP.
2. The existing land use pattern;
Findings: The existing pattern to the north is single-family residential dwelling units and
undeveloped parcels zoned Rural Agriculture (A); the land use to the south is multi-
family residential dwelling units and undeveloped parcels zoned Rural Agriculture (A);
the property to the east is undeveloped parcels and the zoning district is Rural Agriculture
(A); and the property to the south is undeveloped parcels with a zoning designation of
Rural Agriculture (A). The proposed project is consistent with the existing residential
land use patterns as explained in the staff report because the rezone complies with the
GMP and Land Development Code (LDC) requirements.
3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated 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 adequate
public facilities ordinance, the rezone will not create an isolated district. In regards to the
nearby districts the location map on page 2 of the staff report illustrates that there are
several other PUD developments in the area with similar land uses. For those reasons, the
rezone request will not create an isolated district to the adjacent districts.
4, Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing
conditions on the property proposed for change.
Findings: The existing boundaries could be considered to be irregularly drawn in relation
to the majority of parcels in the County which are parcels that are a rectangular polygon
shape. Based on the Property Appraiser's website, the subject property was created by the
developer between 2005 and 2006 and assembled as a meandering, illogically shaped
parcel. The location map on page 2 of the staff report illustrates the perimeter of the outer
boundary of the subject parcel. The proposed RPUD boundaries also result in access
Page I of 4
1/31/08
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
EXHIBIT A Page 25 of 273
issues to the undeveloped property to the east and described on page seven (7) of this
staff report.
5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed
amendment necessary.
Findings: The proposed RPUD rezone is not obligatory at this location. However, the
request is reasonable because the FLUM designates this area as the Urban Residential
Subdistrict and the proposed RPUD rezone is appropriate because it adheres to the Future
Land Use Element (FLUE).
6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the
neighborhood;
Findings: The development will not adversely affect the living conditions in the
neighborhood because the requested development standards are similar to the
development standards contained in the LDC and are similar to the Mediterra PUD and
Pelican Strand PUD/DRI residential development in the area.
7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion
or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because
of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during
construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety.
Findings: The site generated trips will not lower the Level of Service (LOS) below the
adopted LOS standard for Livingston Road (CR-881). The proposed PUD produces 127
PM peak hour, peak direction (South-bound) trips on Livingston Road, and the adjacent
roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate this project throughout the five-
year planning period. Livingston Road has a service volume of 3,260 trips, with a
remaining capacity of approximately 2,036 trips between Imperial Boulevard and
Immokalee Road; and is currently at Level of Service (LOS) "B" as stated by the Draft
2007 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUJR). The Transportation Services
Division has reviewed the proposed PUD and has recommended approval of the petition
based upon the project will not lower the LOS below the adopted LOS for the area.
8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem;
Findings: The proposed change should not create drainage or surface water problems
because the Section 4.03.01 of the LDC specifically addresses prerequisite development
standards that are designed to reduce the risk of flooding on nearby properties. The
proposed water management and drainage is designed to prevent drainage problems on
site and is compatible with the adjacent water management systems. Additionally, the
LDC and GMP have regulations in place that will ensure review for drainage on new
developments.
9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas;
Findings: As depicted on the RPUD Master Plan (Exhibit C to the RPUD) the Type A or
if approved a Type B buffer provides adequate light and air to adjacent properties.
Page 2 of 4
1/31/08
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
EXHIBIT A Page 26 of 273
Therefore, the proposed change will not have an adverse impact on adjacent properties.
The proposed development requires the site to conform to the development standards
which are in Chapter 4 of the LDC, specifically in section 4.06.01 which is intended to
improve environmental quality by reducing and reversing air, noise, heat, and chemical
pollution through the preservation of canopy trees and the creation of shade and
microclimate. The standards in Chapter 4 of the LDC provide for open space, corridor
management, and building height restrictions, etc. to protect the adjacent areas. Exhibit A
Preserve Area of the RPUD document commits twenty-five (25) percent for native
vegetation requirement and Exhibit B provides the building height and setback standards
which should maintain the project will not reduce the light and air circulation on adjacent
properties.
10, Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent
area;
Findings: This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results which may be
internal or external to the subj ect 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 driven by market value. There is no guarantee that the project will
be marketed in a manner comparable to the surrounding developments.
11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or
development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations;
Findings: The adjacent properties are also designated Urban Residential on the FLUE
and they allow for similar dwelling types. Therefore, the proposed development will not
be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties.
12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an
individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare;
Findings: Land Use application are subject to the public hearing process to assure that
the rezone thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent
with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity in which the property is situated.
The proposed rezone complies with the land use designation of the Urban (Urban
Residential Subdistrict) FLUM of the GMP, which is a public policy statement
supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with the GMP.
13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in
accordance with existing zoning;
Findings: The subject property could not develop residential dwelling units in
accordance with the existing zoning because the current zoning is Agriculture (A) and
that zoning does not allow this type of residential development. The proposed RPUD
rezone conforms to the GMP because it will be developed in accordance with the FLUE
for the Urban Residential Subdistrict.
Page 3 of 4
1/31/08
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
EXHIBIT A Page 27 of 273
14, Whether the change snggested is ont of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or
the County;
Findings: The proposed rezone, subject to staff stipulations meets all objective criteria
set forth for residential zoning districts in the LDC and conforms to the goals and
objectives of the GMP and all its elements. Furthermore, the proposed RPUD is
compatible with surrounding property in scale.
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 determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of
a rezoning decision. The determinants of the zoning are with consistency with all the
elements of the GMP. The proposed RPUD document was reviewed on its own merit for
compliance with the GMP and the LDC; and staff does not review other sites in
conjunction with a specific petition. The proposed RPUD is consistent with the FLUM
because it is in the Urban Residential Subdistrict and meets all the criteria for the Urban
Residential Subdistrict.
16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which
would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses
under the proposed, zoning classification.
Findings: Any development would require some site alteration and the Brandon RPUD
will have to be evaluated during a site development plan or plans and plat approval to
execute the RPUDs development strategy.
17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and
services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth
Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County
Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended.
Findings: The proposed RPUD petition will have to meet all objective criteria set forth in
Section 6.02.00 Adequate Public Facilities for residential zoning as well as to conform to
the goals and objectives of the GMP and all its elements. This petition has been reviewed
by county staff that is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP and they have
concluded that no LOS will be adversely impacted because the proposed development is
consistent with all Elements of the GMP.
1/31/08
Page 4 of 4
T
EXHIBIT B
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 28 of 273
FINDINGS FOR PUD
PUDZ-2006-AR- 10171 Brandon 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 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.
Findings: The project is located within the Urban Residential Subdistrict of the Future
Land Use Map (FLUM) and this district permits residential uses with a variety of
dwelling types. The RPUD rezone will intensify the land but relative to public facilities
this project will be required to comply with all county regulations regarding drainage,
sewer, water and other utilities pursuant to Section 6.02.00 Adequate Public Facilities of
the LDC. Exhibit A of the RPUD document states that the Brandon RPUD shall be in
accordance with all applicable sections of the Land Development Code (LDC) and
Growth Management Plan (GMP) at the time of issuance of any development order.
2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements,
contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as
they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing
operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or
maintained at public expense,
Findings: The application has indicated that the project has evidence of unified control
and a homeowners association will maintain common areas. The documents were
submitted with the Brandon RPUD application and are provided as supporting evidence
of unified control.
3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives
and policies ofthe Growth Management Plan (GMP).
Findings: The project as proposed is consistent with the Future Land Use Map (FLUM)
which designated the subject property as Urban Residential. The subject petition has been
found consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the GMP. Page three (3) of the
staffreport expounds in detail of how the project is deemed consistent with the GMP.
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,
Findings: The RPUD Master Plan has been designed to opl1mlze internal land use
relationships through the use of various forms of open space separation. External
relationships are regulated by Section 4.07.02 of the LDC has specific requirements for
Development within a PUD district shall be compatible with established or planned uses
of surrounding neighborhoods and property. In addition to Chapter 4 regulations, the
Page 1 of2
EXHIBIT B
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 29 of 273
Development Commitments contained in Exhibit F of the RPUD
additional guidelines the developer will have to fulfill.
document provide
5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the
development.
Findings: The amount of open space set aside in section II of Exhibit A of the RPUD
document is the minimum requirement of the LDC provisions. While the proposed
single-family development would be appropriate for the site, careful consideration must
be given to the protection of new residential uses from potential impacts resulting from
over crowded development 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: No capacity issues are known at this time and the petition has been reviewed
by all the required county staff and they have determined that no Level of Service (LOS)
standards will be adversely affected. Policy 2.3 of the GMP mandate, "Continue the
Certificate of Adequate Public Facility Adequacy regulatory program, which requires the
certification of public facility availability prior to the issuance of a final local
development order." Because of this provision, the development must be in compliance
with applicable concurrency management regulation.
7, The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate
expansion.
Findings: Currently, the utility and roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve
the proposed RPUD as well as the surrounding development at the time of build-out of
this project.
8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such
regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications
are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal
application of such regulations.
Findings: Staff has reviewed this petition for adequate public services and levels of
service and found it is consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and it meets
all the elements of the GMP. Additionally, Brandon RPUD contains development
standards that are comparable to the development standards contained in the Mediterra
PUD and The Pelican Strand DR!. The proposed building heights, setbacks and
development commitments ensure a similar product to that of the adjacent properties.
Page 201'2
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 30 of 273
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
WWW.COLLlERGOV.NET
(i)
2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
(239) 403-2400 FAX (239) 643-6968
APPLlCATION FOR. PIJBLlC HEAltlNG FOR:
o AMENDMENT TO PUD {PUDA) [gj PUDREZONE (PUDZ)
o PUD TO PUD REZONE (PUDZ-A)
PETITION NO (AR)
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT NUMBER
DATE PROCESSED
ASSIGNED PLANNER
PlJI>~2006-AJl-I0171
BRANI>ON RPlJD
Project: 2006040008
I>ate: 1/16/08
APPLICANT INFORMATION
NAME OF APPLlCANT(S} Eastbourne Bonita LLC. a Florida Limited Liabilitv Corporation
ADDRESS 550 Essiav Drive, Suite 400 CITY Wiliiamsville STATE NY ZIP 14221
TELEPHONE # 716-689-3300 CELL # FAX #
E-MAIL ADDRESS:fac@leqacvdev.com
NAME OF AGENT Johnson Enqineerina, Inc. I Laura Spurqeon
CITY Naples
CELL #
STATE FL ZIP 34112
FAX # 239-434-9320
ADDRESS 2350 Stanford Court
TELEPHONE # 239-434-0333
E-MAIL ADDRESS:ispurqeon@iohnsonena.com
NAME OF AGENT Porter, Wriaht. Morris & Arthur LLP I Patrick White. Esa.
ADDRESS 5801 Pelican Bav Boulevard - CITY Naples STATE FL ZIP 34108
TELEPHONE # 239-593-2963 CELL # FAX # 239-593-2990
E.MAIL ADDRESS: pwhlte@porterwriaht.com
BE AWARE THAT COLLIER COUNTY HAS LOBBYIST REGULATIONS. GUIDE YOURSELF
ACCORDINGLY AND ENSURE THAT YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THESE REGULATIONS.
Application For Public. Hearing For PUD RJ:zone 01/18/07
12/26/07 updated per Transpoliation and County Attorney comments
ASSOCIATIONS
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Idy~..,"n -L71 ~I ~
Complete the following for all Association(s) affiliated with this petition. Provide odditional sheets
if necessary.
The following associations are not affiliated with this apolication, but are within oroximity of the
sub; ect property.
NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION:
Mediterra
MAILING ADDRESS _ No contaet infonnation provided on the Collier County Asso.ciations Listing
NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION:
The Links
MAILING ADDRESS _ No eontact infonnation provided on the Collier County Associations Listing
NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION:
Verona Pointe
MAILING ADDRESS _ No contaet illfonnation provided on the Collier County AssociatiollsListing
NAME OF MASTER ASSOCIATION:
The Strand
MAILING ADDRESS
No contact infonnatioll provided on the Collier County Associations Listing
NAME OF CIVIC ASSOCIATION:
MAILING ADDRESS
CITY
STATE_ZIP
Discl9sure of Interest Information
a. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the entirety,
tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as
well as the percentage of such interest. (Use additional sheets if necessary).
Name and Address
Percentage of Ownership
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 01/18/07
J 2126107 updated per Transportation and County Attorney comments
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
b. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stoc~~?so&hW
the percentage of stock owned by each. ..
Name and Address
Percentage of Ownership
Eastbourne Bonita LLC.
Francis Eqan. President
Robert Blakelv, Chairman & CEO
Peter Blaiklock. VP & Secretarv/Treasurer
Frank A. Chinnici. Manaqer
Leqacv Bonita LLC
Frank A. Chinnici. President
60%
40%
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 PUD Rez.one 01/18/07
12126107 updated per Transportation and County Attorney COTJDlWnts
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11. 2008
Page 33 of 273
e. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a
Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below,
including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners,
Name and Address
Percentage of Ownership
Date of Contract:
f. If ony 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 ~ leased 0 Term of lease yrs./mos.
Properties acquired Julv 2005 throuQh Mav 2006, see attached deeds.
If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following:
Date of option:
Date option terminates:
Anticipated closing date
, or
h, Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent
to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the
responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit
a supplemental disclosure of interest form.
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 01/18/07
12/26107 updated per Transportation and County Attorney comments
1
PROPERlY LOCAllON
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 34 of 273
I
DetaUed lel!al descriDtion of the DroDertv covered bv the anDllcation: (If space is inadequate, attach on
separate page.) If request involves change to more than one zoning district, include separate legal
description for property involved in each district. Applicant shall submit four (4) copies of a recent survey
(eompleted within the last six months, maximum ," to 400' scale) if required to do so at the pre-application
meeting,
NOTE: The applicant is responsible for supplying the correcllegal description, If questions arise concerning
the legal description, an engineer's certiFication or sealed survey may be required.
lot:
Block:
Section/Township/Range 13/~25
Subdivision:
Plat Book Page #: Property 1,0.#,
Metes & Bounds Description: See Leaal Description. Exhibit D
Size of Dronertv: varies fl. X varies ft. = Tot..' Sq. Ft. 2,225.916 sJ. Acres 51.1 ac
Address/l!enerallocation ()f subiect nronertv: The southeast corner of the intersection of
Livinaston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard
PUD District (lDC 2.03.06): [gI Residential 0 Community Facilities
o Commercial 0 Industrial
ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE
Zoning
land use
N A and PUD
s A and PUD
E(adjacent) A
E(surrounding)PUD/DRI
W(adiacent)
A
W(surrounding) A
Undeveloped parcels. Veterans Memorial Boulevard and
Mediterra PUD (sinale familv homes)
Undeveloped parcels and Roval Palm Academv PUD (Verona
Pointe townhomes)
Undeveloped parcels and FPL Easement
The Strand. includina The Links sinale familv detached
neiahborhood and Trophv Club multifamilv residential
neiahborhood
Undeveloped parcels and Livinaston Road. prooosed multifamilv
Della Rosa RPUD
Proposed Fire Station. North Naples Middle School. elementary
school under construction
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 01/18/07
12/26/07 updated per Transportation and County Attorney COmments
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 35 of 273
Does the owner of the subject property own property eontiguous to the subject property?
No
If so, give eomplete legal deseription of entire contiguous property. (If space is inadequate, attaeh
on separate page).
Secti 0 nIT ownship IRa nge
lot: Block:
Plat Book_ Page #:
Metes & Bounds Description:
I I
Subdivision:
Property 1.0.#:
REZONE REQUEST
This application is requesting a rezone from the A and ST Overlav zoning district(s) to the RPUD
zoning district(s).
Present Use of the Properly: Undeveloped
Proposed Use (or range of uses) of the property: Residential neiohborhood
Original PUD Name: N/A
Ordinance No.: N/A
EVALUATION CRITERIA
Pursuant to Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County land Development Code, staff's analysis and
reeommendatlon to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission's reeommendation 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 specifie referenee to the criteria noted
below. Include any backup materials and documentation in support of the request,
PUD Rezone Considerations (tDC Section 10.02_13.8\
1. The suitability of the area for the type and patlern of development proposed in relation to physieal
characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other
utililies,
The proposed development is within the North Naples Planning Community, and is proposed
to contain up to 204 single or multifamily dwelling units, or some combination of both, along
with recreational and open space amenities. The area is suitable for this proposed
development type as it is within the Urban Mixed Use-Urban Residential Land Use category.
The site's location, along Livingston Road with access to Veterans Memorial Boulevard, is
suitable for residential development because it is compatible with other residential uses in the
vicinity. Public and community facilities and services are available in close proximity.
Application For Public Hearing For pun Rezone 01/18/07
12/26/07 updated per Transportation and County Attorney comments
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
2. Adequacy of evidence of unified contral and suitability of any proposed agreements, c~~\}'l.d~ 8/273
other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to ..
arrangements or provisians to be made for the conlinuing operation and maintenonce of sueh areas
and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Findings and
recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the county aUarney.
One entity owns the entife subject properly. Operation and maintenance responsibility for
private areas and facilities shall be assigned to the developer until conveyance to a property
owners association.
3. Canformity af the proposed PUD with the goals, obiectives and policies of the growth management
plan,
The proposed development will be in compliance with the goals, objectives and policies set
forth In the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP) for the following reasons:
a. The subject property is within the Urban Mixed Use-Urban Residential Subdistrict, as
depicted. on the countywide Future Land Use Map (FLUM). According to the Growth
Management Plan (GMP), the purpose of the Urban Mixed Use-Urban Residential Subdistrict.
This proposed development addresses GMP objectives including Future Land Use Element
(FLUE) Policies 5.3 and 5.5, in that the site is located in an area with available infrastructure.
b. The subject property's location in relation to existing or proposed community facilities and
services allows for the development's residential density as required in Objective 2 of the
Future Land Use Element (FLUE). The presence of schools including North Naples Middle
School, an elementary school, Royal Palm Academy, church property, North Naples Regional
Park, North Collier Hospital, medical and office uses, emergency services including a future
fire station, sheriff department services, and shelters within a three-mile radius of the site, as
well as water and wastewater treatment services, demonstrate that residential development at
this site will be appropriately served.
c. The project development is compatible and complementary to existing and future
surrounding land uses as requi(ed in Policy 5.4 of the FLUE through the internal arrangement
of structures, the placement of land use buffers, and the proposed development standards
contained herein. The proposed residential project will be consistent with the existing
adjoining development, including the Mediterra residential project to the north and Verona
Pointe residential project to the south. The FLUM designates properly to the north, south,
east and west as Urban Mixed Use-Urban Residential Subdistrict. The proposed development
will be consistent with current uses and designations for future use of surrounding properties.
d. Improvements are planned to be in compliance with applicable land development
regulations as set forth in Objective 3 of the FLUE.
e. The projected density of 4 dwelling units per acre (DUlA) is in compliance with the FLUE
Density Rating System based on the following relationships to required criteria:
Base Density
4DUlA
Maximum Permitted density
4DUlA
PROPOSED DENSITY 3.99 DU/A
204 units on 51.12: acres (gross acreage lor residential use)
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rerone 01/18/07
12126/07 updated perTranspomtion and County Attomey"commcnts
Agenda 11em No. SA
March 11, 2008
Page 37 of 273
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 is Compatible with existing and future surrounding land uses as
required in Policy 5.4 of the Future Land Use Element. The property is adjacent to
surrounding undeveloped land. with the exception of proposed residential development to the
west (Della Rosa) and existing residential development to the south (Verona Pointe). The
proposed residential development on the subject 51.1-acre site will be screened at property
lines with buffers to foster compatibility between surrounding uses. Preserve areas are
delineated to address Collier County preserve requirements.
The proposed residential development is consistent with existing residential use at Mediterra
to the north and the Verona Pointe multifamily development at the Royal Palm Academy PUD
south of the subject site. The request is consistent within the range of project densities in the
area, from 0.56 units per gross acre at Mediterra to 3.4 units per gross acre at Royal Palm
Academy MPUD, as well as site-specific density of 6.5 units per acre (256 units on 39.34
acres) at Milano and 6.4 units per acre (94 units on 14.77 acres) at the adjoining Verona
Pointe.
5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in exlstenee and as proposed to serve the deveJapment_
The proposed development will meet open space requirements of the Collier County LDC.
Usable open space in the form of recreation facilities, passive areas, pedestrian walkways,
lakes and will be provided within at least 30.66 acres of open space on the site.
6. The timing or sequenee of development far the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available
improvements and faeilities, both publie and private.
Public and private improvements and facilities are available for the site. Water and sewer
services are provided in the project's iocation. Roadway capacity is available per the
submitted TIS. Drainage is adequate for the site per the submitted Stormwater Report.
Waste management, cable, electric, and telephone service are available in the project's
location. Adequate schools, police, fire, bus, park, and health care facilities are within the
proposed development's service area. Payment of impact fees and timing of adequate public
facilities certification are mechanisms to assure the development is appropriately serviced.
7. The ability of the subject properly and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion.
Expansion of the subject property would require revision to the PUD. Surrounding areas to
the west and east include Special Treatment Overlay areas that are identified as
environmentally sensitive, so development should not be expanded in these areas.
8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the
parlieular ease, 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 proposed development conforms with PUD regulations. The proposed density of 3.99
units per acre is consistent with the applicable FLUE Density Rating System. Deviations listed
in Exhibit E are justified according to the project's size and layout.
Standard Rezone Considerations (IDC Section 10.03.05.G.!
1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and
future land use map and the elements of the growth management plan.
The proposed project's consistency with the growth management plan Is exhibited by
the fact that it is located within an area designated for urban residential development,
where it is compatible with surrounding uses and supported by the availability of
public facilities.
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 01/18107
12/26/07 updated per Transportation and County Attorney comments
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 38 of 273
2. The existing land use pattern.
The land use pattern in the vicinity accommodates residential neighborhoods, such as
Mediterra, Verona Pointe, and Milano; public uses, such as North Naples Middle
School, Royal Palm Academy, and a fire station site all oriented along livingston Road.
The site's location in proximity to these compatible uses and services fits within the
existing pattern.
3. The pDssible creatiDn Df an iSDlated district unrelated tD adjacent and nearby districts.
The proposed Residential PUD zoning district is not unrelated to the adjacent and
nearby district. To the north is an existing Residential PUD (Mediterra), to the south is
an existing Mixed PUD (Royal Palm Academy) with Verona Pointe multifamily
residential adjacent to the subject site. Immediately east of the subject site is
environmentally sensitive land designated within a Special Treatment Overlay, which is
coordinated with the on-site preserve location. The proposed PUD has access to
livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard, so the site is notisolated. ...
4. Whether existing district bDundaries are illogically drawn in relatiDn tD existing conditiDns Dn
the property for the proposed change.
The configuration of existing district boundaries provides for Rural Agricultural zoning
across much of the area, except where rezonings have occurred to accommodate
residential and public use development. The applicable Rural Agricultural district is
not consistent with the site's iocation in the urban area fronting an arterial and a future
collector roadway. By rezoning to RPUD, this site Is brought in consistency with the
site's Urban Residential Future Land Use Designation and is able to accommodate
appropriate residential uses.
5. Whether changed Dr changing cDnditiDns make the passage Df the propDsed amendment
(rezDne) necessary.
The rezoning will ordain the most appropriate designation for the land to allDw
development that is in accord with the Urban Residential land use designation
established for this location.
6. Whether the prDpDsed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighbDrhDDd,
Living conditions in surrounding neighborhoods will not be adversely influenced by the
rezoning of this site. Attention to architectural detail, landscaping, signage and
lighting will contribute to the aesthetic quality of the area.
7. Whether the propDsed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestiDn Dr create
types Df traffic deemed incompatible with surrDunding land uses, because Df peak vDlumes Dr
projected types Df vehicular traffic, including activity during cDnstructiDn phases Df the
devetDpment, Dr Dtherwise affect public safety.
Please refer to the TIS accompanying this application.
8. Whether the prDpDsed change will create a drainage problem.
The proposed water management system shall be designed according to LDC
standards to accommodate drainage onslte so as not to create a problem. Please refer
to the submitted Stormwater Report dated 7/30/07.
9. Whether the proposed change .will seriDusly reduce light and air tD adjacent areas.
Application For Public Healing For PUD Rezone 01/18107
12126107 updated per Transporlation and County Attorney comments
Agenda Item No. SA
March 11, 2008
Light and air to adjacent areas shall not be limited by the rezoning requesf.a~tl3a'~~~;
buffers, and building height limits shall assure that light and air to adjacent areas is not
affected by the proposed development.
10. Whether the proposed change will seriously affect property values in the adjacent area.
The proposed rezoning from the Rural Agricultural designation to the Residential
Planned Unit Development designation typically has a beneficial effeCt on property
values in the adjacent area, .
11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of
adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations.
Adjacent properties are not deterred from developing based on the proposed rezoning.
The proposed project complies with LDC Section 4.04,02_B.3 in that potential
interconnection has been indicated on the Master Plan.
12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner
as contrasted with the public welfare.
The proposed rezoning is consistent with the goals of the growth management plan
and Future Land Use map, which are adopted to guide development in the public's best
interest and welfare.
13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with
existing zoning.
Being located in an urban area with frontage on an arterial and a future collector
roadway, the site Is not in an appropriate location for existing permitted uses within the
Rural Agricultural zoning district.
14. Whether the change suggested is out of scele with the needs of the neighborl1ood or the
county.
The requested rezoning for 51.1 acres is smaller in scale compared to surrounding
residential neighborhoods of Mediterra, Royal Palm Academy, and the Strand. The
requested density is in scale.with the density rating system of the Growth Management
Plan_
15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in
districts already permitting such use.
The requested RPUD zoning district is specific to the site location. Comparable land
areas with adequate public facilities permitting such uses as proposed in the RPUD are
not readily available.
16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be
required to make the properly usable for any of the range of potential uses under the
proposed zoning classification.
The site is characterized by wetland and upland vegetation with substantial exotic
invasion. The site elevation ranges from 12.1 to 13.2 NGVD and is designated in FEMA
Zone X. Approximately 11,8 acres of the site are proposed as preserve area, and the
remaining area shall not require substantial site alteration to accommodate the
proposed residential neighborhood.
17. The impact of deveiopment on the availability of adequate public facilities and services
consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County growth management plan
and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities
Ordinance [Code ch. 106, arl. II], as amended.
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 011] 8/07
12/26/07 updated per Transportation and County Attorney comments
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
The proposed development shall be permitted in accordance with the CJlI1l!T't9Olt.ffy
Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. For traffic impacts, please refer.' to TIS
accompanying this application.
18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the board of county commissioners shall deem
important in the protection of the pub/Ie health, safety, and welfare.
Deed Restrictions: The County is legally precluded from enfarcing deed restrictions, however, many
communIties have adopted sueh 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 oelitions on Ihe subject araaertv: To your knowledge, has a public hearing been held on
this property within the last year? 0 Yes [8J No
if so, what was the nature of that hearing?
NOTICE:
This application will be considered "open" when the determination af "sufficiency" has been made and
the application Is assigned a petition processing number. The application will be considered "closed"
when the petitioner withdraws the applicatian through written notice or ceases to supply necessary
information to continue oracessina or otherwise actively pursue the rezonina for a period of six (6)
months. An application deemed "closed" will not receive further processing and an application "closed"
through inactivity shall be deemed withdrawn_ An application deemed "closed" may be re-opened by
submitting a new application, repayment of all application fees and granting of a determination of
"sufficiency", Further review of the project will be subject to the then current code. (LDC Section
10.03_05.Q.)
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 01/18/07.
12/26/07 updated per Transportation and County Attorney comments
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 41 of 273
PUD. AMIi"'PNlSNT(PUPA)
. PUDcRSZO!'fE(PUPZ:l
PUD 10 PUP 'REZONE (PUDZ-A)
APPLICATION
SUBMiTTALCHIlcl<L1ST
THIS COMPLETED CHECKLIST IS TO BE SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION PACKET IN THE EXACT ORDER LISTED BELOW
W /COVER SHEETS ATTACHED TO EACH SECTION.
NOTE: INCOMPLETE SUMBITT ALS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.
#OF NOT
REQUIREMENTS COPIES REQUIRED REQUIRED
;$'i:i,t."'b8'iiJ)5~il!..efi'lEN.tSii -' ~ ~ '," - , , ';,;:~O' .' ,....."-~. --
d:,;.... "'-" '-", ,'--..",,' ..,. "',,,,~,~~- :,:":",,:....<,;.},;" -",."
1 Additional set if located in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle x
RedeveloDment Area)
Copies of detailed description of why amendment Is necessary X
Completed Application with list of Permitted Usesi Development Standards Table; list 24 x
of proposed deviations from the LDC (if any); list of Developer Commitments
(download application from website for curlen' form)
Pre-ooolicatlon meetina notes 24 x
PUD ConceDlual Master Site Plan 24" x 36" and One 8 V2" x 11" CODY 24 x I
Revised Conceptual Master S~e Plan 24" x 36"ond One 8 lh" x 1111 COpy 24 x
Original PUD document/ordinance and Moster Plan 2.4" x 36" - ONLY IF AMENDING 24 x
THE PUD
Revised PUP application with changes crossed thru & underljned 24 x
Revised PUD application w/amended Title page wiard #'s, lDC 10.02. '3.A.2 24 x
....~:i;\>~J-'~f,t!\!f!i~jf~!I~\.irjij~ij...........,.....:., ....,.... . . . . - ... .".,'?;O'."O'-'i'.:.
--
I Deeds/legal's & Survey (if boundary of original PUD is amended) 2 x
list identifying Owner & all parties of corporation 2 x
Owner/Affidavit signed & notarized 2 x i
Covenant of Unified Control 2 x
Completed Addressing cheeklist 2 x
~ '."......<;,..,.:.......<<.....,J...,..........;.......C<. ........ ..........
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and digital/electronic copy of E1S or exemption
lustification 4 x
Historical Surveyor waiver reqlJest 4 x
Utility Provlsions Statement w /sketches 4 x
Architectural rendering of proposed structures 4 x
Survey, signed & sealed 4 x
T raHic Impact Statement (TIS) or waiver 7 x
Recent Aerial Photograph (with habitat areas defined) min scaled 1"-400' x I
5
Electronic copy of all documents in Word formot and plans: (CDRom or Dis:kette) x
I
letter of No Objection from the U.S. Postal Service I x
If located in RFMU (Rural Frinoe Mixed Usel Receivlna land Areas
Applicant must contact Mr. Gerry J. lacavero, State of Florida
Division of Forestry @ 239~690-3500 for information regording
"Wildfire Mitigation & Prevention Plan", LDC Section 2.03.08.A.2.a.(b)i.c.
Applicant/Agent Signature
Date
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 01/18/07
12/26f07 updated per Transportation and County Attorney comments
t
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 42 of 273
ORDINANCE NO. 08-_
AN ORDINANCE OF TIlE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, AS
AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH INCLUDES THE
COMPREHENSI'IrE ZONING REGULATIONS FOK THE
UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, BY AMENDING 'J1ffi APPROPRL"TE ZONING
ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING TJ-IE ZONING
CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL
PROPERTY FROM AN AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING
DISTRICT WITH A SPECIAL TREATMENT (Sl') OVERLAY
TO A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
(RPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROJECT TO BE
KNOWN AS THE BRANDON RPUD, FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE
INTERSECTION OF LIVINGSTON ROAD (C.R. 881) AND
VETERANS MEMORIAL BOULEVARD, IN SECTION 13,
TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA CONSISTING OF 51.1+/- ACRES; AND
BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Laura Spurgeon of Johnson Engineering, lnc., and Patrick White, Esq., of
Porter, Wright, Morris and Arthur LLP, representing Eastbourne Bonita LLC, petitioned the
Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described
real property.
NOW, 'J1ffiREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
SECTION ONE:
Thc zoning classification of the herein deseribed real property located in Section 13,
Township 48 South, Rrolge 25 East, is changed from an Agricultural (A) Zoning Distriet with a
Special Treatment (ST) Overlay to a Residential PllUllled Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning
District for the project to be known as the Brandon RPUD, in accordance with Exhibits A
through F, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. The appropriate zoning atlas
map or maps, as described in OrdInanee Number 2004-41, as an,ended, 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
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 43 of 273
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County
Commissioners ofeaIlier County, Florida, this
day of
,2008.
ATTEST:
D\'v1GHT E. BROCK, CLERK
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
, Deputy Clerk
By:
TOM HENNING, CHAIRMAN
Approved as to form
and legal sufficiency:
/tarjorie M. Student-Stirling
Assistant County Attorney
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Exhibit C:
Exhibit D:
Exhibit E:
Exhibit F:
Permitted Uses
Residential Development Standards
Master Plan
Legal Description
List of Requested Deviations
List of Development Commitments
Page 2 of2
t
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 44 of 273
EXHIBIT A
for Brandon Residential Planned Unit Development
Page 1 of3
Regulations for development of the Brandon Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) shall be
in accordance with the contents of this RPUD Ordinance and applicable sections of the Land
Development Code (LDC) and Growth Management Plan (GMP) in effect at the time of issuance of
any development order to which said regulations relate, Where this RPUD Ordinance does not provide
development standards, then the provisions of the specific sections of the LDC that are otherwise
applicable shall apply.
I. GENERAL USES
Certain uses shall be considered general permitted uses and structures throughout the Brandon RPUD
except in the preserve areas. General permitted uses and structures are those uses, which generally
serve the developer and residents of the Brandon RPUD and are typically part of the conunon
infrastructure or are considered conununity amenities.
GENERAL PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES:
1. Water management facilities and related structures.
2. Common recreation amenities.
3. Guardhouses, gatehouses and access control structures.
4. Temporary construction, models, sales, and administrative offices subject to a
temporary use permit.
II. RESIDENTIAL AREA
PERMITTED USES:
No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in
part, for other than the following:
A. Principal Uses:
1. Single-family detached dwelling units (a building which contains only one dwelling
unit) .
2. Zero lot line dwelling units (a single family detached dwelling structure on
individually platted lots which provides a side yard on one side of the dwelling and
no yard on the other).
3. Two-family dwelling units (a single, free-standing conventional building intended,
designed, used and occupied as two dwelling units attached by a conunon wall or
roof, but wherein each unit is located on a separate lot under separate ownership).
1124/08 updated per County Attorney comments; 2114/08 updated per cepc stipulations
EXHIBIT A
for Brandon Residential Planned Unit Development
Page 2 of3
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 45 of 273
4. Duplex dwelling units (a single, free-standing, conventional building on a single lot,
which contains only two dwelling units and is intended, designed, used and
occupied as two dwelling units under single ownership, or where each dwelling unit
is separately owned or leased but the lot is held under common ownership).
5. Single family attached and townhouse dwelling units.
6. Multi-family dwelling units.
7. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of
permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA") by
the process outlined in the LDC.
B. Accessory Uses:
Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses
and structures, including, but not limited to private garages.
1/24/08 updated per Counry Attorney comments; 2114/08 updated per ccpe stipulations
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 46 of 273
EXHIBIT A
for Brandon Residential Planned Unit Development
Page 3 00
III. PRESERVE AREA
A preserve area is delineated on the Master Plan to protect native vegetation and naturally functioning
habitat in a natural or enhanced state. On-site native vegetation areas total 47.2 acres, therefore a
minimum of 11.8 acres shall be dedicated as preserve area in the Brandon RPUD to meet the 25%
native vegetation requirement The Master Plan attached as Exhibit C delineates 10.91 acres, which is
92% of the preserve area. The remaining 8% of preserve area (0.9 acres) shall be delineated at the time
of SDP or PPL development order submittal, and shall be located contiguous to the preserve shown on
the Master Plan consistent with the provisions ofLDC Section 3.0S.07.H.1.a.iL
PERMITTED USES:
No. building or structure or part thereof, shall be erected altered or used, or land used, in whole or in
part, for other than the following, subject to regional state and federal permits when required:
A. Principal Uses:
1. Open spaces/nature preserves.
2. Boardwalks subject to appropriate approvals by permitting agencies, however such
structures shall not reduce the retained native vegetation area below the minimum
required.
1/24/08 updated per County Attorney comments; 2/14/08 updated per cepe stipulati{ms
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 47 of 273
EXHffilT B
for Brandon Residential Planned Unit Development
Page 1 of2
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The Residential Development Standards Table that follows sets forth the development standards for the
Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Residential Subdistrict. Standards not specifically set
forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of
approval of the site development plan (SDP) or subdivision plat.
GENERAL: Except as provided for herein, all criteria set forth below shall be understood to be in
relation to individual parcel or lot boundary lines, or between structlU'es. Condominium, and/or
homeowners' association boundaries shall not be utilized for determining development standards.
ll24/08 updated per County Attorney CQmments; 2/14/08 updated per CCPC stipulations
I
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 48 of 273
EXHffiIT B
),~,."", ,~I~~L~ i~~l"~~'" "j .,..:,flirUPLE '" "",', ", " ,CLUBHOUSE/
:[ii~t~NJr' ,:f~",'~~ r",~IL' " , REcRE~ti()N
""',,::!, ....H:'li!'...j.'i't, A 1'T"CHEI) J. ,~],~It\. 1"+,"", " ",."", j~~I~I)I~~~
"':\:',., 'iOWNHOUSE "j'.,..]", )""""", '."'......,/'..,.'. .;.,""""_'..,_.o_,_:""."C,"",,,..
PRINCIPAt'STRUCTURES'" , . ....,:c.,',. ' , .-,... i"",',:"'..."",,,,, ',','" ~.",<,..,..""
".',';
MINIMUM LOT AREA 4,500 S.F. 1 ;700 S.F. PER 4,500 4,000 S.F. 8.000 S.F. 1 ;700 S.F. PER 6,000 S.F.
PER UNIT UNIT S.F. PER PER UNIT UNIT
UNIT
MIN. LOT WIDTH' 45 FEET 17 FEET 45 FEET 40 FEET 80 FEET 90 FEET 75 FEET
MIN. FLOOR AREA 1 ,000 S.F. 1,000 S.F. 1,000 1,000 S.F. 1,000 S.F. 900 S.F.!D.U. 900 S.F.
S.F.
MIN_ FRONT YARD' 20 FEET 20 FEET 20 FEET 20 FEET 20 FEET 20 FEET 20 FEET
MIN. SIDE YARD 6 FEET o OR 7.5 FEET o AND o AND 6 FEET 6 FEET 1 0 FEET 1 0 FEET
1 2 FEET
MIN. REAR YARD' 1 5 FEET 1 5 FEET 15 FEET 1 5 FEET 1 5 FEET 1 5 FEET 1 5 FEET
MIN. PRESERVE 25 FEET 25 FEET 25 FEET 25 FEET 25 FEET 25 FEET 25 FEET
SETBACK
MIN. DISTANCE 1 2 FEET I 0 OR 15 FEET 1 2 FEET o OR 12 FEET 1 2 FEET > 20 FEET or V, 1 0 FEET
BETWEEN BH, whichever
STRUCTURES Is areater
MAX. ZONED 35 FEET 35 FEET 35 FEET 35 FEET 35 FEET 50 FEET 35 FEET
BUILDING HEIGHT 3 STORIES
MAX. ACTUAL 40 FEET 40 FEET 40 FEET 40 FEET 40 FEET 55 FEET 40 FEET
BUILDING HEIGHT 3 STORIES
l"ACC,ESS,ORYSJRUcrUltES'" ;,'" ,"," ...... ,'."" """."'" ,"'.'...., ',., "T." , """",' , .,'" ....::-
IIN. FRONT YARD SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS
MIN, SIDE YARD SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS
MIN. REAR YARD' 5 FEET 5 FEET 5 FEET 5 FEET 5 FEET 5 FEET 5 FEET
MIN. PRESERVE 1 0 FEET 1 0 FEET 1 0 FEET 1 0 FEET 1 0 FEET 1 0 FEET 1 0 FEET
SETBACK
MIN. DISTANCE 5FHT 5 FEET 5 FEET 5 FEET 5 FEET 1 0 FEET 5 FEET
BETWEEN PRINOPAL
& DETACHED
ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE
MAX. ZONED 35 FEET 35 FEET 35 FEET 35 FEET I 35 FEET 35 FEET 35 FEET
BUILDING HEIGHT
MAX. ACTUAL 40 FEET 40 FEET 40 FEET 40 FEET 40 FEET 40 FEET 40 FEET
BUILDING HEIGHT
SPS = Some os Principal Structure
BH= Building Height
10n cui de sac lots and lots on the inside part of a curved street, the minimum lot width may be reduced by 30o/o~ provided
the minimum lot area requirement snail be maintained.
Z Front-loading garages shall be set bock 0 minimum of 23 feet from edge of sidewalk or 23 feet from the edge of
pavement where no sidewalk Is provided. for slde~lood;ng gorages, a porking orea of 23 feet in depth shan be provided
to avoid parking of 0 vehicle across the referenced s.idewalk or pavement.
J For lots adJacent to a lake, no structures shall be permitted in the required 20 foot lake maintenance easement.
1124/08 updated per County Attorney comments; 2114108 updated per CCPC stipulations
Agenda Item No. SA
March 11, 2008
Page 49 of 273
EXHIBIT C
I
\
MEtJlTeRAA
~UD)J_Rf!~~AJ.1
[
>1
>1
I
WI'>!....,....,...
I ~~~~H~_
-Or') \.;------1--- --
! 2lI0'!lilIl'
--1, ("~:...::::-c::':--=-__E-.:_::-::::::::=.;-
: ill; la' TYPE "A" ~-
II' I! SUFFER --
: ! il) (i
Iii ':
, ,
r i i I ~=_;::.;.c:.~._"_"... 10' ~~:;;~
, ! !dt~}fTpiJQ5 BUFFER
I' Ii i i [' i!jl~1 DELLA "9s-:~=:::_::::_'__
d II,: V-----.". \] ,
i i i Ii i ~i", i /l (;/,-_..",\ 1,
! i! ,: \.'~).'i( , I'ST-SPEClAL \1 I I
: I' I J/; TREATMeNT/. I'
: i III \ b,=d~:.::;( .".~~:.__2~;;:;:\J
\ \\\ ~t'~~\ iL J
~ \ \11\ "\~,j~~,___u_._____._
~ 1 ,~\ \1" n' \
r' \ '.1 \ \':::::i<:l' TYPE" A"
\ \ \\', \ C_BUFFER:
\ I\i\ \ ,/.....1
, \ \\ ~\ 10' ,WE "D"
\ \ '\ \ \ BUfFER
.~ \ v'
,~\\ ' ,
\ \\\,
'~m"'n..'N'lll~N" \\\'"
Q:lfI!Prtl~~""r;!I'D'f.or~___~..., "
'\ ""'" \~ '~"
\~\, ~" , "'. ~
" ~~~ ... .. :-rn U11l1lE1T I
2a' T~E "O:'~",-" ~ J I
BUF!iR ,,,,:~ ',' ~
' ,'"'" , ~
, <''0.'.... C"'C'''O' --. -.. '-m;-C:."':Tm"[[]'IIWL rW7i "7 PELICAN
====~-~ ".. ~<~~~'> '~-r,,"<lilil~jH~~~Jlli J1llili.0&1 / STRAND
"<::-- '..... "':-~41~'" '~'I;iTl[]]'QfflOliJ.pQ'"",~'" " V / (oRI)
..., ~,,' ~ "'~I I 'lll !'!rt ,,:~W: ,;:~;:\ rZ '
-"............,,,..,'- )I!F.::O~~ '_.!-, '4t~~-'.J.". '~~~,./
""- ',",-_..x// '''~I.fj)'-.... ':'_--..l Y
..., - x "'~" '... '=-.:1 j I
""--~'" "",- ~ "", -;;;;-;} , I
"- ....::0,"":-- ~ ({; i ,I I
LEGEND ',,- ~~~~~~'" ,I, 'I
""'" ' ", ...., '" '" I
~ PflE.SERVEAREA. .. ""- ""'~'':;~~ _ ../" I
123 "'''TCRFY.llol.GODlTJ\RCA ...... ~:~~~ I I
NS'----'
----"is' lYPE-:'~
R~At:"B '~ --f~,__B~IT.~
I 15' TIE "8"
BlJ~R
R
? 125 25!l
SCALE IN
500
,
"'IT
,
,
J'
R
1(( TYPi::I'"A"
Bu:rEjl
,
------n
I I
, I
I I
I !
!
i
,
i
, ;
I I
___.___._______;.J
I
>-
z
-,W
o..:l!
lLW
~
W
~
ST.SFt:C1Al
iREATMIlNT
Ovt:RLAY
C!0
m
"
c
<<
I lAND USE KEY
RESIDENtIAL (R)
-$lnlJfcFllmU)'
-Twofamll)'
-ZemlrltLll'IEI
..cJ\rclil'lI
"'..Iu~iI"&n\iIy
-co.i'tmo~A.nss
..o!>etlSPl'ctl
.Wfi1l:rMan~A_
-Re<<eatIOfffecatty
g
~
11
i
E'
i.l
'I
0.
R~O IAASTER PtAN NOTES;
~ It I\U"Jl!dm.f,nHI!l!>FI;Wllof!l,h-!llo!I,",/I~lDlhr,""'.
~ j~':~=~':=~-:~i::"-.ti~
'A~J;,IpJr&lInd\JtllDo,I~aIlm
'2~!I*;(::h!.Ilbd.lot/l~OI!:.aMJlllll!l~~
J 1I_,Ul;"" nplWOUKls. g:lftQ,n!l. bt= Ir=rag...
W~l'6.~l,l\ooo:lpl.llllli.na1l"lrlIllIwot'lir
.!Iooi"""flb'!~ln:::I~_t~3~kIt
;~/lI>qf~l~llllitn&"'I;loJl;;",:1Gd_,
. ::'.fWUOl'ftill'l..""~r.NIl.>JQ)..JJ~4'M~~IL,
,n/I'Il.nI,
,4,W!Hnl">r.~."kJ:\ltl,."'1I~rrJ::tm\jm_~
;~l.>e~~O>-'t"""~d~:,A.mnm~
~'l!.l'IlIf.t,~""~ikIIlb'f~Clf,.tib,I~
i'~"'~Q:III""~I..;ndJll'Yfllop~..nICo~.
~
.
~
"
,
>
d.
!2
,J,
:;!
~
~
;;>
c
~ 'NaTE: l'1tiSfJM<~~Nl:lI.~>>lfo;iJ",.u;..uI:l~.JU:entlPlAA!.
0:: Pl.ATnI\G.
;" rt!'O/.'~!'Rflil.':~~'eIl.u1i o,'fIOom~ \rmID:A'Itl:tQ~J<<1' .;:lAl;"'l.IIl iI\C)
~ ~::[~~~~~~~~~'~;~':=~&fO
'" ()flnNII'Vlll:l.tfTAL.A'<<l"~\J.l!C!.I.O;:;.I,Tr!l CO~~UOOlllCll'l:tC"'RClIIlI\<:l:
~ 8'<fi>t'lC'inm>~1'I!R."'l.AJ;IPrRl.OO~tC'J~3.OUt.',l1.1...1.~'c(lWr
o 'IIl!-:.-ta:-l$lIOTO;:~Yf;r.ro.""JllN"''''Oll<All%I'''''ll~~\'IoOmT~l~
N ~'Jl~Il"'.I~J.Ce-eoos.o.!Iclt\\!IlH-::rAllI:l.lJl:MJJle;wtAtol.'~
(lCSt/l$JSIOlIlltr:CS!!C'i'Ol:lM.t1.I~~
RPUnIlOOflOt.::l.V
---r;lJtJ:l-!~-c;JF-;."'."
PROJECT LAND USE
P-l::SIDENllAWRj
LAI\ES
PRESERVe: REQUIRED"'
?R;:;:SERVE .sHOWN
ROADSiRCWJ
TOTAL !lET ~RCAGE
IM~ERVIDUS AREA.
M)NH.tOM oPe,,! SPACEIGlJ%-J
;W,19ACf
S,G3Abt.
11,31 AC%
1Jl.9tACt
5.47ACio
StmACt.
12.31J1.C.t
30,OOAC!:.
!lFeCl"'l~~n~r!Ol.:e
lI:)l{.lt.J#Cl.ASSIFI~1'ION
1Af'P!J!lf,Cl.AGS1Fl0411Qlr:
~es.!OeNr1~/;JlEA
@
~
R
...
--II>
l{AJ!Jll~~I'{:.JNT
I'FlcPo~r)j\ccE!tSFOlNT
20'; UNITS!51,1 AC, =:.,,99 UNITS PER ACRE
JOHNS- N
BRANDON RPUD
MASTER PLAN
2350 STANFOIID COURT
NAPlES. FlDRlcA J411Z
PHOHE (239) HoJ-Om
FAX (239) .II.)~-9320
E.B. j'B"2 &:: L.B. :fB42
ENGINEERING
"TE
Frs. 2:008
HEET
EKl-IlelT e
1124108 updtrted per County Attorney comments; 218ro8 updated per ccpe sliputations
1/24/08 updated per County Attorney comments; 2/14/08 updated per cepe stipulations
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 50 of 273
EXHIBIT D
for Brandon Residential Planned Unit Development
Page 1 of4
The subject property, being 51.1:!: acres, is described as:
PARCEL II> 00149640004: THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE
SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 AND THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE
SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 13,
TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL ID 00148120004: THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4
OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 AND THE \VEST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE
NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE
25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 00149520001: THE NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF
SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST.
PARCEL 00149480002: THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF THE NORTHEAST
ONE-QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF THE NORTHWEST ONE QUARTER (NW 1/4) OF THE
NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF SECTION 13, TOVv'NSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER (NW 1/4) OF
THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER (NW 1/4) OF THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE 1/4)
OF THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,
RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 00149800006: THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (N'E 1/4) OF THE NORTHWEST
ONE-QUARTER (NW 1/4) OF THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE 1/4), OF THE
NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE 1/4), SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; AND THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER (NW 1/4) OF
THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE 1/4),
OF THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE 1/4), SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE
25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA;
PARCEL 00151120004: THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF THE NORTHWEST
ONE-QUARTER (NW 1/4) OF THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE 1/4), OF THE
NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE 1/4), SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA;
PARCEL 00148400009: THE SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER (SW 1/4) OF THE NORTHEAST
ONE-QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE 1/4), OF THE
NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE 1/4), SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA;
PARCEL 00150960003: THE E.1/2 OF THE N.l/2 OF THE S.W. 1/4 OF THE S.W. 1/4 OF THE
N.E. 1/4 SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
1/24108 updated per Count)' Attorney commcnt.S~ 2/14108 updated per cepe stipulations
EXHlBITD
for Brandon Residential Planned Unit Development
Page 2 of 4
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 51 of 273
FLORIDA; THE WEST 15 FEET OF TIlE DESCRIBED PROPERTY IS RESERVED FOR
EASEMENT PURPOSES.
LESS
A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48
SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,
RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN S.88020'15"W., ALONG THE
SOUTH LINE OF TIlE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 13, FOR A DISTANCE OF 2650.16
FEET, TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 13;
THENCE RUN N.00036'50''W., ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID
SECTION 13, FOR A DISTANCE OF 2692.40 FEET, TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE
NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 13; THENCE CONTINUE N.00036'50"W., ALONG THE
WEST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 13, FOR A DISTANCE OF 336.73
FEET, TO THE SOUTIlWEST CORNER OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE
SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 13; THENCE RUN
N.88031 '06"E., ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTH\VEST 1/4 OF
THE SOUTIlWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 13, FOR A DISTANCE OF
331.82 FEET, TO THE SOUTHWEST CORc"lER OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE
SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 13,
AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING
OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE RUN N.00036'15''W., ALONG THE
WEST LINE OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE
SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 13, FOR A DISTANCE OF
180.39 FEET, TO A POINT ON A CIRCULAR CURVE CONCAVE TO TIlE NORTHEAST,
WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS N.550I0'01"E. A DISTANCE OF 1772.36 FEET THEREFROM;
THENCE RUN SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT,
HAVING A RADIUS OF 1772.36 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 07018'23",
SUBTENDED BY A CHORD OF 225.86 FEET AT A BEARING OF S.38029'll"E., FOR A
DISTANCE OF 226.01 FEET, TO THE END OF SAID CURVE AND A POINT ON THE SOUTH
LINE OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTIl 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST
1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 13; THENCE RUN S.8803I'06"W., .t\LONG
THE SOUTH LINE OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTH\VEST 1/4 OF TIlE
SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 13, FOR A DISTANCE OF
138.70 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAlN1NG 0.27 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
PARCEL 00149680006: THE SW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF
SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST.
PARCEL 00148160006: THE NE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4, SECTION
13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTIl, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
1/24/08 updated per County Attorney comments; 2/14/08 updated per cepe stipulations
t
Agenda Item No. SA
March 11, 2008
Page 52 of 273
EXHIBIT D
for Brandon Residential Planned Unit Development
Page 3 of 4
PARCEL 00149440000: THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (SE-lf4) OF THE NORTHEAST
ONE-QUARTER (NE-1/4) OF TIlE SOUTIlWEST ONE-QUARTER (SW-1/4) OF THE
NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE-I/4) OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTIl, RANGE 25
EAST.
PARCEL 00151200005: THE SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER (SW-I/4) OF TIlE NORTHEAST
ONE-QUARTER (NE-1/4) OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER (SW-1/4) OF THE
NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE-1/4) OF SECTION 13, To\VNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25
EAST.
PARCEL 00148080005: A PARCEL OF LAND IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION
13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRlBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE SOUTIlWEST CORNER
OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORlDA; THENCE RUN N.88057'29E., ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF
TIlE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 13, FOR A DISTANCE OF 862.17 FEET TO A
POINT ON THE EASTERLY RlGHT-OF-WA Y LINE OF LIVINGSTON ROAD, A 275.00 FOOT
RlGHT-OF-WAY, AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN
DESCRlBED; THENCE CONTINUE N.88057'29"E., ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 13, FOR A DISTANCE OF 133.12 FEET TO THE
SOUTIlEAST CORNER OF THE WEST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTEROF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 13; THENCE
RUN N.00007'26"W. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST
QUARTER OF THE SOUTIlWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID
SECTION 13, FOR A DISTANCE OF 672.76 FEET TO TIlE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE
WEST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 13; THENCE RUN S.88059'57"W., ALONG THE
NORTH LINE OF THE WEST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 13, FOR A DISTANCE OF
331.87 FOEET TO THE NORTIlWEST CORNER OF THE WEST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST
QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER. OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID
SECTION 13; THENCE RUN S.00008'03"E, ALONG THE \VEST LINE OF THE WEST HALF OF
THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF TEH NORTHEAST
QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 13, FOR A DISTANCE OF 336.50 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 13,THENCE RUN
S.88058'45"W., ALONG THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
SOUUIWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 13, FOR A
DISTANCE OF 193.14 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY RlGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF
LIVINGSTON ROAD A 275.00 FOOT RlGHT-OF-WAY, THE SAME BEING A POINT ON A
CIRCULAR CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS
N.48019'14"E. A DISTANCE OF 1772.36 FEET
l124!O8 updated per County Attorney comments; 2/14/08 updated perCCPC stipulations
EXHIBIT D
for Brandon Residential Planned Unit Development
Page 4 of 4
Agenda Item No. SA
March 11, 2008
Page 53 of 273
THEREFROM; THENCE RUN SOUTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO
THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 177236 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
16037'26", SUB TENDED BY A CHORD OF 512.43 FEET AT A BEARING OF S.49059'30"E., FOR
A DISTANCE OF 514.23 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING 5.25 ACRES,
MORE OR LESS.
lJ24/08 updated per County Attorney comments; 2/14/08 update<i per cePe stipulations
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 54 of 273
EXHIBIT E
for Brandon Residential Planned Unit Development
Page 1 of2
LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS
Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC, Section 6,06.02, which requires construction of five-foot wide
sidewalks on both sides of local streets, to allow a single five-foot wide sidewalk on one side of the
street where preserves abut the internal road right-of-way.
Withdrawn.
Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC, Section 6.06.01 (also Code of Laws and Ordinances
Administrative Code Section 2-12.C.l3.e. which requires minimum local street right-of-way width of
60 feet.
Minimum right-of-way width of 50 feet is requested for local streets within the Brandon RPUD. This
deviation is justified because of the small-scale setting of the neighborhood. This addresses concerns
that a larger road right-of-way is conducive to higher speeds, and physical design of the broader road
right-of-way becomes less articulated and does not relate to the neighborhood scale. A 50-foot right-
of-way for a residential street can successfully facilitate movement of the vehicular, pedestrian and
bike traffic while accommodating all utility and drainage needs. The 50-foot right-of-way
accomplishes traffic calming to provide a safer transportation system within the neighborhood. This
dimension for a neighborhood right-of-way accommodates all the standard roadway functions so that
the development is compact, the native vegetation is less impacted, and open spaces can be
concentrated in areas of the property for enhanced environmental quality.
Additionally, if an access road is designed to connect to the existing 40-foot wide public access
easement located at the northwest boundary of the Verona Pointe subdivision, the applicant requests a
minimum right-of-way width of 40 feet for that section that is an extension of the existing public
access easement.
Deviation #3 seeks relief from Code of Laws and Ordinances Administrative Code Section 2-
12.C.13.h. which requires a minimum 25-foot radius (edge of pavement) for local street intersections,
and a minimum 40-foot radius for arterials. The Code also states that lesser radii may be approved by
the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator.
Withdrawn.
Deviation #4 seeks relief from Code of Laws and Ordinances Administrative Code Section 2-
12.C.13.j. which requires tangents for all streets between reverse curves, unless otherwise approved by
the County Manager, or his designee, pursuant to LDC, Section 10.02.04.
Tangents shall not be required between reverse curves on any project streets. This deviation is justified
because it is consistent with the Code provision for administrative discretion. The streets within the
Brandon RPUD are not at a traffic capacity or speed level to require tangents between reverse curves.
1/24/08 updated per County Attorney comment.<;; 2/14/08 updated per cePe stipulations
EXHmIT E
for Brandon Residential Planned Unit Development
Page 2 of2
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 55 of 273
The site is designed with straight section curves and 110 super-elevated curves. With a speed limit of25
mph, the design promotes traffic calming.
Deviation #5 seeks relief from Code of Laws and Ordinances Section 22-112 which requires for
excavated areas a maximum four to one slope from existing grade to a breakpoint at least 10 feet below
the control elevation. Below this breakpoint, slopes shall be no steeper than two to one.
Lake cross sections will adhere to South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) minimum
standards as identified in Drainage Details & Cross Sections, Sheet 11. Additional reduction in that
cross sectional area ofthe Jake beyond the standards required by SFWMD will reduce the water quality
coming out of the proposed lake cross section.
Deviation #6 seeks relief from LDC, Section 5.03.02, which limits fence or wall height to 6 feet
measured from unaltered ground level at the fence or wall location.
Withdrawn.
1/24/08 updated per County Attorney comments; 2/14108 updated per cepe stipulations
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 56 of 273
EXHIBIT F
for Brandon Residential Planned Unit Development
Page 1 of 4
DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS
GENERAL:
Development of the Brandon RPUD is proposed for completion in 2012.
TRANSPORTATION:
A. All traffic control devices, signs, pavement marking, and design criteria shall be in accordance
with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Manual of Uniform Minimum
Standards (MUMS), current edition, FDOT Design Standards, current edition, and the Manual
on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), current edition.
B. Access points shown on the RPUD Master Plan are considered to be conceptual. The number
of access points constructed may be less than the nwnber depicted on the Master Plan;
however, no additional access points shall be considered unless a PUD amendment is
approved.
C. Site related improvements (as opposed to system related improvements) necessary for safe
ingress and egress to this project, as determined by Collier County, shall not be eligible for
impact fee credits. All improvements necessary to provide safe ingress and egress for
construction-related traffic shall be in place and operational prior to commencement of on-site
construction.
D. Nothing in any development order shall vest a right of access in excess of a right-in/right-out
condition at any access point. Neither shall the existence of a point of ingress, a point of
egress, or a median opening, nor the lack thereof, be the basis for any future cause of action for
damages against the County by the developer, its successor in title, or assignee. Collier County
reserves the right to close any median opening existing at any time which is fOUfld to be
adverse to the health, safety, and welfare of the public_ Any such modifications shall be based
on, but not limited to, safety, operational circulation, and roadway capacity.
E. If any required turn lane improvement requires the use of any existing County rights-of-way or
easement(s), then compensating rights-of-way shall be provided at no cost to Collier County as
a consequence of such improvement( s) upon final approval of the turn lane design during the
first subsequent development order. The typical cross section may not differ from the existing
roadway UfIless approved, in writing, by the Transportation Division Administrator or his
designee. Upon closure of the turn lane along Livingston Road, the COUflty shall return the
compensating right-of-way back to the developer, its successors, or assigns.
F. If, in the sole opinion of Collier County, traffic signal(s), other traffic control device, sign,
pavement marking improvement within any public right-of-way or easement, or site related
improvements (as opposed to system related inlprovements) necessary for safe ingress and
egress to this project, as determined by Collier County, are determined to be necessary, the fair
1/24108 updated per County Attorney comments; 2/l4/08 updated per cepc stipulations
EXHIBIT F
for Brandon Residential Planned Unit Development
Page 2 of 4
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 57 of 273
share cost of such improvement shall be the responsibility of the developer, its successors or
assigns. The improvements shall be paid for or installed prior to the issuance of the
appropriate, corresponding CO. Additionally, proportionate fair share payment will be
determined by a traffic study and will be paid by the developer to Collier County prior to SDP
or PPL approval consistent with the terms of the attached Exhibit G, entitled "Interlocal
Agreement by and between Collier County and the School District of Collier County" dated
August 16, 2007 (OR Book 4281, Page 1295).
G. The interconnection point via Verona Pointe shown on the RPUD Master Plan is conceptual,
and dependent upon the timing to obtain required, private cross-access easements. Tins access
point design for the incoming development traffic is contingent upon perpetual cross-access
easement dedications from affected property owners being made in writing to allow unrestricted
ingress and egress for the Brandon RPUD within 90 days of adoption of the Brandon RPUD
Ordinance. If perpetual-cross access easement dedication is not achieved as contemplated
within 90 days of adoption of the Brandon RPUD Ordinance, then upon notification by
Transportation Staff, the developer, or successor, shall design, permit, and construct a two-lane
roadway within a 40-foot wide road right-of-way (which will include a single 5-foot sidewalk
in the typical section) connecting to Verona Pointe with a one-way southbound travel way
within the restricted area for exiting development traffic. Construction and maintenance costs
shall be funded by fair share contributions of the property owners gaining access from
extension of the cross-access easements. The private cross-access easements, once recorded,
shall be the primary access for the Brandon RPUD to Livingston Road, and any then existing
right-in access driveway along Livingston Road constructed as sho"-n on the Brandon RPUD
Master Plan shall be eliminated within 180 days of completion of the full two-lane road
connection through Verona Pointe.
If the cross-access easements are not obtained within 90 days of adoption of this Ordinance,
then in the interim, until such cross-access easements may be obtained and recorded, a right-in
only access point shall be permitted at the Livingston Road access driveway shown on the
Brandon RPUD Master Plan. Once the perpetual cross-access easements are subsequently
achieved and recorded to allow full connection to the Verona Pointe public access easement,
then the developer, or successor, shall design, permit, and construct a second lane for incoming
development traffic within the 40-foot right-of-way.
H. All internal roads, driveways and sidewalks within the Brandon RPUD shall be operated and
maintained by the developer, its successors, or assigns, in perpetuity.
1. Access points for connection to off-site properties to the east are shown on the RPUD Master
Plan. The costs for providing access through each access point for interconnection will be
determined by the developer and such lando\'.ners as may desire to use anyone or more access
point(s), or in the alternative, as provided for by general law.
1/24/08 updated per County Attorney oomments; 2114/08 updated per cepe stipufations
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 58 of 273
EXHIBIT F
for Brandon Residential Planned Unit Development
Page 3 of 4
WATER MANAGEMENT:
The Brandon RPUD conceptual surface water management system is described in the Water
Management Report, which has been included in the RPUD rezone application materials. Water
management infrastructure shall be operated and maintained by the developer until conveyed to the
homeowners' association.
UTILITIES:
A. Water distribution, sewage collection and transmission systems shall be constructed throughout
the project by the developer. Potable water and sanitary sewer facilities constructed within the
platted rights-of-way or within dedicated utility easements shall be conveyed to the Collier
County Public Utilities Division.
B. All customers connecting to the potable water and sanitary sewer system shall be customers of
the Collier County Public Utilities Division.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
A_ Special Treatment (ST) Overlay District designations shall be eliminated from the subject
property.
B. All preserve areas shall be identified as separate tracts and be protected by a permanent
conservation easement to prohibit further development. Conservation easements shall be
dedicated on the plat, or at time of SDP approval, to the homeowners' association, or like
entity, for ownership and maintenance responsibility and to Collier County with no
responsibility for maintenance.
C. This RPUD shall comply with the guidelines of the USFWS and FFWCC for impacts to
protected species. A Habitat Management Plan for Big Cypress Fox Squirrel shall be submitted
to Environmental Review Staff for review and approval prior to SDP or subdivision plat
approval.
INDEMNITY AGREEMENT:
The developer agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the County in the event of the County
being named in any suit brought by adjacent or nearby land owners of undeveloped property to
establish lawful access, including defending the County's interest at hearing or trial; except that the
developer will not be responsible for any expenses for outside counsel that the County may otherwise
seek to retain in such matter.
l/24/08 updated per County Attorney comments~ 2/14/08 updated per cepe stipulations
EXHIBIT F
for Brandon Residential Planned Unit Development
Page 4 of 4
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 59 of 273
AFFORDABLE HOUSING:
The developer shall make a payment of $1,000.00 to the Collier County Affordable Housing Trust
Fund at the time of the first and each subsequent issuance of building permit for the construction of
dwelling units within the Brandon RPUD. This commitment and the subsequent payments shall be
credited against any subsequently adopted affordable, work force, and/or other gap housing or housing
needs impact fee, mitigation, exaction, fee, contribution, linkage fees, and/or other similar tax or
charge which would otherwise be applicable to the Brandon RPUD, as may be so contemplated and
provided for by such subsequently adopted provisions.
J/24108 updated per County Attorney comments; 2/14/08 updated per cepc stipulations
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 60 of 273
EXHIBIT G
for Brandon Residential Planned Unit Development
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
BY AND BETWEEN
COLLIER COUNTY AND THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF
COLLIER COUNTY
Veterans Memorial Elementary School- County Transportation Improvements
OR BOOK: 4281 po: 1295
1/24/08 updated per County Attorney comments; 2/14/08 updated per ccpe stipulations
Retn:
cmx TO '/H! ROARn
IRTlROFlIC! 4'/H fLOOR
BlT7240
4071590 OR: 4281 PG: 1295
R!CORDED ic the OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLI!R COUNTy, PL
0911312007 at 11:2SAK D~IGRT !, BBOCK. CLERX
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 61 of 273
KlC FIB 27.00
COPIES 3.00
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
BY AND BETWEEN
COLLIER COUNTY AND THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF COLLIER COUNTY
Veterans Memorial Elementarv Scbool- Countv TransPortation Improvements
This Interlocal Agreement ("Agreement"), dated this d day of ~
2007, is by and between the School District of Collier County ("Distric~
County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida ("County").
Recitals
WHEREAS, the County
the Project, in excess of the I).
from the owners of other
Boulevard that will directly, e
borse the District for costs of
of the traffic signal project,
ong Veterans Memorial
~ d and mutually agreed
:~~ of the Project and to
~ hool and other future
.,';,)
o
~. es, the sum of Ten Dollars
ipt and sufficiency of which
en the parties as follows:
I. All of the above RECITALS are true and correct and are hereby expressly
incorporated herein by reference as if set forth fully below.
2. This Agreement is entered into pursuant to the provisions of Section ]63.01,
Florida Statutes, known as the "Florida Interlocal Cooperation Act of 1969."
3. The parties have entered into this Agreement in good faith and covenant to
cooperate with each other in order to fulfill the intent of this Agreement so as to better
serve the residents of Collier County.
4. Construction of Project. The District shall pay for the cost of designing
and constructing the Project as the School is the first project located along Veterans
Memorial Boulevard. Upon completion of the Project, the District shall submit to the
County a detailed summary of aJl the costs incurred in connection with the Project (the
t
Agenda Item No. 8A
OR: 4281 ~ M~~
"Project Cost"). Any subsequent modifications, maintenance, and/or repairs to the
Project shall be paid for solely by the County.
5. Reimbursement of Proiect Cost. To reimburse the District for the Project
Cost, the County shal] collect funds on a proportionate share basis from the owners of
other future developments located along Veterans Memorial Boulevard that will directly
benefit from the Project as determined by traffic studies (the "Collection"). The County
shall not grant any development approvals for developments that are subject to the
Collection without determining and making arrangements for the collection of such
amounts. The County shall transfer the Collection to the District within 90 days of
receipt. The County shall have the obligation to perform the Collection until the District
has been reimbursed for Project Costs in excess of the District's proportional fair share
obligation. The District's proportional fair share obligation will be determined by traffic
studies foUowing completion of the Project and opening of the School.
6. This Agreement s
Collier County, Florida, with.
Collier County shall pay aI c
document will be provid to
7. ~
agreement under the Flo e tel
0'-..:
8. District ac dges that the fail
permit, condition, term or . ction shall not re e i ~ e applicant or owner, or
their successors or assigns, 0 ~essity of CO~PlYl . any law, ordinance, rule or
regulation governing said perm"~ ~ ~ s, terms or restrictions.
"'--J lIE C1R'
9. In the event of a dispute~ . greement, the parties shall first use the
County's then-current Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedure. Following the
conclusion of this procedure, either party may file an action for injunctive relief in the
Circuit Court of Collier County to enforce the terms of this Agreement, said remedy
being cumulative with any and all other remedies available to the parties for the
enforcement of this Agreement. In the event any litigation is instituted with respect to
this Agreement, the party prevailing in said litigation shall be entitled to collect and
recover from the opposite party all court costs and other expenses including reasonable
attorney's fees.
10. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the
laws of the State of Florida. With respect to the subject matter herein, this Agreement is
the entire agreement between the parties, superseding all previous oral and written
representations, understandings, and agreements between the parties. This Agreement
can ouly be changed by a writing signed by both parties. Any waiver at any time by
either party of its rights with respect to any matter arising in connection with this
2
*'u
Agenda Item No. SA
OR: 4281 r;~h6~~~~***
Agreement shall not be considered a waiver of such rights or matters by either party at
any subsequent time. This Agreement shall take effect on the date first above written and
shall continue in effect until the parties mutually determine that it is no longer needed or
until termination pursuant to the terms hereof.
ATTEST"'"
. . '''Q
DWIGHIE. M~~K, Clerk
.:/ BY:;~~ ~1<UL..O.( .
.... .. itttJi'~ a~ lilerk
; t; 'pJil~
~ -." ~.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
::LLIEd~4t'
JA~ COLETTA, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
A'
. fOml and legal sufficiency:
By:
Its: 'Il. TI y' c
and legality:
3
1
~
--')
r
!
'-, L\
I
I
I
0 125 250 500
SCAlE IN FEET ,
,
r i
\
0\
\
E
~
a
~
.0
rOTEKTl....TUlrnLANEJoM)
CO"'PENSI>.TIN(;illGHT.oF-WAY
EXHIBIT C
Agenda Item No, 8A
,
I COMPE~~l~N~;C;~~-W"Y MEDITERRA (puIf) Page 64 of 273
~ ,---------~---I:--- ----15' TYPE~'S:-
I ---~J',,: -~~- VE'l'ERANS_M0iliAFiitv--=-BUf.f~R
( ~ -- -- ~
' ~ 15' TY E "8"
i J 10'B~~~;'A" ~-- R ---t BUF:FER
I I
Lak.1 I,
1.49AC
--~,
fff- R
:\ L
J ) J 10' TYPEI"A"
_ _ ~~ . BUFFER
------<-l
I :
, I
, :
I !
I
I
I
I I
_,_________~-J
I
--_._.~,
--_._,.~~~~
RPUD MASTER PLAN NOTES:
1. At the time oflhis rezoning. Ihe sile is subject 10 the "A"
RuraIAgriculluralzoningdistrict,wi!hlimi~dareassLblect
to In.. "ST"Speci<'li TrealmenIO""rjllydistrict, inth!! Urban
Resio!l11tialFuture Land Use DesOgnabon
2,Openspace shallindude active and passrve recrealion
areassud1asplaygf'tlunds,golic:ourses.beac:hfrontage.
waterwayslagaons.lIoodplains,nalurelrailsandolher
similar open spaces,incllXiing areas set aside for
preservation ofnalive vBgetaoon & landscaped areas
:'l. RPUO "",ster plan sMa~ be considfll"ed wncep\ul'll in
"alure.
4, Wrthl1!he Brandon RPUO. a 60% minimum open space
shall be achieved O\lllr!he ...mole de\l't!lopment A mir1imum
25% MtM! vegelationshal be relained on-site in
accordarlCe w!h Coller County Land Developmef11 Code
~
.
~
N
,
>
,
Q
~
"
,
~
~
ro
'"
'"
a
./
a
~ ONOTE: PRESERVE ACREAGES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUElJECT TO FINAl.
cr PLA-TTING
,/ REQU'RED PRESERVE ~25%OFNATIVE VEGETATION 10,25X41,22 AC ~ 1181 AC)
~ PRESERVE AREA SHOWN IS 10,91 ACRES, W,"IICH IS 92% OF THE REQUIRED
aJ PRESERVE, REMAINING PRESERVE AR~A Will BE DEFINED AT DEVELOPMENT
Il'1 ORDER SUBMlTTAl AND SHALL BE LDCATEDCONTlQUOUSTOTl-lE PRESERVE
g ~~~~O~~I~~~ ~;~ ~~~~;~I~~~~~T~~~;fr~~1T~~E8~6:1EA~~~~
N WHERE NECESSAI'l.Y. I.. ACCORDANCE WITH STANDARDS AND LIMITATIONS
~ tSTABLlSHEDINLDCSECTIONJ,D5,1I1.Hh
BUFFER
DELLA ROSK'------.
j'TC-~,"~----"l
i ,/ ""'''''='':~, i
:'-'ST-SPECIAL \\1
i ,j TREATMENT', I
I ___ --:> OVERLAY ~
1--::------\--------1
J / --~ ,
-;':, ~- \ L j
\;:i;~\ T-YPE -,,': -- ---
\ \-~3BUFFER
\ \. \ ,-"",-~
\ \,\'}' . fa,' TYPE "D"
\ ,\" '. BUFFER
;;>7"10,,"\"--'
\ '\'\ \
,,\ \
\ '
ro
a
a
N
.,;
a
LAND USE KEY
III
ENGINEERING
~
.
~
RESIDENTIAL (R)
-Single Family
-Two Family
-Zero Lot Line
-Duplex
-Multifamily
-Common Area
-Open Space
-Water Management Arees
-Recreation Facility
Lake 3
1,11AC
'"
,
,
-' ,
. -.......... "
''-.,'" \
""~,::>,..
LEGEND
D
D
@
I LUel
R
-+
..~
2350 STANFORD COURT
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34112
PHONE (239) 434~D333
FAX (239) 434-9320
E.B. #642 & L.B. #642
R
-=
,%
k
: I
I:
: r
I:
: I
R I: R
: ~
),/
_:{?
L"ke2
2.81AC
ST.SPECIAL
TREATMENT
OVERLAY
'6
>
0'
x
ro
z
:s
Q
w
~
~
JOHNS
10' TYPE! "A"
BUFF1R
PRESERVE
o
'-....
PRESERVE AREA
'-....
,
,
WATER MANAGEMENT AREA
RPUOBOUNOARY
RIGHT-OF-WAY
PROJECT LAND USE
RESIDENTIAL(R)
LAKES
PRESERVE REQUIRED*
PRESERVE SHOWN
ROADS/ROW
TOTAL NET ACREAGE
IMPERVIOUS AREA
MINIMUM OPEN SPACE(60%)
SPECIAL TREATMENT ZONE
ZONING CLASSIFICATION
LAND USE CLASSIFICATION
RESIDENTIAL AREA
MAJOR ACCESS POINT
PH.OPOSED ACCOoSS POINT
f-
Z
-,W
[L:;:
u.W
(/J
<(
W
I-- 3Jt .-J
I FPLEASE/olENT I
I~
PELICAN
STRAND
(DRI)
28.19AC::t
5.63 ACt
11.81 ACt
10.91 AC:l
5.47 ACt:
51.10AC:t
12.31 ACt.
30,66 AC:!:
204 UNITS/51.1 AC. "" 3.99 UNITS PER ACRE
BRANDON RPUD
MASTER PLAN
O'TE
FEB. 2008
SHEET
EXHIBIT C
1/24/08 updated per County Attorney comments; 2/8/08 updated per CCPC stipulations
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 65 of 273
COVENANT OF UNIFIED CONTROL
The undersigned do hereby swear or affinn that we are the fee siiriple titleholders end owners of record of property
commonly known as - see LMal DescriDtlon alto.hed as Exhibit A _
(Street address end City, State and Zip Code)
and legally described in Exhibit A _ched hereto.
The property described herein is the subject of an opplication for remain!! in Lenev RPUD planned unit
development LPUD) zoning, We hereby designate Frank ChInnici. legal representative thereot; as the legal
representatives of the property and as such, these individuals are authorized fo legally bind an owners of the
property in the course of seeking the necessary approvals to develop. 'IbIs authority includes, but is not limited to,
the hiring and authorization of agents fo assist in the preparation of applications, plans, surveys, and studies
necessary fo obtain zoning approval on the site. These repreflCDtatives will remain the only entity to authorize
development acti vity on the property until such tini~ as a new or amended covenant of unified control is delivered to
Collier COlDlty,
The undersigned recognize the following and will be gujded accordingly in the pursuit of development of the
project:
1. The property will be developed and used in conforrirlty with the approved master plan including an conditions
placed on the development and all commitments agreed to by the applkant in connection with the planned unit
development rezoning.
2. The legal r"Presentative 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 properly is subsequently sold in
whole or in part, unless and until a new or amended covenant of unified control ia delivered to and recorded by
Collier County,
3, A departure from the provisions oithc approved plans or a failure to comply 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 tbe planned unit development approval will be incoxporated info covenants and
restrictions wbicb mn with the land so as to provide notice to subsequent owners that all development activity
within the planned unit development mUBt be consistent with those tenus and conditions.
5, So long as this covenant is in force, Collier County can, upon the discovery of noncompliance with the terms,
safeguards, and conditions of the planned unit development, seek equitable relief as necessary to compel
compliance. The County will not issue permits, certificates, Or licenses fo occupy or use ,any part of tbe
planned unit development and the County may stop ongoing construction activity until the project is brought
in~r with all t~s, cn~A;jiens and safeguards of the planned unit development.
~er (Eastbourne Bonita, LLC) ~ qjl2. Owner
Fronk Chinnicl. Manal!er
Printed Name
STATEOF N.{JJ.,.lJg!Jdt
COUNTY OF l=: . +
Sworn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me lhid.::1:..2.y of
Printed Name
.Frank Chinnici
:~~ ,2006 by
Lice n'i:Sidentifi
'on.
~
ed) OIZlsoSiC1dQ
(Serial Number, if~VI;.zl1lllEflM"N W
,..~t!l!Jil;fIIl\l!ll!t~
~~~1'.lDIJaitI \ 4.0\0
C:\Oocuments and SeWngalfchinnlcllLocel SolllngslTemporary Internet FII8lt!lJr_l~F'S6,.e~1 '
OF UNIFIED CONTROLdoc
"
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 66 of 273
E!,blbit A
LEGAL DESCRIl'1"rON
The subject property, being 51.l:t acres, is described as:
PARCEL ID 00149640004: THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE
SOUTHWEST ]/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 AND THE NORTIIWEST 114 OF THE
SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST ]/4 OF SECTION 13
,
TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL ID 00148120004: TIlE EAST ]/2 OF TIlE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE
NORTHWEST 1/4 OF' THE NORTHEAST ]/4 AND THE WEST 1/2 OF THE SOUTIfWEST
]/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST ]/4 OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48
SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COlLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 00149520001: TIlE NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF
SECTION ]3, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST.
PARCEL 00149480002: THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NB ]/4) OF THE
NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF THE NORTHWEST ONE QUARTER (NW 1/4)
OF THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE 114) OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHll' 48 SOUTH,
RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIJ2,R COUNTY, FLORIDA AND THE NORTHWEST ONE-
QUARTER (NW 1/4) OF "THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER (NW 114) OF THE
NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE 1/4)
OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA.
PARCEL 00]49800006: THE NORTIffiAST ONE-QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF THE
NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER (NW 1/4) OF THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE 1/4),
OF THE NORTHEAS'f'bNE-QUARTER (NB 1/4), SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,
RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; AND THE NORTHWEST ONE-
QUARTER (NW 1/4) OF THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NB 1/4) OF THE
NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE 1/4), OF THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE 114),
SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA;
PARCEL 0015] 120004: THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (SE 114) OF THE
NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER (NW ]/4) OF THE NORTHEAST O'NE-QUARTER (NE 1/4),
OF THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NB 1/4), SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,
RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA;
PARCEL 00148400009: THE SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER (SW 1/4) OF THE
NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE 114) OF THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE ]/4),
OF THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (l\'E 1/4), SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,
RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA;
PARCEL 00150960003: THE E.1/2 OF THE N.1J2 OF THE S.W. ]/4 OF THE S.W. ]/4 OF
THE N.E. 1/4 SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLDER
Exlubit A - Legacy RPUD Legal Description Page I
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 67 of 273
COUNTY, FLORIDA; THE WEST 15 FEET OF THE DESCRlBED PROPERTY IS
RESERVED FOR EASEMENT PURPOSES.
LESS
A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP
48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLffiR COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,
RANGE 2S EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN S.88020'I5"W., ALONG
THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST]/4 OF SAID SECTION 13, FOR A DISTANCE
OF 2650.16 FEET, TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID
SECTION 13; THENCE RUN N.Oo03'6'50"W., ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE
SOUTHEAST 114 OF SAID SECTION 13, FOR ^ DISTANCE OF 2692.40 FEET, TO THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST 114 OF SAID SECTION 13; THENCE
CONTlJ\'UB N.Oo036'50"W., ALONG THE WEST lJNE OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID
SECTION ]3, FOR A DISTANCE OF 336,73 FEET, TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
THE NORTH 112 OF THE SOUTHWEST 114 OF THE SOUTHWEST ]/4 OF THE
NORTHEAST 114 OF SAID SECTION ]3; THENCE RUN N.88031'06"E., ALONG THE
SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 112 OF THE SOUTHWEST ]/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 114
OF THE NORTHEAST 114 OF SAID SECTION] 3, FOR A DISTANCE OF 331.82 FEET, TO
THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE EAST ]/2 OF THE NORTH 112 OF THE
SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID
SECTION 13, AND THE POINT OF BEGlNh1JNG OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN
DESCRJBED; THENCE RUN'N,00036'15''W., ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST 1/2
OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 114 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE
NORTIlEAST 114 OF SAID SECTION 13, FOR A DISTANCE OF 180.39 FEET, TO A
POINT ON A CIRCULAR CURVE CONCA VB TO THE NORTHEAST, WHOSE RADIUS
POINT BEARS N.5soI0'OI "E. A DISTANCE OF 1772.36 FEET THEREFROM; THENCE
RUN SOUI'HEASTERL Y ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HA V1NG A
RADIUS OF 177236 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 070]8'23", SUBTENDED
BY A CHORD OF 225.86'FBET AT A BEARING OF S.38029'1l"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF
226.01 FEET, TO THE END OF SAID CURVE AND A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF
THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTH ]/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4
OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 13; THENCE RUN 8.8803] '06"W., ALONG
TIlE SOUTH LINE OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTH 112 OF THE SOUTHWEST 114 OF
THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST I/4 OF SAID SECTION 13, FOR A
DISTANCE OF 138.70 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAlNING 0.27 ACRES,
MORE OR LESS,
PARCEL 00149680006: THE SW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE NE ]/4 OF
SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST,
PARCEL 00148160006: THE NE 114 OF THE SW 114 OF THE NE 1/4 OF TIlE NE 114,
SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 BAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FWRIDA.
PARCEL 00149440000: THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (SE-1/4) OF THE
NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE-]/4) OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER (SW-IJ4)
Exhibit A - Legacy RPUD Legal Description
Page 2
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 68 of 273
OF TIm NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE-l/4) OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,
RANGE 25 BAST.
PARCEL 00151200005: THE SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER (SW-1/4) OF THE
NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE-l/4) OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER (SW-]/4)
OF THE NORTHEAST ONB-QUARTER (NE-l/4) OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,
RANGE 25 EAST.
PARCEL 00148080005: A PARCEL OF LAND m THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF
SECTION 13, TOWNSHlP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DES,CRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE
SOUTIIWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP
48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 BAST, COLLffiR COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN
N.880S7'29E., ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID
SECTION 13, FOR A DISTANCE OF 862.17 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY
RIGHT-OF-WAY LmE OF LIVINGSTON ROAD, A 275.00 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND
THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HERBIN DESCRIBED;
THENCE CONTINUE N.88057'29"E., ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST
QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 13, FOR A DISTANCE OF 133.12 FEET TO THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE WEST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTEROF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 13;
THENCE RUN N.Ooo07'26"W. ALONG TIlE EAST LINE OF THE WEST HALF OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER QF THE SOUTIIWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST
QUARTER OF, SAID SECTION [3, FOR A DISTANCE OF 672.76 FEET TO THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE WEST HALF OF THE SOUTIIEAST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTlON 13;
THENCE RUN S.88059'57"W., ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE WEST HALF OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST
QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 13, FOR A DISTANCE OF 331.87 PDEET TO THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE WEST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTElt OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 13;
THENCE RUN S.Qoo08'03"E, ALONG THE \VEST LINE OF THE WEST HALF OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF TEH NORTHEAST
QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 13, FOR A DISTANCE OF 336.50 FEET TO THE
NORTIIEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF
THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION
13,THENCE RUN S.88058'45"W., ALONG THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID
SECTION 13, FOR A DISTANCE OF 193.14 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF LIVmGSTON ROAD A 275.00 FOOT RlGHT-OF-WAY, THE
SAME BEING A POINT ON A CIRCULAR CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY,
WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS N.48019'14"E. A DISTANCE OF 1772.36 FEET
THEREFROM; TIIENCE RUN SOUTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE
TO THE LEFT, HA VlNG A RADIUS OF 1772.36 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE
OF 16037'26", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD OF 512.43 FEET AT A BEARING OF
S.49059'30"E., FOR A DISTANCE OF 5]4.23 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
CONTAINING 5.25 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
Exhibit A - Legacy RPUD Legal Description
Page 3
__,2
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 69 of 273
Corporate Information for Brandon RPUD (AR #10] 71)
January 2008
Owner and Applicant: Eastbourne Bonita. LLC
Eastboume Investments, Ltd. is 60% owner of Eastbourne Bonita, LLC,
Officers:
Francis Egan, President,
Rober! Blakely, Chairman & CEO.
Peter Blaiklock, VP & Secretary/Treasurer.
Frank Chinnici, Manager.
Legacy Bonita, LLC is 40% owner of Eastbourne Bonita, LLC.
Sole Member:
Frank Chinnici, President.
Please note:
One propeliy (Folio# 00148080005) is recorded under the ownership of Legacy Builders
LLC. Legacy Builders LLC filed an official name change to Eastbourne Bonita, LLC on
July 26,2005,
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11, 2008
t-'age IV 01 LI,j
AFFIDA Vii
We/I, Frank Chinnici. Eastbourne Bonita LLC being fll'$t duly sworn, depose and say that
we/I am/are the awnel'$ 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/l understand
that the information requested on this appllcallon must be complete and accurote 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 dee,med complete, and all required information has been
/iubmitted.
As property owner We/I further authorl2:e Johnson Enaineerina. Inc. to act as our fmy
~;O?~fu"~
Signature of Property Owner Slgnolure of Property Owner
Frank Chinnici
Eastboume Bonita LLC
Typed or Printed Name of Owner
Typed or Printed Name of Owner
The foregoing instrument was "acknowledged be!,ore me this ~ L/.!!l.. day of ~ 2006,
by Frank Chinnici who is personally known to me or hos produced .1:ll~.<i-Dr.ll( - "11'- as
Identification.
State of FIO~~ ,/OV iL
County of GelIleF g., t;;
(Sign re f Not ubllc - State of
~o) ~ra."-=AN'
"'{ '-~"'**'ttff~
"~.,.~, ~.,tftiQmlt.IJII, 211.110
. 'iVt&.pt~_~, . _
{Print, Type, or Stamp Commissioned
Name of Notary Public}
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 6/14/04
Division of Corporations
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11~1 of2
Page 71 of 273
Florida Limited Liability
EASTBOURNE BONITA, LLC
;~"'._'---~---"--"---"--------'-'-----'--~'_'..__'':___M_..~__. _...___~~______,.____._.,'____.___.___,.,___.._,.,___.....
PRlNcIPAL ADDRESS
550 ESSJA Y DRIVE
SUITE 400
WILLIAMSVILLENY 14221
Changed 04/23/2007
'-~:"'~--:---'"-~'--::----"--'"7:"-'";'-~'-:-----""""'~~:.:~_....,...___=-~_"';~..___=_~~::-~_"..__.._~...._..._, _.__
MAILlNG ADDRESS
550 ESSJA Y DRIVE
SUITE 400
WILLIAMSVILLE NY 1422]
Changed 04/23/2007
Document Number
L04000034440
FEI Nwnber
203327633
Date Filed
05/06/2004
State
FL
Status
ACITVE
Effective Date
NONE
Last Event
CANCEL ADM DISSi'REv
Event Date Filed
11/0812005
Event Effective Date
NONE
Total Contribution
0,00
r--'"
,
-------
1
I
Registered Agent
Name & Address
DENT!, KEVIN A
C/O CHEFFY. PASSIDOMO. ET AL
821 FlFTHA VENUE SOUTH, SUITE 201
NAPLES FL34102
N_ a..nged, 071261200l
Addmss Change~ rJ7I26I2OOS
~
PUDZ-2006-AR-10171 REV: 4
BRANDON RPUD
Project: 2006040008
Date: 10/10/07 DUE: 11/7/07
'-~'-:-:---'~-,----'-------.-~""'!"'---:::--
tl
ManagerlMember Detail
II
II
- ~ ---.............. - "'~''''''^''''''~~4^^ ... "'T~............~...~ _.__._~__
...~.,..... ....- -., -, . .. . ...-----..-
Division of CoIpOI'lrtions
Agenda Item tJo, 8/1
March 1 f,!IlOO~ of2
Page 72 of 273
Name & Address
CHlNNlcr. FRANKA
110 ESSIA Y DRlVE. SUITE 400
Wn.UAMSVILJ..ENY 14Z2!
I Title I
EJ
r:--7"',~':-:-:::-:---'~----
ua epo S
I Report Year II Filed Date
I 2005 II IIIl1S12OOS I
I ' 2006 11 0512412006 I
I 2007 ", II 04/2312007 I
Ann lR rt
,--,~--------:---:-::::---~'-:--;:---;~~':':".::..~-:--;-:-::-:-:-::--_-::'.~----:--"
-------'-~-,----'.'_.. -
.. . .-
. ",. JiifltviQ9.S, r:=l~!l,Qki, a
" """""'.'~'-;1
''Rettini'tO' :, ' ",;"
. " ,..~
View Events
View Name Hisjmy
'}\l\l~~ilin.'
.~,<",.~W;:; .,9
Document Images
Listed below are the images available for ihis filing.
,','t'
THIS IS NOT OFFICIAL RECORD; SEE DOCUMENTS IF QUESTION OR CONFLICT
....... --........................ .. ..................................,.... ... ......... .........~...~ _.._.~..-
Agenda Item No, 8A
PUDZ-2006-AR-1 o-t~4h R~fJ84
BRANDON RPUD Page 73 of 273
Project: 2006040008
Date: 10/10/07 DUE: 11/7/07
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
LEGACY
Prepared for:
Prepared by:
Johnson Engineering, Inc.
July 2006
1
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 74 of 273
Table of Content5
A. Purpose of report and study objectives ,....................................................................,.....,.............,
B. Executive summary ........................ .................................:.,........."....................,................... '.........
1. Site location and study aTea: ....................................................................................................,...
2. Principal findings:.... ...... ...... ....... ..............'.. ....................,.,.............................."...................... ,..
3. Conclusions and Tecommendations ...............................................,.....................:.........,............
II. Proposed Development .... ..,.........................;................................................ .....,....... ........................
Figure 1. Master Site Plan .................'.......................................................'.....................................,..
ilL Area Conditions........,........................., ..'.... ............. ....................................................,.......,... .......
IV. Projected T raffle................... .......:. :::.......... ........... ...... .......... ...............................................,......,..
A Site traffIC (2012 horizon year).........................................................................................................
Table 1 ............,.............................,........................,.,......... ..........'.......... .................... ,....... ,............ ,..
Trip Generation Summary ....................................................................... ............,.................,....,.... ...
Table Z .................................................................. ,.........................,...........................................,.." '..
Trip Assignment .......................... ........................,...................'........ '............ ............... ...,..,..'...... ,.,.....
B. Non-site traffic (2012 horizon year) ..........,.................................................................................,....
Table 3 .....'......,....... ..,... ,... ....,..... ..... .........,.....'...,..,................................. ...... .....................................
Existing Volumes .................... ..'.....,...'.. ,..................................... ,.", ,..,.. .....,.. ....... ...... ......"..."...........
Table 4 ..... ..'....,.... ......... ..........,... .......... .................... ...................' .,..,...,... ..........., .',... '..... ,.. ,,'.. ,., .......
Projected Volumes 201 Z........,............ .......',...., ,................. ..........'........... .......... ...."..,."........ ..,....','...
T oml T raffle V oJumes..,....;.;,....... .......... .....................,................,....... ........,....................... ................
Trip Assignment..." .'...... ,:...,......,.................,...........,..............,.,..... ..'..".......,. '...... ....,........",..... ........
V. Analysis ,...... .., .... .... .........,..................... ....................,.....,..,...,....., ......... ...... .',........................ ........
A Site access: '..'.. ...................,........' '.......,.,....,.... ,.............. '... '.. .............................. ,....,..........',..,....".
B. Capacity and level of service: .............,.................................................................................,.....,.....
C. T rafflc safety: .. ,........'."................... ,..,......'.................... ,......................,....... ,... ........... ........,......'....
D. Traffic con no!:..,.. ....,.......... .... .....,.".,.... ..........,......................"....... ........,.., ....'.........................."...
VI. Improvement An,alvsis .................... ,.... ...... ..................,...... ..,.'... ........, '.........,.. ............,'................
VII. Conclusion ...'........ ,........'.......', ............ ......' ..........."................, .... ............,....... ......., ......... .........,...
Appendix A............. ....'.... .'.'...................... ..............,. ...,....,....... ............... ..,................,..,.,..,....', '..,... ",.... 1
I certify that this TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY has been
prepared by me or unaer my immecflate supervision ana that
I have e:rperJent:e and training In the field of t.raIfJc and
tmDsportlltion e11!lineerlng.
CHRISTOPHER D. HAGAN, P,E.
STATE OF FLORIDA
Professional Engineer Registration No. 38649
DATE: 07/]912006
JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC.
2350 Stanford Court
Naples FL 34112
EB #0000642
2
Agenda Item No, SA
March 11, 2008
Page 75 of 273
1. Introduction and Summarv
A. Purpose of report and study objectives
This report was generated to a.<certain the traffic impacts associated with the proposed
development and to address meeting concurrency requirements of Collier County's Land
development Code. This report also evaluates the project's consistency with the County's
Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan.
B. Executive summary
1. Site location and study area:
The proposed project is located within Township 48 South, Range Z5 East, Sectie')
13 of Collier County Florida. The physical property is currently vacant land on th,
east side of Livingston Road, north of lmmokalee Road. The project site is
proposed for residential use with a total of Z04 multi-family or single-family
dwelling units on 51.1 acres of assembled parcels. For the purpose of examining t:b
worst case scenario, this study is to suppose a total of 204 singl""family dwelling
units as allowed in the proposed PUD document.
2. Principal,flndings:
None of the impacted roadway segments is currently operating or is projected
operate at an unacceptable level of seIVice within the present flve-year planning
period.
3, Conclusions and recommendations
Traffic impacts of the proposed project can be accommodated within the
nal),liportation network without offsite improvements. Level of service analysis
derr;<:lnstrates the availability of roadway capacity currently and at the project's
build-out year, ZO]2. The proposed project will not impact any Collier County
Concurrency Segments that are currently operating or projected to operate at an
unacceptable level of service within the projected five-year planning period,
Therefore, this project is consistent with the County's Growth Management Plan,
Transportation Element and Policy 5.1.
3
t
""
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 76 of 273
ll.. ProDosed DeveIoDment
The proposed project is located within Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Section 13 of Collier
County Florida. The physical property is currently vacant land on the east side of Livingston Roae
north of lmmokalee Road. This study was prepared to evaluate traffic impacts associated with
developing the existing land use from Agricultural to a residential Planned Unit Development
consistent with Collier County's Growth Management plan. A rotal of 204 dwelling units are
proposed. Single-family units are used as the primary variable for this study. This was done to
provide a maximum potential for trips. The project build-out is proposed for 20] 2 with a single
phase development schedule. Access to the site will be from Livingston Road and from Veterans
Memorial Boulevard with the appropriate design features to accommodate safe driveway
connections. The following is the master plan for the proposed development:
VEfElWlS MEMORIAL BLVD.
r41' i'i"
'~
.~,
.
'.
. .
'"
......01...
::..,.:;.....
.
'"
lI.roil
: .. ~ .
'"
.~
'"
.....a'" .."
'"
':i"' ,
""'~....~
Figure 1. Master Site Plan
4
ill.
. ;,
Agenda Item No, SA
March 11, 2008
Page 77 of 273
Area Conditions
- "
The land use characteristics surrounding the subject site consist of an expanding urban residentia
community with comrneTcial and some industrial supporting uses to the north and south.
The project study area limits were determined based on the 3%, 3%, 5% rule in accordance witb
Collier County's TIS Guidelines and Procedures. The study boundary was then checked for
existing land use and recently rezoned land uses to determine a reasonable traffic growth rate fu
the area, The following is the current subject site shown on a 2005 aerial with surrounding
developments.
5
,
Agenda Item No, SA
March 11, 2008
Page 78 of 273
The existing roning of the subject parcel is Agricultural with no recent land use activities. Future
and active surrounding developments such Mediterra, to the north of this project, and Royal Paln
Academy to the south have been considered and evaluated for area traffic growth pattern
determinations.
The adjacent roadway consists of a major 6-lane arterial with a typical urban cross section.
Livingston Road is a major N orth-South arterial roadway servicing local residence and Lee Count>
commuters. lmmokalee Road, currently under constrUction, is designed for a 6-lane major East-
West arterial. Collier County CAT system currently operates a transit route reaching lmmokalee
Road at Airport Road and providing alternative transportation mode. However, and as of this
report, there is no transit rout servicing Livingston Road north of Immokalee Road.
IV. Proiected Traffic
A Site traffic (2012 horizon year)
The Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 7'h Edition, was utilized to
estimate the number of trips generated by the proposed development. The study
parameters included land use 210, the number of dwelling units as the independent
variable of choice and Weekday, peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, AM & PM, as the
dependent variables.
Trip generation fitted curve equations are'
Weekday
AM Peak
PM Peak
Ln(T) ~ 0.92 Ln(X) + 2,71
T c O,7O{X) + 9.43
Ln(T) = 0,90 Ln(X) + 0.53
lTE
Code
land Type
Table 1
Trip Generation Summary
Trip
11 Independent' Rate
Uhlts Variable Per
, Unit
Directional
Distribution
Trip
Generatior
" '"i'"
The trips were distributed on adjacent County Roadways as agreed to by County
Transportation Staff (See Appendix A- Methodology and Meeting Memo). The following i,
a tabulation of project traffic assignment in peak hour peak direction on the County's
Concurrency Segments.
6
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 79 of 273
np men
SEGMENT ROADWAY FROMITO PM PEAK HOUR SERVICE % SERVICE
NUMBER NAME (SEGMENT) DIRECTION PROJECT TRIPS VOLUME VOLUME
Imperial 51.
51 Livingston to Northbound 77 3260 2,30%
Road Immokalee
Rd.
42 lmmokalee AIrport Rd Eastbound 38 3290 1.17%
Rd. to 1-75
Table;z.,
T' Assign t
B. Non-site traffic (2012 horizon year)
Traffic growth leading up to the horizon year was determined by a comparison of the
County's 2005 Average Daily Traffic report and the County's latest Concurrency Table
and 2005 AUIR. An estimate of the background traffic volumes was determined from a
best fit linear trend analysis obtained by tabulating traffic count data taken at stations
within the impacted area. A current copy of the concurrency segment table was obtained
from Collier County Transportation Staff. From the data analyzed, it is reasonable to
assume an annual growth rate of 8.0% and 3,4% for Livingston Road segment 51 and
Immokalee Road segment 42 respectively. The following are tables of the existing and
projected peak hour peak direction traffic volumes v>ith and without the proposed project:
SEGMENT ROADWAY FROMfrO PM PEAK HOUR SERVICE % SERVICE
NUMBER NAME ' (SEGMENT) DIRECTION PROJECTED VOLUME VOLUME
TRIPS
Imperial 51.
51 Uvingston to Northbound 980 3260 30.00%
Rood Immokalee
Rd,
42 Immokalee Airport Rd Eastbound 2590 3290 78,70%
Rd, to f.7 5
Table3
Existing Volumes
(Without Project)
SEGMENT ROADWAY FROMO PM PEAK HOUR SERVICE % SERVICE
PROJECTED
NUMBER NAME (SEGMENT) DIRECTION TRIPS VOLUME VOLUME
Imperial 51.
51 Livingston It> Northbound 1555 3260 47,70%
Road Immokalee
Rd,
42 Immokalee Airport Rd Eastbound 3165 3290 96.20%
Ref, to 1.75
Table 4
Projected Volumes 2012
(\X1ithout Project)
7
Agenda Item No, 'SA
March 11, 2008
Page 80 of 273
The projected trips on the im pacted segments represent reasonable traffic volumes
including Collier County's Concurrency "Trip Bank" which is a tabulation of total
approved development order to date.
SEGMENT ROADWAY FROMITO PM PEAK HOUR SERVICE % SERVICE
NUMBER NAME {SEGMENT} DIRECTION TOTAL TRIPS VOLUME VOLUME
Imperial St.
51 Livingston to Northbound 1632 3260 50.06%
Road Immokalee
Rd.
42 Immokalee AllllortRd Eastbound 3203 3290 97.35%
Rd. to '.75
Table 5
Total Projected Traffic Volumes
(With Project)
Trip Assignment
Table 4 illustrates that none of the analyred and impacted concurrency segments will
operate above 100% of the adopted level of service volume.
V. Analvsis
A. Site access:
The project's proposed roadway access is from two access pointa, Livingston Road and
Veterans Memorial Boulevard. The Livingston Road access connection is to be a right-in
right-out access point. The Veterans Memorial access connection is currently planned to bE
a full access point with no turning movement limitations. The proposed driveway locatiom
and connection spacing relative to existing driveways along appears to be in compliance
with Colli~r,00unty'sAccess Management Resolution 01-247.
B. Capacity and level of service:
As demonstrated in Tables 2 and 4 of this report and in accordance with Collier County
Concurrency Management rules, future roadway conditions will accommodate the
proposed project traffic.
C. T rafflc safety:
The proposed project will not create a traffic safety concern based on the projected
operating level of service conditions within the area of influence. Driveway connection
design standards will insure a safe driveway connection operation.
D. Traffic control,
A single Stop Control driveway "T" intersection is recommended at both driveway
connections. The project driveways will be designed with an appropriate throat distance to
accommodate safe traffic circulation and parking configuration.
8
Agenda Item No, SA
March 11, 2008
Page 81 of 273
VI. Inmrovement Analvsis
The arterial and collector level of service analysis of this report demonstrates the availability of
capacity to accommodate both the project and background (non-site) traffic at the proposed
horizon year with no improvement necessary. However, site related improvements such as turn
lanes may be required for safe ingress and egress to the project and will be designed in accordance
with Collier County and FOOT Standards.
.Y:!l. Conclusion
Traffic impacts of proposed developm'ent can be accommodated within the impacted
transportation network and at the proposed build-out year without offsite improvement,
The proposed pTOject will not impact any Collier County Concurrency Segments that is currently
operating or is projected to operate at an unacceptable level of service within the projected five-Yell
planning period, Therefore, this project is consistent with the County's Growth Management
Plan, Transportation Element and Policy 5,1.
9
Appendix A
. .,.
Methodology and Meeting
Memo
.'.,':
10
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 82 of 273
Agenda Item No, 8A
M"rch 11 7008
Page 83 of 273
APPENDIX A
INITIAL MEETING P.HECKLIST
Suggestion: Use this Appendix as a worksheet to ensure that no important elements are
overlooked. Cross out the items that do not apply.
Date: _06/28/2006_
Time: _4:00 p.M.
Location: Meeting Checklist sent bye-mail
People Attendinu:
Name, Organization, and Telephone Numbers
1) Alan S. EI-Urfali, Johnson Engineering, Inc
2) Nick Casalanguida, Collier County Transportation Division
3)
4)
5)
Studv Preuarer:
Preparer's Name and Title: Alan E].Urfali & Chris Hagan, P.E.
Organization: Johnson Engineering, Inc
Address & Telephone Numher:2350 Stanford Court, Nap]es FL 34112, (239) 434-0333
Reviewer(s):
Reviewer's Name & Title: Nick Casalanguida, Project Manager
Collier County Transportation Planning Department
Reviewer's Name & Title: Don Scott, Director of Transportation P]arming
Collier County Transp~J;ion Planning Department
Annlicant:
Applicant's Name: Eastboume Bonita, LLC
Address: Collier County
Te]ephone Number:
Pronosed Development:
Name: Legacy RPUD
Location: Livingston Road & Livingston East-West
Land Use Type: Single Family
ITE Code #: 210
Proposed number of development units: 204
Agenda Item No, 8A
MRrr-h 11 2008
Page 84 of 273
Zonin2
Existing:
Comprehensive plan recommendation:
Requested: RPUD
Studv Tvue:
Comnlete .
None 0
Traffic ooerations
o
Studv Area:
Boundaries: 3%,3%,5% Rule.
Intersections: Livingston Road & Immokali::e Road
Additional intersections to be analyzed: None.
Horizon Year(s): 2008
Ana]ysis Time Period(s): AM & PM Peak
Future Off-Site Developments: Standard Growth Rate
Source of Trip Generation Rates: ITE, Seventh edition.
Reductions in Trio Generation Rates:
None: X ,
P ass-by trips:
Internal trips (PUD):
Transit use:
Other:
, :~~;.
Methodoloev & Assumotions:
Non-site traffic estimates: Use of standard growth traffic rate
Site-trip generation: ITE
Trip distribution method: See Attached (estimating)
Traffic assignment method: Hand
Traffic growth rate: Per Collier County Traffic Counts
2
Agenda Item No, 8A
Special Features: (from preliminary study or prior experience) l:SlA
Accident locations:
Sight distance:
Queuing:
Access location & configuration:
Traffic control:
Signal system location & progression needs:
On-site packing needs:
Data Sources:
Base maps:
Prior study reports:
Access policy and jurisdiction:
Review process:
Requirements:
Miscellaneous:
'-' 'l U
Page 85 of 273
, ~-
SIGNATURES
;ilL, <fl- /?(~{.
Study Preparer
Reviewers
Applicant
3
1
, ...
~20%>
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11, 2008
Legacy Development Traffic Distribution Page 86 of 273
z
o
a::
z
~
fg
z
;;
^
~
...
y
"-
',,,,
<:30%>
^
..
...
~
v
----
--
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 87 of 273
Item V,B,
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MEETING OF November 7. 2007
I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT
Petition No.:
Petition Name:
ApplicantlDeveloper:
Engineering Consultant:
Environmental Consultant:
PUDZ-2006-AR-1017l
Brandon RPUD
Eastbourne Bonita, LLC
Johnson Engineering
Johnson Engineering
II. LOCATION
The subject property consist of 51.1 acres and is located on the southeast corner
of the intersection of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard, Section
13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida,
III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
The surrounding properties are mostly vacant but, there is a land use petition
under review PUDZ.2006.AR.9577 Della Rosa RPUD that was heard by the
CCPC on October 4, 2007 and it is schedule to be heard by the BCC on
November 13, 2007, The proposed Della Rosa RPUD is relying on the Residential
In.fill provision of the Future Land Use Element for an additional (3) three units
per acre to achieve a density of 7 units per acre for a total of 107 multi. family
dwelling units,
ZONING DESCRIPTION
N - Rural Agricultural (A) and PUD Undeveloped and Mediterra PUD (single
family homes)
S - Rural Agricultural (A) and PUD Undeveloped and Royal Palm Academy
PUD (Verona Pointe townhomes)
E - Rural Agricultural (A) Undeveloped and FPL Easement
and Special Treatment (ST) Overlay
Zoning District
W - Rural Agricultural (A)
Livingston Road and Undeveloped
(proposed Della Rosa RPUD)
f
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 88 of 273
IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The rezone request is for a rezone from the Agricultural (A) and Special
Treatment (ST) Overlay Zoning District to the Residential Planned Unit
Development (RPUD) Zoning District for project known as Brandon RPUD with
a proposed density of 3,99 dwelling units per acre, for the development of 204
single.family and multi-family residential units, The proposed Brandon RPUD
will be heard by the CCPC on January 3, 2008 and by the BCC on February 26,
2008,
V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY
A. Future Land Use Element
1. Relationship of proposed development to the Future Land Use Map and
the Growth Management Plan
a) Future Land Use Element Policy 5.4. This project was reviewed
within the context of Policy 5.4 which states: "New developments
shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land
uses, subject to meeting the compatibility criteria of the Land
Development Code ", The Comprehensive Planning Department Staff
defers to Zoning and Land Development regarding compatibility to
surrounding areas,
b) Density, The subject property is designated Urban (Urban Mixed Use
District, Urban Residential Subdistrict), as identified on the Future
Land Use Map (FLUM) of the County's Growth Management Plan
(GMP), Relevant to this petition, this Subdistrict permits residential
development (variety of unit types) at a base density of up to four (4)
residential units per gross acre and recreation and open space uses, The
proposed Brandon PUD project includes a maximum of204 residential
dwelling units, of varying types as described in the application and the
PUD document, on 51,1 acres of land, The overall density is proposed
not to exceed 4,0 dwelling units per acre, The proposed development
includes residential land uses, lakes, preserves, and street right of way
with sidcwalks. In summary, staff finds the proposed development
compatible with the surrounding developments.
c) Compliance with Obiective 7 and Policies Regarding Smart Growth
(interconnections. loop road. sidewalks/trails. etc, ). Staff notes the
following;
1. The adjoining land to the east of the subject site is between the
subject site and the FPL easement, and no proposed
interconnections with this adjoining tract(s) of land are
proposed in the Brandon RPUD Master Plan, This RPUD will
befound consistent with the Growth Management Plan if the
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 89 of 273
RPUD Master Plan is modified to show that future
interconnections from the subject development will be
available to the tract(s) of land to the east.
2, The adjoining land to the west of the subject site will be
provided with access from both Livingston Road and from
Veterans Memorial Blvd, This RPUD will be found consistent
with the Growth Management Plan conditioned upon the
RPUD Master Plan being modified to show a pedestrian
connection from the approximate center point of the project
so that there can be a future pedestrian interconnection
between the Brandon PUD and the development(s) that occur
to the west.
2, Transportation Concurrencv Management Area, The proposed project
is within the Northwest Transportation Concurrency Management Area as
identified within the Transportation Element of the Growth Management
Plan, However, no density bonuses are being requested, Comprehensive
Planning department defers the determination of traffic concurrency to the
Transportation Planning Department Staff,
Comprehensive Planning Department finds the proposed PUD Document
consistent with the Growth Management Plan if the stipulations provided in the
bold printed notations above are complied with,
Conservation & Coastal Mana2ement 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 offresh water
(discharge) to the estuarine system,
This project is consistent with the objectives of Policy 2,2.2 in that it attempts to
mimic or enhance the quality and quantity of water leaving the site by utilizing
interconnected retention and detcntion areas to provide water quality retention and
peak flow attenuation during storm events prior to discharging into a wetland
preserve,
Goal 6 states, "The County shall identify, protect, conserve and appropriately use
its native vegetative communities and wildlife habitat." Objective 6,1 states, "The
County shall protect native vegetative communities through the application of
't
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 90 of 273
minimum preservation requirements," Residential and Mixed Use Developments
are required to preserve 25% of native vegetation onsite, The proposed project
contains approximately 47,2 acres of vegetative communities that contain less
than 75% invasive exotics, Collier County therefore requires a minimum of 11.8
acres of native vegetation preservation be retained on the Brandon RPUD site.
The applicant stated in the EIS, "This will be met through a single onsite preserve
measuring 11,8 acres at time of final development order, The preserve area
shown in accordance with LDC Section 3,05,07,H.a.ii constitutes 75% of the
preserve area and included approximately 7.57 acres of retained native vegetation
and approximately 1.07 acres of restored habitat."
As required by Policy 6,1.4, prohibited exotic vegetation will be removed from
the entire development during construction and will be maintained exotic-free in
perpetuity ,
Policy 6.1.1 (5) b. of the Growth Management Plan allows stormwater in
preserves under the following condition:
Receipt of treated stormwater discharge where such use, including
conveyance, treatment and discharge structures, does not result in
adverse impacts on the naturally occurring, native vegetation, to include
the loss of the minimum required vegetation and the harm to any listed
species according to the policies associated with Objective 7,], as
determined by criteria set forth in the land development regulations,
Discharge to preserves having wetlands requires treatment that will meet
water quality standards as set forth in Chapter, 62-302 FA, C and will
cmiform to the water quality criteria requirements set forth by the South
Florida Water Management District,
Discharge into the wetland is consistent and anticipated to provide a benefit
by hydrating the wetland, The project site consists entirely of hydric soils
with 6,85 of the 8,86 acres of preserve shown being jurisdictional wetlands,
Because the 75% preserve proposed and 25% to be shown at next
development order will consist of hydric soil, water being discharged into
the preserve is pretreated and is expected to rehydrate the wetland,
Therefore, staff finds there will be no adverse impacts, Specific amounts of
discharge into the preserve will be evaluated at the next development order.
Littoral shelf planting areas (LSP A) within wet detention ponds required by
Policy 6, 1.7 will be required at the time of SDP/Construction plan approval,
Policy 6.2,1 and 6.2,2 states, "The County shall protect and conserve wetlands
and the natural functions of wetlands and verified by jurisdictional field
delineation," The wetland jurisdictional determination has not been verified by
SFWMD staff at this time, Limits of jurisdiction will be verified during the ERP
process,
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 91 of 273
Policy 6,2.4 states, "Within the Urban Designated area, the County shall rely on
the wetland jurisdictional determinations and permit requirements issued by the
applicable jurisdictional agency," The Brandon RPUD will be required to obtain
an ERP from the South Florida Water Management District and a Federal Dredge
and Fill permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers, Wetland limits, preserves,
and mitigation will be determined through those processes and incorporated into
the project design,
Policy 6.2,6 states, "Within the Urban Designation and the Rural Fringe Mixed
Use District, [required] wetland preservation, buffer areas, and mitigation areas
shall be dedicated as conservation and common areas in the form of conservation
easements and shall be identified or platted as separate tracts; and, in the case of a
Planned Unit Development (PUD), these areas shall also be depicted on the PUD
Master Plan," In accordance with Policy 6.2,6, required preservation areas are
identified on the site plan, Allowable uses within the preserve areas are included
in the preserve agreement that is part of the construction plans, Uses within
preserve areas shall not include any activity detrimental to drainage, flood control,
water conservation, erosion control, or fish and wildlife conservation and
preservation,
Policy 7,1.2 states, "Within areas of Collier County, excluding the lands contained
in the RLSA Overlay, nonagricultural development, excluding individual single
family residences, shall be directed away from listed species and their habitats by
complying with the guidelines and standards," A Protected Species Survey has
been completed for the site and a proposed management plan for the Big Cypress
fox squirrel is provided as Exhibit M ofthe EIS,
VI. MAJOR ISSUES:
A. Stormwater Mana!!ement
Brandon RPUD will be reviewed and the permitting for the project will be done
through the SFWMD Environmental Resource Permitting procedure, The
applicant has had a preapplication meeting with SFWMD but has not yet
submitted to SFWMD for a permit because the project is only in the rezone stage,
Section 8,06,03 0.2, of the Collier County Land Development Code states "The
surface water management aspects of any petition, that is or will be reviewed and
permitted by South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), are exempt
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,"
This project is situated at the east side of the Imperial River Outlet Basin, The
allowable discharge rate within that basin is 0,]5 cfs per acre for 51,] acres which
yields an allowable total discharge of 7,67 cfs, The project has two basins, with
the northernmost basin having two lakes which are 1.49 acres and 2,97 acres
T
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 92 of 273
connected in series by a 48" diameter pipe, The maximum discharge rates from
the two basins are 4.61 cfs from the northern basin and 3,05 cfs from the south
basin for a total of 7.65 cfs,
The southern basin has one lake connected directly to the wetland. The lake
systems discharge toward the south into the preserve, Since stormwater is
discharged into the preserve, the project is subject to EAC review of its surface
water management aspects. On-site water management will be done with
collection pipes and swales to direct the stormwater into the lakes for treatment
and attenuation prior to discharge. The water management system will include
discharge facilities into the northern and southern portion of the wetlands in order
to hydrate and maintain regional flow characteristics, The water management
system will be isolated from these wetlands so that only controlled discharges
from the structures will be allowed into the wetlands,
B. Environmental
1. Site Description:
The applicant has observed that much of the Brandon site is comprised of wetland
communities, totaling 39,7 acres (77,6% of the site), These wetland communities
consist of several low-quality systems with the majority containing between 51-75%
invasive exotics, The wetlands appear to have been severed and isolated by
surrounding roadways and adjacent developments, These disturbances have likely
resulted in altered sheet flow and reduced hydro period.
2. Wetlands
Subject to agency verification, the Brandon site contains approximately 39,7 acres of
SFWMD jurisdictional wetlands (Exhibit C ofEIS). The wetlands found on the site
can be characterized as low-quality, with the majority of them containing between
51-75% invasive exotics, Wetland acreage forthe site and a description of the
wetland FLUCFCS types can be found in Table 3 of the EIS,
The wetland jurisdictional determination will be verified during the Environmental
Resource Permit (ERP) process, However, preliminary UMAM scores have been
included to aid in preserve design (Exhibit 0 UMAM Impact Map and Exhibit P
UMAM Scores), Please note that these scores have not been verified by the SFWMD
and may change during permitting, The proposed site plan directly impacts 32,8
acres (82,6%) of on site wetlands (Exhibit J, Wetland Impact Map) and preserves 6,85
acres (17.4%) of wetlands,
3. Preservation Requirements
The property lies within the Urban Residential Sub district of the Collier County
Future Land Use Map, Since the subject property is equal to or greatcr than 20 acres,
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 93 of 273
a minimum of25 percent of the native vegetation is to be preserved, A total of 47,2
acres of native vegetation habitat are found on the subject site, as outlined in Table 2
of the EIS, Therefore the minimum preserve requirement is 11.8 acres (47.2 X 0.25 =
11,8 acres), The proposed site plan shows 75% of the preserve requirement, which is
approximately 8,86 acres of onsite preserve, The preserve is comprised of 7,76 acres
of existing native vegetation and 1,1 acres that will require replanting after exotic
removal to meet the native vegetation requirement (Exhibit K of EIS), In an effort to
create one contiguous preserve and include those areas within the ST Overlay, the 1,1
acres containing high level of exotics was included in the preserve area,
4. Listed Species:
A listed species survey was conducted by Johnson Engineering ecologists on May 19,
2006, Three (3) nest structures were observed that could potentially be Big Cypress
fox squirrel nests, The location of these nests is illustrated on the FLUCFCS map
within the Protected Species Survey (Exhibit L ofEIS), The Big Cypress fox squirrel
is listed by FWC as Threatened, A management plan has been prepared for the Big
Cypress fox squirrel because there is a potential for them to occur on the property,
The management plan has been reviewed and approved by Collier County, No other
signs of potential protected species utilization were identified during field work done
by the environmental consultant. Due to the high levels of invasive exotics in most
habitat types, the site does not providc optimal habitat for most listed species,
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of Brandon RPUD with the following stipulation:
I. The "Note" on the bottom of the Master Site Plan shall state the following and
shall be added before this project is reviewed by the Collier County Planning
Commission:
a, Remaining Preserve area will be defined at "the time of next"
dcvelopment order...
b, The end ofthe note (after 3,05,07,H,l.e,) shall state,"; shall be
located adjacent and contiguous to the preserve shown on the site
master plan,"
.
PREPARED BY:
//
~
/ ,"';~'
ST CHRZANO SKI, P,E,
ENGINEERING VIEW MANAGER
ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
/
:1f/P!1?'-I.~16 a/lf-~~
S MER ARAQUE
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
MELIS ZONE.
PRINCIPAL PLANNE
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 94 of 273
., -, /1"-, ""--
.:.,::"(..-'1... (j I
DATE
/O/cJ..Yo '/
DATE
/e/4,~/~7
DArt
REVIEWED BY:
)t(,,,'
BARBARA BURGESON
PRINCIPAL ENVIRONM NTAL SPECIALIST
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
1tP,~ 'jtft,J
'. LUAM D, CO Z, Jr" p, ~
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
\
t
JEF W I
ASSI NT COUNTY ATTORNEY
OFFIC OF THE COLLIER COUNTY A TTOR.~EY
APPROVED BY:
OS PH K. SCHMITT
MUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
MINISTRATOR
Agenda Item No, SA
March 11, 2008
Page 95 of 273
IfJ-l/-fn
DATE
/o-t7-c7
DATE .
DI:~'2-7 !6 r
1O).;2i~?
D~TE
/
"
r
larcn ,
Page 96 of 273
BRANDON RPUD
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
June 2006
Revised May 2007
Revised October 2007
Prepared For:
Eastbourne Bonita LLC
550 Essjay Drive, Suite 400
Williamsville, New York 14221
(716)689-3300
Prepared by:
III
ENGINEERING
2158 Johnson Street
FOIi Myers, Florida 33901
JOHNS
20055835
Inlroduction
TABLE OF CONTENTS
...........................................................................................................................................
Code Section 10.02.02 A-4
Subsection (a)
Subsection (b)
Subsection (c)
Subsection (d)
Subsection ( e)
Subsection (I)
Subsection (g)
Subsection (h)
References
Applicant Information..........,...".,..".....,......,......,...............,...,.........,..,.......,............,
Mapping and Support Graphics ...................,.....................,....,........,..................,....,
Project Description and GMP Corisistency Determination ....,...............,..............
Native Vegetation Preservation....,...., ........,'.., ....,.. .......... ........,......, ........, ..,........" ,..
W etIands ............"................,..,......,..,.....,..,..........,..,......,.....................,......".."...,...."
Surface and Groundwater Management ,..,..,..".."..................,.................,..,..."..,..,
Listed Species ,......,........ ....,.. ......' ....., .....,.. ,.. ...... ..............,,'...', ....,..,....' ....,..",...", .....,
Other.........................,......,...................................,................................'.............,....,...,
.................................................................,.........................................................................
arch 11,2
Page 97 of 273
Pal1e
I
I
1
4
7
10
12
13
17
19
Figure J.
Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4,
TableS,
LIST OF FIGURES
Project Location Map '...,..,..,....,..,......,..........."......,....................,...................,..........,..,
LIST OF TABLES
HabitatIFLUCFCS Types and Acreages ,........,....,..,..............,................,.......,..,.......,
Native Vegetation Habitat Type and Acreages ........,...........................,....,.................
SFWJ\ID/Collier County Wetlands.........,...,.....,...."......",......,................,............,...."
Listed Wildlife that Have the Potential to Occur,..........................,..........................,..
Listed Plant Species that Have the Potential to Occur............................................,..,
II
a I , 0
Page 98 of 273
Pa!!:e
2
3
9
10
14
16
larcn I,
Page 99 of 273
LIST OF EXHmlTS
Exhibit A. Resume
I
Exhibit B. FLUCFCS Map with Aerial Photograph
Exhibit C, FLUCFCS and Wetlands Map
Exhibit D, Topographic Map
Exhibit E. Soils Map
Exhibit F, Preliminary Drainage Plan
Exhibit G, Conceptual Site Plan
Exhibit H, Land Use Map
Exhibit L Native Vegetation Map
Exhibit 1. Wetland Impact Map
Exhibit K. Preserves Map
Exhibit L. Protected Species Survey
Exhibit M, Big Cypress Fox Squirrel Management Plan
Exhibit N, Correspondence from the Florida Department of Slate,
Division of Historical Resources
Exhibit 0 Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method Map
Exhibit P Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method Tables
Exhibit Q Harvey Harper Calculations
iii
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 100 of 273
-
INTRODUCTION
This document represents the Collier County Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Brandon
RPUD project. This project was fonnerly known as "Legacy", However, following a staff comment
letter dated August 30, 2006 the name was changed to "Brandon". This EIS has been prepared in
accordance with Section ]0,02,02 of the Collier County Land Development Code
10.02.02 A-4
Subsection (a) Applicant Information
i, Responsible person who wrote the EIS and his/her education and job related environmental
experience.
Laura B. Herrero, Johnson Engineering, Inc, Consulting Ecologist. A copy of Ms,
Herrero's resume is provided in Exhibit A.
Kendra D, Willett, Johnson Engineering, Inc, Consulting Ecologist. A copy of Ms,
Willett's resume is provided in Exhibit A,
ii.
Owner(s)/agent(s) name, address. phone number, and e-mail,
~
Eastbourne Bonita, LLC
550 Essjay Drive, Suite 400
WiIliamsville, NY 1422]
(7 [6) 689-3300
fac@Jee:acvdev,com
Subsection (b) Mapping and Support Grapbics
i, General Location Map
A project location map is provided as Figure 1,
ii. Native Habitar Map
A Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) map has been
prepared at a scale of one inch equals four hundred feet (I" = 400') for the property and
overlain on a 2006 digital aerial photograph, The Aerial Photograph and FLUFCS Map are
included as Exhibit B. A FLUCFCS and Wetland Delineation Map are included as Exbibit
C. Table 1 provides a summary of the habitat types identified onsite,
iii, Topographic Map and Existing Drainage Patterns
A Topographic Map has been prepared and is included as Exhibit D,
"""""",
!
<l:aJ<'l
0::>0f'-
,ON
ON_
Z .0
E;:c;
<D,C ~
~~Q.l
<lJ"''''
-g2~
<D
'"
<l:
b6
;:Q!=i
a~
gJO
~~
'(lH NOJ.Smm.n
!
~
<
o
a:
g
u.
u.
o
~
t5
a':
--!.
""-I
~
I:i:i~
w"
~
~,.,...
Iii,]:
~:.
. ,;,
~i'"
~".\
:: ~'
!. .~
!, "'.
;t -~i
~
e
~
~
I
"
"
\
\
~
"-..
"-..
BROWAkD COUNTY
"-..
DADE COUNTY
~
!5
8
~
11
~
'"
~
~
..
&
HENDRV COUNTY
i
J
,
t
~~ .
~
! ~ .
u ~.
b~ ..
'"
"i3 tJ
~g
~g
::,5
GOl
~
! ~
~ ::>
~ 0
Ocj
lij~
..J
B
,
co
N
w~
~:-
co
W
tOW
..J 0::0
~ I ~
l:I:i u>z
<vj~g
>-i~oc;
t:: ,",I{)
;e:;; I""
o t"')~
:> _N
OW
WO
(/)f?
~
J,
~
rh
"'
~ z
M
>J
uz
;39
;:j5
o
...l
'"
N
,
d
~:2
"
'"
d ~
z '"
- '"
~ g
ON
~
'"
o
...
o
~;;,
~
~:e::lo~
::;,~E(>jro
g;tj l ~0lI::
@~~;:!;~
eg5~::~
~IiE~~
/J)V>LIJ.t:!.;,
O~ZX
2c..O;q:a5
~~i1.L.w
~
o
:w:;r
Z
l-!
0::
UJ
UJ
Z
l-!
w:;r
Z
UJ
~ ,;
. .
o .
~C
~~
o
l1'2
~~
E g
.
.. "
o
2:;
.~
" c
0$
(1'1.5
~
c"'
,0
OZ
[;3S'~~
~1'!
~ 0
.g
't::
~ 0
....~
~ ~
G g
;3U
~ W
...l=
o
U
WdH:).. - gOO?: 'LO Jnr s:ld (dVn NOll\f.)01) 6Mp':101-HXr~eSS\S]3\9'-'9st;OOz;\:r
Agenda Item No, SA
March 11, 2008
Page 102 of 273
,~
Table 1; HabitaUFLUCFCS Types and Acreages
FLUCFCS Description Acreal!'e Percent
of Total
321 Palmetto Prairie 0.30 0.59%
4119E2 Pine F1atwoods, Exotics 25-50% 0.33 O.65~/o
4]19E3 Pine Flatwoods, Exotics 5]-75% 8,05 15,75%
4159E2 Pine wi Graminoid Understory, Exotics 25-50% 1.47 2,88%
4159E3 Pine wi Graminoid Understory, Exotics 51-75% 1.29 2.52%
619 Wetland Exotics (Melaleuca) 3,86 7.55%
6219E3 Disturbed (:yJ>t-ess, Exotics 51-75% 7.35 14,38%
6219E4 Disturbed Cypress, Exotics> 75% io understory" 1.36 2,66%
6259 Hydric Pine, Disturbed 0.3 0.59%
6259E2 Hydric Pine, Exotics 25-50% 1.06 2.07%
6259E3 Hydric Pine, Exotics 51-75% 24.25 47.46%
6259E4 Hydric Pine, Exotics >75% in understory" 1.48 2,90%
Total 51.10 100.00%
"ExotICS are also present In canopy. However, thIS descnption IS reqll1red beca.use natlve vegetatIon IS present In the canopy and the
native vegetation requirement (LDC 3.05.07.B-D, F, H.l.d-e) is applicable 10 this FLUCFCS Code.
iv, Soils Map
According to the Collier County Soils Map, the following soil types are fonnd on the
property. Pineda Fine Sand, Limestone Substratum (Soil Map Unit 14), Boca, Riviera,
Limestone Substratum, and Copeland Fine Sands, Depressional (Soil Map Unit 25), and
Holopaw Fine Sand (Soil Map Unit 27), A Soils Map is included as Exhibit E.
v, Drainage Plan
Please see the Preliminary Drainage and Roadway Layout Plan enclosed as Exhibit F.
vi, Development Plan
Please see the Conceptual Site Plan enclosed as Exhibit G,
vii. Site Plan
Please see the Conceptual Site Plan enclosed as Exhibit G and the Preliminary Drainage and
Roadway Layout Plan enclosed as Exhibit F,
viii, For properties in the RLSA or RFMU districts, provide a site plan showing the location of
the site and land use designations and overlays as identified in the Growth Management
Plan,
The site is not located in the RLSA or kFMU districts, However, a Land Use Map is
provided as Exhibit H.
3
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 103 of 273
Subsection (c)
Project Description and GMP Cousistency Determination
i, Provide an overall description of the project with respect to environmental and water
management issues.
The 5UO-acre Brandon project site is located in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East,
in Collier County, Florida (Figure I), The property lies near the southeast comer of Livingston
Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard, The property is bound to the north by Veterans
Memorial Boulevard and residential development. A combination of undeveloped land and
Livingston Road are to the south and west of the site, Undeveloped land, a FPL easement, and
Pelican Strand are located east of the project site, The proposed project will include
approximately 204 residential units along with internal roads, lakes, preserves, and associated
infrastructure,
Ecologists from Johnson Engineering Inc, (JE]) conducted enviroIUUental reviews on the property
in April/May 2004 for a previous land owner. At that time, preliminary wetland lines were
flagged and GPS located, Updated FLUCFCS mapping and review of previously determined
limits of jurisdictional wetlands were conducted on March 30, 2006. Land use and vegetation
types mapped within the project area are illustrated in Exhibits B and C and outlined in Table I,
Areas meeting the County's definition of native vegetation are illustrated in ExWbit I (Native
Vegetation Map) and total approximate1y47,2 acres,
Preliminary indications are that much of the Brandon site is comprised of wetland communities,
totaling 39,7 acres (77,6% of the site), These wetland communities consist of several low-quality
systems with the majority containing between 51-75% invasive exotics, The wetlands appear to
have been severed and isolated by surrounding roadways and adjacent developments, 111ese
disturbances have likely resulted in altered sheet flow and reduced hydroperiod, The wetland
jurisdictional determination will be verified during the Em~ronmenta1 Resource Permit (ERP)
process, However, preliminary UMAM scores have been included to aid in preserve design
(Exhibit 0 UMA.l\1 Impact Map and Exhibit P UMAM Scores),
Due to the amount of onsite wetlands, wetland impacts cannot be avoided while maintaining an
economically viable development. Collier COlmty preserve requirement for the site is 25% of the
site's native vegetation (25% X 47.2 acres = 11,8 acres), The plans provided show 75% of this
preserve area delineated, and the remaining 25% will be shown in a contiguous area at the time of
final development order per LDC Section 3,05,07.H.a.ii,
Preliminary investigations to detennine the potential presence or absense of state and federally
protected species on site were conducted by Johnson Engineering ecologists on May 19, 2006, A
protected species survey for the site was conducted in accordance with Florida Fish & Wildlife
Conservation Commission (FWC) and u.s. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) methodologies, and
can be found in ExWbit L of this document. Three (3) nest structures were observed that could
potentially be Big Cypress fox squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia) nests. The location of these
nests are illustrated on the FLUCFCS map within the Protected Species Survey (Exhibit L).
The Big Cypress fox squirrel is listed by FWC as Threatened, A management plan has been
prepared for the Big Cypress fox squirrel and is provided in Exhibit M of this report, The
4
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 104 of 273
management plan will be reviewed for approval by Collier County environmental staff and
FWC, No other signs of potential protected species utilization were identified during field
work. Due to the high levels of invasive exotics in most habitat types, the site does not
provide optimal habitat for most listed species. Coordination with wildlife agencies will
continue during the environmental permitting process to address concerns regarding listed
species If necssary, additional management plans will be developed and approved by
agency staff to ensure the proposed project does not result in adverse impacts to listed
species,
ii, Explain how the project is consistent with each of the Objectives and Policies in the
Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan, where
applicable.
Goal 2: Tbe Count)' sban protect its surface and estuarIne water resources. Policy 2.2.2
Stormwater systems should be designed in such a way that discharged water does not
degrade receiving waters.
Final discharged water will be treated so as not to degrade receiving waters,
Goal 6: The Connty shall identify, protect, conserve and appropriately use its native
vegetative communities and wildlife habitat. Policy 6.1.1 The County shall protect native
vegetative communities through the application of minimum preservation requirements.
and 6.1.2 through tbe application of the preservation and vegetation retention standards.
Residential and Mixed Use Developments are required to preserve 25% of native
vegetation onsite. The proposed project contains approximately 47,2 acres of vegetative
communities that contain less than 75% invasive exotics, Collier County therefore
requires a minimum of 11.8 acres of native vegetation preservation be retained on the
Brandon RPUD site. This will be met through a single onsite preserve measuring 11.8
acres at time of final development order. The preserve as shown in accordance with LDC
Section 3.05,07,H.a,ii constitutes 75% of the preserve area and includes approximately
7,57 acres of retained native vegetation and approximately 1.07 acres of restored habitat.
Please see Exhibit K, Preserves Map, for details,
Policy 6.1.4 Prohibited invasive exotic vegetation sball be removed from all new
developments.
All invasive exotic vegetation will be removed from the project site during the
development process, The site will be maintained for invasive exotic species in
accordance with permit conditions in perpetuity,
5
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 105 of 273
Policy 6.1.7 The County shaD require native vegetation to be incorporated into landscape
designs in order to promote the preservation of native plant communities and to encourage
water conservation.
Littoral shelf planting areas within wet detention ponds shall be required at the time of Site
Development Plan/Construction Plan submittal and will be required to meet the minimum
planting area requirement in Policy 6,1.7, Existing native vegetation shall be retained in
landscape buffer areas, where feasible,
Policy 6.1.8 An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required for any site with an ST
or ACSC-ST overlay, or within the boundaries of Sending Lands or NRP As.
As required by the Growth Management Plan, this EIS is being submitted because the
project site has portions of a ST Overlay on it and it is located landward of the Coastal High
I-Iazard Area and greater than ten (10) acres in size, The site is currently zoned Rural
Agricultural (A) with portions that are within ST Overlay, and the applicant is requesting to
rezone to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD),
Policy 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 The County shall protect and conserve wetlands and the natural
functions of wetlands and verified by a jurIsdictional field delineation.
The wetland jurisdictional determination has not been verified by SFWMD staff at this
time, Limits of jurisdiction will be verified during the ERP process,
Policy 6.2.3 Collier County shall implement a comprehensive process to ensnre wetlauds
and the natural fnnctions of wetlands are protected and conserved. The process outlined
within this policy is primarily based on directing concentrated population growth and
intensive development away from large connected wetland systems.
The proposed project is located in an urbanized area that has been isolated by several
roads and developments, Natural hydrologic patterns have been severed resulting in
extensive infestation of the site by invasive exotic vegetation, The development plan
will improve hydrology to the site arid will meet County native vegetation preserve
requirements,
Policy 6.2.4 Witbin the Urban Designated area, the County shall rely on the wetland
jurisdictional determinations and permit requirements issued by the applicable
jurisdictional agency.
The Brandon RPUD will be required to obtain an ERP from the South Florida Water
Management District and a Federal Dredge and Fill pemlit fTom the US Army COIpS
of Engineers, Wetland limits, preserves, and mitigation will be determined through
those processes and incolporated into the project design,
6
Agenda Item No, SA
March 11, 2008
Page 106 of 273
Policy 6.2.6 .Within the Urban Designation and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District,
[required] wetland preservation, buffer areas, and mitigation areas shalJ be dedicated as
conservation and common areas in the form of conservation easements and shall be
identified or platted as separate tracts; and, in the case of a Planned Unit Development
(PUD), these areas shall also be depicted on the PUD Master Plan.
The preserve area will be placed under a conservation easement granted to the
SFVlMD through the ERP process and also granted to Collier County through the
Site/Plan approval process, and will be clearly delineated on the RPUD Master Plan,
Policy 7.1.2 Within areas of Collier County, excluding the lands contained in the RLSA
Overlay, nonagricultural development, excluding individual single family residences, shall
he directed away from listed species and their hahltats by complying with the guidelines
and standards.
A Protected Species Survey has been completed for the site and is attached as Exhibit L.
A proposed management plan for the Big Cypress fox squirrel is provided as Exhibit M,
The site plan has been reconfigured to address staff comments and create a contiguous
preserve which includes the southwest portion of the project site. Therefore, the nest
locations are currently not included in the preserve,
Subsection (d) Native Vegetation Preservation
i. Identify the acreage and community type of all upland and wetland habitats found on the
project site, according to the Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System
(FLUCFCS), Provide a description of each of the FLUCFCS categories identified onsite by
vegetation type (species), vegetation composition (canopy, midstOlY, and groundcoveJ) and
vegetation dominance (dominant. common, occasional),
Following is a description ofthe six (6) base FLUCFCS types identified on the Brandon
development. The descriptions represent the overall vegetative/land use conditions
and do not include the modifying levels of disturbance and/or exotic infestation.
Levels of disturbance and exotic invasion are indicated by the following FLUCFCS
Code suffixes:
E2 = Exotics 25-50% cover
E3 = Exotics 51-75% cover
E4 = Exotics >75% cover
Palmetto Prairie (FLUCFCS Codes 321)
A small acreage (0.30 acres) of palmetto prairie can be found in the southeast corner of
the site, This habitat is dominated by tall saw palmetto (Serenoa repens) interspersed
with wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera) and Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) under a
sparse (<5%) slash pine (Pinus elliottii) canopy.
7
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 107 of 273
Pine Flatwoods (FLUCFCS Codes 4119 E2 and 4119 E3)
Located primarily in the northern portion of the project site, the habitat is characterized
by a canopy of slash pine with a mid-canopy comprised of scattered cabbage palms
(Sabal palmetto), melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia) and Brazilian pepper, Brazilian
pepper and mother-in-law's tongue (Sansevieria hyacinthoides), as well as some natives,
such as saw palmetto, Bidens sp" Vilis sp" bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), and
Caesar weed (Urena lobata) are present in the herbaceous layer.
Pine witb Graminoid Understory (FLUCFCS Codes 4159 E2 and 4159 E3)
This FLUCFCS code was identified near the northern and southern property boundaries,
This vegetation type is characterized by a canopy of slash pine with varying degrees of
melaleuca, Mid-canopy consists of melaleuca and scattered cabbage palm, coco plum
(Chrysobalanus icaco), and rapanea (Rapanea punctata), Ground cover is sparse in areas
of dense exotic coverage but may include wiregrass (Aristida stricta), Caesar weed, and
scattered palmetto,
Wetland Exotics (FLUCFCS Code 619)
Mela1euca is the dominant canopy species, but scattered slash pines (<5%) are also
present. The mid-canopy is also dominated by me1aJeuca, joined by Brazilian pepper
(-25% cover) with small cypress (Taxodium distichum) scattered throughout. Brazilian
pepper and swamp fern (Blechnum serrulatum) are present in the herbaceous layer.
Disturbed Cvpress (FLUCFCS 62]9 E3 and 6219 E4)
The canopy contains cypress and varying degrees of Brazilian pepper. The mid-canopy
is dominated by Brazilian pepper with scattered cabbage palms, The herbaceous layer is
sparse in areas due to the dense Brazilian pepper. However, some areas contain swamp
fern and scattered young cabbage palms,
Hvdric Pine (FLUCFCS 6259, 6259 E2, 6259 E3, 6259 E4)
Hydric pine is the dominant vegetation type covering over 54% of the project site with
varying levels of exotic infestation, The canopy is typically dominated by scattered slash
pines with scattered cypress, Levels ofme1aleuca vary in the canopy from less than 25%
cover to more than 75% cover. The mid-canopy contains varying degrees ofmelaleuca,
cabbage palm, wax myrtle and myrsine, Ground cover consists of Brazilian pepper,
smooth buttonweed (Spermacoce assurgens), flatsedge (Cyperus ligularis), dog fennel
(Eupatorium capillifolium), blue maidencane (Amphicarpum muhlenbergianum) and
swamp fern.
ii, Explain how the project meets or exceeds the native vegetarion preservation requirement in
Goal 6 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management
Plan, and Chapters 4 and 10 of the Land Development Code,
Policy 6.1.1
The property lies within the Urban Residential Sub district of the Collier County Future
Land Use Map, Since the subject property is equal to or greater than 20 acres, a minimum of
25 percent of the native vegetation is to be preserved,
8
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 108 of 273
A total of 47,2 acres of native vegetation habitat are found on the subject site, as outlined in
Table 2, A Native Vegetation Map is provided as Exhibit I. As required, 25% of this acreage
will be retained in preserve (47.2 X 0.25 = 11.8 acres), The proposed site plan, in accordance
with LDC Section 3,05,07,H,a,ii, delineates 75% of the preserve requirement, which is
approximately 8,86 acres of onsite preserve, The remainder of preserve and necessary
replanting after exotic removal will be delineated at the time of development order, consistent
with Coun1y LDC provisions,
Table 2.
Native Vegetation Habitat Types and Acreages
FLUCFCS Description Acreal!e Native
Acres
321 Palmetto Prairie 0,30 0.30
41]9E2 Pine Flatwoods, Exotics 25-50% 0.33 0,33
4119E3 Pine Flatwoods, Exotics 51-75% 8,05 8,05
4159E2 Pine wi Graminoid Understory, Exotics 25-50% 1.47 1.47
4l59E3 Pine wi Graminoid Understory, Exotics 51-75% 1.29 1.29
619 Wetland Exotics (Melaleuca) 3,86 0
6219E3 Disturbed Cypress, Exotics 51-75% 7.35 7,35
6219E4 Disturbed Cypress, Exotics >75% in understory' 1.36 1.36
6259 Hydric Pine, Disturbed 0,30 0,30
6259E2 Hydric Pine, Exotics 25-50% 1.06 1.06
6259E3 Hydric Pine, Exotics 51-75% 24,25 24.25
6259E4 Hydric Pine, Exotics> 75% in understory' 1,48 1,48
Total 51.1 47,24
DExotlc.s are also present In canopy. HO'?o'Cver, th16 descnphon IS reqUll'ed because nalJVe vegetation IS present m the canopy and
the native vegetation requirement (LOC 3.05.07.8-D, P, H.l.d-c) is applicable to this FLUCFCS Code.
LDC Section 4.06.04
All vegetation clearing activities will be in accordance with an approved Site Development Plan
only after a Vegetation Removal Permit has bc.<:n obtained through Coun1y Staff
LDC Section 10.02.14
All preserve areas will be shown on the landscape plan portion of the development order.
iii, Provide documentation that the parcel is in complif1J1ce with the 25-year rezone limitation in Policy
6.],5 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Gro'Wth Management Plan,
Not applicable,
iv, Have preserves or acreage requirements for preservation previously been identified for the
site during previous development order approvals?
9
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 109 of 273
This site has not been subject to previous development order approvals,
v, For properties with Special Treatment overlays, show the ST overlay on the development
plan and provide an explanation as to why these areas are being impacted or preserved.
Two small portions of the project are covered by a Special Treatment (ST) overlay, These
two areas are along the eastenl project boundary, which total 0.58 acres, The southern most
areas has been incorporated in to the onsite preserve, The remaining portion of the ST
overlay is situated between the Brandon RPUD site and a Florida Power and Light easement
to the east of the site, Exhibit H illustrates the location of the ST Overlay,
Subsection (el
Wetlands
i. Define the number of acres of Collier County jurisdictional wetlands according to
FLUCFCS, Include a description of each of the FLUCFCS categories identified onsite by
vegetation type, composilion, and dominance, Wetland detenninations are required to be
verified by the SFWMD prior to submission to the County,
Subject to agency verification, the Brandon site contains approximately 39,7 acres of
SFWMD/CoJlier County jurisdictional wetlands (Exhibit C), The wetlands found on the site
can be characterized as low-quality, with the majority of thcm containing between 51-75%
invasive exotics, Wetland acreage for the site and a description of the wetland FLUCFCS
types can be found in Table 3,
Table 3: SFWMD/Collier County Wetlands
FLUCFCS Descriutiou Acreage
619 Wetland Exotics (Melaleuca) 3.86
62l9E3 Disturbed Cypress, Exotics 51- 7 5% 7,35
6219E4 Disturbed Cypress, Exotics> 75% in understory" 1.36
6259 Hydric Pine 0.30
6259E2 Hydric Pine, Exotics 25-50% 1.06
6259E3 Hydric Pine, Exotics 51-75% 24,25
6259E4 Hydric Pine, Exotics> 7 5% in understory" 1,48
TOTAL 39.66
RExotics are also present in canopy. However, this dcscnplion is required becnuse native vcgetahQn is present m the canopy
and (he native vegetation requiremenL (LDC 3.o5.07.B.D, F, H.l ,doe) is applicable to this FLUCFCS Code.
Wetland Exotics (FLUCFCS Code 619)
Melaleuca is the dominant canopy species, but scattered slash pines (<5%) are also
present. The mid-canopy is also dominated by melaleuca, joined by Brazilian pepper
(-25% cover) with small cypress (Taxodium distichum) scattered throughout. Brazilian
pepper and swamp fern (Blechnum serrulatum) are present in the herbaceous layer.
10
.
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 110 of 273
Disturbed Cypress (FLUCFCS 6219 E3 and 6219 E4)
The canopy contains cypress and varying degrees of Brazilian pepper, The mid-canopy
is dominated by Brazilian pepper with scattered cabbage palms. The herbaceous layer is
sparse in areas due to the dense Brazilian pepper. However, some areas contain swamp
fern and scattered young cabbage palms,
Hvdric Pine (FLUCFCS 6259, 6259 E2, 6259 E3, 6259 E4)
Hydric pine is the dominant vegetation type covering over 54% of the project site with
varying levels of exotic infestation, The canopy is typically dominated by scattered slash
pines with scattered cypress. Levels ofmelaleuca vary in the canopy from less than 25%
cover to more than 75% cover, The mid~anopy contains varying degrees ofmelaleuca,
cabbage palm, wax myrtle and myrsine, Ground cover consists of Brazilian pepper,
smooth buttonweed (Spermacoce assurgens), flatsedge (Cyperus ligularis), dog fennel
(Eupatorium capillifolium), blue maidencane (AmphicaJpum muhlenbergianum) and
swamp fern,
ii, Determine seasonal and historic high water levels utilizing lichen lines or other biological
indicators, Indicate how the project design improves/affects predevelopment hydroperiods,
Provide a narrative addressing the anticipated control elevations for the site,
The water management system will include discharge facilities into the nortl1em and
southern portion of the wetlands in order to hydrate and maintain regional flow
characteristics, The water management system will be isolated from these wetlands so
that only controlled discharges from the structures will be allowed into the wetlands,
The wet season water table was determined from information provided in the Individual
Environmental Resource Permits for Royal Palm Academy, Villages of Medeira, and
Mediterra. The wet season water table used for this project is 11.8 ft NGVD, The
deviation between the wet and dry season water table is 2,8 ft.
iii, Indicate the proposed percent of defined wetlands 10 be impacted and the effects of proposed
impacts on the functions of these wetlands. Provide an exhibit showing the location of
wetlands to be impacted and those to be preserved Ollsite, Describe how impacts to wetlands
have been minimized.
Due to the shape of the Brandon RPUD property and the location of low quality wetlands on
the site, wetland impacts are proposed, The provided development plan only shows 75% of
preserves at this time with the remaining area to be delineated at development order,
consistent with LDC Section 3.05,07,H.a.ii. Wetland impacts as shown include 3,63 acres of
Wetland Exotics (FLUCFCS 619), 3.32 acres of Disturbed Cypress, Exotics 51-75%
(FLUCFCS 6219 E3), 0.51 acres of Disturbed Cypress, Exotics> 75% (FLUCFCS 6219 E4),
0.30 acres of Hydric Pine (FLUCFCS 6259), 0,05 acres of Hydric Pine Flatwoods, Exotics
25-50% (FLUCFCS 6259 E2), 23,51 acres of Hydric Pine, Exotics 51-75% (FLUCFCS 6259
E3), and 1.48 acres of Hydric Pine, Exotics> 75% (FLUCFCS 6259 E4), Mitigation for
wetland impacts will include a combination of onsite wetland enhancement and restoration,
upland enhancement, and the purchase of offsite mitigation credits from an approved
11
Agenda Item No, SA
March 11, 2008
Page 111 of 273
mitigation bank, The wetland impacts and adequacy of mitigation will be determined during
the ERP review process,
iv, Indicate how the project design compensates for wetland impacts pursuant to the Policies
and Objectives in goal 6 in the Consen/ation and Coastal Management Element of the
Growth Management Plan,
The Unifonn Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM) will be utilized by the SFWMD
and US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) during the ERP process to determine
appropriate mitigation.
Subsection (f)
Surface and Ground Water Management
i, Provide an overall description of the proposed water management system explaining how it
works. the basis of design. historical drainage flows, off-site flows coming in to the system
and how they will be incorporated in the system or passed m'ound the system, positive outfall
availability, Wet Season Water Table and Dry Season Water Table, and how they were
determined, and any other pertinent information pertaining to the control of storm and
ground water,
The water management system has been designed in order to help maintain regional
wetland flow ways and provide water quality and stonn attenuation for the proposed site
improvements, There will be wetland pr"serves at the east side of the property, On-site
water management will be done with collection pipes and swales to direct the stonnwater
into the lakes for treatment and attenuation prior to discharge, The water management
system will include discharge facilities into the northern and southern portion of the
wetlands in order to hydrate and maintain regional flow characteristics, The water
management system will be isolated from these wetlands so that only controlled
discharges from the structures will be allowed into the wetlands,
The wet season water table was detennined from information provided in the Individual
Environmental Resource Permits for Royal Palm Academy, Villages of Medeira, and
Mediterra, The wet season water table used for this project is 11.8 ft NGVD. The
deviation between the wet and dry season water table is 2,8 ft,
ii, Provide an analysis of potential water quality impacts of the project by evaluating water
quality loadings expected fi'om the project (post development conditions considering the
proposed land uses and storm water management controls) campm'ed with water quality
loadings of the project area as it exists in its pre- development conditions, This analysis is
required for projects impacting five (5) or more acres of wetlands, The analysis shall be
performed using methodologies approved by Federal and State water quality agencies,
A Nutrient Loading Analysis (Harvey Harper calculations) is provided in Exhibit Q, The
analysis will be reviewed by the SFWMD during the ERP process,
12
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 112 of 273
iii. identifY any Wellfleld Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zones (WRM-S1) within
the project area and provide an anazysis for how the project design avoids the most intensive
land uses within the most sensitive WRJ.1-STs,
The property is not within any Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zones,
Subsection (g) Listed Species
t, Provide a plant and animal species survey to include at a minimum, listed species known to
inhabit biological communities similar ro those existing onsite, and conducted in accordance with
the guidelines of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the U.S, Fish and
Wildlife Service, State actual survey times and dates, and provide a map showing the locatwn of
species of special status identified onsite,
A protected species survey which satisfies the above Tequirements has been provided as Exhibit
L,
ii, IdentifY all listed species that are known to inhabit biological communiries similar to those
existing on the site or that have been directly observed onsite,
Listed wildlife species which have file potennaJ to occur on the project site are listed in Table 4,
A brief summary of these species is provided below,
American A1lilmtor (Alligator mississippiensis)
The American alligator has the potential to occur within the site as a transient moving between wetlands
that are located off site,
Eastern Indi!!o Snake (Drvmarchon rorais couveri)
The Eastem indigo snake has the potential to occur within file native upland and wetland habitats on the
project site, The Eastern indigo snake has a large range that can encompass areas of 125", to 15()'!' acres,
It is common to find the Eastem indigo snake in association with the gopher
tortoise and its burrows, However, no gopher tortoise burrows were found on the site, and available
suitable habitat is severely limited due to the extensive exotic infestation, The applicant will follow the
FWS Standard Protection Measures for the Eastem indigo snake during any necessary site clearing,
Gopher Tortoise (GoT1herus T101vT1hemus) I GODher Fro!! (Raila capito)
The hydric nature of most of the site limits the potential for the gopher tortoise, No bUlTOWS were
encountered dming site work. The gopher frog has limited potential to exist on the property due to their
association with gopher tortoises, Since gopher tortoise bUlTOWS were not encountered during the survey,
the possibility for the gopher frog to utilize the site is decreased,
Snowv E!!ret (Egretta thula), White Ibis (Eudocilllus albus), Roseate SDoonbill (Ajaia ajaja),
Limpkin (Aramus guarauna), Tri-co]ored Heron (Egretta tricolor), Little B]ue Heron (Egretta
caerulea), Reddish E!!ret (Egretta rufesceIlS), Wood Stork (Mycteria americQJ'a) and Florida
Sandhill Crane (Grus Canadensis pratensis)
Suitable habitat may have once existed onsite for several species of listed wading birds, The Florida
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (2003) lists no bird rookeries on this site or within 5
miles of the project site, No wading birds were observed during the survey,
13
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 113 of 273
Table 4. Usted Wildlife That Have the Potential to Occur.
Scientific Name Common Name Designated Status Potential to Occur I
FWC USFWS Observed
Amphibians and Reptiles
Alligator American alligator SSC T (S/A) Potential
mississivviensis
Drymarchon corais Eastern indigo T T Potential
couDeri snake
Gopherus gopher tortoise SSC - Potential
DolvDhemus r
Rana capito gopher frog SSC - Potential
Birds
Egretta thula Snowy Egret SSC - Potential
Eudocimus albus White Ibis SSC - Potential
Aramus guarauna Limpkin SSC - Potential
Mycteria americana Wood Stork E E Potential
Egretla tricolor Tri-Colored Heron SSC - Potential
Egretta caerulea Little Blue Heron SSC - Potential
Orus Canadensis Florida Sandhill T - Potential
vratensis Crane
Pica ides borealis Red-cockaded SSC E Potential
Woodpecker
Haliaeetus Southern Bald T T Potential
leucocevhalus Eagle
Falco sparverius Southeastem T - Potential
Paulus American Kestrel
Mammals
Sciurus niger Big Cypress fox T - Observed 3 Potential
avicennia sauine1 Nest Structures
Puma concolor coryi Florida panther E E Potential
Ursus americanus Florida black bear T - Potential
{loridanus
FWC - Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
USFWS - U,S, Fish and Wildlife Service
SSC - Species of Special Concern
T - Thrcatened; (S/ A) - Similarity of Appearance
E - Endangered
14
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 114 of 273
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker (Plcoides borealis)
The RCW requires live mature (50 -60 year old) pine trees for creating nest cavities. Typically
these trees are infected with the red-heart disease. The disease allows for cavity excavation,
RCWs require large stands of mature pine woodlands with a sparse mid-canopy for foraging,
There are no listed RCW cavity trees on or adjacent to the project site. No RCW or cavity trees
were observed during onsite field investigations.
Bald Eae:le (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Review of the FWC eagle nest locator website on June 19, 2006, indicates the closest known
eagle nest is approximately 3.2 miles west of the project site, It is identified as Collier County
nest COOOl and was last recorded active in 2004. Due to the level of invasive exotics onsite, the
project provides limited habitat for nesting by th.e bald eagle.
Bie: Cvpress Fox Sauirrel (Sclurus niger avicennia)
Potential Big Cypress fox squirrel habitat exists within the forested habitats onsite, Although none were
observed during the survey, three (3) nests of unknown origin were located during survey, It is possible
the nest may be utilized by the Big Cypress fox squirrel, therefore a management plan has been provided
for this species (Exhibit M),
Florida Panther (Puma concolor caryl)
The project site is located west of 1-75 and therefore does not occur within the FWS Consultation
Area for the Florida panther. The site is not located Priority] or 2 panther habitat according to a
review of the Florida Panther Habitat Preservation Plan (Logan et ai. 1993), No panthers, or
evidence thereof (i.e" tracks, scat, etc.), were observed during the listed species surveys
conducted on the property,
Black bear (Ursus american us floridanus)
The Florida black bear is one of three (3) subspecies of American black bear recognized in the
southeastern United States and is listed as Threatened by the FWC. This species can be found in a
variety of habitats, including mixed hardwood pine, cabbage palm hammock, upland oak scrub, and
forested wetlands, such as cypress and riverine swamps, Based on the absence of quality habitat and
the development of the surrounding landscape, it is unlikely the Florida black bear currently utilizes
this sight.
Listed Plant Species
Stiff-leaved wild pine (Tillandsia fascicuiata), listed as Endangered per the Florida
Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services (FDACS), was found scattered throughout
the site. No other listed plants were observed at the time of the PSS, Listed plant species
which have the potential to occur on the project site based on the presence of suitable habitat
are listed in Table 5. Information used in assessing the potential occurrence of these species
included personal experience, knowledge of the geographic region, and literature review,
15
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 115 of 273
Tab]e S. Listed Plant Species That Have the Potential to Occur
Designated Habitat
Scientific Name Common Name Status
(FLUCFCS
FDA Code)
Asclepias curtiss;; Curtis milln;veed E 321
Asplenium serratum Bird's nest spleenwort E 62l9El
Burmannia flava Fakahatchee bunnania E 32], 411,4119E]
Encyclia cochleata Clamshell orchid E 6219E]
Encyclia tampensis Butterfly orchid C 62]9EI
Epidendrum nocturnum Night-scented orchid E 6219E]
Peperomia humilis Terrcstrial peperomia E 62]9E]
Tillandsia fasciculata Stiff-leaved wild pine E 4] 1, 4119El,
4159E],6215E2,
62l9E]
Tillandsia flexuosa Twisted air plant E 411,4119El,
6219El
Lel!end
FDACS - Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Sciences
E - Endangered
T - Threatened
C - Commercially Exploited
16
t
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 116 of 273
iii, Indicate how the project design minimizes impacts to species of special status,
Three (3) potential Big Cypress fox squirrel (BCFS) nests were found onsite during surveys, The
preserve area will provide valuable habitat for the BCFS and otller wildlife post-development.
Additionally, the preserve was aligned with the off site ST Overlay to the east, to encourage a
larger preserve corridor with potential neighboring developers.
iv. Provide habital management plans for each of the listed species !mO'Wn to occur on the property,
For sites with bald eagle nests and/or nest protection zones, bald eagle management plans are
requi7-ed, copies of which shall be included as exhibits attached to the PUD docwnents. where
applicable,
A proposed management plan for the Big Cypress fox squirrel is included in Exhibit M,
v, Where applicable, include correspondem;e received from the Florida Fish and Wildlife
COl1servalion Commission (FFWCC) and the u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), with
regards to the project, Explain how the concerns of these agencies have been met,
Coordination with the wildlife agencies will be initiated during the environmental permitting
process, Copies of all future correspondence wil1 be forwarded to the County,
Subsection (h)
Other
i. For multi-slip dockingfacilities with ten slips or more, andfor all marina facilities, show how the
project is consistent with the Marina Siting and other criteria in the Manatee Protection Plan,
Not applicable.
ii, Include the results of any environmental assessments and/or audits of the property. If applicable,
provide a narrative of the cost and measures to clean up the site.
Not applicable_
iii, For sites located in the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern-Special Treatment (ACSC-
ST) overlay district, show how the project is consistent with the development standards and
regulations established for the A CSC-ST.
The subject property is not within the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern-Special
Trea1ment (ACSC-ST) overlay district.
iv, Soil sampling or groundwater monitoring reports and programs shall be required for sites that
occupy old farm fields, old golf courses, or for which there is a reasonable basis for believing
thal there has been previous contaminalion on site, The amount of testing shall be determined by
the Environmental Services staff along with the Pollution Control Department and the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection,
Not applicable.
17
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 117 of 273
v. Provide documentation from the Florida Master Site File, Florida Department of State and
any printed historical archeological surveys that have been conducted on the project area,
Locate any known or historical archeological sites and their relationships to the proposed
project design, Demonstrate how the project design preserves the historical/archeological
integrity of the site,
Correspondence from the Florida Department of State Division of Historical Resources on
August 22, 2005 indicates that no historic properties will be affected by the project. Please
refer to Exhibit N,
18
t
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 118 of 273
REFERENCES
Florida Department of Transportation, 1999, Florida Land Use, Cover and FOTIns Classification
System. Procedure No, 550-010-001 ,a. Third Edition.
Logan, Todd, Andrew C, Eller, Jr" Ross Morrell, Donna Ruffuer, and Jim Sewell. ]993, Florida
Panther Habitat Preservation Plan SOUtll Florida Population. U,S, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Gainesville, Florida,
Moler, Paul E. 1992. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume III, Amphibians and Reptiles,
University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Runde, DB" J,A. Gore, J,A, Hovis, M,S. Robson, and P,D, Southall, ]991. Florida Atlas of
Breeding Sites for Herons and Their Allies, Update 1986 - 1989, Nongame Wildlife Program
Technical Report No, 10. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee,
Florida,
Slack, Jay, Jennings D" Luprek, R, and Kautz, R. 2001. Florida Panther: Primary, Secondary, and
Dispersal Zone Boundaries, Multi-species/Ecosystem Recovery Implementation Team
(MERIT), U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service, Vero Beach, Florida,
19,
Agenda Item No, 8A
Page 119 of 273
EXHIBIT A
RESUMES
,
-,
LAURA B. HERRERO
COUCA1lON
as. EcctOGY, 1993
UNI'.eRSTfYOFlwNots
~,
f'RoFEssloNAl.ilFPIUAlIONS
FlMOO,AS::OOtcrIONOF
&JVlROMvlENTPlPROFESSlCNPtS
Agenda Item No, 8A
~bHNS$1 ,
ENGIN EERING
l-aura Herrero joined Johnson Engineering in June 2000 as 1m
Ecologist. Her duties include. all aspects of enviTonmental
permitting, Including wildlife surveys, ve~on mapping, U.s.
Army Corp> of EngineErs and South Florida WateI' Management
District, (SFWMD) wetland jutisdi(:tlonal determinations,
management plans, and protected species and mitigation
monitoring reports,
(. Project ExpErience
e Caracara monitoring along Kissimmee River Corridor
as required by SFWMD restoration project including
handling, banding and placement of radio
transmitters on Caracaras
. Collier County DOT: vegeta~on mapping, protected
species survey, wetland pemrltting, and mitigation
planning for Livingston Road Corridor and
expansion of Goodlette-Frank Road
. FOOT: vegetation mapping and wetland permitting
for the expansion of State Road 776 In Charlotb!
Cmmty, State Road 64 in Manatee County. and State
Road 70 in DeSoto County
. Lee County Port Authority: functional assessments. of
wetlands for mitigation value
Prior to her employment with Johnson Engineering, Ms. Herrero
worked at the Lee County Department of Community
Deveiopment in the Division of Planning. Environmental
S(:ien(Oe5 Program. As an environmental planner for the County~
she reviewed development orders and coordinated the
development order review process for environmental and
landsCijpfl1g regulations. including compliance review of ZOIling
resointlons, Additionally, Ms, Herrero was responsible for
supervising Vegetation Removal Permits and reviewing
Agricultural Nolices of CleaIing, protected species surveys and
management plans, As staff liaison to tile Lee County Eagle
Technical Advisory Committee, Ms. Herrero supervised
monitoring of eagle nests, work<d closely with the U.S, Fish and
Wildlife Service and Florida Fish and WUdllfe Conservation
Conunission for compliance "With protection regulations~ and
assisted in eagle ob~rvation flights during the nesting season.
Additional experience includes environmental education and
scro.b jay sUIVeys. and management plans for the Charlotte
Harbor Environmental Center's lands.
Agenda Item No, 8A
Page 121 of 273
EXHIBIT B
FLUCFCS MAP WITH AERIAL
PHOTOGRAPH
<roC')
roor-
,-'<, N
"6
, ,N
C N
(j),C ~
=eID
rom '"
-g2~
(j)
'"
<
\
'"
-, -~
loll ~ ~,,':f:~ il'i~
~ o":N::i~:f~d~~~
:gliHl ~~lGlC ~ fi:
~dd";"'_M":.-'ci-~"":
~
@
"'
>4
i
%
i:
~
w
5
8
u
fi
u
2
~
w
~
~
~
.
o
8 ~13rnm ...it; ~"'i1i
~.'I~~r..~~m ·
~ 'IH~ Iii. $."
. '
.
~
~
~
~
g J ~
~.. ~
~f~~~^ ~~:'
8h;~~8 ;~~
h~ 0 ~ 8 8
o "'5~ ill
~ ~ @g.n
-~~Hh~ ~~i
i{~~~~~~~~~~
IIII
~
~
~ ~
3 ~
~ m
..
~
~
i
~
/:
ffi
~
o
~
~
9
w
~
<
.
,
J
.
~ j
Cl ':l ~ ~
;0", "
:21::
z", ,
0., "
~:> '"
~..
,,13 '"
tl !~
~
~
~
~
~ : ~
~ ~
~ 2 9
3 a l.&.
o " ~
u g ffi
0=: t:r "'l 1fI
3 ~ < ~
B ~ g .(
~ ~ ... (.o'J
~ ~ ~ :
~ ~ ~ {;j ,
~ c;-z ~ ~
~ ~~lil ~ ~
;5 15:5{.&1 <( Vl
o o..o~ ::l: 0..
~ 'i1"'~wg "
W .lfI ~ It r5
~ ~E~~S ~
~~gg5[~ ~
n.",,%~..,;:o..~q:;:t
<8::\'-'o<f-O
D::t\jllJ ZWVlOVl
~.......o:::ll<O=:WNt:
~ ~ <- .:::;:
O~~LIl[:3o!:2cn::J
il::E<1'ii?;~;;;:"-Q
,o::tz' .~53
:!.fr:)gl::J~1!S$.ti
~ffi~0"':iz3i<~
(J'l~-~_::'.....'-
$&w~G:'~g~~
~. (3 &:- ~.:s l"n: w ~:.
5<z'-''=~F~:5
..: N ,.; ~
~
:z:
....
a::
w
w
:z:
....
<..':J
:z:
w
~
"
"
8
.~
;;:~;:1",,~
8~a~&
..:.l-.,l. .
~~oo~
\~~~;
In....~~
~~h..
<'O:zo:o.: oJ
.
'0
f;f.) .~
iill':
z;;:
o ~
~~
"s
8
"
:is!
~~
os
"'8
h
1'l8
~
u.c<lil't't\ - LOO~ ';0\ .c..n .011 (S .llel!llO) c....P-lru-'!Ol:l$'I:'\sJ]\!Itll!l'illO'tyf'
Agenda Item No, SA
Page 123 of 273
EXHIBIT C
FLUCFCS AND 'VETLANDS MAP
<(CO'"
""Dr-
~
o
,^"
_ N
CD.c:~
::::::eQ)
<1lroOJ
~2~
<J)
OJ
<(
-''\
i
'"
- <f
~
~ ~ ~
z 0 ~
~ ~ 0 ~~
~ ~ ~;
ii ii
~ 0
~ 0 0 to.
0 r:
m .~
"' ~
.....
.' 0
.' "
=. "
"
0-
'"
~~
..
'"
.,
, "~l .
'. :i" ~i'
:~~l' '
'.8.'"
, .,
"
,~..
.' ~\'
"-sla
"
~
o
G
5
~
"0
jU'" =5ZI ~
B~2;z:z:z....::::n;~~3:i: G
<~ ~;;:
~~ ft II
~S::a:z zz;n::3:3:3:,3:~ %3:
.~
~:;;~~~~~..r~~~~!~'
~ ~ "'
w
~
~
~
o
~
o
:>
~
~
~
Q
~
~
u
~~
"~
U
~
.
~
~m 1il""cnU1~~
mm~~ ~mmSl
~-; lZf;;I 21<1&1
O'
.,
~:i
..
"l
"
~
~ i
d j
'"
~ ii: !3~
~ < "
0 ~ ,
" :J;:J
~ ~ ~ .
6~ ,
ii << ~ ,.
9 on ~~ . ,
0 ~ ~ , '
, ~
0 ffi "'",
0 g ~
<< N ~ "'u
. ~
~ . 9 ... r
u ~
~ ~ 2
Ii g .,
0 0 ~
. ~~
0 w "
3 ~ ~
m a
2\ 5 ~ "
~2~ ~
(iQ)<o./ 0
:Om ~ g :;;~~~~
<<, . ~ 6~'i':;:;'
w~~
~ g $ ,;S ~ i~;~~
0
!i2.....- uJ a:: Z . ~s:<iI
~~LL.
~~~_c W
w ... ::l~~
o~~xw m ",,,,:;.:::I~
~ua::@0 w ~~~'5
;:S;;'l;Q.-, ~
5~~~~~
.....:::;: ;zwt;i Ri ~
Q w <!i.W
O~lIl ~ai:J ~
:i ~~s:"-Cl
~z...J _&G3 Z
oo~w2\~t;; .....
I-:~b~z ~
dU:;;'-5LL.d <>:
~iii~;c!(Oo3 "-'
~~~~~~~ u.J
Z
" ~ .. .....
~
z:
"-'
"
.,
"'
"
.
~
00 .s
s~
z .
oj
~~
a:t;.:::
'0
u
<.i
j ,
<Ii
~~
is
o~
~8
;:i
w<1g~;Z, _ l.O(lt '.. ~ ""d (:l .lllillHla) ~"'P'X1.l~Il~\slll\S~iOOl:\:r
Agenda Item No, 8A
Page 125 of 273
EXHIBIT D
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
"
,
.
<<cOC') ~ "~
""0....
-""IN I
'0 '" ~ @~ .
~ 'iEl - ~ I:
w...c...- ::i~
:::::em 8~ j *
C1lro (J)
E2~ ~g !,
'" z
(J) Q ,,~ , ~
<< '<
~ ,.. i ~
~
~ W ~N
~
I ,
5 ~
0 ~
w ~"
~
5 i~~$li:
'.. ."
t:.~...J.ol
e~~::~
:< ~,;>.:~
;"';~.!:;.I:.
~~i~.
"'= ......
l."
:z:
H
c::
UJ
UJ
:z:
H
l."
:z:
UJ
-,
, '" ~ :,. ~1 ~,
" '~ ". .
~
'. "' '~
". -', " , iil~
, " a ,e':
" ", "'. .., .... , ~~
" "'':!. ~ ro~
"'''''+ .... " ". ' . . ~ '. "'.
'0
". ~ ~ '"
". ". .., ". ". .... ".
.... '. '" .... ", , ". .... "
'~ ' '~ " ". ". ". .... ". ". ". ". .~.
"'. " ''-'l .." " ... " . "'. .... '.
'. , ....
.... ".
<J
'\.<., '" ~,
,.jti
". <~.
~"
0_
",; i~
5=1
~8
;:;
<ildIJt'<:1 ~Da!:'to.h>nI>f.>t(a.llllllCla)6o\P'S'lS-<;S:ll~t'lI5l:0at\",
r'"
Jtem No, 8A
Page 127 of 273 ~:
I
EXHIBIT E
SOILS MAP
R,
.;
~ ~
g@
g 2!i2!i ,1]
~ "l", ,
~CO(") ~o'
COOl'- ~ ~ ~ ~~ "
..qN f ~ ~li
0 z h .
Z5
OJ Q"
to N . ~ l!! , ~ffi j
",.c~ ~ . ~ 0; OJ
;:!::::2m . ~g ..
. ~~ ~ ~
ell CO Dl
-g2:& ~"
" ~~ '~
Q) ~ ~ .. @O '"
Dl ..i:] , , ~
~ ffi 1:1 5~g
> w w
~ 0 :z"....
% 0
, " ~
% ~ ~ ~
5 <; a ~ . ~. e , .'
" ~ ~
d ~~~"~ ,
&
iil i ~ Ii i!
~ [IJ ~ .~ ...."'... !J
,i! 0 ~~8~~
" E ,~~ s~S~'1
OJ
"~,,:..
~ <~ - "0
~~~;i
~<"o~
..
.
'. " N
g
~
'"
,
~
'"
;t
"
'"
'---
If)
OJ
'.,OJ
~
:::
~
~
~'8
u:.~
:z .
oj
~ "
;'j~
"'"
'0
U
\
oj
~ ,
.....ili
< '
~>-
~~
~8
~'"
~~
~8
~
~
U>d9~;l:~ - #102: 'tl Jow ~ ~ _lOCI) 6Aj>-!':lS:--<<ll~sa\scas~~'r
EXHIBIT F
PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE PLAN
t
A nda Item No, 8A
Page 129 of 273
-O:oOC') ~
coor-
-",>N
'0 '" <\ : i
>- ,0
C')
m..c..-
::::ew
roOl '"
-g2~
OJ z
'"
-0: ~
x
~
~
.
.
~
.
~ ~
w
w ~
,~ ~ iJ
~ 8 iJ ~ .
~ ~
~ . ~ ~ ~
s.., t,~ 15\ w
. s" .
> ~ ~~ E ~
~ 0 :s~ ~ . ~
'" , 0 ~
~ ~ ~
z \' d~ ~- ~ ~
~ 0 w ~
0 c .. .. 0 ~ ~
QI m . ~~ ~~ u " ~ 0
IE
c
5 l I ,
lliDD
,II; ~
",
'-r-
\"'1
:1
"
,
,
...~.
!.
,
"
, .~
. ,!l.~~
~,
~ ~;;i\
~~ffi~F"
l..)Ul-;;.....
~~~~~~
::::~ll. Vole! ~ ~
z~F.!ffi~z...
Ii: I' !;Ol!! <::t:;
o~::>q;!:li!s
~~~~~@~
~~!l:!!!H)...:;;:
!51<t-lI..1-Z0
U)~l5~~~B
~i'~Gj5~t!J
<o"'C()~U
(!!~l!l!;(2i)g
~turiCl~l!!;g;
e1ili~~~~
Q::> .wwUJ<n
lt~:ilov,;t::i
<:_a:WW::':/D
l@~~:::g:5~
~~~~':j~~
~~;~;~5
~~f~s~~
~~O~~~3
a::Ill:"'!=-
I!:wwwz<-'
.~<ffioze
I!lwl:::!Q:i=o~
tI)"<(ll.()W
~~w~m"'~
u,w~~g~<
""wZ u::c
j.I.IS",:;;:O...l.lz
o p..:!2:!: 0:: 0 <I;
?~",-~g:~t;
,t~'
. .~:::..
""'~\'t - LOOt o!OD 1'0 "'" (.I ,Utl1HlO) hP'MllIJ-S~ll9.i\$(;I\"~l1o~'r
t
;;
z iB
<( !
,..l
.. .
g~ ; .
:l~ .
6;;j ,
ci~
~Q :< ~
fil ."
alf!l :"
~ H
,
~
~
,0
, -
:;:::'~o""
fi~9~li
e~;H5
~~....:'"
E:~E'(t;
~ ~J;'
:!;... :::..;
....7. ...
'"
z:
H
cr::
UJ
UJ
Z
H
'"
z:
U-l
.
~
tn';:::
_ 0
w;;;
Z .
of?
~~
p:;,;.=
'0
u
u
~,
~~~
"
o
.0
<;u
g~
~a
'"u
<
.
A enda Item No, SA
Page 131 of 273
EXHIBIT G
CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
.
~
~ ..~
>.
<{CO'" .
",Of'- ~ ,
.-G,N ~ ..
'0 '" gO::
.
,N 2~
'"
Q).c ..- z'" .
::=::eQ) '< '. ~ ui~z %
'>;0 0:;1 g l
",roOl " ~ z !:U~~~i!: "'[::
'@2b:: w ('; i:<U1I1l~ ,-
C Z " ~E
(j) ~ ~ ,..J;o!E~C)~ .
Ol ~ W ~;'fij~~U,! i~
<{ ~ ~ ~ u.IlO::~W~% "'Z
~ o 0 g~5g~!5~ 8 ' ~
l-......~l-,.-.. ~ I"
~~~ ~~~ ~ s!::luJl-z8~
~ ~ ~z '
~ ...~~~~<~ ~
~ ffi ~ m:>< 11,""..2:
ttl~~ f21~ ~ q,:~u.S<tl;'i3 .
~ci ~W(tl &:uJlIl ~ W ce~~~~w ,0
n.D:: OCo: ~ , -
~!ii cgffi or ~ Q ~5:eD8(l)~
z
la w~ Q Z Q ~ < l!:~i2!<::l~g
~ ~s 3o~ ~ '" W la ~'_~c~w"
~ ~ L <:1...:::0 x:: 0 ~ ~
W ~~ !ll ~1>l'ZO
~ ~ ::;.Vl8 ~(tl~ ~ ;':::!;;:o~
, ffi~ u ' 'W ~ OW~-E~~ ~5i7a~
~ ~ 0< ~~:::E Q(J::i Q Q cr:> ~llJ !I>
~ W W ~ W W R:wlri O)!:::;
c t;; 11~ ~- n.l7j<o... ~ ~ <(~~I<l~~~ ~~~!3
, o~ _0 omg a:
z \' ~ ~w ~~ n.~~ 25~~ ~ &~~; ,51;) ~-"
~ 0"; c. ON~ <D g 0 ~
g Q W ~~ "~ ~~ '" ~ ;;;~~:;~~~ :r: :1:"2..
" ~ ~- ~- a.___ ....:!to ~ ~ c t;..r:Ri
~ w~:~~~~ $:~"'" ,
i1i"li~"':wl- ::l>:f;::::;
a:: " "'.><
"' o ~~wl-
<:) , I <( ~~ . ~:;;:
:::l 11 ~a:.Ci.i ""1-:::
(JD~[] I ~ a:mi1iffl~~~
" '.. <: \ *g:~ft;@~ L?
1 a;~W(!ll!.l~o z:
I ~. ~iO:t:~ H
.,"'." '" 1:I!5m~SU~
I . ,-:-. .. ~g~wffi~1- ""
i I . Q::a../Xo... 00 L.W
L.W
z:
H
L?
z:
L.W
.',
~
I
~f:
.
:g
~ 6
Ul;i;
Zi-
00
'" ,
~~
o:::l;..=
'0
u
'.~,.
. .J~.'.'
<1
-L,J
-~
;::1:
z'
05
co
~:;
":'l
o~
~8
<
W
w4~t't - ww: '50 100 J'" (0 )lIlIHKl) 6f"P.d!O::>-~~Il\smsoo;:\.;r
Agenda Item No, SA
March 11, 2008
I
BRANDON RPUD
PROTECTED SPECIES SURVEY
l\1ay 2006
Prepared for:
Eastbourne Bonita LLC
5 Autumn Creek Ln.
East Amherst, NY 14051
Prepared by:
JOHNS@N
ENGINEERING
2158 Johnson Street
Fort Myers, Florida 33901
20055835
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11, 2008
r'I. .,...... f'-",'J
't~
--.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
List of Figures and Tab!es,....,..."....,....,....,...."'....,.........,..,......,..".."'.."......,.."".. ii
1,0 INTRODUCTION ,'....,........,.." ,.."..,.."....,......,..."'..','....,...........,,....,.. ..,.., ]
2,0 VEGETATION ASSOCIATIONS"..,.............,...,..,..,...,....,..,......".."..,...... 3
3,0 SURVEY METHODOLOGy..,..,..,.."",......"....".....,..,..........,.."...."..,..".. 6
4,0 RESULTSIDISCUSSION.., ,..',.,......,....'" '."..',........',....,..""", ..".... .."..".., 1 0
5,0 MANAGEMENT PLANS...............................................,..............,....,...... 13
6.0 REFERENCES.."..",.. ..", ,.."..,...."......,....,......"..",..",....,..,.... "..".... '..'".., 15
APPENDICES:
,""
Appendix A - FLUCFCS and Protected Species Survey Map
,'-
,
-i.
...
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11, 2008
D ? ')71
FIGURES:
Figure I-I
TABLES:
Table 2-1
Table 3-1
Table 3-2
Table 3-3
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
PAGE
Project Location Map "....".., ""..",..",'..' ,..,...,..,......",..,.. "......."..",
2
FLUCFCS Code Descriptions and Acreages ..................................,
5
Dates, Tinles, Weather Conditions and Pw-pose ofField Surveys....
7
Listed Wildlife Observed or that Have the Potential to Occur..........
8
Listed Plant Species That Have the Potential to Occur.................,..,
9
-li-
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 136 of 273
-
1.0 INTRODUCTION
-,
The proposed Brandon RPUD project is situated on a 51,1 O-acre site south of Mediterra
on the east side of Livingston Road in North Naples and falls within the northeast comer of
Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County. See Figure 1-1 for the Project
Location Map, The site is currently zoned Rural Agricultural <A) but is under review to be
rezoned to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD). The Brandon development will
consist of 204 single and/or multifamily dwelling units, surface water management system,
preserves, and associated infrastructure, The site is in the County's Urban Residential area
where public facilities are available and where surrounding developments are compatible with
the proposed neighborhood, This report represents the results of the Protected Species Survey
(PSS) for the subject property conducted in accordance with methodologies outlined by the
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) and U,S, Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS),
~"
-]-
<(CO'"
coOl'-
,ON
ON~
Z .0
E~[:;)
ID...c:..-
~2Q.)
"''''0>
2Zd::
'"
0>
<(
~
~
~
...
t;g
~~
O()
if:g
~
"W NOJ.St)NlAI'l
i \
:'(
I
7l
""-r
m:
I
,
B
I
, a
,
4'
~
:::il
li:i:1
~z
,
!
..
'.
.
,
1/
/
/
/
HE!NPRYCOUNTY
l
17j
, ~.(." j
~C'""
'."'jl.'
"iI'
'";',:(.<
,HI
\
\
'itJ
";\t
"-
~
w'in
tQt
w"'
lOW
-l 1>:0
~ I ~
W VlZ
<(vt~g
~~ ~Ji
2 I"
~ ...,l;;
,.. ~N
uw
wo
Vl::::J
!::o
~
8
~ '
. III
&'
H
~~
:5-;;
H
.::.
,-
.!l~
d
rsE
D
<~
~g
~~~
~~g
~
s;
m
o
~~
.
o
"'~"c!;1
s...l"'INU>
8~~9'"
~g~:;~
R~"""'I"'l~
z-'~-
O<l.L.NOlN
Iii ,-~:t
~~~;:
C\I~iE~lJ
.0
c
o
"
"-
'l,.?
Z
H
0::.:
W
l..l..l
Z
H
l,.?
Z
'l..l..l
~
8..s
~~
G f
t'3u
r.i:I ~
...l'"
-e
u
u.ldt~ll - BOOt "0 JTlr BOd (09'N NOIJ.Y::101) &MP"OO1-WCQ-&tBSil'\Sl:!\~rrsOOl\lr
BRQWAJU)COUNIT
"-
DADB COtnm'"
~
5
8
"
"
o
~
~ ~
i:l Z
,'l! ::>
,6 0
Z 0",
'"
%
~
~
.1
~
..
f!!
..
..to
0"
:8 H
ei
~
~
.1
.
'0-0
~l
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 138 of 273
-....."
2.0 Veeetatioll Associations
The cover and vegetation association types were delineated utilizing aerial photographs
(1"=200') acquired through the Collier County Property Appraiser's Office (2005) and on-site
field investigations, Habitats were classified based on the nomenclature of the Florida Land Use,
Cover and Forms Classification System, Levels III and IV (FLUCFCS) [Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT), 1999], This system, originally developed by FDOT, allows for a uni-
fonn but flexible means of classifying land uses important for determining the presence of
wetlands and suitable habitat for protected species. A 2' x 3' aerial with FLUCFCS overlay and
Protected Species Location Map is provided in Appendix A of this report.
Ecologists from JolUlson Engineering Inc, (.lEI) conducted vegetative mapping on the
Brandon site in May 2006, Table 2-1 outlines the twelve (12) FLUCFCS codes identified on site
and their associated acreages, A brief description of the six (6) base FLUCFCS types identified
on the Brandon development follow, The descriptions represent the overall vegetative/land
nse conditions and do not include the modifying levels of disturbance and/or exotic
infestation, Levels of disturbance and exotic invasion are indicated by the following
FLUCFCS Code suffixes:
E2 = Exotics 25-50% cover
E3 = Exotics 51-75% cover
E4 = Exotics >75% cover
Palmetto Prairie (FLUCFCS Codes 321)
A small acreage (0.30 acres) ofpa]metto prairie call be found in the southeast comer of the site,
This habitat is dominated by tall saw palmetto (Serenoa repens) interspersed with wax m)'ltle
(Myrica cerifera) and Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) under a sparse (<5%) slash pine
(Pinus elliottii) canopy,
-3-
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 139 of 273
Pine Flatwoods (FLUCFCS Codes 4119 E2 and 4119 E3)
Located primarily in the northern pOltion of tbe project site, the babitat is chara"terized by a
canopy of slash pine with a mid-canopy comprised of scattered cabbage palms (Sabal palmetto),
melaleuca (Melaleuea quinquenervia) and Brazilian pepper, Brazilian pepper and mother-in-
law's tongue (Sansevieria hyacinthoides), as well as some natives, such as saw palmetto, Bidens
sp" Vitis sp., bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum). and Caesar weed (Urena lobata) are present in
tile herbaceous layer.
Pine with Graminoid Understory (FLUCFCS Codes 4159 E2 and 4159 E3)
This FLUCFCS code was identified near the northern and southern property boundaries, This
vegetation type is characterized by a canopy of slash pine with VaryUlg degrees of melaleuca,
Mid-canopy consists of meJaleuca and scattered cabbage palm, coco plum (Chrysobalanus
icaeo), and rapanea (Rapanea punetata), Ground cover is sparse in areas of dense exotic
coverage but may include wiregrass (Aristida strieta). Caesar weed, and scattered palmetto,
Wetland Exotics (FLUCFCS Code 619)
Melaleuca is the dominant canopy species, but scattered slash pines (<5%) are also present. The
mid-canopy is also dominated by melaleuca, joined by Brazilian pepper (-25% cover) with small
cypress (Taxodium distichum) scattered throughout. Brazilian pepper and swamp fern
(Blechnum serrulatum) are present in the herbaceous layer.
Disturbed Cvpress (FLUCFCS 6219 E3 and 6219 E4)
The canopy contains cypress and varying degrees of Brazilian pepper, The mid-canopy is
dominated by Brazilian pepper with scattered cabbage pabns, The herbaceous layer is sparse in
areas due to the dense Brazilian pepper, However, some areas contain swamp fern and scattered
young cabbage palms,
Hvdric Pine (FLUCFCS 6259, 6259 E2, 6259 E3, 6259 E4)
Hydric pine is the dominant vegetation type covering over 54% of the project site witb varying
levels of exotic infestation, The canopy is typically dominated by scattered slash pines with
-4-
f
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 140 of 273
scattered cypress, Levels of melaleuca vary in the canopy from less than 25% cover to more
than 75% cover. The mid-canopy contains varying degrees of melaleuca, cabbage palm, wax
myrtle and myrsine. Ground cover consists of Brazilian pepper, smooth buttonweed
(Spennacoce assurgens), flatsedge (Cyperus ligularis), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium),
blue maidencane (Amphicarpum muhlenbergianum), and swamp fern.
Tab]e 2-1: HabitatlFLUCFCS Types and Acreages
FLUCFCS Descrintion Acreal!:e Percent
of Total
321 Palmetto Prairie 0.30 0,59%
4119E2 Pine Flatwoods, Exotics 25-50% 0,33 0,65%
4119E3 Pine Flatwoods, Exotics 51-75% 8,05 15,75%
4159E2 Pine wi Graminoid Understory, Exotics 25-50% 1.47 2,88%
4159E3 Pine wi Graminoid Understory, Exotics 51-75% 1.29 2.52%
619 Wetland Exotics (Melaleuca) 3,86 7,55%
6219E3 Disturbed Cvnress, Exotics 51-75% 7,35 14,38%
6219E4 DislUIbed Cvnress, Exotics> 75% ill understory 1.36 2,66%
6259 Hvdric Pine, Disturbed 0.3 0,59%
6259E2 Hydric Pine, Exotics 25-50% 1.06 2,07%
6259E3 Hydric Pine, Exotics 51-75% 24.25 47.46%
6259E4 Hydric Pine, Exotics >75% in understorv 1.48 2.90%
Total 51.10 100,00%
-5-
Agenda Item No, SA
March 11, 2008
Page 141 of 273
3.0 SURVEY METHODOLOGY
Prior to the onsite surveys, a literature review was conducted, which included Florida's
official list of endangered species, threatened species and species of special concern (FWC,
2004), (F,A.C. Chapter 5B-40,0055 Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
[DOACSJ) and "Endangered and Threatened Species of the Southeastern United States" (FWS,
1995) to identify species that may occur within this geographic region,
Table 3-1 lists the times and weather conditions during the field surveys, The protected
species survey was conducted in accordance with FWC guidelines, which require a minimum of
15% coverage of each habitat suitable for listed species utilization, Linear belt pedestrian tran-
sects were utilized to survey the vegetated portions of the project site. The distance between the
transects was established to cover a minimum of 50% of each FLUCFCS Code that may contain
listed species, Table 3-2 lists the potential protected species that could occur in each habitat.
Signs and/or sightings of protected species were GPS located and recorded on a l"= 200' scale
aerial photograph,
An online information search 0 f the FWC eagle nest database was conducted to
determine the nearest bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) nest location in relation to the
subject property, The FWC database is current through the 2004 bald eagle nesting season.
Additionally, a search of Florida's Waterbird Colony Locator was conducted to determine the
nearest rookery of waterbirds,
-6-
f
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 142 of 273
Table 3-1
Survey Dates, Times, Weather Conditions and Purpose of Field Surve~'s
WEATHER JEI PURPOSE OF
DATE TIME CONDITIONS ECOLOGISTS
FIELD SURVEY
3 days in variable CLR; LBH Preliminary Wetland
April/May 0900-1600 Mapping
2004
Partly cloudy; low 80s; LBH, PAG FLUCFCS Mapping
3/30/06 1000-1530 Winds from the East at
5-10 mph
Partly cloudy; mid to CWS, KAB, Protected Species Survey
5/19/06 0900-1430 high 80s; N Wind at 0 KDP
to 5 mph
-
-7-
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 143 of 273
Table 3-2.
Listed WlIdlife that Have the Potential to Occur on Project Site
Sci",ntific Name Common Name Designated Status FLUCFCS
FWC I USF'VS
Ampbibians and Reptiles
Alligator American alligator I SSC T (S/ A) 321,6219
mississivviensis
Drymarchon corais Eastern indigo T T 321,4119,4159,
couperi snake
Gopherus gopher tortoise SSC - 321,4119,4159,
polyphemus
Rana capito gopher frog SSC - 321,4119,4159,
Birds
E gretta thula Snowy Egret SSC - 6219
I Eudocimus albus White Ibis SSC - 6219
i Aramus guarauna Limpkin SSC - 6219
Mycteria americana Wood Stork E E 6219
Egretta tricolor Tri-Colored Heron SSC - I 6219
Egretta caerulea Little Blue Heron SSC - 6219
Gn./s Canadensis Florida Sandhill T - I 321,6259 I
pratensis Crane
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded SSC E I 4119,6259 I
Woodpecker
Haliaeetus Southern Bald T T 4119,4159,6219,6259
leucocephalus Eagle
Falco sparverius Southeastern T I - 321,4119,4159,6259
Paulus American Kestrel
Mammals
Sciurus niger Big Cypress fox T - 4]]9,4159,6219,6259
avicennia squilTel
Puma conca lor coryi Florida panther E E 4119,4159,6219,6259
Ursus americanus Florida black bear T - 4119,4159,62]9,6259
! floridanus
FWC - Flonda Fish and Wildlife ConservatIOn Commission
VSFWS - V,S. Fish and Wildlife Service
SSC - Species of Special Concern
T - Threatened; (S/ A) - Similarity of Appearance
E - Endangered
Listed plant species that were not observed but which have the potential to OCcur on
the project site are listed in Table 3-3 (Coile and Garland 2003),
-8-
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 144 of 273
Table 3-3.
Listed Plant Species That Have the Potential to Occur
Designated Potential to
Scientific Name Common Name Status Occur
FDA
Zamia floridana Florida coontie C 32],4119
Bumzannia flava Fakahatchee burmannia E 321,4119
Chrysophyllum Satinleaf T 4119,
oU";i(orme
Asclepias curtissii Curtiss milkweed E 32]
Deeringothamnus Beautiful paw-paw E 321,4119
pulchellus
Cyrtopodium punctatum cowhom orchid E 4119,62]9,6259
Encyclia tampensis butterfly orchid C 4119,6219,6259
Tillandsia fasciculata stiffleaved wild pine E 4119,6219,6259
Tillandsia utriculata giant wild pine, giant E 4119,6219,6259
air P!ant
Til/andsia pruinosa fuzzy-wuzzy air plant E 4119,6219,6259
Til/andsia flexuosa twisted air p!ant E 4119,6219,6259
Lel!end
FDA - Florida Department of Agriculture
E - Endangered
E 1 - Also federally endangered
C - Commercially Exploited
-9-
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 145 of 273
4.0 RESULTS / DISCUSSION
Three nests of unknown origin, were found in the central portion of of the project site along
the eastern property limit, as illustrated on the aerial in Appendix A. All nests were located in
disturbed cypress and hydric pine habitats. The first nest (Nl), was located in a melaleuca tree (14"
dbh) along the eastern property limit. It was constructed primarily of melaleuca bark and pine
needles. A second nest (N2), of similar construction and size, was located in a melaleuca tree (I 2"
dbh) approximately one-hundred feet northwest from the Nl nest tree, The thud nest (N3), located
approximately fifteen feet northwest from N-2 was also located in a melaleuca tree (8" dbh), It did
not appear significantly different in contruction from the other two nests,
Claw marks, consistent with the back foot of a squirrel, were observed in the soft melaleuca
bark on aU trees, Other sign such as chewed pine cones were also present on the site, increasing the
possibility that the nests were squirrel nests, However, without observing a squirrel, it can not be
detennined whether these nests are those of the Big Cypress fox squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia)
or gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), Since this uncertainity exists, a Big Cypress fox squirrel
management plan is provided in Section 5,0 of this report, No other signs of protected species were
found during the survey,
The density of exotics on this project site significantly degrades the available habitat for
utilization by protected species, therefore, greatly reducing the chances of listed species being found
on the site, However, the following listed species may be associated with the identified base habitat
types without the intensity of invasive exotics:
American Allil!ator (Alligator mississippiellsis)
The American alligator has the potential to occur within the site as a transient moving between
wetlands that are located off site,
Eastern Indieo Snake (Drvmarchon corais couDerij
The Eastern indigo snake has the potential to occur within the native upland and wetland
habitats on the project site, The Eastern indigo snake has a large range that can encompass areas of
125" to ISO" acres, It is common to find the Eastern indigo snake in association with the gopher
tortoise and its burrows, However, no gopher tortoise burrows were found on the site, and
available suitable habitat is severely limited due to the extensive exotic infestation, The
-10-
t
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 146 of 273
applicant will follow the FWS Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern indigo snake
during any necessary site clearing,
Gooher Tortoise (Govherlls volvvhemus) I Gopher Fro!! (Rana capito)
The hydric nature of most of the site limits the pctentia1 for the gopher tortoise, No burrows were
encountered during site work. The gopher frog has limited potential to exist on the property due to
their association with gopher tortoises. Since gopher tortoise burrows were not encountered during
the survey, the possibility for the gopher Jiog to utilize the site is decreased,
SnoWY E!!ret {El!1'eltil tf,u!ai. White Ibis (Eudoci:mlls albus). Roseate Spoonbill {Alaia alalal.
Limpkin {A,'amus euaraunaJ. Tri-co]ored Heron (Eeretta tricowr), Little Blue Heron (El!1'etta
caerulea), Reddish Elrret (Eeretta rufescensi, Wood Stork /'Mvcteria americana! and F]orida
Sandhill Crane (Grlls Canadensi... vratensisl
Suitable habitat may have once existed onsite for several species of listed wading birds, The
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (2003) lists no bird rookeries on this site
or within 5 miles of the project site, No wading birds were observed during the survey,
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker (picoides bOI'ealis)
The RCW requires live mature (50 -60 year old) pine trees for creating nest cavities, Typically
these trees are infected with the red-healt disease, The disease allows for cavity excavation,
RCWs require large stands of mature pine woodlands with a sparse mid-canopy for foraging,
There are no listed RCW cavity trees on or adjacent to the project site, No RCW or cavity trees
were observed during ol1site field investigations,
Bald Eal!le (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Review of the FWC eagle nest locator website on June 19, 2006, indicates the closest known
eagle nest is approximately 3.2 miles west ofthe project site. It is identified as Collier County
nest COOOI and was last recorded active in 2004, Due to the level of invasive exotics onsite, the
project provides limited habitat for nestlllg by the bald eagle,
Bil! Cvpress Fox Sauirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia)
Potential Big Cypress fox squirrel habitat exists within the forested habitats onsite, Although
none were observed during the survey, three (3) nests of unknown origin were located during
survey, It is possible the nest may be utilized by the Big Cypress lOx squirrel, therefore a
management plan has been provided for this species,
-11-
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 147 of 273
Florida Panther (puma conca/or caryl)
The site is not located in Priority 1 or 2 panther habitat according to a n:wiew of the Florida
Panther Habitat Preservation Plan (Logan et al. 1993), Additionally, the project site is located
west of 1-75 and therefure does not Occur within the FWS Consuhation Area for the Florida
panther. No panthers, or evidence thereof (i,e" tracks, scat, etc,), were observed during the listed
species surveys conducted on the property,
Black bear (Ursus americallUS floridanus)
The Florida black bear is one of three (3) subspecies of American black bear recognized in the
southeastern United States and is listed as Threatened by the PWc. This species can be found in
a variety of habitats, including mixed hardwood pine, cabbage palm hammock, upland oak scrub,
and forested wetlands" such as cypress and riverine swamps, Based on the absence of quality
habitat and the development of the surrounding landscape, it is unlikely the Florida black bear
cU1Tently utilizes this sight.
-12-
t
Agenda Item No, SA
March 11, 2008
Page 148 of 273
5.0 BIG CYPRESS FOX SQUIRREL MANAGEMENT PLAN
Three (3) potential Big Cypress Fox Squirrel (BCFS) nest structures were located on the
Brandon RPUD project site dUling the protected species survey. Development plans for this site
include impacts to pine and cypress communities, all of which may provide habitat for the
BCFS, Onsite preserve areas (12.47 acres) will provide habitat for the BCFS post-development
and will be maintained free of exotics in order to ensure long-term viability as BCFS habitat.
This management program was prepared to address the protection of BCFS on the
property during construction and the maintenance, management, and enhancement of the
preservation areas,
PRE-CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
. 30 days prior to clearing, the site will be re-surveyed for the presence of BCFS, If a potential
BCFS nest is found at that time and is located within 125' of development, they will be
. monitored during the morning and evening for five days, in order to determine if it is being
actively used by BCFS, If an active BCFS nest is found at that time, a 125' undisturbed
buffer will be left around the nest tree until it has been determined to be "inactive" by FWC
personneL At that time, the appropriate permits will be obtained to remove the nest tree if it
is located in all area to be impacted by development,
PROTECTION DURING CONSTRUCTION
Efforts will be made during construction to help ellBw'e the safety of BCFS, Actions
taken will include, but may not be limited to, the following:
. Educational pamphlets will be provided to contractors with contractual obligatiolJS to
distribute this information to construction workers. These pamphlets will provide
information regarding the special status of BCFS, the appearance of BCFS and their
nests/day-beds, and measures to be taken during construction to help protect these squirrels,
Workers will be infonned to stop clearing in the immediate area where a BCFS or nest is
observed. The workers will be instructed to call the project biologist or similar
-13-
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 149 of 273
environmental professional in such a situation, The project biologist or similar
environmental professional andJor determined crew lllember will encourage the BCFS to
move away from the area being cleared, Once the BCFS has departed and tile area has again
been inspected for BCFS nests, clearing activities will be continued assuming no nests are
encountered,
HABITAT MANAGEMENT AND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES
The project's preseNation areas will be managed in an effort to maintain these areas as
suitable BCFS habitat, Management and maintenance activities will include eradication of
exotic and nuisance plant species within the preservation areas. The goal ofthese efforts will be
to control the spread of these plants such that: exotic and nuisance plants constitute no more than
5% of tbe total vegetative cover present in a given conservation area, or; exotic and nuisance
plants constitute no more than 5% and 10%, respectively, of the total plant cover present in a
preserve,
-14-
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 150 of 273
6.0 REFERENCES
Bureau of Non-Game Wildlife, Division of Wildlife, 2004, Florida's Endangered Species,
Threatened Species and Species of Special Concern Official Lists, Florida Game and
Fresh Water Fish Commission, 10 pp,
Coile, N. C. and M, A Garland. 2003, Notes on Florida's Endangered and Threatened Plants.
Botany Conttibution No, 38, 4th Ed. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services, Division of Plant Identity, Gainesville,
Florida Department of Transportation, State Topographic Bureau, Thematic Mapping Section,
]999, Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System, Procedure No, 550-
o 1O-00l-a.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 2004, Eagle Nest Locator.
http://wildf1orida,or[?/eacle/eaglenests/Default.asp'
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation COlmnissiol1, 2006. Florida Panther Net: Field Notes,
httn://mvfwc, com/panther/,
Kale, H.W, and Maehr D,S. 1990, Florida's Birds, A Handbook and Reference, Pineapple
Press, Sarasota, Florida,
Moler, P,E, 1992, Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume III Amphibians and Reptiles,
University of Florida Press, Gainesville, Florida.
Slack, Jay, Jennings D" Luprek, B" and Kautz, R. 2001, Florida Panther: Primary, Secondary,
and Dispersal Zone Boundaries, Multi-species/Ecosystem Recovery
Implementation Team (MERIT), U,S, Fish and Wildlife Service, Vero Beach, Florida,
hlto://ecos. Wrs. gov /tess oublic/StateListinp AndOccurrence, do ?state= FL.
U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants,
50 CFR 17,00 & 17,12, 41 pp,
-15-
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11, 2008
, '0
APPENDIX A
FLUCFCS and Protected Species Survey Map
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 152 of 273
-
EXHIBIT M
BIG CYPRESS FOX SQUIRREL
MANAGElvfENT PLAN
-,
"\
'h
lii'l
't:
-,,'
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 153 of 273
Bm CYPRESS FOX S01I.JIRRElL l\1AI\lAGEMEN'f PLAN
Three (3) potential Big Cypress Fox Squirrel (BCFS) nest structures were located on the
Brandon RPUD project site during the protected species survey, Deve]opment plans for this site
include impacts to pine and cypress communities, all of which may provide habitat for the
BCFS. Onsite preserve areas (12.47 acres) will provide habitat for the BCFS post-development
and will be maintained fi:ee of exotics in order to ensure long-term viability as BCFS habitat.
This managel):lent program was prepared to address the protection of BCFS on the property
durin.g construction and the maintenance, management, and enhancement of the preservation
areas,
PRE-CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
30 days prior to clearing, the site will be re-surveyed for the presence of BCFS. If a potential
BCFS nest is found at that time and is located within 125' of development, they ",~1I be
monitored during the morning and evening for five days, in order to detennine if it is being
actively used by BCFS, If an active BCFS nest is found at fuat time, a 125' undisturbed buffer
will be left around the nest tree untU it has been determined to be "inactive" by FWC personnel.
At that time, the appropriate permits will be obtained to remove the nest tree if it is located in an
area to be impacted by development.
PROTECTION DURING CONSTRUCTION
.'
"
Efforts will be made during construction to help ensure the safety of BCFS, Actions taken will
include, but may not be limited to, the following:
Educational pamphlets will be provided to contractors with contractual obligations to distribute
this information to construction workers. These pamphlets will provide information regarding
the special status of BCFS, the appe81:ance ofBCFS and their nests/day-beds, and measures to be
taken during construction to help protect these squirrels, Workers will be informed to stop
clearing in the immediate area where a BCFS or nest is observed, The workers will be instructed
to call the project biologist or similar environmental professional in such a situation. The project
biologist or similar environmental professional and/or detel1l1ined crew member will encourage
the BCFS to move away from the area being cleared, Once the BCFS has departed and the area
has again been inspected for BCFS nests, clearing activities will be continued assuming no nests
are encoUlltered,
HABITAT MANAGEMENT AND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES
The project's preservation areas will be managed in an effurt to maintain these areas as suitable
BCFS habitat. Management and maintenance activities will include eradication of exotic and
nuisance plant species within the preservation areas. The goal of these efforts will be to control
the spread of these plants such that: exotic and nuisance plants constitute no more than 5% of the
total vegetative cover present in a given conservation area, or; exotic and nuisance plants
constitute no more than 5% and 10%, respectively, of the total plant cover present in a preserve.
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 154 of 273
EXHIBIT N
CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 155 of 273
7-2005 11:29
lIB
.'
P,01/01
ifiiiil.,.;,
.-",
!~1:1Il
,;t:L~. -Tl~i~
1 ~":~~ft.~':~~j;
,y~~
PLOlUDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Glenda E. Hood
Seaelary 01 Slate ,
DIVl5rON 0" HIS:rORlCAL RESOURCES
August 22, 2005
Laura Spurgeon
) ohnson Englneerins
2350 S1anford COllrt
Naples, I'L 34112
flL~' 239.434,9320
Dear M~, Spurgeon:
In response to your inquiry of August 21, 2005, the Florida Mas1l>r Site File lists no previously recorded
cultural reSOUI<;es in the following paroels:
1485, R25B, Section] 3
In interpreting the resUlts of our search, please remember the following points:
.'
"
Arens which h~Ye not been completely slllrvey8(). sitch as yours, ml<)' cllntaln
unrecorded llrcDlloologiclll Sttes, unt'OOOl'ded hiStorically ilnllortaDt struetures, Dr both,
, As rOll may know, s1ateltnd reo.el"ml laws require formal environmental review for some
projects. RecQrd searches by the st;U'f of tIle Florida Master Site File do not cOl1Stltnt;e
s\!~h a review of cultural re$Ol!.rces. If YUill' projeC'i falls IUldel' these taws, YOll should
contact the CompJiance Review SelJtion (If the Bureau of Histone Pres6r-vation at 1150-
245-6333 or at this address,
?~a::E7
T'ylor Pontius
Historic Data Analyst
Division of Hisroric.l ResQurces
R, A, Gray BulIdirig
500 South I3rOl1ough Street
Tallahassee, Fi.orld>l. 32399-0250
Phone 850-.245-6440
Florida Master Site File
state SunCom: 205-6440
Fax line: 850-245-6439
Email: flTUiflle@dos..taiefl.us
Web: http://w.W.II..do..starejl.uJ./dhr/m.fl
500 S. Bronough Str..t . ToIl.ha&,c.. FL 3:10399.0250 . http://www.J1herltage.C<l1ll
o IHrectwli OUke 0 A.U:hneoIogial R~""rch 0 H.iatmic. f~tion CJ HlvtQrlcal M:US\!;\U'l;\$
(850) 245.0300. FA)(, 24H'35 (BSo):MS~ . FAX: ~ (850) 24s.6!02" FAX'~7 (a.O) 24006400 . FAX' 245-6<..'3
C Palm Beach ll.eclon.ll.l Off(t'p I"l t::L ,--. ,,' TOTAl P. 01
Agenda Item No, SA
March 11, 2008
P f
EXHIBIT P
UnifoIDllv1itigatioll Assessment Method Tables
<t"'M
"'0....
,ON
ON~
Z .0
E;:[;}
Q.l"C...-
.:::::e<l>
"'CO '"
-g2d::
'"
'"
<t
"0
.
<;I
il
~
...
..s
'"
.
...
'"
'.
....
:e
i:I
'"
U
....
ii
~
U
""'
Q
'"
....
'"
.e>
"
~
.t:;
o
il
" r::-
ia g
'5 ~
S.c
'" Q
~ 1::
'" 0
'" ~
-< i:I
i:I '"
'" "0
~ ::
" "
IlJ) ...
:.::: ~
:8.$
.
... '"
c: 1::
..s "
.... ~
;5 .S
,..;
"
;Q
'"
E-<
"
to> "
.. S
:=
= C> C> C> C> C> C> C> 0 C> C> C> 0 C> 0 0 C> 0
e " '" N
" N '" '" <n N '" N '" N N '" '<t '" N '"
e ./:l
'" 00
U I-
....
ii '"
....
t:l :I 'El
.... = 0 0 0 0 0 0 C C 0 C> 0 0 0 C 0 C 0 i:J
'" 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -0' ~ -0' -0' -0' -0' -0'
~ .= "" "3
:- ...
i:I Q
"'" ;::
" f-
:=
" =
~ a- .... ~
...
-. 1 " 0 -
.... '" ~ c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c '"
'" "0 g< "" -0' -0' -0' -0' -0' -0' ~ -0' -0' -0' -0' ~ "" ~ '<t -0' ....
" . ~
Q <;I
,..; ,..; 00
" I-
.::: ~ ....
....
.... ... '" "
....
~ ~ 0 ... '" ,.... t"- '" '" t, '" t"- '" '" t"- t"- o t"- <"1 '" ,....
-. a 8 '" '" '" "" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" ... '" '" '" '"
~.... ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci i
c:8 000 i
U
-. -
.... "
=~ := II \0
~ Q \0 t"- - <"1 \D <n 0-, ~ t"- t"- \D N N \0 ~ 00 t"-
~.::: .. .... \D '" \C> ~ ~ '" 0 --: ~ '" C> \D 0 C - \D 00
... ti i:I ,..;
IJ .'t: ~ := P ci 0 :::> ci ci -0' ci ~ ci 0 0 N ci ci 0 0 ci ""'
~~ =
...
";l ti
.... ~ \D ~ <:>
'" " 00 ~ t"- o 0\ 00 t"- N ~ N V> <n <n <n '" N 00
E-< ~ ... ~ C> \D '" '<t N C> <n ~ ~ - 0 ~ <n 00 M
<,.5 .( ~ - - ci ci - ci '" ci ~ 0 ,..,: ci 0 ci 0 -
- ,.,
~
00
:l'U CC', ill i2i '" i2i ill "" '" '" N 12 P5 '"
:S~ 0\ ~ 0\ ~ ~ 0\ ~ ~ ~ 0\ ~ !
.~ i5 ~ 0\ 0\ <n 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ ~ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ ~ 0\ '"
\D <n <n N <n <n <n ~ ~ \D - <n '" ~ '" '\0 '" ~
N N \D N ~ ~ N N N N N N N N
"'"...: \D \D \0 \0 \D \D \D \D \D \D \D "
~ <(
s "--
:I ~ N M '" '" <D .... co '" 0 ~ N '" '" on '" on
- ~ ~ ~ - - N N '"
'" t-
~"O
.....-
'"
"'"
<(COM
CX?~~
"6
c:,- ~
Q,l"'::::,,-
=:::t:CJ
"''''0>
~2~
Ul
0>
<(
:'J
>
ai
.,
"
...
Ilo<
.$
2
"
'l:l
:a
:=
"
U
OJ)
~
'S
.;!l
>1
[;oil
....
"
.i!l
.,
~
"
~
.;:J
S
':l
"
~
-=
S~
., Q
:'J Q
~~
:= ,Q
S ~
" 0
OJ) '-'
'l:l :=
~ "
'<;;"Cl
S ;
So.( ~
~~
'i:i ...
~<E
M
~
"
t>
.~ ~ 0 0 c: 0 0 0 0 c: c: 0 c:
~ ~ N N '" 0 0 0 ~ '" '" '" '"
" .l:l
U""
....
5 li
i:l ~ -a
.... 0 0 0 ~ ::S ::S 0 0 0 0 0 ;;;;l
" " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ]
~ ,~ ... z z
&l "
':l
'"
:=
" =
:= ~.... ...
" " ... '3
'l:l"Cl '" " c: 0 c: 0 c: 0 0 0 0 0 0
" := '" ~
"Cl i:. ... ~ ... 0 0 d ~ .,,: ~ ~ ~ Q
'" " := = Eo<
Q
~ OJ""
~
-= " ~
> .~
"' "
,...," ai Q ... '" '" '" 0 0 0 0 t- t- t- t-
e~ "' S'8 '" '" '" c: 0 0 ... '" '" '" '"
.. 0 0 0 0 ::; 0 ::; 0 0 ::; 0
.. 0""
U Ilo< U
,-.. ~ ~ ';
~ e ~ := '"
0 '8 00 t- \0 0 0 0 0 ... '" N 0 ...,
'... N 0 t- o 0 0 ~ \0 0 - - "1'
....
S :'J '" ::; d ::; ci ci ci ci ci ci ci N
:= ~ 0
JL.u~ =
"'"
'3 .~ :'J ... "1' '"
o .... '" f! 00 t- o - ... '" 00
Eo< " ... 00 N ~ "! N c: <-: - '" N 00
.-.:Y'~ 0 0 "j - 0 d - - 0 d 0 00
S:@
""
OJlu
-3"'" U5 ill &1 '" N ill '" '" '" :'J
..u r.:a r.:a r.:a r.:ar.:a
';;1 >;;l 0'> 0'> 0'> 0'> 0'> 0'> 0'> 0'> 0'> ~
~~ - 0'> '" V) - - V) - - - V)
"" N - N - N - N N N NN
\0 \0 \0 ... '" ... \0 \0 \0 '" \0 ';
:= (0 ..... co 0> 0 ~ N M (0 ..... co ....
Q ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N N N N N ~
>:IJ"Cl
"e......
Q
ll-<
<roo(<)
ooor--
.0"1
ON~
Z _0
E;::~
Q.J..c:..-
==~<1)
(1J (1J OJ
-g2cr
OJ
OJ
<r
1:1
.g
1:1
'"
..
ll:l
..
.s
'"
1:1
CO
'"
...
'"
""
1:1
CO
U
""
a;
'"
CO
Cl.
CO
:t
....
CO
'"
'"
'"
.Q
.-
~
~
""
CO
-
CO
""
CO
:S
a;
~
....
1:1
OJ
8
'"
'"
~t::'
'" =>
<=>
o::N
:> ..
;:t~
~ :>
~ tj
::lO
""~
8 ~
~;
.; f
>:>ll:l
<')
~
J:>
.-
f-<
.t-
.- ~
~ ;;
8 t
8 =
:> ./:l
Uell
....
1:1
OJ
.. 8
a; =
~ f
~ ,"
;.-
=
"'l
OJ
0:: Cl.'"
CO ","
'l'""...coo
~ :: C'-l Q..: .
(,) ...... "0 Q..;-::::t
CO 1:1 =
'"" '" ell
...l
"0 ~ ~
IP r- '~ ~
-. ~ ~ 0 l-<
e""i:lQ.,C:>
?..S,;;
- ~ :>
~ U
";;l
1:1 '"
:> ....
:e oS
I:I>=>
=
i:l:<
"'" "" OJ
~ [~
II CO ~
""-',~
- 1:1
'" CO
~~~
~ ~ ~
$~<
00000000000
r-..:\Cir--:~r--:~r-...:,,~c--:r-...:
'"
...
ooooo~
-.:t~~~~_
.-
0::
c:>
'l'
...
0::
~
oooo~ooooo=
~~...t~~~~~~~-
:>
f-<
000
.,r."f.,r
<<<
~~~
ot:'OV)V) t.rJ 00.::::>00
V)"':::tV/trltr)t.r)lf)V)tI')l.I")lr'l
00000000000
<'107
~.......,......,
00""':
..-:o:r-M....-lt'--
CX)__V) 00
00000
r---r---"":j"l/)
~-.,.....,-:
000";
lrlC'!.cot-o,.-'7C"'l"'i'"OO\C!
COC"-lN-.:::t:('11NOt--;.......Mf'.lCCl
OON.-OO-_OOOoO
al~
"'i:l:<
CO U
~>=>
:tii
'"
ell OJ
""U ..
.9~~ M("f") MN~("'l")MM-<
t:\UW W~ W~~WW~....,
.~>=>o-. 0,0'\ o,o,o,0'\0'\0\,;:!
~S~~~~~~~fJ~~~~
\Ot"---OO0'\ O-NM\Or---OO
.............;,.....-.(-NMNNMNN
1:1
c:>
""""
"e.....
:>
~
t
......I.()l.r)t.rl--tr)..-.............lr)
NNN-N-NNNNN
\O\O\O-:::t{"'f)":.T\O\O\::)\D\D
.,
<roo'"
",or--
'~N
'0
t:~g
Q:l..c::..-
==~(])
",roOl
-g:2&
OJ
Ol
<r
'"
'"
a;
~
1:1
c:>
'j;!
.-
OJ)
'l:l
'"
~
1:1
:>
'l:l
'"
;.
i;l
'"
a;
..
~
0::
,-
S
'""
""
a;
....
'"
=
,~
""
<
.;;;
:>
-=
...
"
~
....
0::
"
El
'"
i:l .
",t::'
<8
N
1:1 ..
~ Q1
",J:>
",,3
.- "
i;lo
""~
8 ~
..'CI
.s ;
,- ..
$ll:l
....
Q)
:0
co
I-
""
"
oW"w_NOOOll"':lOOOt"--..-I("f)
lr.Il,jOOj...... 0 NI..O-.......O_O 0
.e..~ooododciooo
""
<
~l/)01./'}4")01./'}V)l.("}l.()l.f"i1.t")
':...~C"Jv:~~~~~~~~~
;;;l:(........-l_-.,.....j--_............-
a OJ OJ)..... .,., ..... ..... 0 ..... ..... .................... ;;:
p~:::J5~::::55555~
2
..
::0
.-
:li!
1:1
:>
~ :.
'" 3
;. "
i;l .-
i:l""
..
~
os a;
... =
13-;
.i:!:>
.....,~"';
5 l: ~ Zl
C ~ ~ 'a
::0 OJ ... ;:>
U .. 8
~""
~~~~
0\<<<>::<>::<<>::
o~~~~~~
ltJrrlOO......t-MO("1')Ntr'iO
~OMOO......,-...l......C"'40
ddoooooooo
oot'---I,OOOOOo;Tt.r'lNO
NOr:----OOO~\DO,....l,....l
00000000000
"" a;
~ ~
~i:l
- ..
:t~
_ MO":::!'"-!:'---C"f)......
= ~...........-lo?............l()
Ctf:joo......ciooo
c:> _
.... ...
.... 0::
;;;;:>
=
""
1:1
o
"= :.= rI:!
.:: ~ f::
c:> OJ) "
f-<'l:l""
;:::I"'"
..<;
...............7
00 0 ,....-( ..-l
0000
~~~~
oON-
O"l:t.....-i"","M"d'OO
MNc;r--("l')r"4
00-_000
""ell
",U
fI:I~~~V)ltJ_........trl_..............l.r)
~UNNM"""N-NNNNN
oD\O\O \O'-T M..q-\O\O \0 \0\0
....'""
~""
..
Q)
....
"
",,,,e(
w~~
0\ 0\ "
_"'l-
N N
\0 \0
r-- 0:>
"I "I
ell
OJ)U
.S IJ.t o:::t M N (V) N ("1'1 ("l')
';;Uw w~ wwww
.~;:>O\ 0\0\ 0'\0\0'\0\
~~N~~~N~~NM
\O\D'-O'o::tMoo::t\O\O\O
~ ~ 00 m 0 ~ N M ~
S ~ ~ ~ ~ N N ~ N N
""""
"e.....
:>
~
'"
It!
....
,
'"
"'!
co
Agenda Item No. SA
March 11, 2008
< , 7
I
EXHIBIT Q
Harvey Harper Calculations
Agenda Item No. SA
March 11, 2008
Page 162 of 273
WATER MANAGEMENT REPORT
Brandon RPUD
prepared For:
Eastbourne Bonita LLC
5 Autumn Creek Lacne
East Amherst, NY 14051
Prepared By:
J'OHN sEt;1\{,
ENGINEERING
2350 Stanford Court
Naples, Florida 34112
May 2007
REVISED July 2007
AlAN J. CRUZ, P,E,
STATE OF FLORIDA
Professional Engineer Registration No, 65147
JUL 3 0 2007
JOHNSON ENGINEERING, lNG,
2350 Slanford Court
Naples FL 34112
EB #0000642
Alan J. Cruz P,E,
P,E, Florida Registration No, 65147
7- 30 -07
Date
)
Agenda Item No. SA
March 11, 2008
Page 163 of 273
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. PRO:JECT DESCRIPTION
II, PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
ill. DESIGN STANDARDS
IV, DR.A1NAGE ANALYSIS
v, WATER QUALITY ANAL YSlS - Harvey Harper Nutrient Loading Calculations
VI. DESIGN COMPUTATIONS
A. Site Grading and Land Use Summary
B, Soil Storage
C. Storage
D. Water Quality
E, Bleeddown Orifice
F, Discharge Structure
G, Flood Routing
vn, APPENDIX
Network Diagram
Input Summary
Basin Summary
Output Summary
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 164 of 273
Brandon RPUD
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Legacy RPUD is a residential neighborhood of 204 single-family or multi-family
dwelling units, or a combination of both, The project will include on-site preserves,
lakes, a clubhouse or other amenities, The project will be accessed from Livingston Road
along the west and Veterans Memorial Boulevard to the north, The site shall be de-
signed, permitted, and developed with build-out anticipated in 2012,
n. PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
The proposed development is located within Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Section
13 of Collier County, Florida, The physical property is currently vacant land located
along Livingston Road, north of its intersection with Immokalee Road and south of its in-
tel'Section with Bonita Beach Road. The subject property is approximately 51,1 acres in
size and is located within the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) juris-
diction, The property lies within the Imperial Drainage Outlet Basin, which is just north
of the Palm River Basin.
III. DESIGN STANDARDS
The peak elevation for 25-year, 3-day SlOml was used 10 set the minimum elevation for
road centerline, which was found to be 16.6 feet NGVD, The water surface control eleva-
tion of the water management system will be maintained at an elevation of] 1,8 feet
NOW, The peak elevation for 1 DO-year, 3-day stonn with zero discharge was used to set
the minimum floor elevation for buildings, which was found to be 18.40 feet NGVD,
lV, DRAINAGE ANALYSIS
The project's water inanagement system has been designed u.~ing two separate basins
(North and South), The North Basin includes two intercollllected lakes (Lakel and
Lake2), which are 1.49 acres and 2,97 acres in size, respectively, The lakes will be inter-
connected with a 48" diameter pipe and the control structure will be located within
Lake2, The South Basin includes a single Lake3, with a control sltucture CS-2,
Water wi:ll be collected from the roadway and lots and directed into these lakes for at-
tenuation and It-eatJnellt prior to discharge, Rear lot lines which do not abut a lake, will
include a perimeter berm and swale system that will collect real' yard runoff and dimct it
into these lakes for treatment, The lal,es will provide adequate storage so that during a 25
year design stonn, discharge from Lake2 is limited to 4.61 cfs, and discharge from Lake3
is limited to 3.05 cfs, 111e [ll'eserve along the southeast side of the site will be receiving
111e controlled stormwater discharges,
Agenda Item No. SA
March 11. 2008
Page 165 of 273
NUtrlant loading Analysis
The followlng calculations were performed to determine the pre development Nutrient Loading for a proposed
residenUallcommarcla1 development known as Brandon PUD, The calculations wara petformad using the
"Evaluallon of Alternative Stormwater Regulations for Southwast Flunda" ::'y EnVironmental Research & Design
Inc, as a guide.
Pre-development
'Land Use:
Wetland
Open Space 1
Woods
39,7 ac
11.4 ac
Total
51,1 ae
Ground OoverlSoll
Upland/Open Space Woods - Hydrologic So" Group 0
Wefland - hydric soils,
Esllmete ONIRurroff Ooeff,:
Uolend 1 Open Soace Woods
From TR-55 (USDA, 1986) lhe.curva numbars are: for fair range land in HSG Is 84 and for fair
forast land In HSG D Is 79,
Fair Range land HSG D 84
Fair Forestland HSG D 79
Average CN BUi
From Table 3, the runoff ooeff. For 0 % DOIA and non DOiA CN of 81.5 by IIneer Interpelallon is:
Upland Runoff Ceef!.
0,181
Wetland:
Due to the large evapotrensporatlon losses In wetlands, an averaga runoff coeff. Of 0,225 is
assumed, based on literature.
Wenand Runoff Cooff.
0.225
Calculale Annual Runoff Volumes:
Wetland:
Land Use Area(ao) x 53,15 ("I",,,) x (1 fll12 In) x Runoff Coeff."
39.5
ac"ftlyr,
Uolal)ds Ooen SDaee Woods
Land Use Area(ac) x 53,15 (~/"".,) x (1 fl/12 In) x Runoff Coeff."
9,1
ac--Wyr,
Total Runoff "
48.7
ac-ftlyr.
Nulrlent Loading Analysis
'Pre-development Nitrogen loading
Land Usa Nitrooan LoadlnQ {from Table 71
Watland
OSW
1.011<9Iyr.
1.60 kglyr,
W",Uand III Loadlno
Runoff(ao-ftiyr,) x loadlng(mgll) x 1 ,233,262(lIao-ft) 1 10"(mglkg) "
UolandlOSW III Loadlno
R.unoff(a~-ftiyr,) x loadlng(mgh) x 1.233,262(lIau-ft) 110n(mglkg) "
Totel Pre-Development Loading
Pre-development Phosphorus Loading
Lend Use PhO.DhQlV~ Load!no (from Ta~,I.a 71
Wetland 0.09 kglyr,
OSW 0.07 kglyr,
Wetland P Loadlno
Runoff(ao-fUyr.) x loading(mgll} x 1,233,262(lIao-ft) x 1 [I<glmg) "
UolandlOSW P Loadlno
Runoff(ac-fUyr,} x loadlng(l1)gll) x 1,233,262(~lao-ft) x 1 (kglmg) "
Total Pre-Deveiopment Loading
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 166 of 273
49
'<g/yr,
18
kg/yr,
67
kglyr.
4
I,g/yr,
1
I(g/yr,
5
I,g/yr,
Nutrient Loading Analysis
Post.develoDment:
Land Use:
Residential
Wetland
Upland Preserve
Lake
32.2 ac
11,2 ae
2,0 ac
5.5ae
51,1 ae
Total
Ground CoverlSoil
Pervious developed areas are covered by lawns in good condition
Soil type will remain HSG D
Impervinus Area:
Slnole Familv Residential
% Impervious
% of DCJA
Impervious = Area x % 1m per.
% DCIA = % imper x % DCIA
DDlA Area
32%
75%
10,3 ac
24%
7.7 ac
Estimate CN/Runoff Coeff,:
Residenllal
CN for lawns in good condition in HSG D is
Lawn CN
Lawn Area (site area - imper area)
Non-DCIA Imperv, Area (lmperv, - DCIA)
impervious area curve number 98
Non-DC IA curve num ber 82
From Tab1e 4, the runoff coeff, this land use is: 0.51
Calculate Annual Runoff Volumes:
Resldantial
land Use Area(ee) x 53.15 ('"Iv"') x (1 ft/12 in) x Runoff Coeff. =
80
21.9 ae
2.6 ae
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 167 of 273
12.8
ac-ftlyr.
Agenda Item ND. SA
March 11, 2008
Page 168 Df 273
Nutrient Loading Analysis
Post.development Nitrogen Loading
land Use Nilroaen Loadina (fram Table 7)
Residential 2.18 kg/yr.
ResIdential
Runoff(ac-ftlyr,) x .Joadlng(mg/l) x 1 ,233,262(llac-ft) x 1 x1 06(kglmg) =
196
j<glyr,
Total Post-Development Loading
196
kglyr,
Proposed Treatment
The project Is proposing to provide wet detentio'n for both treatment and attenuation. The detention lakes
have the following design parameters:
Lake Area
A vg. Lake Depth
5.6 ac
12 It
Prov'lded Storage Volume
67 .56 ac-ft
Provided Residency Time (days)
Storage Volume(ac-fl) I Post Development runoff volume(ac-fUyr.) x 365(dayslyr.)
339 days
Provided Removal Efficiency
8.4216' Ln (residency time) + 27.25 =
76%
Proposed Loading
(1.0 - Removal Elf.) . Total LoadIng =
46 kglyr
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 169 of 273
Nutrient Loading Analysis
Post-development Phosphorus Loading
Land Use Phosohorus Loadino (from Table 7\
Residential 0.335 kg/yr.
Sinole Famllv
Runoff(ac-ftIyr.) x loading(mg/I) x 1 ,233.262(Vac-ft) x 1 (kg/mg)"
30
kg/yr,
kg/yr,
Total PosHlevelopment Loading
30
Proposed Treatment
Provided Residency Time (days)
Storage Volume(ae-ft) / Post Development runoffvolume(ae-ftIyr,) x 365(days/Yr,)
339 days
Provided Removal Efficiency
8,0847 . Ln (residency time) + 44.583 =
92%
Proposed Loading
(1.0 - Removal Eff.)' Total Loading"
3 kg/yr
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11. 2008
Page 170 of 273
Nutrient Loading Analysis
Evaluate Estimate depth of anoxia pond
Mean water column concentration of TP
Annual [oadlng 'leaving pond =
3 kgfyr
Mean outfall concentration
mean outfall concentration = inputfrunoff volume =
0,028 mgll
Equilibrium mean chiorophyll-a ooncentration
log (cnly.a) = 1.449 log (TP) .1,136
log (chyi.a) "
0,96
chyl-a "
9.10 mg/m'
Secehl disk depth
so = 8.7' (1/(1 o/-0.47'chyl-a))
SD"
1,65 m
5.41 ft
Depth of anoxic conditions in pool
Depth" 2.3893' SD 0/- 0,5749 '~n (chyJ.-a) - 0.0113"T01a1 P
Depth =
4,9 m
16,1 ft
The depth of anoxic conditions Is greater than the depth accounted for treatment The
area of proposed treafFrlent is not anticipated to become anoxic
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 171 of 273
BrandOf) RPUp
lolorfbBBl3ln
sr1S'2D07
D5S113N COMPUTAll0NS~ Brandon ..Worth f9Dsm
A.. SIlo Gracllng nnd L.und Use Summnry:
~
iolollltea
JlYDI!l9a&llc.l'[Jf'G.do
51.10 aelall
12.00n"NGVD
PraDOf;otl
Fl:~Bnllp.)blll:l1Ingli
PaVlngfdrlvDMl)'S
l.n~e$
Opll1\tPlll:O
TolalBlUllnAfDiiI ::"
6.1fl aorllJl
<1.16 aere9
-lAG aorea
15,911 IlCr~
3D.7fi ameli
"'13
1:i.~
1.t!iD
SUI!
100.00
AvOIOlIltl.Ptc:!IlDSlldtUeomde '"
1G,O.Q n. NaVD
e, 60U SUmlgC:
WeheatDl'lwaler!able :.
Depllllb-weIl'1rllble ..
lUD reel
4.20 retll
Rtti'enfrla fa IWWMD (FrDUlll C.f1l-'~
t1C1U~lotltne{dQVGlClpl!dctHltfllt;m) ..
ll.2aln,
AvnIIBbIUQOEIDrDgeon-sl\c II'
SIle-widemo1slJml.filDtnlla(S) l:I
SCSCUrvIlNumbnf(CN! ..
to.8n sa.it
.ol,2DIn.
lD.2
c. StOf"ilQtH
S,'", LDkes Lekf'..$ Sftfi.Gradi CUmulI!. .
(flloll ",.. Volum Vnll.lPle St. .
~ceJ .... (81)11 (-
11110 <A6 O~O 0.00 D.OO
'2,00 '.6 O.Og Il.oo a...
lUiD .AU 3.12 0,00 3.12
13.00 'A6 5~5 0.00 5.35
1a.50 <AU 7~. D.Oa 7..fiB
14.IlD 4AD B.81 0.00 9.81"
,..50 4AlI ,.... IUIll 12.04
la,tlO ...! 14.Z1 o,an 14.27
15.50 <AU lSltO O',t~4 17.8ool
10.00 'AD 18.13 3.:36 22.05
1{1.tlD 'AD 2O,gl) 7.5' 21l.5G
17Jllt <A' Z1.1S 13o,4Q 35.59
17... 4,llij "..... 2ll... 4ll.lI.
11j,DQ '1.1\6 27.1lS 3U-1S 57,50
1O.5Il 4.4D 29.1lO lii.eM To.!l2
19.DD ,4G 32.11 "".., 85.71
D. WQletOUlllltl":"
FblndlolrunofrfromlJlllptojOl:I:
TI'tI<lIrMt\lyalum.
2..5:6 a<>fL
2,f;1lncbes:.llm" pcrtafl.\ o( lroJUOf'\llou~nllS&:
Sll~ DIVa Jor INattU qllaUl~ = tolel proJeQ ~ (la~e'.rno~
20.10 S!t;(e!l
1\.10 acre.!
2O.lD
.. 2.6 II" t", of ImpmvIDlm1e!iwlrnl
"" 0.52 Tru:heG
~ frr~tDbRU12a\II:1:::(tctlll.!illo.fi';\:e'J12
... U3 ac-tl
~0I.l~I!fCl8forWillelqUtl!lty
~~ OTJlJ'lSIltNlou.;regO
Incl~ll)ootroaled
TrllllllpllHIl"Oll,lfUll
rrCOllmt1lllllohroc-rcqtli:t!d
2.65 ru:-11
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 172 of 273
liJranooo F1.PUO
NgrthBWlln.
611&2U01
Eo SIalltldDwn OtJUr:.ce:
otGehsmeelevafja.n
CtmlrDlfillevaJlon
waIEIl.QuBlIl.yel~lon
11JlO n.
1U1P fL
12,37 II {2.tiG oc-tt III required: get ell3~allon li'om sta98--~tDragc Cll1a~}
No lime ,Imn (t.6/nd1 of 1110 dollmllan ~lh'J1'" CIlI'IIJfl dlsl:h8l!Jsd 1rl the ~f 24/tt1~,
One-tlaIf Inch of deloflUo-n ualume
a.5lrz.l::{(t1IDIGllo-laIHa}112
1.oBS nl>fi
Total sllowPble dlscl1Sl{ll!- (De}
Ofllb: dlBmeter (mIll,}
Cenlrol~ alB'IJslm
~
0.562 clg
.
.
0.00 In.
12.D!1D 11
Cbdo:.4.S-Dpen Atfl1f.~t1"lJ2
00.
".
h^112~
""
Qbd;o
O.55.ch;
0,320 n
0.666
0.18535 SQ."
4..B'A"h"'I12
Obtl=
O.1i33 cfs
USE orlllt:e t1lanmlW'
.
OD.
IndlOS @ef.l1.B
P. Dbult1urgc Btrucll.(r.e.~
ElnVB1lDn wallu quallly roqulferl 12,57 MillO
Max AUolvabl€ lJlsl;funge Rala
o-.15~ToIBI8adn= "U,1 ell;
SEE ROUTUfG CALCULAT1DI~S lhe 4"x 12~ tectStl{/UIDr'llfOfr@tJI. 1.2.37
G. FID:ltl RauU"g:
{11 :t,5.}'(lar.'adsj'$IOM'hllllBflt
$-dsy!'l5lrdell 11,31ni;l~
PenktllD911 15J3WGVD
PMlldbchUflJ1i If.Sels
Mfl1lmllm pOllllmenl elovntbn . ~5,a NBVD
PraflO~ot1 pav~f11."Ulk1o fas NGVO
(2.) 10lryenr, 3-dil\1 sloft>> ~vrm\
3.Llllyrolllnlell 111.20 !tIl::hll5
P~Dd.(IfGn ao.7fi ilcm&
SpIIsjPlillltl,Sl 454lnchll!l
A.unoffd!:pth. . 9.lI3lndles
RunoJIvolurt\Q . 2D.rotlc-f1
FroRIICf'RAnl,lJysl!;
It.llrl1Jllum itnlDflC$d fWDr elt:vollli>lrt 1fi.SD O. I~G\IO
PrtlflDs.l!d nnll:if~l1nor!lllW'a1lan
.
1V.50 II. NGVIJ
u~ the .gree1BT elBva1JDIl for fFE
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 173 of 273
Blancon R~UIJ
SOtJUl Bem
&1512007
DeSIGN COMPUTATIONS: Bmndon ~ RDuth Bosln
A. SlIe GrndlJlli emf Ltmd. Use summary:
~
TnIa1woa
AVlmID&cU1I:9tDde
!il.1G acrel
121ID n. I~GVO
~
no51demlBlbUiltllll9'
PAYfnghl/lve\'i'B)5I' =
loll&!; ..
QPfm5\'lBCS
'ft;llIOfE!n~It1Amn ::.
Q,tie acre$"
1.3, Elcrall
1.17 acres
:um I;lCl'e1l
7.12 ecreo
9.16
1B.aS
tfi.<1tl
IiG.OG
~OOJW
AV!!flll7l1'prtllIDSfI'dlil.lagrndll '"
l[i,aO fL NGVO
a. Soil9tDt'll9'e~
Will a=.&lltlwvll:l11Dblc '"
DBP'" 10 wntr ll'J.blu ~
11J10 leel
il..:!O leel
RrJerrfn(lID S~tll1D (t:lgurGC.llhll.
&011 o1.broll'e {doWlICplHf contMon} II.
D.20 In.
J:.vaeablll Gol1 t/Qmgo arallt! '"
Sn....\?ldn mokituro sloweo IS) ~
SCS Curve: ''hlmber (Cl>;!I .::
2.73 Be.i{
4,60 In.
6llS
C. StOtilgo.
,. LB'" 1.B1am SlIl3Gm.dJ Cu uaUve
roo Am, VaJumQ 'Voklme SIDra e
,." (ac- 0 (~II (ac:-fl
11.00 1.17 D.ClO {I,OO ..oD
12,{It} 1.17 .... 0,00 ....
1UJO 1.11 0,82 D.OD D.B2
19J1D 1.11 1.0 MD , 1.110
13,50 1.t1 U1l'f 0... 1.951
1oI1ID 1.17 2.51 .,Oll 2.57
,"" tf1 8.18 D.OII 3.1G
1$.t1D 1.1'7 8,74 O.on S.74
1~.!i1i 1.17 4.38 ..22 iI.55
16.Q[I 1.\7 4.9' tUB 5.IlG
1n.!iQ 1.17 D.lin .... 7.49
1'tJ:l1li 1_17 6.VB a.sa 0.91
17.6ll' ." ... ' 5.52 12.1[1
1B.DD .'7 7.25 ,0' , .20
1D.5D 1.17 1.~ol 'l0.S1 laSS
19.011 1.17 0.-12 14.12 22.5
D. W""U.lftluarltV1
FilJltlrtllholnm.ur(rQnjlhl'lprn}aCl:
lroalmMlvollJli111
D.59 ao-ft
2.51n~tlEsOme.tprm::l:ntnllrnJlCrv1Dusn/!Sli;
SIW ares ler \Valer qUlllllY " iOll~lllrtlJf\1:l ~ IlokeHDQn
~.30 ",ems
'l.a1 f1cro!>
"...
'" 2,6 x ~ oflnlpcrvfoLllllrs:s~/lDO
Q..G2 lrtc:hes
" lllehesfttbt!lflllrictl"lIollllp;/lI1~0Ju:lH.
0..31 uc-R
IrnpElnIllUll:arD.llW"wlarqL1l:J!ly
%g/~olVlbusnllll"
frt:hteslolmlflllfll!.d
Trmrtmunl volume
TrCaltrtenl YolIlIK!-lL!'quhd
O.W 01;-11
1
Agenda Item No. SA
March 11, 2008
Page 17401273
Snmdon RPUO
SOLlth BasIn
5/1512001
E... SleIJodol'ln QrIITcn,
Olschargs c19vsNon
Control elsvatlCttl
Wnler OutiflYflleU'allcn.
.
.
.
11.110 U.
11J.!O fl.
12.S0 ~ (o.~ al>lll!l ,equlrea; get -elelo'allcn from slage-.sIomglil chart)
No tnWl1lhlUl ct.6Io~1 ,,/ r1,tJ dlIlenf/l:trl YMr/'llB elm bli dlFJr:iJ/JIgtldlll Ul~iit$f 114 ~
One.haU lm<h of dek1lTlkln i,lclurns
'" 0.6 In. II; {tol:l:ll~n,",.lalm}lt2
:: D.2<lfl m>lt
Tole! olloWilbJe- dllichel1lJl (013.)
OriIltetRmnelar{mm.}
Centrold IillevaUan
D_125 els
3.00 tn.
lU'25 fj
Qbd=.llJl"Open Ahill'J,'W:ll1
Qa=
n=
h^112=
""
Qbtl=
Ql:n:l::
0,12-01&
D,$15 "
0.612
0.0490875 l,Iq.ft
.1.a" A-h"1J.2
O.11ll:! cis
Ull1lallflcll dl~ttlll!l!.r
::l.aD
Iilches @ ~L i UI
f=l'. Oll'ic(larS~ Slructure:
EIl'lWltlDn\v.olerqu'lI~trequ:lred 12.W NGVD
Max A/iQwablB O!BCllPrge RlllB
[J.'fixTol..lauln~ 1.01 as
SEE. ROllflNG GAl..CULATIDNSUse 4" clrr;u/tir fln1fCD@ flL 1~,3
G, t"iood Routing;
(I) 2&.yt!m.9d~u~rmel'(!nt~
3-dsyralnfil1l 11.21/1eh~
Ponhtto"e . 111.13 N.GVD
P8Z'ttl~c1lllrDl! . ~.D3 cb.
Mlnlmum pn\llmlo.nl daVllllGn 1-1\,l),HC3VO
Propa!;iW pl.'llm~t e!C!vnlIlm . M.ll NGVO
(2) 100..year. s.dl!l)' slo:m e.ver\!
a.IJDYt.:lw.au 14,WinehoD
Pl'ojllCltllrca . 1'.1Zel:l'U
SO, momg" IS) . lj,tM inche.s
R\l.MIffctep\JI O,-B3Ineh.es
RIU'Illnli.c!ume 5.83 uc-it
r-rom ICPR 1I11l11j,bG
ltinom. lirlbt~d flflO! Illevelltln I:l;
'G,ao it. NGVfJ
PIDpcsedtinbh,hlOflllliYlllllln ~
lG:ao IL I~GVD
:<:(o:lM
",or--
,ON
ON~
Z _0
E~~
m.r::.......
=~Q)
mmOl
:uZrtl
>C 0..
'OJ
'Ol
:<r
~ ~
~ g
~ ~
.
5 8
Q ~
Q
I
g
:!
;;
~
a
"
Q
Iil
~
~
~
,:;
~
m
Ii!
;:
oJ
.!'l
,![
""
"
'13
~
~
"
,9
11
~
,;;;
,,'
<::>
'"
'"
Q>
o;r
g
<f
"
"
:;;1
""
"
."
'"
a
~
;;
~
s
o
.
C
..,
a
'"
..,
a
'il
~
CJ
'C
!!l
~
"
~
.s
, ~ .
On m
~g B~
.........tl]..,
tlol,l,O
~IHH
~r.;:~;
.~"
0-8 >>
~,!;~
11""
.'. m
~".
~ha
!Ioo ~
.
~
tl r.
G a
~o
ltI~g(l!.w!TI
t11;f,&Bg;gm~
~p..l!::UQl:Il.l:::!=
Agenda Item No. SA
March 11. 2008
Page 176 of 273
~~.G~~~u.~~'~~"a."..>>~..8~._a~.a.~.au=_~umD..__<<.~~_._U.~.U~p~=~~au~_~~e.E~.a_~C_pQ~~
~CC_ U~n~ a~_up_..___._~eCU_a_G_._...__.P.._C_cq_~..~a__cac~up___._._~.__._.~.__F_a_a
ooaac_~aca.c~_.ccac==ac_~_.a_.c~~~CV_=CCDc>>a_~.~__..._.aa_.F.._._Wc~a~ca~ac_a~~:=a__a..
HillllE!! l-lOltTlll
Gt:'DUp 1 B1LSB
Utl.it. lIydroSlrapn: Ph2SlO
lUl.J.nl:~'l1 rilOI
h2.U\fa'1l .IUi'IOUOt {lnll 0.0011
Are~(~~1 f 3n.1SD
~r~ I~erl 6i,Bd
iJ~r;~(:j;l: s.ot!
HeJlle: I SOUTlU
G.t'C1Upl ImSS
Ul1i~ nyer~nph, Uh2~(i
Ra1nfall F1J:e1
R.tdnE~l 1\.lnQunt j in1, 0.000
fLTe#fndJ: ,.120
CtttVe l~wlll::lI:rl 6D.!iQ
DOIlU.I, s.no
~ode ~ u..:a:t
~~Q: 5CS Unit HVd~pgrnph
SUtUllll OnJ1itc
!>ooJdng F11\ct.or 1 2So. 0
Stoxu. .bu::-ation tbx's.) 1 0, va
Tille tl~ ~nt: hllinJ: <5.1)0
~ SllU!t[!:I:rO/1 lI,tlO
M~ AJ1Dwab1e o {cfsl I ~~~g~~.aoo
Bt;.:1t:UD' Onl:~ t:.r:!
~de\ LnlQ;:a
~~\ B~~i~"Y4~~~
P~a~s FD~o=l ~S&.D
StorK tluratJ.onUlrsll 0.00
'i'ine of COne rmin.) I 'J:;:. OP
Time S~lftl~): n.DD
14an Allowable 'OleEI!lII 1t5B~$'.O{tO
~~~~.D_.M.&~._._.b=~n.~.mQ~Q~.~c~r.~..~DDm__.~.~_~~._~~~A~DDG..~~..~~...._..~...D.....~~~.
~~~~ UodeG c...~ua.a.<<bw.a~.~.aD.a~Q~.Mw..~.~~a..~.=a~c=a~acQ..~~=a.=aE=~.a=~a...~D
U~Q....~.~n.~........_Z=K=_.=C~.....ftc.aCD...~..ft<<a_~.w.~v~._~.d."~.~_..waa~_a.a...a"a.a
H.amr> f l.J\.1tEl
C:rD\tpl ms:!':
Type I 5Ulg~/VQ11)l:'le
St:c,gelft.J
u.ono
l.:!.O.ll:O
l:!;!:ino
U.1)Ojl
l'J,SQU
1.4.000
14,SOtl
15.00i)
lS.S0tl
lli.DOO
15.50[1
l'"/.OOlJ
li.S6D
1B..onO
volulJle(atl
t).o~t1lJ
O,IH1110
:3.1:100
:5.3.600
i.51.1(l1J
!l.6HiD
l:!.O~(ID
H.:.110n
1"1.3t.QD
2:!.ObQt:
211.5001l'
:lE.SE/tln
'lG.3GtlD
51.1l10lJ
BASt Flowtcf~) I ~.fiOD
Dct:~oe Areu(n~l I ~.4G~n
lolt ~~agerfc), ~l.aOQ
Wnrn StaqG{e~)1 ~.oon
lfllme I tJU:E;;
Grelle: BItSE
1)~1 a~aD~jVo3umQ
~. ~.. .._._._..~ ~.._~Y ..o...._o..~ .... _. ___.._ ..__, ......_... nO' _.. ,_,___",p.' '" ,.__ .~.__
S~ife V.lOW((:fllll 0.000
BOttobl Il.rlfil ree): 1.170~
],ntt: Sta91l' 4 ftJ f 11. DOD
Warn S~nq~lft'f O.BOO
litfl.g!!lrtl
:1,.1.1100
l.:!:.nOa
12.1$0(1
l-J.DOP
13.S0G
H.DOO
H.;O(l
lE.Otltl
H.500
H.OD&
l.fi.SOb
l"l'.UDo
l.1'.SOO
1.0.000
Illkllll!l: Pr.asIu:l.VEl
GrQUp; BAS'=:
,.~ I '!'lmeISea9&
Volume la!}
G.Dooa
n.2.:100
0..!l300
1. "tHIO
l.9901;O
:!.E7DG
3.11:;(10
3."'1400
".~SlHI
5.&:000
1.1.!DQ
fl.E-1M
l:!.':HIOD
1.5,2:000
24$_ F1OWlef611 o.ono
tJ'lJ.l;: Jir.e.gelftJ ~ l,l.e,QtJ
H~ St~ge{ftl! 0,000
Interconnected Channel nnd Pond Routing Model (ICPR) 1;;12002 Streamline Technologies, Ine,
Fage I of4
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 177 of 273
'C!ml!:{hl'"J
scage(lt:j
.... -. . ~. MO..._
0.00
24.00
n.GO
l::!/J.OO
1!12.00
.36C.(lij
l1l.DDD
n.ONl
U.4DO
U.llDO
':1.1,200
llJ.&OO
. M' _.. . ._.. ..,._ '___... ~ _. .__ _. _. '.__.. ~_ __' __. .. _. ___. ..... __._ __.."... _.. .~_ _... _. _.. __._.
);amel i1P~EmlE2
Gt'C~ I aASE
~e. Tim~/S~age
Base F10t1{ersl ~ 0.(100
In1t:. S"ta.geI f.l::lI H.DDQ
~n~ St~eltt', O.DD~
T1tne(:hr-G)
sc.ugelft:)
11.00
2';.00
n.vo
1211.00
L9:!.no
,!tiD.DD
lO.llc.O
l1.001l
11.o10lf
11.000
lL200
:!-::1,$00
a~Q=a~~~.naQD.~~~a.._UDQUa...~~.~~.~~Qau=aQ~aDa...~*a~UU~.~u.aa....a.~mQ..Du~.ua.UUD..
",0"..... D.tQP 5t.rUc:turlflW "........,"'.....,...,.....................................,"""'...."".......................................................................
.............,,"'''''''............c...........''''''.,...........'''.......''''c:................................'''..<co""""'...."''''....~,................='''=....~..'''....co...."..
UlUIl!;.! Cl;EltROLl FrDlll Node! W'lttBl Lengt:b(ft.l: 'lSG.!lO
GrD\i~~ CS '{Q Ntt~l;!. ~~\r2:1 CDtmtl 1
t,rPe:rn.tTtftl DOHHSTRli:rJ.t ~r!etion Egunci~n; Ava~~g~ Cenvey~nce
GeolT.et.:rYI CirJ;lu'lllr Cirel11at:' Eolu~!~ Algorit~ml Ilul;o~at:i ~
.9pantin~1 2..:,tlO 24.00 P10Wl Eoeh
Rloe!(inJ. :I>I.!lO 2~,{lO E:ntrtn\~~ LOSS Coefl 0.206
l'nvlllr1:lftl, !I.S00 !l.5fll) !!:l\it t.\JJff3 Coe!l O.ODD
~lltta.n:l.u9'la lh ~.D1.J()t10 O.tI:l.30GO OIoll::1el: Ct::t"2 EpeCl tl~dt: or t.w
TOp Clip(Utll O.GO(l tl.[JOO rniet Ct.:rl Spec: fJt!t.' tin
no~ c::J.iplinl! II.COll O.UtlO 501ut.l.cll'l 1nr..S": 10
Up6tre'/Ull FlitlA Ir,let Edel.! oe.scr1pt:.fcnl
Ci~ell3.~r COtiC!~l:c I SfJ'L!t?rc cdgn wI henQWll.l-1
Dawnnl;.l"asm FHllr. Illlet ;;:tlgE 0el>criptiol11
C'i~ulll,r e~Ct"etel !:q.mn edge III h~adwal1
,.. Weir 1 of fat'tlm-I: St.ruc;!:u:;l) t;O:!l~?Ol..l ...
Cc\lTltl , aDcto~ ctipCinl I rr.o.oo
Type, Vl:~tJ.r;e.11 N:DNin Top clip tin} I 0.000
now: aoth Hd~ Disc: Coet.: ::!.2tlo
GIl,amllll:.r)'t Circulil.t Orific~ P~D~ ODefl o.tiOO
SpnnfLnll G,OO t.(Ivert.(ftl; H.llO\!
Rht'ltinl. 6.00 COuc~l Ble~[ft'l 11.900
.., tlClt,r <l e' 2 t~ Drop St~ctu~e COft'l.'ROLl ...
CI:H1rlt: 1 Bottom Clip c,l.n) I O.UOd
Type: VllrtjCtLl, "ll!l,'i~ 'l'op ~1:lp Cinl : O.{}OO
F!.~WI aoth Wl$1r Disc COa!:, 1.200
GD~el:;;Y1 flect(lngules Orifi~e Di9C ODe!, O.liOO
Spllnlinl t l::!,(lO rnve~t:. (HI, l:!..:=7U
R.i~linl, ':.('10 COfltrol S!f:;v(ft) : 11.aOll
'I'1\.BLE
T/J:lLt
.. -- -~.. -..- -. - ._-. ----.-.... ---. .--... ----. -.- '._-.' .--.. -.. ..... .-~_.....~.. --. ~~~. -..--.-.. ~-- -. -~-.
HIltIC; CO'UTnOt,2 Fl':'om lIod.(!l t..~~ Ltmgth I ft 11 1:1S.00
C=-OUPI OS TO lfod~, PRtlSEll\l;:Z CQunt:1
UPS'I"P.E:nJ.l !J~HS'1'"f'.!:1\f'l Prjc~inn EQuaticnl Ave.':1I:gl!' CtIOV&>'anoe
GeO\Tiil.t'q'l C1rculllt" C1;;;c\.llar So~utlon Alaori~l Aot.clfti:!t1c
SPlUl'{W/ ; ;a...DO 211.00 F1cwl !loth
Il.he(inJI ::l~ .00 :a4.ao ltr.ItrIUI~ll. Luso Coe[': 0.1011
!n:\'1I:!:'t{fl:Il D.500 D,500n ~:[t LaI;J: O;Ie':l o.ooe
l~iUlt*li.nrl"'. Iii D.tlUOO(l G.lll:!Ooa O:..lt.L~t Ctrl Speer U.. de g~ tw
Top CHplilJt: 0.000 0.000 'Inlet Ctrl lipec: Dse ~n
Bol: t'lip{inl: D.OOl) 0.000 Bolutitlfl rncs: "
Upntre.o.ll'l .t-'Hh"A Inlet idge DesC1:iptt1/iln:
--
Interconnected Cllannel UM Pond Routing Model (JCPR) 11:>2002 Streamline Teehnologi... lne,
----..-.. .......-
Page 2 of4
Agenda Item No. SA
March 11, 2008
Page 178 of 273
Circular Conc'CEl'l:e. Squttr., e<iql: wI bu~dtllll1
Pr;MustJ::w.u Pll~A inlet:. !tl1IIe Detlcdpl.:.io:H
~reu1n~ oone~t~1 ~~ a~e wI hGbaWul1
. ~. tteir 1 t)f 2 far Drop S!;rl~ctU1:'G COlf1'ltOt.:!: .. I
"i7lD-!ll':
COl.1nt: 1
~~~I Ve~eicai: MQviA
1'"101<11 20th
~ome~ry: C1rllul,er
a~ttom ~liDlinl I D.DOO
Top CUpl:!."11 D.tlQG
Weir: D!tll:: Caef;: :!I.20D
OrU!l:l1ll Disc CoiIJf, .0.'-00
B'pD.nliJ:'l~ I a.oo Invc.:'t 1ft:;) j U.tlOQ
~81tUn'l 3.00 O:lOtl"ol Slcrl1t1!t) I :tl.OOO
... l(oEir " of , for D~ .sl:nU;~\l;rc CC>>I'tflQI..:!
eount.1 1 Bcte~ eilpllnll 0.4)00
Typo; Vert-icel. lolavitf 1'tl.p Cl1.;U.nJ: O.DOl,l
Ultll'l: BQ&11 .lei:;: OhiC Qoct: 3.'200
QE:OtlIett).. Ciret,l.la~ o~ifice nise Conf, {I,SOIl
SpanUnl I ".1:10 ID.Verr. (It) : 12.300
RitndiRl ~ ',00 c9n~rol Clav(ttl I H.IiDO
Tl.sLE'
~~~".abC~~~~8~~~D~~~~a~~aa~a=a~~~a~.a.c.~~aa.~~a.D~a.s.~*~~~~a~~a~~~~q~~~R~=~~cm~_~p~e
_&~. Wei~s .n.~q~~=c~Qa~~w~>>.cc~.~~~=p~~~~..~~~.~~aQa.~a~~~Ga~aw~a..~a"__..ac~.c~.c~aac
ca~.ca~a~.~...aa~~...c.~c.....a~~cc.".a.~"aaC~C..2Ua.~~a..up.c.ac.~~c_.a.cc.ca~....~
l__IIIt:1
Group: 8l1oSS'
Flo~: BDCb
Type I HDrl~on~~)
!from Jfo\'!O;~
10 J~o(ll!lt
CCtmt:.f 1
C~omel:ry: Ch:c::u3At"
Spatltinl' 0.00
a.lsC(i.njl ~"Oll
Inv~~tfftl f 0.000
CQn~ro.l Sl~VI!t:1Qn(f~1 ~ O.OOQ
'l'J\1lL;S
aol:~an Cli~'lnl: C.ODO
7ap C1LPlLnl, 0.000
W~ir Pi~DhA~e ~Defl 3.~nO
o.dfiC'fi OiSt!lw~ Cl:u':!f: O.li.o~
.~...a~.a~...._c.&cp~ua~a~~~aa~~.=r..acaa~~ac.u...aa.~~aCQoa..~..~......a.c...~.~~~==c~=w.
~~a. RBt1ng Cu~veu ~...~~._.._.~_~_~~~~~~~~M~.....~.P.~.~~.....M~~~.=".~.~Rc.~_=.a.~.....~
~.~....p.=~~q..~~c=~~c=c~~.c.~.~UC"......P....c"~O.~~.~~~~M.~MCC.DD...ac....~~.~...y.~"~~
!~1IlI;l1
GrOUIl; ElllBe
~lL!1l.>li:
:F~m ~l~de t
1'0 !loder
COunt; 1
1"101f; 'Iloth
lil;
1I:l1
::;1
',""
Et.'iV cml~tt
0.000
fLOau
C.DOO
p.btnJ
BL~ C'f'P'tft}
Q.lurO
O.OltO
n.OCUl
0.000
~~~.~=o=c~~~~~c~.~.#..=.a.C~C~=~R~.~~.P~.~=.~=~~=..P..Da.ca.=~c=.~...._.==aaa..~a..a.aa
c~a. Hydrology Si>>ul~t1oA~ a...~.~an=a=~.aQa....~.C".....a..p.o..~&...._.....=~.~~~~=Pc~
_~.~~~~._~a..Rc~~==....~c.~..~~~~..~.~~~~~~.__c.~~.maR.a~~..~~..._..a.u~~~..G~=o~a~_..~
l~Cle-: 100ttM
F5!en~Dl CI\)Oor~~p..n3~
ovettidlil Dlilee.ult~a Ytiil$
Stc:m D~~la~lh~BI I '2.QD
ne.tu.call P'.!.1e I Et\'/'IlId"i'2
A~lneall I~unttinll 1~.20
1'1ull:![ll,t-.sl
~riJ1!: Jnclf!l,inl
2.1,00-0
U.QOO
120.0DO
~6$.OOO
GO.DO
1.211.0U
3060.00
'1;';!D.flO
,.~.. ... .9.~ ~ .~_. ..~. _ .~~. ..&~.._..... ~. ~. ~~ ~ ~_~_ ____ "_.~.". __ _. _ ._..~... ...~. _. ~.. __ ~.. ___ _.._ __" ___
flMnt, ~S:nm.R
Filt:namel C:\2S'&hR.RJ~
lotereollneetcd Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPRI 02002 Streamline Technologi.., lne,
Page 3 of4
Agenda Item No. SA
March 11, 2008
Page 179 of 273
~~~rrLde De~ult~: tes
Si:Qrm DuT:l1J:.i.:;mlbrs) t 7~.DD
lldinf.all. P'ilf!l !ilfwrm:l:?2
Rnl..nfa,l1 AmO'IU!t;llnll 11.30
Ttlllllotht'st
-~". P... .~. ~..
2-1.0110
73.0(10
l2.c-,ttOll
31i:$.OUlI
1>~1nt. Lne (mo.l
6D,OQ
120,QO
JliD.DO
I\20.tlO
..........."""'."...."''''..'''.....,'''................_............c..."...'''''''''......'''........_............"0.........................,.......1>......"''''..............,.''''''..
........ nouttng Sinlllcticus "'....c..e........v........w...........~M..~"'.......................~....Fb....C......c~~..~~a~.."~.......
.~....a...ce"'...."'''..e..'''r...e..~.."~c___c~~c....'''....'''~~e......c..'''.....~....~R...c......b....~............=..._~....................
Ulllne, lOOn;rt!i
r'.ll~nIlEl>lH C'\lOOYU,1l..:r22
nydrology Sim, 10BYEA\R
EHO:Cbtt'I l,'CIiI
l~lt(!rn/!.t:!.....1!: I [{o
Rl!'liIt.artl 11m
!.'Iatelu HD'
M~ ne~ta Zlftlt 1.00
Ti~c Step Opttm!ce~. l~.~OO
Stcrt. Tim~{hr~l: Q.OOO
Min Cale Timolsecl I O.SOOO
Boundery 8tnge8~
"1'im~ ~h~'~J
..... ..~.. _.~..
:;!~,OOO
n,otltl
UP.DOD
3fJ:5.00D
Group
BASE
Delee Z ~actcr~ n.oosao
~d '~mc(brHI I 36$.00
~~x CAlc ~i~n{s~c)f bD.OOOO
BcuT:ldc;1;i F'!Ol4QI
!?rint Inclminl
liO,OCO
.l::;n:.DOO
JliG.OOO
.{2n.OQO
llun
~'I).f;
.......... -~.. ..... -- ..... -....- -.....- -. - -. .. - - - -.... ... -.-. -.. . . .... -... . . .. , .. - . . . ...... .... ~. - -.
~n.eC'Ut:.el rec
;~ll:ernat::!.v&: ..0
lianml ~~~ID;ii.
PHeJllll!1lh C:\25\'E1',-~. In
Pet:ch; lIo
!\}'~rolo"U" 8im, :a:.r=:A.U
ReGtart: no
Hex ~Qlc~ SIlt) I I.no
Time $tfr.p OptbLi:.er. ,i1l.aGO
Start TimelhrDt I C.OOU
Win Cel~ T1mR{Eec~ l D.SODO
Boondary ~~agQP:
'l'51n1!;Ihl;sI
...............
2""OJlO
7:::.000
120.000
'31iS.tHJO
o~ou.~
..--.--........
B1LSl'i'::
CS
Delt~ & ~lIccor~ D.00500
40Q rime(br~) I JflS.OO
(<lIL):. Ce!lc 1iIllD(l'!Ieel: liD.DallO
Dourcd.1i~' FtOWff'
Pr1nt tJl;:;ltu!.nl
uU.MO
l'ZO.t1Db
:l60.0DO
42tl.DOD
Run
Ye,
,.,
~~~~~~~~._.G~~~_.."e~aa~~ae~.c.~~Qn~_~~_G~n~.>>uM.a~u~c~ne~ne~...~~..n....n~m~~~~~.b_~~..~a
~a~. Bcuncla~y CD1~iticttS ~~~~r.e=.~.~~b~a~"aG~e~u~~~e__a~."~_Q~aoaG~a~aacaa~.._~aacc~_n.
~~..~-~.eccee~~~.cccee~~a~.acca~~~r.~~CT.r.c~~~~cnnM.__.acacR~ca>>aaaa~.~_~acaca.a_.anaa
Interconnected Ch.nnol nnd Pond Routing Model (ICPR) Q2002 Streamline Technologies, loe.
Page 4 of4
<roo'"
",or--
""'''1
~
o
c,-g
CJ).c~
=~Ql
<u ro Ol
~28:
OJ
Ol
<r
-
""
C
>-'
~
""
~~.') Ml"CC
ANOCl
~. M.et~~
~ ..;..:;.:: e;
~
5
.~~ N"ClCl
I"'l:IC>Q
~1iJ" ,.:~cc
".. ~.
~5
~~. ....C!...~
,\l~ c::o In N t'~
.. ~":~c:.
S 'TQ"l',..;
.-
~'e CleN""
"~.I: I;ICJ....C
~.. .;o~r:
0 \tIIl'\II\11
f-<
"r l;:l....l:Il;l
" " .,..
, " "" Jj
. . M"
..
~ M
~
os. CV'lClC;> "..
<.J'l:Il"'" W."...:>!;:;' "
.. 0'0 !::let
... ICllC>C= ]
.'" QC..i":
. , ""
~ ~
~
S'fih'::: ="'00=0 f-o
~~~~ "
~fl .S
~"' ClC;l<:;l'Q 1
,g
j!:l~ t'''''<:>~ '"
"'.. ",rl=Cl ,..,
.S ~ 1'-.,,,,,
.. ~icid 0
'" 0
~,
QJ
8. . ~g:sS 1l
~ P.j1~ r-:,~oo
,... u
W 1lt\l:l~~
M e
0;;
'0
a n~~ "
.. :;;
"
:> UlIDJ,.')Lll ""
. l"Inr....1 C
E il
~
'" 0
0;
-c
"
g' I~~~ ~
D -C
I; C
"
!i
j
u
I nu "<l
~
m'" ~
.m
~.
$
.s
<roo'"
ooor-
.0"1
ON~
Z'<"""""-O
E~ro
Q} -=..-
=ew
mroOl
-gZ&
'"
Ol
<(
~
'"
"
~
1
~." 00
~~ 00
" " ~~
" ti~
~
e
~... "'"'
.~" c:c:;
."
." " 00
,~ ~~
.~ ~~
mo
~." ~..
"'~ ""
. "" ,;
" u;..;
.
m ~~ '"
~ ,~
~.~e N. OD
". "
'.fn:.:r: ~~ '0
,. "
. ~" ~
~m
u
~~1l ~" f-<
"" I "
0" .5
"
rl O. 8
B 1l
I' .. "" In
o~ N" '"
~~u "')~ ""
... ""
'"~
l'QI
tJ 5 1lI ". 2"
~o
~"I~ r-:t" El
e~ ~~
~ ~
'i3
""
0 ::;~ "
.!l -
~ '"
" ~
0 ~.
" "" ,~
D 'EI
~
m dl
'0
~
go tltl 0
""
0 ]
1.1
]
~
(J
~ ~H ]
~~
o~ u
!~ u
<=
<=
"
l:
.!I
oS
<roo'"
ooor--
~N
'0 lii
c:"-~ fij
OJ.<::~
:::::2 a.> Iii.,
mroOl ~~
-g2~
OJ II
Ol
<r g
...
~ J
~ "
i? ~
~. III 'i i!f
N 'Ei)
c E '"
'" 0 '" F= '0
i;J '" ~ S
.!J! '0
Q m ~
'"
Ul "
.5
E
l
'"
,,'
'"
'"
[QI
~
U
t:-
o ;;;
"
~ '0
"
:a;:
on
'"
',,"
"
,,2
'0
'"
"
"'"
'0
a
<l
m
0
'" '0
;:! l< E
S1 ;!: "
"
2
~
(y}e6"IS II
,5
8
.,
'"
i'l
~ oJ
~ .s
... E rj
~ ll'l 5.
'" N OJ '..
r: E 0
~ 0 '" ~ ~
~ '" l-
ll! N 11
0 '5 0
"' E !-.
U) "
.S
~
jg
VJ
N
'"
'"
~,
Q>
2"
k1
~
'" ;;
Q
~ '8
~
""
'"
'J:l
'"
.il
",
'"
&:
'C
2
;;
s
2
D
'" 'C
~ :r ~ ~ iJ
sa
6
~
u
(11)86elS !i
<roo'"
",or--
-'ON
~
o
E:: ,-~
m..c......
=~Q)
rnroOl
-g2~
OJ
Ol
<r
~
~ffi
~m
II
'"
'"
....
c
c
'"
ei ~ u
"
>- ~ ~
~ III ur
"" "
c: nr "OJ.
5 0 E 0
:::l c F c
m '<'l S
'E u
E ~
in "
.s;
1
ii:i
<',
'"
'"
~
/ ffi
g
g :g
/ ~
'"
::E
V ,~
"
l s
"
5
""
."
a
'0
~
'"
u
c '"
'" '" il '" " ~ "
.... '" ~ ti
g
0
(sJO)MOYUlle\Ol ~
,S
<roo'"
",or--
ON
ON_
Z _0
~'"
E~ CO
Q.l..r::..-
~;:::Q)
m ro Ol
-g~~
'"
Ol
<r
~
fjj~
"'il!
5lL
11
'"
H
'"
'"
'"
--
/
t-
, ~
"1
'"
D
o
'"
'"
<l:
~
I::
.E
1;;
"S
E
lil
'"
'"
'"
'"
'l'
.. N
(S!O)MO~Ullelo.L
8
""
c
~
8
N
"'
.c
w
E
F
"
l2
<S
"
~
ri
-.,
'"
I
f-
l.!
:g
=
g
l/.l
",
'"
'"
",
Ql
~
t::!o
"i)
'"
'"
;;;
gp
-"
'"
o
~
'"
c
'"
"-<
11
'"
"
g
!!!
5
'"
oS
'-'
!'l
a
"
~
<0
.5
<roo'"
a:2~
~
o
. w
>- 00
w...c:.......
::::::~Q)
mmOl
-g2~
OJ
Ol
<r
~>.
~~'tj
~
~
.
"
H~
~~-
~il
~
@~e
"f
~Ot:lC
~~~~
<:l~C~
l::lC>C>C
gQc-D
C';OO
"'f'fI;l;.Q
"I'.-IC!loIlO;l
~'":~~
""1"11:;>0
mo'
m~e
....~;;:
~~
~s
eoCCI:l
QCCI:lr
00.0.;
0"
W"n
~~"I
NrlQO
0~
=~
"~
~~
0"
m
" ".
~g'''''
E~
X
~
....
. ~~
~ .
.~
~
CI;'t:;>Q
It'>-=,OCl
ClOe>o
accc
-=ie7~
C>C>'Ob
~~€:.~
l:lQQO
. ."
~ ~~
.
~
l"IlllCQ
Dl"lQQ
",:rt~"!
q!l(IrlN
0-1"....""
. g,'
~ Q~
i~
...1"1.......
ce.oo:>
>:icicCl
r-""IQ<II
~M
]
~
,
~
~"';$
c:.twF.l
~">*b
ggg,c
,..r\.-j.-!
f
o
~~~~
J
i~U
mm
~~
.,""<,,..
\
'-<
"
~
,;
.El
~
'..
"
8
""
J!
"
1
'"
'"
'"
<=>
e,'
iQ\
~
fJ
Co
"
'<>
"
::;;
!lJl
13
=>
"
""
'"
"
"
""
'"
"
d
OJ
g
"
o
11
'0
"
'"
'"
e
!l
Agenda Item No. SA
PUDZ-2006-AJIlI.at<01t711 2~EV: 4
BRANDON RPtlt> 187 of 273
Project: 2006040008
Date: 10/10/07 DUE: 11/7/0
WATER MANAGEMENT REPORT
Brandon RPUD
Prepared For:
Eastbourne Bonita ILC
5 Autumn Creek Lane
East Amherst, NY 14051
Prepared By:
}()HNS -.f)N
ENGINEERING
2350 Stanford Court
Naples, Florida 34112
May 2007
REVISED July 2007
JUL 3 0 2007
ALAN J, CRUZ, P.E,
STATE OF FLORIDA
Professional Engineer Registration No. 65147
Alan J. Cruz P .E,
P.E. Florida Registration No, 65147
JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC,
2350 Stanford Court
Naples FL34112
EB #0000642
/- 30-07
Date
T
Agenda Item No, SA
March 11, 2008
Page 188 of 273
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
n. PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION '
Ill. DESIGN STANDARDS
IV, DRAINAGE ANALYSIS
v. W A 1ER QUALITY ANALYSIS - Harvey Harper Nutrient Loading Calculations
VI. DESIGN COMPUTATIONS
A. Site Grading and Land Use Summary
B. Soil Storage
C, Storage
D, Water Quality
E. Bleeddown Orifice
F, Discharge Structure
G. Flood Routing
VII, APPENDIX
Network Diagram
Input Summary
Basin Summary
OutputSumrnaty
'.:'
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 189 of 273
Brandon RPOO
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Legacy RPUD is a residential neighborhood of 204 single-family or multi-family
dwelling units, or a combination of both, The project will include on-site preserves,
lakes, a clubhouse or other amenities, The project will be accessed from Livingston Road
along the west and Veterans Memorial Boulevard to the north, The site shall be de-
signed, permitted, and developed with build-out anticipated in 2012,
n, PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
The proposed development is located within Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Section
13 of Collier County, Florida, The physical property is currently vacant land located
along Livingston Road, north of its intersection with Immokalee Road and south of its in-
tersection with Bonita Beach Road. The subject property is approximately 51.1 acres in
size and is located within the South Florida Water M.anagement District (SFWMD) juris-
diction. The property lies within the Imperial Drainage Outlet Basin, which is just north
of the Palm River Basin.
ill. DESIGN STANDARDS
The peak elevation fot 25-year, 3-day storm was used to set tbe minimum elevation for
road centerline, which was Jound to be 16.6feet NOVD. The water surface control eleva-
tion of the water management system will be maintained at an elevation of 11,8 feet
NOVO. The peak elevation for IOO-year, 3-day storm with zero discharge was used to set
the minimum floor elevation for buildings, which was found to be 18.40 feet NOVO.
IV. DRAINAGE ANALYSIS
The project's watet"management system has been designed using two separate basins
(North and South). The North Basin includes two intercOD.tlected lakes (Lake 1 and
Lake2), whicb are 1.49 acres and 2.97 acres in size, respectively. The lakes will be inter-
connected with a 48" diameter pipe and the control structure will be located within
Lake2. The South Basin includes a single Lake3, with a control structure CS-2,
Water will be collected from the roadway and lots and directed into these lakes for at-
tenuation and treatment prior to discharge. Rear lot lines whicb do not abut a Jake, will
include a perimeter berm and swale system that will collect rear yard runoff and direct it
into these lakes for treatment. The lakes will provide adequate storage so that during a 25
year design storm, discbarge from Lake2 is limited to 4,61 cfs, and discharge from Lake3
is limited to 3.05 cfs. The preserve along the southeast side of the site will be receiving
the controlled stormwater discharges.
1
NUtrient Loading Analysis
Agenda Item No. SA
March 11, 2008
Page 190 of 273
The following calculations were performed to determine the pre cievelo~ment Nulrlent Loading for a llro~osed
residential/commercial development known as Brandon PUD, The calculations were perfonned using the
"Evaluatlon of Altemative Stormwater 'Regulatlons for Southwest Florida" by Environmental Research & Design
Inc. as a guide,
Pre.develoDment:
Land Use:
Wetland
Open Speoe 1
Woods
39,7 ac
11.4 ac
Total
51,1 ae
Ground CoverlSoil
Upland/Open S~acB Woods. Hydrologic Soli Group D
Wetland - hydric sotis,
Estimate CNlRunoff Coeff,:
Uoland IOoen Soace Woods
From TR.55 (USDA, 1986) the curve numbers are: for fair range ~and in HSG Is 84 and lor fair
forest land in HSG D is 79,
F alr Range land HSG D 84
Fair Forestland HSG D 79
. , Average CN 81.5
From Table 3, the runoff weff, For 0 % DCIA and non DCIA eN of 81.5 by linear interpolation Is:
Upland Runoff Coeff,
O,1B1
Wetland:
Due to \he large evapottansporatlon losses in wetlands. an average runoff coelf, Of 0,225 is
assumed, based on literature,
Wetland RunoffCoeff,
0.225
Calculate Annual Runoff Volumes:
Wetland:
Land Use Area(ac) X 53.15 ('"/yo.,) X (1 ftl12 in) X Runoff Coeff. =
39,5
ac-ftlyr.
Uplands Open Soaee Woods
Land Use Area(ac) x 53,15 (1"1...,) x (1 ftl12 In) X Runoff Coelf, =
9,1
ac..fflyr.
Total Runoff =
48.7
ac-ftlyr ,
NutrIent Loading Analysis
Pre-development Nitrogen Loading
Land Use Nltr<<;>oen Loadlno (from Table 7\
Welland
OSW
1,01 kglyr,
1,60 kglyr.
Wetland N Loadlno
Runoff(ac-ltIyr,))( loadlng(mgll))( 1 ,233,262(Vac-ft) /W6(mg/kg)"
UplandlOSW N Loadina
Runoff(ac-ftlyr.))( loadlng(mgll))( 1,233,262(lIac-fl) /106(mg/kg)"
Tollili Pre-Development Loading
Pre-development Phosphorus Loading
Lend Use Phosoho!;US 'Loadlno (from T?Q,Ie 7\
Wetland 0,09 kglyr.
OSW 0.07 kg/yr,
Wetland P LoadlrlO
Runoff(ac-ftlyr,))( loadlng(mgll) x 1,233.262(1/ac-ft) x 1 (kg/mg) "
UDland/OSW P Loadlno
Runoff(ac-ftlyr.) x loading(mgll) x 1.233,262(Yac-ft) x 1 (kg/mg)"
Total Pre-Developm ent Loading
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 191 of 273
49
kg/yr.
18
kg/yr,
67
kg/yr,
4
kg/yr,
1
kg/yr.
5
kg/yr.
Nutrient Loading Analysis
Post-development:
Land Use:
Residential
Wetland
Upland Preserve
Lake
32.2 ae
11.2 ae
2,0 ae
5,6ae
51,1 ae
Total
GrDund CDver/Soil
Pervious developed areas are covered by lawns in good condition
Soillype will remain HSG D
Impervious Area:
Sinale Familv Residential
% Impervious
% Df DCIA
ImpervlDus = Area x % imper,
% DCIA = % imper x % DCIA
DCIA Area
32%
75%
10,3 ae
24%
7.7 ae
Estimate CN/RunDff CDetl.:
Residential
CN fDr lawns in gDDd cDndition In HSG D Is
'. Lawn CN
Lawn Area (site area - imper area)
NDn-DCIA Imperv, Area (Imperv. - DCIA)
ImpervlDus area curve number 98
NDn-DCIA curve number 82
From Table 4. the run6ff cDetl. this land use is: 0.51
Calculate Annual Runoff Volumes:
Residential '
Land Use Area(ae) x 53.15 ('n'yea,) X (1 ft/12 in) x Runoff Coati, =
80
21.9 ae
2,6 ae
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 192 of 273
72,8
ac-ft/yr ,
Nutrient Loading Analysis
Agenda Item No. SA
March 11, 2008
Page 193 of 273
Post.development Nitrogen Loading
Land Use Nitrooen Loadino (from Table 7)
Residential 2.18 kg/yr.
Residential
Runoff(ac-ftlyr,) x loadlng(mg/I) x 1.233.262(Vac-ft) x 1x10'(kg/mg) =
196
kg/yr,
kg/yr,
Total Post-Development Loading
196
Prooosed Treatment
The project is proposing to provide wet detention for both treatment and attenuation. The detention lakes
have the following design parameters:
lake Area
Avg. Lake Depth
5.6 ac
12 ft
Provided Storage Volume
67,56 ac-ft
Provided Residency Time (days)
Storage Volume(ac-ft) / Post Development runoffvolume(ac-ftlyr,) x 365(days/yr.)
339 days
Provided Removal Efficiency
8.4216' Ln (residency time) ... 27.25 =
76%
Proposed Loading
(1,0 - Removal Eff.)' Total loading =
46 kg/yr
.'
Nulrlent Loading Analysis
Agenda Item No. SA
March 11, 2008
Page 194 of 273
Post-development Phosphorus Loading
'- .
Land Use Phosohorus Loadina (from Table 7\
Residential 0,335 kg/yr,
Slncle Familv
Runoff(ac-fllyr,) )( loading(mg/l))( 1 ,233,262(l/ac-fl))( 1(kg/mg) =
30
Total Post-Development Loading
30
kg/yr,
kg/yr,
Prooosed Treatment
Provided Residency Time (days)
Storage Volume(ac-ft) I Post Development runoff volume(ac-ftlyr.))( 365(days/yr,)
339 days
Provided Removal Efficiency
8.0847' Ln (residency time) + 44,583 =
92%
Proposed Loading
(1.0 - Removal Eft.)' Total Loading =
3 kg/yr
Nutrient Loading Analysis
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11. 2008
Page 195 of 273
Evaluate Estimate depth of anoxia pond
Mean water column concentration of TP
Annual loading leaving pond:
3 kglyr
Mean outfall concentration
mean outfall concentration: input/runoff volume:
0.028 mgn
Equilibrium mean chlorophyll-a concentration
log (chly-a) : 1.449 log (TP) - 1,136
log (chyl-a) :
0.96
chyl-a :
9.10 mglm3
Secchl disk depth
SD: 8,7' (11(1+0.47*chyl-a))
SD:
1.65 m
5.41 ft
Depth of anoxic conditions in pool
Depth: 2.3893 * SD + 0,5749 * In (chyl-a) - O,0113*Total P
Depth:
4.9 m
16.1 ft
The depth of anoxic conditions is greater than the depth accounted for treatment. The
area of proposed treatn:?nt is not anticipated to become anoxic
t
Brendon RPUO
NorlllSasln
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11. 2008
Page 196 of 273
5/15/2:007
DESIGN COMPUTATIONS: Brendan.. North Bi!lsln
A. tnle Grading and Lend Utile Summary.'
~
iotefaoa
Avsl1l.sresllegradD III
~
ResJdenUaI bu1Idlnga
Pavitlg/drfrtlWlly3
......
OpE'l1 spaai' =-
i(ll..l Basin Ate.. '"
AverlZjJe proposed slle grade '"
B. SoU StoFl1gel
We\66BSOiI WIiler labia ..
beplh to water labl'e ..
Rei'errk1g It! SFWMO tf"1g\lt-e C-llt.1).
~QlI5lotage(de\lill(Jplldc"'ndIUonl ...
Availllbl~ Soll.slornga Dnol!llJe ..
S1Ie-widtl mtlllrtm'e stomge (S) '"
ses CUM! Number (ON) ..
C. StomQC:
D. WGtero.lUI.Uly:
First lrch ofrunoff from the! project
TrOlllmenl vaumB
$1.10 I(!lCfee
12.80 ft. NGVD
6_19 Gleres
4. tli acres
4.46 acres
15.9r1 Q0f8S
SO.7S a.cm:e
2.0.1:)
,....
14.50
nlllf
100.00
\6.QO ft. NGVO
11.00 feet
4.20 feet
S.2D In.
10.89 sc-fl
4.25lfl.
702
s . lBkes LBke:s Site Gradln CumuraUve
,.., A'.. Volume Volume S10ra &
'''''' ( oo-R CaC4t
1 LBO 4.46. . O.OD o.on' 0.00
12.0'0 4.46 0.8S 0.00 0.89
12."" 4.46 3.'l2 0.00 3.12
" ; 1S.0D 4.4$ 8.ss 0.0. 5.S5
18.50 4.46 7.58 0.00 7.6"8
14.00 4.45 ..81 0.0. 9.81
1450 A.4G 2.04 0.0. 12114
1:i.DO 4AG. 4.27 0.0' 14.27
15.5D ".4G j6.60 0:0. 17.34
UWO ..0 1 73 3.a 22.0B
16.512 4.4$ 20.96 7.54 2e.5D
17.DO 11.45 2$.1B 13.40 36.59
11.!iO 4.4'13 25.42 20.84 .46.SB
1e.00 4.45. 27.65 30.'5 51.60
18.50 4.48 2!UJB 41.()4 70.92
19.00 <lAB 32..11 53.60 85.71
2..55 ao-fC
2.5lnchel; lhtle! perc.e.~ of inlpervlouanEl$S:
Sll'l!amfcsrv.rntMqlJG\U.y = Tolalprojecl-Clak6.f-rool)
~ 20.1Q aeres
4.16 acres
I;< 20,70
.. 2.5 x % oltmpt3rvlO\lSneell100
0.52 Inches
'" Indles 10 blil 1realed )( (mlsl slle .lakeV12
1.13 iiC-f1
Impmr~ a~ ftf'M!ltet quallly
%oflrnpGlVi0u9n~9
Ioche& IQ be lto8l.ed
irealrnenlvDlume
iresl/1lCf1[ volvrmrreqUfn'Jd
2.66 S(;;~rt
Brandon RPUD
NDrth Bastn
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 197 of 273
5/1512007
E. Slellddown' Orifice:
Olschlflrge elel'albn
CMlroJ QJB.valion
Water OUalllyelevatlon
.
11-11:0 fL
1UB f1~
12,S7 ft (2.66 ae-111s reqUlred; gel elfNallon from S1age.stomge chari)
No more thsn D.6 fnch of tho delanUotJ volume l:6fl be dfsdtargsd fn tire 1lrst 24llclJrs..
One.half Int;h of deletlllol1 "olume
0.5in.:& (lotnlelte-I8:ke)/12
1.095 DC-it
Tola! IlllDwsble discharge- (Qat,
0.652 cis
Orlfice diameter (min.)
CenIrOIlt t1Javation
=
=
6,00 In.
12.000 Ct
Qbtt=>4.e'Open AreE.'h^1/2
a..
h=
h"1/2::.
A=
0.<1=
0,5.5.611;
0,320 <<
0.500
O.19M5 lSqJt
4.8. A "h^112
0"<1=
0.533 eta
Use orlfJGe dia~er
=
Ii.ao
Incl1es @eI.11,a
F. Ob;.ctu1ll1l; SlruetUl'l\'I:
Elevation water qusml' reqUited
lU7 NGVD
Me>: Atrowable OlschBJQ~ Ram
O,15~TolaIBaGfn=
4.81 r;fs
see ROUTU~G CAlCULATIONS
U$e4"x12~rBr;lBngJJ/ar\VB!r@el12,37
G. Flood Rounng:
11) :25')'ecM,3deyslormevtml:
3-darralOOlf
PeaJlstage
Paal:dllieharge
11.3 inehe$
15.3 NGVO
43 ers
Minimum pavement e1l!.Va1iun
Proposed Pllvement elevation
15,3 NGVD
15;3 NGVQ
{2} lOD.year. 3-day storm event
S.daymlnlatl
1<1.20 Int:h&s
P,Q,leclElrea
5oitloregelSl
RunofltJepth
Runoff vclums
=
30.75 acres
4.611 Inches
S.IJ31l1ches
25.20 ac.fI
.
From {CPR Analysis
MInlml:Jm IWshad floor e1I!1Wl\1D1'1
11150 It I~GVD
Proposed fmlsh floor 6111va1:1on
.
16.SO 11. '~GVD
Use the greslEU elevaUon fl;)f rFE
Brandon RF"UO
SQulh B8!lrn
Agenda Item No. SA
March 11. 2008
Page 198 of 273
61'15.12007
,,'
DE:SIGN CDMPU'TAnONS: Brllnd-on * Bouth Baaln
A. Brte- Gradlog and Lend Use SUnlmary~
Il!!!.\!!m
Tot8I8l'1l" 'lI'
AVI'!l1!tlI!lt;l(egrlilde
tiMO Bcrel1i
'12.80 fl. NGVD
E!!moUll
Ret>lden1l81 buMlng&
PsYklgIdrlvewey& I:
"'''"'
Open 6pBt:e
TDlllIe~A~ =
O.B15 I:lcre$:
1.3\ acAlSl
1.17 aerea
8.99 al:;reG
'7,'12 acres
8,16
18,35
16.44
..,..
1l)O.co
AvslDge prgpQSl!id !!lIe 9redl1l ...
16.00 n. Neve
9. Soli Stor"ge:
Wet stlDSnnwaklrlBbte =
Oaplh to water lable II:
11.80 klel
4.20 real
RefM1ng 10 SFWMD{Fiaure c-lI~I).
liolllS!Or8g& (de\labpad ocrnllllOI'l) '"
U:oln.
Avallabls:;oII $lo~ QrHllle "
SfIe-Mde mol'Blum stomge (8) =
scS CttlVll! t~umb~r (CN) ..
2.73 aC.f(
4.5tIln.
....
C. Storage:
., . ...... lak.. .. Slkl Grad CurmilatiYe
(feel "'.. Volume Volume Slota
Toiif" Be~ft {ac~f1 oc-lli
11.80 1.17 0.00 0 0.00
12.00 1.17 0.23 MO 0.2.
12..50 1.17 0.8' O.DD 0.82.
15.00 1.\1 1,40 O. ,.-
13.60 1.17 1.89' . '0.00 '.9.
1<1.60' . 1.17' ,57 0.00 57
14.50 '.7 3,15 O.DU 5.'6
16.00 1.17 3.74 0.00 0/l.74
1S!itl 1.17 4.33 0.22 _,65
16.00 1.17 4.91 O,&S s.aO
16.SlJ. 1.17 5, 0 1.99 7.049
17.0 1.11 5.05 . 3 Bll'
17.00 1.17 6,a7 .$2 12.19
16.00 U7 7,25 .B 15.20
,. 1.'1 7,a4 10.81 1.6.65
1B"" \.17 &.012 '4,12 2::>'.55
1>. Wat~r QtJalfty:
ftrslloch of runofl [rom the proJet:l:
Treaunel'll volume
{l,5g ac-ft
2,5 Int:lles.llme5 pefcert 01 lmpen11DUSne>>;
Slm- B1'6B f[)f"ws!erqual,ty '" l'glit1 projMlt ~ (lake+n:loT)
5,:301lCreS
1.81 BereS
= 24.86
"'" 2.5l\ 'Y"DilmplltVloll!!ruillS/10D
D.1!i2 Inches
" Inches lo be ltmtl.el1 K (1Q\&lelle . lGke:)111
0.31 iiC-ft
ImpervlDI.U area la waler ql)filily
0/... or fmpetVlousnes5
Incllelito belt8Btcd
TrlJl'l.ImllJ'ltvolutnl;l
Trestrn~ volllme req:ulred
0,59 ac--f1
Brandon ~PUD
SDUlhBasln
Agenda Item No. SA
March 11, 2008
Page 199 of 273
5116'2007
~. Bleeddown Orlfiee;
Oblchrnge elevation
Control elev.UDIl
Waler Quallly elevation
'.'
.
11.80tt.
11.80 rt..
12.3D a (0.69 ac..U l!I tGqu\ted; get el1lN2[\On fI'om stB9e-stora9e charQ
.
.
No mtlfa lhan D.51nD1/ Qf the d&tt:~Utm vdum" Ci8Il be d1schar9&rJ In /he- fire' 24 houn;.
Ol"!e-halrlrcl1 of delenlron volume = 0.5 m. >; (kltell>lle~ /9ke1112
I:: O.24e ~.fi
TD-tsl aU(lW8b1e: discharge {Oa) 0.125 era
Orifice diametar (min.) a.co In,
Centroid eleva.tIon 1 U25 n
abdc=4.6~Open Ares'h^112
Oa=
h.
h"'1~
A=
Obo=
O:12'CfS
0.375 ft
0.612
O.o49D876 sQ.11
<l.ll" A '"tl^1l2
Obd=-
0.144 ds
Use odfice dfllmeter
3.00
lnch.es @eL1i.a
1". t1lscharpe Structure:
elevation WBleI Quality required
12..30 NGVO
Mal( Allowable OJsch!1j1e Rale
0.15 x Toldl Basm =
1.07 as
SEe ROLfTlNG CALCU'J.TIONS
Use 4" citro/sr orfflce @ el. 12.3
G. FloDd RDLTtlng.
(1) 2f..yoor.3 dayli'IDm'I EVent:
9-do1yralnlall
PeskslagG
Peak ~haree
11.3InctJr:=;
14.ll NGVD
1.03 era
M1r.!ml.lm pavente:nl t1evallon
Proposed pBvamenl elsllllUan :.,
14..a NGVD
111.8 OOVD
(2) 100.year, 3-day storm event
a-dayralnfaU
14.zoinenes
ProJec.latBlI
SoIlEIOI1Ige.{5!
Runoftdapth
Runoff volume
=
7.12 acres
4.6.4 Inche!i
9.83 Inches
5.83 ac.fl
.
r-rOlll lCPR Analysis
Mlnlmum fmtsll9d fiDDr elevation
16.30 fl. NGVO
f'tDpoiec Dri&hllaDr Glovaliorl
.
1il..~ ll. NGVD
<roo'"
0001'-- .
:..Q.C>J-
'0
o
o
"I
OJ
Ol
m
n..
to
~
ro
-0
c:
OJ
Ol
<r
~
. ..
!g~e
~ln~3
-g"'rJI~i
:.<:;oll>\LI:lit
.
~.:r G
61~.Q
1l.~~
~glO
fha
!ICt:llll
~
!l 1
of
"
"
"
g;
,:;
"'
i g
~ e
a ii
~ i
~ ..
> :::
~
;;
~ .
~ ~
'ilIiiU~
J:!ll~ 5 8'~ it ~
= lldc;\5a1 III mill
,"
..:IQ,.UQIIlr::=
~
ro
~
~
~
"
~
.
;;
u
~
~
-Oil
2
o
S
"
u
....
"
:El
~
Vi
8
"
N
@
2
g
:g
~
..
c:
-'"
"
~
'8
""
]
'i3
~
o
]
g
2
~
"
]
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 201 of 273
~~~~=.~~--~~~~~e~~.a~~~_.au.=o~~=~n~~=cccc==a~~~a=.a~aa~C~Qcaa~aa=~=a=ac==a.Q...~..=~
~~.= Besinb .~==c=~c=~~Q~rc~~c.a.a...~=..a..a.=~=~.a=aa=cc..ccaac.=.~=~=CUa~D~.....C.C
.~ac=c.~a...~c~c.~aCC..~.CC~~.....".c.~.~aa~ccccc.ac.ccaC..CCDa~~~c~~~~.cc.cccac.ac
Name: NORTHl
Group I BI.GE
Node: LAKEl
Typel SCS Unit Hydrogroph
BtetUI'H Onsite
Unit Hydrogra:9hl Uh2liS
!'.!Ii.~.!:..:.~:!. FUel
Rainfall A'"~\l.t1l,;(lnll 0.00.0
Aree(a~l' 3D.750
Curve Number: G9,ao
nCu1.(J;:} I 5.00
Peaking Factorr 25'.0
Storm OUrat!on(brs)~ O.O~
,.ime of Coru:dminl: 4.5.00
Tine Shift {bre!, 0.00
I~ All~able O{cfeJ I 9~~~9~.OOO
Name: BOUTIn
OVOUPI BoAS!;
".-....~--~.#.r.........~__.~..._._.._~.__..._.._.....--"'-"-'-'---._--'~--~-.--.~_..-..__..M__M__
St;.a..tPSI On6:l.te
Unit Hydrpgraph, Ub2SG
nainfall File:
Ra~nf~ll Amount/in}; 0.000
AraB lao), 7.I=:!O
CUr~e Number: 6R.SO
nC'.lJ<. (tit S, 00
lIod~: LAF:B2
'rypQ 1 sce Uni I;; H\'C\'t'qJ'tII.ph
PeaJ~in9'Fsc~orl 256.0
Storm Duration (hrs) I O,Op
Ti~~ or Cone Jmin)I 1p,OO
'rime Shl ft [hr5l: Cl, 00
Max Allowabl~ ~t~fsll 9~~99',OOO
~~-~~~K..~.~.~.b~_.~~=~~_~DD~~~_..~m~D..~___._...DDR._~.~~~..o.#~~~~.D~~a=._=~~.aa~.=~.~.
~~D~ NOdes eeD=4..~aM~=~_~c.~~a..ca=~~.CQD~__".~..~.~.....a.....~cCC...c.~_m.~.~.~.~~u
=~==e.~_~p....=aa..~m...__._mDC_.._C~..a..._aDP.aa.._a.a.b..~.~*_a..~.__....~aa.._.a.a.c~
tls.mG ~ Lll.1(i~n
GroUpt BASfO
type: Stage(Volume
Stage (f.t)
...~.~-~~~--~~~
lL800
12.000
l~,SOO
lJ..()PO
J.3,SDO
:!--:,OOO
!4.SilO
15.0{lO
15,500
l/i,POQ
16,5.-00
l'l.UOO
],1.560
HI.OOO
Base F~ow{cf~) f O.~OO
Sot~om Are~(D~l: 4.4&00
Init: Stcage (etll 11. SO{)
W~rn Sta~a~ft): 0,000
Vololtle(e.,O
C_O~OO
<I. 69'{){)
.Ll:!OO
5.jSOO
"i.sa.~o
9,6::'00
l:2,O-lOiJ
14~Z10!l
1'7.3qOO
2:2.0UOO
2S.5000
:36.59-(10
46,J6Q(J
5'1,9100
;Name t UUC&2
.Q-roupr 13f\S.&
Type, Stege/volu~
_...~. -~. .-. ~~~ ... ~-. -~ ~_.. -.. -.- -... _..~. .~. - - .-.,. -~-~ - -~.. ._~---~~ --.. --. ---~. ~ -.~-~-. ---.
Init Stace (~t:) I 11. BOO
Warn Stag~(ft)l 0.000
St&gelft)
. -. -. - -. _ ~~_ ~_ M
11,000
12,000
12.500
13,(lOp
13.500
J4.,Q-(iO
14.5-00
B,OM
1.$.500
16.000
15.500
17,ct!Q
1'.500
la.ooo
ga~e ~aew{efsJ I O.9~O
~attom Area lac) ; 1,17~Q
VOIYIlle:{e.fl
ll.pOOO
-0.2300
0.:12.00
1..(;0[10
1.9900
2.5'700
3.:!.500
2.'7400
4.5500
5..13000
7,4.,90(1
9.611;"10
n.1900
1.$:,2.0-00
UOlOle: P!U:SERVEl
Cilrbup; BASS:
Type. 7ime/Sbage
...~.. .~--~- ~-~ .~~ -~. -- ---~-_. - --- -----~. ~---~ '~~'-- - ~-... - - - --~ ~- -- -._-.- ---- ...--- ..~ .--.
In1t S~ege(ft)t 11.eGO
ffarn Stage1tt)1 D.OOO
Bas~ Flow[cf~11 6.600
Inlerconnected Channel and Pond Ronting Model (ICPR) 02002 SITeamline TeebnologieJ:, Ine,
Puge I of4
Agenda Item No. SA
March 11, 2008
Page 202 of 273
'riN (hrs}
S~age{ft.)
(t.CO
24.DO
74:.CO
1211.00
1>>2..00
360.0.1)
tP'.800
11.<<-0
1.1,0(00
1l.aOO
11.200
12.50-0
__.._....__._~_____~..~.____.___..__.__._____"___.__...___.__"_~__.a_..__"____~'__'_____'
Nallle; PP.ESWv.ti:2
GrOll" I BASS
Type; 1im~/stage
Base ~l~(cfst: 0.000
loit s~ge<ft)1 11.COO
'\ism Stsgelf.t), n.OllO
"i~(ht"a)
StcaQdtto)
!:I.O(S
21\.'00
'12.00
120.{}o
19'2,00
;;60.00
JO.8'oQ
11.0M
3..1. ~ 00
3.1,800
11.Z00
12.500
.~~=~~~~.~_~_~~.~.aU.R.~~_~R..~~~~~~.~...aQ...W..--.~.~.._.~~..Q~.....~~~_.=CC==.CC=_~==.
.~a. ~op Structures .~..~.~R~R~..."~..~~.~...~.=~C=A~9~_.......~..a..~a=.......~a..
=~..~...~~=~c:~=..Q.....RR..~=__.....~.;.==.=..c.c~====a=......~....#.~.=.=~..._..a~~~
N.... COH'tROt.l From t~ade I 1>>IoREl l.ength~ et I ; 45-0,00
er~pf OS '1'0 Noaal PRESl::m/El .count: 1
UPSTREI'\lIt. DQWNST9E1l<M Friction ~quation; AV's:rage COnvey~nce
Ge~tryl Circular CiJ:"c:ule.r solution Algorithm; Automa.t.ic;<
Span(inll 24.'00 :M.O(l FJ,Qw~ Both
Riss lint: 24..00 211..00 IO:ntrMr::13 LoQSS Coefl O.ZOij
Invert (tt) I !:I.SUO '.SQI1 E7.;.j.t; r.,asG ~efl G.D()O
Kanni~l$ loll 0.013000 O,Dl3{).(IO Outlel: Ctrl EE'ecl Ulle !:le or t\~
:rOb' Clip (;i.n) : O.[jO(l O.Oj),o :rnlet Ctrl sp~et Use dn
St)t Clip jin): tl.P(I{J O_UOO Solution lncs. ,.
Upsi:.:re!!!ll Ji'Htili Inlet ~ Dest:r1pt:1oll:
Circular Coner~tel Squa~ ~~~ ~I hendW~ll
DO\llfiEit::eam F'H~ .Inlet r::dgll Oe$er1p.t.:1om
Ci~l.aJ: COncrete: Squtt:t:u edge- wi hl!:.aClwall
... weir 1 of , far Dr<>p StrtJ.ctU%fe CONTOOl,.l ...
COuntl , Bottom Clip (;in) I G.-oOO
'fypt!!l Verti.cal: Mads Top -Clip (:in} I 0.-000
;rlCWI Bot" ~1r DHc eoefl :3.31:1(1
Geonetr)'. Circl.llt:r Or~fic~ ~i$e Coef) {l.GOO
'l'ABL~
Sptu1(;[.c) I '.00
nisI! {inlI ,.co
Invertlttl: l1.BOO
Control IU&V{ft~: 11. ~DO
~~. 91eir '" o-f 2 tor [lrcl3' St:ruet.ure C'OllTROLJ. o...
'!'A8I..:el
Count; 1
Type~ Verti~all Navis
.Pl~w; Roth
Ga~tlY; ~ectang~1a~
&ot~om Clip(in)t 0.000
Top Clip(in)I 0.000
Weir Disc C.oefl ~.2C10
Orifice Oipc Co&f: 6.~OO
Inve~~'ft)1 12.)70
Control Elev{ftll 11.900
Span! irlll ~:2 ,00
Fd.&e'.Unl: 4.C10
..A...._~__._._..~~._..._...__._~__..___.._._._..._~.__.._..-.-._.-.__.-~~.~-----._-_.------._---_..
NJI'Ie~ COll'I'M-L2 From lilDde T t.>Jtn Leogt.h(fl;11 :2"1.5.:0>>
Groupl "" "1'0 Node, PUSER.....e2 Couot: ,
UPSTtu:,lUI] OO\':>>STStl:l..r~ FrictJon Equat ion I Averag~ Convey~nce
Geo~tJ:'YI eJ-rculax Circ:ular Sel\.lt.101'l Alsod.t.bltIl AutClllat1c
SJ?~Un}t 2<1. .on 2<1,00 Flow; 'Elo=..h
R.1S'!i!{in) : ;:~ .00. 24..00 Elntranl::e Loss CoalE: a.2M
In"e:rt{ftl: !J.SOO ~LSOO Exit 1.00.. CQef: 0.000
Manning's N: ILOUG!l(l 0.013000 outl~t: Ct.:t:"l Spec I use ek or- I:.w
Top eup (in> I O.QOO D.OOO lnlet Ctrl speo: Use dn
Bot Clip Hn) I 0.1)('10 o.OQO Solution Incs. ,.
Upstn:am FHWA Inl'l!t E!:lge ~:!lcript:l.c11.:
Interconnected Cbatme! and Pond Routing Model (lCPR) <02002 Streamline Technologies, Inc.
Page 2 of4
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 203 of 273
Circular ~oncrete! Square edge. wi 11Iw&tall
Dowt1/H:.r€!am F1rw~ ;[nlet Edge Descriptl.C1'l;
C1r~lar Conetl':t:e I Squilt'llil ~!!e wi hGadwaU
.. . Heir 1 ~f :2 for Drop Seructure CON'I'ROL2 ...
COW'ltr 1 Bottom ClipUnJ I {I,OOO
Typo, Y.ert.l.cl!l: MaviG Top CU.p (in) : U.()l)O
F];awl Boeb WeiJ: O!~C .coef I 3.~O.o
Ge-clf!etryl Circular I)rlfie/i O1se Coer, 0..600
~ll(in'l 3.00 InvtJrt (ft> = 11,80'0
at: (,1n) I "00 Cont~ol Elev(ftl: U.llOO
~... ~1e-:lr 2 of 2 fer Drop Strue1:ure COt>l'1'ROL2 ..,
C'Juntl , e.p~t:Qm Clip (1n) : 0.000
Type; V'erticr.l: f.lavie TDp l:J.1ptinll 0.0$.10
Plov/: Ilo,h lo1eir !:I.illle' 'f;oef: ;L200
GeOllletn'1 C'ir~ula.r ori~ice Disc ,coefr O.6'OIJ
SPllll{inl, ,LOO Invert. f.ft l : 12.30.0
Rise (inl I 4..liO Control Elevtft)I 11.-1100
TABLE
'l'AEILE
~~~~D~~~~-~='M~=~Q~~~~.CQC~=~~~~~C===~====C~==QC=g~_DC.~~=DC~=~=C~==GC=~=~~~~~m~.~c.~
~=~C Weirs cW~~~~~~cq4~~~=~~~~~~=~._~~_~..~c~r.~~~~r~=ccccc~~=~cccCCC=CP~#CC-=CCCCCCBCCC
cc~cc~~.--~C~6~C~..=.CQc=...~~~.~~.~.c...~__P_..c.c..c.-C~.~.CC__..~~C_......C.<<__ccc~_m
l-3e.mel
Grolla: BASt
?low, Soth
'l'ypel Ho.r.1zonul
From HQde,
To Noder
Count; 1
~~mecry: C~.euj~r
Sp::rn(in} I (LOO
~:I.S"e(in)1 D.OQ
Invartlft)l O.O~O
ContrGl Elavationltt1: o.voa
not~om Clip{~n): O.QOO
7g,p Cliplin)I D.~OO
W~ir Di~ch~r9~ coeC: ~.200
OrifJce bisch&t98 Coef: c.~QO
TlU'!LB
..e:="'".,......."''''''''''''''........ ........-...."'~"'....c",...=,.,..... ""-....i"....,.,..."".."""".." ""'.."'............,...'c...".'",.......,,..,,"'''-"'I'''...'''......'''.,'''....
~t~v ~a~ng Cur~6 ..Cq~......~~..~~~~~c~~"'.....~#Dgb..~.....~.~_D?~~~C~.~~.~~.....G......~"c~.=~
.~~.."''''~~CU-..DD~~..~~~~~.=._~.~~~~..~''~~m~=~Q"~qD_*..~.*.~~~..~*"'..~.w.........D.~wDa.G.~~..
H$lJl.e~
Group: BASe
S"rc;JDI I~ode:
To Node~
Count: 1
Flow; B~th
~'Jl.BL:e
EW;;V OHUt)
tl.OOO
o .000 .,"'~
(1,000
P.MO
;:'Lt!V or-F{ft)
O.QOQ
0.000
0.000
0.000
",
",
",
..,
=~D~~..===".......=~C.....=..=....=~..c......~~=m~~~~"'..c~:..=~~c.....~.."'u..r=.~~...~~......".....~=a.c.._c=_...=..'"
"'-'" HyQrQlogy Simv.tat l.ons ..............."c="'~..."..=..~....=n.."..."'...n............. "'......c...,...."......= ..",,"'''''''".,,''''''''''..............
""''''''''''~ ......."'.."'............"c:"''''"...='''''''''~.. "" .."". ...."C~......"c:"..="'"..."''' "'...:c"'...,.._ ="'''''''''..'''.....=-".."'''"..''''''".,,,.=..'~....,......c.....
Name: lOO'i"tr..n
Filename: Cr\lOOVEAn,R32
~erride Defeults: ~tiS
St.o:t:'ln Duration {hrall 72.0'0
Rn!nfall File: Sfwmd72
<<~1nfal1 Amount(1n~: l4,20
'!'imeChr""
. ~-.. - ~.... ~~. .
1'J;";!.nt In-c tlllinl
24,000
12.0<10
12<1,000
365,000
60.DO
l20.CHl
:;GO.O<l
~2.o,(JO
'~'.'" ..~ ~.__..~.~._... ,.. ~.~~'R.."..." .~~... __.... .__.... _. ... .~..... ~_... ... _... _.. ..... _ _._._.
~lamel .2S~"EAR
Filenamel Cl\25YaAR,R32
Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) 4:J2002 Streamline Technologies, Ino,
Page 3 of4
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 204 of 273
Override Defaultsl Yes
S~orm 'tIurat;iotllhn). 1:1..00
Ra1neall Filel Sfwmd72
Raintal1lLmGUJlt.tbl)1 11.30
'!'11lle-{hrGt
Print J.nc(m.1.nJ
24,000
7:2..0{H)
12~.O()()
3.'"5.000
lSo.OO
120.QO
:.Hl.O.OO
0120.(1(1
.~~~~~._.=~...P~.=~~~.~~=~~..~=.._=..~.....V.~"==.......~=.=.=ca=.:=.EC>>.C.~"_.~_p.~
..."'''' Routing SitliUlat::ions ........."''''.....'''........'''.......-..--.............-...''''............,...,.'''..''..'''..-...........................
....~.....,=c......~"'...........v"'.........~~..~Cft."'~."'c=;"'....~"'................"'."'.."'....=........"'.....ft"'~"'="'==...
Nptn(ll 100YEJtJt
Filename: C:\lOO~.I~2
Hyd~logy Simt lOOYEAR
ii::uecuto.l res
1I.1t:;emativf!~ No
~1llS'tart: ~ No
pe.l:.eh: Ib
~\Ax De~ta ~(tt)t 1.~O
Time Step Opttmiz~r, lO.~Dg
St.II:r.t TiM (hrsi: o. ODD
Min ~Alc Tina (seclI O,SO~O
Boundary Stag-eBl
Delta Z Fae~or: o,Q~S~O
~ Ttme(hra): 36S.00
i-1a.x CAltt '1".h:le{aeel r j'iC1 ,(1000
60lmd,ary F.lO\lfSl
'1'illl!lOu:s)
Prine Ine (.....lnl
2.'1,00,0
72,01.'1.0
,l;!o.OOQ
3'5.000
~Q.{iDCI
:\..20.ll!lO
JflO.OM-
420.'JOct
OI:'O)Jp
IWn
"'IS.
Yo'
_._......-....-.--.-_._..._-_....._.._...._.._~....__.....-......................--...-....-........
}<Womer 2.S'!r.'SM
r11~n~mel CJ\2ST&t~.IJ2
Hydro1ogy S~m: JS~AR
E:x$cut.el les
Alt.-:rns.t11!e: No
Restart. 1';0
Patchl NO
.kY. Delta Z{ft)~ ~,OO
Time Step Optimi~er~ lD.O~O
$tnr-t Time{brsl. 0.,000
(o1j,n, Calc Ti,udset:Jl 0.5000
Boundary St.a-glaj; I
~~lta ~ FQc~orl O.DOSC~
End Timefhrslr i~S.~O
Mag calc Time(seclr 60,0000
IOQunciary P'lOt1s:
'1.'.imelhrs)
Pi:'1nt Inp{lIl:!.n}
-...,... ~....~ ~..
2il.D!tO
72.000
:1.20.000
3E5.0tHI
6<LDDO
120, pOO
36D,00.o
4.20.DOO
Group
!run
BASE
""
Ye.
fe.
~~m~.~_~~~.#a~,~..~c#~a~~~~~C~~~N~~~c~~a~.D-.-.~D.*~-.~~~~D_O~._~=~~~=~~.~~~=~.=.D...N.
o;~~ BQun~ar~ Cnndition9 .~~~~~~=~a~.=~=~~~.~~~O~"~D.~.D~~~~.o~~=aD~*Wc=ra=e==r.=~OD~~
~._..D_.eo~.=.*.~=....D~.._D_..__~._~~~.==~_ecoQ-~...~.~w..*~.~*.~.P..__..O~.b~==~~==-a
Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) @2002 Streamline Technologies, Ino.
Page 4 of4
<roo'"
",or--
ON
ON_
Z _0
~c')
E~o
OJ-CN
~eQ)
mroOl
-g:2:cE
OJ
Ol
<{
1
c.u
.&.I'm...,
~ .
Zti:
~
mcu
o "'~
., .
Cu
"~
~
~'u
-,
.
~
'"
...
~ ~l!
~~
'"
~
Z
-
'"'
o
"
m'
'"
Hoe
ZljO
u
5
I"lr-oa
Nl'lOC
f")'l;;Il:> 1;::1
........00
He
~~'"
...~
~
~.s
~ . .
~.:f:'tl
':J
,.
N~oO
t-;~~~
rot--QO
"'~
'C'CI'!ot'-
U:"nt'l n
\O.-l~-O
';0';"';
,~
~ > ~
~~.E
.
r
~Q<'lO\
QOf'~
oo,.:r-:
\l>tD'\(lIQ
tmiJ
ril~""
Qt1QO
~...
~...
~M
~'"
M
1:1....00
:g.g*g
O=OQ
';~...i";
, ,
.;
..s
'if
'bi;
o
]
11
fo-<
:g
:3
~
~
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
@
~
eJ
t:!-
o;
'"
o
~
~
'5
~
."
"
o
'"
."
~
gggg
e:ooo
I-Q1QO
~~~g
.,;"';c-ir-i
....Mool...
rq...........
""'':;'01;;1
~~fi~
~~
,.~,.
.
o
]
.~
'"
~e~~
1IlItH/HIl
NMt'IlN
g,
o
15
llJlU.t!~
2~~'"
olll.alA:a
.
E
~
0;
s
~
o
'"
~
u
~
<5
~
i.i
oS
rll'l..j~
nn
,",,~QllJ:l
h
<roo'"
00-8 ~
.....
.0
C ~
m'::N
:::::::2w
ro ro Ol
-g2~
OJ
Ol
<r
-
...
o
~
...
! Il.~ 00
00
-" ~"l
u
~ NN
g ~~
~~~ ~~
00
~... QQ
~U
~" ~~
MM
",1!l
rU ~W
"'~ MN
~ '1r-;
~ ~. oJ
~ ., ~
'" ..s
~~~ ,,~ .If
~o
w... '"
..~ ~~ ,g
'" ~~
h 0
~
nO'lQ ~.
. w ~. b
::ii:r.lU 00
u "
.. 00 ~
.
A
'"
ro
~6':: M~ ];
NN
ll" "':e: tIl
.rl 8
co
....,
^ Ql
.] . N~
. " ~o O?
.. ..
..~ ~o
i ~~ ...
(.J
""-
. ~~ ;;
0 'l:l
w 0
u ::.<:
. ~~
';j NN ."
e "
~ '""
~ "
.il
.. ~!J 'l:l
5 g
~ ...
1
~ S~ !
~ ~~ 1l
Q
88 ~
c
::
'"
e
-1l
-
<roo'"
""or--
.0"1
ON~
Z .0
E~b
m.cN
~eW
mroOl
-g~&
'"
Ol
<(
~
~gj
19w
Sl!:
II
'"
o
....
'"
/;5
0:: oJ
z ii\ ~ oS
H >- f! .r
~ l(1 J:: "
ID 'EiJ
c E .9
0
is :0 '" i= "
~ co liJ .E'
'E "
~ "
E f-<
fii "
,S
;:
ii
""
on
"1
'"
'"
'"
Q)
8
€3
e-
o 'il
(2 'C
0
::s
""
,13
i5
~
:;!
5
""
'C
a
]
v
'" 'C
N '" S
'" ;! - "
- ~ "
.
c
@
(1J)96"18 .!'J
.s
<roo'" ~
ooor--
-"'>"1
'0
i= - 00 fillJl
. 0 '"'W
OJ,CN ::ill:
==~Q)
mroOl 11
-g2~
(j) '"
Ol '"
<r ...
'"
'"
'"
~ ~ 1i
w ~
>-
1I1 III l:? l'I
;Jj. N ,C
t: 1;) -blJ
0: 0 E 0
E-f :;0 '" F I
5 .. '"
'S N
'" E
H
0; .1l
a
..
,g
'"
'"
'"
'"
..... g
O?
(]
i:;!.
!2 ~
~
""
c
'Jj
"
.il
1
"
"-<
't:l
ii
1
Iii
0
'" 't:l
\'1 ;!: N '" S
~ ~ "
w
c
i5
l:
ll!)e6eIS !l
..s
<roo'"
""or--
ON
ON4-
Z _0
E;:~
OJ.cN
-U'"
-;;roOl
-g~~
OJ
Ol
<r
~
~ffi
1U'"
~~
II
~
'"
lJi
'"
,..
<>:
g
'..,' /
~
l
0<
~
It>
N
C
CO
""
'"
'E
E
iij
'"
".
'"
'"
.
g
g
'"
~
'"
(SJO)MOUUlleIO~
'"
'"
.,.
8
'"
'"
'"
N
~
.c.
Ii>
E
i=
!\!
u
.s
if
'0;
"
"8
'5
"
""
t
~
'"
'"
""
""
<',
@
g
g
OJ
'll
;:;:
'"
-.5
'"
,;j
'g
"
""
"0
"
"
]
a
o
"0
{j
"
E!
~
iJ
.EI
<roo'"
",or--
C..Q "I
'0
, _0
c ~
Q).c "I
:::::Em
'" ro Ol
-g2&:
OJ
Ol
<r
Ei
*
~
~
fljffi
",ill
Sl!:
j I
0::
<[
~
c
o
""
CO
'3
IE
lii
..
".'-'-.
/
~
~
'"
<:>
'1'
'"
..,.
N
o
(SIO)MO~UlleIO.L
8
...
o
o
ro
'"
<=>
'"
'f ]
J:: Jf
or ..
E .Q
F ~
"
f-
f
I:;
'"
'"
C>
C>
:g
~
I::!-
:g
c
;;::
01)
c
'.;:1
"
~
."
"
"
""
-g
"
1
(i
."
S
~
@
s
.s
s
<roo'"
",or--
,ON
ON~
Z _0
~~
E~~
OJ.cN
::::=~iD
m ro Ol
-g2~
OJ
Ol
<(
"'.~
c ~~
.. .
c"
"~
"
.
. ".
. ,,~
".
~
.
. ..
. ""
'''11I.0
".
.
~
"
-
c..
C
u
l
,H.:l
~~o
~
.
6
coellO
OQCC
OOQt::l
~~OQ
.!~~
,,~
2g
q~
~~.
~
C
~
01:;100
~~o:::~
O.oc.::.
IfINOCr
~MC>O
'4lODCQ
~~oo
m ~.e
.,..t...r.c
,,~
c
r
\:looe>
<:'IQClQ
l:l DO 10:>
--
i::llil
0l~0I.l
1'1 r'(Q 0
.~
~~
N~
C~
--
g
-
i
..~
. ~~
~ .
. "
".
C<I'Q<:>
l1\""'~O
QQClO
~~~~
co....""
, ,
;j
os;,
.Q
~
<:l
"
I-
"
,5
]
g
'"
'"
o
~
8
!J
to;
;;
-g
2;
.f!
'S
riJ
'0
"
J;
-g
...
;;
~
'0
oS
II
E
o
j
~
'='0'0 Co
o J;l:O 0
0;,000
.oc:>oo
r'lUl 0.0
l7lo-loq
'"l'NlfIUl
-Q~";~
-1'""......-1
rl1"'l....~
c:~~~
11;I11;I00
t-t-\(l\ll
~M
g
...
"
.
~
'"
~~:l!~
l':e~~
QC>l:>O
0000
............,-1
'"
"
o
~
lllf!lfolfll
un
~
~
n~~
~~
l:j"
D. '"
Agenda Item No. SA
March 11, 2008
Page 212 of 273
Access Issue Memo 1.tx~
From: blkmd1@pol,net
sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 10:45 AM
TO: deruntzMichael
subject: [Fwd: Legacy Dev. Livingston rd]
-------- original Message --------
Subject: Legacy Dev, Livingston rd
From: <blkmd1@pol,net>
Date: wed, November 8, 2006 11:57 am
To: <michaelderun~z@colliergov,net>
Dear Mr Deruntz
Thank you for taking the time to talk to me yesterday, AS per our discussion I am
sending this e-mail to record my concerns about potentially getting land locked by
future developments planned around my properties. Givin~ that none of the parties is
interested in purchasing my properties I will be be movlng forward ~o try to get an
easement so that I can have access to my land. I want my objection to those planned
developments ( the future north fire department, legacy development, and Rosa Bella
by Page) be noted in the record, I also would like that any final approval be
withheld until proper access to my properties is clearly determined.
Again thanks for your time,.
Dr vladimir J. Mathieu
Page 1
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 213 of 273
5 [tole E 1946
TO:
Frank Chinnici
*a&7
Laura Spurgeon and Alan EI Urfali
DATE: July 27, 2007
FROM:
RE: Brandon RPUD (AR 10171)
This memorandum is submitted to document our 7/23/07 meeting with Collier County staff re-
garding staffs June 2007 review comments for the referenced project. In attendance were Frank
Chinnici, Patrick White, Alan EI Urfali, Laura Spurgeon, Melissa Zone, and John Podczerwil1-
sky. The following issnes were discussed:
Interclmnections: Staff explained that the LDC mandates the request for interconnections
among neighboring properties. Melissa provided an emai] correspondence between Sarah Spec-
tor (attorney for Dr, Matthieu) and Nick Casalanguida, with a request for access. The applicant
and legal cD1ll1sel will address this correspondence,
Melissa and Jolm acknowledged the problems of cosl and practicality of connections among the
many adjacent undeveloped parcels, John suggested shovving conceptual access points labeled
with arrows, which will be subject to fIna] detennination and negotiation at the development Or-
der (PPL) stage. Staff recommended demonstrating if the connections are infeasible by provid-
ing documentation showing efforts to contact absentee owners, and evidence of unreasonable
land cost and lost value, We did 110t specifically go over the relevant Code section, which was
adopted in December 2006 and is provided below, This Code language includes criteria for
evaluating the practicality of intercDlme"tions, which we should integrate in our response to staff
comments.
Section 4,04,02,8.3. During the development or redevelopment of commercial or resi-
dential projects and all rezone petitions shared eccess end interconnection shall be re-
quired, Should the shared access or interconnection require the removal of existing park-
ing spaces, the applicable development wlll not be required to mitigate for the parking
spaces, The County Manager or designee shall require the shared access end Intercon-
nection unless in the professional judgment of the County Manager, or
Designee, one of the following criteria prohibits this requirement.
a. It Is nol physically or legally possible to provide the shared access or Intercon-
nection,
b. The cosl associated with the shared access or interconnection is unreasonable.
For this application unreasonable will be considered when the cosl exceeds the
cost of a typical local road section or is above 10 of the value of the improve-
ments being made to the development.
c. The location of environmentally sensitive lands precludes it and mitigation is not
possible,
d, The abutting use is found 10 be incompatible with the existing or proposed use.
Turn Lanes and Compensating Right-of-Way: At the development order application (PPL)
submittal stage, the applicant will submit a TIS in accordance with the County's TIS Guidelines
and Procedures as amended analyzing tllrn lane requirements in accordance with the COlmty's
H:\20050000\20055835 ~ Br.utdon (formerly legacy)\.CotTC:Spondence\Memos\07 -25-07 . lKS and ASS re storr coordination.doc
P3ge 1 of2
2350 Stanford Court. Naples, Florida 34112
(239) 434-0333. Fax (239) 434-9320
Brandon RPUD Meeting Memo
July 27, 2007
Agenda Item No. SA
March 11, 2008
Page 214 of 273
Page 2 of2
Right-of-Way Handbook, 03-37. If warranted, the applicant may provide an eastbound right tum
lane on Veterans Memorial Boulevard with compensating right-of-way along the north property
line, As for the proposed Livingston Road access point and due to the BCC Limited Access and
Constrained Roadway designation, a northbound right turn lane on Livingston Road will be re-
q~lired regardless of the TIS findings with no compensating right-of-way,
TIS Comments: Staff will accept the agreed to methodology and TIS fonnat in accordance with
the previously adopted Guidelines and Procedures Resolution, 03-247, The project traffic im-
pacts on Livingston Road will be less than 3% and, therefore, no additional :intersection analysis
will be required.
Transportation Language: Applicant agrees to include the latest approved Transportation lan-
guage in the PUD Commitments,
Schedule: Melissa scheduled the petition for Plallni!lg Commission hearing on November 1 and
BCC hearing on December 11, The BAC meeting will need to be held September 5 or October 3
at the latest. Melissa mentioned that some Planning Commission members will scrutinize if a
year or more has passed since the Neighborhood Meeting, By subsequent email COl1'espondence,
the applicant has detennined to hold another Neighborhood Meeting before the PlaIming Com-
mission hearing.
We believe this fully documents our meeting and discussion regarding the referenced project. If
you have any comments or questions, please contact us,
Copy: Patrick White
Alan Cruz
John Podczerwinsky
Melissa Zone
H..1200jOOO0l200jj83j - 8mndoh (fon/J~rl)' LegaC)~lCorrespr:mdenCt.!WemQS\07<!j..()7 ~ l.KS and ASE 1'l? surjJcoordflwtlrm.rfoc
Message
Agenda Ite~t!le186f2
March 11. 2008
Page 215 of 273
From: Sarah Spector [Sarah.Spector@henlaw,com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 2:56 PM
To: ZoneMelissa
Cc: White, Patrick G,; Denis Noah
Subject: REVISED Della Rosa & Brandon RPUD Interconnections
Attachments: Melissa Zone Corr (8-29-07) v2,pdf
Melissa-
I have made very minor changes to the previous letter I sent this morning to clarify a few items. I would greatly appreciate
it if you would substitute the attached letter for the letter I sent earlier. The copy of the letter that will be coming in the mail
is the same as that attached to !b~ e-mail.soit will be accurate,
Thank you.
Sarah
Sarah Spector
Attorney at Law
Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, PA
1715 Monroe Street
P.O. Box 280
Fort Myers, FL 33902
Direct Dial: 239.344,1195
Direct Fax: 239.344.1549
Sarah.Spector@henlaw,com
www.henlaw.com
@]
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT
Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, PA
The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and confidential information, It is intended only for
the use of the person(s) named above, If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review,
dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient,
please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
To reply to our e-mail administrator directly, please send an e-mail toadministratorlall]enlaw.com
IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: Pursuant to Treasury Department Circular 230, this is to advise you unless we otherwise
expressly state in writing, e-mail communications. including all attachments, from this firm are not intended or written to
be used. and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding tax-related penalties. If you wiSh to engage this firm to provide
formal written advice as to federal or state tax issues, please contact the sender,
-----Original Message-----
From: Sarah Spector
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 11:51 AM
To: 'melissazone@colllergov,net'
Cc: White, Patrick G.'; Denis Noah
Subject: Della Rosa & Brandon RPUD Interconnections
file://G:ICurrent\MZoneIPUDIRPUDIAR_10171 Brandon RPUD (Legacy)lletterslREVISED Della.., 1/24/2008
Message
Agenda Iteli'Btle.2lM 2
March 11, 2008
Page 216 of 273
Melissa-
?Iease find attached a copy of the letter we discussed earlier in the month regarning my client's lack of access. The
original will be coming to you via U,$. mail shortly.
Should you have any questions regarding the attached, please feel free to contact me.
Thank you,
Sarah
file:IIG:\Current\MZone\PUD\RPUD\AR-1 0 171 Brandon RPUD (Legacy)\letters\REVISED Della,.. 1/2412008
o Henderson I ~C~~,1~I!rJ
Agenda Item No, SA
March 11, 2008
1715 MonroeS"!reet 'Fortl{\;;olJI'tiMIOf273
Post Office Box 180 . Fort M~rs. FL 33902
Tel: 239.344.1100 . Fax:239.344.J200 . wwvv.henlaw,com
Bonita Springs . Sanibel
.ao.
Reply 10
SarehE.Speetor
Oirect FaxNurrber239.344.1549
Direc1 Dial Nurrbttr 239.344.1195
E.MaII: ~rah.speC101.Oheon:law.com
August 29, 20.0.7
VIA E-MAIL & US MAIL
Melissa Zone
Zoning and Land Development Review
Collier County Community Development
and Environmental Services Division
280.0. N, Horseshoe Drive
Napies, Florida 34104
Re: Brandon RPUD & Della Rosa RPUD Interconnections
Dear Ms, Zone:
This firm represents Viadimir and Kettely Mathieu, owners of 2.5 acre parcel of land
located east of Livingston Road, south of Veterans' Memorial Boulevard, and
approximately two (2) miles north of Immokalee Road in Collier County, Florida,
identified by Folio Number 0.0.150.60.0.0.0.4 and STRAP Number 482513 o.48,o.o.o.3A 13
(the "Property"), The following summarizes the ownership of the surrounding
properties:
Property Owner Property Information
North Page VI LLC Della Rosa RPUD (proposed)
Application Number: PUDZ2o.o.6-
AR9577
Project Number: 20.0.60.10.0.44
South Frederick J, Pergjini Folio Number DO. 140.760.0.0.7 STRAP
Number 482513 o.27.DDD3A13
East Eastbourne Bonita LLC Brandon RPUD (proposed)
Application Number: PUDZ2Do.6-
AR1o.171
Project Number 20.0.60.40.0.0.8
West North Naples Fire Folio Number 0.0.149880.0.0.0.
Control District STRAP Number 482513 o.3o..OOo.3A 13
Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, P.A.
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11.2008
Page 218 of 273
Melissa leme
August 29, 2007
Page 2 .
Atthepresenttime, the Property, together with a large majority of the surrounding
properties 'Nhich lie easto! Uvirigston Roael, a cotltrolled aqcE;!ssJo!i.dWay, and sout!1l:)f
Vlilterahs Memorial Boulevard, has nO legal means of access, The Master Concept
PlaflSSliociated with Della Rosa RPiJOshowsaccess to the DeUa Rosa property
directly frOm Livingston Roa(j, Additi()~ny, thE;! Master Concept Plan associated with
theBIahdonHPUD indicates that access to that project will be via both LiVingston Road.
and Wterars Memorial Boulevan:l, HO'Nevrar, n<lither of these projects have gOne
bef(j1'S the Planning Commission for recommendation or the Board of County
C0l'l1ri11ssionersfor consideration, ThElTefore,weba.ve turned to Collier COLll1fY sta.ffto
a.ssist us in identifying potential access points,
f have spoken atiength with Nick Casalanguidaj Director of GoJlier County
nansportalion Planning, regarding possible soiytions tb our accessissLie, ihoUrthost
rElgentcommuniqation .QY electronic tnail,Mr, Casalanguida stated that the
Transportation planning Department will be recommel'1ding interconnections betWeen
thflDellaROSa RPUD rights-of-way and theBrandori RPUD rights"of"way whllfl
simultaneously providing access to those land-locked parcels bl3tWeMt.he two
d!;lvelopme('jts, As per Mr, Casal<inguicla, such interconnections and shared a.ccess
points-are requirements of the Collier County Growth Management Plan and the Collier
County Land Development Code, A copy of thee-mail sWngis included for your
revieW.
lnan effort to facilitate the interconnectionto the Property Mr, Casalanguida suggested
tnaU cOl}tact Patrick White, an attorney wIth Porler, Wright, Morris & Arthur, LLP
representing the applicant on the Brandon RPUD projecti have presented Mr. Whrte
with a copy.pf .tl1e enclosed exhibit which demonstrates a potential tie-into the Bralidtm
RPUD roadway system by traveling south over the property owned by Frederick Pergjini
to apointjusteastof Livingston Road.(asdepicfed bytl)e red line) ("OplionOne"), We
have?lso discussed the option oftTaveling west over property owned by Mr. Mathieu
and tying in to the. roadway system as .It h.eads norih towards Veterans MemQrial
I3ciuievard ("Option Two'). However,. Mr, Whi~e has indicater;! that Option Two is the
lessfavorabieof the two options, as it would require a roadway. between what is
currentlypfanned to be single-family lois. While we have not reached?n agreement as
towhether Mr. White's clienjwoutd permit either of the two proposals, Mr. Whiie. seems
willing to work with us to negotiate an arrangement to Which both parl~s are amenable,
Due to thefacf that Option O('je set forth above would require aneasemeht over
property owned by Mr, Pergjinl, which also has no legal means of access. 'J have also
had a ,conversation with him. At the present time, Mr. Pergjiniis not interested .h1
authOrizing an easemenlalong the eastern boundary of his property, However, in our
telephone conversation he indicated a wilIingness to enierlainfuture propos?ls, f>,.s
such, I believe Option One is still a viablealterriative vv'hichshbuld be considered,
Melissa, .zooe
August 29, 2007
PCige3
Agenda Item No. SA
March 11, 2008
Page 219 of 273
Although we have only discussed two options with surrounding property owners, lam
certElio thattherl'l are many more options available based on the final pl~n approva.!s for
both the Della Rosa RPUD andihe Brandon RPUD, As such, I ask that you please
acceplthis letteras ~dormal requestthat this. letter be enl.ered into the I'tlcortJ .for both
lh~ Dl9l1a RoSEl RPUD a.nd the BrMdon RPUD and that a matemellt regarcii!l9
int.erconnections and access to Jand-Iock~ parcels, including the Property owned by
my c1il9nt,be included in the staff report for both projects. In doing so, I believe this will
provide an opportunity to explore the range of possible access pointsavaliable to my
client in conjunction with theoptiOl1s set forth above,
Additiona.lly, I ask that you provide me 1/iith a copy of thestaff~eport~priortothe
Planning Commission meetings for both projects. As I understand it, the Della Rosa
RPUD proJecl1/iill M before the Planning Comrnission fo(recoiTImenqation a/8:30AM
on Septernber 20, 2007 and before the Collier County Board of County Commissioners
for eonsideration at 9:00 AM on October23, 2007, Similarly, theBrandoh RPUD project
will be before the Plannihg Commission forrecommendation at8:30 AM on November
1, 2007 and before the Collier County Board of County Commissioners for consideration
at 9:0QAMon December 11 , 2007, I respectfully request that YClul'1otify me if I am
mistaken as to any of the times and dates listed above,
ShOUld you have any questions regarding this correspondence qr the reque$ts set forth
~bove,pleiise feel free to contactrne directly. I greatly appreciate your assistance With
this matter and look forward to working with you in the nea~e.
SinV' y,
Aah ~.spe
SESJ
cc: NickCasalanguida (viaU,S. mail)
Patrick G. White. Esq. (via E-iTlail & U.s.
mail)
Frederick Pergjini (via U,S, mail)
KavinR. lottes, Esq,
Denis H. Noah, Esq,
<roo'"
ooor--
'-">"1
o
o
~ "I
a;.,CN
-'-'OJ
~Ctio)
-g28:
OJ
Ol
<(
"-
"'0
.....0
~ ~;::.:(
II OW1()
"""') OZN
~JY <(lOv
0_ LUN~
g~ ~OOUJ
g~ OO;;;Z
~....J O....LL
,> Z;:O
8:i "O~
t;~ E:a~tD
.z~ ~'5(t)~
E~>-e8~~ll.
:JC::;:...J~Q r--.
~Gi~O"i~re
.- E[ij olD =SIr
~~~~~ZO
I
1'~.
;j
~ '" ~ ~
... = -~i
J II ~. Ii
00 011
OJ
~
.,
~
~
.
~
.
a
..
o
~
.
~
!
~
.
j'f
.
;
g
d
.2
..
E
'"
E
Ij
Z
0.
,
~
o
.
'"
~
s g
.~
-g
8~
E"
...
:S.=
~~
C~
:20
>
~~
,
.9"
E
'E ~
E~
8"
~~
~ .
.!1~
~~
~
'"
~
"
1>.
e
"-
'"
o
g
t)
"
"
t)
.
.s
..
~
~
'!
"-
~
~
1>.
e
"-
'"
o
,
o
t)
~
o
t)
..
o
o
N
"
Agenda Item No. SA
March 11, 2008
Page 221 of 273
Sarah Sp~tor
From~ CasalanguidaNick [NlckCasalanguida@eOlIiergov,net]
Seilt: Wednesday, July 18,2OQ7 10i04AM
To: $at~h Speotbl'; (3reeneMlchael
Cc: PodczerwinskyJoh n; MarceliaJeanne; Denis Noat-r
Subject: BE: LiVingston Road Access
HI Sarah,
In!erconn"qtiorisandshareda"""ss is a requi!'emelll. iIi our GMP and .our L~nd DeyeloprnenlCOd$. J Will ask MikG
Greene our new pljlool1)g managerti> reVfG1/V thee-mall ch?inbel(}wand get",i!h our (fE1VeloPmenlreview prOject
mamlgerJohn P. lei reviewlhE1 two <lppllcatlOnsfor zon1n9 that you have ,Gferenced.Remamber asWediSC\JWildyou
should be prepared to attend the planning commission meetings and BCG meetin9s to ask forlheconnections also,
We w1ll work with lhe plan hers to mak", your wishes known.
Mike, please taketh" leadonil]is r.equesland wQrkwffhJohn lojnQlude the.se connections as part of.9.l,lr .'
re(Jommendati;>ns. Also, pJeasehave.John Contact the planners for tliese pro]ecls.andprovidetliemacqpy of th"e-mail
!;lelow for the hearings.
Thank yoU,
Nick
f'rom:Sara h spector. tmailto:sarah.5pector@henlaw,com]
Sent: Wed 7/18/2007 9:29 AM
To: c.salanguidaNlck
Co: PodczetY\lilisi<yJohn; MarceilaJeanne; Denis Noah
Subject: LiVingston Road Atr... ess. .
'. ...., ,', " .
Nick-
fdon;tlhink lliverlonnallyth~nl<~~youfqr m~ellng With me back ()nMay 14regardingovrclienl'slai1d-locke~parcel.east
of .LiYingslonBo.i.ld.an.d South. of.ve1"ra.ns Mernor"ll Boulevard. ThE>infonnationyoupiovided.wilsabundllntfy~lpful and
has g\yenl11ethe appartunitytb speak with the attorney fer EilslboumeBonita LLC, theapplicanl an ttlel.egagyRPtJD
which.is jl,lst south and east of my client's parcel. The altOmey, PatriCk Whffe with Porter Wright, haS informedme.lhal
you and JOl1nPodczel)YinskYhaveapproactied hiscUetit regarding interconnecti.ons !;lelWermtheLe9<iCY'l'lpUp, the ..
Della Rosa HPUD, and those other IEtnd-locked parcels, including aur cli~nt's, Which currE1nllydo nqth!'Yt1egalawess to.
effher LivinQslonHaad or Velerans M.emorial Boulevard. However, he alsomenlionedlhalhisclienldeesnotfeel
compelled teofler areess lathe land.!ockecf parcels given the faclthattheCoiller CauntyDOTh~Mtrequired~ucli
Interconnections, as it may doth.r9U9h the ZOning approval prqcess, nor hes it offered congessiQns fordoing so, such as
affering impagt I~e cre<:iils .or 1l1~ like; Th~relore,atlhe mome~t, 1)1Y client is stuck, Itsear1)s ~ jfEasthaurrteBortitais
amenable 10 9ffering acc~ss, but first needs to be told to do. so. A~ such, t am writing 10 inquire as 10 whetherColiier
County DQTis going to:
1,Requlrethe devalopersOf tht.propo$ed Legacy RPUDto proVide acoesslhroughthf1 rezQ(llnQ processandlor
2. ProVide the .deve!opers of the proposed Leg<lcy RPUD with ImpactJee crearts\lr the like ilil provides
interconnections
It is OUr cJ(enlisgoalto setilethisacces!>issuaWi!houthaving tQiUe suit fora legal way 91 n~ceSsijy; J1:lereforeii>.nY
ilssistance th" OQT can provide ~uld be greatly appreciated.
'I)1al)kyou,
Sarah
!:liu'ah spector
8T'1.9/2007
Altqm(!y ~fLa.\'I .'
Hende!SOl'1.Frankljn.Starnes &HOl1.P A
i 715 MoprOe Street
P;O.Box'!2.80
FoitMy.eis, FL.33902
Direct Diill: 239'.344.1195
DirecU"ax: 239,344.1$49
Saral1,$pector@l1anlaw.COITi
v;ww,henlaw.com
Agenda Item No. SA
March 11, 2008
Page 222 of 273
e HendersonIE!:~Q,~J!D
cONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT
Henderson, Frankrm. Stames & Hoft,P,A.
The. infonl1a1lol'l containe!! .in thlslranSl'nlssIoOmaYc9nlainprlvllege.daridcQnfidel'liialinfotrTla.tlon, Ilis intehdedohly for
ll:1e use()fthElper~~m($) nalTted iibove. lfy()uarii notlli"intendfJdreclpient, you are hereby hotified ll:1litany reVieW;
dil\~e1iiinatiOI)..distril)tJlIon O( dupllCii~on .of tl}i$ ciominllf)ication is strictly prohlbfted, If you. are riot1he intended recipient;.
ple~ec(mtaCt the sender by reply e-mail and destrciyallcopies of theori~jria]inessage. .'
Torepiyio oute-mailadinlniWa1ordirectly.pleasesentiane.lTiailto1iQrJ.lJnid...1.or@i:!...J\!!.!)N.com
IRq.CIRCVLAR 23() NOTICE: Pursuant to Treasuiy Deparlrl1Elnt.Circular280,thisistoadvisgyOtJ unlejls we otherwise
expressly Siate in WfKjng'(1~mall communicatlons:. inchJding all attactimenls, from this firm are nblintendedor wnttento
be useij, and cannotM used. lor the purpose Of avoidingtaN-relaledpenalties,1f you wish tocengagethl$ firm ta prQvide^
lormal written advice as 'to federal orslaletax issues, please,contactlhe sender.
+"Orlginal Message-- .
From: MarceJlaJeanne [mailto:JeanneMarreUa@colliergolf,netJ
Sent:Juesday.iApiil17, Z007 7:48 AM
T(I:Sarah spec.wr
Subjeq:FW:' fW:Uving.ton Rd",d fi,l::cess
Sarah; piElElSEI $eeresponse l,)elow Irom Nick,lfyQu.need further a#(stanqe, please do nofhesitate to contact
us.. Tha,nkyou.
Jeanne Marcella
.. Is livingston Road a controlled access ROW or j'\(ouid we 'lJfl ablettlCCinlltructa,curtrcul west pi our
property i(we were able to .obtain an easemenlfrom North Naples Fire Coritrol?
YeS,ltisconlroiied access, We wouidstrlctly enforce.thel!CCllS$cl~!lOllh~ rO,,4 k, rnaJn~ifJ the highestlevelol
serviiJ!;!. We alWays encourage and .reql,llresharedaqcElaswhen~ver POsSible'
.. Are you aware of plans fOr th" Nor!hNaples Fire ControIPropert}i?
Yoo.. they h;3,ve /Tiet with uslrlloTmI1.1ly to cliSClJsllthl.>ir ~IM$1:itJt I have not seenah actual subl'l'iittallO ~i1te, \:Vh\le
we would enl>Ouiageshared access. we osnriot require it on site thalisfor emergency services unless t"" district
agrees.
II Is VefliransMerriorial Bouievard. Whi(jh runs perpendiCular to l-MhgSlOnRoalijust'$o!ilthpfl\le Medit",rra
development,a County-maintaIned ROW which we could use lor access if we were ableloqbtaln ;W
ff,!'2i)f2007
ease~hi from the lour property owners IP the north of our parcel?
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 223 of 273
Yes,we Would encourage you to take access off cif Veterans Memorial Boulevard. I believeilisCciunty ROWand
we would maintain it aJter lhe Warra.flty period by lh.edeveloper.
In a message dated 4!16!2!)t1,7 4:29:57 PM Ealltl:'m Daylight T1ml:'.J~nneflllarqelill@6QI)iergov,nef wnles:
Nick-
As folloV\l'up to mytalepflone messa!:le this afIemciofl,it seems we haveacHentwitli a parcelihCoUl~r
County wreh noaccess. The 2.5 acreparc,,' Is identified by Foliq Nllll\b"r 0014&200005, It is located just
eastol.Livlngs!lJn Road nortf)CiI. Immokalelland diraetly west of. the CluQ.atthe Strsi')d develqpment.
There's a;3.28 acre parcel (Fofiq00149880000) b!ltweenlhe~ubj~ p<lrcl:'1 andlMngst(>n Hoael thl'lt is
ownl:'d by N orlh Napll:'s Firl:'Conlrol. There are f.OUr p<ir<;l:'ls b!l\ween the supje<;t f>W'CelandaROVVtha.fI
sQmetimessEll:! referred to as Veter<lns Memorlai Bpulev<lrd, With this ijJformation, I haveth~fQllowlhg
questions:
. Is LiVingston Road acontrcilled access. ROW or would we be able to constrUct acuibcufwest of
\,urproperty if we 'o'@reapie to obtain anellsl:'mentfrolTl North Naples Fire Control? .
· Are YOU awaril of pfansJor the North Naple>sFire Contro!. Prop"rty?
. IsVeterllnsMemoriaJ8ouleva.rd. Which runs pEIl'pericllcularlo Livingston Roadjust south of lhe
M"qitena <!el1"lopment, El C()Ul1ty'maintali')ed ROW wh.ich we couid use for aOOilSS If we were able
td ohtainan ilaSemen! ffo.mthe .four property owners b!he north of our parcel?
OPviously ,'""would I.iltetogain access by the mci!;tdirect route possible, but W<ln(tomakecertail1 tha.fit
is legal. Anyinlormation you can provicteon this mailer wQuld be gr",atly appre6iat"'d,
Thank you,
Sarah
See \vhat's Iree at 8PL.COn1.
8/29/2007
I....~I
(f90)
MEDiiElWi
I I
''i'C.-. ---,- --'-.. - ".~--
----'- " .. -~~~ ..
.' IWRO\II- _',
. -.~
--,~"':'-'--';"'':''.;''--,-- -- ------- - ---'-----'
R
~__~'.._-c '.. _"c:~~_:~
I
.
,
wt.,,;t'''''1
8llmll. 01
2i1'-~1
~^,..,," )
A I
~!
"ll( j
. I I
I, I
= l+.~"'l
1 I. .1
I I .
PRor~a(1) I
- 6Aifj
t:':ov"" !I
" . '~",.' ". \ l--' \ i
\\~t. . ~~
"',~ .1..ci'="'1 . ..__J_ I
'-" .... ~.' .'."..' "".'" ~"". .... . .."'.'.... ''''.; T..1"'.l: '.',.,;;C .' ''":.Gi'" ]i'?lf .!'...;;.... -..'
.~..,-,.;z,~.. ,"~ '," ''<~ ,.:.L" "JJJ'~lUf:JpOO.-,i.1.~..l....2.:Z~~'"i,I;';I
'., ~ '-'"Y';~'iZ~.""'.'),'."'1"::'~. L:.Cllit"."'" ~ ,!il)~" ,t'/l'
~ ?rll~b(ie..."~~""~:,~,,~ . '1(;;::"'("''('
III!'l!i!IB..b~~J)~fl'~~" ...... . '"'.....~.............<~~..~."'" ~~LieL;
...""-::-=u=~_o:;=--:t'-.-- -------'''''q~ --~", I
i ill Setoncl. M~+hk~ . ~. f~~ . -c"~Zz'(ji:
i ti]! ~c..r 'ini ~~e....~ . , .
i IIPIiIU9.~1e8""'.It1io_
,--
,
.J
,
i
,
,
SlJFtl;i
:g~~~if:d~
R
,~~~-t.;M~''''
---,~-"",,,,"--
~ ~~~~~~~~
J:! ~1:;..;ii~::.r__-::.;
-5., ~_~_","""oIoI;___
f :;:::."1""-"'~~~~
'a 1,0ll>>____~..........
t "'_..._~_.._-~
'. :::,..~~=-'t"'~~=
...._............wIIo__l.nI
---
f
~.
PROJECTIAND (l<F
jWlllIi;IoInu.\lIl
-.
'''-'
""""'"'
~~
r.lMWIII~'SFY.CI~
!f.:JQ;IQ
U)iWot.:
~~
f.:S/;.!;et-
'e..,,-:;.&
,-~
IAI'm'illm'Kl'lY
~-:~
~l'tiilIl'
~1....~.
~_\>>lUllO
-
:=....
~llI*o!. "
....,~~
~I'III,,;
(;
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 224 of 273
t
-~'..:K'.'
. lit';:;;:
@Q)
PELIOAN
."""""
(OIl!)
,..~.:.o._."-~.~~,,,-,.;~",",;..,.;.. _"'~'"","::-,';'",,,,o~,.:...
~ ~.AA:i.\
(Z]~~~:
~oiW~'
...-.
'iI:njl.1ltT~ n~ul:lt,
~~'i.,..1.~'~uomkit~;
^
N()~:"P8ESf~ACRpAeES :A_~_J\FlPRp>ClMA.T:!= .~.Su.a.rEiCT 19 FINJo,l. PLATTING.
I!!AStBOUIlN.eIlONIT/i._l,.;L.:C--
COLUl13l\'CO_UN1Y,a: ."
JOHNSri\N
nil.ANoONRPtio
Mi\m!ltPLAlj
,
oo.~linIIiO.CxiIMi"
~no;I;lIMlll!om.
~~}~
E.NGI ~EJRIN I,;
rlI."'~-
~-+
_'_""""'a..r'
--
--
~-..,
<roo'"
000r--
ON
ON4-
Z .0
~u;
E~N
OJJ::N
=~Q)
mroOl
;22('0
ill
Ol
<r
"'~
ffi:tu
""}o::....<(
:.::'ouJ~
UO<l.lN
t-_~t()'<t
gtrwN:;::::
g~t:~wln
t-.Wt1MZo
OlO::O_u.~
vU.z ,.0<0
8z... S:! rg
1.:'::) sa:;;N
CD0G";:::>OO
..Qrrzt,tOOCl
Ew05 =~~
~~!lQ:'Ct~
olllllltii:;:::N
:= = CD tD~ a::
&~tL~zo
[~
]!:; .
"j IE ":~
~,tf. i >-
~ i '~!l
))IJJJ
DO 011
il
~
.~
a
~
~
~
.
a
E
"
~
~
o
~
~
.
.
o
1:
~
~
.
~
o
c
"
..
~
'"
..
*
~
6.
,
~
c
.
~
"
, ,
o c
00
.~
g~
Ee-
...,
:S.f:
~.
l::.-:::
~5
e 3:'
~,
2.
'"O.~
:J .50
" ~
~~
S.!!
.~.g
..
,.,s
~.2
~
~
.
~
e
"-
'"
c
,
o
<.>
~
"
<.>
.
,s
-"
~
.
o
';;;
~
~
0<
~
.
~
e
"-
'"
c
.3
~
8
.j
o
o
N
'"
Agenda Itelhigo.I3M 1
March 11. 2008
Page 226 of 273
_ From: Nan Sarkis [nsarkissian48076@yahoo.com]
,ent: Monday, September 24, 2007 9:30 PM
To: ZoneMelissa
Subject: landlocked homeowners
Dear Melissa:
My sisters and I are very upset to hear that as land owners of
PI #0014844001, our land will be landlocked by the proposed Brandon RPUD-Residential Planned Unit
Development. We are voicing our opposition
to this project, which does not include our parcel along with five other
parceis that are affected. Please review this project and take the appropriate action to stop the proposed
Brandon RPUD Development. We have
held on to this property hoping someday to be included in a
development not excluded from it. This property is our father's
legacy to use and we do not want to be excluded from this development and
become landlocked because of it. Thank you for all your efforts in advance,
<1 -- [if! supportEmpty Paras] --> <1 -- [ endif]-->
Yours truly,
<! -- [if! supportEmpty Paras] --> <! -- [ endif]-->
Nargeze Sarkissian
19520 Butternut
Southfield, MI 48076
1-248-557-1895
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
Amalia Harazian
8348 Salem
Dearborn Hts, MI 48127
1-313-278-0950
Need a vacation? Get \'Teat deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
file://G:\Current\MZone\PUD\RPUD\AR-1 0 I 71 Brandon RPUD (Legacy)\letters\landlocked horn,.. 1/24/2008
Sep 24 07 03:38p
Mohammed Rahman
239-596-1706
Agenda 11&1 No. SA
March 11, 2008
Page 227 of 273
Mohammed M Rahman
13056 Vale wood Drive
Naples fl 34119
Ph: 239-269-525& Fax: 239-596-1706
Ernail Rrahman42r,vaol.com
date 09/24/07
To,
Collier County
At: Miss, Melissa Zone
Ref: Oppose to the pr-opose BrantkJn RPUD
Dear, Miss Melissa.
I am a collier county tax payer; I am a resident of the county since
19&6, r own the 2.5 acres parcel Id # 0014&360000 proposed Brandon RPUD will
Landlocked my property with out any access, If you look at proposed tax of this property
this year $ 5017.09 based on the value of $437,000 with out any access to the property it
should be worth with nothing.
I oppose to this propose RPUD unless the builder come with a solution for the
six parcel property owner, Either to build us a access road to our property or short-cut
access road to their fuMe plan road.
I hope your kind support for the property owner's are effected with this RPUD,
Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter,
~~st r~gllJd's ~
~~ ~v
Mohanuned M an
"
COLUER TAXING AUTHORmES
COLLIER GOVERNMENT COMPLEX
3285 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST
NAPLES, FL 34112-4996
-..... 2007 ~-
239-596-1706 Agenda Ite~.~o. SA
March 11 ~OOS
NOTI~LO LI,j
PROPOSED
PROPERTY TAXES
DO NOT PAY
THIS IS NOT A BILL
Sap 24 07 03:38p
Mohammed Rahman
?arcelID: 00148360000 MDlageArea: 150 RE Use Code: 99
Legal: 13 48 25 SW1/4 OF NE114 OF
SEl14 OF IIIE1/4 2.5 AC
I" 11,,1 ,,1...11...111.1. .1..1..1.1.1. "11,,,1.1 ,1..11...1,,11
---"AUTO-5-DIGIT 34119
RAHMANLMOHAMMED & FAHMIDA
13056 VA EWOOD DR
NAPLES FL 34119-8577
P122284 T214 B248
The taxing authorities which levy
property taxes against your property
wm soon hold Public Hearings fo
adopt budge1s and tax rates for
the next year.
The purpoae of lhese
Public Hearings is to receive
opinions from lhe general publiC
and to answer questions on the
proposed lax change and budget
Prior To Taking Final Action.
Each taxing authority may
Amend or Alter its proposals at
the hearing.
Taxing Authority Your property taxes Yo-urfaJl:el91hISl year A publle hearing on the proposed taxes Your taxes thls year
If propo,,",d budget If no budget change
last year channe is made and budget will be held: is made
, 09108l2007'5>)5?~ W. HARMON TURNER BUilDING,
aRD clOOR BOA D ROOM, COUNTY
County 948.02 1458,50 GOVERNMENT CENTER 3301 TAMlAMITRAIL 1602..78
- - - ...." .. . .. .. .. ~ ~- - . --- ----. _.._.n.___._ --- .......-.-..--- EAST, NAPLES. FLORIDA 34112 231H74.a973 -. ----."..--- "0--
Public Schools: -69iili2607:5:30-P~-DR: MARTlj,HiiTHER KiNG JR'- ..
By stale law 738.15 1218,88 ADMINISTRATIVE ENTER. 5715 OSCEOLA TRAIL, 1245,48
NAPLES, FLORIDA 341 D9 239.371.0036
By School Bcam 642.50 1122,19 1083.21
---_.--, ..-...-.... ---" .......-. ..-- --.,-.- ,_.,'.-- ... -09l1212007-lkisPM. sDUilfF'loRlDA WATER. . . . . ...--" ---..." ,----
South Florida Water
Managemenl 131.63 210,61 MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AUDITORIUM\& 1 BLDG. 217.18
33111 G\JN.CLUB ROAD WEST PALM B CH,
Dislrict f.lQR'P!L~Q6 J;li1~a('-Onn ___. _ _" .___. .__._.
...---.---------.- ...- -----------' "--.----.-----. --- -----.----, ,-.----
MunlcipalServicos 201.73 302AO (SAME PLACElTIME AS COUNTY MEETING) 332.89
Taxing Urnl
.,............... ... ---.."..-.. .. ,. --.-." --.,.-."'-' .. ..... ......--.---...,. "..--- "n" ",.' ... .- .. .... .h__
I ndependeot 09104/2007-5:01 PM DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS, 600
Special Disbic\s: NORTH RDoo NAPLES. FLORIDA 34104
Mosquib:l Con1rol 17.00 V.18 239436-10 .28.66
North Naples Fire 250,00 . 43.7.50 09/0712007-5:30 PM NORTH NAPLES FIRE CNTRL & 412,65
RESCUE. 1685 VETERAi,'S PARK DR, NAPLES, cl
-voler~no\lea---. .----.-------.--- ------..---------- M.tQll.23~,~ll7.-.322A. _ _ __ __._.. _ ... _ _ _ n__ ___.. _ ___ -~---.,--------._-
Deht Payments: . -.. .," .... - . -..- ...
Naples ZOOICa.'bbean 31,50 65.63 (SAME PLACErrlMEAS COUNTY MEETING) 65,83
Conseualion Collier 17.23 28.51 (SAME PLACElTIMEAS COIJNTY MEETING) 28.61
---.-------.------ ~_._._-----_._--- ______.__h._______ --~---------------,~---------_.__.._-----_._---- ----------------..
Total Property .2,984.36 4,872.10 5,011.09
Taxes
COLUMN 1" COLUMN 2" For dal.II, on independent '~~)~ ,nd voler approved deb!, COLUMN 3'
conlao:yourlaxcolllll:1orat 39 774-8172,
Taxina Yaar -2006- -2007- IIIWI~IIIII~I~III~II
Market Value 250,000 437,500
(-) Save Our Homes Exempl Value 0 0
(=) Assessed Value 250.000 437,500 00148360000
(-) Homestead and Other Exampl Value 0 0
(=) Taxable Value 250,000 437,500 -See Reverse Side For Explanation
.Seve ur Homes. exem t value due to ca on assessmBt1lincreases.
YOU FEEL THE MAR!(ETVALUE OF YOUR PROPERTY IS INACCURATE OR DOES NOTREFtECT FAIR MARKET VALUE, CONTACT YOUR COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER AT:
,9f 774-8141 .
.IF me PROPERTY Jol'PRAISER'S OFACe IS UNABLE TO RESCl.ve lHE MAnER AS TO MARKET VALUE. YOU MAY FILE A PETmON FOR ADJUSTMENT WITH THE VALUE
ADJUSlMENT8OARO: PETlTlON FORMS ARE AVAIlABLE FROM THE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAlSERANIl MUST BE FILED ON OR llEFORE: FRIDAV SEPT, 7, 2007.
.YOUR FINAL TAX BILL MAY CONTAIN NON-AD VAUlReM ASSESSMENTS WHICH UAY NOT BE REflECTED ON THIS NOTICE SUCH ~ ASSESSMENTS FOR ROADS. DRAINAGE,
GARBAGE, FIRE. LIGHTING, SEWER, OR OTHER GOVERNMENTAl SERVICES AND FACILITICS WHICH !.lAy BE LEVIED BY YOUR COUNTY. CrTY, OR /\NY SPECIAl. DISTRICT,
Sep 24 07 03:39p
Mohammed Rahman
239-596-1706
0.3
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11. 2008
Page 229 of 273
i'>l
--",
-...:.
,
,
I
o
f2S 250
500
,
,.
I Ii
, i
r Ii
,!
o>urpn''''~L.u.JENIO
t:c>>I".!1Is.>.1Jt(1lI;llllCT~VTtlo81
~CA'JIUE{$~n~TOIll).;;II
\~------1---
_i:....=-=::='~_!~::=::c.:c:.:::.= .'
f 20' T'r'PE "0
j SUFFER
,: CD
(f. f~=All
"'~R
'I~ ~
11 cb
~ IN f-'EET
,
!:j
~
o
l'l
'"
lAND USE KEY
RalD5NTlAL(Rl
-slngIa -
~T"'V FmnIly
-Zerc Lotlm
.-
--
"""""""''''''''
..,....-
-"",,--
__Fodllfy
Me:OlTERRA
.~:;~s=M
.----. -t:'::..C::'- :::C; :',C.
10' TYFlE "A"
aUFIfER
,
I
I
~
.
'"
]
o
i.i
z
:I
"-
~
i!i
RPUD MAS'rER f>"LAN NOTES:
I
. ..,f
-./.e!lOI'
.~:~,,~
T
....
R
~-"":,.:-:".
t I:. <W~~,,:,
I : >~.S:_St-i:t::
J
,
.._---~
ST-SPeOO' ..
TREA TM.eNT :
OVERlA. v !
...
Z
-,W
"-15 I
"'",
~,
\ j
,
I
( T:'~]'iR !, i
. c,!u,r{', . i ))
- ,
::':::::::'~::"::::"
yl)1 CA)
" cl! UF<BAN l
", ." RESIDENTIAL
'" '>. "<'.. 7';;-'-/.:",rTr'; '1:-r~7~;j;;r:.,:-i-;::1]~7;./
......... " """.c ", .............;" -~ d;LJ J I I:, \J?.1JJtj !;:~:) ':,', ;._!..~:.',~ .
":'~:-', "~.,.~~;...,~._,!.. ~;I~~:"ilER''=;A:ll1E: -'>';', 'i:
. .. "---. . "'0 ". , ) I'"' Li'.~..l"'!".'I'qH,., """.
' < '" '~.'~~~~: ~~'~;;~.:=~~:~:L~~~U.,"!UI" "i~t'i
, . ......... "- .:
lEGEND ',.....". :~":"':'" '
--- ......, <Yj? (f
I'o\(JER~AIIEA ~ """'..'<..../'
........ ". +... ~.
,
,
'"
CE) "
,
,
I
,
I- ;53:r --l
FPtEASQl!l(r I
I
"','
@l
F'Et.1CAN
STRANO
(ORJ)
1.,'jlh~~DrJh~~.cloo:Ale.~to...A.
'W1'01 Aui~u}'~;.o/li"E 4Imicc. ~th TIIlIlIal_suhj=.
10 lbe.5T" ,speelal TIUbael\: o..'o::r~dUlIkr. h1lbt>tlrIIerJ
R..".;ckmiIIlFutW\:UMu.c~~
.2..0prJ.~M&UilIc:laI!cJcli1.ellldp;zssi~-eJ'l:l:llC:MiCll1;B'Q$
Slldl.:u.JIa;y~IldJ.sDtr~lr\nC$.todt&.mIll;t.~_~,
IllgOOM. Doed~~1tIibIrldmcrsilllfllrllplln
spICC!I.~inJ,ilr'tra$SliJiBide-f~'lIIIi!.a.f1f~
~ldlllQ.t:I~.....
o
CJ
""""""""""'"
--- RlGHT-oF~Y
I!lJOEaAl, ~JMErfl" ZONe PROJECT LAND use
-~-_.~
<@> ZONNQ Q..ASSIFJOJ.'T1ON RESU:>eNTW.(R) """-
lAl<ES 5.63AC:1:.
flUC! 1..ANDUl,;!;:~'T'IC\toI Pl<ESERVE 132A AC:t
R ..............AREA Ro.\DSIROW 5.0<1_
... lMPERV1OUS~ 12.31 ACt:
1lAAJ0000.o\Cl:';Q8pap.rr MlNtMUto'I OPEN SPACE{8O%} ....."""
"""""""""""'"
~-\!t- PatIT~Cin:>~ TOTAL NET ACREAGE 5't.10AC;t
OF UlC BEe. 4,D4:.c:r:t83}
204 UNrrslS1.1 AC. z:: 3.99 UNITS PER ACRE
]OHNS-,.N
j;'
"0
,;
,
"-
~
'"
,
'"
~
~ ~.R:P\.'llilftll$llCTJlI~sfQlIl>t'~dcn:d~ja.~
/ 4. ~il~irlIH l'>rand<m kPL.'l:I.;IO I\il"~ 1II:u-.:, -.= CpllQ:
!5-= ~1Ibt'adrilI::\.'<<IO\'"erClt(>..lIckdeP:lClJ*lmt.Alllinlmllll'l
tL l~';'IIlI~~tAItloa:llltllbe~OHIleI9I1~1ude
up~llpl'm:l'\'sin..__~ ...iIttCon..C~ ~d
It) .oc..'Clep:naN CMt.
~~,......,.~~ r IW#ND-..ctTO~fIU"flViQ
~")~~-_ClfllI'OMl'\'liIIIE7'lI,""flUlP:R.-..c..,1.a1AC1
g~~..tUII-.c.Ma4f,DI!Zl8ftHIJ"","",~'l1OH.I"kJ,
;;:".\IAC==':';"~~roRl!lCllll!.ll:nJ.~1V.Hr
~ ~.IN~llmlU:C~
.woo STANFORD COURT
NAP'lES. FlMJOA 34112
PHONE (239} 4':>4-0333
rAX (239) 43'1--9320
E.9. #8-4-2 /k La #542
BRANDON RPUD
MASTER PLAN
ENGINEERING
0'.",
AUGt.'ST
En
OC~eJT C
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11. 2008
Page 230 of 273
September 24, 2004
TO: Ms. Melissa zone
Principal Planner
Department of Zoning & Land Development Review
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples. Florida 34104
FROM: Mr, Daniel Marusik
62 3Rt Street
Bonita Springs, FL 34134
PI#OOI49600002
A€C€/V~D
Sr:-p 2 ~
r:.:, f lO{)l
ZONiNG DEI'.
". 'ARTMENT
RE: Brandon RPUD
Dear Ms. Zone:
I was unable to attend the Neighborhood Infurmation Meeting on the 17th for the subject project.
I did have someone attend in my place and as reported to me, there wasn't any details provided
regarding what impact this plan would have on my property.
.
Now that I have looked at the drawing I have many questions, What will be built. between the
road and my property? Will a driveway or road be constructed to my property line? Will the
project border be fenced? There are so many questions I couldn't possibly list them all in this
letter. I respectfully ask that you have the developer contactme to arrange a meeting so I can
evaluate their proposal, .
-I am happy to see something is being done with the surrounding land and I am not necessarily
against the rezoning of the property. I am not sure why the developer has not purchased my land
and made it part of their project, However, before I can endorse this particular RPUD, I ask that
you and the County respect and protect my property rights and my ability to sell this land for it's
present value,
Sincerely,
Ifi~' {hq;.?,>~, ^- J~
?Y/~l~
~ '.' .
Daniel Marusik
Agenda Item No. SA
March 11, 2008
Page 231 of 273
September 27, 2007
TO: Ms, Melissa Zone
Principal Planner
Department of Zoning & Land Development Review
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Florida 34104
FROM: Raymond & Margaret Martyniuk
15821 Delaplata Lane
Naples, FL 34110
P1#00148440001
RE: Brandon RPUD
Dear Ms, Zone:
As a result of attending the informational meeting for the subject project held 09/17/07 we include the listed
below comments regarding our concerns for our property,
Acquisition of Property: We would like to know if there is a process that developers must follow when
they come into an area to purchase land for a project. We were never actually approached to buy our land
and when we did have it listed with a local realtor, he always suggested our land had little value. The County
didn't seem to think so, as assessments reflected a totally different picture, Can a realtor be working for the
developer and for the landowner at the same time?
Trespassing; My wife and I have never given permission for anyone to walk on our land and yet it has been
designated as a wetland full of cypress hedge and other undesirable vegetation, Ifthat is the case, why are we
not provided drav,lngs indicating the make-up of the land? Why aren't our assessments lowered to reflect the
land value the developer has deternlined? The State we corne from trespa~sing is an egregious occurrence and
damages and fines are substantial.
Landlocking of Six Parcels: As you are aware, approval of this project as drawn would deny access to our
land, This is unacceptable to us and all of the landlocked landowners, All ofthese parcels represent a good
portion of our estates or retirement investments.
In conclusion, we have been treated unfairly in every preliminary aspect of this project. Whether not having
the same information as the developer to negotiate the sale of the land to not being part of the process to
determine the layout of the project. We live in Delasol and the community owns all our preserves,
Of course we cannot support the efforts of this developer. The attitudes of their Company representatives
reinforced they are going to have little respect for the owners of these properties who have been paying taxes
in some cases, for years to Collier County, We have to rely on you and the County Commissioners to do the
right thing and demand they respect our property rights or include our land in their proposal.
Raymond W. Martyniuk
Mill'garet Martyniuk
Agenda Item No. SA
March 11, 2008
Page 232 of 273
Frederick J. Pergjini
60 Hillside Road
Greenwich, CT 06830
Tel:203-869-5986
September 5,2007
VIA Ceritfied Mail
Melissa Zone
Zoning and Land Development Review
Collier County Community Development
and Environmental Services Division
2800 N, Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Florida 34104
Re: Brandon RPUD & Della Rosa RPUD Interconnections and Access
to Land Locked Parcel
Dear Ms, Zone:
I, Frederick J, Pergjini, owner of 2.5 acre parcel of land located east of
Livingston Road and south of Veterans Memorial Boulevard in Collier
County, Florida identified by Folio Number 00140760007 and Strap
Number 482513027,0003A13 (the "Property") The Following is the
ownership of the surrounding properties:
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 233 of 273 .
Property Owner Property Information
North Vladimir & Kattely Mathieu Folio Number 00150600004
Strap Number 482513048.0003A13
South Eastbourne Bonita LLC Brandon RPUD (Proposed)
Application Number: PUDZ 2006-AR 10171
Project Number 2006040008
East EastBourne Bonita LLC
Brandon RPUD (Proposed)
West North Naples Fire Control District Folio Number 00149880000
Strap Number 482513030.0003A13
My property, together with several surrounding parcels has no legal means
of access, however interconnections and shared access points are
requirements of the Collier County Gwwth Management Plan and the
Collier County Land Development Code, I would like to turn to Collier
County Staffto assist me in identifying potential access points since neither
ofthese projects have gone before the Planning Commission for
recommendation and in addition please be aware that at the present time I
am under litigation with Eastbourne Bonita LLC also kno'WTI as the
applicant of Brandon RPUD proj ect for a "Breach of Contract".
I have received a copy of a proposal by Sarah E, Spector an attorney of the
firm HendersonlFranklin dated on August 29, 2007 representing Vladimir
and Kattely Mathiew, owners of2.5 acre parcel ofland identified by Folio
Number 00150600004 and Strap Number 482513048.0003A13 which is one
of the surrounding properties next to my property, Sarah E, Spector at the
suggestion ofMr, Nick Casalanguida Director of Collier County
Transportation Planning that Ms, Spector contact Patrick White, an attorney
with Porter, Wright, Morris and Arthur, LLP representing the applicant of
Brandon RPUD project also known as EastBourne Bonita LLC that I am at
the present under litigation for a "Breach of Contract". (Please see Exhibit
E-mail)
On the proposal that Ms. Spector submitted for filing of the record with the
Zoning and Land Development Review dated on August 29, 2007 and with
Agenda Item No. SA
March 11, 2008
Page 234 of 273.
exhibit at the suggestion of Patrick White the attorney representing
EastBoume Bonita LLC for Brandon Project that I am at the present under
litigation for "Breach of Contract" favors "Option One" from" two possible
options" from traveling south over my property of 2.5 acres (Frederick J.
Pergjini) to a point just east of Livingston Road. This option "Option One"
is unacceptable to me Frederick J. Pergjini because it favors the interests
and the agenda of Mr. White's client Eastbourne Bonita that I am
under litigation with for a " Breach of Contract" . There are so many
options available for access that EastBoume Bonita LLC with its 51 acres of
the Brandon project RPUD will have to provide to surrounding land
locked parcel owners which are the requirements of Collier County Growth
Management Plan. ( Please. see Exhibit Proposal of Ms. Spector)
On April 16, 2007 Sarah Specter the attorney for Mr.and Mrs, Mathiew
e-mailed and asked Mr. Casalanguida, Director of Collier County
Transportation Planning Development how her client can gain access by the
most direct route possible and be certain is legal. ( See e-mail Exhibit)
On April 17, 2007 Ms. Jeanne Marcella provided the responses from Mr,
Nick Casalanguida to the attorney Ms, Spector with the following responses
(Please, see e-mail Exhibit) that County Transportation Planning
development can and would strictly enforce the access class of the road,
obtaining easement from North Naples fire Control, obtaining easement
from Veterans Memorial Boulevard which can be used for access if able to
obtain easement. By the way County Transportation would encourage Mr.
and Mrs, Mathiew client of Ms. Spector to take access off of Veterans
Memorial Boulevard which it is County row and would maintain it after the
warranty period by the developer, (see e-mail Exhibit)
Other options traveling west over the property of Mr. Mathew, or east, or
north are more favorable. There are many options with surrounding
property owners and there are many more options available based on the
final plan approvals for both the Della Rosa RPUD and the Brandon RPUD,
As such I believed "Option One" proposed by Mr. White which serves
the interests and agenda of his client Eastbourne Bonita LLC that I am
under Iitigatiou to Ms. Spector for her client is not a viable alternative
with all future possible options mentioned above.
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 235 of 273
As such, I ask that you place this letter as a formal request to inquire that
Collier County DOT is going to require interconnections with those other
land -locked parcels from Eastboume Bonita LLC, the applicant on the
Legacy RPUD and Della Rosa RPUD :
I ask that this letter be entered into the record for both Brandon RPUD and
DellaRosa RPUD,
1 . Require the developers of the proposed Legacy RPUD to provide
access through the rezoning process.
Please, I would like that you provide me with a copy of the staff reports
prior to Planning commission meetings for both projects of Dell a Rosa
RPUD and Brandon RPUD,
Sincerely
Frederick J, Pergjini
CC: Nick Casalanguida (via U.S. mail)
Sarah Spector Esq. (via U.S. mail)
Patrick G. White, Esq. (via U.S. mail)
John Podczerwinsky (via U.S, mail)
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 236 of 273
Ms Melissa Zone
Principal Planner
Department of Zoning & Land Development Review
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Florida 34104
September 26, 2007
A12C12
OCr _ 1V12D
3 2c'ln
:tONIN vrJi
Dear Ms Zone: G DCPARrMI:Nr
The purpose of this letter is a follow up to our phone conversation earlier this week on
our opposition to the rezoning of the 51,1 acres to the southeast of the intersection of .
Livingston Road and Veterans memorial Boulevard in section 13, Township 48 South,'
Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, This development would totally land lock our
2 y, acre parcel which has a legal description as follows: 13 48 25 NWl/4 ofNEl/4 of
SEl/4 ofNEl/4 2.5 AC OR 1317 PG 1410, It is our understanding that five other
property owners will also be land locked.
Last year we paid taxes of $2984.36, This year our taxes will be $4,872.10 with the
proposed budget change or $5,017 without a budget change. Ifwe are left with a land
locked parcel, the justification of retaining this land becomes questionable, Having been
one of the initial investors in this property nearly fifty years ago, we would be most
disappointed if this conflict wasn't resolved to be mutually beneficial to all concerned
parties.
Our request is that the developer reach out to those of us on the peripheral edge and
include us in their development. We know that economics come into play in any
development, but the place for fairness and doing the right thing is never out of vogue.
This approach would also eliminate a future development which may not fit as well into
the community,
Your support will be much appreciated, Should this mediation reqnire a trip to Collier
County to help resolve this issue, we will make ourselves available.
S~,
Ic:~A. ~r //
Mr, And Ms, Richard Govig
^
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 237 of 273
SIX LANDLOCKED LANDOWNERS
Proposed Brandon RPUD
PI# 00149120003
Robert & Barbara Chervenak
2923 Birchwood Street
Trenton, MI48183-3681
(sister has interest-Constance M. Butler)
PI#00149040002
Jan Forszpaniak
430 Cove Tower Drive-Apt 803
Naples, FL 34110-6089
PI#OO 150720007
Haleakala Capital Partners Ltd
Mark Nichols
2335 Tamiami Trail N - Suite #402
Naples, FL 34103-4458
PI#00150240008
Richard & Jeanette Govig
8475 E, San Marino Drive
Scottsdale, AZ 85258-2446
PI#OO 14844000 1
Amalia Harazian
8348 Salem Lane
Dearborn Heights, MI 4127
(sister has interest-Nargeze Sarkissian)
(sister has interest-Margaret Martyniuk)
PI#O0148360000
Mohammed & Fahmida Rahman
13056 Valewood Drive
Naples, FL 34] J 9-8577
T
1t(~~1
<@>
M"""""",,
J
-----"
I
,
'------r-------------
.... RaW
-----~-~-------------------
'"
,
,
I
,
.
I
,
"
r
,
j
,
,
I
,
,
\
,
,
\
.",,;
,
,
J
,
,
I
,
I
R
,
I
1O'mt-.,d
...... ,
2d o\CCllIS'
"".""1
,
,
~-l-l( I
,I I
" ,
I! I
I =~~:~
. .-.Y! i~ '
f=~ll
, >\, ~VD : :
, '\'" I I
\~ CD ~ '
'''',~~.~ I..~I I I
'~ ~""~... . "'-y'--F;-;]"---"';''ifi w;rif.'R'r)
('j,'Y~","~.':'Q:,,-;<J~.I'I' tli:>J~\1,L:4i;Y /
J '~~:-~~~<Ul-r;-l~R ~~~Ja" ,/ ./
.- tyO~b$'e'" ,~r~~S-.." ~rr--'.(
JlIlIII lZu.hi~'J. &.nh.e;~Qi, -" "'~~'" 1i:'3:.,;.L_
-.-..- .- ------ ~~~~~~;~:-~f~~~~~}r'rm-.....- ---
l 1lIVI>....._"""'WO'IQ; pRO.JiCT\.ANrjU.!:f!' I.ANOUSF'KRt
~ =~:r.a=e-== =:W411 ~~ T........."
I __1...."...._ ~ I...~. ....I,oIUIoI
I =tr"''1~':==~:::: =-0l'IN~ =~ ~~;
... ----........--- -......
t =-~.-....::"'--..- toT,.~~ It,wMi ==--_
11__"'_"___ :of~".u::.UII'UlClI""Al:Q' ~~,
..-..--.---....-
.......-..---
!=-=
I Non;;, PReSERVE-ACAEAGESARE APPROXltdA.'m AND SUBJECT TO FltoW.,PLATT1~;
.
\".d~';j<
',:_~!.'li:;::.::-;;~
..',.1-.~
"
R I'
1 ~f?J~~~~~~
, -~~~-."
I i@,?~,!.~t!~;.:
" .~~;:r::~.-, r.~~ ,
~~,';:;".l'~_"_' .~.
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 238 of 273
t
~ -
$C.\l.,r:;IHn:rr
@
PElJC'A~
""""'"
(DRlj
......
~ -....
139 ....t.__
--
--
---
~
.
~somr"L.L-.C.
~COVHTY.FL
JUllNSCDN
U$lIt:tANnllll:leoura-
--.A.Ol\tlIl,,,..,U:
T~~
UI"e.ri',1.A\.~
--,
BRANDON IU'UD
MASTER. PLAN
--
~.....a.--
--
.
ENGINEERING
Agenda Item No. SA
March 11. 2008
Page 239 of 273
To: Ms Melissa Zone
Principal Planner
Department of Zoning and Land Development Review
2800 Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Florida, 34104
Enclosed please find petitions regarding Brandon RPUD Master Plan application from
The Links Homeowners Association in The Strand.
Daniel Gbareeb
President, The Links Homeowners Association
RECEIVED
DEe 1 7 2007
ZONING DEPARTMENT
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11. 2008
Page 240 of 273
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
community of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light property,
and south of Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County officers and
employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application, .
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of the proposed development to
make the multi-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live.
We are not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required as
a condition of County approvals.
Dated: September, 2007
Naples, Florida
SIGNATURES:
~//~
fJWh-~ j), ~
~O/J ~~ (At-.
~/:Jr B/fl/o
t
.
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11. 2008
Page 241 of 273
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
community of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light
property, and south of Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of the proposed development to
make the multi-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live.
Weare not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of County approvals.
Dated: September, 2007
Naples, Florida
if~.
-- ~ ~
. I
Agenda Item No. SA
March 11, 2008
Page 242 of 273
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
community of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light
property, and south of Veteran' s Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of the proposed development to
make the multi-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live.
We are not objecting to the devellopment, but only seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of County approvals.
Dated: Selprember, 2007
Naples, Florida
A-N'ArV7 {fh,...I'-' Jv~ j IJ ~
,
SIGNATURES:
m ,4-n
(, 17 q,).. I-(I...V W";
j 71 /14i" /lMJ.,.I7
~~.
Agenda Item No. SA
March 11. 2008
Page 243 of 273
PETITION
We the Wldersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
community of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light
property, and south of Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier COWlty
officers and employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of the proposed development to
make the multi-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live,
We are not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of COWlty approvals.
Dated: September, 2007
Naples, Florida
r C/rI/!t6
SIGNATURES:
'vale---
t
Agenda Item No, SA
March 11, 2008
Page 244 of 273
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
community of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light
property, and south of Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of the proposed development to
make the multi-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live,
We are not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of County approvals,
Dated: September, 2007
N'iples, Florida
SIGNATURES:
ttiIa,~, clr!:/~~~
J dit M. Kleinman - 6035 Fairway Court
p~~)'&......'.._- j2.
Robert J, Kleinman, Jr, - 6035 Fairway Court
Agenda Item No, SA
March 11, 2008
Page 245 of 273
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
community of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light
property, and south of Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of the proposed development to
make the multi-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live,
We are not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of County approvals.
Dated: September, 2007
Naples, Florida
~.t1'.
,.4. 1# ,/~
jpo~
fdls-.
~.8f~tJ~ ft N/Jf'L55 , fi- 60//0
I41RcJ e:::r NMI-E5 n Jt.J..lld
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11. 2008
Page 246 of 273
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
community of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light
property, and south of Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of the proposed development to
make the multi-story buildings less inttusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live.
We are not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of County approvals,
Dated: September, 2007
Naples, Florida
SIGNATURES:
"...../"'~ --..e ~~flo _ ..J
-/<?~: L e-L.t~.
~ m~~A4 ~
....:.JU.~< /'J A/'/'V/!T .J?s/V/'J /Z /.2,
::;~;.t=;;::::_'A,;t/ ~
Agenda Item No. SA
March 11, 2008
Page 247 of 273
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
conununity of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light
property, and south of Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of the proposed development to
make the multi-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live,
We are not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of County approvals,
Dated: September, 2007
Naples, Florida
SIGNATURES..~~. ~ '
/It A./, 'f- ;G ~
hd;)'~,~ (lr- '>(~..f.0
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 248 of 273
PETmON
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
community of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light
property, and south of Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of the proposed development to
make the multi-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live.
Weare not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of County approvals.
Dated: September, 2007
Naples, Florida
SIGNA
"
(!t,
Aqenda Item No. SA
" March 11, 2008
Page 249 of 273
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
community of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light
property, and south of Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of the proposed development to
make the multi-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live.
We are not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of County approvals.
Dated: September, 2007
Naples, Florida
SIGNA~JL ~ _
v .
B:thtrl cf.tn;;])t0h
Agenda Item No 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 250 of 273
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
community of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light
property, and south of Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or pJantings along the east side of the proposed development to
make the multi-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live.
We are not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of County approvals,
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 251 of 273
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
community of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light
property, and south of Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of the proposed development to
make the multi-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live,
Weare not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of County approvals.
Dated: September, 2007
Naples, Florida
n / C. '" ( '/ .
SIGNATURES: \.. ()....'-^---'~ ~'C... ~ ltJ'L.;
?p/? rA-.If(f...J4,7 Co tJ,er
-rife L/ JVK.s AT -t:./l.~ .?re~~,.h
Agenda Item No. SA
March 11, 2008
Page 252 of 273
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single fumily house
conununity of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light property,
and south of Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that CoIlier County officers and
employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of the proposed development to
make the multi-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live.
We are not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required as
a condition of County approvals,
Dated: September, 2007
Naples, Florida
SIGNATURES: Maurice G. Levine & Marcia D. Levine
r
~
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 253 of 273
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
community of 54 homes bordering on the east side ofthe Florida Power & Light
property, and south of Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of the proposed development to
make the multi-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live.
Weare not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of County approvals,
Dated: September, 2007
Naples, Florida
SIGNATURES:
if tptJO 1-
.Ahdlh.. -1;/ ~
~~
1
<reo'" ~
",or--
_ON
N~ C,\
-'CO \j
~..,. "'~ ~ ~
_ U"l .~~
~-6N ",- ~
~OJ ,,0 'Y'\ ....
roroOl ~O ~ In
,,:;;ro .80; .;,i
Iii tL ~
Ol ",:5 1:- ~ ~ ....
"'- .9 0
<r E'" ::J ~
'" 0 l::::
0'" :eg! 0 "-
-",::J " .-
~~ ::l= '0 ~ '" "-
E'" 0
",3: .~ 'lo ...
O~ '-..S
~l!! -"'-'" '" ~~
;.Q "
,- '" c
~..c: C Y.-'" ~~ -'"
",3: 0
E ..; -Q E,~ 0
E.2:o; '" '-3
.9'" gj
gal,g ...l!! "*
iiia. Cm ~
(1)'_ a. "'..
mom ~
::JEC E-", -5
0.-
.,gG).!! 0-", tT
>:i: 0- fjj~ l!!
=(0"- >3: 0>
E- '" "'~ C
mc:1i) ,,'" 'i5.
-l!m -go ~
.!!.!!2 ",l! , \
"''''0 0'" "
.s>:::l 0.-'" C
"'-0- 00 .!!l
is 010 o.E ~ ~ l'-,.
-:5 a:: .."
1= "::Jc -",C 01 ,P ~
coo ':::01 -'"
1= gco't) ':;)..:-
W (/)"c 0.9 g ~
0- cll! ",- g>
,,'" "
",,,,al .- -'" ~ '~
:5 -Ill ",- 32 .....
<(~-'" -:Ii '"
",- lam '"
U) 0.5 Ill"' '"
~ 0-- "'~ .2:- " ~
.5 as: -",0 C
--,_c _E 0
Q).c .Q "''' - .~
::J
-'" 0>- cc -0 ~'
I- ,- U ,901
--'"'
o~2 01", 'E ~~
",'"
s~8 ~~ ~
:fi ~.5 +=i::E: a. ~
ai .QJ 0
"0- - (jj
U:imU) 0..'" ". ~
l!! " :B ~~ -8
C)'g ~ o::J
~o "'
c-- "'C
'-iL Q. .s=
E",E =0 - ....
".s=" B~ .9 0
",-" ..-- 0> 0 ~
cO c c.!!l c N
.2l' (I) (Q !H :c .: "'...
U '"
~:2 ~ "' -0
",,,,Ill ".. :0 E 01 Uj
,,_0 c", 0 .l!l "
cgjE .!!.!! '0, 'C W
::J 0 m'" :5- 0 a::
","' c!!1 u: :::l
.s="'~ l!!g> ~~ (f)
-.c c ij gf ~
",_ ::J '3=0 mE
:s:co a= ",a. .l!l 0.. z
00 ~.5 :s::a- 21 t\l C)
z iii
....
~
o
,-;
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 255 of 273
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents ofThe Links At the Strand, a single family house
community of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light
property, and south of Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of the proposed development to
make the multi-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live,
Weare not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of County approvals,
Dated: September, 2007
Naples, Florida
SI~ ~
.~ ~,t)O~ ~~:.eWA:( 0
N~IGS R .34110
\l 1\
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 256 of 273
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
community of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light
property, and south of Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of the proposed development to
make the multi-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live.
We are not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of County approvals,
Dated; September, 2007
Naples, Florida
SIGNATURES:
~~
-
Agenda Item No, 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 257 of 273
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
community of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light
property, and south of Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of the proposed development to
make the multi-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live.
Weare not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of County approvals.
Dated; September, 2007
Naples, Florida
,
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 258 of 273
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
corrununity of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light
property, and south of Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of the proposed development to
IIllIke the multi-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live.
We are not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of County approvals.
Dated: September, 2007
Naples, Florida
i) (.ftPhu-I) -Z-OO+.
41i1~ ~~.~-
hp~s Pfni-~ c....-e. rtv- oU:Jvw-
4A:;' f1>.... $f-~
'R...-r. -tv 8~~eb.
t.. 0 '" + F7i1'J>-"-"; c.-c:..
/\genda Item No. SA
March 11, 2008
Page 259 of 273
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
community of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light
property, and south of Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of the proposed development to
make the multi-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live.
We are not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of County approvals.
Dated; September, 2007
Naples, Florida
SIGN~z%
Agenda Item No. SA
March 11, 2008
Page 260 of 273
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
corrununity of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light
property, and south of Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of the proposed development to
make the multi-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live.
We are not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of County approvals.
Dated; September, 2007
Naples, Florida
SIGNATURES:
~~~~\~
~
._._~"._M
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 261 of 273
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents ofThe Links At the Strand, a single family house
corrununity of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light
property, and south of Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of the proposed development to
make the multi-story buildings less intnisive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live.
We are not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landsoaping required
as a condition of County approvals.
Dated: September, 2007
Naples, Florida
SIGNA
Agenda Item No. SA
March 11, 2008
Page 262 of 273
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
corrununity of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light
property, and south of V eteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of the proposed development to
make the multi-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live.
We are not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of County approvals.
I>ated: Septelllber,2007
Naples, Florida
ID~RES/~q?-~
&;; 9'"J' ~<4-;>- cr
h .f ~,
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 263 of 273
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
community of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light
property, and south of Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of the proposed development to
make the mnlti-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live.
Weare not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of County approvals.
Dated: September, 2007
Naples, Florida
C-r.
, (
~
T
Agenda Item No. SA
March 11. 2008
Page 264 of 273
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
community of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light
property, and south of Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of the proposed development to
IIllIke the multi-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live.
We are DOt objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of County approvals.
Dated: September, 2007
Naples, Florida
SIGNATURES:
Agenda Item No SA
March 11. 2008
Page 265 of 273
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
corrununity of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light
property, and south of V eteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employee~ in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of the proposed development to
IIllIke the multi-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live.
We are not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of County approvals.
Dated: September, 2007
Naples, Florida
SIGNATURES, ~
~"-~
Agenda Item No. SA
March 11. 2008
Page 266 of 273
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
community of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light
property, and south of Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of the proposed development to
IIllIke the mnlti-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live.
We are not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of County approvals.
Dated: September, 2007
Naples, Florida
SIGNATURES:
I~//o
i
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11. 2008
Page 267 of 273
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house corrununity
of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light property, and south of
Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County officers and employees, in
connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side ofthe proposed development to make
the multi-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in character with
the area in which we live.
We are not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required as a
condition of County approvals.
Dated: September, 2007
Naples, Florida
SIGNATURES;
W~~~ ~OICj
~~~~ r
R\ t 1l-t-0ir'1
t. .,-
(
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 268 of 273
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
community of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light
property, and south of Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of the proposed development to
IIllIke the multi-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live.
Weare not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of County approvals.
Dated: September, 2007
Naples, Florida
SIGNATIJRES: ~
3~ Yr[~Jo
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 269 of 273
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
community of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light
property, and south of Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of the proposed development to
make the multi-story buildings less in1rusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live.
We are not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of County approvals.
Dated: September, 2007
Naples, Florida
~~
/ ' (.!,.
f
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 270 of 273
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
community of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light
property, and south of Veteran' s Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of the proposed development to
make the nrolti-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live.
We are not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of County approvals.
Dated: September, 2007
Naples, Florida
SIGNATURES:
(;&r rC:ff
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 271 of 273
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
community of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light
property, and south of Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of the proposed development to
make the multi-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live.
We are not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of County approvals.
Dated: September, 2007
Naples, Florida
SIGNATURES: 1t), ~.
~~~~;.:~.
T
Agenda Item No. SA
March 11, 2008
Page 272 of 273
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
corrununity of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light
property, and south of Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of the proposed development to
make the multi-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live.
We are not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of County approvals.
Dated: September, 2007
Naples, Florida
'.
Agenda Item No. 8A
March 11, 2008
Page 273 of 273
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
community of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light
property, and south of Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of the proposed development to
make the multi-story buildings less intlUsive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live.
We are not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of County approvals.
Dated: September, 2007
Naples, Florida
/t f
~
(. { IV 0/ /0
t0~
, c)),}- ;':0.-; r c;.J "vi
600~