The URL can be used to link to this page

CCPC Agenda 02/20/2020 Collier County Planning Commission Page 1 Printed 2/13/2020 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission AGENDA Board of County Commission Chambers Collier County Government Center 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor Naples, FL 34112 February 20, 2020 9: 00 AM Mark Strain - Chairman Karen Homiak - Vice-Chair Edwin Fryer - Secretary Patrick Dearborn Karl Fry Stan Chrzanowski, Environmental Joseph Schmitt, Environmental Thomas Eastman, Collier County School Board Note: Individual speakers will be limited to 5 minutes on any item. Individuals selec ted to speak on behalf of an organization or group are encouraged and may be allotted 10 minutes to speak on an item if so recognized by the chairman. Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the CCPC agenda packets must submit said material a minimum of 10 days prior to the respective public hearing. In any case, written materials intended to be considered by the CCPC shall be submitted to the appropriate county staff a minimum of seven days prior to the public hearing. All material used in presentations before the CCPC will become a permanent part of the record and will be available for presentation to the Board of County Commissioners if applicable. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the CCPC will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. February 2020 Collier County Planning Commission Page 2 Printed 2/13/2020 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call by Secretary 3. Addenda to the Agenda 4. Planning Commission Absences 5. Approval of Minutes A. January 16, 2020, CCPC Minutes 6. BCC Report - Recaps 7. Chairman's Report 8. Consent Agenda 9. Public Hearings A. Advertised 1. *** This item has been continued from the January 16, 2020, and February 6, 2020 CCPC Meetings.*** PUDA-PL20190000259: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 82-49, as amended, the ShadowWood Planned Unit Development (PUD), to redesignate 4± acres of land from Tract C, private air park district, to Tract E, residential development; by adding the development standards for Tract E; by amending the master plan to add 3 access points to provide ingress and egress to Tract E including access to Polly Avenue, Atkins Road and Whitaker Road; by removing a requirement that all access roads to the PUD are private roads; and by revising developer commitments. The subject property consisting of 77.99± acres is part of the 168.1 acre PUD located at Wing South Air Park, east of Santa Barbara Boulevard between Davis Boulevard and Rattlesnake-Hammock Road, in Section 16, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Timothy Finn, AICP, Principal Planner] 2. PL20180003276: A Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida granting a parking exemption under Land Development Code Section 4.05.02.K.3 to allow off-site parking for a fast-food restaurant on a contiguous lot zoned Residential-Single-Family-5 (RSF-5). The subject property is located on the southeast corner of Immokalee Drive and State Road 29 in Immokalee, in Section 4, Township 47 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Timothy Finn, AICP, Principal Planner] February 2020 Collier County Planning Commission Page 3 Printed 2/13/2020 3. PL20180003748: A Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida, relating to Petition Number VA-PL20180003748, for a variance from Section 4.02.01 A., Table 2.1 of the Collier County Land Development Code to reduce the minimum side yard setback on the west side from 7.5 feet to 4.71 feet for an existing pool. The property is described as Lot 1 and the east half of Lot 2, Block 28, Naples Park Unit No. 3, also described as 699 99th Ave. N., in Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Timothy Finn, AICP, Principal Planner] 4. PL20190001940: A Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida, relating to Petition Number VA-PL20190001940, for a variance from Section 4.02.01.A., Table 2.1 of the Collier County Land Development Code to reduce the minimum front yard setback from 25 feet to 24.99 feet, and to reduce the minimum rear yard setback from 20 feet to 14.61 feet for an existing single family home, and a variance from Section 4.02.01.D.8 of the Land Development Code to increase the maximum allowable roof overhang from 3 feet to 3.51 feet. The property is described as Lot 3, Block 6, Avalon Estates Unit No. 1, also described as 4704 Acadia Lane, in Section 13, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: John Kelly, Sr. Planner] 5. PL20180002792: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 89-05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, specifically amending the Future Land Use Element And Future Land Use Map and Map Series by amending the Urban Commercial District to add the Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict to allow development of up to 17 hotel and motel units and 7,000 square feet of C-3, commercial intermediate commercial uses and furthermore, directing transmittal of the adopted amendment to the Department of Economic Opportunity; providing for severability and providing for an effective date. The subject property is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Gulf Shore Drive and Southbay Drive in Section 32, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, consisting of .62± acres. (Companion PL20180002793) [Coordinator: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner] 6. 6. PL20180002793: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Commercial Intermediate District (C-3) zoning district within the Vanderbilt Beach Residential Tourist Overlay (VBRTO) to a Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) zoning district for the project to be known as Vanderbilt Inn Commercial Planned Unit Development CPUD, to allow up to 17 hotel and motel units and 7,000 square feet of commercial development on property located on the northeast portion of the intersection of Gulf Shore Drive and South Bay Drive, approximately 400 feet north of Vanderbilt Beach Road, in Section 32, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, consisting of .62± acres; and by providing an effective date. (Companion: PL20180002792) [Coordinator: James Sabo, AICP, Principal Planner] February 2020 Collier County Planning Commission Page 4 Printed 2/13/2020 7. PL20180000622: A Resolution of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners designating 642.52 acres within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Zoning Overlay District as a Stewardship Receiving Area, to be known as the Hyde Park Village Stewardship Receiving Area, which will allow development of a maximum of 1,800 residential dwelling units, of which a minimum of 300 and a maximum of 1000 will be multi-family dwelling units; a minimum of 45,000 square feet of commercial development in the Village Center Context Zone; a minimum of 18,000 square feet of civic, governmental and institutional uses in the Village Center Context Zone; assisted living facilities subject to a floor area ratio in place of the square footage cap in the Village Center Context Zone; a maximum of 10,000 square feet for any recreation buildings in the Neighborhood General Context Zone and a maximum of 5,000 square feet for any recreation buildings in the Neighborhood Edge Context Zone; a maximum of 30,000 square feet of wellness and commercial development in the Village Amenity and Wellness Center Context Zone; all subject to a maximum pm peak hour trip cap; and approving the Stewardship Receiving Area credit agreement for Hyde Park Village Stewardship Receiving Area and establishing that 3548.24 stewardship credits are being utilized by the designation of the Hyde Park Village Stewardship Receiving Area. The subject property is located north of Oil Well Road and east of the future Big Cypress in Section 16, Township 48 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Timothy Finn, AICP, Principal Planner] B. Noticed 10. New Business 11. Old Business 12. Public Comment 13. Adjourn 02/20/2020 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 5.A Item Summary: January 16, 2020, CCPC Minutes Meeting Date: 02/20/2020 Prepared by: Title: Operations Analyst – Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Name: Judy Puig 02/10/2020 3:50 PM Submitted by: Title: Manager - Planning – Zoning Name: Ray Bellows 02/10/2020 3:50 PM Approved By: Review: Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig Review item Completed 02/10/2020 3:50 PM Planning Commission Mark Strain Meeting Pending 02/20/2020 9:00 AM 5.A Packet Pg. 5 January 16, 2020 Page 1 of 32 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, January 16, 2020 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Mark Strain, Chairman Karen Homiak, Vice Chair Edwin Fryer, Secretary Patrick Dearborn Karl Fry Stan Chrzanowski, Environmental Joe Schmitt, Environmental Tom Eastman, Collier County School Board Representative ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Tim Finn, Principal Planner Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: 1-16-2020 CCPC Minutes (11645 : January 16, 2020, CCPC Minutes) January 16, 2020 Page 2 of 32 P R O C E E D I N G S CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the January 16th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes, sir. Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Fry? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm here. Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Vice Chair Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Schmitt? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Dearborn? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman, we have a quorum of five. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt called and noted he'd be running a little late. He had a prior meeting that he had to finish up before he could get here. Addenda to the agenda: We have four items on today's agenda. Two of them have requested continuances. Item 9A1 is the Collier Boulevard Interstate 75 Innovation Zone Overlay that would have allowed additional uses for qualified target industry businesses at that location. That one's been requested to be continued indefinitely, which means it will have to be advertised and whatever process evolves after that. So with that, I'd like to -- is there a motion to approve the continuation of 9A1? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Move to continue until after April 1st. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it can't be that specific, Stan, but just move to continue indefinitely. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Move to continue indefinitely. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. Just so everybody knows, Stan won't be here after April 1st, so... Okay. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. The second item that's being continued is No. 9A2. 9A2 is the Shadow Wood Planned Unit Development (PUD), and it's also the Wing South Airpark east of Santa Barbara Boulevard between Davis and 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: 1-16-2020 CCPC Minutes (11645 : January 16, 2020, CCPC Minutes) January 16, 2020 Page 3 of 32 Rattlesnake Hammock Road. That particular project has -- is looking at some new documentation that they're researching. They wanted a continuance to further take a look at that information. (Karl Fry is now present in the boardroom.) So with that -- and they asked for the continuance to February 6th. So is there a motion to approve the continuance of 9A2 to February 6th? It will be the first item up on the agenda on that day. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Patrick, seconded by Ned. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Chairman, our quorum has increased to six. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There we go. And we've got Tom here, too. So, good morning, Tom. MR. EASTMAN: Good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That takes us to the Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is February 6th, 2020. Does anybody know if they're not going to make it? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And we have -- just so you-all know, we started reviewing some of the agendas coming up, and for the next two months, we're trying to fit packed agendas in while Stan's still here, and so -- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we do have busy agendas, so starting -- I mean, our next few meetings will be pretty long, so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: We'll get you one way or the other. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We had two of our meeting minutes sent to us electronically. The first is December 3rd, and does anybody have any comments or changes on the December 3rd meeting? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Move their approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Ned. Seconded by -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Karen. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: 1-16-2020 CCPC Minutes (11645 : January 16, 2020, CCPC Minutes) January 16, 2020 Page 4 of 32 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 6-0. The second set of minutes was December 5th, 2019. Anybody have any corrections or changes? If not, is there -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Move their approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Moved by Ned. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Karen. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Ray, that takes us to the BCC report and recaps. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On January 14th, the Board of County Commissioners, during their public hearing, approved the Enbrook residential PUD 5-0, and on their summary agenda they approved the 3600 Radio Road CPUD and the Tree Farm MPUD amendment and a conditional use for the Immokalee Guadalupe Center. That was all on their summary agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Ray. I have no chairman's report this morning. We have no consent items. We'll move right into our remaining two items. ***The first one up is 9A3, and it's PL20180002453, KASE MPUD located on the east side of Livingston Road approximately one-quarter mile south of Immokalee Road. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I notice not everybody stood up. And just in case, if you're here for the innovation zone discussion, we're not having that today. It's been continued indefinitely. And if you're here for the Shadow Wood discussion, it's not going to be heard today. It's going to be heard on February 6th. So with that, disclosures; we'll start with Tom. MR. EASTMAN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: None. COMMISSIONER FRY: None. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Materials from staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I had materials from staff, I've saw the emails from staff, I saw the emails that staff forwarded from some of the neighbors, and I met with the applicant yesterday. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing, just the emails that everyone got. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll move first into -- and for those of you in the audience who haven't had the pleasure of being at one of these meetings before, we start out with a presentation by the applicant, the Planning Commission will ask questions, then any of the experts that the applicants have will also 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: 1-16-2020 CCPC Minutes (11645 : January 16, 2020, CCPC Minutes) January 16, 2020 Page 5 of 32 have time to speak. We'll go to a staff report after that, and then we go to public speakers. After public speakers, the applicant has a time for what's called rebuttal, and then we make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. So go ahead, Anna. MS. RITENOUR: Good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Karl got here is what you were -- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's always late. COMMISSIONER FRY: I've been here for hours. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They hold him up downstairs trying to get through security. He carries screwdrivers in his pocket. COMMISSIONER FRY: I was here last night also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Sorry for the interruption, Anna. He's the new kid on the block. We've got to give him a bad time. MS. RITENOUR: Good morning. My name is Anna Ritenour. I'm a certified planner with Davidson Engineering here representing the applicant and contract purchaser, Andrew Saluan, for the KASE Planned Unit Development rezone, MPUD. Here with me also today is Clay Brooker with Cheffy Passidomo and Jim Banks with JMB Transportation Engineering. The subject property is on the east side of Livingston Road and about a quarter mile south of Immokalee Road. Here is a better aerial view of the property. It's outlined in yellow. You can see that it's in close proximity to the I-75 interchange. Our request today is to change the current zoning of agriculture to rezone to a Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development. We would like to allow up to 76 residential units or 212 senior housing units. There is not a mix of uses proposed. So this is not a mixed-use development; however, when we first started this application process, in working with staff, they determined that should call this, title this, an MPUD because the LDC see group housing as a commercial use. So because we have a mix of uses listed in our PUD document, that's why we've titled it an MPUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One clarification. I believe group housing is allowed both in residential zoned districts as well as commercial. So staff made the call that the commercial application is the reason for the MPUD even though we have residential districts that could have been an RPUD then? MR. BELLOWS: The use, in and of itself, is actually classified as a community facility, CF, and that's where the mixed use comes from. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Sorry, Anna. MS. RITENOUR: Sure. So there are no deviations in this PUD request, and we did receive -- staff recommended approval. To the north, south, east, and west are PUD developments. You can see that there's only one other pocket of agriculture left here in this area. To the south, the dark green area that you see on the map, is the county park. And this is the Future Land Use Map. You can see that completely surrounding the property is the urban residential subdistrict. This dark black line is the residential density band, and that is signifying one mile from this red area that's the interchange activity center subdistrict. So what this tells us is that this whole area was always contemplated, since the adoption of the Future Land Use Map, for urban residential development. So we met with Chairman Strain and the County Attorney's Office yesterday and went through the PUD document, and we did make just a few clarifying revisions to the document. So I'd like to go through those with you. I handed out a redline version of the document, so you should have that to go through with us today. On Page 1, we removed Item A2A. We felt that this was a little overcomplicating things. So we've changed A2 to add in the word "all" so that group housing as a whole is limited to an FAR of .45 and a maximum of 212 units of any type. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: 1-16-2020 CCPC Minutes (11645 : January 16, 2020, CCPC Minutes) January 16, 2020 Page 6 of 32 On Page 3, you'll find the Development Standards Table. We've changed a few of the minimum distances between structures, and that was just to make sure that the buildings will work with the side s etbacks that we had already defined. And then on the far right of the table under the amenity area, we increased the setback to the north and east of the PUD boundaries to 100 feet. So then -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the amenity area. MS. RITENOUR: Correct, for the amenity area. So there will be a minimum setback from the north and east PUD boundaries of 100 feet, and then to the south and west will remain 35. We've also clarified the maximum height. We have always been requesting a maximum of three stories, and this was done by indication of feet, 40-foot zoned and 47-foot zoned as maximum for multifamily and group housing, but we've now added language to also say "not to exceed three stories" just to clarify that. And then on Page 5 we've added a legend just to indicate LB equals landscape buffer. Page 8 we've changed the managing entity of the PUD from "to be determined" to the applicant and contract purchaser, Andrew Saluan. And then on Page 8 we changed the language from nursing homes and assisted living to just be an overarching term of "group housing for seniors." So I'll move now to the proposed master plan. Highlighted in yellow are the surrounding PUD developments. On the north you can see April Circle PUD, Eboli PUD, and then to the east and south is Livingston Lakes PUD. The primary access point is on the west side of the property going to Livingston Road, and then we've got an optional secondary access on the northeast corner of the property going through the Eboli PUD. On the southeast corner of the property, we've got the required native vegetation preserve area of .16 acres. This meets the minimum requirement, and we've located it here, because this is where we do have some native vegetation but also to keep it contiguous with the Livingston Lakes preserve area. And then around the perimeter of the property, we've met and shown the minimum perimeter landscaping, and that includes the required fence or wall around the interior property lines. In yellow in the center of the development plan, we've got the development area, which could include, again, up to 76 residential units or up to 212 senior housing units. And then I was going to go through the traffic, but I'm going to let Jim Banks go through that and just give you his conclusions of his report. MR. BANKS: Good morning. For the record, Jim Banks, president of JMB Transportation Engineering. As Anna mentioned, my firm was responsible for preparing the Traffic Impact Statement for KASE MPUD application. The traffic study was prepared pursuant to Collier County's criteria. Staff reviewed the report and agreed with its findings and conclusions. The traffic study was prepared based upon the potential of the most intense development use on this site, which would be a single-family product. The traffic study's based on the potential development of 76 single-family dwelling units. If developed with that single-family product, the project will generate up to 78 p.m. peak-hour two-way trips. So we're requesting that the trip cap for this project be set at 78 p.m. peak-hour two-way trips. We then assessed the project's impact to the adjacent road network and found that the project will not have a significant or a negative impact on the adjacent road network. And, in fact, the project will have a de minimis impact on both Livingston Road and Immokalee Road. And de minimis is defined as the project's trips will be less than 1 percent of either Livingston Road or Immokalee Road's adopted capacity. So this project will use less than 1 percent of the road's capacity. And, in fact, it uses less than half of a percent of Immokalee Road's capacity. The report also concludes that there is adequate capacity on both Livingston Road and Immokalee Road to accommodate the project's traffic. More specifically, Livingston Road, which is a six-lane divided arterial, operates at 59 percent of its capacity. So that means that there is 41 percent surplus capacity on Livingston Road. Immokalee Road, which is a six-lane divided arterial, west of Livingston Road operates at 90 percent of its 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: 1-16-2020 CCPC Minutes (11645 : January 16, 2020, CCPC Minutes) January 16, 2020 Page 7 of 32 capacity. That means there's 10 percent remaining surplus capacity. And Immokalee Road east of Livingston Road operates at 74 percent of its capacity. In addition to answering the questions set forth by Collier County regarding the specific traffic impacts, we were also required to address eight of the transportation element policies of the Growth Management code. I will not go through each individual policy other than to say that the report concluded and staff agreed that this project will be consistent with all eight of those policies and can and will satisfy the criteria set forth in those policies. And that concludes the overview of the traffic study, and I'm here to answer any questions that you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And, Anna, did you have any more of your overall presentation, or are you two wrapped up on that, then? (Joe Schmitt is now present in the boardroom.) MS. RITENOUR: I just had one more slide, and it's really just a conclusion that we're requesting a recommendation of approval to the BCC for the rezone of the KASE MPUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, I'll turn to the Planning Commission members. Well, first of all, we'll recognize Mr. Schmitt is here. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have disclosures on the third item on the agenda? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have no disclosures on the item other than I received an email message and responded, but I have no issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you have a piece of paper in front of you. That was some corrections the applicant has offered for consideration. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So with that, questions of the applicant, anybody? Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: A few. Thank you. First of all, with respect to your master plan, you've entitled it "conceptual," and it really is fairly much of a blank slate. I know that there are some drawings that show where buildings could be, but it seems to me, if memory serves, we're more accustomed to seeing a little bit more detail within what is presented here as a blank slate. MS. RITENOUR: Yes. So the reason we left it fairly blank like you would say in the middle of the development plan is because we've proposed two what we think is a variation -- a wide variation of uses. We've got a list of different residential types and then also group housing. And so we did a couple conceptual plans with our first submittal that came in just for reference to show that we've got a really different idea of what this property could look like. But the main things that we wanted to point out is that, you know, of course, there's going to be a circulation road around the property to make sure that there's good circulation, and that also we'll be providing all of the landscaping and preserve that's required, and then we're hoping that the Development Standards Table will help with knowing that certain types of buildings will be set further away from property lines. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. The proposed pedestrian connection, does this lead to the sidewalks on Livingston? MS. RITENOUR: On the west side of the PUD? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. MS. RITENOUR: Yes. Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I thought so, but I wanted to clarify that. All right. Let me see what else I have. What are the tallest building structures adjacent to your property north, south, and west? MS. RITENOUR: Oh. Let me actually go to aerial view here. So on the west side of Livingston Road, these building are all three stories, and then I believe all of Livingston Lakes is two stories, and to the north is two to three stories. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Do you know the actual height? 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: 1-16-2020 CCPC Minutes (11645 : January 16, 2020, CCPC Minutes) January 16, 2020 Page 8 of 32 MS. RITENOUR: I don't know feet, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There was a chart that Tim prepared, and it's on Page 35 of the electronic copy that talks about the breakdown of the feet and height of each one of the surrounding. It says minimum height zoned and actual, and it gives all the projects. MS. RITENOUR: Yeah. So -- and, actually, the minimum height that was approved for Livingston Lakes PUD is actually three stories, 35 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You did that, not Tim, right? MS. RITENOUR: No, no. Tim prepared this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought he did. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Somehow I overlooked that. My mistake. MS. RITENOUR: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. I think the last question I have has to do with the accommodations you're proposing, developer commitments. It seems to me as though -- well, I'll just say it this way. I'd like to see more done than just one of each. And I don't know how other Planning Commissioners feel about that, but this doesn't seem like -- MS. RITENOUR: One of each? I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah, you say that shall provide a minimum of one of the following prior -- in a couple of cases here, and they're, I think, largely de minimis, and so one doesn't seem to be much of a stretch. MS. RITENOUR: Oh, under transportation, correct? Is that what you're looking at? COMMISSIONER FRYER: No. This is on -- this is on Page 326, and it is under developer commitments. There's an A and a B and a C. And A is trips. B is in the event of group housing, you'll do one of four things. MS. RITENOUR: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: C is if developed residential, you'll do one of two things. And I guess it's nice that you're going to do one, but it would be nicer if you would do, let's say, more than one. MS. RITENOUR: So, actually, because this is a de minimis impact, none of these would be required. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I understand that. MS. RITENOUR: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I understand. I just would -- I'm raising it in case other planning commissioners have the same concern. And, Chairman, that's all I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions? Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: Anna, there are a lot of people that stood up to speak presumably with some concerns about the development. I'm not sure all of them would be here to support. There wouldn't be that many. Explain how we got to 10 -- density of 10 units per acre, for everybody's benefit, and then how we got to a much higher number of senior housing units and how that is justified. MS. RITENOUR: I actually have a slide for that, just because I thought this question might come up. So here's a breakdown, and on the left side of the screen of how we calculated density here. The residential units, so not the group housing; we'll get to that in a second. Residential units, we started at a four-units-per-acre base, and then we -- because we're within that residential density band, we're requesting an additional three units per acre. And then because also we're within a TCMA area, we are requesting another three acres -- three units per acre, for a total of 10 units per acre. And then to get the group housing calculation, we've just used the four base and the three residential density band bonus, and it's typically looked at as a ratio of 4-1. So four group housing units equals one residential, and that's how we get to 212 group housing units. And then I just put a few of the densities in the surrounding area on the right side of the screen, and that's pretty similar to the table that Tim put together in your packet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just some clarifications. Historically, the residential unit calculations they're 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: 1-16-2020 CCPC Minutes (11645 : January 16, 2020, CCPC Minutes) January 16, 2020 Page 9 of 32 requesting, but they're allowed to request them because the code allows those quantities in this location. So it's not that they're just requesting them. They have a right to request them, so that's what they're here for today. The second thing on the group housing at 212 units, we don't really use that conversion anymore. We stopped that a long time ago. But the 212 units is not a regulated requirement. All it is is -- all we'd regulate is the FAR. The FAR of .45 will be dependent upon how they design their building. They could design it with more or less. So by -- they voluntarily have put a cap on it at 212, which I haven't seen that too often, but that's what they did. So just for further clarification. MS. RITENOUR: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Then Ned alluded to your TDM strategies. So the TCMA, the three units you're requesting as being part of the TCMA, is that at all -- to what extent is that dependent upon your TDM strategies offered? MS. RITENOUR: So -- I'm sorry. I just want to make sure I understand the question. Are we offering the TDM strategies since we're requesting the TCMA bonus; is that what you're saying? COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes, yes. Are they related? MS. RITENOUR: They're not related. In this case, the TDM strategies that we've put into our developer commitments are not really related to any specific part of the application. We were just hoping to make sure that this project is suitable for the surrounding community. So by adding a couple things that we could do as TDM strategies in addition to what would normally be required, we thought that would maybe be helpful for the project. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Last question. In the upper -- I'll call it the northeast corner, you have an auxiliary or kind of an additional potential ingress/egress point. So explain the strategy of that, the interconnection, and what the value -- potential value of that would be, and use. MS. RITENOUR: I actually have -- this is not very clear, but I'm going to try to show it anyway. So this is -- I know you can't see it very well; I'll explain. This is the approved Eboli PUD that's to the northeast of the -- or to the north on the east side of the project. Tim, can you point while I -- on the southeast corner of that property, there's a -- yep, right here. There's an arrow that was approved as part of that Eboli PUD. And so I'm -- we're guessing -- it was a long time ago, but we're guessing that there was some kind of interconnection contemplated in that general area. The arrow does not go directly to our property. In fact, it doesn't really directly point to any property, because at that time all of it was vacant. But because it was there, we thought that we would offer also an interconnection to try to help with any traffic relief, mainly because there was already one contemplated, so we've got it there. We're not sure if that property owner or the other property owners surrounding would even be willing to let us interconnect, but we've offered it. COMMISSIONER FRY: Would this have -- would this development have a gate to get into it, or is it just publicly accessible? MS. RITENOUR: We don't have that determined yet. Since we're not sure if we're going to be -- if it's a group housing facility, it could or it could not. Same with residential. We're not too sure yet. COMMISSIONER FRY: So if there was an interconnection to the development to the north, it might have a gate but might not. So all of this is undetermined at this point? MS. RITENOUR: Correct. We did kind of consider that. So I guess if it were to have a gate, maybe we would try to figure out a way to make sure that the other property could get access through, but not openly to the public. We're not -- it's all just being considered still at this time. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you. MS. RITENOUR: Yep. COMMISSIONER FRY: That's all I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom. MR. EASTMAN: In the packet there's an aerial photo, a series of aerial photos dating back in time, and you can see from the photo labeled 1985 that you have the dredging or the removal of soil. It creates what is, you 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: 1-16-2020 CCPC Minutes (11645 : January 16, 2020, CCPC Minutes) January 16, 2020 Page 10 of 32 know, currently wet on the property. Do you know anything about the history of this property or why it was dug or portions of dug out in '85, what the point or purpose of that was? Because we have this water on the property today that seems without reason or rationale. MS. RITENOUR: Yeah. So I don't have maybe all the aerials, but I do have what I think is enough to give us an idea. This one is from 1973. The outline is -- or the property is outlined in red. And you can see that everything there is not -- there's no lakes. Let me get a pointer here. And then when you go to 1980, there's a few lakes here on the property, and you can see that I-75 was starting to be constructed. This property was being used for borrow pits to be putting in fill for I-75. It's all man-made. And then further, in 2007, there were still no lakes, you know, surrounding the property, but you can still see the remnants of the borrow pits there. Does that answer the question? MR. EASTMAN: Thank you. Yes. MS. RITENOUR: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else for the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have one question of Mr. Banks. MR. BANKS: Marketing or traffic? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, Jim, I'm wondering what hat you're wearing today, but... Seed to Table, did you do the work on that one? MR. BANKS: I did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. When you did the analysis on the remaining capacity on Immokalee Road, did you include the Seed to Table's impacts in your analysis already as given, or does that not include Seed to Table? MR. BANKS: The original traffic study that was submitted was done prior to the 2019 AUIR report. It was based on the 2018 AUIR report. And at that time I don't believe that the vested trips from Seed to Table were included; however, I did do a subsequent analysis, because I expected you to ask if I did do it, using the 2019 AUIR. And the information I quoted to you about the existing capacity on Livingston as well as Immokalee Road was based on the 2019 AUIR which includes the vested trips from Seed to Table. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And is the -- I mean, you talk about vested trips, and that is because that was the zoning that was previously on the property from Carlton Lakes? MR. BANKS: I misspoke. Not vested trips. The trip bank. In other words, when we come in and request approval for development, we submit an accounting of what the trips are on the adjacent road network, and then staff enters that. So I misused the word "vested." I meant the trip bank. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the situation -- I haven't been up to Seed to Table recently. After I've heard the traffic issues up there, I've been afraid to go near there. But can you tell me -- there is, I guess, some traffic issues up there. Those -- what is that about; do you know? Just so we know how it impacts or doesn't impact this property. MR. BANKS: Well, as with most new businesses, such as the Oakes Farms where there's a lot of buzz, you know, for the first couple of months they're open, there's going to be heavier traffic than what's going -- you know, it's going to settle down. But my understanding, it was simply about the access about motorists turning in and out of Seed to Table and that because Albertson's at that the site had been abandoned for so long, there was a new learning curve on expected trips turning in and out of that site. As you know, there's a long right-turn lane along Immokalee Road, and some people that are exiting off of Immokalee Road that are turning into the Seed to Table now where before there wasn't very much traffic, so I think that's part of the friction that we're seeing out there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the traffic is off the road now? They're parking in parking lots, do you know. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: 1-16-2020 CCPC Minutes (11645 : January 16, 2020, CCPC Minutes) January 16, 2020 Page 11 of 32 MR. BANKS: I'm not sure if they've got the off-site parking open yet, but when they do, they're going to use a shuttle bus to bring their employees over from that parking lot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because all that interim issue, if it wasn't done, is -- if the parking lots were problematic because they weren't finished, I believe they're open. If they are, that's great. That will help. But I understood there was a lot of parking on the streets for a while. But if that's gone away, that will help. That's what I'm trying to check. MR. BANKS: Yeah. I believe they have opened up the parking across the street, but I've not been there myself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But you did -- in the end, though, for the TIS, you had calculated in the banked trips for this in -- MR. BANKS: As published in the 2019 AUIR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which is the most recent one we have. MR. BANKS: The most recent one you have. It's not in the traffic impact study, though, that you have on your record because, again, that was prepared before the 2019 AUIR. So I just want to make sure I'm not misstating what the facts are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the conclusions, would they be different? MR. BANKS: They're the same. And what I told you about the available capacity on both Immokalee and Livingston Road was based upon the 2019 AUIR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And with that we'll go to staff report. Tim? MR. FINN: Yes, sir. For the record, I'm Tim Finn, principal planner. The project is compliant with the GMP and the rezoning criteria within the LDC; therefore, staff recommends approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, when an applicant submits a Development Standards Table or any part of their development process, if something is obviously erroneous, you guys should tell them ahead of time. Because if you take a look at the calculations that got corrected from yesterday's meeting, they could not have 30 foot between buildings when they only had 5-foot setbacks between buildings, and that could have been cleaned up ahead of time. And the applicant should have caught it as well. But if staff would point those out, that might be worthwhile to save some time at the public meetings. MR. FINN: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we'll go to public speakers. We're going to start with registered public speakers, and then we'll go to those that aren't registered. And when your name's called, whatever mic's most convenient to you, you'll have to just tell us your name. And if it's more complicated than three letters, please spell it for the court reporter because sometimes we get them mixed up, and we want your name accurate. Go ahead, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Ezio Traunero. MR. TRAUNERO: I'll have to spell it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. We'll have to try that one. MR. TRAUNERO: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She's good at sounding phonics, but we want to make sure they're right, so... MR. TRAUNERO: Actually, that was a pretty good attempt of the name. I've always has problems with it. It's Ezio. It's E-z-i-o; Traunero, T-r-a-u-n-e-r-o. MR. BELLOWS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We started out with a really hard one. Thank you. MR. TRAUNERO: I'm part of the board at Livingston Lakes community, which is right behind this 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: 1-16-2020 CCPC Minutes (11645 : January 16, 2020, CCPC Minutes) January 16, 2020 Page 12 of 32 project. And I was going to read a statement, but some of the things have changed. So I'd like to j ust stress our three main points that we have. Number one is traffic. I think the study was done quite a while ago. And if you look at since Seed to Table has opened, and even prior to that, Livingston Lakes going north during rush hour is a complete disaster. You have an accumulation of traffic that goes back at least close to a mile at some points. It's almost impossible for us to get out of our community when that happens. So when someone looks at that during rush hour, they will see how congested it is. So that's, by far, the biggest concern. Our second one is we don't see any room for preserve area whatsoever. There's just -- it seems like this project is going to be bang on right up to our sidewalks. At least that's what I saw from the plans. I'm not sure what Collier County's requirements are when it comes to that. But the other project that was just recently approved, which we supported, was the car dealership. I believe it was a Lexus dealership, and it was agreed that there would be at least, I believe, 100 feet of preserve area. What -- all the owners of the communities loved about purchasing in this location was the availability of space between units. A project of this magnitude in a space of, I believe it's one acre, sounds to me like it's going to be very, very tight. So I'm not sure -- I haven't seen the designs, but I don't know how you're going to fit 212 people in a one-acre lot. COMMISSIONER FRY: It's 7.8 acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's almost eight acres. COMMISSIONER FRY: Just to clarify. MR. TRAUNERO: Eight. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's eight times bigger than one acre, yeah. MR. TRAUNERO: Well, it looks very small, but that's probably me, anyways. And the final point is the building heights, but I understand now it's down to three. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. TRAUNERO: It was originally four. So that seems more reasonable. It is -- it will block our community, the view of our community or, I guess, the way we perceive it to be now. It's always -- it was always going to stay this way. Now we're realizing a big, huge building may go in front of us, so... Traffic, I believe, is, by far, the biggest concern. I think it's only going to get worse. Since Seed to Table came up, it's gotten probably 10 times worse. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Chairman. MR. TRAUNERO: That parking lot is full all the time, so... That's it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have one question. COMMISSIONER FRY: I just have a question for you. Two questions, actually. So when you have trouble getting onto Livingston heading north, is it the right lane that backs up? People maybe perhaps -- I know that they stack often to make the right turn onto Immokalee, but what do you experience in terms of congestion? MR. TRAUNERO: Exactly. That right lane really backs everybody up. COMMISSIONER FRY: Past your entrance? MR. TRAUNERO: Exactly. Right in front of our entrance. But in some cases we have to basically wait until all the cars move out of the way. COMMISSIONER FRY: Do you know -- so you mentioned your sidewalks. Are your sidewalks on the outside perimeter of your development? MR. TRAUNERO: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: They are? MR. TRAUNERO: Well, especially in that point. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. I mean -- and I don't expect you to know this, but I'll ask the applicant later just how close the sidewalks are to the property border and how much buffer there would be between their 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: 1-16-2020 CCPC Minutes (11645 : January 16, 2020, CCPC Minutes) January 16, 2020 Page 13 of 32 sidewalks and your development, so thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we'll have the county Transportation Department describe the conditions of the Immokalee Road and that before this is over. And as far as the buffers between the sidewalks or whatever is next door, they are on the master plan. I think they're 15-feet landscape buffers. And the PUD table has, I believe, a perimeter setback for the -- for any of the structures in the PUD to the PUD boundary of -- it depends on -- 15 to 35 feet depending on the type of use. COMMISSIONER FRY: Do we know that the sidewalks in Livingston Lakes are right up against that border? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Livingston Lakes would most likely have had to -- had some buffer up there, but I don't know offhand. Even if it did, that's outside this project's ability to control. So, I mean, if they got -- on the line, that's their choice to have done that, if they could have at the time. It's not -- I mean, I don't know what to do about that. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Joseph Capriotti. MR. CAPRIOTTI: Good morning. Joseph Capriotti, C-a-p-r-i-o-t-t-i. A little easier than Ezio. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You-all -- I definitely am glad you're spelling your names, though. That's a good start. Thank you. MR. CAPRIOTTI: You know, when I've been to these -- and, by the way, thank you for allowing me to have a say this morning, because it's been on my mind now for several months since I heard about the project. And I'm not really here to talk about property values, because when I've been to these meetings before and a structure goes up, the residents all come in and they talk about how their property values are going to decrease. Well, you know, I think your property values decrease when you don't take care of your property. And Livingston Lakes -- by the way, I'm on the board with Ezio and Alicia, who's sitting behind Ezio. And I don't think your property values really decrease if you keep your property up. And we in Livingston Lakes, especially on the board, do everything we can, in an unpaid position, to keep our property values up. So hopefully, if the project goes through, I hope that the people that build it and the people this live in this keep up the same aesthetics that we do. My number-one objection to the property -- to this project is traffic. I don't know when the traffic study was done, but to even slightly indicate that the impact will go down is crazy. If you live there the way we live there, we know what it's like. The traffic on Livingston Road, especially with Seed to Table and the car dealership and the housing and the proposed new housing development that is being proposed further down on Livingston, will really only add greatly to the nightmare that we go through all year and especially during season when it becomes dangerous with the U-turns coming off of Livingston to try to go north. The traffic isn't backed up just in front of our development. It's backed up all the way down to the park. MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. BELLOWS: Can we have a recess? There is a television glitch that we need to resolve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, I hate to interrupt you in the middle of it. Could you hold and come back so everybody is caught appropriately on video? MR. CAPRIOTTI: Of course. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. We'll take a recess for a few minutes at least, at least until Troy comes back and tells us we're back on. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. Thank you. (A brief recess was had from 9:41 a.m. to 9:45 a.m.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If everybody will please take their seats. We've just been notified by or electronic people that the Russian hackers have been overcome, and we are back online. And so the gentleman that was interrupted by this international dilemma, maybe you could come up and finish your 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: 1-16-2020 CCPC Minutes (11645 : January 16, 2020, CCPC Minutes) January 16, 2020 Page 14 of 32 discussion with us. MR. CAPRIOTTI: I'll try to remember where I was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You spelled your name, so we started there. MR. CAPRIOTTI: Well, you know what, I'm going to be 72 this month, so it starts going away. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're in the same ranks. MR. CAPRIOTTI: Well, there you go. Okay. You know, again, I just want to finish up by saying, I don't know what time of day, week, month, or year the traffic study was done, but when you live there all the time you get to observe the traffic 24/7. And I'm not one that gets a lot of sleep anyway, don't require it, so I'm either walking around or doing something, and I observe the traffic. And when Seed to Table opened, it -- the traffic horror increased exponentially. And just to give you an example, I left the community yesterday three different times just to test it. The worst time was around 3:30, 4:00 in the afternoon. There were about five cars lined up waiting to make a U-turn. So you hesitate. Do I let them go? Do I go? They can go. I can't go. The traffic was backed up almost to the park. I finally was able to make the right, then I wanted to make a left on Immokalee. It took me seven minutes to make that left. So I don't understand how anyone can say the traffic would decrease with the addition of either 76 units or 220 [sic]. It's going to be a complete dangerous, disastrous nightmare. And I implore you just to take a look at what we are going through now with Seed to Table, with the proposed car dealership, with our community. And I'll mention one more thing. When there's a soccer game going on down at the park or any activity going, it increases again. So being a resident there and having experienced this, I just implore you to take that into consideration of what we are going through now and what we will have to go through in the future if this goes through. So thank you very much for listening, and I hope you'll think about that before you make your final approval on this development. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Sir. MR. CAPRIOTTI: Sorry. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's all right. Just for your background -- MR. CAPRIOTTI: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- we study this material very carefully, and one of the things we rely on are the AUIR reports, particularly Attachment F, which shows segments of all the major roads in the county. And the 2018 AUIR showed, in three cases -- well, the 2019 showed an actual decrease of traffic intensity in comparison to 2018, and the numbers that they're displaying for Livingston Road for 2019 for peak hour peak p.m. traffic is 1,274 for Livingston Road in one segment, and then in another segment 1,711, and then for Immokalee Road we see 913 and 311. And so when we see an estimate that this is going to increase traffic by 78 peak p.m., I'm inclined not to be too concerned about it. But then when individuals like you come in and say how bad it is, it just makes me wonder, can the AUIR really be relied upon? I mean, it's almost like night and day what you're saying versus what is reported to us. MR. CAPRIOTTI: Yes, sir, and I agree with that. You know, again, unless you have somebody posted out there 24/7, to really get a reliable reading on what the traffic is, I think a study is really insignificant. If you -- if you are a resident there and observe it 24/7 then you know what the real impact is. And, again, when -- Seed to Table, by the way, did not open till mid December, so I don't know how a study can be authenticated on traffic that Seed to Table did or did not impact us that quickly when it didn't open until mid December when the real traffic is. That parking lot is filled to capacity. And even when the employee parking is set aside across Livingston and even with the transport shuttle back and forth, those employees still have to get to work, and they're going to use Immokalee or they're going to 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: 1-16-2020 CCPC Minutes (11645 : January 16, 2020, CCPC Minutes) January 16, 2020 Page 15 of 32 use Livingston to get into that parking lot for the shuttle to pick them up. So, again, I'm not that concerned about what people mostly complain about, which is decrease in their property values. What I'm concerned about is having my grandchildren trying to get onto the property, those that drive, and my family and my myself and my fellow residents trying to use our property, which is going to be significantly impacted by the additional residents that are going to occupy that space that they're proposing. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. MR. CAPRIOTTI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Is there another registered speaker? MR. BELLOWS: None registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then we're going to go to unregistered speakers, and we'll just -- and anybody that -- and I see your hands up. You'll first have to let us know if you were sworn in, and then you'll come up to the podium, and we can go ahead and listen to what you've got to say. So for those of you that still want to speak, if you have not been sworn in, please rise so the court reporter can swear you in. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. Sir, I'm old-fashioned. Could we let the lady go first. Then we'll get to you. Ma'am, come on up. MS. WALKER: Good morning. My name is Elizabeth Walker, and I live in Livingston Lakes. And I don't mean to sound abrasive, but I am so surprised Collier County would even consider allowing the zoning to be changed on that small parcel of land adjacent to Livingston Lakes. We have two apartment complexes, and to build a commercial building is lowering the value of the complexes. Plus, mixing is never a good idea. And I'm surprised Naples planning would do that. The value of our property will drop. Applying the gas when we're leaving Livingston Lakes and trying to accelerate onto Livingston is really bad, because people come zooming down on the opposite side, put on their brake a little bit. They see nothing's coming up. Whoom. They go right in and -- or they make a U-turn; zoom. And we're trying -- I'm trying to think, I need to get into the left lane to go to Immokalee Road. I can't do that. I'll get in the right. But getting into the right, invariably that backs up, and then you're putting on your blinker to get over, and you can't do it. Nobody -- they're not nice drivers down here. They're really not nice. Okay. So aside from that. MR. KLATZKOW: You never drove in Massachusetts, ma'am, if you think they're not nice here. MS. WALKER: I am from Boston. I'm from Winchester, Mass. Yes, I know how they drive. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, you people are the worst. MS. WALKER: I think they used to be. Anyway -- so anyways, Livingston Lakes people already have to be careful, I already said, at the U. Okay. And then you have to worry about the light and getting up to the light. All right. So it would -- I don't think that would be good planning. We need a little bit more open space to make oxygen with all the car pollution in that area. That area is pretty saturated with overbuilding. Seed to Table has created enough new traffic for that area. The zoning -- if the zoning was going to be changed, I would never have bought there. We have a really nice complex. The association has put a lot of money into making it inviting and looking nice from the street. It really does look quite nice. I think the value will plummet. And Naples is going to have more problems with cheaper housing. Do you want to create a Fort Myers? Let's try to keep the prices up in that development and make it a nice development, not have it go down in value because you've got that next to it. And you're going to have cars coming out all the time. And people that are living in Livingston now and go to sell it, people aren't going to want to buy it. It's just too congested. I wouldn't buy it today if I knew a building was going in next to it with 200-odd people. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: 1-16-2020 CCPC Minutes (11645 : January 16, 2020, CCPC Minutes) January 16, 2020 Page 16 of 32 Let's say the husband and wife both have a car. You know, think about it. You're putting a lot of money just in parking, housing those cars. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am, you need to direct your attention to us. MS. WALKER: Okay. So that's where I stand. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just one question. MS. WALKER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you bought your property, you know, there's other vacant land around you. It's not owned by your board or by your people. Unless you guys buy it, I'm not sure how we can prevent someone from rezoning it. Now, there are certain things we can do to make it more compatible. But to say they can't build there because you bought not realizing it's -- MS. WALKER: Unfortunately -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, everything is going to be zoned. I don't understand where your reasoning it. MS. WALKER: Unfortunately, when we moved in, the building commission allowed them to put up signs, I guess, WCI, saying "preserve area." So everywhere we go all around there it says "preserve area." I bought under a wrong assumption, and I think the building committee should never have allowed WCI to put up those signs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But at the same time, we can't make that the responsibility of the property owner and punish them because somebody else declared their property a preserve and it's not. So we're in somewhat of a dilemma on some of the issues you brought up, and that's what I just wanted to let you know. It's someone else's property. It's simply -- they have a right to use it. MS. WALKER: I understand that. But I just think that if -- I just think if you're going in there and you're looking at a lot of land and all around it says "preserve area," you believe that that's what it is. And they told me it's been designated forever as preserve land. What they didn't tell me and what I didn't ask was how far back it would go. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, that's the key question. MS. WALKER: That was the key question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And also -- MS. WALKER: And the fence didn't go up until after the development was done. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And also public records. There are public records that -- available and open to the public showing and depicting the existing zoning on all these parcels. MS. WALKER: Yeah. Well, it was false advertising on WCI's part, and they got away with it. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: But I wanted to just thank you for being one of the nice Massachusetts drivers down here in Naples. Thank you. MS. WALKER: Oh. And I love it down here. Naples is beautiful. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker. Sir, if you want to come up. Please identify yourself for the record. MR. KING: Thank you. My name is Ed King. I want to thank you-all for your serving the county, and I say that as a prior 25-year member of a planning board in Massachusetts. And I know what it's like to serve the public with public hearings for 25 years. That said, I have wintered in the neighborhood for 19 years at this intersection and been a full-time resident for five. And while I think they put together a lovely proposal, I am going to address some traffic concerns, and I might be redundant. What we have here is, we would term, a completely failed intersection. Now, I know the engineer spoke regarding one road is at 90 percent and one is at 77. Having read traffic reports for 26 years, when you have to wait more than two traffic sequences at an intersection, we always considered that a failed intersection. From 3:00 to 5:00 you will wait a minimum of four sequences to get through that intersection. I come out from St. Croix Lane. I have to do the U-turn -- sorry, I need glasses but, as you said, at our age it happens. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: 1-16-2020 CCPC Minutes (11645 : January 16, 2020, CCPC Minutes) January 16, 2020 Page 17 of 32 And although the map doesn't show it, we have to do the U-turn if you come out the rear entrance from St. Croix, which the majority of people do because, as everyone knows, trying to exit onto Immokalee Road is nearly impossible. Our U-turn is directly opposite Livingston Lakes, which has created, in my mind, a hazard because, as the lady said, if they're coming out to take a right, we have to do the U-turn, and we need all three lanes to do the U-turn to exit toward Immokalee Road. In the afternoon, almost every single day it is backed up all the way to the park. It is literally impossible to do the U-turn and get to Immokalee Road. And the poor people coming out from Livingston Lakes, I agree, if they want to take a left on Immokalee Road, it is a hazardous condition. I also heard, they say that Seed to Table, that there will be an ebb and then it will likely die down. I do not believe that. Collier County news has called Seed to Table the Disney World of grocery stores. Last I checked, Disney World is still crowded. I suspect Seed to Table will be for as long as into the future that I will be here. I'm amazed -- when I hear that anyone from a county standpoint is putting a stamp of approval adding to this intersection is mind boggling. I'm not sure if you have contacted the Fire Department, but you have a new fire station directly down the street on Immokalee Road. If anyone in this proposed division needs an ambulance or a fire truck between 3:30 and 5:00, it will be literally -- you will quadruple the response time to get into that subdivision. If there's a medical emergency in there, I personally feel there would be a loss of life, and I would be amazed if a fire chief told you anything different. If you come through Immokalee Road with a fire vehicle, it will be nearly impossible to make that U-turn in a truck with completely blocked traffic whether your sirens are going or not. There is no way they're going to get into this subdivision in a proper response time. Now, I did hear from the engineer, and I'll tell you, if you go there any afternoon, we have two completely failed intersections. I'm not sure how you do a traffic report here -- and I'm one of them terrible drivers, apparently, from Massachusetts, but if you have to wait through three to five traffic sequences, you have a failed intersection. And the number-one problem I have after 19 years here, as we all do, is traffic. And this is only going to add to it. I don't care if you only have two trips coming out of there in peak hours. If you have to get an emergency vehicle into this new subdivision, God forbid, I would not want to be on that response vehicle. And thank you all for your service to the county, and I definitely know how troubling it can be at times. So thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker? Sir, I think you had your hand up. MR. BONFIGLIO: Good morning. My name is Nicholas Bonfiglio. That would be B-o-n-f-i-g-l-i-o. Resident at Livingston Lakes. Basically, my concern is the same as my fellow residents at Livingston Lakes. It's the traffic. I am a member of Vasari Country Club, which is down on Livingston Road past Immokalee Road on the north side, and I go there all the time to play golf, my girlfriend, eat dinner; poker last night. And it is an absolute horror show, as the gentlemen before me have mentioned. The traffic is backed up all the way to the park. That lane for people trying to make a turn onto Immokalee Road just completely cuts off our ability to get onto Livingston. I use the left two lanes to try to get down Livingston Lakes towards Vasari. Directly across from us is the U-turn that Ed just mentioned. Several times, in trying to get past the traffic lane and get into the right -- into the left two lanes so that I can go down Livingston Lakes, almost been hit by people trying to make that U-turn because they've been waiting in line forever to try to make a U-turn. And, as he said, making that U-turn is essentially a two- to three-lane process for them, which puts them right into the traffic lane for Immokalee. With all of the developments on Immokalee out east, for those people who come and work towards the Naples area, it is just completely impacting the traffic flow. And then forget about Seed to Table. I came home last night from playing poker. It was about 9:15 at 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: 1-16-2020 CCPC Minutes (11645 : January 16, 2020, CCPC Minutes) January 16, 2020 Page 18 of 32 nighttime coming back to Livingston Lakes. Parking lot was completely packed. So I don't understand the traffic flow that the gentleman presented before. It is not the reality of the situation. So what I would ask that you really consider reviewing, all of this traffic, because how are you going to get 212 units worth of cars or 76 units worth of cars in and out of that place? They're never going to be able to get in and out of their own place. They're going to have to make that U-turn as well if they're coming from the north side of Livingston Lakes. It will be a horror show for those people, let alone for the rest of us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just a point of clarification. The options to build there are single-family, multifamily, or the senior group housing. The single -- the senior group housing at 212 beds actually has a peak-hour traffic flow that's still about one-third less than any other options. So if the 212, which seems like a bigger number, was utilized, because it's senior housing, more of a bedded -- a senior facility, that will actually produce less traffic, and I just kind of want to make that clarification. It's not 212 stand-alone units that are going to have their own cars. MR. BONFIGLIO: Point noted. It's still going to be a horror show. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no, I know. I just -- I didn't want anybody to misconstrue that as 212 units. It's not. It's bed-type units. MR. BONFIGLIO: I understand. Thank you for your time and for your service. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: If I could make a suggestion. MR. BONFIGLIO: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Where I live I have to do the same thing. If I want to make a U-turn going south on Airport Road, I have to cross three lanes of traffic in a hurry. I don't. I go down, I make a right turn somewhere, a perfectly legal maneuver, wait for the light, and I make a left and head south. MR. BONFIGLIO: You have to understand -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: If these people went a little bit farther to the park entrance, they could make a U-turn with a light and get in the line of traffic rather than trying to cut across all that if you're -- you know, the people coming out from across the street from Livingston Lakes. It's just a suggestion. It might be a little safer if you're -- you know, I'm older than you guys, I think, and I'm still a little, too, aggressive driving. But I think a lot of these older folks would have a little better of a time if they did that. Just a suggestion. MR. BONFIGLIO: Well, that would be a suggestion to the people in St. Croix. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Right. Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. BONFIGLIO: Thank you for your time. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Any other speakers who have not spoken that would like an opportunity? Ma'am, if you'll come up. Did you get sworn in? MS. TESTA: No. Okay. You'll have to be sworn in first by the court reporter. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Use one of the mics, and let us know who you are. MS. TESTA: I'm Alysia Testa, and I am a member of the board at Livingston Lakes. I'll spell my first name; A-l-y-s-i-a. Last name T-e-s-t-a. You've heard everybody comment on the traffic. I probably don't need to reiterate that, but the traffic is bad. I've been stuck either trying to turn right or trying to turn left to go up the road to make the left to turn and go south on Livingston Road, and both are a nightmare. For us to go out and to try to turn -- I guess for what you were saying about going further up the road before trying to make a U-turn, for us going further up the road and making a right-hand turn, we'd end up on Immokalee Road which would make it even worse and would take even longer, so that's really not an option for us, or we sit through multiple lights just to go north across Immokalee Road. Generally speaking, two to three light patterns it takes to go through, sometimes even four depending on the time of day, to turn left or to turn right to get onto Immokalee Road or to turn to go south onto Livingston. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: 1-16-2020 CCPC Minutes (11645 : January 16, 2020, CCPC Minutes) January 16, 2020 Page 19 of 32 One of the questions that was presented here -- everyone did talk about when we bought in Livingston Lakes we were buying there because of the look of it, because of the preserve areas, because there was a lot of green space there, which a lot of communities don't offer and, yes, a lot of people should have probably looked further into where our property line ends and looked at overhead maps to see where Livingston Lakes property ends and where the next lots come into effect and how they touch us, and we all should have known that there is a definite possibility that the lots would be purchased by outside investors to do other things with. I don't -- I don't diminish or take away from anybody's want to make a profit on the land. We would gladly, in Livingston Lakes, look at the opportunity to purchase that piece of land. And I believe that WCI did try to purchase the piece of land that we are now discussing, and at some point they were offered a price of well over $2 million, so they decided not to. And at this point, it is public knowledge, I mean, it's in public records, it was purchased in 2018 or transferred ownership for $100,000. The value's probably a little higher. We would -- again, as I said, in Livingston Lakes, we're not saying that these people should not have the ability -- the current owners would not have the ability to sell their property. We would welcome the opportunity to speak with them about a decent offer, a realistic offer to purchase the property and keep it as it is or maybe use it later to develop into some kind of a green space, an additional green space for us in the community. Part of the reason most of us came to Naples and purchased in Naples as opposed to purchasing in Miami or Fort Lauderdale or Tampa, we purchased here because it was a quieter community. It was a beautiful community with a lot of green space and a lot of -- and it was easier to get around here. What we're seeing -- and it's just what happens. As more and more people discover Naples, it gets more and more densely populated, and there's a lot more traffic. And, I mean, I get it, we can't stop it from happening, but this would be one thing to stop this piece of land from being rezoned and sold and for a more commercial use or more residential use but right there on an already busy thoroughfare. My hope is that we would turn that down; that you would turn it down; that you would decide against it and allow it to stay as an agriculturally zoned property, and we would then, again, move forward to purchase it and keep it and not upset the ecosystem any more than it already is. There's a lot of water right there. There are a lot of animals living there right now. And, again, we're going to be filling it in with dirt and cement and causing more problems with -- potentially with runoff and water and loss of vegetation, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think there's one question. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Ms. Testa, I am utterly sympathetic with your concerns, and I -- but I want you to know, to a significant degree, our hands are tied. The property, although it is currently zoned agricultural, under the Comprehensive Plan, under the Growth Management Plan, it is set up for mixed-use activity, and it is proximate to an activity center and the expectation, which has always been a matter of public notice, public information in the Growth Management Plan, is that it is going to be rezoned in a way that will bring about more intensity. And that's a matter of public record, and it -- without a change in the Growth Management Plan to create an agricultural island there, it's just -- it's not something that is within our power to do. But, nonetheless, I sympathize with you and share your concerns. But decisions of that -- that order of magnitude would require a change to the Growth Management Plan, and it would create, in essence, an agricultural island in an otherwise very -- an area that's planned for considerable density and intensity. MS. TESTA: So there's no -- you're saying there's no way for us to stop it from being turned into a commercial or residential area? COMMISSIONER FRYER: At this point, the only thing you could do would to get a Growth Management Plan change, but I don't think that would -- MR. KLATZKOW: You couldn't get a growth management change for this because you'd be taking a way somebody's vested rights. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Exactly. MR. KLATZKOW: Just so you understand, the way Collier County largely developed was everything was zoned agricultural with the thought that it would get rezoned into a Planned Unit Development, which is 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: 1-16-2020 CCPC Minutes (11645 : January 16, 2020, CCPC Minutes) January 16, 2020 Page 20 of 32 pretty much, everybody's house in this room, how it happened. This is just their turn in the queue. I mean, you guys got rezoned years ago, and now it's their turn to get rezoned. And I know what the traffic's like, and it's going to get worse, but this board cannot stop a zoning. They can limit the density, to some degree, from the ask to what they're entitled to, but that's really it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The only way to stop it is if somebody purchased it and did not develop it. MS. TESTA: Correct, which is what we would like to do, but at a price of $2 million, which was offered to the building, that's something that's cost prohibitive to us. But again -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am, that property's worth far more than $2 million. You're not going to ever get close to that number. Again, it's just not -- this is urban area. It's crazy the price that's going on right now, but that's the reality of it, unfortunately, so... Thank you for your time, Miss. Is there anybody else who has not spoken that would like to? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thank you, Ms. Testa. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, Mike Sawyer, I think we'd like to pick your brain a little bit. Oh, I'm sorry, there's somebody else. You'll have to come up, and we'll have to see if you've been sworn in, and then your name for the record, please. MS. DENSMORE: I haven't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have been sworn in? MS. DENSMORE: I haven't. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. DENSMORE: My name is Jeanne Babette Densmore. It's J-e-a-n-n-e, B-a-b-e-t-t-e, D-e-n-s-m-o-r-e. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to pull that mic a little closer to you when you continue. Thank you. MS. DENSMORE: Okay. My husband and I purchased a small condo last year in Bermuda Palms, and it is right on Immokalee Road. And one of the things we loved about it was that behind our unit it's especially peaceful and calm. Lots of trees. I realize that from what you've said today, there will be construction back there now. One of my concerns, well, besides the traffic, getting out of there, I depend on the kindness of the drivers. And depending on how kind they are determines where I do my grocery shopping. Either Publix, if I can cross all those lanes to make a left, or I go to Walmart, which is to the right. So my life sort of is determined, in a way, by some of that traffic pattern. I can live with that. I am concerned about all those animals, though, because I know we've had trouble even with the raccoons that come into our area, and if there's a lot of construction there, where in the world are they going to go? We even had a bear in our property last year before we bought, but we bought anyway. So those are two things I'm concerned about. I think if something is built back there, it would be nice to have a senior living center, I think, because you said that the traffic would be less, though there will be plenty of family members coming to take care of their families that are there. But it will still cut down on some of the traffic. And then I had a question. The ingress and egress -- or egress, however you stay it, from that development, I could not tell from that diagram where the traffic from the new development would be going in and out other than onto Livingston. So can somebody tell me -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the only route. It would only be Livingston. MS. DENSMORE: Oh, I thought she had a little arrow -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the arrow -- MS. DENSMORE: -- to go on to somebody else's property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- is a possibility, but that's -- no, that's not something -- I don't believe it was an arrow for vehicular connections for them. I think maybe -- I'll let them clarify that. But their only access will be Livingston Road. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: 1-16-2020 CCPC Minutes (11645 : January 16, 2020, CCPC Minutes) January 16, 2020 Page 21 of 32 MS. DENSMORE: Only access. Okay. Okay. So are you going to let her clarify that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not right now. When they come up after everybody speaks, we'll ask her the remaining question. MS. DENSMORE: Oh, okay. Very good. That is all I had to say, and I appreciate you listening to me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. DENSMORE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. Mike, let's try you coming up now. Mike -- MR. SAWYER: For the record, Mike Sawyer, transportation planning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As much clarification as you can provide involving the whole area and, you know, the functioning of the vested trips. Seed to Table's final result, I'm sure, they're going to -- things are going to be flowing better once they get further along in some of the things they've got to do. Can you help us explain all of this, what's going on in that area as far as improvements go for Immokalee Road and the intersections, if there are any. MR. SAWYER: Yeah, I think I can give some clarification. First off, I think there's a slight -- what we're really talking about is an operational issue. When we look at zoning, we look at AUIR, the capacity on the road systems. That's the capacity that we've got on those road systems. That being said, we are more than aware of issues all along Immokalee and especially in this particular intersection. Our group is working on a corridor study on Immokalee starting at Livingston and going all the way down to Logan. That study's going to be very similar to the one that we did and completed this last year for Pine Ridge. That was taken to the Board and got the recommendation to proceed with intersection improvements. Those intersection improvements are going to provide approximately somewhere in the neighborhood of about a 30 percent increase in the capacity that we were -- we'll experience on Livingston -- or, I'm sorry, on Pine Ridge. Whether that same type of percentage is going to be possible on Immokalee, we won't know until we get the study completed. Part of that study, obviously, is going to be outreach, which is what we did with the Pine Ridge study, reaching out to the community, both the residential people that are there, as well as the commercial businesses. Along with that, in this particular area we are going to be having Vanderbilt extension, which is going to be coming online, and when that does, that's going to be a corridor -- a parallel corridor for Immokalee. We're expecting to see a fair amount of reduced impact on Immokalee because of that. The other thing that we've got is, again, we've looked and made improvements in this particular intersection. I believe last year we extended the right-turn lane to go east on Immokalee, which I think we experienced a fair improvement because of that extension. We're -- our operations people are also looking constantly at improving how the signalization in that intersection works, and they're changing it as they -- as much as they possibly can to improve the flow through that intersection. Like I said, we're definitely aware of the issues on that intersection. It's also a very unique intersection. The peak direction on Immokalee actually splits at that intersection. It actually splits east and west. So peak p.m. is in a west direction from Livingston. Peak p.m. east also occurs on that intersection. So actually peak direction actually splits on Immokalee at that intersection. We don't see that a lot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, I've known you a long time. But you're talking too much like Jim Banks and Norm Trebilcock. MR. SAWYER: I apologize, my friend. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, Mike, you used to be pretty plain and simple. Could you just tell us how far in the future -- MR. SAWYER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you've got improvements planned for right-turn lane, left-turn lane that are intersection improvements for Immokalee and Livingston Road. MR. SAWYER: Currently, I do not know of any immediate intersection improvements that we have 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: 1-16-2020 CCPC Minutes (11645 : January 16, 2020, CCPC Minutes) January 16, 2020 Page 22 of 32 online. What we have is the corridor study that we're going to be working on and any improvements that we can make as far as signalization. In the nutshell, that's the immediate stuff. We're talking transportation. These things take -- as you know, these things can take quite a while. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, but rate of approval of the density is going faster than the improvements on the roads. And I know there's capacity, and that's another question I'll have as soon as Ned asks his. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's what mine has to do with. As you know, Mike, we rely heavily on the AUIR when we -- when we consider these matters. And in this case, particularly, there doesn't seem to be any proximity between what the AUIR is saying and what the neighbors are saying, and the disparity is really significant. Usually -- and, you know, I frequently raise objections and questions and am critical of adding more capacity to a road when it -- in a close case, but if you compare the projection that Mr. Banks is offering to the capacity that shows on the AUIR, this is not a close case. So my question is this: There are two variables here that bring about the remaining capacity numbers that appear in the AUIR. The one variable is the actual traffic counts, which I know you do annually on every segment, correct? MR. SAWYER: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah, okay. So that's a solid number. But then there's the estimate of how much capacity in total a road can carry. And I'd like to know more about how you arrive at that and how often you challenge yourselves at perhaps that number is not correct. MR. SAWYER: The way we determine the capacity on our road systems are -- is consistent with what we -- what we receive as far as those calculations from the Department of Transportation for Florida. So, in other words, that's a state standard that says, okay, on a given road with this many lanes and this many conflict points, you have X capacity. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. And that -- is that formula -- does that allow for any flexibility, or is it absolute black and white, hard number for each segment? MR. SAWYER: It's a hard number. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Can you -- last question I have is, is there any way you can account for the huge disparity between what we're hearing and what we see in the AUIR? MR. SAWYER: All that I can tell you, again, is that the AUIR is simply looking at the capacity on a particular road segment and what we have on the trip counts that we do on a quarterly basis and also what we are anticipating and including a growth rate projected for five years. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. SAWYER: That's what the AUIR says. That does not look at the operational issues that we may have at particular intersections or particular points along that road segment. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: Hi, Mike. So I'm hearing two common problems experienced by the residents in this area. One is that they can't get out onto Immokalee because the right lane backs up from people trying to turn east on Immokalee. Just looking at the aerial of it, there's a single rather long turn lane onto Immokalee with, I assume, drainage, easements, and swales next to it to the right. What is the possibility of putting in a second right-hand turn lane in order to, I guess, you know, cut in half the traffic that's backed up in that right lane? MR. SAWYER: Honestly, I can't tell you that. I can research that and get back to you on that. I would actually go back to our operational people because, again, they've been working quite a bit on finding solutions for that particular intersection. COMMISSIONER FRY: I mean, I think that -- and I've experienced that intersection as well. I think we all have. You know, if you could actually pull out onto Livingston, it would ease your ability to go where 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: 1-16-2020 CCPC Minutes (11645 : January 16, 2020, CCPC Minutes) January 16, 2020 Page 23 of 32 you want to go, and also the U-turn issue would be lessened quite a bit. So I hope that is something that the county could like at. It looks to me as if it could possibly be an opportunity. The other problem is that they -- a lot of cyclists will go straight north through Immokalee or left to go west on Immokalee. That sounds to me to be a function of more the greater corridor study that you're talking about and something similar to the improvements planned for the Pine Ridge/Airport intersection, correct, that might increase the capacity of that intersection through some creative lane management. Is that an accurate statement? MR. SAWYER: I believe that would be accurate, correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. MR. SAWYER: And I would also share your concern. I've, you know, experienced that intersection myself many times. COMMISSIONER FRY: Now, when it comes to Seed to Table, you know, a gentleman observed the same thing my 15-year-old son did. It's like the Disney World or Disneyland of grocery stores. Certainly -- I guess, do we have any historic information, when something huge and novel like that -- a new shopping center or something opens up that is such a traffic draw, do we have statistics on how the levels of traffic change over time? I mean, obviously, when something opens, you have the grand opening, people go and check it out. The question is, will that level of traffic stay the same, or will it -- do we have evidence that it would diminish over time, or is it totally, you know, put your finger in the wind and wait and see? MR. SAWYER: Yeah. I wouldn't say it's necessarily that. What we will have moving forward with Seed to Table is that those trips will be going onto the system, obviously, this next year. We will find quarterly counts that will show how that -- how those additional trips are occurring and on, you know, what corridors they're affecting. Over time, you know, you know, there may be a large increase happening in the first quarter that may either fall or even go up in the second, third, and fourth this next year. So I think we will find this next year how that actually is functioning. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're going to take a break here in a few minutes. Go ahead, Joe. We'll finish with Mike, then we'll take a break for the court reporter. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I had one simple question. Of course, on the documentation here in looking at the staff report, Transportation is recommending approval. And simple question: If challenged, does Transportation believe that this could be denied based on transportation, or based on what you've put here you believe there's no basis to deny this based on transportation as it now -- as the county has now determined? MR. SAWYER: Correct. There is not a transportation element that we can pull out that says this should be denied. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Though we all experience it. I went through the intersection the other night. And my wife says, let's stop at Seed and Table [sic], so I was one of the other 50,000 that stopped there. And half of us went in and bought nothing, but just to go look at it. I do think that will wane as the novelty wears off a bit. But -- so based on that right now, there is -- from a standpoint -- if denied, it is -- the basis would not be a transportation basis? MR. SAWYER: Correct. What we were actually talking about is background traffic. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And, Mike, if you even -- even anticipate doing anything that Karl suggests with the right-turn lanes, would you please do Vanderbilt and Livingston as well? Because that's a -- I sat there, every night going home, three light changes or more. So anyway... MR. SAWYER: I also know about that intersection myself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that caveat -- 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: 1-16-2020 CCPC Minutes (11645 : January 16, 2020, CCPC Minutes) January 16, 2020 Page 24 of 32 COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- let's take a break. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Let's do it everywhere then, because I have to sit through a lot of lights down -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. See, Karl, what you started? The new guy always does that. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: They should have closed this county in 1981 when I moved down here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anyway, let's just take a break, and we'll resume -- give the court reporter a break. We'll resume at 10:45. MR. SAWYER: Thank you, Commissioners. (A brief recess was had from 10:32 a.m. to 10:45 a.m.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If everybody will please take their seats. We need to resume the meeting. We had finished our public discussion. We had Transportation up who answered some questions, and we're going to go to the applicant now for a couple of things. First, any additional questions from the Planning Commission, and then rebuttal to the extent that you want to have it. Anybody have any further questions of the applicant? Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just have a comment, and -- I just wanted to make for the record. I did ask Mike Sawyer -- there were concerns from some of the residents about the rest of Livingston being developed, but that is a limited access road. I remember when it was approved. It's a limited access road. So it's not like the entire street is going to be -- have -- allowed access. And, Mike, if you want to come up and explain that just so -- on the record so folks understand what that means. They all left. MR. SAWYER: Again, for the record, Mike Sawyer, Transportation Planning. Yes, Livingston is a limited access roadway the whole entire length of it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We can't deny someone who owns a parcel access because they have a legal right to have access to a landlocked parcel, but most of those parcels are already defined and have access, and that's -- when I remember when it was approved, it was pretty limited how many points you can have -- entry or exit points off of Livingston. MR. SAWYER: Our requirement is to allow one access point. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. SAWYER: One legal access point. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Mike, I'm going to ask a question of the applicant, but in case it's bumped back to you, I'll ask you first. That arrow on the right-hand side of this plan, which goes to a community up to the north with private roads and driveways and buildings, how the heck did that get there? I mean, how is it supposed to actually works? It makes no sense. MR. SAWYER: Again, the arrow is just simply indicating a potential -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you require it? MR. SAWYER: We requested it, as we do of most PUDs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But how do you -- how does that -- why would we request -- now, that means this PUD has to address that in perpetuity because it's on their master plan, right? MR. SAWYER: As far as them -- trying to achieve it, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do you achieve something on a property that's private to the north that you have no -- you have no legal right to go to that property to the north. I mean, I don't understand how we can -- this will ever function. And maybe the applicant can tell me, because I don't mind having things on master plans that are practical, but that just doesn't seem too practical. MR. SAWYER: Again, it's simply saying that there is a potential for having an interconnection between the two developments if it can be arranged for them to have it. If they come in and their -- with their plat or with 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: 1-16-2020 CCPC Minutes (11645 : January 16, 2020, CCPC Minutes) January 16, 2020 Page 25 of 32 their SDP and they simply say that the adjacent property does not want to have the interconnection, then that's all that it is; however, if they are able to have it, then it can be anything as minor as a sidewalk connection, or it could be a private-road connection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know the property to the north? MR. SAWYER: I believe that's the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: April Circle. MR. SAWYER: -- multifamily to the north, correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I can't imagine them wanting this development to trans -- go across there. And if they come in for a PUD and they tell the SDP staff -- or they come in for an SDP and they tell the SDP staff that the property to the north doesn't want a connection, does that mean that it becomes unenforceable down the road? Because it's on the master plan for the PUD. My concern is that this developer's going to do a layout. He's going to build a building. He's going to build units. He's going to build them in the way that works for the project based on the fact they can't make the connection. How could -- how do they, then, prepare for it? Say April Circle decides down the road, you know, they give us -- they incentivize us, we'll take the connection, and we -- they somehow come in and make a connection. How do they -- how do they plan for that if that isn't real? I mean, if -- once the SDP is submitted, if it's passed, do they ever have to visit that issue again? MR. SAWYER: Once the SDP is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. It's on the master plan, Mike. I don't -- MR. SAWYER: I understand it's on the master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. SAWYER: The idea when you get an SDP that everything is consistent with the master plan that goes with the associated PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. MR. SAWYER: Okay. If during the review of that SDP it's determined that that interconnection is not possible, then that goes as far as -- with the record on the SDP itself. That addresses the PUD. That addresses the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the arrow stays on the PUD. MR. KLATZKOW: Mark, you could recommend that it be removed if that's the will -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what I'm trying to get to. This is so impractical. It doesn't even make any sense. I mean, why are we asking people to do this? Because now they've got to potentially plan around it. They go to sell the units, and someone who wants to buy says, well, what's this arrow for? Now they've got this burden to have to explain when it's never going to possibly happen. MR. KLATZKOW: The requirement should have been made on the property -- on the adjacent property owner to leave something open. And if we didn't require that, then I agree with you, this is -- this is nonsense. But I will say not having sidewalks between developments is also nonsense. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Agreed. MR. KLATZKOW: It's one thing for people who don't want the traffic through their neighborhood but, you know -- I remember my kid had a friend in the community next door, and I could see the friend's house from my property. And I had to drive a mile to get onto Collier Boulevard, drive a mile to get to VBR, drive a mile to get to the front entrance, then go a couple of miles into there to drop her off to see her friend because there's no interconnect. Just to have a sidewalk would be nice, for future planning purposes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What may help, then, is if this gets redefined not a vehicular intention but a pedestrian intention if the parties agree. Because to put that on here as a vehicular inte ntion is a much higher problem, I think, for long-term accessibility and questions of people who are buying in this project than if it's just pedestrian. You could always have a pedestrian walk-through gate, and that's easy. So, anyway, I'll let the applicant -- MR. SAWYER: That was the only intention that staff had. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What, pedestrian? 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: 1-16-2020 CCPC Minutes (11645 : January 16, 2020, CCPC Minutes) January 16, 2020 Page 26 of 32 MR. SAWYER: Was to have an interconnection, whether it was pedestrian or vehicular. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we'll let -- let the applicant comment on it. Thank you, Mike. Anna. MS. RITENOUR: That was exactly what I was going to start off with. And so to clarify, yes, we met with staff during the application process and review, and we decided to add the arrow simply to offer an interconnection because there are many policies in the Growth Management Plan that encourage interconnections. That is not intended -- we don't know if it will be a vehicular interconnection or if anything will exist at all. We were just trying to meet those Growth Management policy recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But are you -- do you ever think -- let's say that regardless of your development. Do you ever think this development to the north is practically going to accept that as vehicular interconnection? MS. RITENOUR: Yeah. I can agree. I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no. Just yes or no. What do you think about -- not agree. Do you think that the project to the north is ever going to open up to a vehicular interconnection to this project to the south? MS. RITENOUR: I can't answer that. I don't know. But it's not likely -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, it's not -- it's not good for your client to have this on a long-term plan -- MS. RITENOUR: We can remove it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or limit it to pedestrian. That's all I'm suggesting. Make it more practical. If we have pedestrian interconnections, it can be gated real easily and inexpensively, and then it's only optional if they can go somewhere to the north. Maybe that will work out someday when the two boards talk or something. But to have a vehicular interconnection there, I just think it's impractical, but -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. Plus it -- in the old days, we didn't allow a -- what you're looking at connecting to is not really a road. It's a parking lot lane. And I see Jim Banks -- MS. RITENOUR: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah, you don't want -- MS. RITENOUR: Correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: -- people driving through an area where everybody is pulling back 90 degrees into through-traffic. It's crazy. You should take the road interconnection out of there. MS. RITENOUR: We can absolutely remove it if that's what you'd like, or we could limit to pedestrian interconnection only. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Just label it as pedestrian -- potential pedestrian interconnection only. MS. RITENOUR: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that just covers it for everybody. MR. KLATZKOW: And that should be a Planning Commission recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm -- yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just wrote it down as a stipulation. Thank you. MS. RITENOUR: No problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So do you have anything else you want to -- anybody else have any questions of the applicant? If not, if you have a rebuttal, you're more than welcome. Except Clay. MR. BROOKER: Good morning, I think, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. MR. BROOKER: Planning Commission, my name is Clay Brooker with the law firm of Cheffy Passidomo, 821 Fifth Avenue South, downtown Naples. I've noticed that many of the residents who spoke have left the room. So I was prepared with more comments than I'll probably give. But we acknowledge the traffic operational issues in the area because they affect us as well, and we encourage and fully support the county's efforts in this regard. We ask that you treat us just like everyone else, every other development in the area north, south, east, 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: 1-16-2020 CCPC Minutes (11645 : January 16, 2020, CCPC Minutes) January 16, 2020 Page 27 of 32 and west was treated, including Livingston Lakes. There's no evidence that we don't meet all applicable regulations including traffic, and I noticed that was a double negative. So the evidence shows that we meet all regulations including traffic and, therefore, we ask that you honor the applicant's private property rights and recommend approval. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any final questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll close the public hearing, and we'll entertain a discussion first. I've -- we've got a table -- just so everybody knows, for the motion maker, we have a table and quite a few changes that were made. We walked through them all. And there's been a suggested stipulation for the interconnection to the north be for pedestrian access only. With that, I don't know if anybody wants -- anything to say. Anybody have any comments? Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Very brief one. I know it's not the case, but I wish that it were part of the ordinance law in this county that an applicant needs to do an actual traffic count in conjunction with their expert TIS. But that's not being the case, and so we don't have one. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And as far as my concern is, I actually agree with the residents about the traffic. There's no doubt this county is just a mess right now with traffic, and it doesn't seem to be getting any better. If this project was asking for a Growth Management Plan change and density as a result of that, I would not be supporting it. They're consistent with the request of the LDC, they're consistent with the traffic actions, and I can't see a reason to deny. They've met the compatibility standards. They've cleaned up their documents to address things that were concerning before to make them even more compatible. So from that perspective, I would have to support a motion, if there is one, to approve. So I don't have anything else to say on it. Anything -- barring anybody else, is there a recommendation in regards to this from anybody? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll make the motion to make the recommendation to the BCC of approval. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would the motion and second include the changes handed out to us during the meeting and the stipulation about the interconnection to the north being for pedestrian access only? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -- 7-0. Thank you, all, for attending today. ***And with that, we have one item left on today's agenda, and it's Item 9A4. It's PL20190002635/CPSP-2019-4. It's for a -- one change to extend the transfer of development rights bonus for properties within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District sending lands. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: 1-16-2020 CCPC Minutes (11645 : January 16, 2020, CCPC Minutes) January 16, 2020 Page 28 of 32 And, David, I'll turn it over to you. This is legislative, so I don't believe we need swearing in or anything. So go forward, please. MR. WEEKS: Okay. Commissioners, good morning. David Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning staff. Very straightforward amendment to extend the early entry transfer of development rights bonus program for, at this point, only about two-and-a-half years. It's to extend it to September of 2022. Staff envisions that before that time period, before 2022, the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District restudy-based GMP amendments will come before you and that it will address this bonus in some way, either to expire the bonus or to modify it into a two-for-one or in some way address it. So we view this as a stopgap measure just to bring the bonus back to life but for what we anticipate to be a short time period. We recommend approval, of course. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any difficult questions for David on this one numeric change? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. I would make a recommendation for approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before I -- well, there's no members of the public, I don't -- Mr. Douglas, unless you've got to say something -- okay. With that, any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. David, that was probably the most difficult one you've had in a long time. MR. WEEKS: I'll work on it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Bring back the economic development center so he can -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That brings -- that brings us to the end of our regular agenda. Now new business. Does anybody have any new business? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, and then Stan. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And this is directed probably to Ray, since he's part of the staff, but David's still here as well. And I guess I was somewhat disturbed at the discussion with the Board of County Commissioners in discussing the future use of the Golden Gate Golf Course, because I thought when that project came before the Planning Commission it was clear that there was never any indication of some kind of, I'll call it, arcade driving range similar to Drive Shack or Topgolf, but from -- and I thought we were pretty clear that if that were the case, it would require some kind of rezoning, because that is not a driving range/practice range that's associated with a golf course. That is an entertainment facility, and it would require some kind of rezoning. Also, folks would have to know and understand that what they're dealing with if they look at pictures of those. I'm very familiar with both companies. Those are the two top, Topgolf and Drive Shack. But during the Board of County Commissioners' meeting, all of a sudden that was part of the discussion, a 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: 1-16-2020 CCPC Minutes (11645 : January 16, 2020, CCPC Minutes) January 16, 2020 Page 29 of 32 two-tier entertainment driving range, and I just don't understand how -- we were led to believe that that was not going to be proposed, and then that was presented to the Board. I understand that may all now come back to us; is that correct? MR. BELLOWS: Well, I don't know the status of what's coming back. I'll have to check into that. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, let me -- okay. So this was an invitation to negotiate. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. KLATZKOW: So the Board's going to decide whether or not they wish to proceed with this type of business. At that point in time, Ray, in staff's opinion, would they require a rezoning? MR. BELLOWS: From what I was shown early on, there was a -- in my opinion, the facility would be an accessory use to the golf course that would remain. They were not going to eliminate the golf course; that it would be scaled back in some nature, and a clubhouse or restaurant use that is allowed in a golf course zoning district, they wanted to do an LDC amendment to allow that square footage limitation to be increased. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, that was the restaurant, though. We're talking about the entire business itself. In staff's opinion, is it accessory, or is it going to require a zoning action? MR. BELLOWS: A golf driving range would be accessory. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And that's what I'm asking, that you do some research. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. Well, I'll follow up, because I know there -- I didn't see all the discussion on Tuesday, so I don't know what was said or discussed, so I need to follow up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't you, for our next Planning Commission meeting, just let us know what is going to be coming back to us to review and just the possible time frames of what you guys are expecting. So we can just get an update on that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But I just want to make sure that the staff -- because I know it was an invitation to bid, and I'd love to see the facility there. I just -- but I don't -- to me it's not an accessory use. It is -- it's like building a bowling alley. This is a -- these are entertainment centers. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And they're stand-alone facilities usually typically not part of a golf course. Unless -- so you just need to do some research and fully understand and kind of see what other communities have done in regards -- there's one in Orlando. I think there's a couple of them now. There's one as you go up the highway, you know, of 70-, 80-foot concrete poles that support the netting. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just need to make sure that, from a zoning perspective, you understand, even if the SIC codes are applicable and whether it is an accessory use to a golf course. Now, if it's just a two-tier driving range with hitting out into the existing driving range, that may be different. I just want to make sure we don't get -- we don't get led astray, because at the meeting it was clear that there was -- this was not going to be a site for one of those major driving range entertainment centers. MR. BELLOWS: Well, it definitely is, from what I saw, very similar to what you're talking about at these other locations. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. BELLOWS: It's a combination of entertainment, recreation, various forms of recreation, plus the zoning district does allow for restaurants, and that's a big part of this. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Hugely popular. I mean, popular, popular. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, they are. But it's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so everybody's clear, though, our position here is to make a recommendation. The Board can disagree with that recommendation. And the zoning outcome is really -- starts with an interpretation by the Zoning Department, which is Ray, and then the Board either upholds that or not, and whatever their policy is is the way it goes. We simply recommend. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yup. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I think our job last time was to recommend. We didn't say, no, you can't do this, but here's our recommendation. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: 1-16-2020 CCPC Minutes (11645 : January 16, 2020, CCPC Minutes) January 16, 2020 Page 30 of 32 MR. KLATZKOW: And, Ray, this application gets treated no differently because Collier County's the applicant. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. MR. KLATZKOW: All right. I mean, if this was a private company doing this on the current zoning, that's how you view it. No different than Collier County. So whatever the code requires. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only problem is we wouldn't have done a site-specific LDC amendment for a private party. We would have made them do a PUD or a rezone or a variance. For the county, we're doing a site-specific LDC amendment. That part is one piece I'm not -- MR. KLATZKOW: I'm just simply talking about the concern that Commissioner Schmitt raised. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe -- or Stan? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, that other Joe. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah, the other Joe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was thinking after Joe was Stan, so... COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mike, who in here knows the most about counting traffic? I ask because I've been out of the loop for, like, nine years, and it used to be pneumatic tubes, and then they had to space pneumatic tubes that could tell you the count and the speed. But I remember reading somewhere that now they have other devices that are, like, permanent installations that could measure traffic all year long. What's the state of the art now? What do we use, and when we do a traffic count, I assume they do 24 hours a day for a week? Who picks the time -- you know, you can't do the whole county at one time, so -- you don't have enough traffic counters. So how do you know you're hitting the right area at the right time? Everybody comes in here complaining that the traffic is worse than we say it is and, you know, you guys always say "AUIR" instead of Annual Update and Inventory Report. And nobody knows what an AUIR is or what it does or how you do it and whatever. How do you count the traffic? MR. SAWYER: For the record, Mike Sawyer Transportation Planning, again. To answer your question, we use all of those. We do tube counts on specific instances where either we have a question or whether we have issues that we want to look at in a particular location. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Two counts a year? MR. SAWYER: No, no, no. Tube. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Oh, tube counts. MR. SAWYER: Tube counts, yes. Those are more specific. We even use those for our NTMP program where people are wanting to look at traffic calming. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Look out, Mike. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You're being attacked. MR. SAWYER: Thank goodness my boss is here. I'll let Trinity take it. MS. SCOTT: For the record, Trinity Scott, Transportation Planning manager. I'm out of breath. I just ran up the stairs. I only caught part of your question, so you might have to shoot them back at me. We do traffic counts. We utilize the latest technology, permanent traffic count stations that actually count 365 days a year in many locations. We do still have locations around the county, though, where we do count. Sorry. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: 24/7/365 a year? MS. SCOTT: On many of our locations, yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And is this -- the location we were just talking about, is that one of them; do you know? MS. SCOTT: I don't know. I have to -- we have a GIS map that shows them all. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I assume that's online somewhere. MS. SCOTT: I'll check with Traffic Operations if they have it out there online. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you send us that map? That would be interesting. That way we could 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: 1-16-2020 CCPC Minutes (11645 : January 16, 2020, CCPC Minutes) January 16, 2020 Page 31 of 32 have more relevant questions. That would be helpful. See, you just spilled your whole secret of the Transportation Department. MS. SCOTT: That's fine. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And this information that it gives is also accessible online somewhere? MS. SCOTT: No. They don't have all the traffic counts out there online. So when we use them for the AUIR, we're looking at peak times. They are factored utilizing standard directional factors as well as classification factors, et cetera, so... COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: How do they work? Are they tubes, radar, or inductive loop or what? MS. SCOTT: We have many -- we have a couple -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: The permanent ones, 24/7/365. MS. SCOTT: We have a couple different kinds. Some are actually on the side of the road and do some sort of radar, if you will, across the road and can count. Those are some of our older ones. Others have loops within the road where they're able to count in that manner. We do -- still do a lot of tube counting, though. I think there's about 120 areas within the county where we still do tube counts, and some of those are -- we split them into quarters. And so, obviously, we're not doing the entire county at one time. We try to do them on a Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday. No holidays, that type of thing. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm more interested in the permanent stations. How many do you think you have? A dozen? Two dozen? MS. SCOTT: Oh, no. We have more than that. I think we have 40 or 50. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'd be surprised if you don't have this one then. Okay. That's all I wanted to know, you know, how we do this, because the numbers I hear -- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I recommend that we postpone this discussion till after April 1st. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I second the recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That wraps up new business. Trinity, thank you. We'll let you off the hook right now. Old business. Anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Public comment? I don't think there's any. With that, is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have one comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. You're not the public, but go right ahead. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second on the adjournment. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Next meeting -- I will not be available for the next meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You missed that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I know. That's why I wanted to put it on the record. So I will not be here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We will acknowledge that, sir. Thank you. Is t here a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Make a motion to -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Motion. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Ned. Seconded by Patrick. All in favor, signify by saying aye. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: 1-16-2020 CCPC Minutes (11645 : January 16, 2020, CCPC Minutes) January 16, 2020 Page 32 of 32 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: We're out of here. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:10 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION _____________________________________ MARK STRAIN, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on ____________, as presented _______ or as corrected ________. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: 1-16-2020 CCPC Minutes (11645 : January 16, 2020, CCPC Minutes) AGENDA ITEM 9.A.1 This item has been continued from the January 16, 2020, and the February 6, 2020 CCPC meeting. You have received the full packet materials at the January 16th meeting, & additional materials at the February 6, 2020 meeting. PL20190000259: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 82-49, as amended, the ShadowWood Planned Unit Development (PUD), to redesignate 4± acres of land from Tract C, private air park district, to Tract E, residential development; by adding the development standards for Tract E; by amending the master plan to add 3 access points to provide ingress and egress to Tract E including access to Polly Avenue, Atkins Road and Whitaker Road; by removing a requirement that all access roads to the PUD are private roads; and by revising developer commitments. The subject property consisting of 77.99± acres is part of the 168.1 acre PUD located at Wing South Air Park, east of Santa Barbara Boulevard between Davis Boulevard and Rattlesnake-Hammock Road, in Section 16, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Tim Finn, AICP, Principal Planner] 11.B.c Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: 9.A.1-PL20190000259-Shadow Wood PUD-2-20-2020 meeting Cover page only (11644 : Collier County Planning Commission - Due to circumstances at the 20/20/2020 CCPC meeting the January 16, 2020 meeting minutes were not signed. They will be signed at the 3/5/2020 CCPC meeting 11.B.j Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: Meeting Minutes (11644 : Collier County Planning Commission - February 20, 2020) 02/20/2020 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.1 Item Summary: *** This item has been continued from the January 16, 2020, and February 6, 2020 CCPC Meetings.*** PUDA-PL20190000259: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 82-49, as amended, the ShadowWood Planned Unit Development (PUD), to redesignate 4± acres of land from Tract C, private air park district, to Tract E, residential development; by adding the development standards for Tract E; by amending the master plan to add 3 access points to provide ingress and egress to Tract E including access to Polly Avenue, Atkins Road and Whitaker Road; by removing a requirement that all access roads to the PUD are private roads; and by revising developer commitments. The subject property consisting of 77.99± acres is part of the 168.1 acre PUD located at Wing South Air Park, east of Santa Barbara Boulevard between Davis Boulevard and Rattlesnake-Hammock Road, in Section 16, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Timothy Finn, AICP, Principal Planner] Meeting Date: 02/20/2020 Prepared by: Title: – Zoning Name: Tim Finn 02/05/2020 10:26 AM Submitted by: Title: Manager - Planning – Zoning Name: Ray Bellows 02/05/2020 10:26 AM Approved By: Review: Zoning Camden Smith Review Item Completed 02/05/2020 12:47 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 02/05/2020 1:30 PM Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 02/05/2020 1:39 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig Review item Completed 02/05/2020 4:22 PM Growth Management Department James C French Review Item Completed 02/05/2020 4:47 PM Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 02/05/2020 6:13 PM Planning Commission Mark Strain Meeting Pending 02/20/2020 9:00 AM 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 38 This petition has been continued from the January 16, 2020 and February 6, 2020 CCPC Meetings 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: This petition has been continued from the January 16, 2020 and February 6, 2020 CCPC Meetings (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood PL 20190000259 Shadowwood PUDA_1/16/20 Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. SHADOWWOOD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Located in Section 16 Township 50 South, Range 26 East PREPARED BY: WILSON, MILLER, BARTON, SOLL & PEEK, INC. 1383 Airport Road North Naples, FL 33924 REVISED BY: Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, FL 34134 REVISED BY: HAGAN ENGINEERING 1250 N. Tamiami Trail, Ste. 203B Naples, FL 34102 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: Revised PUD document -01-17-2020 (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) PL 20190000259 Shadowwood PUDA_1/16/20 Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE SECTION I STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE 1 – 2 SECTION II STATEMENT OF INTENT 3 SECTION III PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION 4 SECTION IV GENERAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 5 – 143 TRACTS A & E – MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TRACT B – SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TRACT C – PRIVATE AIR PARK DISTRICT SECTION V GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 154 - 16 SECTION VI DEVIATIONS 17 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: Revised PUD document -01-17-2020 (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) PL 20190000259 Shadowwood PUDA_1/16/20 Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. SECTION I STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE The purpose of this section is to express the intent of The Rookery, Ltd., 706 5th Avenue South, Naples, Florida to develop ±168,1 acres of land located in Section 16, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. The name of this proposal development shall hence forth be known as ShadowWood, The development of ShadowWood as a Planned Unit Development will be in compliance with the planning goals and objectives of Collier County as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. The residential development with associated recreational and private aviational facilities will be consistent with the growth policies and land development regulations of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and other applicable documents for the following reasons. 1. The subject property has the necessary rating points to determine availability of adequate community facilities and services. 2. The project development is compatible with and complimentary to the surrounding land uses. 3. The subject property will provide a vegetative buffer between the property and Rattlesnake Hammock Road, the surrounding vacant lands, and the single family residential units to the west. 4. The development shall consist primarily of multi-family residential clusters and shall thereby provide more common open space. 5. The development shall utilize natural systems for water management such as the cypress, willow, lower wetland areas, and natural drainage courses. 6. The development shall promote the maintenance of the residential neighborhood and be aesthetically pleasing and functionally efficient. -1- 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: Revised PUD document -01-17-2020 (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) PL 20190000259 Shadowwood PUDA_1/16/20 Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. 7. The number of egress and ingress points shall be limited to minimize the impact upon the traffic flow along Rattlesnake Hammock Road. 8. The development is complimentary to and consistent with the Collier County Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element. 9. The land may be used more efficiently, and made more desirable resulting in a smaller network of utilities and streets with consequent lower construction and future maintenance costs. 10. Through proper planning and good uniform development control, the development shall protect property values and meet the general public welfare and safety of the citizens of Collier County. 11. The project will enable and encourage compatibility with the natural amenities of the environmental as well as preserve and enhance present advantages. 12. The application of the development plan will permit flexibility and feature amenities and excellence in the form of variations in siting, mixed land uses and varied dwelling types, as well as adaptation to and conservation of the topography and other natural characteristics of the land. 13. With proper uniform quality large scale development, the project may best serve the public interest with alternate mixed land uses. -2- 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: Revised PUD document -01-17-2020 (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) PL 20190000259 Shadowwood PUDA_1/16/20 Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. SECTION II STATEMENT OF INTENT It is the property owner's intention to continue the development of a single and multi -family residential project with recreational, commercial, and aviational facilities, and other support facilities required of a development surrounding a private air park community. The project was initiated in the early 1970's with the development of single family residential condominium lots with common facilities. As part of the same property, it is the intent of The Rookery, Ltd. to continue to develop a condominium complex consisting of cluster villages; multi-family residential units; single family residential lots; and varied dwelling unit types. The units shall be centered around major points such as the air park, lakes, pine and cypress trees, common open space, and areas of unique vegetation. There may be recreational benefits consisting of jogging trails, para courses, private swimming pools, neighborhood parks, tennis courts, and the unique feature of a private airpark. Residents of this project shall be afforded the opportunity to own private airplanes and a single family residential or condominium unit with the conveniences of aviational, recreational, and commercial services among a natural scenic environmental setting. The residential development of low-rise multi-family and single family units shall demonstrate a quality way of life for its residents that will be eminently desirable, esthetically pleasing, and environmentally sound. -3- 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: Revised PUD document -01-17-2020 (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) PL 20190000259 Shadowwood PUDA_1/16/20 Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. SECTION III PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION 3.1. PROPERTY OWNERSHIP: The subject property is currently under the control of The Rookery, Ltd. 706 5th Avenue South, Naples, Florida 33940. 3.2. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The subject property is described as follows: The east 1/2 of the east 1/2 and; the north 1/2 of the northwest 1/4 of the northeast 1/4; the southeast 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of the northeast 1/4 and; all being in Section 16, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. ALSO LESS the south fifty (50) feet for road right-of-way and any easement right-of- way of public record. LESS WING SOUTH AIR PARK PRIVATE VILLAS UNIT 1, a Condominium, according to the Declaration of Condominium recorded in Official Record Book 476, pages 304 to 350, inclusive, Public Records of Collier County, Florida, as amended. -4- 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: Revised PUD document -01-17-2020 (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) PL 20190000259 Shadowwood PUDA_1/16/20 Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. SECTION IV GENERAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 4.1. PURPOSE: The purpose of this Section is to set forth the regulations for development of the property identified on the Master Development Plan. It is the intent of the project sponsor to develop multi-family and single family residences in a low profile silhouette with ample common open space associated with the conveniences of aviational, recreational, and commercial services. 4.2. PROJECT PLAN AND LAND USE TRACTS: For the purposes of gross residential land use area, the subject property is ±168.1 acres. The project plan including street layout and land uses is illustrated in Exhibit "B", PUD Master Plan. The project shall consist of five four land use tracts of general area and configuration as shown in Exhibit "B". Tracts A & E-Multi-family Residential ±113.3 117.65 Acres Tracts B - Single Family Residential ± 5.68 Acres Tract C - Private Air Park District ± 46.1 41.78 Acres Entrance Drive ± 3.0 Acres Total Area ± 168.08 1 Acres Assuming favorable economic and market conditions, it is the project sponsor’s intent to complete development of the property within six years. The total maximum residential units will be 574 units at a maximum density of 3.4 units per gross acre. -5- 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: Revised PUD document -01-17-2020 (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) PL 20190000259 Shadowwood PUDA_1/16/20 Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. 4.3 TRACTS A & E SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL A. Purpose: The purpose of this section is to indicate the land regulations for the areas designated on PUD Master Plan as Tracts A and E, Multi-Family Residential. B. Tract A - Permitted Uses and Structures: No buildings or structures, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following: 1. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures: a. Multi-Family Residences. b. Common open space, recreational facilities and water management facilities. c. Nine hole golf course with the typical facilities of a private country club. 2. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures: a. Customary accessory uses and structures. b. Signs as permitted at time of permit application. c. Airplane hangers and tie downs. d. Private road, pedestrian and bicycle paths, boardwalks and cross- walks, jogging and nature appreciation trails, or other similar facilities constructed for purposes of access to or passage through the common areas. e. Lawn or golf course maintenance shop and equipment storage. -6- 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: Revised PUD document -01-17-2020 (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) PL 20190000259 Shadowwood PUDA_1/16/20 Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. C. Tract E – Permitted Uses and Structures: 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: 1. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures: a. Single family detached dwellings; b. Zero lot line, detached dwellings; c. Two-family and duplex dwellings; d. Single family attached dwellings, (including townhouses intended for fee simple conveyance including the platted lot associated with the residence; e. Multi-family dwellings; f. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by the BZA, by the process outlined in the LDC. 2. Accessory Uses: Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures, including, but not limited to: a. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with principal uses permitted in this land use tract, including swimming pools, spas, docks, boat houses, and screen enclosures, recreational facilities designed to serve the development; b. Model homes and model home centers including offices for project administration, construction, sales and marketing; c. Recreational facilities and structures to serve the PUD, including clubhouses, health and fitness facilities, pools, meeting rooms, community buildings, boardwalks, playgrounds, playfields, tennis courts, and similar uses intended to exclusively serve the residents of the PUD and their guests. -7- 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: Revised PUD document -01-17-2020 (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) PL 20190000259 Shadowwood PUDA_1/16/20 Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. CD. Tracts A and E - Maximum Dwelling Units: A maximum of 558 residential dwelling units. DE. Tract A – Minimum Yard Requirements for Principal Structures: 1. Depth from property boundary line (35) feet. 2. Depth from edge of all private paved roads (25) feet. 3. Minimum distance between any two (2) principal structures on the same parcel shall be fifteen (15) feet. 4. Minimum distance between a development phase, or condominium tract line and any principal structure shall be seven and one-half (7.5) feet. EF. Tract A – Minimum Yard Requirements for Accessory Structures: As required by the Collier County zoning Ordinance. FG. Tract A – Minimum Floor Area of Principal Structures: 900 Square feet for each dwelling unit. GH. Tract A – Maximum Height of Principal Structure: Three (3) living stories above one story of parking with a maximum height of forty-five (45) feet. In order to comply with the minimum flood elevation requirements, the maximum height of a structure shall be measured from the minimum base flood elevation required by the Flood Elevation Ordinance. -8- 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: Revised PUD document -01-17-2020 (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) PL 20190000259 Shadowwood PUDA_1/16/20 Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. I. Tract E Development Standards: TABLE I – TRACT E RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SINGLE- FAMILY DETACHED SINGLE- FAMILY ATTACHED & SINGLE- FAMILY ZERO LOT LINE TOWNHOMES MULTI- FAMILY DWELLING AMENITIES (6) PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES Min. Lot Area 1,600 sf 1,600 sf 1,100 SF 1 acre N/A Min. Lot Width 32’ 32’ 18’ 150’ N/A Min. Front Yard 12’ (1) 23’(5) 12’(1) 23’(5) 12’(1) 20’, or ½ BH, whichever is greater. 15’ Min. Side Yard 5’ (2) 0’ or 10’ (2) 0’ or 5 (2)(4) 1/2/ BH (4) 5’, or ½ BH, whichever is greater. Min. Rear Yard 5’, or 20’ from alley (3) 5’, or 20’ from alley (3) 5’, or 20’ from alley (3) 15’ or ½ BH, whichever is greater. 5’, or ½ BH, whichever is greater. Min. Distance between structures 10’ 10’ 10’ ½ SBH ½ SBH Max. Zoned Bldg. Height 35’ 35’ 35’ 35’ 35’ Min. Floor Area 1000 sf 1000 sf 900 sf 900 sf N/A Max. Actual Bldg. Height 40’ 40’ 40’ 40’ 40’ Preserve Setback 25’ 25’ 25’ 25’ 25’ ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Min. Front Yard SPS SPS SPS SPS 12’ Min. Side Yard SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS Min. Rear Yard 5’ SPS SPS 5’ SPS Preserve Setback 10’ 10’ 10’ 10’ 10’ Max. Zoned Bldg. Height SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS Max. Actual Bldg. Height SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS: Same as Principal Structure BH: Building Height SBH: Sum of Building Heights N/A: Not Applicable -9- 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: Revised PUD document -01-17-2020 (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) PL 20190000259 Shadowwood PUDA_1/16/20 Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. Notes: (1): Front yard setbacks shall be measured from Right-Of-Way line and shall allow a 2-foot separation from the structure to the Public Utility Easement. (2): If side yard setback is 0 feet on one side, the other side yard shall be 10 feet for a total building separation of 10 feet. (3): Alley setbacks shall be measured from the easement line. Parking may be accessed from alleys at the rear of the property provided there is a 5-foot clearance from the vehicle to the edge of pavement. (4): Multi-family structures may have terraced setbacks. Terraced setbacks shall be measured from the ground floor exterior wall, as long as a minimum 15-foot building wall setback is provided as depicted in Figure 1, below. (5) Garages shall be located a minimum of 23 feet from the back of the sidewalk, except for side load garages, wherein a parking area 23 feet in depth shall be provided to avoid vehicles from being parked across a portion or all of the referenced sidewalk. (6) Amenities must maintain a 30-foot (30’) separation from all external boundaries of Tract E. Figure 1 Terraced Setbacks -10- 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: Revised PUD document -01-17-2020 (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) PL 20190000259 Shadowwood PUDA_1/16/20 Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. HJ. Minimum Off-Street Parking: Two (2) parking spaces per residential unit with a minimum of 1.5 parking spaces/unit paved and .5 parking space/unit reserved for paving at a time deemed to be appropriate by the County. IK. Limitation On Signs: As permitted by the zoning ordinance in effect at time of application for building permit. 4.4. TRACT B: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL A. Purpose: The purpose of this section is to set forth the development plan and land regulations for the areas designated on PUD Master Plan as Tract B, Single Family Residential. B. Permitted Uses and Structures: No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following: 1. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures: a. Single Family Residences. b. Common open space & water management facilities. 2. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures: a. Customary accessory uses and structures. b. Recreational uses and facilities. c. Airplane hangars or tie downs. C. Maximum Dwelling Units: A maximum of 16 residential dwelling units may be constructed. D. Minimum Yard Requirements: l. Front Yard - 25 feet 2. Side Yard - 7.5 feet 3. Rear Yard - 25 feet 4. Accessory structure as required by current zoning ordinance. -11- 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: Revised PUD document -01-17-2020 (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) PL 20190000259 Shadowwood PUDA_1/16/20 Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. E. Minimum Lot Width: 100 feet. F. Minimum Lot Area: 12,000 square feet. G. Minimum floor Area of Principal Structure: 1,200 square feet exclusive of patio, garage, and/or airplane hanger. H. Maximum Height of Principal Structures: Three (3) stories above the finish grade of lot or from the minimum base flood elevation required by the flood elevation ordinance. I. Off-Street Parking Requirements: Two (2) spaces, at least one of which shall be located within the permitted building area. J. Landscaping and Buffer: All buildings, enclosures, or other structures constructed for purposes of maintenance, shall have appropriate screening and landscaping. 4.5. TRACT C: PRIVATE AIR PARK DISTRICT: A. Purpose: The purpose of this section is to indicate the development plan and land regulations for the areas designated on the PUD Master Plan as Tract "C", Private Air Park District. B. Development Plan: 1. The primary purpose of this Tract will be to provide the necessary aviational support facilities to accommodate a private airport. These areas shall be utilized only in accordance with the provisions necessary to maintain and operate the private air park. 2. Except in areas to be used for water impoundment and principal or accessory use areas, all natural trees and other vegetation as buffer shall be protected and preserved so long as such plant life shall not interfere with the control of airspace within 700 feet from the end of the primary runway surface. -12- 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: Revised PUD document -01-17-2020 (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) PL 20190000259 Shadowwood PUDA_1/16/20 Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. C. Uses Permitted: 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: 1. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures: a. Airport runway and administration building. b. Airport hangers, T-hangers, and Airplane tie downs. c. Aviational fueling and service shop. d. Aviational maintenance and service shop. e. Water management facilities. f. Any other similar aviational support facilities that may be necessary or compatible with the operations of a private air park. 2. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures: a. Accessory uses customarily associated with the uses permitted in this district. b. Lawn or golf course maintenance shop and equipment storage. c. Signs as permitted at time of permit application. D. Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Setback from edge of primary runway surface - 100 feet. 2. Other structures must conform with setbacks of the abutting properties land use regulations; however, they may not be placed within fifty (50) feet of the primary runway surface. E. Control of Airspace: The control of the airspace within 700 feet from the ends of the primary runway surface shall be adhered to by the project sponsor. The control shall be of such a nature as to prevent any airport hazards from being grown, erected, or otherwise placed within a glide path of 20:1 from the ends of the primary runway surface. -13- 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: Revised PUD document -01-17-2020 (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) PL 20190000259 Shadowwood PUDA_1/16/20 Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. SECTION V GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 5.1 PURPOSE: The purpose of this Section is to set forth the standards for development of the project 5.2 P.U.D. MASTER PLAN: A. The PUD Master Plan is an illustrative preliminary development plan. B. The design criteria and layout illustrated on the Master Plan shall be understood as flexible so that, the final design may satisfy the project and comply with all applicable requirements. C. All necessary easements, dedications, or other instruments shall be granted to insure the continued operation and maintenance of all service utilities. D. Minor design changes shall be permitted subject to staff approval. E. Overall site design shall be harmonious in terms of landscaping, enclosure of structure, locations of all improved facilities, and location and treatment of buffer areas. F. To protect the integrity of the Planned Unit Development, residential neighborhood, the only access road shall be the private road as shown on the Master Plan with an exception for temporary construction roads. GF. Areas illustrated as “lakes” shall be constructed lakes, or upon approval, parts thereof may be green areas in which as much natural foliage as practical shall be preserved. Such areas, lakes and/or natural green areas, shall be of general area and configuration as shown on the Master Plan. -14- 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: Revised PUD document -01-17-2020 (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) PL 20190000259 Shadowwood PUDA_1/16/20 Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. GH. Wetland subzones "A-1, A-2, A-3, B-1, C-1, E-1 and E-2" (Wilson, Miller, Barton, Soll & Peek, Inc. Drawing File No. RZ-59, Sheet 2 of 2), are illustrative sub zones and will be conserved as much as practicable as storm water management/open space areas. These areas will be flagged for protection, prior to development. 5.4. WATER MANAGEMENT: A. Detailed water management construction plans shall be submitted to and approved by the County Engineer prior to commencement of any construction. B. Appropriate easements to be granted to Collier County for maintenance of perimeter swale system. 5.5. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL: Such arrangement and agreements as necessary shall be made with an approved solid waste disposal service to provide for solid waste collection service to all areas of the project. 5.6 RECREATION FACILITIES A minimum of three two swimming pools and three one tennis courts shall be constructed by the project sponsor. Additional recreational facilities may be constructed by the future residents of this project. 5.7 TRAFFIC A. The project sponsor will provide to the appropriate governmental agency, an additional right-of-way of 17.5 feet along the south property boundary line for future road widening of Rattlesnake Hammock Road. B. The project sponsor agrees to construct a right and left turn storage lande on Rattlesnake Hammock Road for traffic entering ShadowWood and to pay for his proportionate share of the costs of a traffic signal at the project entrance when required by the appropriate governmental agency. C. A sidewalk shall be constructed on one side of the main entrance road into the project. -15- 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: Revised PUD document -01-17-2020 (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) PL 20190000259 Shadowwood PUDA_1/16/20 Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. D. The maximum total trip generation for Tract E shall not exceed 187 two-way PM peak hour trips based on the use codes in the ITE Manual on trip generation rates in effect at the time of application for SDP/SDPA or subdivision plat approval. E. The developer will participate in and pay proportionate fair share costs in steps that are outlined in the Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) to further support traffic calming initiatives on all roadways used to access Santa Barbara, consistent with the procedures and criteria of that program. 5.8 UTILITIES A. A central water supply system shall be made available to all areas of the project. The water supply source for the project shall be the County system. B. All areas of the project shall be served by a central wastewater collection system and by an existing off-site wastewater treatment plant. The existing plant shall be expanded as may be needed to meet the anticipated demands. Plans and D.E.R. permit applications for the sewage treatment plant shall be submitted to the Utility Division. C. The project sponsor agrees to comply with all applicable County laws and ordinances governing utility provisions and facilities. D. Telephone, power and T.V. cable service shall be made available to all residential areas. All such utility lines shall be installed underground. E. The developer of Tract E shall provide water main stub-outs at any project vehicular connection to the public roadway system. The required stub-outs shall be a minimum size of 8 inches, and shall be located within the road right-of-way, and shall be established within a County Utility Easement (CUE) to be dedicated to the Collier County Water-Sewer District (District). The CUEs shall be shown on any final subdivision plat and shall be conveyed in accordance with the Collier County Utilities Standards and Procedures Ordinance (Ord. 04-31 as amended) at no cost to the County or District, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, prior to or concurrent with preliminary acceptance of utilities. F. The developer of Tract E shall make provisions for the installation of potable water services for existing homes along the path of any future potable water extension installed to serve the development of Tract E. -16- 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: Revised PUD document -01-17-2020 (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) PL 20190000259 Shadowwood PUDA_1/16/20 Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. 5.9 ENVIRONMENTAL A. A listed species survey shall be included in submittal materials associated with the next occurring development order request (i.e.: PPL or SDP) for Tract E. The required survey must be less than 12 months old for listed species known to inhabit biological communities similar to those found on site (LDC 3.04.00). The survey shall be conducted in accordance with the guidelines or recommendations of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). -17- 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: Revised PUD document -01-17-2020 (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) PL 20190000259 Shadowwood PUDA_1/16/20 Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. SECTION VI DEVIATIONS FROM THE LDC Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02.A.,Applicablity of buffer requirements, which requires a landscape buffer along the eastern PUD boundary associated with the private airstrip, to allow no buffer. Given the adjacent, offsite preserve abutting the easterly PUD boundary, no landscape buffer is required. -18- 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: Revised PUD document -01-17-2020 (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) HUNTINGTON WOODS MANDALAY TRACT E TRACT BHOMES OF TRACT C P LAKERECWHITTAKER ROAD ADKINS AVENUEPOLLY AVENUESUNSET BLVDPOLLY AVENUE 1660 1150660 NON ST ST 660ST NON ST400 400PARCEL 16A 6.06 ACRES P LAKE TRACT A RSF-4 WING SOUTH AIRPARK VILLAS RSF-4 CFPUD LASIP PUD COUNTRY CLUB PUD A PUDRPUD RMF-6 RSF-3 PARKERS HAMMOCK ROAD PARKERS HAMMOCK ROADHANSEN ROADPUD NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB PUD LELY RESORT PUD Ingress/Egress (TBD at SDP/PPL)SANTA BARBARAAA RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK RD A REC WATERFORD ESTATES WATERFORDESTATESONYX 3 2 2 4 3 109 16 15 10' MIN. TYPE "D" BUFFER 1516 21 22 P 4 3 2 3BOULEVARD NAPLES LAKES ISLANDIA CONSERVATION ADKINS AVENUE 1 2 1 PUD A A A A COLLEGE PARK AREA 15' MIN. TYPE "B" BUFFER 15' MIN. TYPE "B" BUFFER 20' MIN. TYPE "D" BUFFER P (2 AC.±) 10' MIN. TYPE "A" FOR SF 15' MIN. TYPE "B" FOR MF 10' MIN. TYPE "A" FOR SF 15' MIN. TYPE "B" FOR MF 10' MIN. TYPE "A" FOR SF 15' MIN. TYPE "B" FOR MF 10' MIN. TYPE "A" FOR SF 15' MIN. TYPE "B" FOR MF 10' MIN. TYPE "A" FOR SF 15' MIN. TYPE "B" FOR MF 15' MIN. TYPE "B" BUFFER 15' MIN. TYPE "B" BUFFER HAGAN 1250 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH, STE. 203B Naples, Florida 34102 Phone (239) 851-8239 GNIREENIGNE HAGAN 6HA'2::22' 38'0A67ER3/AN 1 2 3 4 LEGEND EXISTING SIDEWALK REC: RECREATION AREA P: PRESERVE (REF:LDC 3.05.07.B) 9/2/19 REVISED PER RAI #3 SHADOWWOOD PUDA PL 20190000259 1 1 PUD DEVIATION 10/23/19 REVISED PER RAI #4 N2R7H 6&A/EIN)EE7 10/28/19 REVISED PER ENVIR. STAFF 11/25/19 REVISED PER PLANNING STAFF 11/27/19 REV. PER LANDSCAPE REVIEW 12/02/19 REV. PER LANDSCAPE REVIEW 1/17/19 REV. PER COUNTY PLANNER 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: Revised PUD document -01-17-2020 (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) Listed above are the new items added: 1. Revised PUD document - 01-17-2020 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: Additional items submitted after the 1-16-2020 CCPC meeting (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) AGENDA ITEM 9.A.2 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: Staff Report ShadowWood PUDA (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.dPacket Pg. 63Attachment: Staff Report ShadowWood PUDA (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: Staff Report ShadowWood PUDA (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: Staff Report ShadowWood PUDA (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: Staff Report ShadowWood PUDA (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: Staff Report ShadowWood PUDA (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: Staff Report ShadowWood PUDA (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: Staff Report ShadowWood PUDA (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: Staff Report ShadowWood PUDA (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: Staff Report ShadowWood PUDA (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: Staff Report ShadowWood PUDA (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: Staff Report ShadowWood PUDA (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: Staff Report ShadowWood PUDA (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: Staff Report ShadowWood PUDA (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: Staff Report ShadowWood PUDA (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: Staff Report ShadowWood PUDA (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: Staff Report ShadowWood PUDA (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Zoning Ordinance (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Zoning Ordinance (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Zoning Ordinance (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Zoning Ordinance (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Zoning Ordinance (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Zoning Ordinance (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Zoning Ordinance (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Zoning Ordinance (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Zoning Ordinance (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Zoning Ordinance (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Zoning Ordinance (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Zoning Ordinance (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Zoning Ordinance (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Zoning Ordinance (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Zoning Ordinance (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Zoning Ordinance (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Zoning Ordinance (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Zoning Ordinance (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Zoning Ordinance (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Zoning Ordinance (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Zoning Ordinance (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Zoning Ordinance (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 1 of 2 Growth Management Department Zoning Division Comprehensive Planning Section MEMORANDUM To: Tim Finn, AICP, Principal Planner Zoning Services Section, Zoning Division From: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Section, Zoning Division Date: December 12, 2019 Subject: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review PETITION NUMBER: PL20190000259 - REV 6 PETITION NAME: Shadowwood PUD PUDA REQUEST: The petitioner is requesting a Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUDA) to the Shadowwood PUD (approved by Ordinance #82-49 – and as amended via Ordinance #08-43). The petitioner is proposing to modify the Shadowwood Exhibit ‘B’ Master Plan to provide for ingress and egress to the last remaining development parcel in the PUD. This amendment is to address access for the northern portion of the PUD (Tract E). Submittal 2 included several additional documents requested by the County Attorney and other reviewing staff. Submittal 3 included revisions to Sections IV and V, as well as the PUD Master Plan. Submittal 4 includes an Amendment Narrative, a modified Master Plan, acreage adjustments to Section 4.2 of PUD and adjustments in maximum number of units to be consistent, text amendment of Section 4.3 and Table I, Tract E, Development Standards. Submittal 5 included revisions to the Master Plan, the TIS, the Environmental Data, and the PUD document – including adding a deviation for a buffer. Submittal 6 includes a new landscape buffer deviation, preservation calculations, and additional minor corrections in PUD and Master Plan. LOCATION: The subject site is located on the north side of Rattlesnake-Hammock Road (CR 864) at Skyway Drive, approximately one mile west of Collier Blvd. (CR951), in Section 16, Township 50 South, Range 26 East. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject site is identified as Urban Designation, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The ±168.1-acre Planned Unit Development (PUD) was originally approved via Ord. #82-49 and subsequently amended with Ordinance #08-43. As amended, Shadowwood allows a total maximum of 574 residential units at a maximum density of 3.4 dwelling units per acre (DU/A) – (574 DUs ÷ 168.1 Acres = 3.415 DU/A = 3.4 DU/A). According to the FLUE, “within the Urban designated areas a base density of 4 residential dwelling units per gross acre may be allowed, though is not an entitlement.” 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Attachment B - FLUE Consistency Review (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 2 of 2 Although Tract ‘E’ was always intended for residential uses (multi-family), it remains undeveloped to date. In preparation for developing this tract, the petitioner is requesting to modify the Master Plan to indicate three new ingress/egress points for Tract ‘E’, all three connecting to local roads: one to connect with Polly Avenue, one to connect with Whitaker Road, and one to connect with Atkins Ave. Select FLUE Policies are shown below (in italics), followed by staff analysis in [bracketed bold text]. FLUE Policy 5.6: New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004, as amended). [Comprehensive Planning staff leaves this determination to Zoning Services staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety.] FLUE Objective 7 and Relevant Policies: Given the nature of this petition and the minor changes proposed (no changes in permitted uses, densities, or intensities), staff is of the opinion that a re-evaluation of most of the FLUE policies under Objective 7 (pertaining to access to arterial & collector roads, walkability, etc.) is not necessary, with the exception of Policy 7.3 as it pertains to interconnections and is addressed below. FLUE Policy 7.3: “All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and/or interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. The interconnection of local streets between developments is also addressed in Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element.” [The proposed ingress/egress points will connect the PUD’s local streets and/or interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type and is consistent with FLUE Policy 7.3.] CONCLUSION Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed changes to the Shadowwood Planned Unit Development (PUD) may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE). PETITION ON CITYVIEW cc: David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section Raymond V. Bellows, Manager, Zoning Division, Zoning Services Section PUDA-PL2019-0259 Shadowwood R6.docx 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Attachment B - FLUE Consistency Review (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) Single Family Detached Single Family Attached & Single Family Zero Lot Line Townhomes Multi Family Dwelling Recreation Areas Principal Structures Minimum Lot Area ShadowWood – Tract E 1,600 s.f. 1,600 s.f. 1,100 s.f. 1 acre n/a Naples Lakes Country Club 5,500 s.f. 5,500 s.f. 4,000 s.f. 1 acre n/a LASIP Conservation Area n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Naples Heritg G&C Club 9,000 s.f. 4,000 s.f. 4,000 s.f. 4,000 n/a RSF-4 Agriculture 7,500 s.f. 5 acres n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Minimum Lot Width ShadowWood – Tract E 32 feet 32 feet 18 feet 150 ft n/a. Naples Lakes Country Club 70 50 50 150 n/a LASIP Conservation Area n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Naples Heritg G&C Club 80 ft 30 ft – single story 25 ft – two story 50 ft – zero lot line 30 ft – single story 25 ft – two story 30 ft – single story 25 ft – two story n/a RSF-4 Agriculture 70 ft 165 ft n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Minimum Floor Area ShadowWood – Tract E 1,000 sf 1,000 s.f. 900 s.f. 900 s.f. n/a Naples Lakes Country Club 1,400 sf 1,400 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 sf n/a LASIP Conservation Area n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Naples Heritg G&C Club 1,500 s.f. 1,000 s.f. 1,000 s.f. 1,000 s.f. n/a RSF-4 Agriculture n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Minimum Front Yard ShadowWood – Tract E 12 feet1- Principal and Accessory 12 feet1 - Principal and Accessory 12 feet1 - Principal and Accessory 20 ft, or one- half building height, whichever is greater - Principal and Accessory 15 feet – Principal 10 feet - Accessory Naples Lakes Country Club 25 ft – Principal and Accessory 20 ft – Principal and Accessory 20 ft – Principal and Accessory 20 ft – Principal and Accessory 50 ft – Principal 20 ft - Accessory LASIP Conservation Area n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Naples Heritg G&C Club 25 ft 20 ft 20 ft 20 ft 50 ft from residential parcels – Principal 10 ft Accessory RSF-4 Agriculture 25 ft 50 ft n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Minimum Side Yard ShadowWood – Tract E 5 feet2 - Principal and Accessory 0 feet or 10 feet2 - Principal and Accessory 0 feet or 10 feet24 - Principal and Accessory One-half building height - Principal and 5 feet or one-half building height, whichever is greater - Principal 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Attachment C - Development Standards Comparison Table (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) Accessory and Accessory Naples Lakes Country Club 7.5 ft– Principal and Accessory 0 ft or 5 ft– Principal and Accessory 0 ft or 5 ft– Principal and Accessory 15 feet, or where adjacent to a golf course: 0 feet; or lake:0 feet from the lake control elevation– Principal and Accessory 25 feet – Principal 10 feet - Accessory LASIP Conservation Area n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Naples Heritg G&C Club 7.5 ft 5 feet – one story 7.5 – two-story 0 on one side and 10 feet on the other side for zero lot line 5 feet – one story 7.5 – two story 20 feet 25 ft from residential parcels – Principal 10 ft Accessory RSF-4 Agriculture 7.5 feet 30 ft n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Minimum Rear Yard ShadowWood – Tract E 5 feet or 20 feet from alley3 - Principal 5 feet - Accessory 5 feet or 20 feet from alley3 - Principal and Accessory 5 feet or 20 feet from alley3 - Principal and Accessory 15 feet or one- half building height, whichever is greater – Principal 5 feet - Accessory 5 feet or one-half building height, whichever is greater – Principal and Accessory Naples Lakes Country Club 20 feet – Principal and Accessory 0 feet or 5 feet – Principal 15 ft detached and 10 feet attached for Accessory 0 feet or 5 feet - Principal 15 ft detached and 10 feet attached for Accessory 15 feet, or where adjacent to a golf course: 0 feet; or lake:0 feet from the lake control elevation for Principal 20 ft detached and 10 feet attached for Accessory n/a LASIP Conservation Area n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Naples Heritg G&C Club 20 ft 15 ft 15 ft 20 ft n/a RSF-4 Agriculture 25 ft n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Minimum Preserve Setback ShadowWood – Tract E 25 feet – Principal 10 feet - Accessory 25 feet – Principal 10 feet - Accessory 25 feet – Principal 10 feet Accessory 25 feet – Principal 10 feet - Accessory 25 feet – Principal 10 feet - Accessory Naples Lakes Country Club n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a LASIP Conservation Area n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Naples Heritg G&C Club n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a RSF-4 Agriculture n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Minimum distance 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Attachment C - Development Standards Comparison Table (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) between structures ShadowWood – Tract E 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet One-half sum of building heights One-half sum of building heights Naples Lakes Country Club n/a n/a n/a n/a 10 feet LASIP Conservation Area n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Naples Heritg G&C Club 15 feet or one- half of the sum of the height of adjacent buildings, measured from exterior walls, whichever is greater 15 feet or one-half of the sum of the height of adjacent buildings, measured from exterior walls, whichever is greater 15 feet or one- half of the sum of the height of adjacent buildings, measured from exterior walls, whichever is greater 15 feet or one- half of the sum of the height of adjacent buildings, measured from exterior walls, whichever is greater n/a RSF-4 Agriculture n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Minimum Height Zoned Actual ShadowWood – Tract E Zoned Actual 35 feet 40 feet Both Principal and Accessory 35 feet 40 feet Both Principal and Accessory 35 feet 40 feet Both Principal and Accessory 35 feet 40 feet Both Principal and Accessory 35 feet 40 feet Both Principal and Accessory Naples Lakes Country Club Two stories Two stories Two stories Four stories 60 feet – Principal 40 feet - Accessory LASIP Conservation Area n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Naples Heritg G&C Club Two stories Two stories Two stories Four stories n/a RS4 35 ft – Principal 20 ft - Accessory n/a n/a n/a n/a Agriculture 35 ft – Principal n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 Front yard setbacks shall be measured from Right-of-Way line and shall allow a 2-foot separation from the structure to the Public Utility Easement 2 If side yard is 0 feet on one side, the other side yard shall be 10 feet for a total building separation of 10 feet 3 Alley setbacks shall be measured from the easement line. Parking may be accessed from alleys at the rear of the property provided there is a 5-foot clearance from the vehicle to the edge of pavement 4 Multi-family structures may have terraced setbacks. Terraced setbacks shall be measured from the ground floor exterior wall, as long as a minimum 15 -foot building wall setback is provided 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Attachment C - Development Standards Comparison Table (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.hPacket Pg. 106Attachment: Attachment D - Acreage aggregation into Tract E (flat) (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) FinnTimothy From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Tom LeRoy < 2tomleroy@gmail.com > Sunday, May 5, 201 9 3:18 PM FinnTimothy Neil Fogle; Anne Daley "Clyde Quinby letter."..... Mr Fin n... I am the secretary of the Wing South Condominium Association and live at 3965 Skyway Drive some 25 or so yards from the end ofAdkins Road....Adkins is one ofthe proposed access roads being considered in the Clyde Quinby letter and due to be included in the consideration and discussion at a public meeting on May 7, 2019... This Clyde Quinby notice was given to me by a home owner who lives closer to Rattlesnake Hammock and his address is much farther away than our community or our home location....th is is to let you know that to my knowledge not one owner on Skyway Drive inside Wing South received this notice....certa in ly we did not.... The back yards of 3965 and 3963 Skyway Drive are roughly 25 yards from the proposed Adkins access to the subject property and we want the record to show that we oppose the Adkins access being granted to that subject property.... While I am the secretary of the Wing South Condominium Association this email and our objection is that of a home owner and as an individual..... Thank you for your attention Mr Finn.... Tom and Virginia LeRoy 3965 Skyway Drive Naples, Florida 34112 239-775-5886 1 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Attachment E - Opposition Letters (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) FinnTimothy From: Sent: To: Subject: Clark Reid < clark.reid@gmail.com > Thursday, May 16,2019 5:12 PM BosiMichael; FinnTimothf StrainMark SD Corp PUD Amendment Petition P120190000259 SD Corporation's PUD Amendment Petition, PL20190000259, to the Shadowwood Planned Unit Development Ordinance 08-43 should be denied. There is no benefit of allowing access to Santa Barbara Blvd via Whitaker Rd - or Adkins Ave or Polly Ave - for future residents of tract E. Tract E already has access to a six lane road, Rattlesnake Hammock, through the existing Shadowwood PUD property. This was approved in the original 1982 PUD and its update in 2008. There are several costs associated with an approval of this request. lt would cost the county money to improve Whitaker Rd to handle the hundreds of cars per day extra if this proposed change is approved. Bicycle lanes and sidewalks may have to be added. And, it might require a stop light at Whitaker Rd and Santa Barbara with a large cost to change that intersection. The costs can only be calculated with a full transportation review of this request. There's also a cost to the residents of Sunset Estates. The private/public roads in this area serve residences and agricultural operations. They were never intended to be feeder roads for neighboring developments. Naples Heritage is not asking for a western ingress/egress to their property. Why SD Corp? SD Corporation has no interest in developing tract E of the PUD. They have offered all of the PUD's undeveloped property to Conservation Collier. Conservation Collier has entered into an agreement to purchase 37 acres of SD Corp's property, and has accepted the Tract E77 acres as a secondary purchase priority. By virtue of the 37 acre commitment to sell to Conservation Collier, SD Corp is left with marketing the last 77 acre tract E. Having a western access to this tract increases its marketability. The petition is not an insubstantial PUD change because of LDC Section 10.02.13.E.1 that defines the criteria to determine if a proposed modification to an approved PUD is "substantial": Section e of the above mentioned LDC states, "A substantial increase in the impacts of the development which may include, but are not limited to increases in traffic generation, changes in traffic circulation, or impacts on other public facilities". lt is obvious this petition request of adding Whitaker Rd as an access to Tract E causes an increase in traffic generation for Whitaker Rd, changes in traffic circulation, and impacts other public facilities - the intersection of Whitaker Rd and Santa Barbara Blvd. Section h of the above mentioned LDC states, "A change that will bring about a relationship to an abutting land use that would be incompatible with an adjacent land use." Whitaker Rd is a feeder road for all other roads in Sunset Estates for access to Santa Barbara Blvd. Sunset Estates is an Agriculture Zoned area of 2.5 and 5 acre plots of residences and agricultural operations. Using Whitaker Rd - or Polly or Adkins - as ingress and egress to tract E is incompatible with Sunset Estates land use. 1 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Attachment E - Opposition Letters (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) The applicant's Pre-App Notes mentions GMP policies to justify their request. They are mistaken on at least two accounts Future Land Use Element Policy 7.2 states, "The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals." This application does the opposite. lt removes access to Rattlesnake Hammock Rd for the tract E development and replaces it with access to an arterial road that has no existing traffic light on santa Barbara Blvd. The current approved access on Ratflesnake Hammock already has a light. Rattlesnake Hammock is a six lane road at the southern end of Shadowwood PUO. Whitaker Road is a narrow 2 lane road and with this petition would force a quantity of traffic onto Whitaker Rd that it could not accommodate. Transportation Element Policy 9.3 states, "...The LDC shall identify the circumstances and conditions that would require the interconnection of neighboring developments, and shall also develop standards and criteria for the safe interconnection ofsuch local streets...." This cannot be done without a substantial change to the PUD requiring a full Transportation study of the proposed ingress/egress change to the Shadowwood PUD and its compliance with current LDC transportation requirements. The applicant states thal they are not requesting a change of the 3.4 residential units per acre approved in the original PUD. Butweall knowthat itcould be changed by a future development rezoning request. Since Russell Square was granted 7 units per acre atthe North end ofSunset Blvd, the county would be obligated to grant the 7 units to the acre for tract E. This density would drastically change the transportation impact on surrounding roads. The on ly time the county should consider a change to ingress/egress to Shadowwood's tract E is when a rezoning request is made and a substantial change to the PUD is submitted. Lastly a very similar issue was herd by Collier County Planning Commission last fall. The Taormina Reserve PUD showed access to its development via Sunset Blvd - part of Sunset Estates private/public road network. Russell Square PUD wanted to terminate Sunset Blvd at its southern property line and not extend it through its development to Taormina Reserve. ln an emailto Chief Hearing Examiner Mark Strain I supported the termination of Sunset Blvd at the southern end of Russell Square so that NO access to either PUD is granted via Sunset Blvd for many of the same reasons to not allow Whitaker to service Shadowwood. The Planning Commission ruled in favor of Neal Communities Russell Square request and ordered Sunset Blvd to dead end and not connect to Russell Square. I mentioned the possibility of the Whitaker Rd request of SD Corp in my email to Strain. He concurred that the Sunset Estates roads were never meant to be feeder roads to adjacent development. SD Corporation's PUD Amendment Petition P120190000259 is premature and doesn't consider relevant current land use codes, transportation policies and impacts, and potential impacts on the residents and roadways of Sunset Estates. Please deny this request Clark Reid 6'184 Whitaker Rd Naples, FL 34112 cell: 239-285-0561 2 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Attachment E - Opposition Letters (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) FinnTimothy From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Anne Daley <adaleyO1 @gmail.com > Monday, May 27, 2019 4:37 PM FinnTimothy Wing South Letter of Objection - PU DA-pL-20190000259, Shadowwood pUD Wing South Letter of Objection_Adkins Access.pdf Mr. Finn, Enclosed is a letter of objection from the Wing South Board of Directors. We object to the Adkins access point sought out in PU DA-PL-20190000259, Shadowwood PUD. Thank you for the opportunity to communicate our views. Regards, Anne Daley President, Wing South 1 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Attachment E - Opposition Letters (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) in 5oa*A May 27 , 20L9 Mr. Tim Finn, AICP and Prlnciple Planner Growth Management Department, Planning & Regulation 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RE: PUDA-PL-20190000259, Shadowwood PUD Dear Mr. Finn, On behalf of Wing South, the Board of Directors is writing to communicate our objection to access to the Shadowwood PUD via Adkins Road. Our objection is based upon the following: There is insufficient space to provide for Wing South homeowner privacy / privacy screening where Adkins would be extended to access Tract E. lf the intended access is to run directly east, there are privacy issues for multiple owners' homes and this access would infringe on the maintenance easement for the LASIp drainage that exists along that path. Wing South is a private airport and public access via Adkins would pose a security issue for our aircraft and pilots. We appreciate the opportunity to register our objection. Regards, Wing South Board of Directors Anne Daley, President Neil Fogle, Vice President Rich Lytle, Treasurer Tom LeRoy, Secretary Robert Ross, Board Member Scott Harrison, Board Member 1 WAq SouifuAbfrrk, 4a3o Skgu,zg Drire,, NaplaFL 347.72 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Attachment E - Opposition Letters (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) FinnTim From: Sent: To: Subject: Tom LeRoy < 2tomleroy@gmail.com > Monday, December 30,2019 1:24 PM FinnTi mothy; tomothy.finn@colliercountyfl.gov Proposed Tract E Access EXTERNAL EMAIt: This email is from an external source. Confirm thls is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Mr Finn.... As a potentially impacted home owner regarding the proposed multiple access points to the Tract E property l'd like to offer an alternative option to consider... I can't imagine a full blown development the size of Tract E and located where it is that the developer or potential home owners would consider any ofthe options as attractive access roads to their new home properties.......it would serve everyone concerned ....from the developer and potential home owners to all the properties along the proposed roads to use a minimal impact access off of Collier Boulevard along side Serenity Park....perhaps the developer could work with the county to provide an access easement along the perimeter of the Serenity recreation area and the developer provide like kind property or compensation to the county for such an access.... There is no doubt in my mind that no one will want what is being proposed so it will be a government decision in the end to do what government will approve ...access off of Collier like all other Collier road side developments have a road and gate entrance for the most part...the subject property could do much the same with a small bridge over the canal on the very north end accessing the subject property.... Just a suggestion.. Tom and Virginia LeRoy 3965 Skyway Drive 1 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Attachment E - Opposition Letters (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) FinnTimothy From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Anne Daley <adaleyO1@gmail.com > Friday, January 3, 2020 9:47 AM FinnTimothy Wing South Objection Letter 8{ Exhibits - Petition Number P120190000259 Wing South Letter of Objection_Adkins Access 1.1.2020.pdf; Wing South Letter of Objection 1.1.20 Exhibit 2.pdf; Wing South Letter of Objection 1.1.20 Exhibit 1.pdf EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Good morning Mr. Finn, Enclosed is a letter of objection from Wing South, along with 2 exhibits I would like time to speak on behalf of Wing South at the meeting on January L6,2020. Accordingly, please include the enclosed documents in the CCPC agenda packet. Thank you Anne Daley President, Wing South 516-455-2782 1 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Attachment E - Opposition Letters (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) /n 5oc<*A January L,2O2O Mr. Timothy Finn, Principle Planner Growth Management Department, Planning & Regulation 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RE: Petition Number P120190000259 to Amend Shadowwood PUD Dear Mr. Finn, On behalf of Wing South, the Board of Directors is writing to express our objection to allowing access to the Shadowwood PUD via Adkins Avenue and, depending on design, via Polly Avenue. Our objections are based upon the following: Access to the PUD from the north west corner of Wing South would remove any possibility of privacy for the homes along the north side ofthe community. (The home on the northwest corner are approximately 70 feet from where Adkins currently ends.) Ext€nding Adkins Avenue east would also infringe on the maintenance road easement and allow traffic to pass within 30 feet of the homes along the north side of Wing South. Wing South is a private airport and public access via Adkins would pose a security risk to our hangar homes and aircraft. Access via Polly Avenue, if extended east, would also infringe on the maintenance road along the north side of the PUD. lf that access were to extend farenough eastto where the maintenance road turns south, it would create a security risk to flight operations and pilots. Exhibit 1, included with this letter, provides an annotated image of the area in question We appreciate the opportunity to register our objection Regards, Wing South Board of Directors Anne Daley, President Neil Fogle, Vice President Rich Lytle, Treasurer Tom LeRoy, Secretary Robert Ross, Board Member Scott Harrison, Board Member WAg So14/- A trfa.rk., 4730 Skg wag Drlro, Na.rztz-t, FL 54772 1 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Attachment E - Opposition Letters (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) Exhibit 2 This image demonstrates the close proximity to existing homes if the access via Adkins were to be selected. ln addition, this access point, if extended directly east would remove the LASIP maintenance road and remove all privacy from the homes along that path. \',\ T ..-.,'l I,,f' \ oo*,.sii,nq 'j I ,lI [ {riiseve ] r r + I I EIII ^t rilI -t ,.lr 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Attachment E - Opposition Letters (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) Exhibit 1 This satellite view shows the close proximity of the Adkins access point to existing hangar homes and the potential risk of the Polly Avenue access point to safety area at the north end of the runway. a: .( t , whil.rn Rd -I ,i.;. .,) 1 g H'. "i'i- rl'''-' ':-f1 1 ti ? I ! 3 ifHt q:I t I iAdln! Av. Tt ,? /)f wing south lirparr ffi 1n\,['.r liifrf\{I,LtlIh 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Attachment E - Opposition Letters (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 117Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 118Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 119Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 120Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 121Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 122Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 123Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 124Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 125Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 126Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 127Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 128Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 129Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 130Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 131Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 132Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 133Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 134Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 135Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 136Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 137Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 138Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 139Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 140Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 141Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 142Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 143Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 149Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 150Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 151Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 152Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 153Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 154Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 155Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 156Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 157Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 158Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 159Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 160Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 161Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 162Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 163Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 164Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 165Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 166Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 167Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 168Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 169Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 170Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 171Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 172Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 173Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 174Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 175Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 176Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 177Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 178Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 179Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 180Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 181Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 182Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 183Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 184Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 185Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 186Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 187Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 190Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 191Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 192Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 193Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 194Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 195Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 196Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 197Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 198Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 199Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 200Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 201Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 202Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 203Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 204Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 205Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 206Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 207Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 208Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 209Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 210Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 211Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 212Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 213Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 214Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 215Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 216Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 217Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 218Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 219Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 220Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 221Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 222Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 223Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 224Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 225Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 226Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 227Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 228Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 229Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 230Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 231Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 232Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 233Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 234Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 235Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 236Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 237Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 238Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 239Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 240Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 241Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 242Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 243Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 244Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 245Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 246Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 247Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 248Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 249Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 250Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 251Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 252Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 253Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 254Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 255Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 256Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 257Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 258Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 259Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 260Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 261Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 262Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 263Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 264Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 265Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 266Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 267Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 268Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 269Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Attachment F Application -Backup Materials (11571 : 9.A.1-ShadowWood (PUDA)) 02/20/2020 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.2 Item Summary: PL20180003276: A Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida granting a parking exemption under Land Development Code Section 4.05.02.K.3 to allow off-site parking for a fast-food restaurant on a contiguous lot zoned Residential-Single-Family-5 (RSF-5). The subject property is located on the southeast corner of Immokalee Drive and State Road 29 in Immokalee, in Section 4, Township 47 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Timothy Finn, AICP, Principal Planner] Meeting Date: 02/20/2020 Prepared by: Title: – Zoning Name: Tim Finn 02/03/2020 9:11 AM Submitted by: Title: Manager - Planning – Zoning Name: Ray Bellows 02/03/2020 9:11 AM Approved By: Review: Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig Review item Completed 02/05/2020 3:36 PM Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 02/06/2020 10:30 AM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 02/06/2020 2:34 PM Zoning Camden Smith Review Item Completed 02/06/2020 3:06 PM Growth Management Department James C French Review Item Completed 02/06/2020 4:01 PM Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 02/11/2020 9:31 AM Planning Commission Mark Strain Meeting Pending 02/20/2020 9:00 AM 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 273 C-ovmty TO: FROM: STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ZONING DIVISION - ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: FEBRUARY 20.2020 SUBJECT:PE-PL2O 1 8OOO327 6 PARKING EXEMPTION: IMMOKALEE McDONALD,S PROPERTY O ENT: Owner/Applicant: MTMC,Inc. 1855 Veterans Park Dr, Suite 203 Naples, FL 34109 Agent: Clay C. Brooker Cheffu Passidomo, PA 821 Fifth Avenue, South Naples, FL 34102 REOUESTED ACTION: The applicant seeks approval for a Parking Exemption Application (PE) to allow for off-site parking on an abutting and contiguous parcel zoned RSF-5, Residential Single-Family, located directly east of the McDonald's property. The McDonald's, located at 420 N 15th Street, is undergoing a major renovation (associated SDPA, PL20180003077) and is seeking to extend the surface parking lot onto the adjacent properfy, which has split zoning of C-4ISR29COSD and RSF- 5. The parking is considered off-site because of the underlying residential zoning designation; however, the project area is one contiguous site and will be developed as a single project. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is a residentially zoned lot and is located on the south side of Immokalee Drive, east of North 15th Street, Section 4, Township 47 South, Range 29 East of Collier County, Florida (see location map, page 2). PE-P1201 80003276, lmmokalee McDonalds Revised: February 7, 2020 Page 'l of 10 AGENDA ITEM 9.A.2 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Staff Report Immokalee McDonalds (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking Exemption) IJJals EtolPelgaA1S eglssulod l! I 11 *Ec$i5 oo^orrotol YT-=------1TEEEaE I E o-(U o) .ccoN (o F-N (f) Ooo @ oNJ(L Uo -o Elz c .o o(L - ----a - o- (E Eo (EooJ PE-PL201 80003276, lmmokalee lMcDonalds Revised: February 7, 2020 t.) _-.------_------ I .LS Blorpcl9 .LS E!llJsu!od t a t:f .I s rttuN a z eqJ _l "lai ll EIei I E. I ffi _kn I i, ll 2 :r,i I rs[ouru,'s .,iil5l JLrs {t9 ----IST|EIT- Bnl JIT l!od t2iroU'E Eg Page 2 of 109.A.2.aPacket Pg. 275Attachment: Staff Report Immokalee McDonalds (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking PURPOSE/DESCRIP TION OF PROJECT: The applicant, MTMC, Inc. is working together with McDonalds Corporation to redevelop the existing McDonalds restaurant located at the SE comer of SR 29Ai 15th Street and Immokalee Drive (Parcel ID Numbers 121760009 and 121720007). The principle of MTMC, Inc. is the franchise/operator of the existing McDonalds restaurant. With the consent of McDonalds Corporation. MTMC, Inc. has requested a Parking Exemption for a proposed off-site parking lot on two contiguous residentially zoned property, known as 1415 Immokalee Drive (Parcel ID Numbers 121680008 and 127655105). The properties subject to this Parking Exemption request are currently vacant and are primarily zoned RSF-5; the western 50' +l- of the parcels and the existing McDonalds are within the General Commercial (C-a) zoning district and the State Road 29 C ommercial Overlay Subdi strict (SR2 9CO SD). As illustrated on the Parking Exemption Conceptual Site Plan, the redeveloped site will be located on the combination of these four parcels totaling 1.87-acres. The new McDonalds restaurant will continue to be located on the commercially zoned property. The residentially zoned portion of the combined property will be used for parking (17 spaces), stormwater management, and landscaped buffers. The parking area will be approximately l0' to the residential property to the south and 100' to the residential property to the east. The Parking Exemption Conceptual Site Plan has been included as Attachment B. Additionally, Section 5.03.02 H of the Land Development Code (LDC) requires the applicant to construct a concrete or masonry fence or wall on the (commercial property) to screen it from the adjacent residential use. The applicant submitted an Administrative Fence Waiver application and was approved a deviation from the wall requirement (AFW-PL20190002345). (See Attachment c) SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: South: East: West: PE-PL20 1 8000327 6, lmmokalee McDonalds Revised: February 7, 2020 Walgreens and single-family residential, zoned C-4ISR29COSD and RSF-5 Vacant, zoned C-4/SR29COSD and RSF-5 Vacant, zoned RSF-5 Mobile home park, zoned MH (opposite side of SR29A.{orth 15'h S0 Page 3 of 10 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: Staff Report Immokalee McDonalds (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking Exemption) Aerial Map GROWTH MAN AGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: The subject property for the requested PE is in the Urban Residential Subdistrict land use classification on the County's Future Land Use Map (FLUM). It is also located within the Commercial Subdistrict, Low-Density Residential Subdistrict, and is also located within the Urban Infill Overlay as shown on the Immokalee Area Master Plan. These land-use categories are designed to accommodate a variety of uses. Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 5.4 requires new developments to be compatible with the surrounding land area. The GMP does not address parking exemption requests and the Comprehensive Planning Section leaves this determination to the Zoning Section as part of the LDC review and analysis per Section 4.05.02 K.3. PE-PL20 1 8000327 6, I mmokalee McDonalds Revised: February 7, 2020 McDonalds Rodevdopmflt Site Parkif,g Exerplion Area Page 4 of 10 vu uraa y Iwil f: **i 'rtl - r' H' l* ,Ji:' [! l.J r lr I .t / t at9 I t IIi p E I-*l. ,n* un'ri t ?1 ffi6ffi1 t ;jfl E--I aF I^t, rilrq / T I -f ,J ! \d J at,;rfl, -3 1 t i rT r \ I j, a I 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Staff Report Immokalee McDonalds (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking Exemption) STAFF ANALYSIS: ZoningReview: In accordance with Section 4.05.02K3.a.(2) of the LDC, an applicant may seek a parking exemption when off-site parking is requested for land not zoned for commercial use. The Zoning Division has completed a review of parking exemption criteria from Section 4.05.02 K.3.b. of the LDC for consideration by the Planning Commission and Board of ZorungAppeals for a potential determination, and responses to each criterion are below: (I) Whether the amount of off-site parking is required by sections 4.05.04 G. and 4.05.09, or k in excess of these requirements. The additional 17 parking spaces within the residentially zoned portions of the site are necessary to meet the minimum parking requirements of Section 4.05.04 G. and 4.05.09. Per the companion SDPA application (PL20180003077),the 5,206 square foot/100 seat restaurant requires 6l parking spaces, and the development is proposing 61 parking spaces. (2) The distance of the forthest parktng space from the facility to be served. The concept plan provided by the applicant (see Attachment A) clearly details the spatial dimensions of the proposed parking exemption area and the concept building. The furthest parking space to the building is approximately 175 feet to the nearest entrance of the proposed building. The applicant has proposed a reasonable maximum distance from the building to the farthest parking space. (3) Pedestrian safety if the lots are separated by o collector or arterial roadway. The proposed parking exemption area is not separated by a collector or arterial roadway. All pedestrian traffic from the parking spaces to the building are within the subject property without the need to cross any public or private right-of-way. (4) Pedestrian and vehicular safety. Based on the proposed design of the parking area by the applicant, there does not appear to be any pedestrian or vehicular safety issues. The conceptual site plan shows internal sidewalks. It should be noted that pavement markings outlining pedestrian walkways may be stipulated to site development permitting. (s)The character and quality of the neighborhood and the future development of s urro unding prop erties. The Zoning Division does not believe that the proposed parking exemption would negatively affect the character and quality of the neighborhood. It does not appear that the future development of surrounding properties would be negatively affected. A 15-foot Type B is proposed along the residential property boundaries to the south and east. PE-P1201 80003276, lmmokalee McDonalds Revised: February 7, 2020 Page 5 of 10 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: Staff Report Immokalee McDonalds (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking Exemption) (6) Potential parking problemsfor neighboring properties. The proposed parking exemption does not appear to present potential parking problems for neighboring residential properties. As it relates to parking availability only, the proposed concept plan appears to ameliorate the existing conditions and provide more parking at the project location site. (7) Whether the internal trofficflow is required to leove the site to reach the proposed offsite parking. The project does not require vehicles to leave the commercial site to reach the proposed off-site parking. The off-site parking area is contiguous to the commercial development; all parking is located internal to the development project, which is accessible to vehicular traffic from SR29A{orth i5th Street and Immokalee Drive. (8) Whether vehicular access shall befrom or onto residential streets. None of the proposed access to the parking exemption area is or onto residential streets. Access to the parking exemption area is through the existing commercial site. Access points are limited to SR29A'{orth 15th Street, which is a commercial corridor and Immokalee Drive. Immokalee Drive is a local road that serves both commercial and residential uses; however, the access point from Immokalee drive is within the commercially zoned portion of the property. (9) Whether buffers adjacent to the property zoned residential are 15 feet in width and include a wall in addition to required landscaping. The proposed concept development plan shows a l5-foot Type B buffer for the residential properties to the south and east. The applicant proposes to reduce the southern 15-foot wide buffer to l0-feet as allowed by LDC Section 4.06.02 D.4. for approximately 30' and provide compensating area along the same buffer. Section 5.03.02 H.1 of the LDC requires nonresidential uses to provide a six-foot tall concrete or masoffy wall or fence when adjacent to residential zoning districts. The applicant submitted and received approval for an Administrative Fence Waiver (AFW-PL20190002345) to provide an enhanced landscape buffer in lieu of constructing the wall. A copy of the AFW is included in Attachment C, Backup Material. (10) lYhether the off-site parking area will be usedfor valet parking. f'he off-site parking will not be used for valet parking. (11) Whether the off-site parking area will be used for employee parking. The applicant has indicated that the off-site parking exemption area will primarily be used for employees. PE-P1201 8000327 6, I mmokalee McDonalds Revised: February 7, 2020 Page 6 of 10 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: Staff Report Immokalee McDonalds (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking Exemption) (12) ll'hether there are more viable alternatives available. The Zoning Division finds that the proposed parking exemption site configuration is the best altemative for the proposed parking area. Section a.05.02(3)(c); Off-street parking areas must be accessible from a street, alley or other public right-of-way and all off-street parkingfacilities must be so aruanged that no motor vehicle shall have to back onto any street, excluding single-family and two-family residential dwellings and churches opproved under section 2.3.16. In accordance with LDC requirements, the parking lot has been designed so that motor vehicles would not be required to back into any abutting public right-of-way. The parking calculations table provided on the companion Site Development Plan Amendment (PL20180003077) indicates that the proposed McDonald's redevelopment meets the required number of parking spaces per Sections 4.05.04, 4.05.06, and4.05.07 of the LDC. PARKING INFORMATION: PARKING REQUIRED USE TYPE: -t spAcE pER 70 sF FoR puBLrc usE AREAS TNCLUDTNG ourDooR EATTNG AREAS, OR 1 PER 2 SEATS, WHICHEVER IS GREATER, AND 1 PER 2OO SF FOR NON PUBLIC USE AREAS (3,124 SF / 70 SF = 44 SPACES) + (2,082 SF / 200 SF = 11 SPACES) = 55 PARKING SPACES (100 SEATS / 2 = 50 SPACES) + (2,082 SF / 200 SF = 1 1 SPACES) = 61 PARKTNG SPACES PARKING SPACES PROVIDED ONSITE = 61 (lNC. 3 ADA SPACE) The buffers labeled on the conceptual plan meet or exceed LDC requirements. Enhanced plantings will be required within the East buffer and the portion of the South buffer that abuts residential zoning in lieu of a wall as approved through the companion Administrative Fence Waiver (PL20 I 90002345). (See Attachment C) The project is consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan, which states, "The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall not approve PE-P120 1 8000327 6, I mmokalee McDonalds Revised: February 7, 2020 Page 7 of 10 LANDSCAPE REVIEW: TRANSPORTATION EVALUATION REVIEW: 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: Staff Report Immokalee McDonalds (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking Exemption) ony petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application has significant impacts if the trffic impact statement reveals that any of the following occur: a. For linl<s (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project trffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project trffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and c. For all other links the project trffic is considered to be significant up to the point where it is equal to or exceeds 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume. Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and submitted as port of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project's significant impacts on all roodwoys. " Transportation Planning Staff has reviewed the proposed Parking Exemption Request and found that the proposed exemption is consistent with the transportation elements of the GMP. Further, staff has reviewed the proposed access location and sidewalk layout finding that they meet applicable requirements and standards. Additional operational impacts will be addressed at time of the next development order (SDP, SDPA, or Plat), at which time a TIS will be required to demonstrate detail turning movements for site access points and site traffic analysis. Therefore, the subject Parking Exemption Request can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. IMMOKALEE COMMUNITY RE EVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA): The agent will provide a formal presentation to the Immokalee CRA Advisory Board Joint Meeting on February 13,2020. The CRA will provide the outcome on the agents' recommendations after this meeting. As such, staff will state any CRA recommendations at the February 20,2020 CCPC meeting. NEIGHBORHOOD INFO TION MEETTNG NIM) The applicant conducted a NIM on January 8,2020, at Immokalee Community Park, Conference Room, located at 321North l't Street in Immokalee. The meeting commenced at approximately 5:37 p.m. and ended at 5:40 p.m. Only one person attended, Richard Johnson, who is a representative of the owner of the property immediately to the east of the subject site. The applicant's agent explained the request for the proposed parking exemption. Albert Lopez, the agent, conducted the meeting with introductions of the consultant team and staff, and an overview of the proposed parking exemption for McDonald's. Mr. Lopez then gave a presentation which described the parking exemption and included an aerial photo of the subject PE-P120 1 8000327 6, I mmokalee McDonalds Revised: February 7, 2020 Page 8 of 10 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: Staff Report Immokalee McDonalds (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking Exemption) site and the site plan (blown up on boards). There were no concerns from Mr. Johnson who had no objections to the project. No commitments were made. A copy of the synopsis, sign-in sheet, location map, and conceptual site plan are included in the Backup Materials in Attachment C. COUNTY A Y OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney's Office has reviewed this staff report on2l7l20. RECOMMENDATION: Zoning Division staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend the Board of Zoning Appeals approve petition PE-PL20180003276,lmmokalee McDonald's, subject to the following stipulations: l. The Parking Exemption area is limited to improvements shown on the attached Conceptual Site Plan; and 2. The parking within the Parking Exemption area will be only paved surface parking; and 3. No trash containers or enclosures shall be permitted in the Parking Exemption area. Attachments: A) B) c) Proposed Resolution Conceptual Site Plan Application and Backup Material PE-P1201 8000327 6, I mmokalee McDonalds Revised: February 7, 2020 Page 9 of 10 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: Staff Report Immokalee McDonalds (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking Exemption) PREPARED BY: TIMOTHY F , AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER ZONING DIVISION.ZONING SERVICES SECTION REVIEWED BY: YM V. BELLOWS, ZO MANAGER ZONING DIVISION-ZONING SERVICES SECTION AMES FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT PE-PL20180003276, lmmokalee McDonalds Revised: February 5, 2020 o- /0- zd DATE A.-/a'Qae_a DATE 2- [ -z-ct DATE Page 10 of '10 7''t",A:- 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Staff Report Immokalee McDonalds (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking Exemption) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking Exemption) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking Exemption) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking Exemption) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 287Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking Exemption) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Attachment B - Conceptual Site Plan (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and back up materials (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking Exemption) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and back up materials (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking Exemption) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and back up materials (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking Exemption) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and back up materials (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking Exemption) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and back up materials (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking Exemption) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and back up materials (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking Exemption) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and back up materials (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking Exemption) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and back up materials (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking Exemption) 9.A.2.dPacket Pg. 298Attachment: Attachment C - Application and back up materials (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and back up materials (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking Exemption) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and back up materials (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking Exemption) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and back up materials (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking Exemption) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and back up materials (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking Exemption) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and back up materials (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking Exemption) 9.A.2.dPacket Pg. 304Attachment: Attachment C - Application and back up materials (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and back up materials (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking Exemption) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and back up materials (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking Exemption) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and back up materials (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking Exemption) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and back up materials (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking Exemption) 9.A.2.dPacket Pg. 309Attachment: Attachment C - Application and back up materials (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and back up materials (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking Exemption) 9.A.2.dPacket Pg. 311Attachment: Attachment C - Application and back up materials (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds 9.A.2.dPacket Pg. 312Attachment: Attachment C - Application and back up materials (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds 9.A.2.dPacket Pg. 313Attachment: Attachment C - Application and back up materials (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds 9.A.2.dPacket Pg. 314Attachment: Attachment C - Application and back up materials (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and back up materials (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking Exemption) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and back up materials (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking Exemption) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and back up materials (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking Exemption) 9.A.2.dPacket Pg. 318Attachment: Attachment C - Application and back up materials (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and back up materials (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking Exemption) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and back up materials (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking Exemption) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and back up materials (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking Exemption) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and back up materials (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking Exemption) 9.A.2.dPacket Pg. 323Attachment: Attachment C - Application and back up materials (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds 9.A.2.dPacket Pg. 324Attachment: Attachment C - Application and back up materials (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds 9.A.2.dPacket Pg. 325Attachment: Attachment C - Application and back up materials (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and back up materials (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking Exemption) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and back up materials (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking Exemption) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and back up materials (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking Exemption) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and back up materials (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking Exemption) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and back up materials (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking Exemption) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and back up materials (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking Exemption) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and back up materials (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking Exemption) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and back up materials (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking Exemption) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and back up materials (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking Exemption) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and back up materials (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking Exemption) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and back up materials (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking Exemption) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and back up materials (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking Exemption) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and back up materials (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking Exemption) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and back up materials (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking Exemption) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and back up materials (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking Exemption) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and back up materials (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking Exemption) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and back up materials (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking Exemption) 9.A.2.dPacket Pg. 343Attachment: Attachment C - Application and back up materials (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds 9.A.2.dPacket Pg. 344Attachment: Attachment C - Application and back up materials (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Frylq,F KMIffi & { aa 'll t jliII.i ,,*l\....1 7 Itr n .I I' 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and back up materials (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking Exemption) i*, u ,,I \ rulUcxEARtilGl ..], i) .. :-. 7 { l;. ,a I l, r14E ,.$I t It.it.r rtZ I I .'i itt: . . I '1^t, , I _a , I rl l. 1t 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and back up materials (11203 : 9.A.2-Immokalee McDonalds Parking Exemption) 02/20/2020 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.3 Item Summary: PL20180003748: A Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida, relating to Petition Number VA-PL20180003748, for a variance from Section 4.02.01 A., Table 2.1 of the Collier County Land Development Code to reduce the minimum side yard setback on the west side from 7.5 feet to 4.71 feet for an existing pool. The property is described as Lot 1 and the east half of Lot 2, Block 28, Naples Park Unit No. 3, also described as 699 99th Ave. N., in Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Timothy Finn, AICP, Principal Planner] Meeting Date: 02/20/2020 Prepared by: Title: – Zoning Name: Tim Finn 01/29/2020 1:10 PM Submitted by: Title: Manager - Planning – Zoning Name: Ray Bellows 01/29/2020 1:10 PM Approved By: Review: Zoning Camden Smith Review Item Completed 02/05/2020 12:46 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 02/05/2020 1:50 PM Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 02/05/2020 2:33 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig Review item Completed 02/05/2020 3:22 PM Growth Management Department James C French Review Item Completed 02/05/2020 4:48 PM Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 02/05/2020 6:08 PM Planning Commission Mark Strain Meeting Pending 02/20/2020 9:00 AM 9.A.3 Packet Pg. 347 C-ounty STAFF REPORT TO:COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER GROWTH MANACEMENT DEPARTMENT ZONING DIVISION. ZONING SERVICES SECTION HEARING DATE: FEBRUARY20,2020 SUBJECT: PETITION VA-PL20180003748 (699 99th Ave N) PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: Owner: Michael and Kimberly Woodyard 699 99s Ave N Naples, FL 34109 Matthew P. Flores, Esq. Zampogna Flores, PLLC I l7 Goodlette Rd N #204 Naples, FL 34102 To have the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application for an after- the-fact variance from Section 4.02.01 A., Table 2.1 of the Collier County Land Development Code to reduce the minimum side yard setback on the west side from 7.5 feet to 4.71 feet for an existing pool in the Residential Multi-Family- 6 (RMF-6) zoning district. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is described as Lot I and the east halfofLot 2, Block 28, Naples Park Unit No. 3, also described as 699 99s Ave. N., in Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 0.27+ acres (See location map on page 2). VA-PL20180003748 (699 99rh Ave N) Revised: February 10, 2020 Page 1 of I FROM: Agents: REOUESTED ACTION: 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: Staff Report - 699 99th Ave N - Variance (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) Af/6\f/Af/rav@I /a[,Av Av@As,@\2o!E,l(,o 03 2 uJ .c, o ls qlr 2 lu a <n Il!.E 2 llJ E o-G (,, .scoN = @st- cf)ooo @ oN -Jo- Uq) -o E z c .9 =o(L o-o co oooJ VA-P120180003748 (699 99'h Ave N) Revised: February '10, 2020 v2irouri Pg l.s^;.ll ol Page 2 of 8 /av/A\t/@,A[,/Av/A,9 @A\90 0/a\v@0 t-)@00 0AtvA\90 0,6.\\v0@ 0,a\v0A\v 0 000/a\90 F L a r I -9.A.3.aPacket Pg. 349Attachment: Staff Report - 699 99th Ave N - Variance (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) LOI 10gL*K 28 Lof 5a ; J 1 :i BIOI;R 2E FJi- !rt'N 89'5 7'OO' W tus:ul 7:J,87.85'(R&M) N t-i ,)' ?J JI,iE ,.!'B,iLJ]!i3 $-'IJA(X Lta I REYTNDEN * LOf 2 aLe& 2E ,? .Rg l d e Ttt oa I ts s h :.t,t l :i, an.rd 'F :vr . D.- grall rec N 3 Io+b,NT5t z-i rrE-..tt' 5 (')n 1 z .+ E c. roo! c0rqttr6 oo rtn iD .ietiIY tilt- 4,r" o'E:9.lr USai lDl]x)CAFY lld.: ii o.^.vo, l t8lvErlcrL o^rur9$ft - ru'?,q 1llt6 i. tt.A 5/t lic lEn^9(g aiovD€D qq.Jax 67.12' (R&M) N a957'OO' W f.', J'.," 1 1.. - ad nUi 99th nt'N: :; 'tEitc cartr 't,:( frlavtli' 2tr aulflc ' r5 !+', !'E T--- PARna.t 6 LOt 2 aL@( 2E i rl' t.2/ l' t rl' COr.CItxG 5 lr1I lI.d I Pcrot c el t5 h}i ,,f.4.-!{ll c !!' I I I JI,Jd 8 0.al J1,i{T trt E--t,}.a RESDE\E! a a9t i ,o0t .I 1:.'.i , !0.d'qE tior ..b I]', I rL LAT 'aLocx 28 5,/E' )RrvE .aYl. rlhu$i^y l.tn FEncE c+rla Lor I [-a 9rtucl.cf l|{clr,J olli firg SurotitE sEraac( Lttr:. ,OII{TS OF INTERE,3II I'AP OF BOUNDAFY SURI,/EY Prop.rl, AddrE.: 8C0 Se AVE N TIARES FL 3':OS r 12, r !Ja, 6r alE, 6tlh 1I!gi.ft l!}ia. Fr iJol4rvr..Onrlldfi 5{nt6.a Can nlineLand sunvEYofls,rHc 'IAIE OF FLORIOA aol irE FlPr P.3.il lo, ttol !toxEo flrcuEl, 5'rrwy Drt8.4ra,:0,9 VA-P120180003748 (699 99'h Ave N) Revised: February 10, 2020 P.I I ot2 nct yal, riam tl Et0f,{. Page 3 of 6 SJNrr CodciO-CC.00 .'.'.,1 .:ii 'i t.'.,'.1..-. t_...-.!i.: , r!' I 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: Staff Report - 699 99th Ave N - Variance (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT : Currently, an existing pool encroaches into a required side yard setback. As such, the agent requests a variance from Section 4.02.01A., Table 2.1 of the Collier County Land Development Code to reduce the minimum side yard setback on the west side from 7.5 feet to 4.71 feet for an existing pool in the RMF-6 zoning district. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: This section of the staff report identifies the land uses and zoning classifications for properties surrounding boundaries of the subject property: North:Single-family residential, Zoned RMF-6 7th St ROW/ Single-family resident ial, Zoned RMF-6 99th Ave N ROW/ Single-family residential,ZonedRMF-6 Single-family residential, Zoned RMF-6 East: VA-P120180003748 (699 99th Ave N) Revised: February 10, 2020 South: West: Collier County Property Appraiser Page 4 of 8 t_n TtrI-fr )) -Trffi* \ I -,a 7 \ F1.D ,t ,t 6 I ffit l.I l I I HwITT -llF,at- , - Iil ./ -t 0 - 20tt I I \ T It 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: Staff Report - 699 99th Ave N - Variance (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) GROWTH MANAGEMENT P LAN (GMP)CONSISTENCY: The subject property is located within the Urban, Urban Mixed-Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict, on the County's Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the CMP. The GMP does not address individual Variance requests but deals with the larger issue of the actual use. As previously noted, the petitioner seeks an after{he-fact variance from the minimum side yard setback of the RMF-6 zoning district from 7 .5 feet to 4.71feet for an existing pool. The subject use is consistent with the FLUM of the GMP. The requested variance does not have any impact on this property's consistency with the County's GMP. AFF ANALYSIS: The subject property is located within the Naples Park Subdivision. Per the current Land Development Code (LDC), single-family dwellings shall have a 7.5-foot side yard accessory setback. The Woodyards purchased the subject property on November 12, 1996. In 2006, the owner contracted with Berube Bros Inc. to construct a pool and pool deck on the property under permit# cDP2006100432 issued on October 5th,2006. The contractor obtained the permit the next day and proceeded with the work but never called in the final inspection and thus the permit expired on April I lrh,2007. The owners were not aware ofthe issue until September of 2017 when the owners had the property appraised in anticipation of a sale ofthe property. It shall be noted that the pool and the deck are encroaching into the setback. Per LDC Section 1.08.02, the definition of a yard is "An open space that is unoccupied and unobstructed, and that lies between a principal or accessory building or buildings and the nearest lot line. As used in this definition, "unobstructed" means a structure or portion of a structure from 30 inches above the ground level upward and does not include permissible fences ond walls. " Moreover, per LDC Section 4.02.01(D)(3), "Every part of every required yard shall be open and unobstructed from thirty (30) inches above the general ground level of the graded lot upward to the slcy except as hereinafter provided or as otherwise permitted in this LDC." As such, per these definitions, it is the opinion of staff that the pool deck is not subject to meet setbacks as the highest point of the deck is 12 inches and is under the 3O-inch threshold; therefore, the deck is not subject to this variance. In this case, the pool shell encroaches 2.79 feet into the setback. As such, the variance for this petition is being requested at 4.71 feet from the side property line. There have been other variances granted within this neighborhood for similar situations, and none have been injurious to the neighborhood or detrimental to the public welfare. This pool and deck encroachment have been in existence for nearly 14 years. To date, no known complaints have been received from any neighboring properties in regard to this pool and deck. VA-PL20180003748 (699 99'h Ave N) Revised: February 10, 2020 Section 9.04.01 of the Land Development Code gives the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) the authority to grant Variances. The Planning Commission is advisory to the BZA and utilizes the provisions of Section 9.04.03 A. through H. (in bold font below), as general guidelines to assist in making their recommendation of approval or denial. Staff has analyzed this petition relative to these provisions and offers the following responses: Page 5 of I 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: Staff Report - 699 99th Ave N - Variance (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) c a. Are there special conditions and circumstances existing, which are peculiar to the Iocation, size and characteristics ofthe land, structure or building involved? There are no special conditions or circumstances existing which are peculiar to the location, size, and characteristics ofthe lan4 strucnres, or building involved. b, Are there special conditions and circumstances, which do not result from the action ofthe applicant such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property, which are the subject of the Variance request? Yes, unknown to Owner, Contractor did not acquire the certificate of completionor final inspections to close the Permit. Contractor was in violation of the original plan which was approved by Collier County. Owner was not made aware ofthe setback encroachment until 2018, approximately eleven years after Contractor installedthe pool andpool deck. Owner has satisfied all other conditions to receive a certificate of completion for the Permit. Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of this zoning code work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difliculties for the applicant? Yes, unknown to Owner, Contractor did not acquire the certificate of completion or final inspections to close the Permit. lt would be wasteful for Owner to have to demolish and rebuild the Pool due to the minimal setback encroachment. This would result in an undue financial hardship on Owner. d. Will the Variance, if granted, be the minimum Variance that wilt make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure and which promote standards of health, safety and welfare? Yes, the variance proposed would be the minimum variance to allow the decrease in the side yard setback from 7.5 ftto 4.71 ft for the pool. This zoning issue has existed for nearly 14 years and was only brought to the Owner's attention as a result oftrying to sell the Property. Standards ofhealth, safety, andwelfare havenotandwill not be disturbed. Yes, by definition, a Variance bestows some dimensional relieffrom the zoning regulations specific to a site. However, LDC Section 9.04.02 provides relief through the Variance process for any dimensional development standard, such as the requested side yard setback decrease. As such, other properties facing a similar hardship would be entitled to make a similar request and would be conferred equal consideration on a case by case basis. f. Will granting the Variance be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this Land Development Code, and not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare? VA-P120180003748 (699 99ih Ave N) Revised: February 10, 2020 Page 6 of 8 e. Will granting the Variance confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district? 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: Staff Report - 699 99th Ave N - Variance (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) Yes, as mentioned above this zoning issue has gone unnoticed and existed for nearly 14 years. It has not disturbed the harmony of the neighborhood in any way and is not detrimental to thepublic welfare in any way. g. Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves, lakes, golf courses, etc, ? There are no natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives ofthe regulation, such as natural preserves, lakes, golfcourses, etc. The EAC does not normally hear variance petitions. Since the subject variance doesn't impact any preserve area, the EAC did not hear this petition. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Oflice has reviewed the staff report for PL20180003748 revised on February 10,2020. RECOMMENDATION: Attachments: A) B) c) Proposed Resolution Map of Boundary Suwey, dated April 4th 2019 Backup Materials VA-PL20180003748 (699 99rh Ave N) Revised: February10, 2020 Page 7 of 8 h. Will granting the Variance be consistent with the GMP? Approval of this variance will not affect or change the requirements of the GMP. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAO RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) approve Petition VA- PL20180003748, 699 996 Ave N. Variance to reduce the minimum side yard setback from 7.5 feet to 4.71 feet for an existing pool. 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: Staff Report - 699 99th Ave N - Variance (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) PREPARED BY: TIMOTHY , AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER ZONING DIVISION-ZONING SERVICES SECTION REVIEWED BY: RA V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER ZONING DIVISION-ZONING SERVICES SECTION FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT z^ L-z O DATE z-L- zo DATE 2- 4 -.2p.aa DATE VA-P120180003748 (699 99rh Ave N) Revised: February 5, 2020 Page 8 of 8 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: Staff Report - 699 99th Ave N - Variance (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: Attachment B - Map of Boundary Survey, dated April 4th, 2019 (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.dPacket Pg. 369Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.dPacket Pg. 370Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.dPacket Pg. 371Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.dPacket Pg. 376Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.dPacket Pg. 377Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.dPacket Pg. 378Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.dPacket Pg. 391Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.dPacket Pg. 392Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.dPacket Pg. 393Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.dPacket Pg. 398Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.dPacket Pg. 399Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.dPacket Pg. 400Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 406 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 407 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 409 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 421 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 422 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 423 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 424 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.dPacket Pg. 428Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 429 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 430 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 433 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 434 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 440 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) t , .\ \I\ I $ is L-. !I ffi\1, =\'='/ t. Y F E ;:'..i ll lt':t-.-l rl 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 442 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) (1== \'-r.= '7. .. ., 'Ii \ i \}i,r \ ti I!/ -'\,. * \ t'. ,k *.i l&;,*, hl * I LIf ,L '/i (( \ .,' /r + a 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: Attachment C - Application Back up materials (11199 : 9.A.3-Woodyard - Variance) 02/20/2020 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.4 Item Summary: PL20190001940: A Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida, relating to Petition Number VA-PL20190001940, for a variance from Section 4.02.01.A., Table 2.1 of the Collier County Land Development Code to reduce the minimum front yard setback from 25 feet to 24.99 feet, and to reduce the minimum rear yard setback from 20 feet to 14.61 feet for an existing single family home, and a variance from Secti on 4.02.01.D.8 of the Land Development Code to increase the maximum allowable roof overhang from 3 feet to 3.51 feet. The property is described as Lot 3, Block 6, Avalon Estates Unit No. 1, also described as 4704 Acadia Lane, in Section 13, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: John Kelly, Sr. Planner] Meeting Date: 02/20/2020 Prepared by: Title: Planner – Zoning Name: John Kelly 02/03/2020 3:31 PM Submitted by: Title: Manager - Planning – Zoning Name: Ray Bellows 02/03/2020 3:31 PM Approved By: Review: Zoning Camden Smith Review Item Completed 02/04/2020 2:03 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 02/04/2020 3:23 PM Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 02/05/2020 1:38 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig Review item Completed 02/05/2020 4:21 PM Growth Management Department James C French Review Item Completed 02/05/2020 4:46 PM Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 02/05/2020 6:08 PM Planning Commission Mark Strain Meeting Pending 02/20/2020 9:00 AM 9.A.4 Packet Pg. 444 t C-oUn w STAFF REPORT TO:COLLIER COTINTY HEARING EXAMINER FROM:GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ZONING DIVISION- ZONING SERVICES SECTION HEARING DATE: FEBRUARY 20.2020 PETITION VA-PL2O190001940; 4704 ACADIA LANE. VARIANCESUBJECT: Owner/Applicant: Eugene B. and Castula L. Jones 4704 Acadia Lane Naples, FL 34112 Agent: Sarah E. Spector, Esq Roetzel & Andress, LPA Trianon Center, Third Floor 800 Park Shore Drive Naples, FL 34103 REOUESTED A CTION: To have the collier County Planning commission (cCPC) consider an application for an after- the-fact variance fiom Section 4.02.01.A., Table 2.1 of the collier county Land Development Code (LDC) to reduce the minimum front yard setback from 25 feet to 24.99 feet, and to reduce the minimum rear yard setback from 20 feet to 14.61 leet for an existing single-family home, and a variance fiom Section 4.02.01.D.8 of the LDC to increase the maximum allowable roof overhang from 3 leet to 3.51 feet, located within a Residential Multi-Family-6 (RMF-6) zoning district. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject prope(y is located within a recorded subdivision and is identified as Lot 3, Block 6, Avalon Estates Unit No. l, also known as 4704 Acadia Lane, in Section 13, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 0. l4 acres (See location map on page 2). VA-PL2o1 90001 940; 4704 Acadia Lane 01t31D020 Page 'l of 8 PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: VA-PL20190001940 Staff Report 013120 FINAL (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) o-o =(,, .scoN O$ O) Ooo O) oN)(L u o)! E fz .9 =o& - o-(! c .o oooJ A 0 o 0I\.j ri aoEE,C'o 19 L) a a @E 0 0 o,o. A -0 ^rl1-l O IrlqofAIrBJ'c oo3o.c It r2boll,= Eg Page 2 of IVA-PL2o1 90001 940: 4704 Acadia Lane 01t31t2020 AA 20 : \], -E/fl4oe -1 T( .r9.A.4.aPacket Pg. 446Attachment: VA-PL20190001940 Staff Report 013120 FINAL (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) z r.t.R_ 5/8 160.00' rr LOf 25 RL&X 6 60.oo'(R&M) LOT 21g-ocx 5 2E.0' t.n.l5A' 5/E' 0' 10 20' I hch - 20' ft LOf 2 8(OO( 6 ={E bo oo t E. bo oo (gA9S r BtA8rirc ^sgrtt0) 8.C. F.t.P_ t/2'60.00' (R&M) 60' fiatf-tr-yAY (BY PLA|) IE'! ASPI1ALT PAWHENT CADIA LANE Surv€y Dats:&712019 Suloy Codsro's4l96 Pagr 1 of 2 No{ vald iinhout all per! Page 3 of 8 i 16.t1', 17.9J', *l: .-d B 9 t /.a1', 1 ccr,i ONE STORY RESIOENCE , 170t 21.20' 21- 14.0' F ASPttALT ORI\E POINTS OF INTEREST: MAP OF BOUNDARYSURYEY PropaJty addrar.: 4704 ACADIA LN NAPLES, FL 34112 e 15271 NW 60 AVE. Suib a)o MlemiL6kes. FL 33014 w*r OnlineLards!ryeyoc Com nlineLand SURVEYORS,INC I]IAIE!AAI.cEE]TE&!.DO ,ror v.Iro r lrHorJr ar ^untNfr rLrcr.cpc srA^wFE ^ro ^uT'EyrrcfiED R rf€D sEA O. ^ r TCEBSE SLTQVE srrj'Eraos. /ls sar ronrx ,Y,c s rE of FOR THE FNM P.5..No.5101 srcxEo ,,-,GUEL VA-PL201 90001 940; 4704 Acadia Lane 01t3't 12020 2I,T PARKITAY LOf 1 &x)< 6 LOf fr a-ocx 6 LOf t st 00( 6 .'l ::l SfAfE OF FLORIDA 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 447 Attachment: VA-PL20190001940 Staff Report 013120 FINAL (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) The property owner/applicant seeks an after-the-fact Variance to remedy conditions pertaining to an existing single-family residence at the subject location. The residence is located within an RMF- 6 zoning district and encroaches 0.1 feet into the required front yard and 5.39 feet into the required rear yard. Additionally, a roof overhang encroaches 0.51 feet more than is allowable into the required front yard. The Variance is required to maintain the property in its present condition and to allow for sale ofthe property with clear title. This section of the staff report identifies the land uses and zoning classifications for properties surrounding boundaries of the subject property: North:Unimproved lot, owned by applicant, within an RMF-6 zoning district East:Acadia Lane Right-of-Way, then a Single-family residence in an RMF-6 zoning district South:Unimproved lot within an RMF-6 zoning district West:Single-family residence within an RMF-6 zoning district VA-P1201 90001 940i 4704 Acadia Lane 01t31t2020 Collier County Property Appraiser PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: F-- { \ ,| L q tf, )I I! II 4704 Acadia I I) ,s{F''-*q:,, t F : I II l1 Ir I tI I 1 I J I I JJil". I &L !a) I I lq I :!_.s a- ,rlii{-ft Page 4 of I 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 448 Attachment: VA-PL20190001940 Staff Report 013120 FINAL (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) GROWTH NTANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: The subject property is in the Urban, Urban coastal Fringe Subdistrict, and is seaward of the Coastal High Hazard Area Boundary, on the County's Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. The GMP does not address individual Variance requests but deals with the larger issue of the actual use. The existing single-family use is consistent with the FLUM of the GMP. The requested variance does not have any impact on this property's consistency with the County's GMP. STAFF ANALYSIS: The current property owner purchased the subject improved property and the adjoining unimproved property to the north (Lot 4, Block 6, Avalon Estates Unit No. 1) on December 30, 1988, as evidenced by a recorded Warranty Deed. As per the recorded Avalon Estates Unit No. I plat, PB 3 PG 62, each ofthe lots measures 60 feet by 100 feet, and therefore, unless combined for development purposes for which there is no evidence, each lot is deficient in lot area and are consequently recognized as legal non-conforming lots ofrecord. The subject Variance is therefore limited to Lot 3. In 2018, the subject properties were listed for sale. During the due diligence phase and prior to closing it became known there may be setback issues with the improvements on Lot 3. The property owner's realtor proceeded to request a Zoning Verification Letter (ZLTR) from the County. The County issued ZLTR-PL20 I 80003 544 on or about January 2,2019, finding that the principal structure did not qualifo for legal nonconforming status as it violated setbacks at the time improvements were made; see attachments. Zoning staff has since obtained a copy of building permit No. 3852, issued on or about August 13, 1963, that allowed for the placement oftwo frame buildings to be used as residences. The permit is consistent with the issued ZLTR and information obtained from the Property Appraiser's office by means of a Property card which depicts two attached structures with a total area measurement matching that ofthe Boundary Survey provided for this petition. Section 9.04.01 of the Land Development Code gives the Board of Zoning Appeats (BZA) the authority to grant Variances. The Planning Commission is advisory to the BZA and utilizes the VA-P120190001 940; 4704 Acadia Lane 01t31t2020 Page 5 of I As per LDC Section 4.02.01.A, Table 2.1, the setbacks for a single-family dwelling located upon property within an RMF-6 zoning district are: Front Yard 25 feet, Side Yards (non-waterfront) 7.5 feet, and Rear Yard 20 feet. Additionally, per Section 4.02.01.D.8 roofoverhangs shall not project over 3-feet into a required yard. As based upon the provided Boundary survey, the residence faces east and sits slightly askew to all property lines. Using the most restrictive points ofmeasure; the residence measures 24.99 feet from the front (east) property line resulting in an encroachment of 0.01 feet or 0.04Yo of the required front yard and 14.61 feet from the rear (west) property line resulting in an encroachment of 5.39 feet or 26.950/o of the required rear yard for principal structures. Staffnotes that there are no side yard issues as the shed depicted on the survey has been removed. The provided survey also reveals that there is a roofoverhang to the front ofthe structure that encroaches an additional 3.5 I feet into the required front yard for which the LDC only allows a 3-foot encroachment; therefore a variance of 0.51 feet or 17%o is requested to allow the roof overhang to remain. 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 449 Attachment: VA-PL20190001940 Staff Report 013120 FINAL (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) b provisions ofSection 9.04.03 A. through H. (in bold font below), as general guidelines to assist in making their recommendation of approval or denial. Staff has analyzed this petition relative to these provisions and offers the following responses: a. Are there special conditions and circumstances existing, which are peculiar to the location, size and characteristics of the land, structure or buitding involved? Yes, Zoning staff has determined that the subject property is legal non-conforming with respect to lot area. Additionally, as noted within the referenced ZLTR the rear yard setback has changed over time. Are there special conditions and circumstances, which do not result from the action of the applicant such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property, which are the subject of the Variance request? Yes, the applicant purchased this property in 1988 without knowledge of the existing encroachments. No modifications have been made by the owner/applicant to increase said encroachments. The owneriapplicant acted to remove a shed from the property that was placed by a prior owner within the required south side yard thereby serving to reduce the requested variance. The County did not require spot surveys to be provided for new construction until 1989. c.Will a literal interpretation ofthe provisions ofthis zoning code work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties for the applicant? Yes, this is an after-the-fact Variance request as such the previously permitted residence would need to be structurally altered The existing building design cannot be easily or cost effectively modified to correct the encroachment identified herein; said encroachment is to the principal structure and not an accessory structure. The applicant notes that LDC Section 9.04.04.C empowers the County Manager or his4rer designee to approve Administrative Variances for encroachments of up to 25%o of the required yard; the subject residence encroaches 26.950/o into the required rear yard, a net difference of less than 2%, due to no fault of the owner/applicant. d. Will the Variance, if granted, be the minimum Variance that witl make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure and which promote standards of health, safety and welfare? Yes, the Variance, if granted, is the minimum required to accommodate the existing building design and roof system, thereby making possible the most reasonable use ofthe land which results in no changes to the existing property conditions while promoting standards ofhealth, safety, and welfare. Will granting the Variance confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning e VA-PL201 90001 940; 4704 Acadia Lane 01t3't t2020 Page 6 of 8 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 450 Attachment: VA-PL20190001940 Staff Report 013120 FINAL (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) district? By definition, a Variance bestows some dimensional relief from the zoning regulations specific to a site. LDC Section 9.04.02 allows relief through the Variance process for any dimensional development standard. As such, other properties facing a similar hardship would be entitled to make a similar request and would be conferred equal consideration on a case by case basis. f.Will granting the Variance be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this Land Development Code, and not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare? Yes, the granting ofthe Variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Land Development Code and will not harm public safety, health and welfare. The presently offending structure has existed for decades. A search of Department records yields no Code Enforcement complaints having been made conceming setback issues during this time. g. Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives ofthe regulation such as natural preserves, lakes, golf courses, etc.? No, no natural or physically induced conditions have been observed that will serve to ameliorate the goals and objectives ofthe LDC. Will granting the Variance be consistent with the Growth Management plan? Yes, approval of this Variance will not affect or change the requirements of the GMp with respect to density, intensity, compatibility, access/connectivity, or any other applicable provisions. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVI SORY COUNCIL (EAC)RECOMMENDATION: The EAC does not normally hear variance petitions. Since the subject variance doesn't impact any preserve area, the EAC did not hear this petition. COU\TY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW The Office ofthe County Attorney reviewed this staffreport on February 7,2020 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the collier county Planning commission (ccPC) forward petition vA- PL20190001940 to the Board ofZoning Appeals (BZA) with a recommendation ofapproval. Attachments: A - PB 3 PG 62, Building Permit No. 3852 & Public Hearing Sign posting B - Resolution C - Applicant's Backup; Application, Narrative, Authorizations, etc. h VA-P1201 9000'1 940: 4704 Acadia Lane 01t31t2020 Page 7 of 8 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 451 Attachment: VA-PL20190001940 Staff Report 013120 FINAL (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) PREPARED BYI JOHN OR PLANNER DIVISION-ZONING SERVICES SECTION t)TE REVIEWED BY: oo/7 f ,-* RAYM V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER ----5m ZONING DIVISION-ZONING SERVICES SECTION t2a FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD ATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT VA-PL2o1 90001940: 4704 Acadia Lane ui3112020 Page I of 8 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 452 Attachment: VA-PL20190001940 Staff Report 013120 FINAL (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) 9.A.4.bPacket Pg. 453Attachment: Attachment A (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 454 Attachment: Attachment A (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 455 Attachment: Attachment A (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 456 Attachment: Attachment A (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 457 Attachment: Attachment A (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 458 Attachment: Attachment B (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 459 Attachment: Attachment B (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 460 Attachment: Attachment B (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 461 Attachment: Attachment B (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252‐2400 FAX: (239) 252‐6358 4/27/2018 Page 1 of 6 VARIANCE PETITION APPLICATION Variance from Setbacks Required for a Particular Zoning District LDC section 9.04.00 & Code of Laws section 2‐83 – 2‐90 Chapter 3 J. of the Administrative Code PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME DATE PROCESSED APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION Name of Property Owner(s): ______________________________________________________ Name of Applicant if different than owner: __________________________________________ Address: _________________________City: ________________ State: _______ ZIP: ________ Telephone: ___________________ Cell: ____________________ Fax: ____________________ E‐Mail Address: ________________________________________________________________ Name of Agent: ________________________________________________________________ Firm: _________________________________________________________________________ Address: ___________________________City: ________________ State: _______ ZIP: ______ Telephone: ____________________ Cell: ___________________ Fax: ____________________ E‐Mail Address: ________________________________________________________________ BE AWARE THAT COLLIER COUNTY HAS LOBBYIST REGULATIONS. GUIDE YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY AND ENSURE THAT YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THESE REGULATIONS. To be completed by staff Eugene B. and Castula L. Jones 4704 Acadia Lane Naples 34112FL Sarah E. Spector, Esq. Roetzel & Andress, LPA, Trianon Center, Third Floor 800 Park Shore Drive (239) 338-4213 Naples FL 34103 (239) 337-0970 sspector@ralaw.com 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 462 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 4/27/2018 Page 2 of 6 PROPERTY INFORMATION Provide a detailed legal description of the property covered by the application: (If space is inadequate, attach on separate page) Property I.D. Number: ____________________ Section/Township/Range: / / Subdivision: _____________________________________ Unit: _____Lot: Block: Metes & Bounds Description: __________________________________ Total Acreage: ______ Address/ General Location of Subject Property: ______________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE Zoning Land Use N S E W Minimum Yard Requirements for Subject Property: Front: Corner Lot: Yes No Side: Waterfront Lot: Yes No Rear: Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code requires that the applicant must remove their public hearing advertising sign(s) after final action is taken by the Board of County Commissioners. Based on the Board's final action on this item, please remove all public hearing advertising sign(s) immediately. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 463 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 4/27/2018 Page 3 of 6 ASSOCIATIONS Complete the following for all registered Association(s) that could be affected by this petition. Provide additional sheets if necessary. Information can be found on the Board of County Commissioner’s website at http://www.colliergov.net/Index.aspx?page=774. Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: _____ NATURE OF PETITION On a separate sheet, attached to the application, please provide the following: 1. A detailed explanation of the request including what structures are existing and what is proposed; the amount of encroachment proposed using numbers, i.e. reduce front setback from 25 ft. to 18 ft.; when property owner purchased property; when existing prin cipal structure was built (include building permit number(s) if possible); why encroachment is necessary; how existing encroachment came to be; etc. 2. For projects authorized under LDC Section 9.04.02, provide a detailed description of site alterations, including any dredging and filling. 3. Pursuant to LDC section 9.04.00, staff shall be guided in their recommendation to the Hearing Examiner, and the Hearing Examiner shall be guided in the determination to approve or deny a variance petition by the criteria (a-h) listed below. Please address the following criteria: a) Are there special conditions and circumstances existing which are peculiar to the location, size and characteristics of the land, structure, or building involved. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 464 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 4/27/2018 Page 4 of 6 b) Are there special conditions and circumstances which do not result from the action of the applicant such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property which is the subject of the variance request. c) Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of this zoning code work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties on the applicant. d) Will the variance, if granted, be the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure and which promote standards of health, safety or welfare. e) Will granting the variance requested confer on the petitioner any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district. f) Will granting the variance be in harmony with the intent and purpose of this zoning code, and not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. g) Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves, lakes, golf course, etc. h) Will granting the variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? 4. Official Interpretations or Zoning Verifications: To your knowledge, has there been an official interpretation or zoning verification rendered on this property within the last year? Yes No If yes, please provide copies. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 465 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 4/27/2018 Page 5 of 6 Pre-Application Meeting and Final Submittal Requirement Checklist for: Variance Chapter 3 J. of the Administrative Code The following Submittal Requirement Checklist is to be utilized during the Pre-Application Meeting and at time of application submittal. At time of submittal, the checklist is to be completed and submitted with the application packet. Please provide the submittal items in the exact order listed below with cover sheets attached to each section. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. REQUIREMENTS FOR REVIEW # OF COPIES REQUIRED NOT REQUIRED Completed Application (download current form from County website) Pre-Application Meeting Notes 1 Project Narrative Completed Addressing Checklist 1 Property Ownership Disclosure Form 1 Conceptual Site Plan 24” x 36” and one 8 ½ ” x 11” copy Survey of property showing the encroachment (measured in feet) 2 Affidavit of Authorization, signed and notarized 2 Deeds/Legal’s 3 Location map 1 Current aerial photographs (available from Property Appraiser) with project boundary and, if vegetated, FLUCFCS Codes with legend included on aerial 5 Historical Survey or waiver request 1 Environmental Data Requirements or exemption justification 3 Once the first set of review comments are posted, provide the assigned planner the Property Owner Advisory Letter and Certification 1 Electronic copy of all documents and plans *Please advise: The Office of the Hearing Examiner requires all materials to be submitted electronically in PDF format. 1 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS: • Following the completion of the review process by County review staff, the applicant shall submit all materials electronically to the designated project manager. • Please contact the project manager to confirm the number of additional copies required. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 466 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 4/27/2018 Page 6 of 6 Planners: Indicate if the petition needs to be routed to the following reviewers: Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment: Executive Director Historical Review City of Naples: Robin Singer, Planning Director Immokalee Water/Sewer District Conservancy of SWFL: Nichole Ryan Parks and Recreation: David Berra Emergency Management: Dan Summers; and/or EMS: Artie Bay School District (Residential Components): Amy Lockheart Other: FEE REQUIREMENTS  Pre-Application Meeting: $500.00  Variance Petition: o Residential- $2,000.00 o Non-Residential- $5,000.00 o 5th and Subsequent Review- 20% of original fee  Estimated Legal Advertising Fee for the Office of the Hearing Examiner: $1,125.00  After The Fact Zoning/Land Use Petitions: 2x the normal petition fee  Listed Species Survey (if EIS is not required): $1,000.00 Fire Code Plans Review Fees are collected at the time of application submission and those fees are set forth by the Authority having jurisdiction. The Land Development Code requires Neighborhood Notification mailers for Applications headed to hearing, and this fee is collected prior to hearing. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. All checks payable to: Board of County Commissioners. The completed application, all required submittal materials, and the permit fee shall be submitted to: Growth Management Department Zoning Division ATTN: Business Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 __________________________________ ____________________ Applicant Signature Date __________________________________ Printed Name 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 467 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) PRE-APPLICATION MEETING NOTES 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 468 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) Colfier County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 Pre-Application Meeting Notes Petition Type: Variance (VA) Date and Time: Thursday 8/29/2019 1 : 30PM Assigned Planner: John Kelly Engineering Manager (for PPL's and FP's): Project Information Project Name: Acadia Setback (VA) PL #: 20190001940 Property ID #: 22624080002 Current Zoning: Project Address: 4704 Acadia Ln City: Naples RMF-6 State: FL Zip: 34112 Applicant: Sarah E . Spector, Esq. Sarah E . Spector, Esq . Roetzel&Andress Agent Name: Phone: 239-338-4213 Cen State: ter -3rd Fl 34103Agent/Firm Address: ark rk Snore Drive 'City: Naples FL Zip: Property Owner: Eugene B . & Castula L . Jones Please provide the following, if applicable: i. Total Acreage: . 14 ii. Proposed # of Residential Units: iii. Proposed Commercial Square Footage: iv. For Amendments, indicate the original petition number: v. If there is an Ordinance or Resolution associated with this project, please indicate the type and number: vi. If the project is within a Plat, provide the name and AR#/PL#: Updated 7/11/2019 Page I 1 of 5 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 469 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) Goer County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net Meeting Notes 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 As of 10/16/2017 all Zoning applications have revised applications, and your associated Application is included in your notes; additionally a *new Property Ownership Disclosure Form is required for all applications. A copy of this new form is included in your pre-app Note — link is https://www.colliergov.net/Home/ShowDocument?id=75093. "4"s g",-- /971- 1-14.4 reci Rid/ necrreut -Yirde K-4- 4a - A.= 1-7 :51 a -o zi)e-E1 104.-S e.) e L CF) cs — W.--e<44 bleprel/,2 73/ A_ rile C 7c iceS g-,"2/ 4,LAC /17/ /c-->to., )10L:A" (c eir/r/taCr:"--- If Site is within the City of Naples Water Service Area please send to Naples Utilities and Planning Departments. Then, if the petition is submitted, we are to send it (by email) to the four persons below in their Utilities and Planning Depts. - along with a request that they send us a letter or email of "no objection" to the petition. Bob Middleton RMiddleton nablesqov.com Allyson Holland AMHolland(@,naplesqov.com Robin Singer RSincier naplesqov.com Erica Martin emartin naplesqov.com Disclaimer: Information provided by staff to applicant during the Pre-Application Meeting is based on the best available data at the time of the meeting and may not fully inform the applicant of issues that could arise during the process. The Administrative Code and LDC dictates the regulations which all applications must satisfy. Any checklists provided of required data for an application may not fully outline what is needed. It is the applicant's responsibility to provide all required data. Updated 7/11/2019 Page I 2 of 5 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 470 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) Colier County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net Meeting Notes 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 Other required documentation for submittal (not listed on application): Disclaimer:• Information provided by staff to applicant during the Pre-Application Meeting is based on the best available data at the time of the meeting and may not fully inform the applicant of issues that could arise during the process. The Administrative Code and LDC dictates the regulations which all applications must satisfy. Any checklists provided of required data for an application may not fully outline what is needed. It is the applicant's responsibility to provide all required data. Updated 7/11/2019 Page 1 3 of 5 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 471 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) Colker County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 Pre-Application Meeting Sign-In Sheet PL# 20190001940 Collier County Contact Information: Name Review Discipline Phone Email q David Anthony Environmental Review 252-2497 david.anthony@colliercountyagov q Claudine Auclair GMD Operations and Regulatory Management 252-5887 claudine.auclair@colliercountyfl.gov E Sally Ashkar Assistant County Attorney 252-8842 sally.ashkar@colliercountyfl.gov q Steve Baluch Transportation Planning 252-2361 stephen.baluch@colliercountyfl.gov kr Ray Bellows Zoning, Planning Manager 252-2463 raymond.bellows@colliercountyfl.gov E Laurie Beard PUD Monitoring 252-5782 laurie.beard@colliercountyfl.gov q Craig Brown Environmental Specialist 252-2548 craig.brown@colliercountyfl.gov q Alexandra Casanova Operations Coordinator 252-2658 Alexandra.casanova@colliercountyfl.gov q Heidi Ashton Cicko Managing Asst. County Attorney 252-8773 heidi.ashton@colliercountyfl.gov K Thomas Clarke Operations Coordinator 252-2584 thomas.clarke@colliercountyfl.gov E Jamie Cook Prin. Environmental Specialist 252-6290 Jaime.cook@colliercountyfl.gov q Eric Fey, P.E. Utility Planning 252-1037 eric.fey@colliercountyfl.gov E Tim Finn, AICP Zoning Division 252-4312 timothy.finn@colliercountyfl.gov E Sue Faulkner Comprehensive Planning 252-5715 sue.faulkner@colliercountyfl.gov E Jeremy Frantz LDC Manager 252-2305 Jeremy.Frantz@colliercountyfl.gov E James French Growth Management Deputy Department Head 252-5717 james.french@colliercountyfl.gov q Michael Gibbons Structural/Residential Plan Review 252-2426 michael.gibbons@colliercountyfl.gov E Storm Gewirtz, P.E. Engineering Stormwater 252-2434 storm.gewirtz@colliercountyfl.gov E Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA Zoning Division 252-2484 nancy.gundlach@colliercountyfl.gov 1 1 Richard Henderlong Principal Planner 252-2464 richard.henderlong@colliercountyfl.gov E John Houldsworth Engineering Subdivision 252-5757 john.houldsworth@colliercountyfl.gov q Alicia Humphries Right-Of-Way Permitting 252-2326 alicia.humphries@colliercountyfl.gov El Erin Josephitis Environmental Specialist, Senior 252-2915 erin.josephitis@colliercountyfl.gov q Marcia Kendall Comprehensive Planning 252-2387 marcia.kendall@colliercountyfl.gov ci John Kelly Zoning Senior Planner 252-5719 john.kelly@colliercountyfl.gov q Diane Lynch Operations Analyst 252-8243 diane.lynch@colliercountyfl.gov q Gil Martinez Zoning Principal Planner 252-4211 gilbert.martinez@colliercountyfl.gov Li Thomas Mastroberto Greater Naples Fire 252-7348 thomas.mastroberto@colliercountyfl.gov Updated 7/11/2019 Page I 4 of 5 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 472 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) Cofer County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 E Jack McKenna, P.E. Engineering Services 252-2911 jack.mckenna@colliercountyfl.gov H Matt McLean, P.E. Development Review Director 252-8279 matthew.mclean@colliercountyfl.gov q Michele Mosca, AICP Capital Project Planning 252-2466 michele.mosca@colliercountyfl.gov q Annis Moxam Addressing 252-5519 annis.moxam@colliercountyfl.gov q Richard Orth Stormwater Planning 252-5092 richard.orth@colliercountyfl.gov H Brandy Otero Transit 252-5859 brandy.otero@colliercountyfl.gov q Brandi Pollard Utility Impact fees 252-6237 brandi.pollard@colliercountyfl.gov E Todd Riggall North Collier Fire 597-9227 triggall@northcollierfire.com q Brett Rosenblum, P.E. Development Review Principal Project Manager 252-2905 brett.rosenblum@colliercountyftgov E James Sabo, AICP Zoning Principal Planner 252-2708 james.sabo@colliergo.net Li Michael Sawyer Transportation Planning 252-2926 michael.sawyer@colliercountyfl.gov q Corby Schmidt, AICP Comprehensive Planning 252-2944 corby.schmidt@colliercountyfl.gov E Chris Scott, AICP Development Review - Zoning 252-2460 chris.scott@colliercountyfl.gov H Linda Simmons North Collier Fire 252-2311 Linda.Simmons@colliercountyfl.gov E Peter Shawinsky Architectural Review 252-8523 peter.shawinsky@colliercountyfl.gov E Camden Smith Zoning Operations Manager 252-1042 camden.smith@colliercountyfl.gov q Mark Strain Hearing Examiner/CCPC 252-4446 mark.strain@colliercountyfl.gov q Mark Templeton Landscape Review 252-2475 mark.templeton@colliercountyfl.gov E Jessica Velasco Zoning Division Operations 252-2584 jessica.velasco@colliercountyfl.gov C Jon Walsh, P.E. Building Review 252-2962 jonathan.walsh@colliercountyfl.gov q David Weeks, AICP Comprehensive Planning Future Land Use Consistency 252-2306 david.weeks@colliercountyfl.gov E Kirsten Wilkie Environmental Review Manager 252-5518 kirsten.wilkie@colliercountyfl.gov IH Christine Willoughby Development Review - Zoning 252-5748 christine.willoughby@colliercountyfl.gov H Daniel Zunzunegui North Collier Fire 252-2310 Daniel.Zunzunegui@colliercountyfl.gov Additional Attendee Contact Information: Name Representing Phone Email S'cxv ail C?e c+ov eulenti Cask-1.0 0, 30hts 23'1.3 g -4213 59)cc-lc-ov p Updated 7/11/2019 Page 1 5 of 5 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 473 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) Cotter County Growth Management Department Zoning Division PL20190001940 — Acadia Setback (VA) - Applicant/Agent may also send site plans or conceptual plans for review in advance if desired. PRE-APP INFO Assigned Ops Staff: Thomas Clarke Camden Smith,(Ops Staff) STAFF FORM FOR SUPPLEMENTAL PRE-APPLICATION MEETING INFORMATION • Name and Number of who submitted pre -app request Name/number/email Sarah E. Spector, Esq. Roetzel & Andress 239.338.4213 sspector@ralaw.com • Agent to list for PL# Name of Company and Agent Sarah E. Spector, Esq. Roetzel & Andress • Owner of property (all owners for all parcels) List individual ly and by Parcel Eugene B. and Castula L. Jones • Confirm Purpose of Pre -App: (Rezone, etc.) List the type of pre-app you wish to schedule in case it conflicts with our system. Pre-application meeting to discuss variances needed for property located at 4704 Acadia Lane, Naples, FL 34112 (Parcel Number 22624080002) • Please list the density request of the project if applicable and number of homes/units/offices/docks (any that apply): Describe the project here. Provide details here, so that staff may be better prepared to address relative information. Zoning Verification Letter ZLTR-PL20180003544 indicates that there is a front, overhang (front), and rear setback encroachment existing on the property. The letter also asserts that no permits can be found for additions added to the home on the property and, as such, the County has concluded that the buildings have never been considered in compl iance with the Land Development Code since the initial addition was constructed. Zoning Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, Florida 34104 • 239-252-2400 • www.colkergov.net 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 474 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) The Jones have listed the property for sale and the setback encroachment issue has been listed as an issue that needs to be addressed. The Jones would like to understand what steps they must take to address the encroachments and the anticipated cost and time involved in doing so. • Details about Project: Variance — What are you seeking a variance of: zoning, primary use, etc.? Provide details (ie Survey) The Zoning Verification Letter was based on a November 21, 2018 survey. The attached August 7, 2019 survey shows slightly different dimensions. The following table summarizes what the County asserts is applicable to this property and was the survey shows as far as setbacks: Required/Allowed per County Existing per 8/19 survey % Difference Front 25' 24.99' (minimum) .04% Overhang (front) 3' (into required yard) 3.6' 16.67% Rear 20' 14.61' (minimum) 26.95% Based on the foregoing, it would appear that a variance for the front and overhang (rear) encroachments could be approved administratively, but a variance for the rear encroachment just barely exceeds the 25% threshold. REQUIRED Supplemental Information provided by: Name: Sarah Spector Title: Attorney for Eugene and Castula Jones Email: sspector@ralaw.com Phone: 239.338.4213 Cancellation/Reschedule Requests: Contact Danny Condomina-Client Services Supervisor danny.condomina@colliercountyfl Phone: 239-252-6866 Created April 5, 2017 Location: K:\CDES Planning Services\ CurrentVoning Staff Information Zoning Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, Florida 34104 .239-252-2400. vwiwooliergovnet 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 475 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) 71:=1-RU- LIN- TECHNOLOGIES INFO@TRUELINETECH.COM PHONE: 866.772.8813 I WWW.TRUELINETECH.COM Page 1 of 3 in order 129081 File number: 1760319-07249 Client: SUNBELT TITLE AGENCY - NAPLES Lender: ENVOY MORTGAGE LTD. ISAOA. ATIMA Buyer: LUIS FELIPE BARAHONA , Seller: EUGENE B. JONES AND CASTULA L. JONES Premises: 4704 ACADIA LN, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34112 COLLIER Completed: 8/7/2019 Surveyed: 8/6/2019 CERTIFIED TO: SUNBELT TITLE AGENCY, ENVOY MORTGAGE LTD. ISAOA. ATIMA, LUIS FELIPE BARAHONA „ TITLE RESOURCES GUARANTY COMPANY (rev.0 8/7/2019) (rev.0 8/7/2019) TRUELINE TECHNOLOGIES LLC: THE FOLLOWING PRODUCT HAS BEEN COMPLETED BY THE STATE LICENSED LAND SURVEYING FIRM AS INDICATED ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE. TRUELINE TECHNOLOGIES LLC PROVIDES THE DIGITAL TRANSMISSION AND ARCHIVING OF THE PRODUCT, AND IS NOT INVOLVED IN ANY FACET OF THE TECHNICAL FIELD WORK PERFORMED AND MAKES NO WARRANTIES AS TO THE ACCURACY OF SUCH WORK. ALL TRANSMISSIONS OF THE PRODUCT ARE VIAA SECURE 'SHA-1' SECURE HASH MESSAGE DIGEST AUTHENTICATION CODE WITHIN ITS SIGNATURE FILE. A MANUALLY SIGNED AND SEALED LOG OF THIS SURVEY'S SIGNATURE FILE IS KEPT ON FILE AT THE PERFORMING SURVEYORS OFFICE. PRINTING PROCEDURES: BECAUSE THIS FILE HAS BEEN SENT ELECTRONICALLY, IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THE PRINT SETTINGS BE CORRECT IN ORDER TO DEPICT AN ACCURATE REPRESENTATION OF THIS DOCUMENT ON PAPER. INSTRUCTIONS: WHILE VIEWING THE PRODUCT IN ADOBE READER, SELECT PRINT UNDER THE FILE TAB. SELECT COLOR PRINTER. UNDER PRINT RANGE - SELECT ALL. UNDER PAGE HANDLING, SELECT NONE FOR PAGE SCALING AND UNCHECK AUTO ROTATE AND CENTER. CHOOSE PAPER SOURCE BY PDF SIZE. CLICK PRINT. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 476 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) 0' 10' 20' 1 inch = 20' ft. LOT 2 BLOCK 6 LOT 26 LOT 25 BLOCK 6 BLOCK 6 co 60.00 ' (R&M) — EASEMENT \ F.I.R. 5/8" 100.00' (R&M) 160.00' WM (BASIS OF BEARING ASSUMED) F.I.R. 5/8" B.C. F.I.P. 1/2" 17.70' 7.0' 41. CONC 7.0' ,.SHE 17.87' 24.20' N AC 4.0' -on ONE STORY 'on 6 RESIDENCE o # 4704 24.20' 21.0 CONC-4nt9.0' 3.0 • vi 60.00 ' (R&M) 21'± PARKWAY 18.10' LOT 3 BLOCK 6 17.93' DRIVE •.'. _,L,17 0 co ••••••ASPHALT .:. • . • . • • • • • • • • • . el II F.I.R.15/8" 6 0 0 d 0 5/8" •• * 60' RIGHT—OF—WAY (BY PLAT) . ' . . ' 18'.f ASPHALT PAVEMENT.- . . . .. . . ACADIA LANE • • • ....... . . . ..................... ........... LOT 24 BLOCK 6 LOT 4 BLOCK 6 POINTS OF INTEREST: DRIVEWAY CROSSES LOT LINES. MAP OF BOUNDARY SURVEY Property Address: 4704 ACADIA LN NAPLES, FL 34112 nlineland SURVEYORS, INC. 15271 NW 60 AVE, Suite 206 Miami Lakes, FL 33014 www.OnlineLandSurveyors.Com SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS 'BOUNDARY SURVEY' IS A TRUE AND CORRECT REPRESENTATION OF A SURVEY PREPARED UNDER MY DIRECTION. THIS COMPLIES WITH THE MINI STANDARDS. AS SET FORTH BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA BOARD OF P RS AND MAPPER IN CHAPTER 5J-17.051. FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE C 472,027. FLORIDA STATUTES. SIGNED MIGUEL ESPINO STATE OF FLORIDA FOR THE FIRM P.S.M. No. 5101 NOT VALID WITHOUT AN AUTHENTIC ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE AND AUTHENTICATED ELECTRONIC SEAL AND/OR THIS MAP IS NOT VALID WITHOUT THE SIGNATURE AND ORIGINAL RAISED SEAL OF A LICENSE SURVEYOR AND MAPPER. Survey Date:8/7/2019 Survey Code:O-54196 Page 1 of 2 Not valid without all pages. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 477 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) LOCATION MAP N.T.S. PROPERTY FRONT VIEW FLOOD INFORMATION: Community Number: COLLIER COUNTY UNIC 120067 Panel Number: 12021C0582H Suffix: Date of Firm Index: 5/16/2012 Flood Zone: AH Base Flood Elevation: 7.0 Date of Survey: 8/7/2019 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOTS 3, BLOCK 6, OF AVALON ESTATES, UNIT NO. 1, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 62, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PROPERTY UNE STRUCTURE =2= CONC. BLOCK WALL CHAIN -UNK o WIRE FENCE WOOD FENCE IRON FENCE EASEMENT CENTER LINE WOOD DECK CONCRETE ASPHALT BRICK/TILE WATER APPROXIMATE EDGE OF WATER COVERED AREA Y P.P 031C.B. C.U.E. I.E./E.E. U.E. Re OR F LB/ LS/ CALC SET • ■ ELEV P.T. P.C. P.R.M. P.C.C. P.R.C. P.O.B. P.O.C. P.C.P. Surveyor's Legend TREE POWER POLE CATCH BARN COUNTY UTIUTY ESMT. INGRESS/ EGRESS ESMT. UTIUTY EASEMENT FOUND IRON PIPE/ PIN AS NOTED ON PLAT UCENSE - BUSNESS UCENSE - SURVEYOR CALCULATED POINT SET MONUMENT CONTROL POINT CONCRETE MONUMENT ELEVATION POINT OF TANGENCY POINT OF CURVATURE PERMANENT REFERENCE MONUMENT POINT OF COMPOUND CURVATURE POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE POINT OF BEGINNING POINT OF COMMENCEMENT PERMANENT CONTROL POINT FIELD MEASURED PLATTED MEASURMENT DEED CALCULATED GENERAL NOTES: 1) LEGAL DESCRIPTION PROVIDED BY OTHERS. 2) EXAMINATION OF THE ABSTRACT OF TITLE WILL HAVE TO BE MADE TO DETERMINE RECORDED INSTRUMENTS, IF ANY, AFFECTING PROPERTY. 3) THE LANDS SHOWN HEREON WERE NOT ABSTRACTED FOR EASEMENT OR OTHER RECORDED ENCUMBERANCES NOT SHOWN ON THE PLAT. 4) THE PURPOSE OF THIS SURVEY IS FOR USE IN OBTAINING TITLE INSURANCE AND FINANCING AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION, PERMITTING DESIGN, OR ANY OTHER PURPOSE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF ONLINE LAND SURVEYORS INC. 5) UNDERGROUND PORTIONS OF FOOTINGS, FOUNDATIONS OR OTHER IMPROVEMENTS WERE NOT LOCATED. 6) ONLY VISIBLE AND ABOVE GROUND ENCROACHMENTS LOCATED. 7) FENCE OWNERSHIP NOT DETERMINED. 8) WALL TIES ARE TO THE FACE OF THE WALL. 9) BEARINGS ARE BASE ON AN ASSUMED MERIDIAN. 10) BOUNDARY SURVEY MEANS A DRAWING AND/OR GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION OF THE SURVEY WORK PERFORMED IN THE FIELD, COULD BE DRAWN AT A SHOWN SCALE AND/OR NOT TO SCALE. 11) NO IDENTIFICATION FOUND ON PROPERTY CORNERS UNLESS NOTED. 12) NOT VALID UNLESS SEALED WITH THE SIGNING SURVEYORS EMBOSSED OR ELECTRONIC SEAL. 13) DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE PLAT AND MEASURED UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN. 14) ELEVATIONS IF SHOWN ARE BASED UPON N.G. V.D. 1929 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 15) THIS IS A BOUNDARY SURVEY UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 16) THIS BOUNDARY SURVEY HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE ENTITIES NAMED HEREON, THE CERTIFICATIONS DO NOT EXTEND TO ANY UNNAMED PARTIES. L.M.E. R.O.E. P.P. PL 1.0. B.C. B.R. A RAD. N.R. Tm. I.R. I.P. NW) PK NAIL D.H. 0 M.H. TX CATV W.M. P/E CONC LAKE cr LANDSCAPE MAINT. BHT ROOF OVERHANG EASEMENT POOL PUMP PLANTER OR PROPERTY UNE IDENTIFICATION BLOCK CORNER BEARING REFERENCE CENTRAL ANGLE or DELTA RECORD OR RADIUS RADIAL NON RADIAL TYPICAL IRON ROD IRON PIPE NAIL ♦ DISK PARKER-KALON NAIL DRILL HOLE WELL FIRE HYDRANT MAN HOLE OVERHEAD LANES TRANSFORMER CABLE TV. RISER WATER METER POOL EQUIPMENT CONCRETE RAS MAT. D.E. LB.E. L A.E. TEL U.P. E.U.B. SEP. D.F. AC CSW DWI SCR. GAR. ENCL N.T.S EASEMENT DRAINAGE EASEMENT LANDSCAPE BUFFER MAT. LIMITED ACCESS EASEMENT TELEPHONE FACIUTIES UTIUTY POLE ELECTRIC UTUTY BOX SEPTIC TANK DRAIN FIELD AR CONDITIONER CONC SIDEWALK DRIVEWAY SCREEN GARAGE ENCLOSURE NOT TO SCALE F.F. RNISHED FLOOR TOP OF BANK E.O.W. EDGE OF WATER E/P OR Lap. EDGE OF PAVEMENT C.V.G. CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTER B.S.L BUILDING SETBACK UNE S. T.L SURVEY TIE LINE CENTER UNE RIGHT OF WAY PUBLIC UTIUTY EASEMENT CANAL MAINTENANCE EASEMENT ANCHOR EASEMENT R/W R.O.E. C.M.E. A.E. Mr‘‘ Florida Land Title Association FL-TA Affiliate Member Printing to Scale: 1. Select "None" from Page Scaling 2. Deselect "Auto-Rotate and Center" 3. Select "Choose paper source by PDF page size" Pete Nandrog ..9.5.4,9: 01 Nme I Auto43otate ark Term 0 J Choose paper soarce by GO, per to FIELD WORK: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: FINAL REVISION: COMPLETED: 8/6/2019 8/7/2019 SCALE: 1' = 20" SURVEY CODE: 0-54196 nlineland SURVEYORS, INC. 15271 NW 60 AVE, Suite 206 Miami Lakes, FL 33014 Phone: (305) 910-0123 Fax: (305) 675-0999 www.OnlineLandSurveyors.Com Survey Date:8/7/2019 Survey Code:O-54196 Page 2 of 2 Not valid without all pages. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 478 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) Co e-r County Growth Management Department Zoning Services Section January 2, 2019 Meredith A. Peck Peck & Peck, P.A. 5200 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 101 Naples, FL 34103 Re: ZLTR-PL20180003544: Zoning Verification Letter for the property located at 4704 Acadia Lane; AKA Avalon Estates Unit 1, Block 6, Lot 3, in Section 13, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, unincorporated Collier County, Florida. Property ID/Folio Number: 22624080002. Dear Ms. Peck: This letter is in response to your Zoning Verification Letter (ZLTR) application submitted on or about November 11, 2018, in which you request verification of a legal non-conforming structure in setbacks of property. The subject property is located within an unincorporated portion of Collier County, Florida. The current official zoning atlas, an element of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), Ordinance 04-41, as amended, reveals the subject property has a zoning designation of Residential Multiple-Family — 6 (RMF-6). Section 4.02.01.A, Table 2.1 of the LDC reveals the RMF-6 setback requirements for a Single-Family principal structure is: Front yard: 25 feet Side yard: 7.5 feet (non-waterfront) Rear yard: 20 feet Staff reviewed the provided survey dated 11/21/2018 with the above principal setback requirements. The principal structure encroaches a maximum of 5.71 feet or 28.55% into the 20 feet rear yard setback requirement. Staff is unable to confirm whether the principal structure meets the front yard setback of 25 feet from the dimension provided on the survey. LDC Section 4.02.01.D.8 states "Hoods, canopies, or roof overhangs shall not project over (3) feet into a required yard." Staff notes that the porch overhang projects 3.61 feet into the required front yard setback and therefore is not conforming to the front yard setback requirements. The principal structure meets the 7.5 feet side yard setback requirements. Staff was unable to find any historical building permits that could indicate the additions that are encroaching into the required setbacks were shown to meet the required setbacks at the time of building permit issuance. A review of the provided property card indicates the reveals a 768 square foot (32'x 24') principal structure was first observed in 1964 (no building permits identified). The property card further reveals an addition of 672 square feet (28'x 24') to the rear of the principal structure and the front porch overhang was first observed by the property appraisers office in 1978 (no building permits were identified). A review of the October 8, 1968 zoning atlas reveals the subject property was zoned MF-1 at that time; the zoning district conversion chart, attached, indicates the subject property in 1964 was zoned Single Family, Zoning Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 • www.colliergov.net 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 479 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) Zoning Verification Letter ZLTR-PL20180003544 Page 2 of 2 R-2. The 1961 Zoning Ordinance, Section IV reveals a front yard requirement of 25 feet and a rear yard requirement of 25 feet. A review of the October 8, 1974 zoning atlas indicates the subject property was zoned Residential Multi -Family, RM-1A. The October 1974 Zoning Ordinance, Section 22.II.2.A indicates the setback requirements for single-family structures to be 25 feet front yard and 20 feet for rear yard. Based on the information researched by staff the subject principle structure is not a legal nonconforming structure. The property owner or their agent, if they desire, can apply for a variance to cure the setback encroachments nonconformance with the rear yard setback requirement of the principal structure. As per LDC Section 9.04.04, the principal structure encroachment into the rear yard setback of 28.55% exceeds the 25% encroachment allowed to be approved administratively; a variance with a public hearing would have to be applied for as per LDC Section 9.04.00 & Administrative Code Chapter 3.J. The information presented in this verification letter is based on the Collier County LDC and/or Growth Management Plan in effect as of this date. It is possible that subsequent amendment(s) to either of these documents could affect the validity of this verification letter. It is also possible that development of the subject properties could be affected by other issues not addressed in this letter, such as, but not limited to, concurrency related to the provision of adequate public facilities, environmental impact, and other requirements of the Collier County LDC or related ordinances. This letter represents a determination of Zoning Services Section staff. Should you disagree with this determination, you may request an Official Interpretation by the Zoning Director of the provisions of the Land Development Code pursuant to Sections 1.06.01.A and 10.02.02.F.1 of that Code. The fee for an Official Interpretation is identified in the most recent GMD Fee Schedule Resolution as approved by the Board of County Commissioners. To obtain copies of any document referenced herein, please contact Mr. David Merino with the GMD Records Section at (239)252-2386. The LDC may be viewed online at www.municode.com / Municode Library / Florida / Collier County. Validated Ordinances may be viewed online via the Clerk of Court's website, www.collierclerk.com / Records Search / BMR Records / Boards, Minutes, Records / BMR Validated Ordinances. Disclaimer: Issuance of a development permit by the County does not create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. Should you require additional information, please do not hesitate to call my office at (239) 252-2733. Researched and prepared by: Reviewed by: edina, Senior Planner Michael Bosi, AICP, Director ng Division Zoning Division Attachments CC : GMD — Addressing Ray Bellows, Zoning Services Manager 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 480 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) Colt County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Pre-Application Meeting and Final Submittal Requirement Checklist for: Variance Chapter 3 J. of the Administrative Code The following Submittal Requirement Checklist is to be utilized during the Pre-Application Meeting and at time of application submittal. At time of submittal, the checklist is to be completed and submitted with the application packet. Please provide the submittal items in the exact order listed below with cover sheets attached to each section. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. REQUIREMENTS FOR REVIEW # OF COPIES REQUIRED NOT REQUIRED Completed Application (download current form from County website) 11 [J Pre-Application Meeting Notes 1 lici(LK q Project Narrative n rz 9 Completed Addressing Checklist 1 R Property Ownership Disclosure Form 1 Conceptual Site Plan 24" x 36" and one 8 1/2 " x 11" copy q IR Survey of property showing the encroachment (measured in feet) 2 FR/ Affidavit of Authorization, signed and notarized 2 12' q Deeds/Legal's 3 q Location map 1 A ] Current aerial photographs (available from Property Appraiser) with project boundary and, if vegetated, FLUCFCS Codes with legend included on aerial 5 q El' Historical Survey or waiver request 1 q gh Environmental Data Requirements or exemption justification 3 q /21 q Once the first set of review comments are posted, provide the assigned planner the Property Owner Advisory Letter and Certification 1 Er Electronic copy of all documents and plans *Please advise: The Office of the Hearing Examiner requires all materials to be submitted electronically in PDF format. 1 IZr q ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS: • Following the completion of the review process by County review staff, the applicant shall submit all materials electronically to the designated project manager. • Please contact the project manager to confirm the number of additional copies required. 4/27/2018 Page 5 of 6 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 481 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) Col er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Planners: Indicate if the petition needs to be routed to the following reviewers: Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment: Executive Director Historical Review 71 City of Naples: Robin Singer, Planning Director Immokalee Water/Sewer District Conservancy of SWFL: Nichole Ryan q Parks and Recreation: David Berra . q Emergency Management: Dan Summers; and/or EMS: Artie Bay School District (Residential Components): Amy Lockheart 0 Other: FEE REQUIREMENTS Pre-Application Meeting: $500.00 1?"— Variance Petition: o Residential- $2,000.00 o Non-Residential- $5,000.00 o 5th and Subsequent Review- 20% of original fee ZEstimated Legal Advertising Fee for the Office of the Hearing Examiner: $1,125.00 V ------After The Fact Zoning/Land Use Petitions: 2x the normal petition fee Listed Species Survey (if EIS is not required): $1,000.00 Fire Code Plans Review Fees are collected at the time of application submission and those fees are set forth by the Authority having jurisdiction. The Land Development Code requires Neighborhood Notification mailers for Applications headed to hearing, and this fee is collected prior to hearing. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. All checks payable to: Board of County Commissioners. The completed application, all required submittal materials, and the permit fee shall be submitted to: Growth Management Department Zoning Division ATTN: Business Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Applicant Signature Date Printed Name 4/27/2018 Page 6 of 6 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 482 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) PROJECT NARRATIVE 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 483 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) VARIANCE PETITION APPLICATION (PL20190001940) 4704 ACADIA LANE, NAPLES, FL 34112 PROJECT NARRATIVE (revised December 13, 2019)1 I. REQUEST Eugene B. and Castula L. Jones (“Applicants”) are requesting approval of the following three (3) variances related to the property located at 4704 Acadia Lane, Naples, FL 34112 (the “Property”): Required Existing Variance Requested % Difference Front 25’ 24.99’ (maximum ) .01’ .04% Overhang (front) 3’ (into yard)3.51’.51’17% Rear 20’ 14.61’ (maximum ) 5.39’ 26.95% The front and overhang (front) encroachments may be addressed by way of an administrative variance; however, with the rear encroachment more than 25% over the total setback allowed, applicants elected to present all three (3) variances through the public hearing process. II. PROPERTY HISTORY On August 23, 1963, Collier County Building Permit Number 3852 was issued to “move two frame bldgs. to be use (sic) as residences . . . .” A review of the Collier County Property Appraiser Property Card indicates that a 768 square foot (32’ x 24’) principal structure was first observed in 1964. Though no subsequent building permits have been identified, the Property Card further reveals that an addition of 672 square feet (28’ x 24’) at the rear of the principal structure and the front porch overhang was first observed in 1978. Applicants purchased the Property approximately ten (10) years after the addition and front porch overhang were first noted by the Property Appraiser. It was not until Zoning Verification Letter ZLTR-PL20180003544 (the “ZVL”) was issued on January 2, 2019 that Applicants were made aware of the non-conforming nature of the setbacks. Applicants would like to sell the Property and, to facilitate such a sale, are seeking the variances necessary to bring the Property into conformity with the Collier County Land Development Code (the “LDC”). 1 This Project Narrative replaces the Projective Narrative submitted with the initial application. The Project Narrative has been revised to correct an error in the overhang (front) setback variance requested. No other changes have been made. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 484 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) III. EXISTING CONDITIONS The Property has a zoning designation of Residential Multiple Family – 6 (RMF-6). Section 4.02.01.A., Table 2.1 of the LDC provides the following setbacks for a principal single-family structure in the RMF-6 zoning district: Front yard: 25 feet Side yard: 7.5 feet (non-waterfront) Rear yard: 20 feet Similarly, Section 4.02.01.D.8 of the LDC provides that “[h]oods, canopies, or roof overhangs shall not project over three (3) feet into the required yard.” As set forth in the chart above, the principal structure encroaches a maximum of 0.1’ into the front setback and a maximum of 5.39’ into the rear yard setback. Additionally, the porch overhang currently projects .51’ into the required setback. III.LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CRITERIA (a) Are there special conditions and circumstances existing which are peculiar to the location, size and characteristics of the land, structure or building involved? Based on historical records reviewed by Collier County staff in preparing the ZVL, the front yard setback for the Property has been 25 feet and the rear yard setback has been at least 20 feet dating back to 1974. Collier County Property Appraiser records indicate that the 672 square foot addition was present as early as 1978. Thus, the encroachments at issue have been in place for more than 40 years, and perhaps longer as it relates to the principal structure. (b) Are there special conditions and circumstances which do not result from the action of the applicant such pre-existing conditions relative to the property which is the subject of this variance request? As noted above, the encroachments have existed for more than 40 years. The Applicants purchased the Property in 1988 in its improved state and have made no modifications to the principal structure that have increased the setback encroachments in the 30 years that they have owned the Property. Furthermore, Applicants have paid taxes for the land and improved value of the Property for the entire period of ownership. (c) Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of this zoning code work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties on the applicant? Yes, a literal interpretation of the provisions of the LDC would confer an undue hardship on the Applicants and create numerous practical difficulties. Section 9.04.04 LDC empowers the County Manager or his or her designee to grant administrative variances for minor after-the-fact encroachments. Pursuant to Section 9.04.04(C), an encroachment of up to 25% of the required yard is considered a minor encroachment where no building permit record can be produced and the following criteria have been met: 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 485 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) a. An after-the-fact building permit for the structure, or portion of the structure, is issued prior to the approval of the administrative variance. The administrative variance will only be approved once all inspections have been completed. The certificate of occupancy shall be placed on hold until the administrative variance is approved. b. The encroaching structure, or portion of the structure, was constructed prior to the purchase of the subject property by the current owner. c. Evidence is presented showing that the encroaching structure, or portion of the structure, was constructed at least two (2) years prior to the date of application for the administrative variance. This evidence may be in the form of a survey, property card, or dated aerial photograph clearly showing the encroachment. d. The encroaching structure is either an addition of living area to a principal structure, or an accessory structure of at least two hundred (200) square feet in area. e. The encroachment presents no safety hazard and has no adverse affect on the public welfare. The criteria set forth in Subsections b through e are present here, as documented by the submitted application materials, and an after-the-fact building permit application has been submitted for the Property. This request must be made by way of the public hearing process solely because the rear of the building encroaches less than 2% more than is allowed for an administrative variance. (d) Will the variance, if granted, be the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure and which promote the health, safety or welfare? Yes, given that this is a request to address after-the-fact encroachments discovered as to a building constructed more than 40 years ago, the three (3) variances are the minimum variances that will make possible the reasonable use of the Property and maintain the status quo. (e) Will granting the variance requested confer on the petitioner any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district? No, the three (3) variances requested would not confer on the Applicants any special privilege, but rather merely authorizing a more than 40-year-old structure to remain in place. (f) Will granting the variance be in harmony with the intent and purpose of the LDC, and not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare? There has been no disturbance to the neighborhood or its residents throughout the past more than 40 years the encroachments have gone unnoticed. During that time, no harm has been conferred on the Applicants’ neighbors or the neighborhood. As such, granting the three (3) variances will 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 486 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) be in harmony with the intent and purpose of the LDC and will not otherwise be detrimental to the public welfare. (g) Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves, lakes, golf course, etc.? No, there are no conditions on this Property which ameliorate the goals and objectives of the zoning code or other regulations. (h) Will granting this variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? The Property is located in the Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict. The Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan provides that the purpose of the Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict is to provide transitional densities between the Conservation designated area (primarily located to the south of the Subdistrict) and the remainder of the Urban designated area (primarily located to the north of the Subdistrict). The Subdistrict comprises those Urban areas south of US 41, generally east of the City of Naples, and generally west of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Neutral Lands, but excludes Section 13, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, and comprises approximately 11,354 acres and 10% of the Urban Mixed Use District. The entire Subdistrict is located seaward of the Coastal High Hazard Area Boundary. In order to facilitate hurricane evacuation and to protect the adjacent environmentally sensitive Conservation designated area, residential densities within the Subdistrict shall not exceed a maximum of 4 dwelling units per acre, except as allowed in the Density Rating System to exceed 4 units per acre through provision of Affordable Housing and Transfers of Development Rights, and except as allowed by certain FLUE Policies under Objective 5, and except as provided in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. New rezones to permit mobile home development within this Subdistrict are prohibited. Rezones are recommended to be in the form of a Planned Unit Development. The variance will not increase existing density nor will it permit a mobile home development or result in a rezoning. Rather, it will solely serve the purpose of maintaining the status quo. 14296338 _2 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 487 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) COMPLETED ADDRESSING CHECKLIST 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 488 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) Cott County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net ADDRESSING CHECKLIST 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-5724 Please complete the following and email to GMD_Addressing@colliergov.net or fax to the Operations Division at 239-252-5724 or submit in person to the Addressing Section at the above address. Form must be signed by Addressing personnel prior to pre-application meeting, please allow 3 days for processing. Not all items will apply to every project. Items in bold type are required. FOLIO NUMBERS MUST BE PROVIDED. Forms older than 6 months will require additional review and approval by the Addressing Section. PETITION TYPE (Indicate type below, complete a separate Addressing Checklist for each Petition type) 111 BL (Blasting Permit) El BD (Boat Dock Extension) 111 Carnival/Circus Permit [I CU (Conditional Use) El EXP (Excavation Permit) El FP (Final Plat r_j LLA (Lot Line Adjustment) q PNC (Project Name Change) q PPL (Plans & Plat Review) IT] PSP (Preliminary Subdivision Plat) 1=1 PUD Rezone q RZ (Standard Rezone) q SDP (Site Development Plan) 111 SDPA (SDP Amendment) q SDPI (Insubstantial Change to SDP) q SIP (Site Improvement Plan) q SIPI (Insubstantial Change to SIP) q SNR (Street Name Change) El SNC (Street Name Change — Unplatted) El TDR (Transfer of Development Rights) NA VA (Variance) q VRP (Vegetation Removal Permit) q VRSFP (Vegetation Removal & Site Fill Permit) 111 OTHER LEGAL DESCRIPTION of subject property or properties (copy of lengthy description may be attached) /4"--C4i—Z -5 ok- 3 ) ()(,k O ,A--vet_Von \—A,4-cc Uy\;3(--PE pal 102_ FOLIO (Property ID) NUMBER(s) of above (attach to, or associate with, legal description if more than one) 721021-1-og0002 STREET ADDRESS or ADDRESSES (as applicable, if already assigned) 1+10+ AC Goa • LOCATION MAP must be attached showing exact location of project/site in relation to nearest public road right- of-way • SURVEY (copy - needed only for unplatted properties) CURRENT PROJECT NAME (if applicable) PROPOSED PROJECT NAME (if applicable) PROPOSED STREET NAMES (if applicable) SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NUMBER (for existing projects/sites only) SDP - or AR or PL # Rev. 6/9/2017 Page 1 of 2 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 489 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) Colt County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-5724 Project or development names proposed for, or already appearing in, condominium documents (if application; indicate whether proposed or existing) Please Return Approved Checklist By: VI Email Applicant Name: S ".15k. le‘ C.? cAv j Phone: 2 31. 33 g.9 2-i 3 Email/Fax: 11] Fax q Personally picked up S" s tc-4--ov0 val,aw u-on Signature on Addressing Checklist does not constitute Project and/or Street Name approval and is subject to further review by the Operations Division. FOR STAFF USE ONLY Folio Number -a-Z---(4" q- O 43 CD C) Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Approved by: /6.--kt_ /11 --d)C a- rY1 Date: `i` • / 9 _ Updated by: Date: IF OLDER THAN 6 MONTHS, FORM MUST BE UPDATED OR NEW FORM SUBMITTED Rev. 6/9/2017 Page 2 of 2 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 490 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) PROPERTY OWNERSHIP DISCLOSURE FORM 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 491 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Created 9/28/2017 Page 1 of 3 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP DISCLOSURE FORM This is a required form with all land use petitions, except for Appeals and Zoning Verification Letters. 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. Please complete the following, use additional sheets if necessary. 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: Name and Address % of Ownership b. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each: Name and Address % of Ownership 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 % of Ownership 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 492 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Created 9/28/2017 Page 2 of 3 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 % of Ownership 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 % of Ownership Date of Contract: ___________ f. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust: Name and Address g. Date subject property acquired _______________ Leased: Term of lease ____________ years /months If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following: 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 493 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Created 9/28/2017 Page 3 of 3 Date of option: _________________________ Date option terminates: __________________, or Anticipated closing date: ________________ AFFIRM PROPERTY OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Any petition required to have Property Ownership Disclosure, will not be accepted without this form. Requirements for petition types are located on the associated application form. Any change in ownership whether individually or with a Trustee, Company or other interest -holding party, must be disclosed to Collier County immediately if such change occurs prior to the petition’s final public hearing. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. The completed application, all required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Department ATTN: Business Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 ____________________________________________ ____________ Agent/Owner Signature Date ____________________________________________ Agent/Owner Name (please print) 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 494 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) SURVEY 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 495 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) Premises: PHONE: 866.772.8813 info@truelinetech.com www.truelinetech.com Page 1 of 3 in order 129081 File number: 1760319-07249 Completed: 8/7/2019 Surveyed: 8/6/2019 Client: SUNBELT TITLE AGENCY - NAPLES Lender: ENVOY MORTGAGE LTD. ISAOA. ATIMA Buyer: LUIS FELIPE BARAHONA , Seller: EUGENE B. JONES AND CASTULA L. JONES 4704 ACADIA LN, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34112 COLLIER www.210surveying.com | 200 South Hanley Rd. Suite 1030 | Clayton, MO | t 314.721.9500 | f 314.721.9501 SUNBELT TITLE AGENCY, ENVOY MORTGAGE LTD. ISAOA. ATIMA, LUIS FELIPE BARAHONA , , TITLE RESOURCES GUARANTY COMPANY CERTIFIED TO: (rev.0 8/7/2019) (rev.0 8/7/2019) TRUELINE TECHNOLOGIES LLC: THE FOLLOWING PRODUCT HAS BEEN COMPLETED BY THE STATE LICENSED LAND SURVEYING FIRM AS INDICATED ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE. TRUELINE TECHNOLOGIES LLC PROVIDES THE DIGITAL TRANSMISSION AND ARCHIVING OF THE PRODUCT, AND IS NOT INVOLVED IN ANY FACET OF THE TECHNICAL FIELD WORK PERFORMED AND MAKES NO WARRANTIES AS TO THE ACCURACY OF SUCH WORK. ALL TRANSMISSIONS OF THE PRODUCT ARE VIA A SECURE 'SHA-1' SECURE HASH MESSAGE DIGEST AUTHENTICATION CODE WITHIN ITS SIGNATURE FILE. A MANUALLY SIGNED AND SEALED LOG OF THIS SURVEY'S SIGNATURE FILE IS KEPT ON FILE AT THE PERFORMING SURVEYORS OFFICE. PRINTING PROCEDURES: BECAUSE THIS FILE HAS BEEN SENT ELECTRONICALLY, IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THE PRINT SETTINGS BE CORRECT IN ORDER TO DEPICT AN ACCURATE REPRESENTATION OF THIS DOCUMENT ON PAPER. INSTRUCTIONS: WHILE VIEWING THE PRODUCT IN ADOBE READER, SELECT PRINT UNDER THE FILE TAB. SELECT COLOR PRINTER. UNDER PRINT RANGE - SELECT ALL. UNDER PAGE HANDLING, SELECT NONE FOR PAGE SCALING AND UNCHECK AUTO ROTATE AND CENTER. CHOOSE PAPER SOURCE BY PDF SIZE. CLICK PRINT. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 496 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) POINTS OF INTEREST:DRIVEWAY CROSSES LOT LINES. Property Address: MAP OF BOUNDARY SURVEY 4704 ACADIA LN NAPLES, FL 34112 15271 NW 60 AVE, Suite 206 Miami Lakes, FL 33014 www.OnlineLandSurveyors.Com SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION : I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS “BOUNDARY SURVEY” IS A TRUE AND CORRECT REPRESENTATION OF A SURVEY PREPARED UNDER MY DIRECTION. THIS COMPLIES WITH THE MINIMUM TECHNICAL STANDARDS, AS SET FORTH BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL SURVEYORS AND MAPPER IN CHAPTER 5J-17.051, FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE PURSUANT TO SECTION 472.027, FLORIDA STATUTES. SIGNED _________________________ FOR THE FIRM NOT VALID WITHOUT AN AUTHENTIC ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE AND AUTHENTICATED ELECTRONIC SEAL AND/OR THIS MAP IS NOT VALID WITHOUT THE SIGNATURE AND ORIGINAL RAISED SEAL OF A LICENSE SURVEYOR AND MAPPER. MIGUEL ESPINOSA STATE OF FLORIDA P.S.M. No. 5101 Survey Code:Page 1 of 2 Not valid without all pages.O-541968/7/2019Survey Date: 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 497 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) LEGAL DESCRIPTION PROVIDED BY OTHERS. EXAMINATION OF THE ABSTRACT OF TITLE WILL HAVE TO BE MADE TO DETERMINE RECORDED INSTRUMENTS, IF ANY, AFFECTING PROPERTY. THE LANDS SHOWN HEREON WERE NOT ABSTRACTED FOR EASEMENT OR OTHER RECORDED ENCUMBERANCES NOT SHOWN ON THE PLAT. THE PURPOSE OF THIS SURVEY IS FOR USE IN OBTAINING TITLE INSURANCE AND FINANCING AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION, PERMITTING DESIGN, OR ANY OTHER PURPOSE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF ONLINE LAND SURVEYORS INC. UNDERGROUND PORTIONS OF FOOTINGS, FOUNDATIONS OR OTHER IMPROVEMENTS WERE NOT LOCATED. ONLY VISIBLE AND ABOVE GROUND ENCROACHMENTS LOCATED. FENCE OWNERSHIP NOT DETERMINED. WALL TIES ARE TO THE FACE OF THE WALL. BEARINGS ARE BASE ON AN ASSUMED MERIDIAN. BOUNDARY SURVEY MEANS A DRAWING AND/OR GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION OF THE SURVEY WORK PERFORMED IN THE FIELD, COULD BE DRAWN AT A SHOWN SCALE AND/OR NOT TO SCALE. NO IDENTIFICATION FOUND ON PROPERTY CORNERS UNLESS NOTED. NOT VALID UNLESS SEALED WITH THE SIGNING SURVEYORS EMBOSSED OR ELECTRONIC SEAL. DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE PLAT AND MEASURED UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN. ELEVATIONS IF SHOWN ARE BASED UPON N.G.V.D. 1929 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. THIS IS A BOUNDARY SURVEY UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. THIS BOUNDARY SURVEY HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE ENTITIES NAMED HEREON, THE CERTIFICATIONS DO NOT EXTEND TO ANY UNNAMED PARTIES. GENERAL NOTES: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 14) 15) 16) COLLIER COUNTY UNIC 120067 12021C0582H H 5/16/2012 AH 7.0 8/7/2019Date of Survey: Base Flood Elevation: Flood Zone: Date of Firm Index: Suffix: Panel Number: Community Number: FLOOD INFORMATION: LOTS 3, BLOCK 6, OF AVALON ESTATES, UNIT NO. 1, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 62, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. 15271 NW 60 AVE, Suite 206 Miami Lakes, FL 33014 Phone: (305) 910-0123 Fax: (305) 675-0999 www.OnlineLandSurveyors.Com LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PROPERTY FRONT VIEWLOCATION MAP N.T.S. DRAWN BY: FIELD WORK: FINAL REVISION: COMPLETED: SCALE: SURVEY CODE: N.B. 1' = 20" 8/7/2019 08/07/2019 8/6/2019 O-54196 LB# 7904 M.E.CHECKED BY: Survey Code:Page 2 of 2 Not valid without all pages.O-541968/7/2019Survey Date: 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 498 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) AFFIDAVITS OF AUTHORIZATION 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 499 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) t, Castula L. Joues , (Print name)' ast, Castula. LrJoues , UJlltrt rrarlrrt" oo ear or affirm :X5i*jil,ll ipu'ft''*Lr[*land that: AFFIDAV]T OF AUTHORIZATION FOR PEflTloN NulrrBERStS) PL20190001940 ' {title, if unber oath, that I am the ( Under penalties of parjury, I declare that I the facts stated in it are true. have read the foregoing Affidavit of Authorization and that Theforegoingin*trumentwassR,omto{oraffirmed}andsubscribedbeforemeon who is personally known to me or vuho has produced (type of identification) as identification. $TAI'F'$EAL c}\0s-coa-s{lrlS\155 REV 3/?411{ l.lhavefullauthoritytosecuretheapprovalis}requestedandtoimposecovenantsandrestridiongon the referanced propefi "* " ,*uuti of any action ,ppt**u ny the county in accordance with this ipplication and ihe Land Development Code; 2. A* answers to the questions i- i[i, "ppGthn and any sketche*, !.rt10r other *upprementary matter attached hereto and made u p"* otthis application_ are honest and true; 3. I have authorized the staff "r conieicou'irty toenter upon int property {yttng normal working hours for the purpose of investigating anJ**luating the requlst maoe trioudh this application: and that 4. The property wnt be tr"n"r*rilI -;;;t#, soru'oi-subdivioeo sluuiect to tre conditions and restri&ions iirposed by the approved action' 5. We/l authori,e sArah E. spsctsf. E!g., -. : :: .,= , - to act as our/my representative in any mattlis @tuOing 1 through 2 above' 'Nofes;, lf m, appllcant is a corparatian, then ftis usually execuled ly tl' cetp' pres' orv' pres' t tf tha appticant is a Limited Liabitity Cr;;;;;W-9i-?ly**a ioipanv tL'c')' then tha dacuments shautd typicalty be signed by tho Oompany's "M?naging Memoer'- t tf the applicant is a partnersfiip, tnan Vpiiaii a'pa'tne"ao sign an bahatf af th* partnerabip' o rf the appticant is a rimfted partnership, iiin in* ganerat partner musf orgn aN be identified as fia "ge*eral partnef af the named partnerstrp. ^^-! th,^,,,ay;ta uot tf tho applicant ts, frdt lhten theyrnusf include ffie frusfeeb name and tha words "as frusfee"' . ln each lnstanc*, first determine tne app'icinr'* "t"t'*' e'g" individual' carparate' trust' partnership' and then use the appropiate format farthat ownershrp' 5w }.rrx<*sp 1/E\ .. Signature of Notary Public 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 500 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) €&LEF@ME€g& JUM&?' WE?ffi AFFEAffiS SSAY€ffi€&ET G0VERNMENT'oODE S 8202 g66e Attached Document (Notary to cross out lines 1-6 below)f See Statement Below (Lines 1-6 to be completed only by document signer[s], nof Noiary) Signature of Document Signer No. 2 (if any) A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. State of California Subscribed and sworn to (or affirmed)before me County of i;r' ltr*i Srnu.{en J. L. GONZALEZ Notary Pubiic - California Los Angeles Countu Commission #22i01'9s 99.!. !],pi,., Aus 14, 202.1 (and (2) -- ), Name(slof Signer@l proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person{s} who appeared before me. Signature Sea/ Place Notary Seal Above APTIONAL Though this section is.optional, completing this information can deter alteration of the document or fraudulent realtachment of this form to an unintended document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document;Document Date: Number of Pages: I Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: @2A14 National Notary Association . www.NationalNotary.org . 1-800-US NOTARY (1-800-876-6827) ltem #5910 on this ttr{?} day of $tkwrn iri20{t by Date Month ll r\ -trt {-l\:rrfu* L lcr'..,t,t Signature of Document Signer No. 1 H -:*f 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 501 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION FOR pETtrmil f{uMBeRS{S} PL?0190001940 ,, ,- , {title, ifl, Eusene B. Jqnes - {Print narnei, as @It'rtn*applicable) of .. . . _ (cornpany, ltipPluauer, I under oath, that I am purchaierl-land that: 1. I have full authority to $esure the approval(s) requested and to impose covertants and restrictions on the referenced priperty as a resuft'of any action approved by the County in accordance with this application and the Land Bevelopment Code; Z. Ail'ansvrrers to the questions in this application and any sketches, data or other supplementary matter attached hereio and made a part of this application are honest and true;g. I have authorieed the staff oi Coltier County to enter upon the property during nsrmal working hours forthe purpose of investigating and evaluating the requeot made through this application; and that 4. The piopi*y will be trinsfened, conveyed, sold or subdivided subject to the ccnditions and ,ln,/rY/lb/7 restrictions imposed by the approved action. 5. Well authorize Sarah E. Speclor. Esq,to act as our/my representative in any matters regarding this petition including 1 through 2 above' *Nofss; , lf the epplicanf is a corporatian, then it is usually execufed by the corp. pms. or v. prss. . lf tha appticant is a Limited Liabiltty Campany {L.L.C.) ar Limited Company (L.C.), then tha documsnts should typically be signed by th* Campany's "Managing Mem$er"t lf the applleant is a partnership, then typical{y a pafinar can slgn on behalf af the partnership. e tf the applicant is a timited partnership, then the general partn$ musf sign afld be idantified a* the "ge*eral partnef of the named partnership. t lf the appfibanf is a frusf, then they must include lie frusfee's name aN fhe words 'as fru$fee". c ln each insfgnce, frrst determine the applicant's sfafug e.9., indMdual, wtparate, tru*t, partner$hip, and then uss ffre apprcpdate farmat farthat wtnership. Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing Aftidavit of Authorization and that the facts stated in The foregoing instrument was swom to (or afiinned) and sub$cribed before me on (date) by (name of person providing oath or affirmation), as who is perconally known to me or who has produced {type ol identification) as identification. STAiiP/8EAL cn0r{on*0I15\155 SSVvAlU €ee: *tllc0t*C;g zrlA 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 502 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) @&LEF@RffiEA dUMA? WE?ffi AFFEAruS S?'A?EffiEruY GOVERNft#ENT' CCIDE S 82C2 *6"Attached Document (Notary to cross out lines 1-6 below) tr See Statement Below (Lines 1-6 to be completed only by document signer[s], nof Notary) A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. State of California Subscribed and sworn on this i(f't day of to (or affirmed) before me fiahr,o.20 15 , Year County of (pS A.r-t6.dr* by Date Month nl UUkrMe 'f:. ..Jootery (and (2) ), Name(pfof Signe(s)- proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(ef who appeared before me. Signaiure Seal Above APTiANAL Though this section optional, completing this information can deter alteration of the document or reattachment of this form to an unintended document. Description o'f , Title or Type of *trAia+Vif er- forf+Cnitanttl Document Date:ro ld-/tt Numberof Pages: /Signe(s) Other Than Named Above: J, L.GONZALEZ Notary fublic - California _ Los A4geles Countv LommisSion # 22l0l95 My comm. Eipires eiirii'zozt Sea/ Document @2014 Natlonal Notary " www.NationalNotary.org . 1-800-US NOTARY (1-800-876-6827) ltem #59'10 Signature of Document Signer No. 2 (if any) 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 503 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) DEED 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 504 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) 0 I 2 4 I 9 I 1 COLLIER COUNTY I988 DEC 30 PH 6: 2I RECORDED RFC PRAA DOG .; 0 CC - m w 0wc, D w0. N • E 2`o < Z Et' z 7.1 o w xwtri () 0 a' En W O 01 airantg ighetiti svo • an THIS INDENTURE, Made this kit/ day of December, 1988 BETWEEN GEORGIA CHILDERS of the County of Colllier,State of Florida, Grantor and EUGENE B. JONES and CASTULA L. JONES, husband and wife as an estate by the entireties whose post office address is 1336 Longwood Ave.,Los Angeles, CA 90019 of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, Grantee WITNESSETH, That said grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten ($10.00) Dollars and other good and valuable considerations to said grantor in hand paid by said grantee, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained and sold to the said grantee, and grantee's heirs and assigns forever, the following described land, situate, lying and being in Collier County, to-wit: Lots 3 and 4, Block 6, AVALON ESTATES, Unit No. 1 according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 62 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida The Property I.D. Numbers are 22624 624120001. Grantee's Social Security Number is GRANTOR WARRANTS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NON-HOMESTEAD AND THAT HER LEGAL ADDRESS IS:3961 Lotus Drive, Naples, FL 33962 Subject to easements and restrictions common to the subdivision and ad valorem taxes for the year 1988 and subsequent years. and said Grantor does ti.erebY fully warrant the title to said land and will defend the same a•ainst the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. "Grantor" and "Gran e requires. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor the day and year first above Signed, W sealed and del*-06,r d tness #2 STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER as hereunt written. in our pre GY I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day before me an qualified to take acknowledgments, personally appeared GOERGIA CHILDERS to me well known to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged before me that she executed the same. Witness my hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid this $ CD 03 CD O '1011 G, r or plural, as context PI rantor's hand and seal GEORGIA CHILDERS __Docurnintary damp Tax "C" ../977..Persc,na; Property -lax COURTS 56 day of December, 1988 • . SEAL)• I am a Natarx Public of the State of tAtt, .and: my commission exp.j.res:...3a410 • .' r. Law Of12.ce f.-!mt• 900 Si Atil Haples, FL 33940 L Lir!! officer duly Notary Public WARY PORLIC STAV: Pr F107!IPA PY • ft ...EPLL . r RecurdeJ in Official Reccriis cf COLLIER COUNTY. FLUrIDA 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 505 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) COMMENT LETTER #1 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 506 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) December 02, 2019 Sarah E. Spector, Esq. Roetzel & Andress, LPA, Trianon Center - Third Floor 850 Park Shore Drive Naples, FL 34103 EMAIL - sspector@ralaw.com RE: Variance (VA) PL20190001940 4704 Acadia LN Dear Applicant: The following comments are provided to you regarding the above referenced project. If you have questions, please contact the appropriate staff member who conducted the review. The project will retain a "HOLD" status until all comments are satisfied. The following comments need to be addressed as noted: Rejected Review: Zoning Review Reviewed By: John Kelly Email: john.kelly@colliercountyfl.gov Phone #: (239) 252-5719 Correction Comment 1: Please clarify the requested roof overhang (front) deviation. The Survey depicts a front roof overhang of 3.5 feet and the narrative request states 3.6 feet. If 3.5 feet is correct, the requested variance should be .5 feet and the % difference would be in error. Additionally, the LDC allows for a 3-foot encroachment into a required yard; as the residence encroached 0.01 feet into the front yard this measure needs to be added to the roof overhang request as well for a total roof overhang encroachment of 0.51 feet. Rejected Review: County Attorney Review Reviewed By: Sally Ashkar Email: Sally.Ashkar@colliercountyfl.gov Phone #: (239) 252-8400 Correction Comment 1: Miscellaneous Corrections: Provide the measurement from the shed/concrete pad to the property line on your survey. If it encroaches into the 7.5 ft setback, that will require a variance as well. Correction Comment 2: Miscellaneous Corrections: There are some inconsistencies b/w your narrative and the survey. The survey says the roof overhang is 3.5, while your narrative says 3.6. Survey says rear 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 507 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) encroachment is 14.71 while your narrative says 14.61. Please correct whichever document is incorrect. Correction Comment 3: Miscellaneous Corrections: You request a variance of .4 for the overhang on your narrative, but the difference between the required and and existing encroachment is .6. Please clarify your request. Correction Comment 4: Miscellaneous Corrections: Please also provide the height of the concrete pad from grade. Depending on the height, it may also require a variance per my comment #1. The following comments are informational and/or may include stipulations: 1.Additional comments or stipulations may be forthcoming once a sufficient application has been submitted for review. This correspondence should not be construed as a position of support or non-support for any issues within the petition. Staff will analyze the petition and the recommendation will be contained in the staff report prepared for the Collier County Planning Commission(CCPC) or Hearing Examiner(Hex). 2.Please be advised that pursuant to the LDC, an application can be considered closed if there has been no activity on the application for a period of six (6) months. That six months period will be calculated from the date of this letter. 3.Please ensure that all members of your review team that may testify before the Hex/CCPC and the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) are registered as lobbyists with the county pursuant to the regulations regarding that issue. 4.When addressing review comments, please provide a cover letter outlining your response to each comment. Include a response to all comments. 5.Please put revised dates on all exhibits and in the title block of the Site Plan. The PUD document should include a footer that reflects the project name, petition number, date and page X of Y for the entire document. Documents without this information will be rejected. 6.A partial resubmittal cannot be accepted; please do not resubmit until you can respond to ALL review comments. 7.Public hearings cannot be held until the Neighborhood Information criteria has been met. In some petition types a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) must be held while other petition types only require the agent to send a letter. All letters and ads must be pre-approved by the county planner. For additional information about the process please contact me. Please note that the NIM must be held at least 15 days prior to the first hearing. As you prepare for that meeting, please be aware of the following items: 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 508 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) a.Please provide the required affidavit and its attachments prior to the meeting (in compliance with the LDC); and b.Please post signs to direct attendees to the exact meeting location; and c.Please ensure that there is sound amplification equipment available and working for this meeting. If there is no permanent equipment, please bring a tested/working portable microphone; and d.You must provide a written synopsis of the meeting that includes a list of all questions and answers as well as providing the audio/video tape; and e.Please prepare documents for hand out to all NIM attendees and the public hearing file, that show the differences in the uses that would be allowed in the existing and proposed zoning districts. This request is based upon recent CCPC direction. 8.Note the adopted fee schedule requires payment of additional fees for petitions that require more than four resubmittals; please contact the appropriate staff and resolve issues to avoid this fee. 9.If you would like to discuss the review comments, require clarification and/or wish to identify agree-to-disagree issues, please set up a post-review meeting through the Zoning Operations Section. Post-review meetings are offered on Friday morning and include all rejecting reviewers. Please, contact Zoning Operations Manager, Camden Smith at 252-1042 or by emailing her at Camden.smith@colliercountyfl.gov. If you have any questions, please contact me at (239) 252-5719. Sincerely, John Kelly Senior Planner Growth Management Department 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 509 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER #1 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 510 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) 2320 First Street, Suite 1000 Fort Myers, FL 33901 Direct Dial 239.338.4213 PHONE 239.337.3850 FAX 239.337.0970 sspector@ralaw.com WWW.RALAW.COM December 13, 2019 VIA CITYVIEW PORTAL ONLY Collier County Planning Services Growth Management Department Re:Variance Petition Application (PL20190001940)/4704 Acadia Lane, Naples, FL 34112 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: Please accept this letter in response to the County’s December 1, 2019 Review Comment Letter on the above-referenced Variance Petition Application. The responses to each of the Correction Comments can be found immediately below the corresponding comment in italics. Rejected Review: Zoning Review Reviewed By: John Kelly Email: john.kelly@colliercountyfl.gov Phone #: (239) 252-5719 Correction Comment 1: Please clarify the requested roof overhang (front) deviation. The Survey depicts a front roof overhang of 3.5 feet and the narrative request states 3.6 feet. If 3.5 feet is correct, the requested variance should be .5 feet and the % difference would be in error. Additionally, the LDC allows for a 3-foot encroachment into a required yard; as the residence encroached 0.01 feet into the front yard this measure needs to be added to the roof overhang request as well for a total roof overhang encroachment of 0.51 feet. The overhang encroaches into the overhang setback by .51 feet, which is a 17% variance from the allowed 3-foot overhang (front) setback. The Cover Letter and Project Narrative have been revised accordingly and are submitted with this response letter. Rejected Review: County Attorney Review Reviewed By: Sally Ashkar Email: Sally.Ashkar@colliercountyfl.gov Phone #: (239) 252-8400 Correction Comment 1: Miscellaneous Corrections: Provide the measurement from the shed/concrete pad to the property line on your survey. If it encroaches into the 7.5 ft setback, that will require a variance as well. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 511 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) December 13, 2019 Page 2 The shed is being removed in its entirety. Once removed, there will be no encroachment into the side setback. Correction Comment 2: Miscellaneous Corrections: There are some inconsistencies b/w your narrative and the survey. The survey says the roof overhang is 3.5, while your narrative says 3.6. Survey says rear encroachment is 14.71 while your narrative says 14.61. Please correct whichever document is incorrect. The rear of the home is, at the most, 14.71 feet from the property line. The survey shows that the northwestern corner of the home is only 14.61 feet from the property line. The point closest to the property line was used for purposes of requesting the variance. Correction Comment 3: Miscellaneous Corrections: You request a variance of .4 for the overhang on your narrative, but the difference between the required and existing encroachment is .6. Please clarify your request. As noted above, the request has been revised to request a variance of .51 feet from the required 3- foot overhang (front) setback. Correction Comment 4: Miscellaneous Corrections: Please also provide the height of the concrete pad from grade. Depending on the height, it may also require a variance per my comment #1. Staff has confirmed that setbacks are determined using yard requirements. As per the definition of “Yard” contained within LDC Section 1.08.02, yard requirements only apply to structures from 30 inches above the ground level and upward excluding fences and walls. The slab is less than 30 inches tall and, as such, no variance is needed. Should you have any additional questions following your review of the foregoing, please let me know. Very truly yours, ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LPA Sarah E. Spector 14481158 _1 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 512 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) PROPERTY OWNER ADVISORY LETTER AND CERTIFICATION 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 513 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE I hereby certify that pursuant to Ordinance 2004-72, of the Collier County Land Development Code, I did give notice by mail at least 30 days after receipt of letter indicating that the application is sufficient to the following property owners and or condominium and civic associations whose members may be impacted by the proposed land use changes of an application request for a variance or parking exemption. For the purposes of this requirement, the names and addresses of property owners shall be deemed those appearing on the latest tax rolls of Collier County and any other persons or entities who have made a formal request of the county to be notified. The said notice contained the laymen's description of the site property of proposed change. Per attached letters and or property owner's list, which are hereby made a part of this Affidavit of Compliance. (Signature of Appli4nt) State of Florida County of Lee The foregoing Affidavit of compliance was acknowledged before me this 26th day of December, 2019 by Sarah E. Spector, who is ersonally know to me or who has produced as identification. (Signature of Nota y Public) ria4.X h ohe rinted Name of Notary a' Notary Public State of Florida : Erin A Schlake My Commission GG 309668 Expires 03/10/2023 (Notary Seal) 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 514 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) 1 Notice: This data belongs to the Collier County Property Appraisers Office (CCPA). Therefore, the recipient agrees not to represent this data to anyone as other than CCPA provided data. The recipient may not transfer this data to others without consent from the CCPA. Petition: PL20190001940 NAME1 AVILA, NESTOR CARMONA, ABEL & ALICIA CHERENFANT, JESPERE & AMONISE DAIDONE, GRAZIA A GUAJARDO, RICARDO GUILLEN, VIRIA GUTIERREZ, MARIA GUTIERREZ, MARIA JONES, EUGENE B & CASTULA L JONES, EUGENE B & CASTULA L LOOFBORO, DOROTHY M MURPHY, PHILIP EDWARD NORD, MERILIA J PETIT-BIEN, LEMANE & SIMONE RADCLIFFE, JACOB HUNT SALOMON, EXCELLENT F VARGAS, JEANNETTE Buffer: 150' Date: 12/5/2019 NAM E2 4607 ACADIA LN 4609 ACADIA LN 4701 DOMINION DR 3301 S COCONUT ISLAND DR #101 HOLLI STRICKHORN 4620 ACADIA LN 13319 THOMASSON DRIV ,,,t 3319 THOMASSON DR r 1336 LONGBOAT AVE '. ; 1336 S LONGWOOD AVE04C?) 4605 ACADIA LN ' <701 JEAN RUTH MURP i <74,k\.... 4711 ACADIA LN , 4609 DOMINION DR \'20-,,, CHASTITY DIANN RAW. ROSELINE C SALOMON ' AIDA CEPEDA Site Location: 22624080002 NAME3 4607 DOMINION DR -0 / 4934 CORTEZ CIR • 4425 18TH PL SW 4616 ACADIA LANE OMASSON DR NAME4 NAME5 NAME6 FOLIO NAPLES, FL 34112---6603 22623920008 NAPLES, FL 34112---6603 22623960000 NAPLES, FL 34112---6613 22624680004 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 22624720003 NAPLES, FL 34112---6611 22624560001 NAPLES, FL 34112---0 22624160003 NAPLES, FL 34112---0 22624040107 NAPLES, FL 34112---6637 22624040000 LOS ANGELES, CA 90019---0 22624120001 LOS ANGELES, CA 90019---2956 22624080002 NAPLES, FL 34112---6603 22623880009 NAPLES, FL 34112---0 22624000008 NAPLES, FL 34112---6631 22623970100 NAPLES, FL 34112---6611 22624600000 NAPLES, FL 34112---0 22624640002 NAPLES, FL 34116---5919 22623970003 NAPLES, FL 34112---0 22624200002 POList_150_PL20190001940.xIs 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 515 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) ROETZEL ROETZEL 8 ANDRESS. A LEGAL PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION Practical Advice. Real Solutions. That's the Roetzel way. ralaw.com 2320 First Street, Suite 1000 Fort Myers, FL 33901 Direct Dial 239.338.4213 PHONE 239.337.3850 FAX 239.337.0970 sspector@ralaw.com WWW.RALAW.COM December 23, 2019 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL NESTOR AVILA 4607 ACADIA LN NAPLES, FL 34112---6603 Re: 4704 Acadia Lane Setback Variance Request (VA-PL20190001940) Dear Property Owner: Please be advised that this Firm has made a formal application to Collier County for a variance from the requirements of the zoning regulations as they apply to the property located at 4704 Acadia Lane, Naples, FL 34112, which is located approximately one hundred and eighty five feet (185’) from the intersection of Thomasson Drive and Acadia Lane on the west side of Acadia Lane (the “Property”). It is our intent to ask the County to approve the following variances for the aforementioned property: Required Existing Variance Requested Front 25’24.99’ (maximum).01’ Overhang (front) 3’ (into yard)3.51’.51’ Rear 20’14.61’ (maximum)5.39’ The existing residence was initially permitted and constructed in 1963. The current property owners (the “Applicants”) purchased the subject property on December 30, 1988, in its present condition and only learned of the aforementioned setback concerns during the due diligence phase of a sales negotiation. The applicants are seeking the variances necessary to bring the Property into compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code (the “LDC”). If after reviewing the foregoing you have any additional questions regarding the request, please feel free to contact me via telephone (239.338.4213) or e-mail (sspector@ralaw.com) for further information. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 516 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) December 23, 2019 Page 2 Very truly yours, ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LPA Sarah E. Spector 14481109 _2 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 517 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) ROETZEL ROETZEL 8 ANDRESS. A LEGAL PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION Practical Advice. Real Solutions. That's the Roetzel way. ralaw.com 2320 First Street, Suite 1000 Fort Myers, FL 33901 Direct Dial 239.338.4213 PHONE 239.337.3850 FAX 239.337.0970 sspector@ralaw.com WWW.RALAW.COM December 23, 2019 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL ABEL & ALICIA CARMONA 4609 ACADIA LN NAPLES, FL 34112---6603 Re: 4704 Acadia Lane Setback Variance Request (VA-PL20190001940) Dear Property Owner: Please be advised that this Firm has made a formal application to Collier County for a variance from the requirements of the zoning regulations as they apply to the property located at 4704 Acadia Lane, Naples, FL 34112, which is located approximately one hundred and eighty five feet (185’) from the intersection of Thomasson Drive and Acadia Lane on the west side of Acadia Lane (the “Property”). It is our intent to ask the County to approve the following variances for the aforementioned property: Required Existing Variance Requested Front 25’24.99’ (maximum).01’ Overhang (front) 3’ (into yard)3.51’.51’ Rear 20’14.61’ (maximum)5.39’ The existing residence was initially permitted and constructed in 1963. The current property owners (the “Applicants”) purchased the subject property on December 30, 1988, in its present condition and only learned of the aforementioned setback concerns during the due diligence phase of a sales negotiation. The applicants are seeking the variances necessary to bring the Property into compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code (the “LDC”). If after reviewing the foregoing you have any additional questions regarding the request, please feel free to contact me via telephone (239.338.4213) or e-mail (sspector@ralaw.com) for further information. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 518 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) December 23, 2019 Page 2 Very truly yours, ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LPA Sarah E. Spector 14481109 _2 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 519 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) ROETZEL ROETZEL 8 ANDRESS. A LEGAL PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION Practical Advice. Real Solutions. That's the Roetzel way. ralaw.com 2320 First Street, Suite 1000 Fort Myers, FL 33901 Direct Dial 239.338.4213 PHONE 239.337.3850 FAX 239.337.0970 sspector@ralaw.com WWW.RALAW.COM December 23, 2019 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL JESPERE & AMONISE CHERENFANT 4701 DOMINION DR NAPLES, FL 34112---6613 Re: 4704 Acadia Lane Setback Variance Request (VA-PL20190001940) Dear Property Owner: Please be advised that this Firm has made a formal application to Collier County for a variance from the requirements of the zoning regulations as they apply to the property located at 4704 Acadia Lane, Naples, FL 34112, which is located approximately one hundred and eighty five feet (185’) from the intersection of Thomasson Drive and Acadia Lane on the west side of Acadia Lane (the “Property”). It is our intent to ask the County to approve the following variances for the aforementioned property: Required Existing Variance Requested Front 25’24.99’ (maximum).01’ Overhang (front) 3’ (into yard)3.51’.51’ Rear 20’14.61’ (maximum)5.39’ The existing residence was initially permitted and constructed in 1963. The current property owners (the “Applicants”) purchased the subject property on December 30, 1988, in its present condition and only learned of the aforementioned setback concerns during the due diligence phase of a sales negotiation. The applicants are seeking the variances necessary to bring the Property into compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code (the “LDC”). If after reviewing the foregoing you have any additional questions regarding the request, please feel free to contact me via telephone (239.338.4213) or e-mail (sspector@ralaw.com) for further information. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 520 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) December 23, 2019 Page 2 Very truly yours, ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LPA Sarah E. Spector 14481109 _2 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 521 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) ROETZEL ROETZEL 8 ANDRESS. A LEGAL PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION Practical Advice. Real Solutions. That's the Roetzel way. ralaw.com 2320 First Street, Suite 1000 Fort Myers, FL 33901 Direct Dial 239.338.4213 PHONE 239.337.3850 FAX 239.337.0970 sspector@ralaw.com WWW.RALAW.COM December 23, 2019 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL GRAZIA A DAIDONE 3301 S COCONUT ISLAND DR #101 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 Re: 4704 Acadia Lane Setback Variance Request (VA-PL20190001940) Dear Property Owner: Please be advised that this Firm has made a formal application to Collier County for a variance from the requirements of the zoning regulations as they apply to the property located at 4704 Acadia Lane, Naples, FL 34112, which is located approximately one hundred and eighty five feet (185’) from the intersection of Thomasson Drive and Acadia Lane on the west side of Acadia Lane (the “Property”). It is our intent to ask the County to approve the following variances for the aforementioned property: Required Existing Variance Requested Front 25’24.99’ (maximum).01’ Overhang (front) 3’ (into yard)3.51’.51’ Rear 20’14.61’ (maximum)5.39’ The existing residence was initially permitted and constructed in 1963. The current property owners (the “Applicants”) purchased the subject property on December 30, 1988, in its present condition and only learned of the aforementioned setback concerns during the due diligence phase of a sales negotiation. The applicants are seeking the variances necessary to bring the Property into compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code (the “LDC”). If after reviewing the foregoing you have any additional questions regarding the request, please feel free to contact me via telephone (239.338.4213) or e-mail (sspector@ralaw.com) for further information. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 522 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) December 23, 2019 Page 2 Very truly yours, ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LPA Sarah E. Spector 14481109 _2 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 523 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) ROETZEL ROETZEL 8 ANDRESS. A LEGAL PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION Practical Advice. Real Solutions. That's the Roetzel way. ralaw.com 2320 First Street, Suite 1000 Fort Myers, FL 33901 Direct Dial 239.338.4213 PHONE 239.337.3850 FAX 239.337.0970 sspector@ralaw.com WWW.RALAW.COM December 23, 2019 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL RICARDO GUAJARDO HOLLI STRICKHORN 4607 DOMINION DR NAPLES, FL 34112---6611 Re: 4704 Acadia Lane Setback Variance Request (VA-PL20190001940) Dear Property Owner: Please be advised that this Firm has made a formal application to Collier County for a variance from the requirements of the zoning regulations as they apply to the property located at 4704 Acadia Lane, Naples, FL 34112, which is located approximately one hundred and eighty five feet (185’) from the intersection of Thomasson Drive and Acadia Lane on the west side of Acadia Lane (the “Property”). It is our intent to ask the County to approve the following variances for the aforementioned property: Required Existing Variance Requested Front 25’24.99’ (maximum).01’ Overhang (front)3’ (into yard)3.51’.51’ Rear 20’14.61’ (maximum)5.39’ The existing residence was initially permitted and constructed in 1963. The current property owners (the “Applicants”) purchased the subject property on December 30, 1988, in its present condition and only learned of the aforementioned setback concerns during the due diligence phase of a sales negotiation. The applicants are seeking the variances necessary to bring the Property into compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code (the “LDC”). If after reviewing the foregoing you have any additional questions regarding the request, please feel free to contact me via telephone (239.338.4213) or e-mail (sspector@ralaw.com) for further information. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 524 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) December 23, 2019 Page 2 Very truly yours, ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LPA Sarah E. Spector 14481109 _2 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 525 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) ROETZEL ROETZEL 8 ANDRESS. A LEGAL PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION Practical Advice. Real Solutions. That's the Roetzel way. ralaw.com 2320 First Street, Suite 1000 Fort Myers, FL 33901 Direct Dial 239.338.4213 PHONE 239.337.3850 FAX 239.337.0970 sspector@ralaw.com WWW.RALAW.COM December 23, 2019 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL VIRIA GUILLEN 4620 ACADIA LN NAPLES, FL 34112---0 Re: 4704 Acadia Lane Setback Variance Request (VA-PL20190001940) Dear Property Owner: Please be advised that this Firm has made a formal application to Collier County for a variance from the requirements of the zoning regulations as they apply to the property located at 4704 Acadia Lane, Naples, FL 34112, which is located approximately one hundred and eighty five feet (185’) from the intersection of Thomasson Drive and Acadia Lane on the west side of Acadia Lane (the “Property”). It is our intent to ask the County to approve the following variances for the aforementioned property: Required Existing Variance Requested Front 25’24.99’ (maximum).01’ Overhang (front) 3’ (into yard)3.51’.51’ Rear 20’14.61’ (maximum)5.39’ The existing residence was initially permitted and constructed in 1963. The current property owners (the “Applicants”) purchased the subject property on December 30, 1988, in its present condition and only learned of the aforementioned setback concerns during the due diligence phase of a sales negotiation. The applicants are seeking the variances necessary to bring the Property into compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code (the “LDC”). If after reviewing the foregoing you have any additional questions regarding the request, please feel free to contact me via telephone (239.338.4213) or e-mail (sspector@ralaw.com) for further information. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 526 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) December 23, 2019 Page 2 Very truly yours, ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LPA Sarah E. Spector 14481109 _2 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 527 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) ROETZEL ROETZEL 8 ANDRESS. A LEGAL PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION Practical Advice. Real Solutions. That's the Roetzel way. ralaw.com 2320 First Street, Suite 1000 Fort Myers, FL 33901 Direct Dial 239.338.4213 PHONE 239.337.3850 FAX 239.337.0970 sspector@ralaw.com WWW.RALAW.COM December 23, 2019 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL MARIA GUTIERREZ 13319 THOMASSON DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34112---0 Re: 4704 Acadia Lane Setback Variance Request (VA-PL20190001940) Dear Property Owner: Please be advised that this Firm has made a formal application to Collier County for a variance from the requirements of the zoning regulations as they apply to the property located at 4704 Acadia Lane, Naples, FL 34112, which is located approximately one hundred and eighty five feet (185’) from the intersection of Thomasson Drive and Acadia Lane on the west side of Acadia Lane (the “Property”). It is our intent to ask the County to approve the following variances for the aforementioned property: Required Existing Variance Requested Front 25’24.99’ (maximum).01’ Overhang (front) 3’ (into yard)3.51’.51’ Rear 20’14.61’ (maximum)5.39’ The existing residence was initially permitted and constructed in 1963. The current property owners (the “Applicants”) purchased the subject property on December 30, 1988, in its present condition and only learned of the aforementioned setback concerns during the due diligence phase of a sales negotiation. The applicants are seeking the variances necessary to bring the Property into compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code (the “LDC”). If after reviewing the foregoing you have any additional questions regarding the request, please feel free to contact me via telephone (239.338.4213) or e-mail (sspector@ralaw.com) for further information. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 528 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) December 23, 2019 Page 2 Very truly yours, ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LPA Sarah E. Spector 14481109 _2 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 529 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) ROETZEL ROETZEL 8 ANDRESS. A LEGAL PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION Practical Advice. Real Solutions. That's the Roetzel way. ralaw.com 2320 First Street, Suite 1000 Fort Myers, FL 33901 Direct Dial 239.338.4213 PHONE 239.337.3850 FAX 239.337.0970 sspector@ralaw.com WWW.RALAW.COM December 23, 2019 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL MARIA GUTIERREZ 3319 THOMASSON DR NAPLES, FL 34112---6637 Re: 4704 Acadia Lane Setback Variance Request (VA-PL20190001940) Dear Property Owner: Please be advised that this Firm has made a formal application to Collier County for a variance from the requirements of the zoning regulations as they apply to the property located at 4704 Acadia Lane, Naples, FL 34112, which is located approximately one hundred and eighty five feet (185’) from the intersection of Thomasson Drive and Acadia Lane on the west side of Acadia Lane (the “Property”). It is our intent to ask the County to approve the following variances for the aforementioned property: Required Existing Variance Requested Front 25’24.99’ (maximum).01’ Overhang (front) 3’ (into yard)3.51’.51’ Rear 20’14.61’ (maximum)5.39’ The existing residence was initially permitted and constructed in 1963. The current property owners (the “Applicants”) purchased the subject property on December 30, 1988, in its present condition and only learned of the aforementioned setback concerns during the due diligence phase of a sales negotiation. The applicants are seeking the variances necessary to bring the Property into compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code (the “LDC”). If after reviewing the foregoing you have any additional questions regarding the request, please feel free to contact me via telephone (239.338.4213) or e-mail (sspector@ralaw.com) for further information. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 530 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) December 23, 2019 Page 2 Very truly yours, ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LPA Sarah E. Spector 14481109 _2 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 531 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) ROETZEL ROETZEL 8 ANDRESS. A LEGAL PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION Practical Advice. Real Solutions. That's the Roetzel way. ralaw.com 2320 First Street, Suite 1000 Fort Myers, FL 33901 Direct Dial 239.338.4213 PHONE 239.337.3850 FAX 239.337.0970 sspector@ralaw.com WWW.RALAW.COM December 23, 2019 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL EUGENE B & CASTULA L JONES 1336 LONGBOAT AVE LOS ANGELES, CA 90019---0 Re: 4704 Acadia Lane Setback Variance Request (VA-PL20190001940) Dear Property Owner: Please be advised that this Firm has made a formal application to Collier County for a variance from the requirements of the zoning regulations as they apply to the property located at 4704 Acadia Lane, Naples, FL 34112, which is located approximately one hundred and eighty five feet (185’) from the intersection of Thomasson Drive and Acadia Lane on the west side of Acadia Lane (the “Property”). It is our intent to ask the County to approve the following variances for the aforementioned property: Required Existing Variance Requested Front 25’24.99’ (maximum).01’ Overhang (front) 3’ (into yard)3.51’.51’ Rear 20’14.61’ (maximum)5.39’ The existing residence was initially permitted and constructed in 1963. The current property owners (the “Applicants”) purchased the subject property on December 30, 1988, in its present condition and only learned of the aforementioned setback concerns during the due diligence phase of a sales negotiation. The applicants are seeking the variances necessary to bring the Property into compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code (the “LDC”). If after reviewing the foregoing you have any additional questions regarding the request, please feel free to contact me via telephone (239.338.4213) or e-mail (sspector@ralaw.com) for further information. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 532 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) December 23, 2019 Page 2 Very truly yours, ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LPA Sarah E. Spector 14481109 _2 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 533 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) ROETZEL ROETZEL 8 ANDRESS. A LEGAL PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION Practical Advice. Real Solutions. That's the Roetzel way. ralaw.com 2320 First Street, Suite 1000 Fort Myers, FL 33901 Direct Dial 239.338.4213 PHONE 239.337.3850 FAX 239.337.0970 sspector@ralaw.com WWW.RALAW.COM December 23, 2019 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL EUGENE B & CASTULA L JONES 1336 S LONGWOOD AVE LOS ANGELES, CA 90019---2956 Re: 4704 Acadia Lane Setback Variance Request (VA-PL20190001940) Dear Property Owner: Please be advised that this Firm has made a formal application to Collier County for a variance from the requirements of the zoning regulations as they apply to the property located at 4704 Acadia Lane, Naples, FL 34112, which is located approximately one hundred and eighty five feet (185’) from the intersection of Thomasson Drive and Acadia Lane on the west side of Acadia Lane (the “Property”). It is our intent to ask the County to approve the following variances for the aforementioned property: Required Existing Variance Requested Front 25’24.99’ (maximum).01’ Overhang (front) 3’ (into yard)3.51’.51’ Rear 20’14.61’ (maximum)5.39’ The existing residence was initially permitted and constructed in 1963. The current property owners (the “Applicants”) purchased the subject property on December 30, 1988, in its present condition and only learned of the aforementioned setback concerns during the due diligence phase of a sales negotiation. The applicants are seeking the variances necessary to bring the Property into compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code (the “LDC”). If after reviewing the foregoing you have any additional questions regarding the request, please feel free to contact me via telephone (239.338.4213) or e-mail (sspector@ralaw.com) for further information. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 534 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) December 23, 2019 Page 2 Very truly yours, ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LPA Sarah E. Spector 14481109 _2 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 535 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) ROETZEL ROETZEL 8 ANDRESS. A LEGAL PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION Practical Advice. Real Solutions. That's the Roetzel way. ralaw.com 2320 First Street, Suite 1000 Fort Myers, FL 33901 Direct Dial 239.338.4213 PHONE 239.337.3850 FAX 239.337.0970 sspector@ralaw.com WWW.RALAW.COM December 23, 2019 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL DOROTHY M LOOFBORO 4605 ACADIA LN NAPLES, FL 34112---6603 Re: 4704 Acadia Lane Setback Variance Request (VA-PL20190001940) Dear Property Owner: Please be advised that this Firm has made a formal application to Collier County for a variance from the requirements of the zoning regulations as they apply to the property located at 4704 Acadia Lane, Naples, FL 34112, which is located approximately one hundred and eighty five feet (185’) from the intersection of Thomasson Drive and Acadia Lane on the west side of Acadia Lane (the “Property”). It is our intent to ask the County to approve the following variances for the aforementioned property: Required Existing Variance Requested Front 25’24.99’ (maximum).01’ Overhang (front) 3’ (into yard)3.51’.51’ Rear 20’14.61’ (maximum)5.39’ The existing residence was initially permitted and constructed in 1963. The current property owners (the “Applicants”) purchased the subject property on December 30, 1988, in its present condition and only learned of the aforementioned setback concerns during the due diligence phase of a sales negotiation. The applicants are seeking the variances necessary to bring the Property into compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code (the “LDC”). If after reviewing the foregoing you have any additional questions regarding the request, please feel free to contact me via telephone (239.338.4213) or e-mail (sspector@ralaw.com) for further information. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 536 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) December 23, 2019 Page 2 Very truly yours, ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LPA Sarah E. Spector 14481109 _2 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 537 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) ROETZEL ROETZEL 8 ANDRESS. A LEGAL PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION Practical Advice. Real Solutions. That's the Roetzel way. ralaw.com 2320 First Street, Suite 1000 Fort Myers, FL 33901 Direct Dial 239.338.4213 PHONE 239.337.3850 FAX 239.337.0970 sspector@ralaw.com WWW.RALAW.COM December 23, 2019 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL PHILIP EDWARD MURPHY JEAN RUTH MURPHY 3411 THOMASSON DR NAPLES, FL 34112---0 Re: 4704 Acadia Lane Setback Variance Request (VA-PL20190001940) Dear Property Owner: Please be advised that this Firm has made a formal application to Collier County for a variance from the requirements of the zoning regulations as they apply to the property located at 4704 Acadia Lane, Naples, FL 34112, which is located approximately one hundred and eighty five feet (185’) from the intersection of Thomasson Drive and Acadia Lane on the west side of Acadia Lane (the “Property”). It is our intent to ask the County to approve the following variances for the aforementioned property: Required Existing Variance Requested Front 25’24.99’ (maximum).01’ Overhang (front)3’ (into yard)3.51’.51’ Rear 20’14.61’ (maximum)5.39’ The existing residence was initially permitted and constructed in 1963. The current property owners (the “Applicants”) purchased the subject property on December 30, 1988, in its present condition and only learned of the aforementioned setback concerns during the due diligence phase of a sales negotiation. The applicants are seeking the variances necessary to bring the Property into compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code (the “LDC”). If after reviewing the foregoing you have any additional questions regarding the request, please feel free to contact me via telephone (239.338.4213) or e-mail (sspector@ralaw.com) for further information. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 538 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) December 23, 2019 Page 2 Very truly yours, ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LPA Sarah E. Spector 14481109 _2 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 539 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) ROETZEL ROETZEL 8 ANDRESS. A LEGAL PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION Practical Advice. Real Solutions. That's the Roetzel way. ralaw.com 2320 First Street, Suite 1000 Fort Myers, FL 33901 Direct Dial 239.338.4213 PHONE 239.337.3850 FAX 239.337.0970 sspector@ralaw.com WWW.RALAW.COM December 23, 2019 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL MERILIA J NORD 4711 ACADIA LN NAPLES, FL 34112---6631 Re: 4704 Acadia Lane Setback Variance Request (VA-PL20190001940) Dear Property Owner: Please be advised that this Firm has made a formal application to Collier County for a variance from the requirements of the zoning regulations as they apply to the property located at 4704 Acadia Lane, Naples, FL 34112, which is located approximately one hundred and eighty five feet (185’) from the intersection of Thomasson Drive and Acadia Lane on the west side of Acadia Lane (the “Property”). It is our intent to ask the County to approve the following variances for the aforementioned property: Required Existing Variance Requested Front 25’24.99’ (maximum).01’ Overhang (front) 3’ (into yard)3.51’.51’ Rear 20’14.61’ (maximum)5.39’ The existing residence was initially permitted and constructed in 1963. The current property owners (the “Applicants”) purchased the subject property on December 30, 1988, in its present condition and only learned of the aforementioned setback concerns during the due diligence phase of a sales negotiation. The applicants are seeking the variances necessary to bring the Property into compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code (the “LDC”). If after reviewing the foregoing you have any additional questions regarding the request, please feel free to contact me via telephone (239.338.4213) or e-mail (sspector@ralaw.com) for further information. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 540 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) December 23, 2019 Page 2 Very truly yours, ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LPA Sarah E. Spector 14481109 _2 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 541 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) ROETZEL ROETZEL 8 ANDRESS. A LEGAL PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION Practical Advice. Real Solutions. That's the Roetzel way. ralaw.com 2320 First Street, Suite 1000 Fort Myers, FL 33901 Direct Dial 239.338.4213 PHONE 239.337.3850 FAX 239.337.0970 sspector@ralaw.com WWW.RALAW.COM December 23, 2019 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL LEMANE & SIMONE PETIT-BIEN 4609 DOMINION DR NAPLES, FL 34112---6611 Re: 4704 Acadia Lane Setback Variance Request (VA-PL20190001940) Dear Property Owner: Please be advised that this Firm has made a formal application to Collier County for a variance from the requirements of the zoning regulations as they apply to the property located at 4704 Acadia Lane, Naples, FL 34112, which is located approximately one hundred and eighty five feet (185’) from the intersection of Thomasson Drive and Acadia Lane on the west side of Acadia Lane (the “Property”). It is our intent to ask the County to approve the following variances for the aforementioned property: Required Existing Variance Requested Front 25’24.99’ (maximum).01’ Overhang (front) 3’ (into yard)3.51’.51’ Rear 20’14.61’ (maximum)5.39’ The existing residence was initially permitted and constructed in 1963. The current property owners (the “Applicants”) purchased the subject property on December 30, 1988, in its present condition and only learned of the aforementioned setback concerns during the due diligence phase of a sales negotiation. The applicants are seeking the variances necessary to bring the Property into compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code (the “LDC”). If after reviewing the foregoing you have any additional questions regarding the request, please feel free to contact me via telephone (239.338.4213) or e-mail (sspector@ralaw.com) for further information. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 542 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) December 23, 2019 Page 2 Very truly yours, ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LPA Sarah E. Spector 14481109 _2 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 543 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) ROETZEL ROETZEL 8 ANDRESS. A LEGAL PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION Practical Advice. Real Solutions. That's the Roetzel way. ralaw.com 2320 First Street, Suite 1000 Fort Myers, FL 33901 Direct Dial 239.338.4213 PHONE 239.337.3850 FAX 239.337.0970 sspector@ralaw.com WWW.RALAW.COM December 23, 2019 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL JACOB HUNT RADCLIFFE CHASTITY DIANN RADCLIFFE 4934 CORTEZ CIR NAPLES, FL 34112---0 Re: 4704 Acadia Lane Setback Variance Request (VA-PL20190001940) Dear Property Owner: Please be advised that this Firm has made a formal application to Collier County for a variance from the requirements of the zoning regulations as they apply to the property located at 4704 Acadia Lane, Naples, FL 34112, which is located approximately one hundred and eighty five feet (185’) from the intersection of Thomasson Drive and Acadia Lane on the west side of Acadia Lane (the “Property”). It is our intent to ask the County to approve the following variances for the aforementioned property: Required Existing Variance Requested Front 25’24.99’ (maximum).01’ Overhang (front)3’ (into yard)3.51’.51’ Rear 20’14.61’ (maximum)5.39’ The existing residence was initially permitted and constructed in 1963. The current property owners (the “Applicants”) purchased the subject property on December 30, 1988, in its present condition and only learned of the aforementioned setback concerns during the due diligence phase of a sales negotiation. The applicants are seeking the variances necessary to bring the Property into compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code (the “LDC”). If after reviewing the foregoing you have any additional questions regarding the request, please feel free to contact me via telephone (239.338.4213) or e-mail (sspector@ralaw.com) for further information. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 544 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) December 23, 2019 Page 2 Very truly yours, ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LPA Sarah E. Spector 14481109 _2 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 545 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) ROETZEL ROETZEL 8 ANDRESS. A LEGAL PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION Practical Advice. Real Solutions. That's the Roetzel way. ralaw.com 2320 First Street, Suite 1000 Fort Myers, FL 33901 Direct Dial 239.338.4213 PHONE 239.337.3850 FAX 239.337.0970 sspector@ralaw.com WWW.RALAW.COM December 23, 2019 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL EXCELLENT F SALOMON ROSELINE C SALOMON 4425 18TH PL SW NAPLES, FL 34116---5919 Re: 4704 Acadia Lane Setback Variance Request (VA-PL20190001940) Dear Property Owner: Please be advised that this Firm has made a formal application to Collier County for a variance from the requirements of the zoning regulations as they apply to the property located at 4704 Acadia Lane, Naples, FL 34112, which is located approximately one hundred and eighty five feet (185’) from the intersection of Thomasson Drive and Acadia Lane on the west side of Acadia Lane (the “Property”). It is our intent to ask the County to approve the following variances for the aforementioned property: Required Existing Variance Requested Front 25’24.99’ (maximum).01’ Overhang (front)3’ (into yard)3.51’.51’ Rear 20’14.61’ (maximum)5.39’ The existing residence was initially permitted and constructed in 1963. The current property owners (the “Applicants”) purchased the subject property on December 30, 1988, in its present condition and only learned of the aforementioned setback concerns during the due diligence phase of a sales negotiation. The applicants are seeking the variances necessary to bring the Property into compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code (the “LDC”). If after reviewing the foregoing you have any additional questions regarding the request, please feel free to contact me via telephone (239.338.4213) or e-mail (sspector@ralaw.com) for further information. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 546 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) December 23, 2019 Page 2 Very truly yours, ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LPA Sarah E. Spector 14481109 _2 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 547 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) ROETZEL ROETZEL 8 ANDRESS. A LEGAL PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION Practical Advice. Real Solutions. That's the Roetzel way. ralaw.com 2320 First Street, Suite 1000 Fort Myers, FL 33901 Direct Dial 239.338.4213 PHONE 239.337.3850 FAX 239.337.0970 sspector@ralaw.com WWW.RALAW.COM December 23, 2019 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL JEANNETTE VARGAS AIDA CEPEDA 4616 ACADIA LANE NAPLES, FL 34112---0 Re: 4704 Acadia Lane Setback Variance Request (VA-PL20190001940) Dear Property Owner: Please be advised that this Firm has made a formal application to Collier County for a variance from the requirements of the zoning regulations as they apply to the property located at 4704 Acadia Lane, Naples, FL 34112, which is located approximately one hundred and eighty five feet (185’) from the intersection of Thomasson Drive and Acadia Lane on the west side of Acadia Lane (the “Property”). It is our intent to ask the County to approve the following variances for the aforementioned property: Required Existing Variance Requested Front 25’24.99’ (maximum).01’ Overhang (front)3’ (into yard)3.51’.51’ Rear 20’14.61’ (maximum)5.39’ The existing residence was initially permitted and constructed in 1963. The current property owners (the “Applicants”) purchased the subject property on December 30, 1988, in its present condition and only learned of the aforementioned setback concerns during the due diligence phase of a sales negotiation. The applicants are seeking the variances necessary to bring the Property into compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code (the “LDC”). If after reviewing the foregoing you have any additional questions regarding the request, please feel free to contact me via telephone (239.338.4213) or e-mail (sspector@ralaw.com) for further information. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 548 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) December 23, 2019 Page 2 Very truly yours, ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LPA Sarah E. Spector 14481109 _2 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 549 Attachment: Attachment C - Application and Back up materials (11544 : 9.A.4-4704 Acadia Ln) 02/20/2020 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.5 Item Summary: PL20180002792: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 89-05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, specifically amending the Future Land Use Element And Future Land Use Map and Map Series by amending the Urban Commercial District to add the Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict to allow development of up to 17 hotel and motel units and 7,000 square feet of C-3, commercial intermediate commercial uses and furthermore, directing transmittal of the adopted amendment to the Department of Economic Opportunity; providing for severability and providing for an effective date. The subject property is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Gulf Shore Drive and Southbay Drive in Section 32, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, consisting of .62± acres. (Companion PL20180002793) [Coordinator: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner] Meeting Date: 02/20/2020 Prepared by: Title: Planner, Senior – Zoning Name: Marcia R Kendall 02/05/2020 7:18 AM Submitted by: Title: Manager - Planning – Zoning Name: Ray Bellows 02/05/2020 7:18 AM Approved By: Review: Growth Management Department David Weeks Additional Reviewer Completed 02/05/2020 9:39 AM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 02/05/2020 1:45 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig Review item Completed 02/05/2020 3:58 PM Growth Management Department James C French Review Item Completed 02/05/2020 4:48 PM Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 02/05/2020 6:09 PM Planning Commission Mark Strain Meeting Pending 02/20/2020 9:00 AM 9.A.5 Packet Pg. 550 COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SMALL SCALE AMENDMENT PL20180002792/CPSS-2019-3 (ADOPTION HEARINGS) PROJECT COMPANION: PL20180002793 CCPC: FEBRUARY 20, 2020 BCC: MARCH 24, 2020 9.A.5.a Packet Pg. 551 Attachment: CCPC COVER (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict) TABLE OF CONTENTS CCPC – SMALL SCALE GMP AMENDMENT ADOPTION HEARING CCPC February 20, 2020 1) TAB: Adoption Staff Report DOCUMENTS: Staff Report: PL20180002792/CPSS-2019-3 2) TAB: Adoption Ordinance DOCUMENTS: Adoption Ordinance with Exhibit “A” text (and/or maps): PL20180002792/CPSS-2019-3 3) TAB: Project PL20180002792/ DOCUMENT: Petition/Application Petition CPSS-2019-3 4) TAB: Legal Advertisement DOCUMENT: CCPC Advertisement PL20180002792/CPSS-2019-3 & Companion PL20180002793 9.A.5.b Packet Pg. 552 Attachment: Table of Contents (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 1 of 10 STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT/ZONING DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION HEARING DATE: February 20, 2020 RE: PETITION CPSS-2019-03/PL20180002792, SMALL SCALE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT (Companion to PUDZ- PL20180002793) [ADOPTION HEARING] ELEMENT: FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT (FLUE) AGENT/APPLICANT/OWNER(S): Agents: Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, Vice President Holes Montes, Inc. 950 Encore Way Naples, FL 34108 Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire Coleman, Yovanovich, & Koester, P.A. 4001 Tamiami Trail North Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 Applicant/Owners Kevin Dugan Dugan’s Lighthouse Inn, LLC & Buzz’s Lighthouse, LLC 9140 Gulf Shore Drive Naples, FL 34108 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property comprises ±0.622-acres and is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Gulf Shore Drive and Southbay Drive, in Section 32, Township 48 South, Range 25 East (North Naples Planning Community). 9.A.5.c Packet Pg. 553 Attachment: 01_Adoption Staff Report CPSS-19-3 FINAL_dw-hfac (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 2 of 10 REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes a small-scale Comprehensive Plan amendment to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), specifically to create a new subdistrict, Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict, within the Urban Designation, Urban – Commercial District. The applicant also proposes to amend the countywide Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and create a new map (“Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict”) in the FLUM series of the FLUE, to identify the newly created Subdistrict. The proposed amended Subdistrict text is as follows: (Single underlined text is added, single strike-through text is deleted, and is also reflected in the Ordinance Exhibit A). FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION SECTION *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** Proposed Subject Site 9.A.5.c Packet Pg. 554 Attachment: 01_Adoption Staff Report CPSS-19-3 FINAL_dw-hfac (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 3 of 10 I. URBAN DESIGNATION *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** C. Urban Commercial District *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** 14. Seed to Table Commercial Subdistrict *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** 15. Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict The Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Gulf Shore Drive and Southbay Drive, in Section 32, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. The Subdistrict is ±0.622 acres in size. The purpose of the Subdistrict is to allow commercial uses as identified below. a. Allowable uses are limited to: 1. Hotels and motels limited to 17 rooms; and 2. Permitted and conditional uses set forth in the C-3, Commercial Intermediate, zoning district in the Land Development Code, not to exceed 7,000 square feet. b. Rezoning is encouraged to be in the form of a PUD, Planned Unit Development, zoning district. PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The purpose of this Growth Management Plan Amendment is to create text and a map for a new subdistrict, Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict. The subdistrict will establish hotel /motel uses (limited to 17 rooms) and permitted and conditional uses set forth in the C -3, Commercial Intermediate Zoning District (not to exceed 7,000 square feet) as allowable uses. The hotel has been a long-standing existing use on the site; however, the hotel is a non-conforming use. The creation of the subdistrict, along with the accompanying rezoning from C-3, Commercial Intermediate, to a Commercial Planned Unit Development, will allow the hotel use to remain or to be redeveloped and will retain all uses presently allowed by the existing C-3 zoning on the site. SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION: Subject Property: The current existing land uses on the subject site are a 17-room hotel and an 80-seat restaurant (Buzz/s Lighthouse Inn and Restaurant) with a hotel office, storage area, parking lot and swimming pool. 9.A.5.c Packet Pg. 555 Attachment: 01_Adoption Staff Report CPSS-19-3 FINAL_dw-hfac (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 4 of 10 The subject site is located within a tourist resort area that includes a mix of uses, including transient lodging, restaurants, retail shops, and high-rise condominiums. The site is across the street from the beach and one block north of a public parking garage. Collier Area Transit (CAT) operates a “beach bus” during season that passes by the subject site. The subject site is zoned Commercial Intermediate Zoning District (C-3), allowing a variety of goods and services, with an increase in the intensity from the uses in Commercial Professional and General Office Zoning District (C-1) and Commercial Convenience Zoning District (C-2). The +0.622-acre subject site is designated on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) as Urban, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict and is within the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA). The Future Land Use designation of Urban Mixed Use District is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and non-residential land uses, including mixed-use developments such as Planned Unit Developments. The CHHA boundary is generally depicted on the Future Land Use Map and is more precisely shown in the Future Land Use Map series; all lands lying seaward of that boundary are within the CHHA. New rezones to permit mobile home development shall not be allowed within the CHHA. The Capital Improvement Element and Conservation and Coastal Management Element both contain policies pertaining to the expenditure of public funds for public facilities within the CHHA. Surrounding Land Uses: North: Immediately to the north (adjoining the existing parking for the Lighthouse Inn (hotel) and Buzz’s Lighthouse Restaurant) are current existing land uses of tennis courts and parking for the Vanderbilt Beach Motel Condos, and Vanderbilt Beach & Harbour Club Condos. North of the subject site is zoned Residential Tourist District - Vanderbilt Beach Residential Tourist Overlay District (RT-VBRTO). The FLUE designates the land to the north of the subject site as Urban, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict and within the CHHA. East: Immediately adjacent to the east lies the current existing land uses for a commercial marina (South Bay Marina), Vanderbilt Channel, and beyond the marina are existing residential condos. East of the subject site is zoned C-3, Commercial Intermediate Zoning District. The FLUE designates this area to the east of the subject site as Urban, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict and within the CHHA. South: Immediately adjacent to the south (across South Bay Drive) are currently existing land uses for vacant commercial lots, the Beach Box Restaurant, and Gulfview Condo. Beyond these uses lies at Vanderbilt Beach Road. South of the subject site, it is zoned C-3, Commercial Intermediate Zoning District. The FLUE designates this area to the south of the subject site as Urban, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict and within the CHHA. West: Immediately adjacent to the west (across Gulf Shore Drive) are currently existing land uses for the Vanderbilt Beach Resort, Turtle Club Restaurant, the Phoenician Sands Condos, and further to the west of these uses is the Gulf of Mexico. West of the subject 9.A.5.c Packet Pg. 556 Attachment: 01_Adoption Staff Report CPSS-19-3 FINAL_dw-hfac (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 5 of 10 site is zoned RT-VBRTO. The FLUE designates this area to the west as Urban, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict and within the CHHA. STAFF ANALYSIS: Background and Considerations: The subject site was platted in January 1954 (66 years ago). The site has been operated by the Dugan family with the present mix of uses (hotel and restaurant) for more than 40 years. The applicant is proposing a GMP amendment to allow for the creation of a new subdistrict that will allow a hotel/motel use (limited to 17 rooms) and a variety of C-3 Zoning District permitted and conditional uses. Per LDC Sec. 9.03.02, if a nonconforming use ceases to operate for any reason for a period of more than one year, any subsequent use must conform to the regulations for the zoning district in which it is located. The effect of the nonconforming use status is that if the hotel use is ceased for any reason, including removal or destruction by natural causes, any future use must conform to those permitted by the C-3 zoning district. The nonconforming status of the hotel use also impacts the owner’s ability to adequately and reasonably insure the structure(s) and the business operations in the event of accidental destruction or natural disaster. The objective of the Small-scale Growth Management Plan Amendment (SSGMPA) and companion PUD rezone is to allow the 17-room hotel as a permitted use by right (along with the currently permitted C-3 uses up to a maximum of 7,000 square feet), and to allow certain conditional C-3 uses through the established conditional use process). The PUD establishes development standards and deviations in order to facilitate redevelopment of the site with existing intensities. These site-specific development standards are particularly important given the relatively small size of the subject site. The subject site consists of ±0.622-acres and is comprised of four tax parcels: the northernmost parcel (# 79120080009) is a parking lot for Buzz’s R estaurant and Inn and the restaurant (maximum of 80-seats); the parcel (# 79120120008) directly south of this is the Lighthouse Inn; the parcel located at the corner of Gulf Shore Drive and South Bay Drive (# 79120160000) is the motel pool, and the parcel to the east of the pool (# 79120200009) is the motel office and storage. This GMPA amendment has a companion zoning petition (PL20190002793) to rezone the subject site from C-3 Commercial Intermediate Zoning District to a Planned Unit Development. The GMPA encourages new subdistricts to also create a PUD. Compatibility: Given the mixed-use nature of this neighborhood; the proximity of the site to the beach; the availability of significant public parking; and access to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian activity, the requested small boutique hotel, restaurant, and other permitted C-3 uses are appropriate. (Conditional uses in the C-3 district may be appropriate and will be determined on a case-by-case basis). The surrounding area already includes other restaurant uses and seasonal condominiums used for transient lodging. Compatibility can be more specifically addressed with the zoning petition, and 9.A.5.c Packet Pg. 557 Attachment: 01_Adoption Staff Report CPSS-19-3 FINAL_dw-hfac (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 6 of 10 may include building height and size limitations, setback and buffer requirements, etc. The applicant is not asking for any increase in the intensity of the existing uses. In staff’s opinion, because the proposed uses of this subdistrict have already existed for 40 years and has created very little impact on the surrounding area, it appears to co-exist well with all the neighboring uses. Justifications for Proposed Amendment: Although the site has operated for many years at this location, it is a non-conforming use as the C- 3 zoning does not allow for hotels as a permitted or conditional use. The effect of the nonconforming use status is that if the use is ceased for any reason, or the structure is removed or destroyed by natural causes, any future uses must then conform to the C-3 zoning district. This nonconformity also impacts the owner’s ability to adequate and reasonably insure the structure(s) and the business operations in the event of accidental destruction or natural disaster. The Objective of the SSGMPA is to allow the hotel and C-3 uses as allowable uses (site is presently zoned C-3). Given the mixed-use nature of this neighborhood, which includes transient lodging, restaurants and retail shops, and high-rise condominiums; and the site’s proximity to the beach, availability of significant public parking, and the surrounding area’s high pedestrian and bicycle activity, the small boutique hotel, restaurant, other permitted C-3 uses are appropriate (and conditional uses in the C-3 district may be appropriate as determined on a case-by-case basis). Identification and Analysis of the Pertinent Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment Criteria in Florida Statutes Chapter 163.3187: Process for adoption of small scale comprehensive plan amendment. (1) A small scale development amendment may be adopted under the following conditions: (a) The proposed amendment involves a use of 10 acres or fewer. [The subject site comprises ±0.622 acres.] (b) The cumulative annual effect of the acreage for all small scale development amendments adopted by the local government does not exceed a maximum of 120 acres in a calendar year. [No small scale GMP amendments have been approved in calendar year 2020.] (c) The proposed amendment does not involve a text change to the goals, policies, and objectives of the local government’s comprehensive plan, but only proposes a land use change to the future land use map for a site-specific small-scale development activity. However, text changes that relate directly to, and are adopted simultaneously with, the small-scale future land use map amendment shall be permissible under this section. [This amendment does include a text change to the Comprehensive Plan and those text changes are directly related to the proposed future land use map amendment.] (d) The property that is the subject of the proposed amendment is not located within an area of critical state concern, unless the project subject to the proposed amendment involves the construction of affordable housing units meeting the criteria of s. 420.0004(3), and is located 9.A.5.c Packet Pg. 558 Attachment: 01_Adoption Staff Report CPSS-19-3 FINAL_dw-hfac (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 7 of 10 within an area of critical state concern designated by s. 380.0552 or by the Administration Commission pursuant to s. 380.05(1). [The subject property is not located within an Area of Critical State Concern.] (2) Small scale development amendments adopted pursuant to this section require only one public hearing before the governing board, which shall be an adoption hearing as described in s. 163.3184(11). [This project will be heard with only one public adoption hearing.] (3) If the small scale development amendment involves a site within a rural area of opportunity as defined under s. 288.0656(2)(d) for the duration of such designation, the 10-acre limit listed in subsection (1) shall be increased by 100 percent to 20 acres. The local government approving the small scale plan amendment shall certify to the state land planning agency that the plan amendment furthers the economic objectives set forth in the executive order issued under s. 288.0656(7), and the property subject to the plan amendment shall undergo public review to ensure that all concurrency requirements and federal, state, and local environmental permit requirements are met. [This amendment does not involve a site within a rural area of opportunity.] (4) Comprehensive plans may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan pursuant to s. 163.3177. Corrections, updates, or modifications of current costs which were set out as part of the comprehensive plan shall not, for the purposes of this act, be deemed to be amendments. [This amendment preserves the internal consistency of the plan and is not a correction, update, or modification of current costs which were set out as part of the comprehensive plan.] Environmental Impacts and Historical and Archaeological Impacts: Craig Brown, Senior Environmental Specialist with Collier County Environmental Planning Section, completed his review and approved this petition in May 2019. He provided the following comments: “The Small-Scale Growth Management Plan Amendment (SSGMPA) is to create Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Sub-district. The property is 0.62 Acres. The proposed changes do not impact sensitive environmental habitat or change environmental FLUM policies.” Public Facilities Impacts: Eric Fey, Senior Project Manager with Collier County Public Utilities Engineering & Project Management Division, stated in his review dated May 2019, “This petition proposes no increase in density or changes in permitted uses, and would, therefore, have no impact on public utility facilities adequacy.” Transportation Impacts: Michael Sawyer, Project Manager with Collier County Transportation Planning, completed his review and approved this petition, without any conditions, in May 2019. 9.A.5.c Packet Pg. 559 Attachment: 01_Adoption Staff Report CPSS-19-3 FINAL_dw-hfac (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 8 of 10 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM) SYNOPSIS: A Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM), as required by Land Development Code (LDC) Section 10.03.05 A, was duly advertised, noticed, and held on August 1, 2019, 5:30 p.m. at the Collier County Public Library Headquarters, Sugden Theater, 2385 Orange Blossom Drive, Naples, FL 34109. This NIM was advertised, noticed, and held jointly for this small scale GMP amendment and the companion Planned Unit Development Rezone (PUDZ) petition. The applicant’s team gave a presentation and then responded to questions. See applicant’s NIM notes included in the companion PUDZ packet. A total of approximately 15 members of the public along with approximately 4 members of the applicant’s team and County staff signed in at the NIM. The consultant explained that there were two separate applications: a small-scale amendment for the Growth Management Plan (creation of a new subdistrict) and a zoning action for a Planned Unit Development Rezone (rezone a new PUD). The public asked questions about the project details, especially about intensity increases, such as will this become a high-rise hotel in the future, is this petition just opening the door for future growth. The applicant’s agent stated that this petition was not to permit the existing commercial intensities to increase, so therefore, there will be no change in the existing level of traffic generated with the approval of this petition. The meeting ended at approximately 6:15 p.m. [synopsis prepared by Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section] PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED BY STAFF: Comprehensive Planning staff received one email correspondence of objection/concern, dated August 22, 2019, from Jay Halloran, a seasonal resident, who had been unable to attend the NIM. See the email included in this GMPA packet. FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS: • The reason for this GMPA and companion PUDZ zoning petition is to allow and permit, respectively, the hotel/motel use that is a longstanding (40+ years) non-conforming use in the existing C-3 zoning district. • There are no adverse environmental impacts as a result of this petition. • No historic or archaeological sites are affected by this amendment. • There are no transportation or utility-related concerns as a result of this petition. • The site’s uses (existing as well as permitted by existing zoning) will remain unchanged; therefore, the use intensity will remain the same. • The use is generally compatible with surrounding development based upon the high-level review conducted for a GMP amendment and has co-existed with surrounding development for many, many years. 9.A.5.c Packet Pg. 560 Attachment: 01_Adoption Staff Report CPSS-19-3 FINAL_dw-hfac (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 9 of 10 LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This Staff Report was reviewed by the County Attorney’s Office on January 30, 2020. The criteria for GMP amendments to the Future Land Use Element are in Sections 163.3177(1)(f) and 163.3177(6)(a)2, Florida Statutes. The criteria for changes to the Future Land Use Map is in Section 163.3177(6)(a)8, Florida Statutes [HFAC] STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PL20180002792/CPSS-2019-3 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to approve (adopt) and transmit to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. [REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK] 9.A.5.c Packet Pg. 561 Attachment: 01_Adoption Staff Report CPSS-19-3 FINAL_dw-hfac (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 10 of 10 9.A.5.c Packet Pg. 562 Attachment: 01_Adoption Staff Report CPSS-19-3 FINAL_dw-hfac (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict) 9.A.5.d Packet Pg. 563 Attachment: 02_Ordinance 1.16.20 (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict) 9.A.5.d Packet Pg. 564 Attachment: 02_Ordinance 1.16.20 (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict) 9.A.5.d Packet Pg. 565 Attachment: 02_Ordinance 1.16.20 (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict) 9.A.5.d Packet Pg. 566 Attachment: 02_Ordinance 1.16.20 (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict) 9.A.5.d Packet Pg. 567 Attachment: 02_Ordinance 1.16.20 (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict) 9.A.5.d Packet Pg. 568 Attachment: 02_Ordinance 1.16.20 (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict) 9.A.5.d Packet Pg. 569 Attachment: 02_Ordinance 1.16.20 (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict) 9.A.5.dPacket Pg. 570Attachment: 02_Ordinance 1.16.20 (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict) 9.A.5.ePacket Pg. 571Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_VB Comm'l Tourist Subd_CPSS-19-3 (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict) 9.A.5.ePacket Pg. 572Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_VB Comm'l Tourist Subd_CPSS-19-3 (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict) 9.A.5.ePacket Pg. 573Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_VB Comm'l Tourist Subd_CPSS-19-3 (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict) 9.A.5.ePacket Pg. 574Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_VB Comm'l Tourist Subd_CPSS-19-3 (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict) 9.A.5.ePacket Pg. 575Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_VB Comm'l Tourist Subd_CPSS-19-3 (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict) 9.A.5.ePacket Pg. 576Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_VB Comm'l Tourist Subd_CPSS-19-3 (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict) 9.A.5.ePacket Pg. 577Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_VB Comm'l Tourist Subd_CPSS-19-3 (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict) 9.A.5.ePacket Pg. 578Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_VB Comm'l Tourist Subd_CPSS-19-3 (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict) 9.A.5.ePacket Pg. 579Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_VB Comm'l Tourist Subd_CPSS-19-3 (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict) 9.A.5.ePacket Pg. 580Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_VB Comm'l Tourist Subd_CPSS-19-3 (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict) 9.A.5.ePacket Pg. 581Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_VB Comm'l Tourist Subd_CPSS-19-3 (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict) 9.A.5.ePacket Pg. 582Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_VB Comm'l Tourist Subd_CPSS-19-3 (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict) 9.A.5.ePacket Pg. 583Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_VB Comm'l Tourist Subd_CPSS-19-3 (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict) 9.A.5.ePacket Pg. 584Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_VB Comm'l Tourist Subd_CPSS-19-3 (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict) 9.A.5.ePacket Pg. 585Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_VB Comm'l Tourist Subd_CPSS-19-3 (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict) 9.A.5.ePacket Pg. 586Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_VB Comm'l Tourist Subd_CPSS-19-3 (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict) 9.A.5.ePacket Pg. 587Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_VB Comm'l Tourist Subd_CPSS-19-3 (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict) 9.A.5.ePacket Pg. 588Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_VB Comm'l Tourist Subd_CPSS-19-3 (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict) 9.A.5.ePacket Pg. 589Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_VB Comm'l Tourist Subd_CPSS-19-3 (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict) 9.A.5.ePacket Pg. 590Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_VB Comm'l Tourist Subd_CPSS-19-3 (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict) 9.A.5.ePacket Pg. 591Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_VB Comm'l Tourist Subd_CPSS-19-3 (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict) 9.A.5.ePacket Pg. 592Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_VB Comm'l Tourist Subd_CPSS-19-3 (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict) 9.A.5.ePacket Pg. 593Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_VB Comm'l Tourist Subd_CPSS-19-3 (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict) 9.A.5.ePacket Pg. 594Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_VB Comm'l Tourist Subd_CPSS-19-3 (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict) 9.A.5.ePacket Pg. 595Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_VB Comm'l Tourist Subd_CPSS-19-3 (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict) 9.A.5.ePacket Pg. 596Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_VB Comm'l Tourist Subd_CPSS-19-3 (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict) 9.A.5.ePacket Pg. 597Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_VB Comm'l Tourist Subd_CPSS-19-3 (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict) 9.A.5.ePacket Pg. 598Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_VB Comm'l Tourist Subd_CPSS-19-3 (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict) 9.A.5.ePacket Pg. 599Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_VB Comm'l Tourist Subd_CPSS-19-3 (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict) 9.A.5.ePacket Pg. 600Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_VB Comm'l Tourist Subd_CPSS-19-3 (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict) 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 601 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_VB Comm'l Tourist Subd_CPSS-19-3 (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 602 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_VB Comm'l Tourist Subd_CPSS-19-3 (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 603 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_VB Comm'l Tourist Subd_CPSS-19-3 (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 604 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_VB Comm'l Tourist Subd_CPSS-19-3 (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 605 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_VB Comm'l Tourist Subd_CPSS-19-3 (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt 9.A.5.e Packet Pg. 606 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_VB Comm'l Tourist Subd_CPSS-19-3 (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt 9.A.5.f Packet Pg. 607 Attachment: 04-CCPC Advertising Affidavit (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict) FaulknerSue From: Sont: to: Subrect: WeeksDavid Thursday, August 22, 2019 12:40 PM Faulknersue FW: Buzz's Lighthouse - PUD Zoning Change Fvi. Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager Colller County oavld Weeks, Growth Management Planning Manager James 5abo, Principal Planner, Zoning Jeremy Frantr, Land Development Code Manager Laurie Beard, PUD Monitoring Coordinator Collier County Government 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples FL 34104 Ail RE: DuBEan Famlly - Bur/s Llghthouse Pet{tlon PUDz-PL-2018m02793, Petltlon SSGMPA-PI2oLl,(J,,,27921 CY2OL$-} Dear All First of all, thank you all for your service to our community. Secondly, I am concerned with the actions being taken by the appllcant regardlng the application for rezoninS Commercial-3 to PUD for the above-mentioned petition. The application is seeking to change the zoning from Commercial 3 to a PUO. The current zoning C-3 is "grandfathered" in because the motel and restaurant use has apparently been there for many years. Therefore, the owners of the property are free to maintain, repair and rebuild their property using the "current non-conforming uses", The Neighborhood Meeting was held on August 1, 2019. Most residents received notice of this meeting through the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Assoclation afterJuly 2& 2019 leavlngJust 3 days to prepare to attend, As many residents are not in Florida for the months of July and August, we were unable to voice our comments on this rezoning application. lf the notice was published in the local newspaper, we were unaware of that as well. This should not mitigate the rights of the Florida residence that spend tlme in other states during the summer months. fu previously stated by Ellrabeth A Pircio in her August 19th email to you, many aspects to this re-zonlng are troubling to an environmentally sensitlve nelghborhood that is already faced wlth slgnificant development such as Naples One. 1 From: Jay Halloran <jay.halloran@cbes-us.com> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 10:58 AM To: BellowsRay <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov>; WeeksDavid <David.Weeks@colliercoun!fl.gov>; Frantderemy <Jeremy,Frantz@colliercountyfl,gov>; Beardlaurie <Laurle.Beard@colliercounMl.SoD; saboJames <James.Sabo@colliercountyfl .Bov> Sublcct: Buzz's Lighthouse - PUD Zoning Change 9.A.5.g Packet Pg. 608 Attachment: 05_Correspondence Email (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict) The application states that the owner is concerned that lf the current use is stopped for reasons such as accidental destruction, natural causes, etc., they wlll not be allowed to re- bulld using the same uses. However, "Grandfathered Use" allows the appllcant to continue the use of the motel and restaurant and thus rebulld. ln Elizabeth A Pircio's letter she states: ln my opinion, there is a potential issue for "Spot Zoningl with this application. None of the abuttlng parcels of land surrounding this parcel are zoned as PUOS. h fact, the nearest PUD lies hundreds of feet away. Spot Zoning is defined as chanSing zoning on a parcel of land when the rezoning is usually at odds with the city Master Plan. The deflninS characteristic for a complaint of Spot Zoning is the unjustified special treatment that benefits an owner, while undermining the pre-existing rights and uses of adjacent property owners. Can you confirm that this is not taking place and lf not what ls? Changing the zoning to the only PUD in the immediate surrounding area can be detrimental for the neighborhood. ln the Zoning along Gulf Shore Drive by Vanderbllt Beach, most ofthe parcels are lncluded in the Vanderbllt Beach Residential Tourist Overlay District, including the parcel abutting this applicant. ln reviewing this district, it states that the ourDose ls to encourate development of the area to be sensitive to the scale, compatibiliw and sense of olace that exists ln the Vanderbilt Beach area. lt states further that these procedures wlll protect view corridors, light and air movements etc. The uses permitted include hotels, motels, and accessory uses such as restaurants. So, there is a readily available Zoning that will fit the needs of this applicant and smoothly merge into the current zoninS rather than applying for a PUD re-zone that will be detrimental to the neighborhood and set a dangerous precedent for future applicants. The deslgn standards of a PUD include as follows: the abllity to "encourage the redevelopment of relativelv lane tracts of land under unified ownership or control. Thls ls a small (less than 1 acre). Collier County has a Master Plan that was properly engineered with understanding of the impacts of Srowth, Infrastructure needs and rezonlng. For the Master plan to be continually re-zoned by each individual to maximize their development and lncrease their flnancial benefit wlll put significant stress on the infrastructure and environment. There should also be consideration of the precedent that would b€ set if the re-zoning ls awarded in this matter. How will the Committee legally prevent other businesses in Collier County from coming before the county for a re-zone to a PUD no matter how small the parcel is? Respectfully, Jay Halloran 4m Fhgship Drlve, unit 708 Naples FL 34108 C.ell7774-573-9882 Jry Hrllorstr President City Building Engineering Serviccs, LLC Suite 300 200 Sulrmit Drive Bwlington MA 01803 2 The application for the re-zone to a PUD will set a precedent for any other develop€r to buy a parcel of land of any size in any neighborhood and attempt to have it re-zoned to a PUD. How could Collier County justify denying future re-zones to PUD'S no matter how smallthe parcels are? How would these precedents stand up ln court should any PUD applicatlon be denied? The question is "why is the appllcant applyinS for a re-zone to a PUD when the abuttlng Vanderbilt Beach Overlay Dlstrict permits the uses that he wants for his land". ls ittoSpotZone first then beableto sell this parcel to a larger developer for a much larger proJect in the beach area that is under continuous impact already? I belleve that there is a slippery slope that the County will be facing if this is allowed. 9.A.5.g Packet Pg. 609 Attachment: 05_Correspondence Email (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict) Cell: (77a) 573-9882 Email: iav.halloran@lcbes-us.com Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. lf you do not want your e.mail address released in response to a public records request, do nol send electronic mail to this entity. lnstead, contact this off,ce by telephone or in writing. 3 9.A.5.g Packet Pg. 610 Attachment: 05_Correspondence Email (11367 : 9.A.5-Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict) 02/20/2020 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.6 Item Summary: 6. PL20180002793: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Commercial Intermediate District (C-3) zoning district within the Vanderbilt Beach Residential Tourist Overlay (VBRTO) to a Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) zoning district for the project to be known as Vanderbilt Inn Commercial Planned Unit Development CPUD, to allow up to 17 hotel and motel units and 7,000 square feet of commercial development on property located on the northeast portion of the intersection of Gulf Shore Drive and South Bay Drive, approximately 400 feet north of Vanderbilt Beach Road, in Section 32, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, consisting of .62± acres; and by providing an effective date. (Companion: PL20180002792) [Coordinator: James Sabo, AICP, Principal Planner] Meeting Date: 02/20/2020 Prepared by: Title: – Zoning Name: James Sabo 01/31/2020 1:37 PM Submitted by: Title: Manager - Planning – Zoning Name: Ray Bellows 01/31/2020 1:37 PM Approved By: Review: Zoning Camden Smith Review Item Completed 02/05/2020 12:22 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 02/05/2020 1:40 PM Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 02/06/2020 10:32 AM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig Review item Completed 02/06/2020 1:26 PM Growth Management Department James C French Review Item Completed 02/06/2020 4:06 PM Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 02/11/2020 9:33 AM Planning Commission Mark Strain Meeting Pending 02/20/2020 9:00 AM 9.A.6 Packet Pg. 611 PUDZ-PL20180002793; Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD Page 1 of 18 Revised: February 3, 2020 STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION – ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: FEBRUARY 20, 2020 SUBJECT: CPUD-PL20180002793 VANDERBILT BEACH COM TOURIST CPUD COMPANION GMPT/GMPA, PL20180002792-CPSS-2019-3 ______________________________________________________________________________ PROPERTY OWNERS/APPLICANT/AGENT: Owner: Agents: Dugan’s Lighthouse Inn, LLC Buzz’s Lighthouse Properties, LLC 9140 Gulf Shore Drive Naples, FL 34108 Applicant: Dugan’s Lighthouse Inn, LLC Buzz’s Lighthouse Properties, LLC 9140 Gulf Shore Drive Naples, FL 34108 Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, V.P. Hole Montes, Inc. 950 Encore Way Naples, FL 34110 Richard Yovanovich, Esq. Coleman, Yovanovich, Koester 4001 Tamiami Trail N. suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant is requesting that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application to rezone the property from C-3 Commercial Intermediate zoning district to Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist zoning district. The property consists of one parcel created from several small lots. There is a companion Small Scale GMPA for 0.62 acres related to this request. The total acreage for the PUD rezoning request is 0.62. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is located at the northeast corner of Gulf Shore Drive and South Bay Drive in Section 32, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County (see location map, page 2). The proposed Master Plan is included in the PUD Ordinance, Attachment B. 9.A.6.a Packet Pg. 612 Attachment: Staff Rept Final Vanderbilt Beach 2.3.2020 (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) PUDZ-PL20180002793; Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD Page 2 of 18 Revised: February 3, 2020 9.A.6.aPacket Pg. 613Attachment: Staff Rept Final Vanderbilt Beach 2.3.2020 (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt PUDZ-PL20180002793; Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD Page 3 of 18 Revised: February 3, 2020 PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Background: The subject property consists of eight platted lots (Lots 3-10, Block A, Vanderbilt Beach Center Subdivision). The plat was approved in January of 1954 and the eight parcels make up the entire 0.622 acres of the proposed Subdistrict and CPUD requested development area. The site is presently zoned C-3, Commercial Intermediate and has frontage on Gulf Shore Drive, South Bay Drive, and the Vanderbilt Lagoon. The existing site has been developed as a 17-room hotel with a swimming pool, dock space, and an 80-seat restaurant known as Buzz’s Lighthouse. The hotel building was constructed in 1957 with the swimming pool added in 1963. The restaurant and dock were added around 1980, with a chickee hut constructed in 1986. The subject site has been operated by the Dugan family for approximately 40 years with the existing and described mix of hotel and restaurant uses. The hotel site is within a tourist resort area and much of the surrounding zoning to the north is identified as Residential Tourist-Vanderbilt Beach Resort Tourist Overlay district. The immediate area includes a mix of transient lodging, retail, restaurants, and high-rise condominiums. The site is one block from the beach and the public parking garage for Vanderbilt Beach. While the hotel and restaurant use have been operating for 40 plus years , the hotel itself is a nonconforming use as it is not permitted as a principal or conditional use in the C-3 zone district. In accordance with Section 9.03.02 of the LDC, if a nonconforming use ceases to exist for any reason for a period of one year or more, all subsequent uses must conform to the current zoning district regulations. The effect of a nonconforming use status means if the hotel was destroyed by natural causes, like hurricane or storm surge flooding, any future use must conform to the allowable uses in the C-3 zone, which excludes hotels. The applicant states that the nonconforming status for the hotel affects the property owner’s ability to obtain property insurance for the structures and the business operation in the event of accidental destruction or natural disaster. The applicant states that the objective of the PUD and Small Scale Growth Management Plan (GMP) Amendment applications is to allow the existing 17-room hotel as a permitted use. The Amendment also seeks to allow C-3 permitted uses up to a maximum of 7,000 square feet and to allow certain conditional uses in the C-3 zone district by the established conditional use process. The applicant has provided development standards and proposed deviations in the proposed PUD Ordinance document. The applicant states that the development standards and the deviations are important given the small size of the existing site. They further stated that the existing site will remain in place subject to the Section 9.03.02 nonconforming provisions of the LDC. The surrounding PUD projects with approved acreage, dwellings units and densities are listed here: Miralia – 8.96 acres – 210 units – 23.44 DU/A Pelican Bay – 2,104 acres – 7,800 units – 3.89 DU/A A density map of the surrounding PUD projects and the respective densities for each project has been included as Attachment C. 9.A.6.a Packet Pg. 614 Attachment: Staff Rept Final Vanderbilt Beach 2.3.2020 (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) PUDZ-PL20180002793; Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD Page 4 of 18 Revised: February 3, 2020 SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Parking, tennis courts, condominiums, zoned RT-VBRTO South: Vacant commercial, restaurant, Vanderbilt Beach Resort, zoned RT-VBRTO East: Commercial marina, residential condominium, zoned, C-3 West: Vanderbilt Beach Resort, restaurant, residential condominiums, zoned C-3 Aerial Map (County GIS) GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: The subject site is located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Gulf Shore Drive and South Bay Drive, in Section 32, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. The site partially abuts the Vanderbilt Channel (Lagoon). The Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist PUD rezone petition is contingent upon approval of the companion GMPA petition PL20180002792/CPSS-2019-3. The petitioner is requesting to rezone approximately ±0.622-acres from “C-3” to a CPUD Zoning District to allow hotel and motel uses and C-3 permitted uses and four specific conditional uses. 9.A.6.a Packet Pg. 615 Attachment: Staff Rept Final Vanderbilt Beach 2.3.2020 (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) PUDZ-PL20180002793; Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD Page 5 of 18 Revised: February 3, 2020 Submittal 2 revised the PUD Document and Master Plan. Based on a Comprehensive Planning review comment, Submittal 3 added a new section in Exhibit A, called ‘Intensity’ to allow up to 17 hotel and motel rooms and up to 7,000 square feet of permitted and conditional uses, which has made the PUD consistent with the GMPA. Submittal 3 also limits use in Exhibit A, 1(a) to hotels and motels as requested by Comp Planning. Submittal 4 made the acreage consistent using .622 acres, revised deviation document landscape buffer language, added less restrictive language in Exhibit A uses, and added SIC codes to PUD document. Submittal 4 added a deviation to state that if the site should be redeveloped, the on-street parking along South Bay Drive shall be eliminated. The ±0.622-acre subject site is designated on the Future Land Use Map as Urban, Urban Mixed- Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict, is mostly within the Coastal High Hazard Area, and Map FLUE-9 shows the site as “Consistent by Policy” (improved property). The site is presently zoned C-3 and developed with a 17-unit hotel (allowed in C-4 and C-5 Zoning Districts) and an 80-seat restaurant and associated accessory uses. This petition will allow 17 hotel/motel units; all C-3 uses permitted by right, limited to 7,000 square feet total; and four specific Conditional Uses: amusements and recreation services, outdoor; membership sports and recreational clubs indoor only; and permitted food service uses with more than 6,000 square feet of gross floor area in the principal structure; and permitted use with less than 700 square feet gross floor area in the principal structure. The four conditional uses listed are subject to the intensity statement limiting to a maximum of 7,000 square feet. The Future Land Use Element (FLUE) states the following: “The Urban Mixed-Use District is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and non-residential land uses, including mixed- use developments such as Planned Unit Developments.” FLUE Policy 5.11 states, “Former Policy 3.1.k. of the Future Land Use Element provided for the establishment of a Zoning Reevaluation Program to evaluate properties whose zoning did not conform with the Future Land Use Designation Description Section of the Future Land Use Element. This Program was implemented through the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance No. 90-23. Where such properties were determined, through implementation of that Ordinance, to be “improved property”, as defined in that Ordinance, the zoning on said properties shall be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element and those properties have been identified on the Future Land Use Map Series as Properties Consistent by Policy.” FLUE Policy 5.3 states, “All rezoning must be consistent with this Growth Management Plan. For properties that are zoned inconsistent with the Future Land Use Designation Description Section but have nonetheless been determined to be consistent with the Future Land Use Element, as provided for in Policies 5.9 through 5.13, the following provisions apply: a. For such commercially-zoned properties, zoning changes will be allowed provided the new zoning district is the same or a lower intensity commercial zoning district as the existing zoning district and provided the overall intensity of commercial land use allowed by the existing zoning district, except as allowed by Policy 5.11, is not exceeded in the new zoning district. 9.A.6.a Packet Pg. 616 Attachment: Staff Rept Final Vanderbilt Beach 2.3.2020 (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) PUDZ-PL20180002793; Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD Page 6 of 18 Revised: February 3, 2020 e. Overall intensity of development shall be determined based upon a comparison of public facility impacts as allowed by the existing zoning district and the proposed zoning district.” This petition is not consistent with FLUE Policy 5.3 as the hotel/motel uses are allowed in C-4 and C-5 zoning districts, which are higher intensity zoning districts. There is a companion small-scale GMP Amendment petition to create the Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict to allow the uses requested in this CPUD and more. This request for the rezone to CPUD zoning district cannot be consistent with the GMP until such time as the small-scale GMPA is approved and in effect. CCME Policy 12.2.5 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) defines the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA). “The County shall consider the CHHA as a geographical area lying below the elevation of the Category 1 storm surge line as presently defined in the 2011 Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council’s Hurricane Evacuation Study, or subsequently authorized storm surge or evacuation planning studies coordinated by the Collier County Bureau of Emergency Services and approved by the Board of County Commissioners.” The CHHA Overlay in the FLUE states, in part, “The CHHA boundary is generally depicted on the Future Land Use Map and is more precisely shown in the Future Land Use Map series; all lands lying seaward of that boundary are within the CHHA. The Capital Improvement Element and Conservation and Coastal Management Element both contain policies pertaining to the expenditure of public funds for public facilities within the CHHA.” Select FLUE Policies are given below, followed with [bracketed staff analysis]. FLUE Policy 5.6 states: “New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004, as amended).” [Comprehensive Planning staff leaves this determination to Zoning Services staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. However, staff notes that in reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses and intensities on the subject site, consider the PUD proposes commercial uses permitted by right and limited to specifically named conditional uses in the C-3, Commercial Intermediate, zoning district. The compatibility analysis is encouraged to be comprehensive and include a review of both the subject property and surrounding or nearby properties regarding allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location and orientation, architectural features, amount and type of open space and location, traffic generation/attraction, etc.] FLUE Policy 7.1 states: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. [Exhibit ‘C.1’ CPUD Master Plan (Existing Conditions) shows one ingress/egress access on Gulf Shore Drive, a minor collector road as identified in the Transportation Element.] 9.A.6.a Packet Pg. 617 Attachment: Staff Rept Final Vanderbilt Beach 2.3.2020 (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) PUDZ-PL20180002793; Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD Page 7 of 18 Revised: February 3, 2020 FLUE Policy 7.2 states: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. [Exhibit ‘C.1’, CPUD Master Plan (Existing Conditions), does not show any circulation throughout the project. The entire project site is only ±0.622 acres and uses the parking areas to move about.] FLUE Policy 7.3 states: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and/or interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. The interconnection of local streets between developments is also addressed in Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element. [Exhibit ‘C.1’, CPUD Master Plan, does not show any interconnections with the adjoining development to the north (Condominiums in a RT-VBRTO zoning overlay). Staff does not think it is feasible or beneficial to retrofit this development to the north to accommodate an interconnection. Gulf Shore Drive abuts the project site to the west and South Bay Drive abuts the project site to the south. Vanderbilt Chanel/Lagoon and an undeveloped parcel zoned C-3 abuts the project site to the east. Staff does not think an interconnection to the C- 3 parcel is feasible or beneficial.] FLUE Policy 7.4 states: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. [The applicant is requesting a sidewalk deviation to allow the required sidewalk to be located along the north side of the parking spaces – interior to the site. Open space must be provided per the LDC. No residential development is being requested; therefore, various types of housing and prices and blend of densities are not applicable. Civic facilities are allowed as a permitted use (C-3 zoning district).] CONCLUSION This rezone petition may only be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan if the companion SSGMPA (PL20180002792) is approved and goes into effect and the uses and intensities in this PUD align with those in the GMPA. The CPUD ordinance needs to provide for an effective date linked to the SSGMPA effective date. Informational Comment: This PUD rezone may only be deemed consistent contingent upon the companion GMP amendment petition being adopted and in effect. Informational Comment: The CPUD rezone ordinance effective date must be linked to the effective date of the companion GMPA petition. The Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review Memo has been included as Attachment D. Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant’s July 2, 2019 Traffic Impact Statement for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the 9.A.6.a Packet Pg. 618 Attachment: Staff Rept Final Vanderbilt Beach 2.3.2020 (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) PUDZ-PL20180002793; Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD Page 8 of 18 Revised: February 3, 2020 Growth Management Plan (GMP) using the then applicable 2018 and the current 2019 Annual Update and Inventory Reports (AUIR). Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states; “The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following occur: a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and c. For all other links the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where it is equal to or exceeds 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume. Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project’s significant impacts on all roadways.” Staff finding: According to the TIS provided with this petition the proposed MPUD rezone could generate a potential +/- 57 PM peak hour, two-way trips on the following adjacent roadway link: Roadway Link 2018 AUIR LOS Current Peak Hour Peak Direction Service Volume/Peak Direction 2018 Remaining Capacity 2019 AUIR LOS 2019 Remaining Capacity Gulf Shore Drive 111th Avenue to Vanderbilt Beach Road B 800/North 580 B 500 Vanderbilt Beach Road Gulf Shore Drive to Tamiami Trail North (US 41) C 1,400/East 410 C 462 9.A.6.a Packet Pg. 619 Attachment: Staff Rept Final Vanderbilt Beach 2.3.2020 (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) PUDZ-PL20180002793; Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD Page 9 of 18 Revised: February 3, 2020 Vanderbilt Beach Road Tamiami Trail North (US 41) to Goodlette Frank Road C 1,900/East 483 D 413 Tamiami Trail North (US 41) Immokalee Road to Vanderbilt Beach Road C 3,100/North 1,164 C 1,295 Tamiami Trail North (US 41) Vanderbilt Beach Road to Gulf Park Drive D 3,100/North 639 C 849 Based on the 2018 and 2019 AUIR’s, the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed new trips for this project within the five-year planning period. Therefore, the subject rezoning can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental review staff has found this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME). The project site is .62, which consists of the existing hotel. STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition, including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5, Planning Commission Recommendation (referred to as the “PUD Findings”), and Section 10.02.08.F, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as “Rezone Findings”), which establish the legal basis to support the CCPC’s recommendation. Drainage: The proposed PUD Amendment request is not anticipated to create drainage problems in the area. Stormwater best management practices, treatment, and storage will be addressed through the environmental resource permitting process with the South Florida Water Management District. County staff will also evaluate the project’s stormwater management system, calculations, and design criteria at the time of site development plan (SDP) and if needed, platting (PPL). Environmental Review: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the rezoning petition to address environmental concerns. The property had been historically developed and maintained clear of native vegetation. The property currently contains the hotel with accessory uses. The PUD Master Plan does not show a preserve, since no minimum preservation is required. There were no observed listed species on the property. 9.A.6.a Packet Pg. 620 Attachment: Staff Rept Final Vanderbilt Beach 2.3.2020 (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) PUDZ-PL20180002793; Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD Page 10 of 18 Revised: February 3, 2020 Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff finds this petition consistent with the GMP, and further recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of approval. Landscape Review: The applicant is requesting two landscape deviations as part of this application. Please see the Deviation Discussion section below. School District: A school district review is not applicable. Utilities Review: The Public Utilities Division finds that the Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist PUD site has already been developed with potable water and wastewater services from the CCWSD and there is adequate treatment capacity. Zoning Services Review: Zoning Division staff has evaluated the proposed uses related to their intensity and reviewed the proposed development standards for the project. The Zoning Division also evaluated the location and orientation of the existing uses for PUD rezone project. The project site area remains unchanged at 0.622 acres. The applicant has stated that the existing site will remain unchanged as they are seeking to remove or eliminate an existing nonconforming status for the hotel use structure. The proposed PUD will front along two roads, Gulf Shore and South Bay. The applicant is seeking deviations for the existing conditions at the site, including number of parking spaces, backing vehicles onto a right-of-way, and existing buffer conditions. The requested deviations are detailed later in the staff report. The applicant intends to use the site as it currently exists and to continue the hotel business, but they are seeking to remove the nonconformity. The intensity of the proposed PUD rezone will not increase the intensity of the hotel use. However, the applicant has proposed to allow all other C-3 uses at the site. The maximum total area for other allowable C-3 uses is limited to 7,000 square feet at the site. The proposed maximum area of C-3 uses is reasonable. With respect to the remainder of the Development Standards, the proposed standards are somewhat appropriate based on the existing and proposed uses in the C-3 zone district. However, the zoned height is 50 feet and the actual height is listed at 70 feet. The zoned height at 50 feet is acceptable for two or three stories for a hotel use. Since the development standards do not list a maximum number of stories, 70 feet actual height is not keeping with the scale of the surrounding structures. The Deviation Discussion is covered below, and it clarifies that Deviation 1 and Deviation 3 should be linked, such that redevelopment of the site would eliminate both deviations. Specifically, both deviations address practical difficulties related to nonconformity of existing conditions at the site. If the site is redeveloped in accordance with the definition provided in Deviation 1, the need for both Deviation 1 and 3 is eliminated. PUD FINDINGS: LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5 states that “In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan’s compliance with the following criteria in addition to the findings in LDC Section 10.02.08”: (Zoning Division staff responses in non-bold). 9.A.6.a Packet Pg. 621 Attachment: Staff Rept Final Vanderbilt Beach 2.3.2020 (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) PUDZ-PL20180002793; Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD Page 11 of 18 Revised: February 3, 2020 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. Zoning Division staff has reviewed the proposed rezoning request and finds the uses, and property development regulations are mostly compatible with the development projects approved in the area. The actual height for structures should be reduced to 60 feet. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, 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. Documents submitted with the application were reviewed by the County Attorney’s Office and demonstrate unified control. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Comprehensive Planning staff has reviewed the petition and analyzed it for consistency with goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP. They have found the proposed rezoning to be consistent with the GMP, if the companion amendment is approved. 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on the location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. The proposed PUD Document buffering, and screening standards have been reviewed the landscape review staff and the deviations for the buffers are acceptable. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. There is no deviation from the required usable open space as submitted. Compliance with approved standards would be demonstrated at the time of SDP. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of ensuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. Compliance with all other applicable concurrency management regulations is required, including but not limited to, plat plans or site development plans. The Public Utilities Division states that Collier County has sufficient treatment capacity for water and wastewater services to the project. The Transportation Division states that the roadway infrastructure is adequate to serve the proposed project, as noted in the Transportation Element consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at time of first 9.A.6.a Packet Pg. 622 Attachment: Staff Rept Final Vanderbilt Beach 2.3.2020 (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) PUDZ-PL20180002793; Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD Page 12 of 18 Revised: February 3, 2020 development order (SDP), at which time a new TIS will be required to demonstrate turning movements for all site access points. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. All the surrounding area has been developed at some point in the past. There is adequate supporting infrastructure to accommodate this project, including Collier County Water- Sewer District potable water and wastewater mains. Adequate public facility requirements will be addressed when future development approvals are sought. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on a determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to the literal application of such regulations. There are deviations proposed for the requested PUD, which are detailed in the deviations section of the report. REZONE FINDINGS: LDC Subsection 10.02.08 F. states, “When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to 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 when applicable.” Zoning Division staff responses are in non-bold: 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and the elements of the GMP. Comprehensive Planning staff has determined the petition is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the FLUM and other elements of the GMP, if the companion small scale amendment is approved. 2. The existing land use pattern. The existing land use pattern related to surrounding properties is described in the Surrounding Land Use and Zoning section of this report. The proposed uses will not change the existing land use patterns in the area. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The property is zoned C-3 Commercial Intermediate. The application is to rezone to CPUD, which would not create an isolated district. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The existing district boundaries are logically drawn. The proposed CPUD boundaries are logical and appropriate. 9.A.6.a Packet Pg. 623 Attachment: Staff Rept Final Vanderbilt Beach 2.3.2020 (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) PUDZ-PL20180002793; Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD Page 13 of 18 Revised: February 3, 2020 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed change is not necessary. It is a request to rezone by the property owner. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The proposed change will not adversely influence living conditions within the neighborhood. 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. The Transportation Division states that the roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this time, i.e., GMP consistent at the time of rezoning as evaluated as part of the GMP Transportation Element consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at time of first development order (SDP or Plat). Additionally, the project’s development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. It is not anticipated that the rezone request to CPUD will create drainage problems in the area. Stormwater best management practices, treatment, and storage for this project will be addressed through Environmental Resource Permitting (ERP) with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). County environmental staff will evaluate the stormwater management system and design criteria at the time of SDP. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. If the hotel site, as existing, remains in place, the proposed rezone to CPUD is not likely to reduce light or air to adjacent areas. If approved with the recommended zoned height of 50 feet and the actual height at 60 feet, there may be future changes to the property that will reduce some light to adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent areas. Property value is affected by many factors. It is driven by market conditions and is generally a subjective determination. Zoning alone is not likely to adversely affect the property values. Generally, market conditions prevail. 9.A.6.a Packet Pg. 624 Attachment: Staff Rept Final Vanderbilt Beach 2.3.2020 (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) PUDZ-PL20180002793; Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD Page 14 of 18 Revised: February 3, 2020 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. Most of the adjacent property is already developed as commercial or residential uses. The approval of the rezone request from C-3 to CPUD is not likely to deter development activity of surrounding property. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare. If the proposed rezone to CPUD complies with the GMP (if companion amendment is approved) and is found consistent, then it is consistent with public policy and the change does not result in the granting of a special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is determined to be consistent with public welfare. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The subject property can be used in accordance with existing zoning; however, the applicant stated that the nonconforming status of the site and structures affects their ability to secure property insurance for portions of the site. The applicant finds the rezoning to be necessary. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County. The Zoning Division staff determination is the proposed uses are not out of scale with the needs of the community. 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. The application was reviewed and found compliant with the GMP (if the companion amendment is approved) and the LDC. The Zoning Division staff does not review other sites related to a specific petition. 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. The proposed uses are existing and there is no site alteration required to make the property usable. The development standards would be applied during any future SDP application process. 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 9.A.6.a Packet Pg. 625 Attachment: Staff Rept Final Vanderbilt Beach 2.3.2020 (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) PUDZ-PL20180002793; Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD Page 15 of 18 Revised: February 3, 2020 Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. The project must comply with the criteria set forth in LDC Section 6.02.00 regarding Adequate Public Facilities (APF) and must be consistent with applicable goals and objectives of the GMP related to adequate public facilities. The concurrency review for APF is determined at the time of SDP review. The activity proposed by this amendment will have no adverse impact on public utilities facility adequacy. This petition has been reviewed by Comprehensive Planning staff for consistency with the GMP, and they find it to be consistent, if the companion amendment application is approved. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. DEVIATION DISCUSSION: The petitioner is seeking five deviations from the requirements of the LDC. The petitioner’s rationale and staff analysis/recommendation are outlined below. Deviation #1 (Off-Street Parking) “Deviation #1 requests relief from LDC Section 4.05.02.F, which requires that all off-street parking facilities must be so arranged that no motor vehicle shall have to back onto any street, to instead allow the existing parking spaces along (and partially within) South Bay Drive to continue to back onto the right-of-way. In the event the site is redeveloped, the on-street parking along South Bay Drive shall be eliminated.” Petitioner’s Justification: South Bay Drive is a local, low-volume road. The proposed deviation will allow existing parking spaces to remain in place, even under redevelopment of the site. On-street parking exists throughout the neighborhood and there is on street parking within the South Bay Drive right of way opposite of the project. A condominium to the east of the project has assigned, on -street parking spots along South Bay Drive; furthermore, there are several parking lots in the surrounding area where off-street parking backs out onto internal drives. The use of on-street parking is recognized as a redevelopment tool in other areas of the county. Given the small size of the site, on-street parking makes the most sense in order to maximize the use of the site and maintain its redevelopment potential. Backing out onto low speed, low volume roads such as South Bay Drive is typical in urban areas in Collier County, and will not impact the health, safety and welfare of the general public. In the event the site is redeveloped, the on-street parking along South Bay Drive shall be eliminated. For the purposes of this deviation, redevelopment is defined as any voluntary reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other improvement of a structure(s) where the cost of such equals or exceeds fifty percent of the market value of the structure(s) before the start of the improvements/redevelopment. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: The deviation is reasonable and justifiable; Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation. However, please refer to Deviation 3 regarding Type D Buffer width and redevelopment of the site. 9.A.6.a Packet Pg. 626 Attachment: Staff Rept Final Vanderbilt Beach 2.3.2020 (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) PUDZ-PL20180002793; Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD Page 16 of 18 Revised: February 3, 2020 Deviation #2 (Buffer Width) “Deviation #2 requests relief from LDC Section 4.06.02, Table 2.4, which requires a 15 -foot- wide, Type B perimeter landscape buffer be provided to adjacent multi-family residential development to the north, to instead allow for a buffer width of 10 feet while still pro viding the required Type B buffer plantings and, as an enhancement, also requiring understory trees 8 feet in height at time of planting. Understory trees will be distributed between the required buffer canopy trees at a spacing not to exceed 25 feet on center, in order to maximize screening between these uses.” Petitioner’s Justification: The proposed buffer will consist of the LDC required Type B plantings enhanced with understory trees 8 feet in height at the time of planting, distributed between the required canopy trees at a spacing not to exceed 25 feet on center. The proposed buffering will provide further screening between uses and sufficient width to achieve the LDC stated purpose and intent of a perimeter landscape buffer. There is an existing, 5± foot wide mature landscape buffer located on the adjacent property to the north providing screening. The closest residential building to the north is setback approximately 98 feet from the property line, providing sufficient separation between residential and commercial development. Future redevelopment of the site will result in a combined buffer width of 15 feet. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: The deviation is reasonable and justifiable; staff sees no detrimental effect with this deviation. Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation. The Landscape Review Division recommends approval, and further states that a wall will be required at time of SDP as per LDC section 5.03.02.H.2.a, which also states that the required plantings are to be on the external side of the wall such that 50% of the wall is screened within 1 year of installation of the vegetative material. The 5’ reduction in width of the North buffer will still allow for the installation of the required wall and plantings. The Landscape Review Division finds that, in compliance with LDC section 10.02.13.A.3., the petitioner has demonstrated that “the element may be waived without detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community.” With respect to LDC section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the deviation is “justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations.” Deviation #3 (Buffer Type) “Deviation #3 requests relief from LDC Section 4.06.02, Table 2.4, which requires 10-foot-wide, Type D perimeter landscape buffer be provided to adjacent right-of-way to the south, to instead allow a 7-foot-wide, Type D buffer.” Petitioner’s Justification: The proposed buffer width will provide sufficient space to accommodate the required plantings without conflicting with adjacent uses and allowing healthy plant growth to provide visual screening to achieve the LDC stated purpose and intent of a perimeter landscape buffer. Given the small size of the site, the slightly reduced buffer width makes the most sense in order to maximize the use of the site and maintain its redevelopment potential. 9.A.6.a Packet Pg. 627 Attachment: Staff Rept Final Vanderbilt Beach 2.3.2020 (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) PUDZ-PL20180002793; Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD Page 17 of 18 Revised: February 3, 2020 Staff Analysis and Recommendation: The deviation is reasonable and justifiable; staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. However, Deviation 3 and Deviation 1 should be linked. Zoning and Landscape Staff recommend that the language for Deviation 3 should state that if the site is redeveloped, then Deviation 3 shall be eliminated. Regarding Deviation 3 related to the existing conditions, the Landscape Review Division Staff recommends approval, finding that, in compliance with LDC section 10.02.13.A.3., the petitioner has demonstrated that “the element may be waived without detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community” and LDC section 10.02.13.B.5.h the petitioner as demonstrated that the deviation is “justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations.” Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation. Deviation #4 (Parking Calculation) “Deviation #4 requests relief from LDC Section 4.05.04, Table 17, which establishes the minimum number of parking spaces required for commercial uses, to instead allow for parking to be calculated at 1 space per 4 seats for restaurants and 1 space per guestroom for hotels.” Petitioner’s Justification: The subject site is located within a tourist resort area that includes a mix of uses, including transient lodging, restaurants, retail shops, and high-rise condominiums. The site is across the street from the beach. CAT operates a “beach bus” during season that passes by the subject site. There are bike lanes on both sides of Gulf Shore Drive and a pedestrian walk on the west side of the roadway. Based on the mixed-use nature of this neighborhood; the proximity of the site to the beach; the availability of some on-street public parking; the small scale of the development; and access to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian activity, the requested parking reductions will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: The requested parking space deviation for the hotel use is is reasonable. With respect to the restaurant parking, the requested deviation is 1 space per 4 seats as opposed to 1 space per 2 seats. The reduction appears to be large at 50% fewer spaces, but the restaurant site has been operating for many years under existing conditions. The customers appear to find parking now and the requested parking deviation is reasonable and justifiable. Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation. Deviation #5 (Sidewalk and Buffer Width) “Deviation #5 requests relief from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.1, which requires sidewalks and bike lanes to be constructed within public and private rights-of-way or easements adjacent to the site, to instead allow the required sidewalk to be located along the north side of the parking spaces, interior to the site, or as otherwise may be approved as part of a comprehensive pedestrian plan for South Bay Drive.” Petitioner’s Justification: There is existing, off-street parking that backs out onto the right-of-way adjacent to Gulf Shore Drive, of which a portion is located on the subject property. If redeveloped, the master plan provides for an internal, 5-foot-wide sidewalk forward of the on-street parking. This configuration provides a safer space for pedestrian facilities, as the internal sidewalk moves pedestrians out of 9.A.6.a Packet Pg. 628 Attachment: Staff Rept Final Vanderbilt Beach 2.3.2020 (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) PUDZ-PL20180002793; Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD Page 18 of 18 Revised: February 3, 2020 the path of cars parking and the on-street parking provides separation between pedestrians and travel lanes. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: The deviation is reasonable and justifiable; Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The applicant conducted a NIM on August 1, 2019, 5:30 PM, at the Collier County Public Library Headquarters Sugden Theater at 2385 Orange Blossom Naples, FL. For further information, please see the NIM Summary information in the back-up material. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION: This project does not require Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as this project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney’s Office reviewed this staff report for content and legal sufficiency on February 4, 2020. RECOMMENDATION: Zoning Division staff recommends the CCPC forward petition PUDZ-PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist CPUD to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval, subject to reducing the actual zoned not to exceed height from 70 feet to 60 feet; and Deviation 1 and Deviation 3 should be linked, and Deviation 3 should include language that states that if the site is redeveloped, then Deviation 3 shall be eliminated. Attachments: A) Proposed Vanderbilt Commercial Tourist CPUD Ordinance B) Master Plan proposed C) Density Map Vanderbilt Commercial D) FLUE Consistency Memo Vanderbilt Commercial E) Back up material 9.A.6.a Packet Pg. 629 Attachment: Staff Rept Final Vanderbilt Beach 2.3.2020 (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) PREPARED BY: O, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DIVISION ZONING SERVICES SECTION REYIEWED BY: RAYMO V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER ZONING DIVISION _ZONING SERVICES SECTION APPROVED BY: JAMES FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT Z'i^Zozc DATE L 3-Lo DATE 2-/--a.raz DATE PUDZ-P120'1 80002793; Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist PUD 9.A.6.a Packet Pg. 630 Attachment: Staff Rept Final Vanderbilt Beach 2.3.2020 (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.b Packet Pg. 631 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 020720 (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.b Packet Pg. 632 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 020720 (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.b Packet Pg. 633 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 020720 (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.b Packet Pg. 634 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 020720 (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.b Packet Pg. 635 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 020720 (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.bPacket Pg. 636Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 020720 (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach 9.A.6.b Packet Pg. 637 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 020720 (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.b Packet Pg. 638 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 020720 (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.b Packet Pg. 639 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 020720 (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS950 Encore WayNaples, FL. 34110Phone: (239) 254-2000Florida Certificate ofAuthorization No.1772ZONING: RT-VBRTOLAND USE: HOTELS / CONDOMINIUMSZONING: C-3LAND USE: PARKING / VACANTCPUD MASTER PLANSCALE IN FEETZONING: RT-VBRTOLAND USE: CONDOMINIUMSZONING: C-3 LAND USE: MARINAEXISTING PARKINGVANDERBILT BEACHCOMMERCIAL TOURIST CPUDEXHIBIT C.117 SPACES1220' BUILDINGSETBACK7' TYPE "D"LS BUFFER10' TYPE "A' LSBUFFER10' TYPE "D"LS BUFFER10' BUILDINGSETBACK10' BUILDINGSETBACK10' BUILDINGSETBACK20' BUILDINGSETBACK10' TYPE "B" LSBUFFER345' SIDEWALK5NOTES:A)PROJECT SIZE: ±0.622 ACRES.B)OPEN SPACE: MINIMUM REQUIRED & PROVIDED (30%) = ±0.17 ACRES.C)THERE IS NO EXISTING NATIVE VEGETATION WITHIN THE CPUD. NOPRESERVE IS REQUIRED.DEVIATIONS:DEVIATION 1 REQUESTS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 4.05.02.F, WHICH REQUIRESTHAT ALL OFF-STREET PARKING FACILITIES MUST BE SO ARRANGED THAT NOMOTOR VEHICLE SHALL HAVE TO BACK ONTO ANY STREET, TO ALLOW THEEXISTING PARKING SPACES ALONG (AND PARTIALLY WITHIN) SOUTHBAY DRIVETO CONTINUE TO BACK ONTO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. IN THE EVENT THE SITE ISREDEVELOPED, THE ON-STREET PARKING ALONG SOUTHBAY DRIVE SHALL BEELIMINATED.DEVIATION 2 REQUESTS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 4.06.02, TABLE 2.4, WHICH REQUIRESA 15-FOOT-WIDE, TYPE B PERIMETER LANDSCAPE BUFFER BE PROVIDED TO ADJACENTMULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO THE NORTH, TO INSTEAD ALLOW FOR ABUFFER WIDTH OF 10 FEET WHILE STILL PROVIDING THE REQUIRED TYPE B BUFFERPLANTINGS AND, AS AN ENHANCEMENT, ALSO REQUIRING UNDERSTORY TREES 8 FEET INHEIGHT AT TIME OF PLANTING. UNDERSTORY TREES WILL BE DISTRIBUTED BETWEEN THEREQUIRED BUFFER CANOPY TREES AT A SPACING NOT TO EXCEED 25 FEET ON CENTER, INORDER TO MAXIMIZE SCREENING BETWEEN THESE USES.DEVIATION 3 REQUESTS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 4.06.02, TABLE 2.4, WHICHREQUIRES 10-FOOT-WIDE, TYPE D PERIMETER LANDSCAPE BUFFER BEPROVIDED TO ADJACENT RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE SOUTH, TO ALLOW A7-FOOT-WIDE, TYPE D BUFFER.DEVIATION 4 REQUESTS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 4.05.04, TABLE 17, WHICHESTABLISHES THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED FORCOMMERCIAL USES, TO ALLOW FOR PARKING TO BE CALCULATED AT 1 SPACEPER 4 SEATS FOR RESTAURANTS AND 1 SPACE PER GUESTROOM FOR HOTELS.DEVIATION 5 REQUESTS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 6.06.02.A.1, WHICH REQUIRESSIDEWALKS AND BIKE LANES TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN PUBLIC AND PRIVATERIGHTS-OF-WAY OR EASEMENTS ADJACENT TO THE SITE, TO ALLOW THE REQUIREDSIDEWALK TO BE LOCATED ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PARKING SPACES,INTERIOR TO THE SITE, OR AS OTHERWISE MAY BE APPROVED AS PART OF ACOMPREHENSIVE PEDESTRIAN PLAN FOR SOUTHBAY DRIVE. 1 - INDICATES DEVIATION # (TYPICAL)9.A.6.cPacket Pg. 640Attachment: Attachment B Master Plan proposed (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) PUD C-3 RSF-3 PUD RT-VBRTO RSF-3 /ST Gul f Shore DRVanderbilt Beach RD Map Date: 1/29/2020 Growth Management DepartmentOperations & RegulatoryManagement Division I 0 130 26065 Feet SUBJECT PROPERTY:VA NDERBILT INN COM MERCIA L CPUD GROSS DENSITY UNITS PER ACRE (UPA)VANDERBILT INN COMMERCIAL INN CPUD ANDSURROUNDING PROPERTIES (PL20180002793) Vande rbilt InnCommercial CPUD MiraliaDensity: 23.44 Pelic an BayDensity: 3.89 9.A.6.d Packet Pg. 641 Attachment: Attachment C Density Map Vanderbilt Commercial CPUD Density Map (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 1 of 3 Growth Management Department Zoning Division Comprehensive Planning Section MEMORANDUM To: James Sabo, AICP, Principal Planner Zoning Division, Zoning Services Section From: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section Date: December 18, 2019 Subject: Future Land Use Element Consistency Review PETITION NUMBER: PUDZ – PL20180002793 - REV 4 PETITION NAME: Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist CPUD Rezone REQUEST: The petitioner is requesting to rezone approximately ±0.622-acres from “C-3” to a CPUD Zoning District to allow hotel and motel uses and C-3 permitted uses and four specific conditional uses. Submittal 2 revised the PUD Document and Master Plan. Based on a Comp Planning review comment, Submittal 3 added a new section in Exhibit A, called ‘Intensity,’ to allow up to 17 hotel and motel rooms and up to 7,000 square feet of permitted and conditional uses - making the PUD consistent with the GMPA. Submittal 3 also limits use in Exhibit A, 1(a) to hotels and motels as requested by Comp Planning. Submittal 4 made the acreage consistent using .622 acres, revised deviation document landscape buffer language, added less restrictive language in Exhibit A uses, and added SIC codes to PUD document. Submittal 4 added a deviation to state that if the site should be redeveloped, the on- street parking along Southbay Drive shall be eliminated. LOCATION: The subject site is located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Gulf Shore Drive and Southbay Drive, in Section 32, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. The site partially abuts the Vanderbilt Channel (Lagoon). COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The ±0.622-acre subject site is designated on the Future Land Use Map as Urban, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict, is mostly within the Coastal High Hazard Area, and Map FLUE-9 shows the site as “Consistent by Policy” (improved property). The site is presently zoned C-3 and developed with a 17-unit hotel (allowed in C-4 and C-5 Zoning Districts) and an 80-seat restaurant and associated accessory uses. This petition will allow 17 hotel/motel units; all C-3 uses permitted by right, limited to 7,000 square feet total; and four specific Conditional Uses: Amusements and recreation services, outdoor; membership sports and recreational clubs indoor only; and permitted food service uses with more than 6,000 square feet of gross floor area in the principal structure; and permitted use with less than 700 square feet gross floor area in the principal structure. The four conditional uses listed are subject to the intensity statement limiting to a maximum of 7,000 square feet. 9.A.6.e Packet Pg. 642 Attachment: Attachment D FLUE Consistency Memo Vanderbilt Beach Com (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 2 of 3 The Future Land Use Element (FLUE) states the following: “The Urban Mixed Use District is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and non-residential land uses, including mixed-use developments such as Planned Unit Developments.” FLUE Policy 5.11 states, “Former Policy 3.1.k. of the Future Land Use Element provided for the establishment of a Zoning Reevaluation Program to evaluate properties whose zoning did not conform with the Future Land Use Designation Description Section of the Future Land Use Element. This Program was implemented through the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance No. 90-23. Where such properties were determined, through implementation of that Ordinance, to be “improved property”, as defined in that Ordinance, the zoning on said properties shall be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element and those properties have been identified on the Future Land Use Map Series as Properties Consistent by Policy.” FLUE Policy 5.3 states, “All rezonings must be consistent with this Growth Management Plan. For properties that are zoned inconsistent with the Future Land Use Designation Description Section but have nonetheless been determined to be consistent with the Future Land Use Element, as provided for in Policies 5.9 through 5.13, the following provisions apply: a. For such commercially-zoned properties, zoning changes will be allowed provided the new zoning district is the same or a lower intensity commercial zoning district as the existing zoning district and provided the overall intensity of commercial land use allowed by the existing zoning district, except as allowed by Policy 5.11, is not exceeded in the new zoning district. e. Overall intensity of development shall be determined based upon a comparison of public facility impacts as allowed by the existing zoning district and the proposed zoning district.” This petition is not consistent with FLUE Policy 5.3 as the hotel/motel uses are allowed in C-4 and C-5 zoning districts, which are higher intensity zoning districts. However, there is a companion small-scale GMP amendment petition to create the Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict to allow the uses requested in this CPUD and more. This request for the rezone to CPUD zoning district cannot be consistent with the GMP until such time as the small-scale GMPA is approved and in effect. CCME Policy 12.2.5 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) defines the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA). “The County shall consider the CHHA as a geographical area lying below the elevation of the Category 1 storm surge line as presently defined in the 2011 Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council’s Hurricane Evacuation Study, or subsequently authorized storm surge or evacuation planning studies coordinated by the Collier County Bureau of Emergency Services and approved by the Board of County Commissioners.” The CHHA Overlay in the FLUE states, in part, “The CHHA boundary is generally depicted on the Future Land Use Map and is more precisely shown in the Future Land Use Map series; all lands lying seaward of that boundary are within the CHHA. The Capital Improvement Element and Conservation and Coastal Management Element both contain policies pertaining to the expenditure of public funds for public facilities within the CHHA.” Select FLUE Policies are given below, followed with [bracketed staff analysis]. FLUE Policy 5.6 states: “New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004, as amended).” [Comprehensive Planning staff leaves this determination to Zoning Services staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. However, staff notes that in reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses and intensities on the subject site, consider the PUD proposes commercial uses permitted by right and limited to specifically-named conditional uses in the C-3, Commercial Intermediate, zoning district. 9.A.6.e Packet Pg. 643 Attachment: Attachment D FLUE Consistency Memo Vanderbilt Beach Com (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 3 of 3 The compatibility analysis is encouraged to be comprehensive and include a review of both the subject property and surrounding or nearby properties regarding allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location and orientation, architectural features, amount and type of open space and location, traffic generation/attraction, etc.] FLUE Policy 7.1 states: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. [Exhibit ‘C.1’ CPUD Master Plan (Existing Conditions) shows one ingress/egress access on Gulf Shore Drive, a minor collector road as identified in the Transportation Element.] FLUE Policy 7.2 states: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. [Exhibit ‘C.1’, CPUD Master Plan (Existing Conditions), does not show any circulation throughout the project. The entire project site is only ±0.622 acres and uses the parking areas to move about.] FLUE Policy 7.3 states: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and/or interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. The interconnection of local streets between developments is also addressed in Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element. [Exhibit ‘C.1’, CPUD Master Plan, does not show any interconnections with the adjoining development to the north (Condominiums in a RT-VBRTO zoning overlay). Staff does not think it is feasible or beneficial to retrofit this development to the north to accommodate an interconnection. Gulf Shore Drive abuts the project site to the west and Southbay Drive abuts the project site to the south. Vanderbilt Chanel/Lagoon and an undeveloped parcel zoned C-3 abuts the project site to the east. Staff does not think an interconnection to the C-3 parcel is feasible or beneficial.] FLUE Policy 7.4 states: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. [The applicant is requesting a sidewalk deviation to allow the required sidewalk be located along the north side of the parking spaces – interior to the site. Open space must be provided per the LDC. No residential development is being requested, therefore, various types of housing and prices and blend of densities are not applicable. Civic facilities are allowed as a permitted use (C-3 zoning district).] CONCLUSION This rezone petition may only be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan if the companion SSGMPA (PL20190000454) is approved and goes into effect and the uses and intensities in this PUD align with those in the GMPA. The CPUD ordinance needs to provide for an effective date linked to the SSGMPA effective date. Informational Comment: This PUD rezone may only be deemed consistent contingent upon the companion GMP amendment petition being adopted and in effect. Informational Comment: The CPUD rezone ordinance effective date must be linked to the effective date of the companion GMPA petition. PETITION ON CITYVIEW cc: David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section Raymond V. Bellows, Manager, Zoning Division, Zoning Services Section PUDZ-PL2018-2793Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist R4.docx 9.A.6.e Packet Pg. 644 Attachment: Attachment D FLUE Consistency Memo Vanderbilt Beach Com (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 645Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 646Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 647Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 648Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 649Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 650Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 651Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 652Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 653Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 654Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 655Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 656Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 657Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 658Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 659Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 660Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 661Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 662Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 663Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 664Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 665Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 666Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 667Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 668Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 669Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 670Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 671Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 672Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 673Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 674Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 675Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 676Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 677Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 678Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 679Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.f Packet Pg. 680 Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 681Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 682Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 683Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 684Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 685Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 686Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 687Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 688Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 689Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 690Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 691Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 692Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 693Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 694Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 695Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 696Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 697Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 698Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 699Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 700Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 701Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 702Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 703Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 704Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 705Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 706Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 707Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 708Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.f Packet Pg. 709 Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 710Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 711Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 712Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 713Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 714Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 715Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 716Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 717Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 718Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 719Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 720Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 721Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 722Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 723Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 724Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 725Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 726Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 727Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 728Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 729Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 730Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 731Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.f Packet Pg. 732 Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach 9.A.6.f Packet Pg. 733 Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 734Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 735Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 736Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 737Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.f Packet Pg. 738 Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach 9.A.6.f Packet Pg. 739 Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 740Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 741Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 742Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 743Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 744Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 745Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 746Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 747Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 748Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 749Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 750Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.fPacket Pg. 751Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) 9.A.6.f Packet Pg. 752 Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach 9.A.6.f Packet Pg. 753 Attachment: Attachment E Back up materials (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach 9.A.6.g Packet Pg. 754 Attachment: PL20180002793 LIDAR (11524 : 9.A.6-PUDZ PL20180002793 Vanderbilt Beach Comm Tourist CPUD) COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SMALL SCALE AMENDMENT PL20180002792/CP S S-2019-3 ject o 1i Location Southbay DR le_ t��Srrgo rbllt:ee (ADOPTION HEARINGS) PROJECT COMPANION:PL20180002793 CCPC: FEBRUARY 20, 2020 BCC: MARCH 24, 2020 Clerks Office TABLE OF CONTENTS CCPC — SMALL SCALE GMP AMENDMENT ADOPTION HEARING CCPC February 20, 2020 1) TAB: Adoption Staff Report DOCUMENTS: Staff Report: 2) TAB: Adoption Ordinance DOCUMENTS: Adoption Ordinance with Exhibit "A" text (and/or maps): 3) TAB: Project PL20180002792/ DOCUMENT: Petition/Application Petition CPSS-2019-3 4) TAB: Legal Advertisement DOCUMENT: CCPC Advertisement 5) TAB: Correspondence DOCUMENT: Email Co e-r Cou-nty STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT/ZONING DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION HEARING DATE: February 20, 2020 RE: PETITION CPSS-2019-03/PL20180002792, SMALL SCALE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT (Companion to PUDZ- PL20180002793) [ADOPTION HEARING] ELEMENT: FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT (FLUE) AGENT/APPLICANT/OWNER(S): Agents: Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, Vice President Holes Montes, Inc. 950 Encore Way Naples, FL 34108 Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire Coleman, Yovanovich, &Koester, P.A. 4001 Tamiami Trail North Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 Applicant/Owners Kevin Dugan Dugan's Lighthouse Inn, LLC &Buzz's Lighthouse, LLC 9140 Gulf Shore Drive Naples, FL 34108 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property comprises ±0.622-acres and is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Gulf Shore Drive and Southbay Drive, in Section 32, Township 48 South, Range 25 East (North Naples Planning Community). Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive•Naples,FL 34104•239-252-2400 Page 1 of 10 .. 1 Proposed 3 1 ,-;,- I k 1 rrtSubiect Site 1 wII lir Soulhbal•DR1 ' `!s - r • • 1 4 ! .r.. O _ t.. .„,.1 4 y n ! h ! fit II ► 4i -•- J .7.4.." ,d r Coafar BT 1 • VPadarpal 4 /1 4 • 1 Both RD _ t 2fi- 1 VgnHPrb"' •. Co.=Coln t Y Pro.onl•A CTt3'.1 Nap Ks r r I _ Z a._.. — o4 411 X14 al. REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes a small-scale Comprehensive Plan amendment to the Future Lane Use Element (FLUE), specifically to create a new subdistrict, Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict, within the Urban Designation, Urban — Commercial District. The applicant also proposes to amend the countywide Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and create a new map ("Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict")in the FLUM series of the FLUE,to identify the newly created Subdistrict. The proposed amended Subdistrict text is as follows: (Single underline text is added, single strike-through text is deleted, and is also reflected in the Ordinance Exhibit A). FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION SECTION *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** — Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive•Naples, FL 34104•239-252-2400 Page 2 of 10 I. URBAN DESIGNATION *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** C. Urban Commercial District *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** 14. Seed to Table Commercial Subdistrict *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** 15. Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict The Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Gulf Shore Drive and Southbay Drive,in Section 32,Township 48 South, Range 25 East. The Subdistrict is ±0.622 acres in size. The purpose of the Subdistrict is to allow commercial uses as identified below. a. Allowable uses are limited to: 1. Hotels and motels, limited to 17 rooms; and 2. Permitted and conditional uses set forth in the C-3, Commercial Intermediate, zoning district in the Land Development Code,not to exceed 7,000 square feet. b. Rezoning is encouraged to be in the form of a PUD, Planned Unit Development, zoning district. PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The purpose of this Growth Management Plan Amendment is to create text and a map for a new subdistrict, Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict. The subdistrict will establish hotel /motel uses (limited to 17 rooms) and permitted and conditional uses set forth in the C-3, Commercial Intermediate Zoning District(not to exceed 7,000 square feet)as allowable uses. The hotel has been a long-standing existing use on the site; however, the hotel is a non-conforming use. The creation of the subdistrict along with the accompanying rezoning from C-3, Commercial Intermediate,to a Commercial Planned Unit Development,will allow the hotel use to remain or to be redeveloped and will retain all uses presently allowed by the existing C-3 zoning on the site. SURROUNDING LAND USE,ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION: Subiect Property: The current existing land uses on the subject site are a 17-room hotel and an 80-seat restaurant (Buzz/s Lighthouse Inn and Restaurant)with a hotel office,storage area,parking lot and swimming pool. Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive•Naples,FL 34104•239-252-2400 Page 3 of 10 The subject site is located within a tourist resort area that includes a mix of uses including transient lodging, restaurants, retail shops, and high-rise condominiums. The site is across the street from the beach and one block north of a public parking garage. Collier Area Transit (CAT) operates a "beach bus"during season that passes by the subject site. The subject site is zoned Commercial Intermediate Zoning District (C-3), allowing a variety of goods and services,with an increase in the intensity from the uses in Commercial Professional and General Office Zoning District(C-1) and Commercial Convenience Zoning District(C-2). The+0.622-acre subject site is designated on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) as Urban, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict and is within the Coastal High Hazard Area(CHHA). The Future Land Use designation of Urban Mixed Use District is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and non-residential land uses, including mixed-use developments such as Planned Unit Developments. The CHHA boundary is generally depicted on the Future Land Use Map and is more precisely shown in the Future Land Use Map series; all lands lying seaward of that boundary are within the CHHA.New rezones to permit mobile home development shall not be allowed within the CHHA. The Capital Improvement Element and Conservation and Coastal Management Element both contain policies pertaining to the expenditure of public funds for public facilities within the CHHA. Surrounding Land Uses: North: Immediately to the north(adjoining the existing parking for the Lighthouse Inn (hotel) and Buzz's Lighthouse Restaurant) are current existing land uses of tennis courts and parking for the Vanderbilt Beach Motel Condos,and Vanderbilt Beach&Harbour Club Condos. North of the subject site it is zoned Residential Tourist District - Vanderbilt Beach Residential Tourist Overlay District (RT-VBRTO). The FLUE designates the land to the north of the subject site as Urban, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict and within the CHHA. East: Immediately adjacent to the east lies the current existing land uses for a commercial marina (South Bay Marina), Vanderbilt Channel, and beyond the marina are existing residential condos. East of the subject site it is zoned C-3, Commercial Intermediate Zoning District. The FLUE designates this area to the east of the subject site as Urban, Urban Mixed Use District,Urban Residential Subdistrict and within the CHHA. South: Immediately adjacent to the south(across South Bay Drive) are currently existing land uses for vacant commercial lots, the Beach Box Restaurant and Gulfview Condo. Beyond these uses lies Vanderbilt Beach Road. South of the subject site it is zoned C- 3, Commercial Intermediate Zoning District. The FLUE designates this area to the south of the subject site as Urban, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict and within the CHHA. West: Immediately adjacent to the west(across Gulf Shore Drive) are currently existing land uses for the Vanderbilt Beach Resort, Turtle Club Restaurant, the Phoenician Sands Condos,and further to the west of these uses is the Gulf of Mexico. West of the subject Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive• Naples, FL 34104•239-252-2400 Page 4 of 10 site it is zoned RT-VBRTO. The FLUE designates this area to the west as Urban, Urban Mixed Use District,Urban Residential Subdistrict and within the CHHA. STAFF ANALYSIS: Background and Considerations: The subject site was platted in January 1954 (66 years ago). The site has been operated by the Dugan family with the present mix of uses (hotel and restaurant) for more than 40 years. The applicant is proposing a GMP amendment to allow for the creation of a new subdistrict that will allow a hotel/motel use (limited to 17 rooms) and a variety of C-3 Zoning District permitted and conditional uses. Per LDC Sec. 9.03.02, if a nonconforming use ceases to operate for any reason for a period of more than one year, any subsequent use must conform to the regulations for the zoning district in which it is located. The effect of the nonconforming use status is that if the hotel use is ceased for any reason, including removal or destruction by natural causes, any future use must conform to those permitted by the C-3 zoning district. The nonconforming status of the hotel use also impacts the owner's ability to adequately and reasonably insure the structure(s) and the business operations in the event of accidental destruction or natural disaster. The objective of the Small-scale Growth Management Plan Amendment (SSGMPA) and companion PUD rezone is to allow the 17-room hotel as a permitted use by right (along with the currently permitted C-3 uses up to a maximum of 7,000 square feet), and to allow certain conditional C-3 uses through the established conditional use process). The PUD establishes development standards and deviations in order to facilitate redevelopment of the site with existing intensities. These site-specific development standards are particularly important given the relatively small size of the subject site. The subject site consists of±0.622-acres and is comprised of four tax parcels: the northern most parcel (# 79120080009) is a parking lot for Buzz's Restaurant and Inn and the restaurant (maximum of 80-seats); the parcel (# 79120120008) directly south of this is the Lighthouse Inn; the parcel located at the corner of Gulf Shore Drive and South Bay Drive (# 79120160000) is the motel pool; and the parcel to the east of the pool(# 79120200009) is the motel office and storage. This GMPA amendment has a companion zoning petition(PL20190002793)to rezone the subject site from C-3 Commercial Intermediate Zoning District to a Planned Unit Development. The GMPA encourages new subdistricts to also create a PUD. Compatibility: Given the mixed-use nature of this neighborhood; the proximity of the site to the beach; the availability of significant public parking; and access to transit,bicycle, and pedestrian activity,the requested small boutique hotel, restaurant, and other permitted C-3 uses are appropriate. (Conditional uses in the C-3 district may be appropriate and will be determined on a case-by-case basis). The surrounding area already includes other restaurant uses and seasonal condominiums used for transient lodging. Compatibility can be more specifically addressed with the zoning petition,and Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive•Naples,FL 34104.239-252-2400 Page 5 of 10 may include building height and size limitations, setback and buffer requirements, etc. The applicant is not asking for any increase in the intensity of the existing uses. In staff's opinion, because the proposed uses of this subdistrict have already existed for 40 years and has created very little impact on the surrounding area, it appears to co-exist well with all the neighboring uses. Justifications for Proposed Amendment: Although the site has operated for many years at this location, it is a non-conforming use as the C- 3 zoning does not allow for hotels as a permitted or conditional use. The effect of the nonconforming use status is that if the use is ceased for any reason, or the structure is removed or destroyed by natural causes, any future uses must then conform to the C-3 zoning district. This nonconformity also impacts the owner's ability to adequate and reasonably insure the structure(s) and the business operations in the event of accidental destruction or natural disaster. The Objective of the SSGMPA is to allow the hotel and C-3 uses as allowable uses (site is presently zoned C-3). Given the mixed-use nature of this neighborhood, which includes transient lodging, restaurants and retail shops, and high-rise condominiums; and the site's proximity to the beach, availability of significant public parking, and the surrounding area's high pedestrian and bicycle activity, the small boutique hotel, restaurant, other permitted C-3 uses are appropriate (and conditional uses in the C-3 district may be appropriate as determined on a case-by- case basis). Identification and Analysis of the Pertinent Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment Criteria in Florida Statutes Chapter 163.3187: Process for adoption of small scale comprehensive plan amendment. (1) A small scale development amendment may be adopted under the following conditions: (a) The proposed amendment involves a use of 10 acres or fewer. [The subject site comprises ±0.622 acres.] (b) The cumulative annual effect of the acreage for all small scale development amendments adopted by the local government does not exceed a maximum of 120 acres in a calendar year. [No small scale GMP amendments have been approved in calendar year 2020.] (c) The proposed amendment does not involve a text change to the goals, policies, and objectives of the local government's comprehensive plan,but only proposes a land use change to the future land use map for a site-specific small-scale development activity. However, text changes that relate directly to, and are adopted simultaneously with,the small-scale future land use map amendment shall be permissible under this section. [This amendment does include a text change to the Comprehensive Plan and those text changes are directly related to the proposed future land use map amendment.] (d) The property that is the subject of the proposed amendment is not located within an area of critical state concern, unless the project subject to the proposed amendment involves the construction of affordable housing units meeting the criteria of s. 420.0004(3), and is located Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive• Naples, FL 34104•239-252-2400 Page 6 of 10 within an area of critical state concern designated by s. 380.0552 or by the Administration Commission pursuant to s. 380.05(1). [The subject property is not located within an Area of Critical State Concern.] (2) Small scale development amendments adopted pursuant to this section require only one public hearing before the governing board, which shall be an adoption hearing as described in s. 163.3184(11). [This project will be heard with only one public adoption hearing.] (3) If the small scale development amendment involves a site within a rural area of opportunity as defined under s. 288.0656(2)(d) for the duration of such designation,the 10-acre limit listed in subsection(1)shall be increased by 100 percent to 20 acres.The local government approving the small scale plan amendment shall certify to the state land planning agency that the plan amendment furthers the economic objectives set forth in the executive order issued under s. 288.0656(7), and the property subject to the plan amendment shall undergo public review to ensure that all concurrency requirements and federal, state, and local environmental permit requirements are met. [This amendment does not involve a site within a rural area of opportunity.] (4) Comprehensive plans may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan pursuant to s. 163.3177. Corrections, updates, or modifications of current costs which were set out as part of the comprehensive plan shall not, for the purposes of this act,be deemed to be amendments. [This amendment preserves the internal consistency of the plan and is not a correction, update, or modification of current costs which were set out as part of the comprehensive plan.] Environmental Impacts and Historical and Archaeological Impacts: Craig Brown, Senior Environmental Specialist with Collier County Environmental Planning Section, completed his review and approved this petition in May 2019. He provided the following comments: "The Small-Scale Growth Management Plan Amendment (SSGMPA) is to create Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Sub-district. The property is 0.62 Acres. The proposed changes do not impact sensitive environmental habitat or change environmental FLUM policies." Public Facilities Impacts: Eric Fey, Senior Project Manager with Collier County Public Utilities Engineering & Project Management Division, stated in his review dated May 2019, "This petition proposes no increase in density or changes in permitted uses, and would, therefore, have no impact on public utility facilities adequacy." Transportation Impacts: Michael Sawyer, Project Manager with Collier County Transportation Planning, completed his review and approved this petition, without any conditions, in May 2019. Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive• Naples,FL 34104•239-252-2400 Page 7 of 10 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING(NIM) SYNOPSIS: A Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM), as required by Land Development Code (LDC) Section 10.03.05 A, was duly advertised, noticed, and held on August 1, 2019, 5:30 p.m. at the Collier County Public Library Headquarters, Sugden Theater, 2385 Orange Blossom Drive, Naples, FL 34109. This NIM was advertised, noticed, and held jointly for this small scale GMP amendment and the companion Planned Unit Development Rezone (PUDZ)petition. The applicant's team gave a presentation and then responded to questions. See applicant's NIM notes included in the companion PUDZ packet.A total of approximately 15 members of the public along with approximately 4 members of the applicant's team and County staff signed in at the NIM. The consultant explained that there were two separate applications: a small-scale amendment for the Growth Management Plan (creation of a new subdistrict) and a zoning action for a Planned Unit Development Rezone (rezone a new PUD). The public asked questions about the project details,especially about intensity increases, such as will this become a high-rise hotel in the future, is this petition just opening the door for future growth.The applicant's agent stated that this petition was not to permit the existing commercial intensities to increase, so therefore, there will be no change in the existing level of traffic generated with the approval of this petition. The meeting ended at approximately 6:15 p.m. [synopsis prepared by Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section] '1 PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED BY STAFF: Comprehensive Planning staff received one email correspondence of objection/concern, dated August 22, 2019, from Jay Halloran, a seasonal resident, who had been unable to attend the NIM. See the email included in this GMPA packet. FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS: • The reason for this GMPA and companion PUDZ zoning petition is to allow and permit, respectively, the hotel/motel use that is a longstanding (40+years) non-conforming use in the existing C-3 zoning district. • There are no adverse environmental impacts as a result of this petition. • No historic or archaeological sites are affected by this amendment. • There are no transportation or utility-related concerns as a result of this petition. • The site's uses (existing as well as permitted by existing zoning) will remain unchanged; therefore,the use intensity will remain the same. • The use is generally compatible with surrounding development based upon the high-level review conducted for a GMP amendment and has co-existed with surrounding development for many, many years. Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive• Naples, FL 34104•239-252-2400 Page 8 of 10 LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This Staff Report was reviewed by the County Attorney's Office on January 30, 2020. The criteria for GMP amendments to the Future Land Use Element are in Sections 163.3177(1)(f) and 163.3177(6)(a)2, Florida Statutes. The criteria for changes to the Future Land Use Map is in Section 163.3177(6)(a)8, Florida Statutes [HFACJ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PL20180002792/CPSS-2019-3 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to approve (adopt) and transmit to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. [REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK] Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive•Naples,FL 34104•239-252-2400 Page 9 of 10 PREPARED BY: 62Pct.t-azA,J—' DATE: Ge)-,-1:),X) SUE FAULKNER, PRINCIPAL PLANNER COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION, ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: D-4) 3/9- DATE: DAVID WEEKS,AICP, GROWTH MANAGEMENT MANAGER COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION,ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: DATE: /—,3/- .24�e) ES FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION Petition Number: PL20180002792/CPS 5-2019-3 Staff Report for February 20, 2020 CPCC meeting NOTE: This petition has been tentatively scheduled for the March 24, 2020 BCC meeting. L Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive•Naples, FL 34104•239-252-2400 Page 10 of 10 ORDINANCE NO. 20 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 89-05, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES BY AMENDING THE URBAN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TO ADD THE VANDERBILT BEACH COMMERCIAL TOURIST SUBDISTRICT TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 17 HOTEL AND MOTEL UNITS AND 7,000 SQUARE FEET OF C-3, COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL USES. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF GULF SHORE DRIVE AND SOUTHBAY DRIVE IN SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, CONSISTING OF .62± ACRES; AND FURTHERMORE, DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTED AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PL20180002792] WHEREAS, Collier County, pursuant to Section 163.3161, et. seq., Florida Statutes, the Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, was required to prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners adopted the Collier County Growth Management Plan on January 10, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Community Planning Act of 2011 provides authority for local governments to amend their respective comprehensive plans and outlines certain procedures to amend adopted comprehensive plans; and WHEREAS, Dugan Lighthouse Inn, LLC and Buzz's Lighthouse Properties, LLC requested an amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series to create the Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Subsection 163.3187(1), Florida Statutes, this amendment is considered a Small Scale Amendment; and WHEREAS, the Subdistrict property is not located in an area of critical state concern or an area of critical economic concern; and [19-CMP-01052/1518266/1122 Vanderbilt Beach/PL20180002792 Page 1 of 3 1/16/20 Words underlined are added,words struck through have been deleted. WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) on February 20, 2020 considered the proposed amendment to the Growth Management Plan and recommended approval of said amendment to the Board of County Commissioners; and WHEREAS,the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County did take action in the manner prescribed by law and held public hearings concerning the proposed adoption of the amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series of the Growth Management Plan on ; and WHEREAS, all applicable substantive and procedural requirements of law have been met. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,that: SECTION ONE: ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN The Board of County Commissioners hereby adopts this small-scale amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series in accordance with Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. The text and map amendment are attached hereto as Exhibit"A" and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION TWO: SEVERABILITY. If any phrase or portion of this Ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion. SECTION THREE: EFFECTIVE DATE. The effective date of this plan amendment, if the amendment is not timely challenged, shall be 31 days after the state land planning agency notifies the local government that the plan amendment package is complete. If timely challenged, this amendment shall become effective on the date the state land planning agency or the Administration Commission enters a final order determining this adopted amendment to be in compliance. No development orders, development permits, or land uses dependent on this amendment may be issued or commence before it has become effective. If a final order of noncompliance is issued by the Administration Commission, this amendment may nevertheless be made effective by adoption of a resolution affirming its effective status, a copy of which resolution shall be sent to the state land planning agency. [19-CMP-01052/1518266/1]22 Page 2 of 3 Vanderbilt Beach/PL20180002792 1/16/20 Words underlined are added,words sterol eta have been deleted. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida this day of , 2020. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: Deputy Clerk Burt L. Saunders, Chairman Approved as to form and legality: Heidi Ashton-Cicko \� Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A—Proposed Text Amendment & Map Amendment [19-CMP-01052/1518266/1]22 Page 3 of 3 Vanderbilt Beach/PL20180002792 1/16/20 Words underlined are added,words stfuelEAr-ough have been deleted. PL20180002792/CPSS19-3 EXHIBIT A FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** TABLE OF CONTENTS *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** II. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES (Page vi) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** * Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict Map * East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map* *Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** --. Policy 1.5: The URBAN Future Land Use Designation shall include Future Land Use Districts and Subdistricts for: *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** C. URBAN—COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (Page 10) 1. Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict 2. Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict 3. Livingston/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict *** *** *** ***text break*** *** *** *** *** 13. .East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict 14. Seed to Table Commercial Subdistrict 15. Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** Words underlined are added;words struck-throes are deletions Page 1 of 5 PL20180002792/CPSS19-3 FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION SECTION *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** I. URBAN DESIGNATION *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** b. Non-residential uses including: (Page 26) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** 12. Commercial uses subject to criteria identified in the Urban-Mixed Use District, PUD Neighborhood Village Center Subdistrict, Office and Infill Commercial Subdistrict, Residential Mixed Use Neighborhood Subdistrict, Orange Blossom Mixed-Use Subdistrict, Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict, Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict, Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict, Goodlette/Pine Ridge Mixed Use Subdistrict, Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict, Livingston/Radio Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict, Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict, Vincentian Mixed Use Subdistrict, Davis—Radio Commercial Subdistrict; and, in the Urban Commercial District, Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict, Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict,Livingston/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict,Livingston Road/Eatonwood Lane Commercial Infill Subdistrict, Livingston Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict, Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict,Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard Commercial Infill Subdistrict, Orange Blossom/Airport Crossroads Commercial Subdistrict, Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict, East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict, Seed to Table Commercial Subdistrict,Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict,in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay; and,as allowed by certain FLUE policies. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION SECTION *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** I. URBAN DESIGNATION *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** C. Urban Commercial District (Page 69) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** 14. Seed to Table Commercial Subdistrict Words underlined are added;words struck are deletions Page 2 of 5 PL20180002792/CPSS19-3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** 15. Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict The Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Gulf Shore Drive and Southbay Drive,in Section 32,Township 48 South,Range 25 East. The Subdistrict is±0.622 acres in size. The purpose of the Subdistrict is to allow commercial uses as identified below. a. Allowable uses are limited to: 1. Hotels and motels, limited to 17 rooms; and 2. Permitted and conditional uses set forth in the C-3,Commercial Intermediate,zoning district in the Land Development Code,not to exceed 7,000 square feet. b. Rezoning is encouraged to be in the form of a PUD,Plaznned Unit Development,zoning_ district. FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES (Page 148) Future Land Use Map _ Activity Center Index Map Mixed Use& Interchange Activity Center Maps *** *** *** *** text break*** *** *** *** *** Seed to Table Commercial Subdistrict Map Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict Map Words underlined are added;words stwek-t#rough are deletions Page 3 of 5 EXHIBIT A PL20 I 80002792!CPSS-2019-3 VANDERBILT BEACH COMMERCIAL 6ttP► TOURIST SUBDISTRICT ('(1I TIER COUNTY. FLORIDA 1.. Oak AVE C) N SUBJECT SITE 73 • �� •uthbay DR �- I 'r r Center $I_ bilt ch .. D ander Bea n C3 73 ADOPTED-XXXX.XXX LEGEND (ORD.NO.XXX-XX) 0 100 200 400 Feet Vanderbilt Beach Commercial I I I l I t l I I % Tourist Subdistrict Page 4 of 5 T46S I T47S I T483 I T493 1 T50S I T51S I T52S I T53S 0 is k,',...,-;.:i - e P. a .ciRe.&d i1�i�i id� «.�� '� W r �y�y z 6 E ! a � R. s i 2 i # n s s R R R t '-- § Iii ¢ # f ' Wiz' I I $ I i3 3 Pf 1 t - s g - : £ i - = _R RR o�Rd„ _ — it I ill I i ge I ! Ili I H i! 1 1 ffi ; . ,1 1 I i ! W i- ;Wi is wg WS$ w�lguRi t.ii i R�RiR Yo'M17 �D ISI I `�IIL 4 i i % s - - ; s a i-s-s2 s:s si8€'R,gt-�d °€s8zoz''2'q.?oz° . .�C®I—®a • • gaaagaaaobgoeoaoa & � a8$ s°ate W 1 dz.,z 6z gtalt y. i s W C C I— i s III — Lu a i ! 1 " i! !! 11 i w I111II141_ 111111 Yz w cr °` 1 iii es sq t , ! 11$i l l i ai 1I 1I aI!1 II i e€ 3f_1 i i i Ilii li II li li i s 1 1111 ±J 1 ; W 1_• ®I �I111111 ®IIIIIIr - W es es C ... _ .—... C i ri / ,{ m 2 W S W x W h � M E — a I 1 1 ° z, 2 w re" 7i al l Ci 01 CC CC ■ N i — IP ,,_. su i IV Cr w N c :in H ::::::___a . ropilomp ,.... mU W �� ....._ ,.• r: 1t1t!r, � ii m o - '111 "Th 111 ~ `6-,E ‘,,i,.. `�� '-imiL,„iiir.1 14,„ed. . _ t . if li W , 9y Ca a C D a u! �i:, C LL o < p<r M e `` o ea I T46S L T47S ___1_.____T48S___„ 1 T49S I T50S I T51S I T52S I T53S 1 Co er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 Pre-Application Meeting Notes Petition Type:Small-Scale GMPA Date and Time: 10-16-18 at 9:00 AM Assigned Planner: Sue Faulkner Engineering Manager (for PPL's and FP's): Project Information Project Name: Lighthouse Inn /Vanderbilt Gulf Shore Resort Subdistrict PL#: 20180002792 & Zoning Companion PL#20180002793 (PUDZ) Property ID#: 79120160000, 79120120008, 79120080009, 79120200009 Current Zoning: C-3 Project Address NE Corner of Gulf Shore Dr&Southbay Dr City: Naples State: FL Zip: Applicant: Kevin Dugan Agent Name: Bob Mulhere Phone: 239-254-2000 Agent/Firm Address: 950 Encore Way City: Naples State: FL Zip: 34110 Property Owner: Dugan Family—2 owners Please provide the following, if applicable: i. Total Acreage: 0.64 ii. Proposed #of Residential Units: 17 hotel units (15 existing) iii. Proposed Commercial Square Footage: 80 seat restaurant iv. For Amendments, indicate the original petition number: v. If there is an Ordinance or Resolution associated with this project, please indicate the type and number: vi. If the project is within a Plat, provide the name and AR#/PL#: Updated 7/24/2018 Page I 1 of 4 9rtY COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 Meeting Notes As of 10/16/2017 all Zoning applications have revised applications,and your associated Application is included in your notes; additionally a *new Property Ownership Disclosure Form is required for all applications.A copy of this new form is included in your pre-app Note—link is https://www.colliergov.net/Home/ShowDocument?id=75093. Purpose of GMPA is to: legitimize existing hotel use (site is zoned C-3 which does not permit hotel use, FLUM designation is Urban Residential Subdistrict and does not qualify for commercial zoning [consistent by policy]) and allow addition of 2 units to the existing 15 units (0.64 acs. x 26 hotel units/ac. = 16.64 17 units); add residential use at 12 DU/A (0.64 acs. x 12 DU/A = 7.68 --> 8 DUs) so as to allow mixed use; retain rights to develop some C-3 uses, including restaurant use (which presently exists — 80 seats). Address the addition of residential use in CHHA; confer with Dan Summers for any mitigation requirements. Though mixed use is presently allowed in C-3 by CU, the density is limited to 3 DU/A for this site (2 DUs). [Also, post pre-app review reveals that the CU limitations include 2-story height limit, residential use only allowed over commercial uses, prohibition of commercial & residential uses on the same floor, residential units limited to occupancy by owners or lessees of the commercial units below.] In narrative, include site development history and explanation of the net effect of this GMPA (what uses/densities/intensities being added vs. those allowed by existing FLUM designation and zoning). Because the net effect of the proposed changes are relatively minor, do not need to prepare typical needs analysis. Do still need to address statutory requirements for a GMPA but acknowledge many responses may be minimal or possibly not applicable. OK to provide in GMP text that parking standards will be addressed in the implementing zoning district for the subdistrict, and to require PUD zoning. The GMPA Pre-app Standard Comments doc will be provided; it includes explanation of GMPA process, fees, and citation of statutory provisions to address. The $500.00 GMPA pre-app fee has been paid. Other required documentation for submittal (not listed on application) Disclaimer: Information provided by staff to applicant during the Pm-Application Meeting is based on the best available data at the time of the meeting and may not fully inform the applicant of issues that could arise during the process. The Administrative Code and LDC dictates the regulations which all applications must satisfy. Any checklists provided of required data for an application may not fully outline what is needed. It is the applicant's responsibility to provide all required data Updated 7/24/2018 Page 12 of 4 Collier County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 Pre-Application Meeting Sign-In Sheet j q� PL# 20180002793 ! �-2D fBD Z 7`J2 Collier County Contact Information: Name Review Discipline Phone Email ❑ David Anthony Environmental Review 252-2497 david.anthony@colliercountyfi.gov ❑ Summer Araque Environmental Review 252-6290 summer.brownaraaue@colliercountyfl.gov GMD Operations and ❑ Claudine Auclair Regulatory Management 252-5887 claudine.auclair@colliercountyfLgov ❑ Steve Baluch Transportation Planning 252-2361 stephen.baluch@colliercountyfLgov ❑ Ray Bellows Zoninj,Planning Manager 252-2463 raymond.bellows@colliercountyfLgov II"Laurie Beard PUD Monitoring 252-5782 laurie.beard@colliercountyfLgov ❑ Craig Brown Environmental Specialist 252-2548 craig.brown@colliercountyfl.gov Managing Asst.County ❑ Heidi Ashton Cicko Attorney 252-8773 heidi.ashton@colliercountyfl.gov ,-TThomas Clarke Operations Coordinator 252-2584 thomas.clarke@colliercountyfLgov ❑ Kay Deselem Zoning Services 252-2586 kay.deselem@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Dale Fey North Collier Fire 597-9227 dfey@northcollierfire.com ❑ Eric Fey, P.E. Utility Planning 252-1037 : eric.fey@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Tim Finn,AICP Zoning Division 252-4312 timothy.finn@colliercountyfl.gov I ►''' Sue Faulkner Comprehensive Planning -252-5715 sue.faulkner@colliercountyfLgov ❑ Paula Fleishman Impact Fee Administration 252-2924 paula.fleishman@colliercountyfl.gov Growth Management Deputy ❑ James French Department Head 252-5717 james.french@colliercountyfLgov Structural/Residential Plan ❑ Michael Gibbons Review 252-2426 michael.gibbons@colliercountyfLgov ❑ Storm Gewirtz,P.E. Engineering Stormwater 252-2434 storm.gewirtz@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Nancy Gundlach,AICP,PLA Zoning Division 252-2484 nancy.gundlach@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Shar Hingson Greater Naples Fire District 774-2800 , shingson@gnfire.org ❑ John Houldsworth Engineering Subdivision 252-5757 john.houldsworth@colliercountyfLgov ❑ Jodi Hughes Transportation Pathways 252-5744 jodi.hughes@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Alicia Humphries Right-Of-Way Permitting 252-2326 alicia.humphries@colliercountyfLgov ❑ Marcia Kendall Comprehensive Planning 252-2387 marcia.kendall@colliercountyfLgov ❑ John Kelly Zoning Senior Planner 252-5719 john.kelly@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Gil Martinez Zoning Principal Planner 252-4211 gilbert.martinez@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Thomas Mastroberto Greater Naples Fire 252-7348 thornas.mastroberto@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Jack McKenna,P.E. Engineering Services 252-2911 jack.mckenna@colliercountyfLgov W Matt McLean,P.E. Development Review Director 252-8279 matthew.mclean@colliercountyfLgov Updated 7/24/2018 Page 1 4 of 5 Cii er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliereov.net (239)252-2400 ❑ Michele Mosca,AICP Capital Project Planning 252-2466 michele.mosca@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Annis Moxam Addressing. 252-5519 annis.moxam@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Stefanie Nawrocki Development Review-Zoning 252-2313 stefanie.nawrocki@colliercountyfl.gov P Richard Orth Stormwater Planning 252-5092 richard.orth@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Brandy Otero Transit 252-5859 brandy.otero@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Brandi Pollard Utility Impact fees 252-6237 brandi.pollard@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Todd Riggall North Collier Fire 597-9227 triggall@northcollierfire.com ❑ Daniel Roman,P.E. Engineering Utilities 252-2538 daniel.roman@colliercountyfl.gov Development Review ❑ Brett Rosenblum,P.E. Principal Project Manager 252-2905 brett.rosenblum@colliercountyfLgov James Sabo,AICP Zoning Principal Planner james.sabo@colliergo.net Michael Sawyer Transportation Planning 252-2926 michael.sawyer@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Corby Schmidt,AICP Comprehensive Planning 252-2944 corby.schmidt@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Chris Scott,AICP Development Review-Zoning 252-2460 chris.scott@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Peter Shawinsky Architectural Review 252-8523 peter.shawinsky@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Camden Smith Zoning Division Operations 252-1042 camden.smith@colliercountyfl.gov 14 Scott Stone Assistant County Attorney 252-5740 scott.stone@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Mark Strain Hearing Examiner/CCPC 252-4446 mark.strain@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Mark Templeton Landscape Review 252-2475 mark.templeton@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Jessica Velasco Zoning Division Operations 252-2584 jessica.velasco@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Jon Walsh,P.E. Building Review 252-2962lonathan.walsh@colliercountyfl.gov Comprehensive Planning V David Weeks,AICP Future Land Use Consistency 252-2306 david.weeks@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Kirsten Wilkie Environmental Review 252-5518 kirsten.wilkie@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Christine Willoughby Development Review -Zoning 252-5748 christine.willoughby@colliercountyfl.gov Additional Attendee Contact Information: Name Representing Phone Email cri Updated 7/24/2018 Page 15 of 5 APPLICATION NUMBER: DATE RECEIVED: PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE DATE: DATE SUFFICIENT: This application, with all required supplemental data and information, must be completed and accompanied by the appropriate fee, and returned to the Growth Management Department, Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104. 239-252- 2400. The application must be reviewed by staff for sufficiency within 30 calendar days following the filing deadline before it will be processed and advertised for public hearing. The applicant will be notified in writing, of the sufficiency determination. If insufficient, the applicant will have 30 days to remedy the deficiencies. For additional information on the processing of the application, see Resolution 97-431 as amended by Resolution 98-18 (both attached). If you have any questions, please contact the Comprehensive Planning Section at 239-252-2400. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Name of Applicant: Kevin Dugan Company: Dugan's Lighthouse Inn, LLC & Buzz's Lighthouse Properties, LLC Address: 9140 Gulf Shore Drive City: Naples State: FL Zip Code:34108 Phone Number: 970-988-1258 Fax Number: N/A B. Name of Agent* Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, Vice President *THIS WILL BE THE PERSON CONTACTED FOR ALL BUSINESS RELATED TO THE PETITION. Company: Hole Montes, Inc. Address: 950 Encore Way City: Naples State: FL Zip Code:34108 Phone Number: 239-254-2000 Fax Number: 239-254-2099 Name of Agent: Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire Company: Coleman Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 City: Naples State Florida Zip Code 34103 Phone Number: 239-435-3535 Fax Number: 239-435-1218 C. Name of Owner (s) of Record: Dugan's Lighthouse Inn, LLC & Buzz's Lighthouse Properties, LLC See Exhibit "I.C" Warranty Deeds Address: 9140 Gulf Shore Drive City: Naples State: FL Zip Code:34108 Phone Number: 970-988-1258 Fax Number: N/A D. Name, Address and Qualifications of additional planners, architects, engineers, environmental consultants and other professionals providing information contained in this application. Ii:\2018\2018052\WP\SSGMPA\Resubmittal\SSGMPA Application(rev 7-24-20 19).docx D. Continued. Norman J.Trebilcock, AICP, P.E., President Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, P.A. 1205 Piper Blvd., Suite 202, Naples, FL 34110 Telephone:239-566-9551 Email: ntrebilcock@trebilcock.biz H. Disclosure of Interest Information: A. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL,Tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest. (Use additional sheets if necessary). Name and Address Percentage of Ownership B. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each. Name and Address Percentage of Stock C. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest. Name and Address Percentage of Interest 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 Dugan's Lighthouse Inn, LLC Judith A. Dugan 100% Buzz's Lighthouse Properties, LLC Judith A. Dugan 50% Kevin Dugan 25% Darren Dugan 25% 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 2 H:\20I8\2018052\WP\SSGMPA\Resubmittal\SSGMPA Application(rev 7-24-2019),docx Date of Contract: F. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership,or trust. Name and Address G. Date subject property acquired j5-30-2008) leased ( ): Term of lease: yrs./mos. If, Petitioner has option to buy,indicate date of option: and date option terminates: , or anticipated closing: 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. III. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: A. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See Exhibit "I.C" Warranty Deeds, Folio #s: 79120160000, 79120120008, 79120080009 and 79120200009,Section 32,Township 48S, Range 25E B. GENERAL LOCATION: NE Corner of Gulf Shore Drive &Southbay Drive C. PLANNING COMMUNITY: North Naples D. TAZ: 137 E. SIZE IN ACRES: 0.622±Acres F. ZONING: C-3 G. SURROUNDING LAND USE PATTERN: See Exhibit V.B.1, Future Land Use Map H. FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION(S): Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict, Coastal High Hazard Area IV. TYPE OF REQUEST: A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN ELEMENT (S) TO BE AMENDED: Housing Element Recreation/Open Space Traffic Circulation Sub-Element Mass Transit Sub-Element Aviation Sub-Element Potable Water Sub-Element Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element NGWAR Sub-Element Solid Waste Sub-Element Drainage Sub-Element Capital Improvement Element CCME Element X Future Land Use Element Golden Gate Master Plan Immokalee Master Plan 3 H:\2018\2018052\WP\SSGMPA\Resubmittal\SSGMPA Application(rev 7-24-2019).docx B. AMEND PAGE (S): 10, 49 and 148 OF THE: FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AS FOLLOWS: (Use Strike through to identify language to be deleted; Use Underline to identify language to be added). Attach additional pages if necessary: See attached Exhibit IV.B.1 C. AMEND FUTURE LAND USE MAP(S) DESIGNATION FROM Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict TO Urban Mixed Use District, Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict D. AMEND OTHER MAP(S) AND EXHIBITS AS FOLLOWS: (Name & Page #) See attached Exhibit IV.D.1, Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict Map E. DESCRIBE ADDITIONAL CHANGES REQUESTED: REQUIRED INFORMATION: NOTE: ALL AERIALS MUST BE AT A SCALE OF NO SMALLER THAN I"=400'. At least one copy reduced to 8- 1/2 x 11 shall be provided of all aerials and/or maps. A. LAND USE Ex.V.A.I Provide general location map showing surrounding developments (PUD, DRI's, existing zoning) with subject property outlined. Ex.V.A.2 Provide most recent aerial of site showing subject boundaries, source, and date. Ex.V.A.3 Provide a map and summary table of existing land use and zoning within a radius of 300 feet from boundaries of subject property. B. FUTURE LAND USE AND DESIGNATION Ex.V.B.1 Provide map of existing Future Land Use Designation(s) of subject property and adjacent lands,with acreage totals for each land use designation on the subject property. C. ENVIRONMENTAL N A Provide most recent aerial and summary table of acreage of native habitats and soils occurring on site. HABITAT IDENTIFICATION MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FDOT-FLORIDA LAND USE, COVER AND FORMS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (FLUCCS CODE). NOTE:THIS MAY BE INDICATED ON SAME AERIAL AS THE LAND USE AERIAL IN "A" ABOVE. 4 H:\201812018052\WP\SSGMPA\Resubmittal\SSGMPA Application(rev 7-24-2019).docx N/A Provide a summary table of Federal (US Fish & Wildlife Service) and State (Florida Game & Freshwater Fish Commission) listed plant and animal species known to occur on the site and/or known to inhabit biological communities similar to the site (e.g. panther or black bear range, avian rookery, bird migratory route, etc.) Identify historic and/or archaeological sites on the subject property. D. GROWTH MANAGEMENT Reference 9J-11.006, F.A.C. and Collier County's Capital Improvements Element Policy 1.1.2(Copies attached). 1. INSERT "Y" FOR YES OR "N" FOR NO IN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING: N Is the proposed amendment located in an Area of Critical State Concern? (Reference 9J-11.006(1)(a)(5), F.A.C.). IF so, identify area located in ACSC. N Is the proposed amendment directly related to a proposed Development of Regional Impact pursuant to Chapter 380 F.S.? (Reference 9J-11.006(1)(a)7.a, F.A.C.) N Is the proposed amendment directly related to a proposed Small Scale Development Activity pursuant to Subsection 163.3187 (1)(c), F.S. ? (Reference 9J-11.006(1)(a)7.b, F.A.C.) Does the proposed amendment create a significant impact in population which is defined as a potential increase in County-wide population by more than 5%of population projections? (Reference Capital Improvement Element Policy 1.1.2). If yes, indicate mitigation measures being proposed in conjunction with the proposed amendment. Y Does the proposed land use cause an increase in density and/or intensity to the uses permitted in a specific land use designation and district identified (commercial, industrial,etc.) or is the proposed land use a new land use designation or district? (Reference Rule 9J-5.006(5) F.A.C.). If so, provide data and analysis to support the suitability of land for the proposed use,and of environmentally sensitive land, ground water and natural resources. (Reference Rule 9J-11.007, F.A.C.) E. PUBLIC FACILITIES 1. Ex. V.E.1 Provide the existing Level of Service Standard (LOS) and document the impact the proposed change will have on the following public facilities: Ex. V.E.1 Potable Water Ex.V.E.1 Sanitary Sewer Ex. V.E.3/TIS Arterial & Collector Roads; Name specific road and LOS Ex. V.E.1 Drainage Ex. V.E.1 Solid Waste Ex. V.E.1 Parks: Community and Regional 5 H:\2018\2018052\WP\SSGMPA\Resubmittal\SSGMPA Application(rev 7-24-2019).docx If the proposed amendment involves an increase in residential density, or an increase in intensity for commercial and/or industrial development that would cause the LOS for public facilities to fall below the adopted LOS, indicate mitigation measures being proposed in conjunction with the proposed amendment. (Reference Capital Improvement Element Objective 1 and Policies) 2. Ex. V.E.2 Provide a map showing the location of existing services and public facilities-that will serve the subject property (Le.water,sewer,fire protection, police protection,schools and emergency medical services. 3. Ex. V.E.2 Document proposed services and public facilities, identify provider, and describe the effect the proposed change will have on schools,fire protection and emergency medical services. F. OTHER Identify the following areas relating to the subject property: Ex. V.F.1 Flood zone based on Flood Insurance Rate Map data (FIRM). N/A Location of wellfields and cones of influence,if applicable. (Identified on Collier County Zoning Maps) N/A Traffic Congestion Boundary,if applicable N/A Coastal Management Boundary,if applicable N/A High Noise Contours (65 LDN or higher) surrounding the Naples Airport, if applicable (identified on Collier County Zoning Maps). G. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION N/A $16,700.00 non-refundable filing fee made payable to the Board of County Commissioners due at time of submittal. (Plus proportionate share of advertising costs) X $9,000.00 non-refundable filing fee for a Small Scale Amendment made payable to the Board of County Commissioners due at time of submittal. (Plus proportionate share of advertising costs) X Proof of ownership (copy of deed) X Notarized Letter of Authorization if Agent is not the Owner (See attached form) X Original and 5 complete,signed applications with all attachments including maps,at time of submittal. After sufficiency is completed, 25 copies of the complete application will be required. * If you have held a pre-application meeting and paid the pre-application fee of$250.00 at the meeting,deduct that amount from the above application fee amount when submitting your application. All pre-application fees are included in the total application submittal fee. Otherwise the overage will be applied to future proportionate share advertising costs. * Maps shall include: North arrow, name and location of principal roadways and shall be at a scale of 1"-=400' or at a scale as determined during the pre-application meeting. 6 H:\2018\2018052\WP\SSGMPA\Resubmittal\SSGMPA Application(rev 7-24-2019).docx LETTER O1~'AUTHORIZATION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN I hereby authorize Robert J,Mu[here, FAICP, Vice President of Hole Montes, Incl and Richard Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A, (Name of Agents) to serve as my Agents in a request to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan affecting prope identified in •' Application. SVA, -(l-77 Signed: • �f ' v Date: (Judith A. Dugan,/ GR) I hereby certify that I have the authority to make the foregoing application, and that the application is true, correct and complete to the best of my knowled�e ' - / ,etic (/ Judith A. Du ga�R Dugan's Lighthouse Inn, LLC Buzz's Lighthouse Properties, LLC STATE OF ( ,.l fVi,d(A' ) COUNTY OF (eO\ IUA ) Sworn to and subscribed before me this I' day of '�V , 201)Ms By:.. r12Vuv: ^C^Ntjl MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: Notary Public a dP— ' too�p,4STEPHANIE KAROL 1 I (sit-V Noury Public•8111 of Florida ` Commisslon 9 FF.9399AoCHO SE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING: I "'% „ft°'° My lComm.Expires Maral 9,2020 0 ern, I I who is personally known to me, who has produced as identification and \/ did take an Oath did not take and Oath NOTICE- BE AWARE THAT: i Florida Statute Section 837.06 - False Official Law states that: "Whoever knowingly makes a false statement in writing with the intent to mislead a public servant in the performance of his official duty shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree,punishable as provided by a fine to a maximum of%500.00 and/or maximum of a sixty day Jail term." 8 AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION FOR PETITION NUMBERS(S) PL-20180002782&PL-20180002793 I, JUDITH A.DUGAN (print name), as MGR (title,if applicable) of DUGAN'S LIGHTHOUSE INN,LLC&BUZzS LIGHTHOUSE PROPERTIES,LLC (company, If applicable), swear or affirm under oath, that I am the(choose one)owners ,/ applicant contract purchaser and that: 1. I have full authority to secure the approvai(s) requested and to impose covenants and restrictions on the referenced property as a result of any action approved by the County in accordance with this application and the Land Development Code; 2. All answers to the questions in this application and any sketches, data or other supplementary matter attached hereto and made a part of this application are honest and true; 3. I have authorized the staff of Collier County to enter upon the property during normal working hours for the purpose of investigating and evaluating the request made through this application;and that 4. The property will be transferred, conveyed, sold or subdivided subject to the conditions and restrictions Imposed by the approved action. 5. Well authorize ROBERT J.MULHERE,FAICP,VP&RICHARD YOVANOVICH,ESQUIRE to act as our/my representative in any matters regarding this petition including 1 through 2 above. *Notes: • If the applicant is a corporation, then it is usually executed by the corp.pres. or v.pres. • If the applicant is a Limited Liability Company(L.L.C.) or Limited Company(L.C.), then the documents should typically be signed by the Company's "Managing Member." • If the applicant Is a partnership, then typically a partner can sign on behalf of the partnership. • If the applicant is a limited partnership, then the general partner must sign and be identified as the "general partner"of the named partnership. • If the applicant is a trust, then they must include the trustee's name and the words"as trustee". • In each instance, first determine the applicant's status, e.g., individual, corporate, trust, partnership, and then use the appropriate format for that ownership. Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing Affidavit of Authorization and that the facts stated in it e true. At 7 )7r4 Si�ure" I Date JUDITH A.DUGAN,MGR DUGAN'S LIGHTHOUSE INN,LLC&BUZZ'S LIGHTHOUSE PROPERfIBS,LLC STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER WA The foreeoin ipstrument was sworn to(or affirmed)and subscribed before me on twl i�CiIJ (date) by R414 IV•hUr 'lt/i (name of person providing oat or affirmation), as tile)+e' who is personally known to me or who has produced (type of identification) as identification. ► 0 ��d -J 111 STAMP/SE Signature of Notary Public .� ,_'' STEPHANIE KAROI •fi4= Notary Public•State of Florida l Commission#FF 9399;0 �� `dpc- My Comm.Expires Mar 9,2020 "",,,,, Bonded through National Notary Assn. CP\08-COA-001151155 REV 3/24/14 Corgi County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP DISCLOSURE FORM This is a required form with all land use petitions, except for Appeals and Zoning Verification Letters. 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. Please complete the following, use additional sheets if necessary. 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: Name and Address %of Ownership b. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each: Name and Address %of Ownership 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 %of Ownership Created 9/28/2017 Page 1 of 3 Cor County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX: (239)252-6358 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 %of Ownership Dugan's Lighthouse Inn, LLC-Judith A. Dugan 100% Buzz's Lighthouse Properties, LLC -Judith A. Dugan 50% Kevin Dugan (25%), Darren Dugan (25%) 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 %of Ownership Date of Contract: f. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust: Name and Address g. Date subject property acquired ❑ Leased:Term of lease years/months If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following: Created 9/28/2017 Page 2 of 3 f•fiL Co er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 Date of option: Date option terminates: , or Anticipated closing date:_ AFFIRM PROPERTY OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Any petition required to have Property Ownership Disclosure, will not be accepted without this form. Requirements for petition types are located on the associated application form.Any change in ownership whether individually or with a Trustee, Company or other interest-holding party, must be disclosed to Collier County immediately if such change occurs prior to the petition's final public hearing. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package.I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. The completed application,all required submittal materials,and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Department ATTN:Business Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 'I— 11 Agent/ wner Signature Date Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, Vice President Agent/Owner Name(please print) Created 9/28/2017 Page 3 of 3 INSTR 4704407 OR 4805 PG 3213 RECORDED 6/11/2012 10:12 AM PAGES 2 DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA DOC@.70 $0.70 REC $18.50 Return to: Name: Edward E. Wollman, Esq. Wol'man, Gehrke&Solomon, P.A. 5129 Castello Drive, Suite 1 Naples, Florida 34103-1903 This Instrument Prepared by: Name: Edward E. Wollman, Esq. Wollman, Gehrke&Solomon, P.A. 5129 Castello Drive, Suite 1 Naples, Florida 34103-1903 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR PROCESSING DATA SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDING DATA— PREPARATION ONLY FROM INFORMATION PROVIDED BY GRANTOR AND WITHOUT BENEFIT OF TITLE SEARCH OR OPINION. WARRANTY DEED THIS DEED, made on the kw day--ef-May., 2008, between JUDITH A. DUGAN, fir. �: ,-• grantor,: s i _,e,, BUZZ'S LIGHTHO •E r•+N LLC, a Florida lim ed ••bility company, whose post office address i 91' d QUI_Sho�'re-Driv; ' orth, ap es, FL 34108, second party (Grantee); '' th.t c . •tor, fo . d P tt P. WI r o of s e sum of$10.00, and other WITNESSETH, , good and valuable conside • , , Z , • h:s,•d p...: tyc :tee, the receipt of which is acknowledged, conveys to • ,tee and rantee s -irs, ,xec o r' ., administrators, and assigns forever the following descri . d situated in Col • Chu .to of Florida: Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and : • "A",_,V•v�y►� , 'l:ILT BEACH CENTER, according to the Plat there..,r�skp f•c+It l •o : k 3, Page 16, of the Public Records of Collier County, Flor'ida:– Subject to easements, reservations and restrictions of record. GRANTOR WARRANTS THIS IS NOT HER HOMESTEAD PROPERTY NOR CONTIGUOUS THERETO. TOGETHER with all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the same in fee simple forever. And the Grantor hereby covenants with said grantee that the grantor is lawfully seized of said land in fee simple;that the Grantor has good right and lawful authority to sell and convey said land;that the Grantor hereby fully warrants the title to said land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever;and that said land is free of all encumbrances,except taxes accruing subsequent to the current year, and all subsequent years. EXHIBIT "I . C" *** OR 4805 PG 3214 *** IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Grantor has signed and sealed these presents the day and year first above written. Witnesses: -..,(_>___/ ____,___,),< 9-,6,-,e7.1 • ,•- x-,i) (Signature of Witness) JUDITH A. DUGAN 5/(,--c. Ko *Zpic (Prirtir Type a•c.f i as) Ph l . d (Sig turc o Wim (Print or Name of Witness) • STATE OF FLORIDA �C -?'�� COUNTY OF COLLIER .fk. _ The foregoing ins mei r*r:'1:•• A s -iTfiikii - y- thi•55�tt daydf May, 2008, by JC DI�H, A. tDU1c...,„AN, ( )( iso s p- s. al N l% • • •e or ( ) who produced riJ• S I ' c...,„ .:, 1 -•r f,a i• (...i I / idloatzt 't_,,, ,Ifp , a owmu No - . t- State of rida ONV'.H. !%, n,A n din a�� • ssio;� C', JIB �. Fl•�(l.ig U X '`�'< '``�c5'?°�A� � �cI� '� blic - Print Name ADD401353 .a 2 INSTR 4704412 OR 4805 PG 3227 RECORDED 6/11/2012 10:12 AM PAGES 3 DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA DOC@.70 $0.70 REC $27.00 Return to: Name: Edward E. Wollman, Esq. Wollman, Gehrke&Solomon,P.A. 5129 Castello Drive,Suite 1 Naples, Florida 34103-1903 This Instrument Prepared�by:� Name: Edward E. Wollman,Esq. Wollman, Gehrke&Solomon,P.A. 5129 Castello Drive, Suite 1 Naples,Florida 34103-1903 -SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR PROCESSING DATA -SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDING DATA- PREPARATION ONLY FROM INFORMATION PROVIDED BY GRANTOR AND WITHOUT BENEFIT OF TITLE SEARCH OR OPINION. WARRANTY DEED THIS DEED, made on the 3304of-May,_ 008, between JUDITH A. DUGAN, as or' itl doe I A )interest, DARREN D. DUGAN, as to an undivided one-quarter f • terest; and KE ' '. •UGAN, as to an undivided one- quarter (1/4) interest, as ten• . s on, first party ( .nto, , and BUZZ'S LIGHTHO S PROPEC1.E- LC, • Florid: li 'ted liability company, whose post office a.dr , •1 u ` T - r` e •rth Naples, FL 34108, ---.., second party (Grant-e); r WITNESSETH, th.t an or, for and in cside •tto•iikr e sum of$10.00, and other good and valuable consider. - .I to Grantor in han •ai. b :ntee, the receipt of which is acknowledged, conveys to .T" -- and Grantee's hat-, - ••ltR rs, administrators, and assigns forever the following describe• i ituated in Collier . I , State of Florida: Lots 3 and 4,Block"A",VAND- '-l• T CENTER,according to the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 16, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. GRANTORS WARRANT THIS IS NOT THEIR HOMESTEAD PROPERTY NOR CONTIGUOUS THERETO. TOGETHER with all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the same in fee simple forever. And the Grantor hereby covenants with said grantee that the grantor is lawfully seized of said land in fee simple;that the Grantor has good right and lawful authority to sell and convey said land; that the Grantor hereby fully warrants the title to said land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever;and that said land is free of all encumbrances,except taxes accruing subsequent to the current year, and all subsequent years. OR 4805 PG 3228 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Grantor has signed and sealed these presents the day and year first above written. Witnesses: , z6i.4 /49 (Signatn ofwimess) JUDITH A. DUGAN 3 --(( vT-A'o lif‹._ (Prin .r Type o WA s) /J (Sig(. (Wi'tn�ss I , ` IVJG �'I. f�otI��5 (Print or T\W Name of Witness) Ilit (Signature of Witness) U %' D I-ia D G ► Witness) 110. (Prin r Type a•e of 1 s) ,il ( / J ..I th 4 • \ a° (0..f A t "-A -D (Sig-ueo Wit ,nn..(fY) i0 A . fim - �" (Prim or T pe Name of Witness) ,.A (,, f4 W 0.". °..'., . (Signature of Witness) ri 01 (/'-e (C. ,fiLe re_ \ �� • / (Print. Type Name.f n ip I 1 ' hja (Sig . s -o ttness 1 I A AAA al {rl'i. e//tori`- a (Print or me of Witness) 2 *** OR 4805 PG 3229 *** STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this A4 daypf May, 2008, by JUD TH1 f.r D1 Js 4NJ( ) who is personally known to me or ( /) who produced J , as identification. ` .•:.>SIONF�A.4�'� Is I �n II / ci; EXHIBIT "IV.B.1" VANDERBILT BEACH COMMERCIAL TOURIST SUBDISTRICT PROPOSED GMPA AMENDMENT LANGUAGE Proposed Small Scale Amendment to the Collier County Future Land Use Element(FLUE) Related to 0.622±acre Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict,located within the Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict. The Urban Mixed Use District,Urban Residential Subdistrict. Amend the FLUE TABLE OF CONTENTS,II *IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY, FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES,Page vi, as follows: * Future Land Use Map * Mixed Use & Interchange Activity Centers Maps * Properties Consistent by Policy (5.11, 5.12, 5.13, 5.14) Maps *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** * Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict Map * East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map* *Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict Amend the FLUE, Policy 1.5, C. URBAN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT,Page 10, as follows: Policy 1.5: The URBAN Future Land Use Designation shall include Future Land Use Districts and Subdistricts for: *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** C. URBAN—COMMERCIAL DISTRICT 1. Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict 2. Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict 3. Livingston/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** 13. East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict 14. Seed to Table Commercial Subdistrict 15. Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict H:\2018\2018052\WP\SSGMPA\2nd Resubmittal\Exhibt IV B1-Proposed GMPA Language(10-3-2019).docx Amend the FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION SECTION, Section I, URBAN DESIGNATION, Page 26, as follows: 12. Commercial uses subject to criteria identified in the Urban - Mixed Use District, PUD Neighborhood Village Center Subdistrict, Office and Infill Commercial Subdistrict, Residential Mixed Use Neighborhood Subdistrict, Orange Blossom Mixed-Use Subdistrict, Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict, Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict, Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict, Goodlette/Pine Ridge Mixed Use Subdistrict, Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict, Livingston/Radio Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict, Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict, Vincentian Mixed Use Subdistrict, Davis — Radio Commercial Subdistrict; and, in the Urban Commercial District, Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict, Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict, Livingston/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict, Livingston Road/Eatonwood Lane Commercial Infill Subdistrict, Livingston Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict, Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict, Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard Commercial Infill Subdistrict, Orange Blossom/Airport Crossroads Commercial Subdistrict, Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict, East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict, Seed to Table Commercial Subdistrict, Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict, in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay; and, as allowed by certain FLUE policies. Amend the FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION SECTION, Section I, URBAN DESIGNATION, Subsection C. Urban Commercial District,Page 69, as follows: *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** 14. Seed to Table Commercial Subdistrict *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** 15. Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict The Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Gulf Shore Drive and Southbay Drive,in Section 32,Township 48 South,Range 25 East. The Subdistrict is ±0.622 acres in size. The purpose of the Subdistrict is to allow commercial uses as identified below: a. Allowable uses are limited to: 1. Hotels and motels, limited to 17 rooms; and 2. Permitted and conditional uses set forth in the C-3 zoning district in the Land Development Code not to exceed 7,000 square feet. b. Rezoning is encouraged to be in the form of a PUD zoning district. H:\2018\2018052\WP\SSGMPA\2nd Resubmittal\Exhibt IV B1-Proposed GMPA Language(10-3-2019).docx Amend the FLUE FUTURE MAP SERIES, Page 148,as follows: FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES Future Land Use Map Activity Center Index Map Mixed Use & Interchange Activity Center Maps *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Seed to Table Commercial Subdistrict Map Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict Map H:\2018\2018052\WP\SSGMPA\2nd Resubmittal\Exhibt IV.B 1 -Proposed GMPA Language(10-3-2019).docx EXHIBIT V.D.1 Narrative and Justification Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist CPUD/Companion SSGMPA Site Description The subject property consists of eight platted lots (Lots 3-10, Block A, Vanderbilt Beach Center Subdivision, Plat Book 3, Page 16), located in Section 32, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. The plat was approved in January of 1954, more than 65 years ago. The proposed Subdistrict and CPUD consist of 0.622 acre. The site is presently zoned C-3 and has frontage on Gulf Shore Drive, Southbay Drive, and the Vanderbilt Lagoon. PLAT BOON 3,PAGE is 4r VANDERBILT BEACH CENTER, Pt ASU dDIVIStON IN SECTIO N32,T48S,R25E 'N �t i �i ,.aR... = wins.----5 hr.+r w^ rv� �•i my % \ A ..1 I. � N = ra M.w as ca = t i! LI , .00 : 1_ . .iN11 NP . IN t _. _, -3 14...„, -,74 I III 1 ° ..,„..r , .,,,,,,, ,t i III ..,, i ..,, ....... , .. w,.„, .,, . ".,;„,,,,„.„.,,. . ..:-;.- . ,„,,.,I,I?,-..6'=..---.,'a,:' .1.,I.6N._„,... .,..i„. tg..'v'''r.',,,',,q"-a,_--ini m_-,-4.g-_ .-ift, nxa*' ;:,., , .,,.. „ ,..,. 1.1...S,,.7,,a,,°,=,.:.1,1=__,,.17.=___!-__--,-„----7---1—,- F- _—max— -- .4,n. zx:.:..,.:.^:.Y:."- ..... - ::::lig...^tea..-- igC�t:'=,:::a f_ - Plat Book 3,Page 16 Vanderbilt Beach Center Subdivision Page 1 of 5 H:\2018\2018052\WP\SSGMPA\Resubmittal\Exhibit\'.D.1.-Narrative and Justification(rev 7-24-2019)).docx `i -..___. ___ Ai Wo/Mway dedicated• t _ be e % ----------,,, I 1Vnfe..vey dedic olyd 4115 µ .S I:6 n N 15 20 21 22 23 25 24 41 Oa ' x ry • • u 24 47,. ,,,l el e COMMERCE STREET 11ry .q _.1i _ e ar ra•w CO ' 2,- iy ' '2a .7 _ � I 2 In'^• i "� ti �� .y w s�2 �«A�� io- n- U .1 _ten" .per 0 __ • Proposed Subdistrict and CPUD Site History The subject property has been developed with a 17-room hotel and hotel office, swimming pool and sundeck, dockage, and an 80-seat restaurant. The site has been operated by the Dugan family with the present mix of uses for more than 40 years. Please see the next two graphics which depict existing conditions on the site. 1 , .-*,0-7-/- ,T7---i*,... ilk '' ', 1 1. - - �_��To 2 i ZONING.R 1�ID USE:CON�MINIUMS p z ii 30 1'' mN2` ty EXISTING pARKIhG 1 i xl ^C 1 IP , + . , V,AN .�RBiLT CI-'.41.1NI = z 1� z 2 i 5 \ a_ co 2 1 1h - m1 k �� f---- I -_ m T QQ z t O ' It N 18 fit N 21 6.362 Zco q/ 4 b2 o z 39.6' i7 v N 3 ( 33-r 19.9' r' EXISTING PARKING i f,V—,-;3 _'_ cO TH_ "' - • ` r. , (6Q'Key:7:71.-rs _- 21r —_—______--: ZONING C-3 I LAND USE:PARKING/VACANT Existing Conditions Aerial Page 2 of 5 H:\2018\2018052\WP\SSGMPA\Resubmittal\Exhibit V.D.1.-Narrative and Justification(rev 7-24-2019)).docx 0 �xtNx[t I ____,_150.0" ---- 4 -- ZONING:RT- RTO S , c �D USE:CONDOM%NIUM C 1 + 'In 1 �'1 1' Z -.r + 3-4' .... r 1 p 1 IO _ -1 6 .9 C ^t I I',-5', IEXISTING PARKING ! "rn`g =z 10 SPACES c VANDERB LT CHANNEL I in .. I 1< ' CK _ _ ---- - -t 73 i 17 ROOM HOTEL- aO i N. SE7aACK 't `?& I Z 'I b V m E + + -I �ui w .oc-.Z 71 0 I o Z� Si 4O D � of1- 'i g SETBACK OFFICE et S j • 1 ,L_ 8 SETBACK 8'SETBACK_... __1_- _yam i T-F—' - EXISTING PARKING ',i.' 1 17 SPACES _ __ - - --- - - --- _ 186.5' SOUTH,BAY DRIVE (60•ruae rscur-u-wa) - —______ ______ -- — — -�--- --___._----- ZONING C-3 LAND USE:PARKING/VACANT Existing Conditions Plan Nature of the Surrounding Area The subject site is located within a tourist resort area that includes a mix of uses, including transient lodging,restaurants,retail shops,and high-rise condominiums.The site is across the street from the beach and one block north of a public parking garage. CAT operates a"beach bus"during season that passes by the subject site. Directly abutting the property are condominiums to the north, a small marina to the east, a restaurant and condominiums to the west across Gulf Shore Drive, and to the south, across Southbay Drive, an area of on-street parking and vacant property zoned C-3. There are bike lanes on both sides of Gulf Shore Drive and a pedestrian walk on the west side of the roadway. The Table below provides the surrounding land uses and zoning. Direction Zoning Land Use North RT-VBRTO Parking, Tennis Courts — Vanderbilt Beach Motel Condos, Vanderbilt Beach&Harbour Club Condos South RT-VBRTO Across Southbay Drive,Vacant Commercial Lots,Beach Box Rest.,VBR East C-3 Commercial Marina,Residential Condo West C-3 Vanderbilt Beach Resort,Turtle Club Restaurant,Phoenician Sands Condo Page 3 of 5 H:\2018\2018052\WP\SSGMPA\Resubmittal\Exhibit V.D.1.-Narrative and Justification(rev 7-24-2019)).docx n e mg G Wil®l®®il®®®®i®® `LI"LT 1.14.....:=2 i„®, G,,,,,, U-. q RT VB' i ��1d i PALM COURT g roe lam ,, RSF-3ST dal!1 MAgra i -c4„1,hes 11101 CO , , t� —I 1 fii711111 �iiiiili�ili�� 1 CIATEAU TNEAT DRRIVE • C v�ILT " � i�ie�le�i��'�� , PUD"L � ifi6ii b!e3II ""`A"" 21CEN TERSMEET OGULF OF MIccm'O - der��lg��o01liE 1111 co..+ AM.,'4'"RFA[- — CCLY. cOurrru.:iq NRD.iO(cRh:l O MILSARLTON NOM CCQ� C SI..nu O PUD,...,..... (PELICAN BAY) du oNr T �y COL �yE coat nr.cr-T �ONY TN REIRNfiTON LA IIIIIIIV 8532S Collier County Zoning Map Objective Although the site has operated for many years at this location, the hotel is a nonconforming use, as the C- 3 zoning does not allow for hotels either as a permitted or conditional use. Per LDC Sec. 9.03.02, if a nonconforming use ceases for any reason for a period of more than one year, any subsequent use must conform to the regulations for the zoning district in which it is located. The effect of the nonconforming use status is that if the hotel use is ceased for any reason, including removal or destruction by natural causes, any future use must conform to those permitted by the C-3 zoning district. The nonconforming status of the hotel use also impacts the owner's ability to adequately and reasonably insure the structure(s) and the business operations in the event of accidental destruction or natural disaster. The objective of the PUD and companion SSGMPA is to allow the 17-room hotel as a permitted use by right(along with the currently permitted C-3 uses up to a maximum of 7,000 square feet, and to allow certain conditional C-3 uses through the established conditional use process). The PUD establishes development standards and deviations in order to facilitate redevelopment of the site with existing intensities. These site-specific development standards are particularly important given the relatively small size of the subject site. Page 4 of 5 H:\2018\2018052\WP\SSGMPA\J esubmittal\Exhibit V.D.1.-Narrative and Justification(rev 7-24-2019)).docx Conclusion The requested SSGMPA and this companion CPUD have been carefully crafted to allow the hotel (and currently permitted C-3 uses)to be permitted by right, and conditional uses to be considered through the usual conditional use process. The existing site conditions will remain in place subject to the nonconforming regulations of the LDC,and any future redevelopment of the site will be required to adhere to the PUD document and applicable LDC regulations. Given the mixed-use nature of this neighborhood; the proximity of the site to the beach; the availability of significant public parking; and access to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian activity, the requested small boutique hotel, restaurant, and other permitted C-3 uses are appropriate. (Conditional uses in the C-3 district may be appropriate and will be determined on a case-by-case basis). Page 5 of 5 H:\2018\2018052\WP\SSGMPA\Resubmittal\Exhibit V.D.1.-Narrative and Justification(rev 7-24-2019)).docx Exhibit"V.E.1" Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict Public Facilities Report The proposed Subdistrict seeks the ability to redevelop the property with the same commercial uses and intensities as currently exist on the site. The proposed Subdistrict does not authorize residential development and does not increase population within the County. Therefore, no increased demands on public facilities result from the approval of this request. Collier County Public Utilities will continue to provide water service for potable and fire protection needs as well as wastewater service. The subject property is within the North Service Area. The County has sufficient capacity to provide water and sewer. The estimated potable water and wastewater average daily and peak requirements for the subject property are as follows: Potable Water 6,860 GPD average daily (Peak 9,261 GPD) Wastewater 4,900 GPD average daily (Peak 6,615 GPD) According to the Collier County 2018 AUIR, currently there is an existing landfill capacity of 18,710,256 tons,and a ten-year landfill capacity requirement of 2,916,440 tons. The estimated life of the landfill is 51 years. This is adequate to accommodate expected tons per capita generated by the proposed project. Stormwater retention and detention will comply with SFWMD requirements,and State and County standards for off-site discharges will be met, resulting in no adverse impacts to stormwater management(drainage)level of service.The site does not affect county-maintained canals,ditches, or stormwater control structures. No residential development is approved through the Subdistrict;therefore,there are no impacts to level of service for schools. The proposed subdistrict will not increase the population and will not increase demands for emergency medical services or county parks and recreation services. An EMS/fire station is located approximately 1.20 miles east at 8970 Hammock Oak Drive. The subject site is within the North Collier Fire &Rescue District. The proposed subdistrict does not create any significant and adverse impacts to the area roadway network. The roadway network is projected to operate above the adopted Level of Service (LOS) standard with or without the project at 2023 future build-out conditions. Please see the attached Traffic Analysis for transportation impacts and further details. H:\20I8\2018052\WP\SSGMPA\Resubmittal\Exhibit V.E.1-Public Facilities Report(rev 7-24-2019).docx orisimmii =mum ill, al Eh ii iii11iiii11111i we 1ii1op- dimming MIMI1141 �w■■■■■11 ■ Liui..q 1 ,„sig pullon i ill ii III ...-- a 11111111.02 NI 11111 1111 ► - SUBJECT SITE ■ Rao mow we' SiliJI 111111 II INNS I 1 I!! _ IIII 0 •■� m lil■ ■►Iihiiiill -ill ��g�m� l 11NIP Vander 0. \‘\,7 CSS _...._______._________:... bilt Beach Road hlk-i;ii---1 IliTari lik it 1 1 1110 . III NI 1 • . Illik 44104. 600 0 600 SUBJECT SITE SCALE IN FEET I.ClVI 950 Encore Way EXHIBIT IV.D.1 CHECKED BY: PROJECT No. Naples, FL. 34110 PCM 2018.052 P VANDERBILT BEACH DRAWN BY: CAD FILE NAME: HOLE MONTES Phone: (239) 254-2000 MK 2018052_EXH Florida Certificate of COMMERCIAL TOURIST ENGINEERS•PLANNERS•SURVEYORS Authorization No.1772 SUBDISTRICT DATE EXHIBIT — ITEM 9/12/2018 GL—MAP o a o 1 n - Ga of • g O < i a zgid li O w 17- ,l,li W a U $ k f. w 7) O � J U I- o W: U z W m a Ns a. 2t- 5 > m coz _ O co — < xO W aLLx = m Z C slap: aLLa �<<Z�Zg U>U 3AIilO T 11N9� �® a jg Firm 1•710 N W ir �� a� L. 1W A In NM g iii I !! J ir so11 e _ �� Wm..' I ooe a A ® cc Aad$"_I''o � � x II I cn q F T I r L �'—S raEo yiC o gg Cj da 2l' >g M�- n duu _ V'RAO y 11►5 AtV Sn m Q Lu 0 cc 0 ° .1111111 6 slift,,,,,,t->o gi J Q w co 4 : z 2 N 0 L •1, u OA W 6 u / O R a o U W [0 cn LIi ®2®©1 s �)I'6 6fOZ Y'0'�5 bY03dY?VOID MVO? N N 4e ' O p N 8$ S 1g§8 4. >- < J cc W N > • O a J > a I— U _ W CO U •!•R t 2r, .i ;• • i*' I .• u' � �N m * cv ' M1 % ^ t,\r �o I 4. 4 r jr, . ,-s„,. tmi, T. . . . / ,_ • < f:.9.1: -.." ui `i .o is .11p_ - .00 -1i i t,40 / W 1 y, tt a Z i' !aY ;E t` , z a P et ,- cle • I1crc f„ 70p .ir if '#* , ' j :f _ 3AI21011I8213aNVA- -- —.. . _ N Q ' ' -, o _ Ili. 'Mr. Atlia h _ = .,1 1 I Ir . ': a 4 m 1 Q _„w 7Tb c 2' f z i'l l CC S-1 ,-.° **I ,4_._.-.. �% , • m .Y r - • ' 0 O U i t _,C-17.1I,11 ' ,1 CAH - 'it ..•ir:-)4.1iii ii.' . -- '1 '' ' . • l' Ce , 2 I 1t % > O .pREDRIVE41> . �� GULF SH �' W '..\ ®<®a! .04 6102 SO.5'511075671Vd11.Z50610Z m r0 O O $ o CO CO gq C CCN M I m m ,. LI1vv § q.01 grId 5 a 5 - m v < a- J Q ao — CC C N (V L L L + C — >< E w C m W E -a6 •B — u z z >- — m >, = N X Co - W N E .° 0 E a. coOLL E E LL > " E E —cu z ' o 2 v° u 2 .e a; ii:2 a) in �5: P. ,. tI) to !Val.' CI) C Y Y wJMOg vii z �n w 3 P.1111 ri mzLLs '© 5àtFRI °1iI V Z Elli 1111 'Al a _, iltaliir:' ,;), _� I®w_...: v.,. � , 2 O © a yo A 8(0 ' 1111 Ilia : LI 1 4'%"e iiiiiiiiiiill g, www, �°� � RrAl CO 10110 w� ' ' 'WAR f1.67 `'0 J p V ".1 i co - �iaf G� iP�• z .0 U Q 2 ° -' W — ca 0 p �'r_GULF . i tcrk I— -1 i �► ' ,� o vU cr ex caW C 1. t m o' > �p> rc oo /1111111 r . _�> LpONTApI LINE Z mR=I m3 1 V. 'omm i;Ng 000 ppAs > O ofir, Oa 41z30 ,_ tc i ______ z� ORE DANE UGULF SHor mo �z U ,,,t° U I mOZ J%.. ..-% rL ^ rr>U<O j,,;12.- . JU No ZU uG _ �3 0( .x - I U ,Z 4O XU ------ 'Sr' -- o --•••°E-0--"""E 8 'C'C*5 me Yo d+5 90oSGvrr vdm to VOL § , w \ | § | - § ~ • . q | c'' wo ow soi so ` I I0 1111 I _ 9 ♦ K MIN MI NM MI MO CO m w / » = J - 2 $ _ � ƒ $ � w � 1- C7) Q \ CO W ,-: |K'tk (!§e, ® <2 --, _ ----' (| .--- j — _� \ §� & EBE§ rrn ` J/ |f �``. lig ; _ � QEE « = e j} LA 2 � x � e <m � — 2 0 0 § Eci c U 003 0 N E re / j § / 2 � \ m } } \ > \ \ b_ � § C.)1.... 13 § / 0 \ �_ 2 g m ma mS , 0 / \ \ _I-0 111 \ E�]$ \ 0_I j D I z \\ | 44141,| _:5_Lt7 an'«____ N ii. • W K I- '• " ^ W ❑ Cl) z Cl X n Y o z O U U " K e N.-- p W w U rn F f w OJ z J U_ z w $ � U O ❑ Qra } N 3 co HF H a.8 I- re • a Ow ww � w a (I) F 21 E5 ua w W m 0 `�z -Ice ax V ❑ a F- O W W OS W LL ci 0- 3v U.LL LL a W _J U W Fp, Ow S w w - c - U F UO z ~.J U -1 a W Q p cLi WU Wm wa O w F- LL i? wup-. rez Ww na 0 n o x ¢ a co U ow W Z x w 0 x 0 x to a 5 J u.,1- W ] _ cc Ca a W F- F cc • • (.) • x W a a . N cn a W (/) U J m D a. a I- E a a co IF §V.-,! o W i 3Aw: S 1-4 ' Az 0 0 ria a w`2gi .H� I W l I;i�•__ 7w r� < ' ....'r' J c . ,LN, F.. -,—` • � a x y y. ....s . .. ,r-..VIIaJt r i '.1' J. +, 21SS �•_ m ar' .♦ ` �'�'�or :• rfithi ti - -0.. -._. -k�rsn)1ivaliwviwvl .: -»-c-.- - Te,,,•77� Lu K j u•�`f i ilL r ii LLy_.Ov '�' �u ]�� i • l� ,rt ,pi;$F fc -7 ' w w x w o W 1'iJiit 1."'} a J'+5Q° „: af'#• ;`I1%,Sp�.F w Ns. No a i::µb,fel. ' ` �-;• �i'IJ 0OZwyr-,. ".. !,��!:': R R3� 'a Z -1 'rig TF, .�_ •NN. it... � -. • ;.,�. s,,...,„, ...s , .�:-yi7.. omePwmsa '4•t ;r� ' „� 'n `;Ij •4f.4`�i`� �1� � ( • S �:� 2Mt1.Ef' i• � n*g,-j� L° � t I t� aa€=a�a'• ' 1 9� c...EI. - vela. r � N v,' }I,l� *1 ;l}0‘0.\1 %.... _� ...- ;4:4 'r•- I— t 1.. I (I) ,.4y, 1.. _ i1-Y O a OF MI CO .s m O wG ..-1 ,..r• zIr W z< _c-) 00 U o Y C7) cr sa U �ill g (� Z� Wi Z 2 oy D 0 5, a ®4 '516)WW VO an WosdM YdM9 ZSOl16Z c, go = o ill _i s > 5 g �� E ;g � o ~ = Z X25a$F � 2 0 1 • Cr) O rj 8 9a 'a6 fgI U W o c qg�•�s CCWQU �� N s - �. 1t- X61 W � wN > � ER' g<€ l' 7..e 1� J7ZOO _1 • o Qz q1.8'± ig,a' OWN JW L1JPe a `.gz o /g §i 8 a U W 9¢0 t EF. 24„ — COz 0 Q N 0 —'' s ti `a M say W fALLdOLL $m 8E'�.g, i a ag g15 gEt gW Ec " . g 44 Q � O U _V' 62 " • g g r o LL c LL Q W ZO8S gO 1E > E� 9a 'f-g Qa a ;t_ f- ►-i. .. 31 2 rt x Ili 1 _ ,*• LANE, ,",Y, •y, Old ..•••: 11.'i c1Siti ., ,),A.., 794,. . , . , c,!.# --- . • 000 .. -,' 11 cif I.:' •••:, **;•. "rs?4 ... .', ! h]• ' • i� 'ti• p •�O .•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••. 31RI01118213UNv\ , y ,_ { w • S 0 •. W• O8�b9• 1fl • � Ny�l3dY• • • • 21 • • 0 = •' '. .d•+. .'yw' Q . [ • OW, '_ z .' W :€ i • • • • ,0 r5wamt= t K� Y!f Y`•S•�' . . . ... •LL • •.•. • ) •iyy,.Ar,t • O 6 gdiz '�•• • • • • ••'• • •' • • P4'••!'; 'V. gni g a • • '• 1.; . •••.••••••••••••••••••• • w c •' 47• .. .„�• �••••••••••••••••'• ••'0'..!•••�{ 7A. • • • , 8.•••••••••••••••••••• , • ciski -.••• • • • • • • • — c.) x -,� M � � co II/ OU • • • ' ••••U • ill rt .N t .•J'.x' • 0 LI n GULF SHORE DRIVE! Ili- f • a•; 1; • • . .,....•.e.•.•4•`► r...-....- r.:P^� a • Jo W. 1= e ... #. l • �7 414ti4 t uec..a alol YO da$aacs va vdm Tso12I01 Napir PART OF THE USA TODAY NETWORK Published Daily Naples FL 34110 BCC ZONING DEPT 3299 TAMIAMI TRL, STE 401 NAPLES, FL 34112 Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WISCONSIN COUNTY OF BROWN Before the undersigned they serve as the authority, personally appeared Joe Heynen who on oath says that he serves as legal clerk of the Naples Daily News, a daily newspaper published at Naples, in Collier County, Florida;distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida; that the attached copy of the advertising was published in said newspaper on dates listed Affiant further says that the said Naples Daily News is a newspaper published at Naples, in said Collier County, Florida. and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Collier County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida.each day and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Naples, in said Collier County, Florida,for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, or corporation any discount, rebate. commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper 2/3/2020 11 Subscribed and sworn to before on FEBRUARY 3,2020 YVl (J ' Notary, State of VVI, County of Brown } '1ADA MONDLOCI1 � — Notary Public State of Wisconsin My commission expires' August 6,2021 Publication Cost $945 00 Ad No GC10362865 Customer Na 531322 PO# NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Planning Commission will hold a public meeting on February 20,2020,commencing at 9:00 A.M.in the Board of County Commissioners Chamber, Third Floor,County Government Center,3299 East Tamiami Trail,Naples,FL. The purpose of the hearing is to consider: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 89-05, AS AMENDED,THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES BY AMENDING THE URBAN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TO ADD THE VANDERBILT REACH COMMERCIAL TOURIST SUBDISTRICT TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 17 HOTEL AND MOTEL UNITS AND 7,000 SQUARE FEET OF C-3, COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL USES. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF GULF SHORE DRIVE AND SOUTHBAY DRIVE IN SECTION 32,TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,RANGE 25 EAST,CONSISTING OF.62±ACRES;AND FURTHERMORE,DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTED AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY;PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.(PL20180002792) AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41,AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE DISTRICT(C-3)ZONING DISTRICT WITHIN THE VANDERBILT BEACH RESIDENTIAL TOURIST OVERLAY (VBRTO) TO A COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS VANDERBILT INN COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CPUD,TO ALLOW UP TO 17 HOTEL AND MOTEL UNITS AND 7,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST POR'T'ION OF THE INTERSECTION OF GULF SHORE DRIVE AND SOUTH BAY DRIVE,APPROXIMATELY 400 FEET NORTH OF VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD, IN SECTION 32,TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,RANGE 25 EAST,CONSISTING OF.62±ACRES;AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 1PL201800027931 alt c' Project Location o. 73 Southbay DR Center ST �aderUift teach RD All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard Copies of the proposed ORDINANCE(S) will be made available for inspection at the GMD Zoning Division.Comprehensive Planning Section, 2800 N Horseshoe Dr.. Naples. between the hours of 8:00 A M and 5:00 PM., Monday through Friday.Furthermore,the materials will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's Office,Fourth Floor,Collier County Government Center,3299 East Tamiami Trail,Suite 401 Naples, one week prior to the scheduled hearing Any questions pertaining to the documents should be directed to the GMD Zoning Division,Comprehensive Planning Section.Written comments filed with the Clerk to the Board's Office prior to February 20,2020,will be read and considered at the public hearing. Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Collier County Planning Commission will need a record of the proceedings pertaining!hereto and therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made.which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding,you are entitled,at no cost to you,to the provision of certain assistance Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples.FL 34112-5356.(239)252-8380.at least two days prior to the meeting Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office Mark P Strain,Chairman Collier County Planning Commission noeameanee.uI NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Planning Commission will hold a public meeting on February 20,2020,"commencing at 9:00 A.M.in the Board of County Comrf l8ei ners Chamber, Lad Floor,CoutlrGovernment Center,3299 East Tamiami Trail,Naples,FL. ' ,4. The purpose of the hearing is to consider: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 89-05, AS Z AMENDED,THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES BY AMENDING THE URBAN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TO m ADD THE VANDERBILT BEACH COMMERCIAL TOURIST SUBDISTRICT TO Z ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 17 HOTEL AND MOTEL UNITS AND 7,000 m SQUARE FEET OF C-3, COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL USES. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF GULF SHORE DRIVE AND SOUTHBAY DRIVE IN SECTION C 32,TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,RANGE 25 EAST,CONSISTING OF.62±ACRES;AND FURTHERMORE,DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTED AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY;PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.(PL20180002792) g O AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER 0 COUNTY,FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41,AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE co ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A COMMERCIAL • INTERMEDIATE DISTRICT(C-3)ZONING DISTRICT WITHIN THE VANDERBILT BEACH RESIDENTIAL TOURIST OVERLAY (VBRTO) TO A COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPDD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS VANDERBILT INN COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CPUD,TO ALLOW UP TO 17 HOTEL AND MOTEL UNITS AND 7,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY O LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST PORTION OF THE INTERSECTION OF GULF SHORE DRIVE AND SOUTH BAY DRIVE,APPROXIMATELY 400 FEET NORTH OF VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD,IN SECTION 32,TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,RANGE 25 va EAST,CONSISTING OF.62t ACRES;AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PC20180002793) G7 Project Location Ivo _.,.....Southbay DR Cen =[ a ,Orbit Beach RD 0 All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposed ORDINANCE(S) will be made available for inspection at the GMD Zoning Division,Comprehensive Planning Section, 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr., Naples, between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 PM., Monday through Friday.Furthermore,the materials will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's Office,Fourth Floor,Collier County Government Center,3299 East Tamiami Trail,Suite 401 Naples, one week prior to the scheduled hearing. Any questions pertaining to the documents should be directed to the GMD Zoning Division,Comprehensive Planning Section.Written comments filed with the Clerk to the Board's Office prior to February 20,2020,will be read and considered at the public hearing. Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Collier County Planning Commission will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore,may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made,which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding,you are entitled,at no cost to you,to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples,FL 34112-5356,(239)252-8380,at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. Mark P.Strain,Chairman Collier County Planning Commission ,o. „ FaulknerSue From: WeeksDavid Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 12:40 PM To: FaulknerSue Subject: FW: Buzz's Lighthouse- PUD Zoning Change Fyi. From:Jay Halloran <jay.halloran@cbes-us.com> Sent:Thursday,August 22, 2019 10:58 AM To: BellowsRay<Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov>; WeeksDavid <David.Weeks@colliercountyfl.gov>; FrantzJeremy <Jeremy.Frantz@colliercountyfl.gov>; BeardLaurie<Laurie.Beard@colliercountyfl.gov>; SaboJames <James.Sabo@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Buzz's Lighthouse- PUD Zoning Change Ray Bellows,Zoning Manager Collier County David Weeks, Growth Management Planning Manager James Sabo, Principal Planner, Zoning Jeremy Frantz, Land Development Code Manager Laurie Beard, PUD Monitoring Coordinator Collier County Government 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples FL 34104 All: RE: Duggan Family—Buzz's Lighthouse Petition PUD2-PL-20180002793, Petition SSGMPA-PL20180002792/CP2019-3- Dear All First of all,thank you all for your service to our community. Secondly, I am concerned with the actions being taken by the applicant regarding the application for rezoning Commercial-3 to PUD for the above-mentioned petition.The application is seeking to change the zoning from Commercial 3 to a PUD. The current zoning C-3 is"grandfathered" in because the motel and restaurant use has apparently been there for many years. Therefore, the owners of the property are free to maintain, repair and rebuild their property using the "current non-conforming uses". The Neighborhood Meeting was held on August 1, 2019. Most residents received notice of this meeting through the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association after July 28, 2019 leaving just 3 days to prepare to attend. As many residents are not in Florida for the months of July and August, we were unable to voice our comments on this rezoning application. If the notice was published in the local newspaper, we were unaware of that as well.This should not mitigate the rights of the Florida residence that spend time in other states during the summer months.As previously stated by Elizabeth A Pircio in her August 191h email to you, many aspects to this re-zoning are troubling to an environmentally sensitive neighborhood that is already faced with significant development such as Naples One. 1 The application states that the owner is concerned that if the current use is stopped for reasons such as accidental destruction, natural causes, etc., they will not be allowed to re- build using the same uses. However, "Grandfathered Use" allows the applicant to continue the use of the motel and restaurant and thus rebuild. In Elizabeth A Pircio's letter she states: In my opinion,there is a potential issue for"Spot Zoning" with this application. None of the abutting parcels of land surrounding this parcel are zoned as PUDs. In fact, the nearest PUD lies hundreds of feet away. Spot Zoning is defined as changing zoning on a parcel of land when the rezoning is usually at odds with the city Master Plan. The defining characteristic for a complaint of Spot Zoning is the unjustified special treatment that benefits an owner, while undermining the pre-existing rights and uses of adjacent property owners. Can you confirm that this is not taking place and if not what is?Changing the zoning to the only PUD in the immediate surrounding area can be detrimental for the neighborhood. In the Zoning along Gulf Shore Drive by Vanderbilt Beach, most of the parcels are Included in the Vanderbilt Beach Residential Tourist Overlay District, including the parcel abutting this applicant. In reviewing this district, it states that the purpose is to encourage development of the area to be sensitive to the scale, compatibility and sense of place that exists in the Vanderbilt Beach area. It states further that these procedures will protect view corridors, light and air movements etc. The uses permitted include hotels, motels, and accessory uses such as restaurants. So,there is a readily available Zoning that will fit the needs of this applicant and smoothly merge into the current zoning rather than applying for a PUD re-zone that will be detrimental to the neighborhood and set a dangerous precedent for future applicants.The design standards of a PUD include as follows: the ability to "encourage the redevelopment of relatively large tracts of land under unified ownership or control.This is a small(less than 1 acre). Collier County has a Master Plan that was properly engineered with understanding of the impacts of growth, infrastructure needs and rezoning. For the Master plan to be continually re-zoned by each individual to maximize their development and increase their financial benefit will put significant stress on the infrastructure and environment.There should also be consideration of the precedent that would be set if the re-zoning is awarded in this matter. How will the Committee legally prevent other businesses in Collier County from coming before the county for a re-zone to a PUD no matter how small the parcel is? The application for the re-zone to a PUD will set a precedent for any other developer to buy a parcel of land of any size in any neighborhood and attempt to have it re-zoned to a PUD. How could Collier County justify denying future re-zones to PUD's no matter how small the parcels are? How would these precedents stand up in court should any PUD application be denied?The question is"why is the applicant applying for a re-zone to a PUD when the abutting Vanderbilt Beach Overlay District permits the uses that he wants for his land". Is it to Spot Zone first then be able to sell this parcel to a larger developer for a much larger project in the beach area that is under continuous impact already? I believe that there is a slippery slope that the County will be facing if this is allowed. Respectfully, Jay Halloran 400 Flagship Drive, unit 708 Naples FL 34108 Cell 7774-573-9882 Jay Halloran President City Building Engineering Services,LLC Suite 300 200 Summit Drive Burlington MA 01803 2 Cell: (774)573-9882 Email:jay.halloran6i.cbes-us.com ecbes Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 3 02/20/2020 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.7 Item Summary: PL20180000622: A Resolution of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners designating 642.52 acres within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Zoning Overlay District as a Stewardship Receiving Area, to be known as the Hyde Park Village Stewardship Receiving Area, which will allow development of a maximum of 1,800 residential dwelling units, of which a minimum of 300 and a maximum of 1000 will be multi-family dwelling units; a minimum of 45,000 square feet of commercial development in the Village Center Context Zone; a minimum of 18,000 square feet of civic, governmental and institutional uses in the Village Center Context Zone; assisted living facilities subject to a floor area ratio in place of the square footage cap in the Village Center Context Zone; a maximum of 10,000 square feet for any recreation buildings in the Neighborhood General Context Zone and a maximum of 5,000 square feet for any recreation buildings in the Neighborhood Edge Context Zone; a maximum of 30,000 square feet of wellness and commercial development in the Village Amenity and Wellness Center Context Zone; all subject to a maximum pm peak hour trip cap; and approving the Stewardship Receiving Area credit agreement for Hyde Park Village Stewardship Receiving Area and establishing that 3548.24 stewardship credits are being utilized by the designation of the Hyde Park Village Stewardship Receiving Area. The subject property is located north of Oil Well Road and east of the future Big Cypress in Section 16, Township 48 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Timothy Finn, AICP, Principal Planner] Meeting Date: 02/20/2020 Prepared by: Title: – Zoning Name: Tim Finn 02/03/2020 1:58 PM Submitted by: Title: Manager - Planning – Zoning Name: Ray Bellows 02/03/2020 1:58 PM Approved By: Review: Zoning Camden Smith Review Item Completed 02/04/2020 3:43 PM Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 02/05/2020 9:34 AM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 02/05/2020 12:26 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig Review item Completed 02/05/2020 2:49 PM Growth Management Department James C French Review Item Completed 02/05/2020 4:47 PM Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 02/05/2020 6:13 PM Planning Commission Mark Strain Meeting Pending 02/20/2020 9:00 AM 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 755 C.ovmty TO STAFF REPORT COLLIER COTINTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM:ZONING DIVISION - ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: FEBRUARY 20.2020 SRA-PL20180000622; HYDE PARK VILLAGE STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA (SRA) SUBJECT: PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT/AGENTS : Owner: Winchester Land, LLC 1299 Zurrch Way Schaumberg,IL 60196 Applicant: Michael Greenberg, Southwest Florida Regional President Neal Communities of Southwest Florida, LLC 5800 Ranch Blvd Sarasota, FL 34240 Agents: Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, Vice President Hole Montes, Inc. 950 Encore Way Naples, FL 34110 Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 SRA-PL20180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA Revised: February 12, 2020 Page 'l of 43 AGENDA ITEM 9.A.7 9.A.7.a Packet Pg. 756 Attachment: Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-12-20 (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) A o ffillffiT{ffiffiffIlrTr iflltiT:lrefi:rrmr zolU-EEo(JoJIoI=a o-oo)C.E oN NN(ooooo @roNJ IL l-o _o E:lz c .o oIL -/f - - o- G Co GooJ SRA-P120180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA Revised: February 12, 2020 tZboltr E Eg on'I8 olosoo olo N OA'18 uosl! -(!o o EI6(9 otr og o5o E .E o.g(! \ Page 2 of 43 I\.rUOIolUItcC1t(otIo-=I9.A.7.aPacket Pg. 757Attachment: Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-12-20 (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) I tI nIii'irtrltttIs;I ,t3!!edE!Ia!fct3IIi56TTiT I a -8 5T l(u ad TE ,d_ i liraE! Ei llis i .F.t!t!) i;$";-a __t_LISE zI i9Ia I fi[i 6feiI' PEA';t 'rl f q I rl i: tir I! :<c( uJ<o I -tsE E(I;E !iEEH E Eq P E :iiIi:i,x!!i!:iiilt!,l!:i!:t 3 r i2r6tthh iEt iE!tlEt l"E riiEi!" iiti:il ;:iiiiE irilii: lr 3ldl ES# ;g <98 E5E P39 gr9iErqR2aEE;iEzgE3B=6IE - urrxrr rruru osooL - {:rao usEnl,rd,$ En Y Nfirnalrlirnl drrsof,Yl e rda r. Nh ,!iil,!1[\ItTE 6 q:$F*!IB6TI qt 8FEl!-- E:6 h=-Eii e - -t Piihl 2E Ed=I "':il zo o t; i :_.\:.. .---4 I I IL i li SRA-PL20180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA Revised: February 12, 2020 Page 3 of 43 I!{!zt{ it I I 66 IiE !38 E!Ehlu IEA IEIiir!;!g!rt3tt6;i9t iEE EEE :i ! EIE6E;r 3Uxa Ellt?;!qI56 l ItEt !ll!l rE pa ?:E EE[E rE;T EEHi9.A.7.aPacket Pg. 758Attachment: Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-12-20 (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) REOUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider a Resolution of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners designating 642.52 acres within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Zoning Overlay District as a Stewardship Receiving Area, to be known as the Hyde Park Village Stewardship Receiving Area, which will allow development of a maximum of 1,800 residential dwelling units, of which a minimum of 300 dwelling units and a maximum of 1,000 will be multi-family dwelling units; a minimum of 45,000 square feet of commercial development in the Village Center Context Zone; a minimum of 18,000 square feet of civic, govemmental and institutional uses in the Village Center Context Zone; assisted living facilities subject to a floor area ratio in place of the square footage cap in the Village Center Context Zone; a maximum of 10,000 square feet for any recreation buildings in the Neighborhood General Context Zone and a maximum of 5,000 square feet for any recreation buildings in the Neighborhood Edge Context Zone; a maximum of 30,000 square feet of wellness and commercial development in the Village Amenity and Wellness Center Context Zone (Note: As suggested by staff, this Context Zone also allows several types of personal service uses including banks, credit unions, child care, health services and offices, financial advisors, and similar types of uses providing wellness related counseling services.); all subject to a maximum pm peak hour trip cap (1,685 two-way, adjusted, average weekday pm peak hour total trips); and approving the Stewardship Receiving Area credit agreement for Hyde Park Village Stewardship Receiving Area and establishing that 3548.24 stewardship credits are being utilized by the designation of the Hyde Park Village Stewardship Receiving Area. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject properfy, consisting of 642.52 acres, is located north of Oil Well Road and east of the future Big Cypress in Section 16, Township 48 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. (see location map on page 2). PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay District (RLSA) was developed, in large part due to protect natural resource areas and agricultural lands. The RLSA encourages property owners to voluntarily protect environmentally valuable land as a public benefit. The mechanism to achieve the protection of environmentally valuable land is the designation of Stewardship Sending Areas (SSA) in exchange for Stewardship Credits, which are used to entitle Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRA). One of the components of the SRA designation application is the Natural Resource Index Assessment Report, which documents the relative natural resource values of land within an SRA The Natural Resource Index Assessment documents the existing conditions and Natural Resource Index (NRI) scores within the proposed SRA for Hyde Park Village SRA. It should be noted that the NRI scores demonstrate that Hyde Park Village SRA meets the Suitability Criteria contained in SRA-P120180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA Revised: February 12, 2020 Page 4 of 43 9.A.7.a Packet Pg. 759 Attachment: Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-12-20 (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). Please, see the Environmental Review Section of this Staff Report for fuither information. Hyde Park Village SRA is one of the four SRAs that have either been submitted to Collier County for review or have had pre-application meetings for an SRA designation. The other three SRA Villages located within the vicinity of Hyde Park Village SRA along the future Big Cypress Parkway are Rivergrass Village (approved by the BCC on January 28, 2020), and Longwater Village (PL20190001836), and Belmar Village (PL20190001837), both of which are currently under review. Hyde Park Village SRA consists of four context zones, Neighborhood General, Neighborhood Edge, Village Amenity and Wellness Center, and Village Center. Two points of ingress and egress are proposed to serve the SRA from Oil Well Road: one at the terminus of Desoto Boulevard, providing project and public access through the Village Center; and the second, the main project access, is located about one-half mile to the west. Two future interconnections to the east (to future Big Cypress Parkway) are provided. One provides public access to the Village Center and the other provides access to and from future Big Cypress Parkway for Hyde Park Residents. This SRA application for Hyde Park Village SRA will include approximately: 1,800 dwelling units with a SRA density calculation of 2.8 units per acre (DU/AC); o a minimum of 300 and a maximum of 1,000 will be multi-family dwelling units a minimum of 45,000 square feet of commercial development in the Village Center Context Zone; a minimum of 18,000 squarc feet of civic, institutional and govemmental uses in the Village Center Context Zone; a maximum of 10,000 sqrnre feet for any recreation buildings in the Neighborhood General Context Zone; a maximum of 5,000 squffe feet for any recreation buildings in the Neighborhood Edge Context Zone; a maximum of 30,000 square feet of wellness and commercial development in the Village Amenity and Wellness Center Context Zone;and assisted living facilities subject to floor area ratio in place of the square footage cap in the Village Center Context Zone The Village will also have other uses such as open space tracts, linear parks, and lakes. The required minimum 35Yo open space is 224.88 acres, and 66oh open space or 423.87 acres has been provided. For further information, please see Attachment A - Proposed SRA Resolution SRA-P120180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA Revised; February 12, 2020 a a a o a a a Page 5 of 43 9.A.7.a Packet Pg. 760 Attachment: Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-12-20 (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) SURRO ING LAND USE ZONING: This section of the staff report identifies the land uses, zoning classifications, and maximum approved densities for properties surrounding boundaries of Hyde Park Village SRA: North: Sparsely developed with single-family residential, with a current zoning designation of Estates (E), (one unit per 2.25 acres) East:Undeveloped land, with a current zoning designation of Agriculture-Mobile Home Overlay with Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (A-MHO-RLSAO) (1 unit per 5 acres). Immediately to the east future Big Cypress Parkway, then approved Rivergrass Village SRA South:oil well Road, a two-lane arterial roadway (planned to be widened to 6 lanes - LRTP) , then sparsely developed with single-family residential, with a current zoning designation of Estates (E), (one unit per 2.25 acres) West:Faka Union Canal, then sparsely developed single-family residential, with a current zoning designation of Estates (E), (one unit per 2.25 acres) SRA-P120180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA Revised: February 12, 2O2O Aerisl (County GIS) Page 6 of 43 r- I I l llr. iVi Nf r il-R ilE t I.t o o i ,l I I I ! z lilr Av€ Nf oL t! iisr aVE rlE -'t' :,f 9.A.7.a Packet Pg. 761 Attachment: Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-12-20 (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) GROWTH M EMENT PLAN (GMP)NSISTENCY: Comprehensive Planning staff has reviewed the proposed SRA. The subject property is designated Agricultural/Rural (Agricultural/Rural Mixed-Use District) and is within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSAO) as depicted on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Property owners within this FLUM designation may develop their property under the baseline conditions, which are agriculture and related uses, essential services, residential at a maximum density of one dwelling unit per five acres, parks and open space, earth mining, etc., or may choose to participate in the Stewardship Program. The Stewardship Program provides for the protection of valuable habitats by designation as a Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) where land-use layers are removed, which generates Stewardship Credits that can be used to entitle mixed-use developments known as Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs) on lands appropriate for development. SRAs may vary in size and must contain a mixture of uses, as provided for in the RLSAO policies contained in the FLUE. Details of the RLSAO are provided in the RLSAO Policies and RLSAO Attachment C, Stewardship Receiving Area Characteristics, in the FLUE as well as the implementing RLSAO zoning overlay in the LDC, Land Development Code - also referred to as the LDC Stewardship District. Comprehensive Planning staff has reviewed this SRA petition and reached the following conclusions (see Attachment C-FLUE Consistency Review Memo dated Dec. 27, 2019, for full analysis): 1. The requisite credits are either approved or pending approval, in sufficient number to enable development of the project. 2. The proposed Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) for the project may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element, Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay. 3. Comprehensive Planning also requests: a) Make the 18O-unit multi-family dwelling figure part of Section 5.4.1, Village Center Context Zone, Allowable Uses and Structures. Transportation Element: recommends the following: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition and Policy 3.3 of the Transportation Element of the GMP: "The County shall acquire a sfficient amount of right-of-way to facilitate arterial and collector roads os appropriate to meet the needs of the Long-Range Transportation Plan or other adopted tronsportation studies, plan or progroms, appropriate turn lanes, medians, bicycle and pedestrian features, drainage canals, a shoulder sufficient for pull offs, and landscaping areos. Exceptions to the right-of-way standard may be considered SRA-P120180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA Revised: February 12, 2020 Page 7 of 43 9.A.7.a Packet Pg. 762 Attachment: Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-12-20 (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) when it can demonstrate, through a trffic capacity analysis, that the maximum number of lanes at build-out will be less than the standard." Long-Range Transportation Plan: In 2016, Collier County began the Randall Boulevard and Oil Well Road Corridor Study. This study evaluated several corridor altematives to enhance traffic operations and safety conditions based on current and future travel demands. While the County was studying the corridor, the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization adopted an amendment (May 25,2018) to the 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan that added a new needed roadway that became known as Big Cypress Parkway between Golden Gate Boulevard and Immokalee Road. The County continued forward with the Randall Boulevard and Oil Well Road Corridor Study, which included coordination with Collier Enterprises as it related to their SRA development at the time (Rural Lands West SRA). In May 2079, the Board adopted Viable Altemative 2*, which included the following improvements: o Randall Boulevard (8th Street NE to Everglades Boulevard - 6 lanes) o Randall Boulevard (Everglades Boulevard to Big Cypress Parkway - 4 lanes) o Oil Well Road (Everglades Boulevard to Oil Well Grade Road - 6 lanes) . Everglades Boulevard (Randall Boulevard to Oil Well Road - 4 lanes) o Additional regional roadway needs to enhance access, safety, and mobility: o Vanderbilt Beach Road (16th Street NE to Big Cypress Parkway) o Everglades Boulevard (Vanderbilt Beach Road Ext. to Randall Boulevard) o Big Cypress Parkway (Golden Gate Boulevard to Immokalee Road) Condition of approval: The companion Developer Agreement is required to be approved with this SRA request. Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states "The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) fficting the overall countlutide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application has significant impacts if the trffic impact statement reveals that any of the following occur: a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project trffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; SRA-P120180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA Revised. February 12, 2020 Page 8 of 43 9.A.7.a Packet Pg. 763 Attachment: Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-12-20 (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) b. For linl<s adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project trffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and c. For all other linl<s, the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where it is equal to or exceeds 3% of the adopted LoS standard servtce volume. Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the trffic impact statement that addresses the project's significant impacts on all roadways. " Staff finding: In evaluating the Hyde Park Village SRA, staff reviewed the applicant's Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) dated November 4,2019 for consistency using the applicable 2018 and current 2019 Annual Update and Inventory Reports (AUIR). According to the SRA document and noted above, the applicant is requesting a maximum of 1,800 residential dwelling units, up to 45,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial retail/office uses, and 18,000 square feet of civic, governmental and institutional uses. The TIS provided with the petition outlines a potential development scenario for 1,500 single-family residential dwelling units, 300 multi-family dwelling units, up to 18,000 square feet of governmental and institutional uses, and up to 45,000 square feet of retail/office uses. Staff has evaluated the TIS and has found that the scenario presents an accurate trip generation calculation, reasonable trip distribution on the surrounding network, and reflects a reasonable development potential with the proposed SRA. The SRA document establishes the total trip cap commitment of +l- 1,685 PM peak hour two-way trips. According to the TIS, the project impacts the following County roadways Link # Roadway Link Location 2018 ATIIR Existing LOS P.M. Peak Hour Peak Direction Service Volume/Peak Direction 2018 AUIR Remaining Capacity 2019 AUIR Remaining Capacity 121.2 Oil Well Road Oil Well Grade to Ave Maria Blvd B 2,000/West 1,464 1,458 121.1 Oil Well Road Desoto Blvd to Oil Well Grade B 1,100/West 564 558 120.0 Oil Well Road Everglades Blvd to Desoto Blvd B 1,1OO/West 541 526 SRA-P120180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA Revised: February 12, 2020 Page 9 of 43 9.A.7.a Packet Pg. 764 Attachment: Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-12-20 (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 119.0 Oil Well Road Immokalee Road to Everglades Blvd C 2,000/East 863 808 135 Everglades Blvd Golden Gate Blvd to Oil Well Road B 80O,A{orth 445 339 1 18.0 Wilson Blvd Immokalee Road to Golden Gate Blvd B 900/South 560 s49 133.0 Randal Blvd Everglades Blvd to Desoto Blvd C 90O/East 261 248 t32.0 Randal Blvd Immokalee Road to Everglades Blvd E 900/East 40 64 112.0 Vanderbilt Beach Rd Logan Blvd to Collier Blvd C 3,000/East 1,052 1,156 rtt.2 Vanderbilt Beach Rd Livingston Rd to Logan Blvd C 3,000/East 859 7t2 17.0 Golden Gate Blvd Collier Blvd to Wilson Blvd C 2,300lEast 590 570 123.0 Golden Gate Blvd Wilson Blvd to 18th Street NE/SE B 2,300lEast 1,095 1 Z)1 Golden Gate Blvd 18th Street NE/SE to Everglades Blvd B 2"300lEast 1 )I 05 1 )025 t24.0 Golden Gate Blvd Everglades Blvd to Desoto Blvd B 1,01O/East 783 778 SRA-PL20180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA Revised: February 12, 2020 Page 10 of43 1,016 9.A.7.a Packet Pg. 765 Attachment: Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-12-20 (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 46.0 Immokalee Road Oil Well Road to SR 29 C 9O0/East 322 288 45.0 Immokalee Road Wilson Blvd to Oil Well Road C 3,300/East 891 476 44.0 Immokalee Road Collier Blvd to Wilson Blvd D 3,3O0/East 681 362 Immokalee Road Logan Blvd to Collier Blvd D 3,200lEast 188 284 43.1 Immokalee Road I-75 to Logan Blvd D 3,5O0/East 530 553 30.2 Collier Blvd Vanderbilt Beach Road to Golden Gate Blvd B 3,000/South 1,662 1,638 31.1 Collier Blvd Golden Gate Blvd to Pine tudge Road C 3,000A.Jorth 1 )1 42 1,071 31.2 Collier Blvd Pine Ridge Road to Green Blvd C 3,0004{orth I 1 60 1,043 The companion Developer Agreement fulfills the mitigation necessary to comply with the Growth Management Plan Transportation Element Policy 5.1. Condition of approval: The companion Developer Agreement is required to be approved with this SRA request. Policy 7.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states: "Collier County shall apply the standards and criteria of the Access Management Policy as adopted by Resolution and as may be amended to ensure the protection of the arterial and collector system's capacity and integrity." SRA-PL20180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA Revised: February 12, 2020 Page 11 of43 43.2 9.A.7.a Packet Pg. 766 Attachment: Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-12-20 (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Staff finding: The Hyde Park Village SRA is proposing two access points on Oil Well Road and two on the future Big Cypress Parkway. Staff recommends approval ofthe proposed access points shown on the master plan for this petition. Nothing in this development order will vest the developer to anything more than a right in/right out at the locations. Directional and full median openings may be contemplated at the time of Site Development Plan or Plat and Plan. To be explicit regarding a future signalized intersection, a provision of the companion Developer Agreement includes provisions for proportionate fair share payment for these roadway improvements. Condition of approval: The companion Developer Agreement is required to be approved with this SRA request. Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states: "The County shall require, whereverfeasible, the interconnection of local streets between developments to facilitate convenient moyement throughout the road network. The LDC shall identtfu the circumstances and conditions that would require the interconnection of neighboring developments and shall also develop standards and criteriafor the safe interconnection ofsuch local streets." Staff finding: The Land Development Code requires the applicant to create an interconnected street system designed to disperse and reduce the length of automobile trips (4.08.07.J.3.a.iii). The proposed Hyde Park Village SRA's Master Plan shows potential-future interconnections to adjacent roadways along the future Big Cypress Parkway. The north and west perimeters of the project are adjacent to estate zoning-parcels where interconnections are not desirable. StaffRecommendation: Transportation Planning stafffinds this petition consistent with the GMP subject to the following Conditions of Approval below and recommends approval with the following conditions: Conditions of Approval : A. The companion Developer Agreement is required to be approved with this SRA request. STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this SRA petition and the criteria. Environmental Review: LDC Section 4.08.07.4.1.d requires that Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRA) with lands greater than one acre and a Natural Resource Index CNzu) value greater than 1.2 shall be retained as open space and maintained in a predominantly natural vegetated state. There are no areas within the proposed SRA that contain acreages with an NRI score above 1.2. The majority land within the SRA boundary was cleared of native vegetation and converted to row crops and improved pasture lands. Pursuant to the Growth Management Plan Future Land Use Element, preservation of listed species habitat and other native areas in the Rural Lands SRA-P120180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA Revised: February 12, 2020 Page 12 of 43 9.A.7.a Packet Pg. 767 Attachment: Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-12-20 (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Stewardship Area is addressed by the creation of the required Stewardship Sending Areas (SSA). SSA 7 has been approved for the petitioner to obtain credits for the development of the SRA. Evaluation of Suitability Criteria in LDC section 4.08.07.A: o Residential, commercial, manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, transient housing, institutional, civic and community service uses within an SRA shall not be sited on lands that receive a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2 (LDC Section 4.08.07.A.1.b). There are no areas having an NRI value greater than 1.2; therefore, residential, commercial, manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, transient housing, institutional, civic and community service uses may be sited on these lands. Conditional use essential serttices and government essential sertices, with the exception of those necessary to sertte permitted uses andfor public safety, shall not be sited on land that receives a Ilratural Resource Indexvalue of greater than 1.2, regardless of the size of the land or parcel (LDC Section 4.08.07.A.1.c). There are no areas having an NRI value greater than 1.2; therefore, conditional use essential services, except for those necessary to serve permitted uses and for public safety, and govemmental essential services may be sited on these lands. Lands or parcels that are greater than one acre and have an Index Value greater than 1.2 shalt be retained as open space and maintained in a predominantly natural vegetated state (LDC section4.08.07.A.l.d). TherearenoareashavinganNRlvaluegreaterthanl.2. a An SRA may be contiguous to an FSA or HSA, but shall not encroach into such areas, and sholl buffer such areas as described in LDC Section 4.08.07.J.6. An SRA may be contiguous to, or encompass, a WRA (LDC Section 4.08.07.A.1.d. TYrc project does not encroach into an FSA, HSA, or WRA; it provides the required buffers as indicated on the SRA Master Plan. SSA credits required for SRA Desisnation. Environmental Planning staff reviewed this petition in conjunction with GIS staff who provided the following information regarding generation of stewardship credits: The Stewardship credits for Hyde Park Village SRA are generated from SSA 7 located on properties within and adjoining the Camp Keais Strand, a major flow way system connecting Corkscrew Marsh at its northem end and adjoining the Okaloacoochee Slough. The credit calculation is based on the total acreage of Hyde Park, which is 642.52 acres. The minimum open space requirement is 224.88 acres; the applicant has proposed 423.87 acres of open space. Therefore, the total acreage that consumes credits is 443.53 acres. Therefore, Hyde Park requires 3,548.24 Stewardship Credits. Of the six Natural Resources Index Factors on the Stewardship Credit Worksheet, only Land Use - Land Cover (FLUCFCS) and Listed Species Habitat are prone to change over time. In this SRA application. minor changes to the Land Use - Land Cover Classifications have not occurred as a SRA-PL20180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA Revised: February 12, 2020 a Page 13 of43 a 9.A.7.a Packet Pg. 768 Attachment: Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-12-20 (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) result of detailed onsite FLUCFCS mapping conducted in June 2017. Minor changes have occurred to the Listed Species Habitat factor that affects index scoring for the SRA; however, no NRI value exceeded 1.2 within the SRA boundary. Hyde Park Village SRA credits are generated from Stewardship Sending Area 7, which has 4,03 4.20 available credits. Site Description. The subject property consists of 642.52 acres of disturbed lands. Past land uses include intense agricultural activity and filI pits authorized by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) through an Environmental Resource Permit issued in 1998. There is a 1.56-acre Conservation Easement dedicated to SFWMD in the southeast comer of the project site. A FLUCFCS map detailing land use is contained in Exhibit 2 of the Natural Resource Index Assessment. The vegetated area is 1.92 acres, which is classified as Exotic Wetland Hardwoods (1.08 acres) and Australian Pines (0.84 acres). The vegetation does not meet the LDC definition of native vegetation for preservation purposes. Wetland mitigation for impacts to this area will be addressed through the Environmental Resource Permitting process. Conservation & Coastal Manasement Element (CCME) & Future Land Use Element (FL(IE) r elated to Environmental Planning : Environmental Planning staff has found this project to be consistent with the CCME & FLUE. Pursuant to the Growth Management Plan Future Land Use Element, preservation of listed species habitat and other native areas in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area is addressed by the creation of the required Stewardship Sending Areas. SSA 7 has been approved for the petitioner to obtain credits for the development of the SRA. Listed Species Listed species surveys were conducted in February 2018 and October 2019 for wildlife species listed by the FWCC and the USFWS as endangered, threatened or species of special concern (see Exhibit 3 of the Natural Resource Index Assessment). The February 20i 8 survey did not find any listed species present within the Hyde Park Village SRA boundary. The current wildlife survey conducted in October 2019 and a site visit conducted by staff in December 2019 revealed the only threatened species observed onsite was the little blue heron (Egretta caerulea). The Natural Resource Index Assessment states pedestrian transects were spaced approximately 50 to 200 feet apart and the transects are shown in Appendix A of the Natural Resource Index Assessment. There were no protected plant species identified on-site. Environmental supports this petition subject to the following condition of approval: 1. Prior to issuance of the first SDP and/or PPL, a listed species management plan must be provided for review, with approval from FWCC and/or USFWS for management of the Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi) and all other listed species. Utilities Review: The project lies within the regional potable water and northeast wastewater service areas of the Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD). Water, wastewater, and SRA-PL2O180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA Revised: February 12, 2020 Page 14 of43 9.A.7.a Packet Pg. 769 Attachment: Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-12-20 (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) irrigation quality G.a ) water services will be extended to the project from the Northeast Utility Facilities (NEUF) site at 825 39th Ave NE (adjacent to the Collier County fairgrounds). Pending Board approval, utility services will be provided in accordance with the Developer Contribution Agreement (DCA) that accompanies this petition. The CCWSD will extend transmission mains through a County Utility Easement to be provided along the north side of the development. Additionally, the CCWSD will construct an interim 1.5 MGD wastewater treatment facility at the NEUF site to serve the project. The developer will be responsible for design, permitting, construction, and conveyance of utility system infrastructure internal to the SRA pursuant to the Collier County Utilities Standards and Procedures Ordinance (Ord. No. 2004-31, as amended). Also, the developer has agreed to reserye a perrnanent well site and associated pipeline easements to the CCWSD. Deviation #3 in subsection 6.8 "Other Deviations" was added at the request of Public Utilities to allow the I.Q. water distribution system constructed within the SRA to be conveyed by the developer to the CCWSD for ownership and maintenance, in accordance with the DCA. Residents and businesses will receive individually metered irrigation services and will pay standard I.Q. rates. Perimeter berms and common a.reas may be irrigated from on-site water sources. The Public Utilities Department supports this petition subject to the following conditions of approval: l. The negotiated DCA must be adopted concurrently with or prior to the SRA ordinance. Landscape Review: The applicant is requesting two landscape deviations as part of this application. Staff recommends approval of these deviations (see deviation discussion below). The buffers labeled on the master plan meet or exceed LDC requirements. Porks and Recreation Review: Parks and Recreation staff has reviewed the petition and recommends the developer provide an ASTM certified playground as part of the Amenity Site facilities. Communitv and Human Services Review (Housingl Reviey): Proposal- As submitted, the Hyde Park Village proposes to comply with FLUE Policy 4.7.2 thatvillages be, "...Primarily residential communities with a diversity of housing types and mix of uses appropriate to the scale and character of the particular village", by stating that, "The HPV will be entitled to allow for up to 1,800 dwelling units (with a maximum of 1500 single-family and a minimum of 180 multi-family dwelling units), 45,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses, and 18,000 square feet of civic, institutional and governmental uses. The Economic Assessment provided with the submission offers some details as to the types and proposed sales pricing of the housing units. SRA-P120'180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA Revised: February 12, 2020 Page 15 of43 9.A.7.a Packet Pg. 770 Attachment: Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-12-20 (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Sales, Just. and Taxable Values Estimates of sales, just, and taxable values for the residential units are shown in Table 2. The sales values of the residential product types were provided by the Applicant. The eligible homestead percentaBe per residential product type used in computing the taxable value per unit was based on County averages published by the Shimberg Center for Housing Studies at the University of Florida. According to the Shimberg Center, the median assessed value of a single-family home in unincorporated Collier County is 5261,840. ln comparison, the average assessed value for Collier Lakes single-family homes is S329,OOO which is 25 percent higher than the County's median value. Table 2: Collier Lakes Residential and Taxable Values Land Use Fee Residential (Units) Multi-Family (Apts) 1-10 Stories Single Family ProductA Single Family Product B Single Family Product C Total Residential Source: Neal Communities. Shimberg Center for Housing Studies (Univ. of FL), DPFG, 2018 The assessment states that, "According to the Shimberg Center, the median assessed value of a single-family home in unincorporated Collier County is $261,840. In comparison, the average assessed value for Collier Lakes (aka- Hyde Park Village) single-family homes is $329,000 which is26%o higher than the County's median value." Housing Review: The Hyde Park Village submission offers no details on how many residential units will meet the county's affordability standards for various income levels. It also offers no detail on the number of affordable units or price points that will be included to accommodate the need for affordable units created by the village itself. Without such details, it is not possible to evaluate the submittal to determine if it meets LDC Section 4.08.07 J. 3. a. iv. stating that villages shall... "Offer a range of housing types and price levels to accommodate diverse ages and incomes." What constitutes a range of housing types and prices, and which ages and incomes are intended to be served are policy interpretations that can be determined by the CCPC and BCC. Staff s function is to provide background and a reasonableness test in order to inform the deciding bodies of the intent of policy goals and LDC requirements. RLSA villages are intended to be innovative, compact, and residential in nature including supporting commercial and civic uses. Their intention is to be as self-sufficient as possible so as to not place an undue burden on other SRA-P120180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA Revised: February 12, 2020 Units Sales Va I ue per Unit Just Va I ue per Unat Average Taxa bl e Va I ue per Unit 300 S 168,000 s 1s8,000 S 1s8,ooo 534 5 282,ooo s 26s,000 5 z32,3oo 598 S 344,ooo 5 323,000 S 2eo,3oo 368 s 373,000 S 3s1,ooo S : rs,:oo 1,800 Page 16 of43 9.A.7.a Packet Pg. 771 Attachment: Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-12-20 (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) areas as residents travel from the village for goods and services, or as labor for travels to the RLSA for employment. A self-sufficient village should aim to accommodate the housing needs of those employees needed to work in the village. The documentation provided by HPV seems to proclaim the fact that the residential units that are proposed will exceed the County's median value by 260/o, offering no accommodation for affordability to Very-low, Low, Moderate, or Gap income residents. Collier County's approved Housing Demand Methodology assigns a maximum purchase price of $330,000 as the top level of affordably for households at the ceiling of the Gap income level. Households at the Moderate-Income level require products priced less than $275,000. Households at the Low-income level require products priced less than $150,000, and those at the Very-Low income require products priced less than that. The Economic Assessment indicates that 1,432 residential units in The Hyde Park Villag e may be priced near levels as to be affordable to Low, Moderate and Gap income households. The proposal does not seem to include any units or accommodation for households at the Low or Very-Low income levels. Staff recommended condition of approval: It is recommended that a housing needs analysis be performed to estimate the affordable housing demand generated by The Hyde Park Village proposal, as well as a plan to address the supply of those units. Absent conducting a housing needs analysis to estimate the affordable housing demand generated by The Hyde Park Village, as well as a plan to address the supply of those units, staff proposes the following recommendation. The Hyde Park Village should commit that at least l5Yo of the units that the applicant proposes may be sold at purchase prices near the Moderate, and Gap affordability ranges (product types: Multi-Family Apts, & Single-Family Product A, Single-Family Product B), will actually be set aside and sold to households that are certified to be in those ranges. Hyde Park Village Residential Types Units Sales Price L Multi-Family (Apts) 1-10 St.300 Stog,ooo 2 Single Family Product A 534 Sz8z,ooo 3 Single Family Product B 598 Sg++,ooo 4 Single Family Product C 368 Sgzg,ooo Tota! Residential 1,800 SRA-P120180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA Revised: February 12, 2020 L5% of Products 1.2&3 45 80 90 2L5 Low Moderate Gap Page 17 of43 9.A.7.a Packet Pg. 772 Attachment: Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-12-20 (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) These 215 units would represent nearly l2Yo of the residential units in The Hyde Park Village and should be certified for initial occupancy and comply with long-term monitoring requirements similar to other developments in Collier County. The Hyde Park Village should also consider the donation of a residential parcel to the County, an Affordable Housing Land Trust, or the County's designee in order to address the housing needs of households at the Very-Low income levels and below. A contribution to the Collier County Local Housing Trust Fund may also serve to mitigate for units unable to be made available on-site. These staff recommendations, when taken in total, would result in The Hyde Park Village addressing housing affordability in a similar fashion to other previously approved large-scale developments and DRIs in Collier County. Historic Preservation Review: Historic Preservation staff has reviewed the petition for compliance with the GMP and the LDC and recommends approval of this project. Architectural Review.' In accordance with LDC Section 4.08.07 J.3.a.viii., the Architectural Design Standards of Section 5.05.08 shall apply unless additional or different design standards that deviate from 5.05.08, in whole or in part, are submitted to the County. The proposed Hyde Park Village SRA does not propose any additional or different architectural design standards that deviate from LDC 5.05.08. The applicant intends to meet the architectural and site design standards of LDC Section 5.05.08. Architectural review staff can support the Hyde Park Village SRA Development Document and recommends approval. Collier Countv Pablic Schools (CCPS District Review: At this time, there is existing or planned capacity within the next 5 years for the purposed development at the elementary, middle and high school levels. At the time of site plan or plat, the development would be reviewed for concurrency to ensure there is capacity either within the concurrency service area the development is located within or adjacent concuffency service areas. Collier Sheriff Review: At buildout, there will be a need for a sub-station such as the one built near the intersection of CR 846 and 39th Ave NE located in that area. Fire Review: The North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District reviewed and approved the SRA on September 27,2019. Please note, at the time of SDP or platting, the project will be evaluated for compliance with the Florida Fire Prevention Code regarding fire department access roads and water supply. Please see the Florida Fire Prevention Code, Sixth Edition, 1: Chapter 18 for requirements. Economic Assessment Review: Section 4.08.07 (L) ofthe Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) provides the requirements for the preparation and submittal of the Economic Assessment for a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA). The Economic Assessment, at a minimum, is required to demonstrate fiscal neutrality for the development, as a whole, for the following units of government: transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law enforcement, emergency medical services, fire, and school. In the event the Assessment identifies a negative fiscal impact of the project, several options are identified to SRA-P120180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA Revised: February 12, 2020 Page 18 of43 9.A.7.a Packet Pg. 773 Attachment: Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-12-20 (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) address the funding shortfalls, including impositions of special assessments, use of community development districts (CDD), Municipal Service Benefit Units (MSBU), Municipal Service Taxing Units (MSTU), etc. As detailed in the information above, the petitioner is requesting consideration for designating 655+ acres within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Zoning Overlay District as an SRA, to be known as the Hyde Park Village SRA (Hyde Park), allowing for the development of residential, commercial and civic/govemmental/institutional land use components. Hyde Park submitted an Economic Assessment, prepared by Development Planning and Financial Group, Inc, (DPFG) in accordance with the requirements of the LDC, which allows the use of an alternative fiscal impact model, approved by Collier County. DPFG measured the fiscal neutrality at the horizon year (Year 1412035 buildout) using a "marginal laverage cost hybrid methodology" to determine the project's impacts on capital and operating costs. DPFG also incorporated the County's adopted impact fee methodology and rates, to estimate the demand and impact fee contributions related to the project. The assessment model is static and does not include the cost of future infrastructure financing or provide for positive or negative adjustments in costs, fees, tax rates, etc. but does assume a constant rate of development for the project. DPFG conducted meetings with representatives from the various public facilities to capture information on both capital needs as well as operating impacts related to the proposed project. As part of this process, the need for new facility sites and other capital items, specifically related to the proposed project were also analyzed. An outside peer review was conducted by Jacobs (formerly CH2M-Hill) to provide an independent, evaluation of the report. The Jacobs report concluded that the DPFG's analysis is reasonable and confirms the project's fiscal neutrality, as defined. Jacobs fuither stated: "It is our opinion that the Applicant fulfilled the intent of the fiscal neutrality requirement and that the proposed Hyde Park development is fiscally neutral, as defined, for Hyde Park Village SRA for Collier County, the North Collier Fire & Rescue District, and the Collier County School District." Jacobs also provided that future deviations from the development plan may require adjustments or new analysis to adequately address any changes to fiscal neutrality and noted that the companion Developer Agreement(s) for the project are also important elements in the overall fiscal neutrality objectives. Both the DPFG and Jacobs reports rely on impact fee and other fiscal information that is adopted by Collier County as the basis for many of the underlying assumptions. The model that was used by DPFG was provided to Jacobs for the peer review and to Collier County for the staff analysis. While the model is locked, all cell information is visible, including formulas, and the data sources are also presented for validation. DPFG has been available for discussions, questions and/or concerns related to the model and its outputs. The following is a brief overview of the analysis by facility. Several of the categories were also reviewed individually and are included with the review comments for their respective facility. This is noted below. The project impact fee revenue assumed for this assessment is based on the current, adopted rates, and as previously stated, does not include any projections for impact fee SRA-PL20180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA Revised: February 12, 2020 Page 19 of43 9.A.7.a Packet Pg. 774 Attachment: Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-12-20 (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) increases or decreases. Any staff comments that affect the anticipated impact fee revenue is provided below, otherwise, the assumptions are considered acceptable for the proposed types of residential and commercial land uses and square footages, for the purpose of this analysis. The same approach, to note any comments or observations that may affect the anticipated revenue, was used for the information related to millage rates and other governmental revenue sources used for the purpose of this analysis. Transportation - Fiscally Neutral. See Transportation Review Section of this Staff Report and AttachmentF- Public Facilities Impact Assessmenf, to be read in combination with the proposed Developer Agreement and the following: Based on staffs review of the Traffic Impact Statement and intersection analysis any projected deficiencies exist both without and with the project. The adopted level of service standard for roadway capacity would be exceeded by the existing, committed and vested trips. plus additional project background trips from sources other than the development project under review. The project is not causing the deficiency, nor can the projected deficiency be cured by the development. The applicant will be paying impact fees for the proposed land uses to off-set their growth-related demand for infrastructure. Law Enforcement - Fiscally Neutral. DPFG worked directly with Collier County Sheriff s Office representatives regarding any specific needs (land, etc.) that would be created by the proposed development. The main demand generated by Hyde Park will be cost to equip any new certified officers. Currently, there is not a need for a specific land site within the proposed development. However, a substation may be required in the future to serve this and other proposed developments in the area. As such, impact fees and other capital funding may be available to fund the equipment needed for any new certified officers as well as a portion of a substation and/or other capital items, as necessitated by growth in the future. This infrastructure category currently has an identified deficiency between the adopted and achieved level of service. However, the project is not causing the deficiency, nor can the calculated deficiency be cured by the development. As stated above, the applicant will be paying impact fees for the proposed land uses to off-set their growth-related demand for infrastructure. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) - Fiscally Neutral. See Attachment F- Public Facilities Impact Assessmenf, to be read in combination with the following: DPFG worked directly with Collier County Collier County Emergency Medical Services representatives regarding any specific needs (land, etc.) that would be created specifically by the proposed development. EMS provided locations in the area that will service the proposed development, with an additional acquisition in process for a co-located facility with Greater Naples Fire District in the area. Therefore, currently, there is not a need for a specific land site within this proposed development. Since the updated analysis was completed, the acquisition of a new site for an EMS station at DeSoto Blvd. and Golden Gate Blvd. has been completed. This site is one of up to three that will SRA-PL20180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA Revised; February 12, 2020 Page 20 o'f 43 9.A.7.a Packet Pg. 775 Attachment: Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-12-20 (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) utilize the One-Cent Infrastructure Surtax to provide certain EMS capital construction needs. Use of these funds will allow impact fees generated by Hyde Park and other surrounding communities and development to be utilized for capital equipment needs and other EMS capital priorities and projects. This infrastructure category currently has an identified deficiency between the adopted and achieved level of service. However, the project is not causing the deficiency, nor can the calculated deficiency be cured by the development. The applicant will be paying impact fees for the proposed land uses to off-set their growth-related demand for infrastructure. Regional Parks - Fiscally Neutral. The DPFG analysis for Regional Parks utilizes an adjusted achieved level of service, consistent with the methodology provided in the current, adopted Impact Fee Study. This calculation is provided to ensure that new development is not required to pay impact fees based on the inclusion of one-time or specialty facilities Q.{aples Zoo, Sports Tourism Park, etc.) and eliminates the likelihood of over-charging new development. There are no sites identified for a Regional Park within the boundaries of the proposed development. However, the estimated impact fees and other capital funding anticipated, related to the project, are reasonable and adequate related to the demand created by the Development and to establish fiscal neutrality related to Regional Parks. The future Regional Parks Impact Fees paid related to this development will likely contribute to funding the construction of the Big Corkscrew Island Regional Park which is located in close proximity to the proposed project. Additionally, proceeds from the One-Cent Infrastructure Surtax were identified to provide funding for the Big Corkscrew Island Regional Park. Community Parks - Fiscally Neutral. There are no sites identified for a Community Park within the boundaries of the proposed development. However, the estimated impact fees and other capital funding anticipated, related to the project, are reasonable and adequate related to the demand created by the Development and to establish fiscal neutrality related to Community Parks. Public Utilities (Water, Wastewater, Irrigation Water and Solid Waste) - Fiscally Neutral. See Public Utilities Review Section ofthis Staff Report and AttachmentF-Public Facilities Impact Assessmenf, to be read in combination with the proposed Developer Agreement and the following: DPFG worked directly with Collier County Collier County Public Utilities representatives regarding the future needs of the project. The proposed development will be required to pay User Fees, Impact Fees and Special Assessments (Solid Waste) which will provide funding for both capital and operating costs attributable to the project. Pending Board approval, utility services will be provided in accordance with the Developer Agreement that accompanies this petition, and which must be adopted concurrently with or prior to the SRA ordinance. As provided in the Public Utilities Review Section, "CCWSD will extend transmission mains through a County Utility Easement to be provided along the north side of the development. Additionally, the CCWSD will construct an interim 1.5 MGD wastewater treatment SRA-P120180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA Revised: February 12, 2020 Page21 of43 9.A.7.a Packet Pg. 776 Attachment: Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-12-20 (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) facility at the NEUF site to serve the project. The developer will be responsible for design, permitting, construction, and conveyance of utility system infrastructure internal to the SRA pursuant to the Collier County Utilities Standards and Procedures Ordinance. Also, the developer has agreed to reserve a permanent well site and associated pipeline easements to the CCWSD." Please refer to the companion Developer Agreement for details related to the utility agreement, including prepayment of impact fees, Irrigation Quality Water, etc. Stormwater Management - Fiscally Neutral. See Attachment F - Public Facilities Impact Assessmenf, to be read in combination with the proposed Developer Agreement and the following: Collier County does not assess impact fees or other special assessments to fund the Stormwater Management Capital and Maintenance Programs. Funding for these areas is typically provided by a combination of funding appropriations from the General Fund (001) and the Unincorporated Area General Fund (111). The project water management system will be fully permitted through the South Florida Water Management District and Collier County. Collier County will have no responsibility for the capital construction or maintenance of the Hyde Park water management system serving the development. To the extent that Hyde Park constructs improvements to accept and treat Stormwater related to the public road network, that are also impact fee eligible, the Developer may receive Road Impact Fee Credits and will be detailed in the Developer Agreement. In addition, Collier County is seeking a 20-foot easement along the westem property boundary, in order to provide maintenance access to the Faka Union Canal, maintained by the Big Cypress Basin (BCB)/South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). The Faka Union Canal is the primary outfall for the proposed project. The Developer Agreement provides details related to terms for conveyance of the requested easement. Based on the above, the determination of fiscal neutrality is reasonable. However, conveyance of the needed maintenance easement is critical to provide proper long-term access to conduct operations and maintenance and ensure adequate flood protection level of service for this development and surrounding property owners. North Collier Fire & Rescue District - Fiscally Neutral. See Fire Review Section of this Staff Report and AttachmentF -Public Facilities Impact Assessment, to be read in combination with the following: DPFG worked directly with North Collier Fire & Rescue District representatives regarding any specific needs (land, capital equipment, etc.) that would be created specifically by the proposed development. As provided by North Collier, this location is 1.6 miles from a planned co-located facility which has been prepped for vertical construction. Therefore, there is not a need for a specific land site within this proposed development. SRA-P120180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA Revised: February 12, 2020 Page22 of 43 9.A.7.a Packet Pg. 777 Attachment: Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-12-20 (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) The applicant will be paying impact fees for the proposed land uses to oflset their growth-related demand for infrastructure. The current operating millage for the fire district is estimated to adequately address the potential operational needs. Collier County Public Schools - Fiscally Neutral. See Collier County Public Schools District Review Section of this Staff Report and AttachmentF -Public Facilities Impact Assessmenl, to be read in combination with the following: DPFG worked directly with Collier County Public Schools representatives regarding any specific needs (school sites, etc.) that would be created specifically by the proposed development. School capital costs are provided by a combination of funding sources including impact fees and a capital millage. The estimated revenue generated by the project through these funding sources provides adequate funding for the future capital needs, attributable to growth, generated by the proposed development. The analysis also concludes that adequate revenue will be generated by the proposed project, through millage, to fund the attributable increase in operating costs generated by the development. While the exact future student population is unknown, the student generation rate used for the analysis is based on the adopted School Impact Fee Study and supports the determination of fi scal neutralitv. The DPFG report also provided analysis related to Correctional Facilities, Government Buildings, and Libraries. While these are not required elements of the Economic Assessment or the Public Facilities Impact Assessment, the same framework was used as that for the required facilities, the analysis is consistent with the impact fee methodology, and thus the determination of fiscal neutrality is reasonable. As stated above, the Economic Assessment provides a fiscal snapshot that is projected to buildout. Based on these assumptions and making no predictions on changes, positive or negative, that may afTect project revenue, the conclusion of fiscal neutrality is supported by the analysis. The analysis concludes adequate funding will be generated by the project to fund the capital and operating needs of the specified public facilities. Further, the specified public facilities do not have projected deficiencies as a result of the demand created by the proposed development. Therefore, overall, the intent of the fiscal neutrality requirement has been satisfied. Zoning Services Review: Most of the property was cleared of native vegetation and converted to row crops andlor improved pasture prior to 1980. By 1993 the entire property, except for a small area in the southeast corner of the site, had been converted to and was apparently being used for row crop production. On September 22, 1998, an earth mining facility conditional use was approved on the site via Resolution 98-395. Subsequent to this conditional use approval, the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) issued an Environmental Resource Permit authorizing a fill pit. Moreover, on January 13,2004, the confirmation of this conditional use and modifications of the stipulations were memorialized via Resolution 2004-04. The earth mining facility had ceased operations around 2009..Currently the site consists of disturbed uplands, borrow pits, ditches, berms, and a preserve area located in the southeast corner of the property. SRA-P120180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA Revised: February 12, 2O2O Page 23 of 43 9.A.7.a Packet Pg. 778 Attachment: Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-12-20 (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) The Hyde Park Village SRA Development Document sets forth the design standards for the Village. According to LDC Section 4.08.07C.2., "Villages are primarily residential communities with a diversity of housing types and mix of uses appropriate to the scale and character of the particular village....Villages are comprised of residential neighborhoods and shall include a mixed-use village center to serve as the focal point for the community's support services and facilities. Villages shall be designed to encourage pedestrian circulation by including an intercorurected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods..." The Village consists of four context zones, Neighborhood General, Neighborhood Edge, Village Amenity and Wellness Center, and Village Center. The Neighborhood General context zone is approximately 26.10 acres and allows for residential development consisting of single-family and multi-family dwelling units. Neighborhood recreation areas are also permitted which include passive parks. The maximum zoned and actual building height is 42 and 50 feet for single-family, two-family, zero-lot lines structures, and neighborhood recreation areas. The maximum zoned and actual building height is 50 and 60 feet for multi-family structures. The Neighborhood Edge context zone is approximately 191.89 acres and allows for residential development consisting of single-family and multi-family dwelling units. Neighborhood recreation areas are also permitted which include passive parks. The maximum zoned and actual building height is 42 and 50 feet for single-family detached, single-family attached, two-family, and villas. The maximum zoned and actual building height is 35 and 50 feet for neighborhood recreation areas. The Village Amenity and Wellness Center context zone is approximately 10.74 acres and allows for recreation facilities that are limited to Hyde Park Village residents and guests which are clubhouse, physical fitness facility, swimming pools, tennis, pickleball, basketball, barbeque area, and a dog park. This context zoue may also offer banks, childcare services, health services, and professional offices. These uses will be offered to Hyde Park Village residents and their guests. The maximum zoned and actual building height is 50 and 60 feet. The Village Center context zone is approximately 26.20 acres and will be located at the southeast comer of the Hyde Park Village SRA along Oil Well Road. This context zone is mixed-use, requiring a minimum of 180 for multi-family dwelling units, and a minimum of 45,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial goods and services. The VC will also provide a minimum of 18,000 square feet of civic, governmental and institutional uses. The maximum zoned and actual building height is 50 and 60 feet. Hyde Park Village SRA is a compact, suburban-style development similar to many of the Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) located in the Urban Area of Collier County. For further information, please see the Deviation Discussion section of this Staff Report below LDC Sections 4.08.01 through 4.08.07 set forth the following criteria in reviewing SRA petitions SRA-P120180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA Revised: February 12, 2020 Page 24 of 43 SRA Findines: 9.A.7.a Packet Pg. 779 Attachment: Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-12-20 (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 1. Compatibility with adjacent land uses. The existing land use pattem (of the abutting properties) is described in the Surrounding Land Use and Zoning section of this staff report. The proposed use would not change the existing land use pattems of the surrounding properties. )An SRA must contain sufficient suitable land to accommodate the planned development. The proposed SRA contains suitable land to accommodate the planned development. 3.Residential, commercial, manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, and transient housing, instifutional, civic and community service uses within an SRA shall not be sited on lands that receive a natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2. There are no areas within the proposed SRA that contain acreages with an NRI score above 1.2 (see Environmental Review section above) 4.Conditional use essential serryices and governmental essential serices, with the exception of those necessary to serve permitted uses and for public safety, shall not be sited on land that receives a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2, regardless of the size of the land or parcel. There are no areas within the proposed SRA that contain acreages with an NRI score above 1.2 (see Environmental Review section above) 5.Lands or parcels that are greater than one acre and have an Index Value greater than 1.2 shall be retained as open space and maintained in a predominantly natural vegetated state. There are no areas within the proposed SRA that contain acreages with an NRI score above 1.2 (see Environmental Review section above) Open space shall also comprise a minimum of thirty-five percent of the gross acreage of an individual SRA Town, Village, or those CRDs exceeding 100 acres. Gross acreage includes only that area of development within the SRA that requires the consumption of Stewardship Credits. The required minimum 35Yo open space is 224.88 acres, and 66%o open space or 423.87 acres has been provided. As an incentive to encourage open space, open space on lands within an SRA located outside of the ACSC that exceeds the required thirty-five percent retained open space shall not be required to consume Stewardship Credits. 6. 7 SRA-P120180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA Revised: February 12, 2020 Page 25 of 43 9.A.7.a Packet Pg. 780 Attachment: Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-12-20 (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 8. 10. 11. t2 13. SRA-P120180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA Revised: February 12, 2020 9. The required minimum 35Yo open space is 224.88 acres, and 66Yo open space or 423.87 acres has been provided. An SRA may be contiguous to an FSA or HSA, but shall not encroach into such areas, and shall buffer such areas as described in LDC Section 4.08.07 J.6. An SRA may be contiguous to, or encompass a WRA. The project does not encroach into an FSA, HSA, or WRA; it provides the required buffers as indicated on the SRA Master Plan. The SRA must have either direct access to a County collector or arterial road or indirect access via a road provided by the developer that has adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development in accordance with accepted transportation planning standards. The Land Development Code requires the applicant to create an interconnected street system designed to disperse and reduce the length of automobile trips (4.08.07.J.3.a.iii). The proposed Hyde Park Village SRA's Master Plan shows potential-future interconnections to adjacent roadways along the future Big Cypress Parkway and access points along Oil Well Road. The north perimeter boundary is adjacent to estate zoned parcels, where interconnection is not desirable, and the west perimeter is adjacent to the Faka Union canal, where interconnection is not feasible. Conformity of the proposed SRA with the goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP. Comprehensive Planning staff determined the subject petition is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the FLUM and other elements of the GMP. Suitabilify criteria described in Items 2 through 9 above [LDC Section 4.08.07 A.1.1 and other standards of LDC Section 4.08.07. The proposed SRA is in compliance with Items 2 through 9 above SRA master plan compliance with all applicable policies of the RLSA District Regulations, and demonstration that incompatible land uses are directed away from FSAs, HSAs, WRAs, and Conservation Lands. The project does not encroach into an FSA, HSA, or WRA; it provides the required buffers as indicated on the SRA Master Plan. Assurance that applicant has acquired or will acquire sufficient Stewardship Credits to implement SRA uses. Page 26 of 43 9.A.7.a Packet Pg. 781 Attachment: Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-12-20 (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Hyde Park Village SRA credits are generated from Stewardship Sending Area 7, which has 4,034.20 available credits. The Stewardship credits for Hyde Park Village SRA are generated from SSA 7 located on properties within and adjoining the Camp Keais Strand, a major flow way system connecting Corkscrew Marsh at its northem end and adjoining the Okaloacoochee Slough. The credit calculation is based on the total acreage of Hyde Park, which is 642.52 acres. The minimum open space requirement is 224.88 acres; the applicant has proposed 423.87 acres of open space. Therefore, the total acreage that consumes credits is 443.53 acres. Therefore, Hyde Park requires 3,548.24 Stewardship Credits and will acquire sufficient Stewardship Credits to implement SRA uses. 14, Impacts, including environmental and public infrastructure impacts. Environmental staff supports this petition subject to the following condition of approval: Prior to issuance of the frst SDP and/or PPL, a listed species management plan must be provided for review, with approval from FWCC and/or USFWS for management ofthe Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi) and all other listed species. The Public Utilities Department supports this petition subject to the following conditions of approval: 2. The negotiated DCA must be adopted concurrently with or prior to the SRA ordinance. The petitioner is seeking 20 deviations from the requirements of the LDC. The deviations are directly extracted from SRA Document Section VI. Deviations. The petitioner's rationale and staff analysis/recommendation are outlined below. SRA Document Section 6.. Villaee Center Standards: Deviation # I (Sfu{ Document Sectior 6.l. 111' "A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.ii.p)ii) 'General Parking Criteri4' which states, 'The majority of parking spaces shall be provided offistreet in the rear of buildings or along the side secondary streets. Parking is prohibited in front of buildings,' to instead allow parking in front of buildings in the Village Center, when such parking is in support of a shopping center which includes a grocery store. A Type 'D' buffer per LDC at time of permitting will be required when parking is adjacent to or abutting a road." Petitioner's Justiftcatioz.' The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: The Village Center fronts on Oil Well Road and is separatedfrom Oil Well by a 3}-foot wide Type D Buffer. To be viable in the market place the Village Center commercial uses need to SRA-P120180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA Revised: February 12, 2020 Page27 of43 DEVIATION DISCUSSION: 9.A.7.a Packet Pg. 782 Attachment: Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-12-20 (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) be both accessible and convenient to motorists from Oil Well Road. This may warront parking in what may be determined to be a front yard: however, with a 25- foot wide Type D buffer along Oil Well Road, such parking will be adequately screened from view. Without direct access (and exposure) to andfrom Oil Well Road, the commercial enterprises will not be viable in the marketplace. The request is to eliminate the restriction on the amount of parking that may be located within any yard. Note: This LDC Provision (and thus this deviation request) is unique to the RLSA Overlay Stoff Analysis and Recommendationz Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in $$ 163.3177 (l l), F.S." Deviation # 2 (SRA Document Section 6.1. 2)): "A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.ii.q), which requires that the majority of parking be located in the rear of buildings and prohibits parking in the front of buildings except on-street parking within the right-of-way to instead allow parking in the front, side and rear yards, when such parking is in support of a shopping center which includes a grocery store. A Type 'D' buffer per LDC at time of permitting will be required when parking is adjacent to or abutting a road." Petitioner's JustiJication: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation This deviation is requested to allow parking infront, side or rear yards in the Village Center in order provide for maximum design flexibility for what will be a relatively small amount of commercial uses providing neighborhood goods and services. Also see Justificationfor #1, above. Convenience and easy access are critical for achieving market viability for the nonresidential uses in the Village center, particularlyfor the pass by traffic which is absolutely necessaryfor the viability of the commercial elements. Designflexibility is also necessary. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in $$ 163.3177 (ll), F.S." Deviation # 3 (SRA Document Section 6.2. 1)): "A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.iii.f)iv), 'Non-residential uses,' which states 'the maximum square footage per [non-residential] use shall be 3,000 square feet and per location shall be 15,000 square feet,' to instead allow the Community Amenity and Wellness Center uses to be a maximum of 30.000 square feet." SRA-P120180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA Revised: February 12, 2020 Page 28 of 43 SRA Document Section 6.2. Villase Amenity and Wellness Center Standards: 9.A.7.a Packet Pg. 783 Attachment: Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-12-20 (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Petitioner's Justification.' The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: The Community Amenity and Wellness Center is intended to provide multiple amenities and usesfor the entire village (and guests), which requiresflexibility in size, in order to be sfficient to meet market demands. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative plaruring and development strategies, as set forth in $$ 163.3177 (11), F.S." SRA Document 6.3. Neiehborhood General Standards (w apply to Yillaees ner LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.iii:) Note: LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.iii requires that Neighborhood General design standards in a Village be the same as those required in a Town for a Neighborhood General Context Zone. Therefore, the following deviations are requested from Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.iii. a) through i) on the basis of how such standards apply to Neighborhood Center in a Village. Deviation # 4 (SRA Document Section 6.3. i)): "A Deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.iii.e)ii), which states that in the case of "Multi-Family residential," "side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of l0 feet and rear yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 20 feet for the primary structure..." to instead allow for a side yard setback of 0 or 5 feet and a rear yard setback of 10 feet for zero lot line and to*nhome development, as set forth in Section 5.1.2.A. Neighborhood General - Required Yards & Maximum Building Height, Table 1." Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: The RLSA encourages a diversity of housing types. Allowing for Townhome and Villa type development in the Neighborhood General Context Zone promotes such diversity. To build such units ffictively and fficiently they must be consistent with design used in other similar developments where the market has respondedfavorably. There are many approved PUDs that allow for such setbacks for villas and townhomes. We have maintained the required minimum l)-foot side and 2}-foot rear yard setbaclcs for traditional multi-fomily product and this deviation is limited to the Villa Townhome product. Note: This is a deviation that has routinely been grantedfor projects in the Urban area, when requested. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the SRA-PL20180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA Revised: February 12, 2020 Page 29 of 43 9.A.7.a Packet Pg. 784 Attachment: Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-12-20 (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in $$ 163.3177 (ll), F.S." Deviation # 5 (SRA Section 6.3. 2)): "A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.iii.e)i) and LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.iii, 'Maximum Multi-family lot size,' which requires that multi-family residential lots be limited to a maximum of 4 acres, to instead allow lot sizes for multi-family without restriction as to maximum lot size in the Neighborhood General Context Zone,when located within l/3 mile of the Village Center." Petitioner's JastiJication.' The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation Limiting a multi-family lot size in the Neighborhood General is not based on ony recognizable beneficial outcome. Presumably it is applied to maintain a "Village" scale. However, a larger lot can also maintain the "Village" scole by use of multiple buildings (on larger parcel), and through design. There is no discernable benefit to limiting Zero Lot Line or Townhome style development to parcels of 4 acres or less. For that motter, more traditional multi-fomily buildings may also be feasible on porcels greater than 4 acres in Neighborhood General adiacent to or near the Village Center. The entire Neighborhood General Context Zone is 26.l acres in size and located proximate to the Village Center, which has no such restriction. There is no reason to arbitrarily limit the maximum parcel size to 4 acres, as all these types of housing styles are consistent with the Village definition which is as follows; Villages are o form of SRA and are primarily residential communities with a diversity of housing types and mix of uses appropriate to the scale and character of the particular village. Villages are comprised of residential neighborhoods and shall include a mixed-use village center to serve as the focal point for the community's support services and facililies. Note: This LDC Provision (and thus this deviation request) is unique to the RLSA Overlay. Staff Analysis and Recommendationz Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in $$ 163.3177 (ll), F.S." SRA D ocument Section 6.4. Neishborhood Edse Standards (which apnlv to Villases oer LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.iii:) Note: Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.iv requires that Neighborhood Edge design standards in a Village be the same as those required in a Town for a Neighborhood Edge Context Zone. Therefore, the following deviations are requested from Section 4.08.07 .J.2.d.iii. a) through i) on the basis of how such standards apply to Neighborhood Edge in a Village. SRA-PL20180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA Revised: February 12, 2020 Page 30 of43 Deviation # 6 (SRA Document Section 6.4. l)): 9.A.7.a Packet Pg. 785 Attachment: Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-12-20 (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) "A Deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.iii.e)ii), which states that in the case of "Multi- Family residential," "side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 10 feet and rear yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 20 feet for the primary structure. . . " to instead allow for a side yard setback of 0 or 5 feet and a rear yard setback of 10 feet for Single Family Attached & Two-Family as well as Villas, as set forth in SRA Section 5.2.2.A., Neighborhood Edge - Required Minimum Yards Maximum Building Height, Table 2. This deviation is a general deviation. The exact location is not known." Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: The RLSA encourages a diversity of housing types. Allowing for Townhome and Villa type development in the Neighborhood General Context Zone promotes such diversity. To build such units effictively and fficiently they must be consistent with design used in other similar developments where the market has respondedfavorably. There are many approved PUDs that allow for such setbaclrs for villas and townhomes. We have maintained the required minimum 10 foot side and 20 foot rear yard setbacks for traditional multi-family product and this deviation is limited to the Villa Townhome product. Note: This is a deviation that has routinely been grantedfor projects in the Urban area, when requested. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in $$ 163.3177 (ll), F.S." SRA Document Section 6.5. Transportation Standards: Deviation # 7 (SRA Section 6.5. 1)) A deviation from LDC Section: 6.06.01.J, "Street System Requirements", which requires "Dead- end streets shall be prohibited except when designed as a cul-de-sac. When a street is designed to be extended when the adjacent property is developed, a temporary cul-de-sac and right-of-way shall be designed. Cul-de-sacs in excess of 1,000 feet shall not be permitted unless existing topographical conditions or other natural features preclude a street layout to avoid longer cul-de- sacs," to instead allow the maximum cul-de-sac length to be 2,500 feet as measured along the centerline of the right-of-way from the intersecting right-of-way centerline to the end of the cul- de-sac right-of-way. Permanent cul-de-sacs in excess of 1,200 feet shall include a mid-block turn- around. Temporary cul-de-sacs shall not be required to meet this standard. Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation. Longer cul-de-sacs have been approved as deviations and utilized throughout Collier County (including in Ave Maria) with no negative impact. Emergency vehicle requirements and utility design criteria will be addressed within the design of each cul-de-sac. Additionally, the site plan has been y\revised SRA-P120180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA Revised: February 12, 2020 Page 31 of43 9.A.7.a Packet Pg. 786 Attachment: Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-12-20 (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) to minimize the occuruence and length of cul-de-sacs. Note: This is a deviotion that has routinely been grantedfor projects in the Urban orea, when requested. Staff Analysis and Recommendationz Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in $$ 163.3177 (11), F.S." Deviation # 8 (SRA Section 6.5. 2)): "A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.1.b.(11) "Figure 11 - Neighborhood Edge Collector Street" which requires a 12' multi-use pathway and Section 6.06.02.A.2, which requires a sidewalk a minimum of 6' wide on both sides of a Neighborhood Edge Collector Street, to instead allow a 10' wide pathway on one side within the linear park/open space area where the Neighborhood Edge Collector Street abuts the Village Amenity and Wellness Center Context Zone. This deviation is a general deviation. The exact location is not known." Petitioner's JustiJicatior.' The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation The proposed pathwaywill meander through a linear parUopen spoce area, adjocent to a lake, providing a safer more pleasing pedestrian orientated experience then a sidewalk directly adjacent to a collector street. Stsff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in $$ 163.3177 (ll), F.S." Deviation #9 (SRA Document Section 6.5. 3)): "A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.1.b(6), "Figure 6, Local Street Neighborhood General." which requires a 6-foot wide planting area between the l0-foot wide travel lane and the sidewalk, to instead allow for a 5-foot wide planting area between the l0-foot wide travel lane and the sidewalk for local roads within the project in Neighborhood General. In such cases, either a root barrier or structural soil shall be utilized. If the option of structural soil is utilized, a minimum of 2 c.f. of structural soil per square feet of mature tree crown projection shall be provided. This deviation is a general deviation. The exact location is not known." Petitioner's lustijication.' The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation The LDC (under SRA Section 4.08.07 requires that streets within SRAs be designed in accord with the cross-sections setforth in Figures l-18 below, as more specifically provided in J.2 through J.5. However, the LDC also allows for deviations is approved by Collier County SRA-P120180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA Revised: February 12, 2O2O Page 32 of 43 9.A.7.a Packet Pg. 787 Attachment: Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-12-20 (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Transportation Services, os needed to meet the design objectives. This deviatton always fo, a reasonable design alternative in Neighborhood Edges, which rs already permitted in Neighborhood General. The reducedplanting area (5'versus 6') in deviation 3), above. Overall this cross section allows for all necessary width ond separation to accommodate county utilities, sidewall<s, a planting area, and the ability to meet the 23 feet, measuredfrom the back of the sidewalk to the garage, to allow room to park a vehicle on the driveway without parking over the sidewalk. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Landscape review staffrecommends APPROVAL, finding that, in compliance with LDC section 10.02.13.A.3., the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community" and LDC section 10.02.13.8.5.h the petitioner as demonstrated that the deviation is 'Justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." The cross-sections show a 6' wide planting strip whereas LDC section 4.08.07.J.3.ii.r allows for a minimum of a 5' wide planting area between the sidewalk and curb provided there is root barrier or structural soil used. 2 c.f. of structural soil per square feet of mature tree crown projection is the industry standard for the recommended quantity of structural soil. Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in $$ 163.3177 (11), F.S." Deviation # 10 (SRA Document Section 6.5. 4)): "A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.iv.g), which requires that street design and cross- sections in the Neighborhood Edge Context Zone adhere to [LDC sections] J.1.b. and to Figures 9, 71,72, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 , or 18., to instead allow local streets in the Neighborhood Edge Context Zone to adhere to 4,08.07.J.1.b. and to Figure 6, Local Street Neighborhood General, and to allow deviation 3) above to apply to such streets. This deviation is a general deviation. The exact location is not known." Petitioner's JustiJication.' The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: The LDC (under SRA Section 4.08.07 requires that streets within SRAs be designed in accord with the cross-sections setforth in Figures 1-18 below, as more specifically provided in J.2 through J.5. However, the LDC olso allows for deviations is approved by Collier County Transportation Services, as needed to meet the design objectives. This deviation always for a reasonable design alternative in Neighborhood Edges, which is already permitted in Neighborhood General. The reduced planting area (5' versus 6') is addressed in deviation 3), above. Overall this cross-section allows for all necessary width and separation to accommodate county utilities, sidewalks, a planting area, and the ability to meet the 2j feet, measured from the back of the sidewalk to the gorage, to allow room to park a vehicle on the driveway without parking over the sidewalk. SRA-P120180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA Revised: February 12, 2020 Page 33 of 43 9.A.7.a Packet Pg. 788 Attachment: Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-12-20 (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Staff Analysis and Recommendationz Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in $$ 163.3177 (ll), F.S." Deviation # 11 (SRA Document Sectioq6.5.5)) "A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.ii.q), which requires that the amount of required parking in the Village Center "be demonstrated through a shared parking analysis submitted with an SRA designation application..." and be "determined utilizing the modal splits and parking demands for various uses recognizedby ITE, ULI or other sources or studies..." to instead allow the parking demand analysis to be submitted at the time of initial Site Development Plan (SDP) or, at the discretion of the County Manager or designee, at the time of a subsequent SDP or SDP Amendment, in order to allow for a more comprehensive parking demand analysis based upon the mix of uses at the time of the initial SDP or subsequent SDP or SDP Amendment." Petitioner's Justi/ication.' The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: Requiring this parking demand analysis at the time of SRA application makes no sense as the type and mix of uses in the Village Center is undetermined at the time of SRA application. This analysis should be conducted at the time of initial (or possibly subsequent) SDP for non- residential uses in the Village Center. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in $$ 163.3177 (ll), F.S." "A deviation from LDC Section 5.04.06.A.3.e, "Temporary Signs," which allows temporary signs used on residentially zoned properties to be up to 4 square feet in area and 3 feet in height, to instead allow temporary signs or banners up to a maximum of 32 square feet in combined area and a maximum height of 8 feet, subject to approval under temporary sign permit procedures in the LDC. The temporary banner shall be limited to a maximum of 90 days sign for sales and marketing pulposes, adjacent to Oil Well Road and internal to the site. The banner sign shall not to exceed 32 square feet in area and 8 feet in height and may be permitted for a maximum of 90 days during SRA-P120180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA Revised: February 12, 2020 Page 34 of 43 SRA Document Section 6.6. Sign Standards: Deviation # 12 (SRA Document Section 6.6. 1)): 9.A.7.a Packet Pg. 789 Attachment: Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-12-20 (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) season defined as November I to April 30 per calendar year for a maximum of three (3) years. This deviation is a general deviation. The exact location is not known." Petitioner's Justification.' The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: The requested temporary sign(s) will be placed adjacent to Oil Well Road and internal to the site. Due to size and speed of trffic, the 4 square foot sign allowed by the LDC wtll be dfficutt to read for travelling motorists. The increased size will ensure the visibility of the proposed development to passing trffic. The proposed size and requested duration of display is in accordance with deviations approved for similar projects throughout the County, and compatible with the surrounding area. This deviation has been gronted previously in severol PUDs Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in $$ 163.3177 (11), F.S." Deviation # 13 (SRA Section 6.6.2\\ "A deviation from LDC Section 5.06.02.8.5.4 "On-premises directional signs," which requires on- premise directional signs to be "set back a minimum of 10 feet from the edge of the roadway, paved surface or back of the curb," to instead allow a minimum of 5 feet from the edge of the roadway, paved surface or back of the curb. This deviation does not apply to County roads and is for signs intemal to the site only. This deviation is a general deviation. The exact location is not known." Petitioner's Justitication: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation This deviation will allow more flexibility for directional signage internal to the project. A unified design theme will be utilizedfor all signage throughout the community. All roads and drives will be privately owned and maintained. This deviation is typical of master-planned residential developments in Collier County. Staff Analysis and Recommendationz Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in $$ 163.3177 (ll), F.S." #14 Document "A deviation from LDC Section 5.06.02.8.6, 'On-premises signs within residential districts,' which allows two ground signs with a maximum height of 8 feet, at each entrance to a multi-family SRA-PL20180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA Revised: February 12, 2020 Page 35 of 43 9.A.7.a Packet Pg. 790 Attachment: Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-12-20 (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) or single-family development, to instead allow a maximum height of 12 feet for such ground signs, located at two project entrances (from Oil Well Road)." Petitioner's Justiiication: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: The increased height of signage at the project entries will allow the project tofeature a more pronounced, grand entrance, qnd will result in a recognizable entry for pedestrians and motorists. Stilff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in $$ 163.3177 (ll), F.S." Deviation # 15 (SRA Document S 6.6. 4)) "A deviation from LDC Section 5.06.02.8.2., "Real Estate Signs," which identifies types of permitted real estate signs, to instead allow, in addition to other permitted signs, a maximum of 4 "Lifestyle Signs" located along Oil Well Road, leading to the project entryway(s), and to also allow such signs interior to the development without limitation. Lifestyle Signs shall be limited to a maximum of 18 square feet in size, 12 feet in height, and shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from Oil Well Road right-of-way and 5 feet from intemal roadways. Lifestyle Signs are intended to advertise lifestyle amenities within the Hyde Park Rural Village, including but not limited to clubhouse(s), fitness center, sports and recreation facilities, and so forth. Such signs may be permitted initially for up to 10 years and may be extended by the Collier County Growth Management Department Administrator or designee for up to two additional years, upon demonstration by the developer that there is need-based upon the remaining number of residential lots for sale within the Village. This deviation is a general deviation. The exact location is not known." Petitioner's JustiJication.' The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: These signs are already found in various other master-planned developments (and since they have been utilized in these developments for some time, with impunity, it must be presumed that they are not obiectionable). This developer must be able to compete on an even playingfieldwith those other developments. The signs are not obtrusive and will only remain in place while the project is actively being developed and residential lots are offered for sale. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff not supportive of this deviation and will not permit lifestyle signs. Zoning and Development Review staff recommends DENIAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the petitioner has not demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has not demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the tools, techniques, and SRA-P120180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA Revised: February 12, 2020 Page 36 of 43 9.A.7.a Packet Pg. 791 Attachment: Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-12-20 (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in $$ 163.3t77 (n ), F.S." SRA Document Section 6.7. Landscane Standards: Deviation # 16 (SRA Document Section 6.7. 1)): "A deviation from LDC Section 4.06.02.C., Bufler Requirements, 'Types of buffers,' Table 2.4 lnformation, Footnote (3) which requires 'Buffer areas between cofirmercial outparcels located within a shopping center, Business Park, or similar commercial development may have a shared buffer 15 feet wide with each abutting property contibuting 7.5 feet,' to instead allow a shared buffer 10 feet wide with each abutting properly contributing 5 feet." Petitioner's Justijication.' The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: The combined I }-foot shared buffer will provide for sfficient separation and " breaking up " of parking oreas within the Village Center. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Landscape review staff recommends APPROVAL, finding that, in compliance with LDC section 10.02.13.4.3., the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community" and LDC section 10.02.13.B.5.h the petitioner as demonstrated that the deviation is 'Justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in $$ 163.3177 (lL), F.S.'' SRA Document Section 6.8. Other Deviations: Deviation # 17 (SRA Document Section 6.8. 1)): "A deviation from LDC Section 4.05.04.G, "Parking Space Requirements," which requires 1 parking space per 100 square feet for recreation facilities (indoor) sports, exercise, fitness, aerobics, or health clubs to instead allow for parking for the Village Amenity and Wellness Center to be calculated at 1 space per 200 square feet of indoor square footage, excluding kitchen or storage space." Petitioner's JustiJication: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: The project will have o complete system of tnterconnected sidewall<s, pathways, and bike lanes throughout, allowing residents to travel to the amenity/wellness center without using o car. Additionally, the centrally located Village Amenity and Wellness Center is restricted for use SRA-P120180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA Revised: February 12, 2020 Page 37 of43 9.A.7.a Packet Pg. 792 Attachment: Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-12-20 (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) by only Village residents and guests. It is not open to the general public. The requested devtation will result in an adequate parking calculation but not in an overabundance of parking. Note: This deviation isfrom a requirement that applies throughout the County and similar deviations have been granted. Stoff Analysis and Recommendationz Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in $$ 163.3177 (ll), F.S." Deviation # 18 (SRA Do cument Section 6.8. 2)): "A deviation from LDC Section 3.05.10.A.2. - "Location Criteria," which requires littoral shelf planting areas to be "concentrated in one location ofthe lake(s) preferably adjacent to a preserve area," to instead allow forthe required littoral shelf planting areas (LSPA) to be concentrated in certain specific locations. The locations and size of these areas, meeting or exceeding the required 7 percent per LDC Section 3.05.10.A.1.b., will be identified at the time of initial subdivision plat." Petitioner's Justtftcation.' The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: These areas will be designed to create, enhance or restore wading bird/waterfowl habitat and foraging oreas. They will be designed to recreate wetland function, mmimize its habitat value and minimize maintenance effirts. They will enhance survivability of the littoral area plant species, qs there is a lower survivability rate in littoral planting areas along larger lakes subject to more variable water levels and greater wind and wave action (which negatively affect these littoral planting areas). The locations of the littoral planting areqs as well as the size of each area and aggregate size meeting or exceeding the LDC required 7 percentage per LDC Section 3.05.10.A.1.b. will be identified at the time of initial subdivisionplat. Note: This deviution is from a requirement that applies throughout the County. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Environmental staff recommends APPROVAL for this deviation request because the concentration of littoral plantings in lakes and waters ofthe proposed project will meet the intent of the littoral planting requirement, which is to improve water quality and provide habitat for a variety of aquatic species and birds. Therefore, it is reasonable to allow for some flexibility in the design and locations of the required littoral planting areas. Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in $$ 163.3177 (ll), F.S." SRA-P120180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA Revised: February 12, 2020 Page 38 of 43 9.A.7.a Packet Pg. 793 Attachment: Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-12-20 (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Deviation #19 (SRA Document Section 6.8. 3)): "A Deviation from LDC Section 4.03.08.C, "Potable Water System," which states "separate potable water and reuse waterlines...shall be provided...by the applicant at no cost to Collier County for all subdivisions and developments" and "Reuse water lines, pumps, and other appurtenances will not be maintained by Collier CountS/," to instead allow for such facilities and,/or appurtenances to be conveyed to and maintained by Collier County. This deviation is a general deviation. The exact location is not known." Petitioner's JustiJication.' The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation This Deviation was requested to be included in the SRA by Collier County Utilities in order to allow flexibility in terms of the provision and/or maintenance of such facilities and/or appurtenances (i.e., the provision and/or maintenance by Collier County). Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in $$ 163.3I77 (ll), F.S." #20 RA Document "A deviation from LDC Section 5.03.02.D.1, "Fences and Walls" which states that fences or walls are limited to a maximum height of 8 feet in commercial or industrial zoning districts, to instead allow a maximum height of 10 feet." Petitioner's JustiJication.' The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: The requested additional fence/wall height allows for better screening between residential and commercial uses. Note: This deviation is from a requirement that applies throughout the County and similur deviations have been granted. Stoff Analysis and Recommendstionz Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that "the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay" and LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) "further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in $$ 163.3177 (ll), F.S." SRA-P120180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA Revised: February 12, 2020 Page 39 of 43 9.A.7.a Packet Pg. 794 Attachment: Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-12-20 (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) OCTOBER 24. 2018 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The applicant conducted a NIM on October 24,2018 at Peace Lutheran Church located at 9850 Immokalee Road. The meeting commenced at approximately 5:30 p.m. and ended at 6:00 p.m. The applicant's agent explained the request for the proposed SRA. Bob Mulhere, the agent, conducted the meeting with introductions of the consultant team and staff, and provided an overview of the proposed SRA application. Michael Greenberg gave an overview of Neal Communities. Following the project presentations, the meeting was opened up to public attendees. Traffic concerns were raised regarding traffic along Oil Well Road. Mr. Mulhere explained that the project is reserving 100 feet adjacent to the southem boundary for the future widening of Oil Well Road and will be designed to accommodate stormwater runoff from this road widening. Mr. Mulhere answered questions regarding utility providers. Collier County Public Utilities will be providing water and sewer service and that the developer is working with the County to expand this necessary infrastructure. Mr. Mulhere also explained that impact fees will be required to offset the developments impact on the necessary public utilities. Other issues of concem were property ownership and existing utility lines that are not on the property. No commitments were made. A copy of the MM materials are included in Attachment E. NOVEMBER 5. 2019 NEIGHBOR D INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): Because the petition was beyond the one-year anniversary of its first NIM the applicant was required to conduct a second NIM. As such, the applicant conducted a second NIM on November 5,2019 at Collier County UF/IFAS Extension, Multipurpose Room, located at l4T00Immokalee Road. The meeting commenced at approximately 5:30 p.m. and ended at 5:55 p.m. The applicant's agent explained the need for the second NIM and introduced the consultants and county staff. Bob Mulhere, the agent, explained the request for the proposed SRA and gaye adetailed narrative. He explained the history of the properly and that it was a mining area called Winchester Mine. Mr. Mulhere gave an overview of the Rural Lands Stewardship Program and that it can transfer Stewardship credits to build. The project is requesting 1800 dwelling units and is 654 acres and that there will be multi-family in the Village Center. There will be 3547.76 Stewardship Credits requested from SSA#7. Barry Jones, a consultant, had mentioned that a water permit was transmitted from the Army Core of Engineers to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife. Mr. Jones explained that the stormwater will discharge into the Faka Union Canal and then explained the stormwater cleansing process with the project's lakes. Mr. Mulhere explained that there will be 20 deviations that are requested that are very similar to the Rivergrass SRA deviations. Other issues of concern by public attendees were drainage, the number of deviations, runoff from Oil Well Rd, and the multifamily in the Village Center. A copy of the NIM materials are included in Attachment E. The County Attomey's office reviewed the staff report on February 10,2020 SRA-P120180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA Revised: February 12, 2020 Page 40 of 43 COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: 9.A.7.a Packet Pg. 795 Attachment: Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-12-20 (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) RECOMMENDATION: Staff is constrained from recommending approval of Petition SRA-PL20180000622, Hyde Park Village SRA, to the Planning Commission. However, staff could recommend approval subject to the following Conditions of Approval 1) The companion Developer Contribution Agreement pertaining to transportation and public utilities is required to be approved with this SRA request. Staff and the applicant are not in agreement with all items as noted in the companion item for the Developer Contribution Agreement. 2) Per Environmental staff, update Master Plans to show the LSPA areas. 3) Per Parks and Recreation review staff, at SDP, provide an ASTM certified playground as part of the Amenity Site facilities. 4) Per Collier County Sheriffs Office, at buildout there will be a need for a police sub-station such as the sub-station built near the intersection of CR 846 and 39th Ave NE 5) Per North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District, at SDP or platting, the project will be evaluated for compliance with the Florida Fire Prevention Code regarding fire department access roads and water supply. 6) Per Environmental staff, prior to issuance of the first SDP and/or PPL, a listed species management plan must be provided for review, with approval from FWCC and/or USFWS for management of the Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi) and all other listed species. 7) Per Comprehensive Plaruring, make the 180-unit multi-family dwelling figure part of Section 5.4.1, Village Center Context Zone, Allowable Uses and Structures. 8) Per the Public Utilities Department, the negotiated DCA must be adopted concurrently with or prior to the SRA ordinance 9) Per Transportation Planning, the companion Developer Agreement is required to be approved with this SRA request. 10) Per Housing, Grant Development, and Operations, it is recommended that a housing needs analysis be performed to estimate the affordable housing demand generated by The Hyde Park Village proposal, as well as a plan to address the supply of those trnits. 11) Per Housing, Grant Development, and Operations, absent conducting a housing needs analysis to estimate the affordable housing demand generated by The Hyde Park Village, as well as a plan to address the supply of those units, staff proposes the following recommendation: The Hyde Park Village should commit that at least l5%o of the units that they propose may be sold at purchase prices near the Moderate, and Gap affordability ranges (product types: Multi-Family SRA-PL20180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA Page 41 of 43 Revised: February 12, 2020 9.A.7.a Packet Pg. 796 Attachment: Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-12-20 (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Apts, & Singte-Family Product A, Single-Family Product B), will actually be set aside and sold to households that arr certified to be in those ranges. Hyde Park Village Residential Types Units Sales Price 1 Muhi-Family (Apts) 1-10 St.300 S158,ooo 2 Single Family Product A 534 S282,ooo 3 Single Family Product B s98 s344,000 4 Single Family Product C 368 s373,000 Total Residential 1,800 LS% ol Products L,2&3 45 80 2L5 Low Moderate Gap These 215 units would represent neaiy 12o/o of the residential units in The Hyde Park Village and should be certified for initial occupancy and comply with long-term monitoring requirements similar to other developments in Collier County. 12) Per Housing, Crrant Developmen! and Operations, the Hyde Park Village should also consider the donation of a residential parcel to the County, an Affordable Housing Land Trust, or the County's desigtee in order to address the housing needs ofhouseholds at the Very-Low income levels and below. A contibution to the Collier County Local Housing Trust Fund may also serve to mitigate for units unable to be made available on-site. Attachments A) B) c) D) E) F) G) H) Proposed SRA Resolution SRA Credit Use Reconciliation Application FLUE Consistency Review Memo DRAIT Developer Agreement as of 2-12-2020 NIM Materials Public Facilities Impact Assessment Economic Assessment Application/Backup Materials SRA-PL20180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA Revised: February 12, 2020 Page 42 ol 43 90 9.A.7.a Packet Pg. 797 Attachment: Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-12-20 (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) PREPARED BY: , AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER ZONING DIVISION _ ZONING SERVICES SECTION REVIEWED BY: RAYM V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER ZONING DIVISION _ ZONING SERVICES SECTION APPROVED BY: JAMES FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT SRA-PL20180000622 Hyde Park Village SRA Revised: February 3, 2020 2- L-z-o DATE 7 (>c) DATE :.a DATE Page 39 of 39 9.A.7.a Packet Pg. 798 Attachment: Staff Report Hyde Park Village SRA 2-12-20 (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.b Packet Pg. 799 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.b Packet Pg. 800 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.b Packet Pg. 801 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLO RIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST; THENCE RUN N01'27' 19''W ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE SAID SOUTHEAST 1 / 4 OF SECTION 16, FOR A DISTANCE OF 150.03 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE RUN S89"44'02"W PARALLEL TO THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF OIL WELL RD, A 100 FOOT WIDE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR A DISTANCE OF 2670.49 FEET; THENCE RUN S89"44'15"W PARALLEL TO THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID OIL WELL RD FOR A DISTANCE OF 2667.65 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 16; THENCE RUN N00"51'44"W ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER FOR A DISTANCE OF 2557.67 FEET TO THE WEST 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 16; THENCE RUN N00"50'30"W ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER FOR A DISTANCE OF 2707.71 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 16; THENCE RUN N89"35'06"E ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 16 FOR A DISTANCE OF 2640.22 FEET TO THE NORTH 1 / 4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 16; THENCE RUN N89"44'00"E ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 16 FOR A DISTANCE OF 2642.29 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 16; THENCE RUN S01"27'20"E ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 16 FOR A DISTANCE OF 2711.67 FEET TO THE EAST 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 16; THENCE RUN S01"27'19"E ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 16 FOR A DISTANCE OF 2561.62 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 642.5 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. BEARINGS REFER TO NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 16, AS BEING N89"35'06"E. REVISION A FIRST RESUBMITTAL IIMI Ea:IIISfUIIIIIUIM.llllS DATE 9/10/2018 950 EncoN Way Na�les, FL 34110 Phone: {239) 254-2000 Florida Certificate of Authorization No.1772 EXHIBIT A HYDE PARK VILLAGE SRA MASTER PLAN LEGAL DESCRIPTION SHEET 4 OF 7 CHECKED BY ; PROJECT No. PNC 2017.001 DRAl'>N BY ; CAD FILE NAME: MNK P1MS1PUN DATE : EXHIBIT - ITEM 05/2018 LOCATION.. Exhibit "A"Page 1 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 802 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) HYDE PARK VILLAGE SRA DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT Neal Communities of Southwest Florida, LLC 5800 Lakewood Ranch Blvd. North Sarasota, FL 34240 CCPC DATE______________ BCC DATE _______________ Exhibit "B" Page 2 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 803 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I.OVERVIEW/VILLAGE DESIGN 3 II.SRA STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE/SUITABLITY CRITERIA 3 III.REQUIRED PERIMETER BUFFERS 4 IV.MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DENSITY AND INTENSITY 5 V.CONTEXT ZONES 5 5.1 Neighborhood General 5 5.2 Neighborhood Edge 7 5.3 Village Amenity and Wellness Center 9 5.4 Village Center 9 VI.DEVIATIONS 13 6.1 Deviations from Village Center Standards 13 6.2 Deviations from Neighborhood General Standards 13 6.3 Deviations from Neighborhood Edge Standards 13 6.4 Transportation 14 6.5 Signs 14 6.6 Landscape 15 6.7 Other Deviations 16 VII.DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS 16 7.1 Planning 16 7.2 Environmental 17 7.3 Transportation 17 7.4 Other 18 EXHIBITS Exhibit A, Sheet 1 SRA Master Plan (color) Exhibit A, Sheet 2 SRA Master Plan (black and white) Exhibit A, Sheet 3 Location Map Exhibit A, Sheet 4 Legal Description Exhibit A, Sheet 5 Pedestrian and Pathway Plan Exhibit A, Sheet 6 SRA Master Plan with Deviations Exhibit A, Sheet 7 SRA Master Plan List of Deviations Exhibit B Location Map Exhibit C Property Ownership/Statement of Ownership Exhibit D Natural Resource Index Assessment Page 3 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 804 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) I.OVERVIEW/VILLAGE DESIGN AND PROJECT DEVELOPMENT The Hyde Park Village SRA is located in eastern Collier County in Section 16, Township 48 South, and Range 28 East. The Village consists of 642.52 acres. The Village is bounded on the south by Oil Well Road, on the West by a 100± foot wide drainage canal and Golden Gate Estates zoned properties, to the North by Golden Gate Estates zoned properties, and to the East by a future public roadway, and then A-MHO-RLSAO properties which are in active agriculture and which are proposed for designation as an SRA Village designation (Rivergrass Village). Desoto Boulevard terminates at Oil Well Road approximately 1,000 feet from the eastern boundary of the SRA. In accordance with the RLSA Overlay definition of a Village, the Village is primarily a residential community which includes a diversity of housing types and a maximum of 1,800 dwelling units within the Village Center, Neighborhood General, and Neighborhood Edge Context Zones. The Village includes 26.20± acre mixed-use Village Center providing for both multi-family development and neighborhood-scaled retail, office, civic , and community uses. The SRA is designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation through an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving the entire Village and with an interconnected system of streets, dispersing and reducing both the number and length of vehicle trips. The Village also includes a centrally located Village Amenity and Wellness Center Context Zone and several linear parks located within the Neighborhood Edge areas. II.SRA STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE/ SUITABILITY CRITERIA 1.The SRA contains 642.52 acres. 2.The SRA contains suitable lands to accommodate the proposed development. 3.The SRA does not include any lands with a Natural Resource Index greater than 1.2. 4.The required minimum open space (35%) is 224.88 acres. The SRA master plan provides for ±423.87 acres of open space (66± percent) of Open Space. This is 198.99 acres above the minimum required 224.88 acres. 5.The LDC requires 8 stewardship credits to entitle each acre in the SRA, excluding open space above 35% and excluding acreage dedicated to public use. The Hyde Park Village SRA is 642.52 acres in size, with 198.99 acres of open space exceeding the required 35%. Thus, the total acreage requiring stewardship credits is 443.53 acres. At 8 stewardship credits per acre, 3,548.24 credits are required. 6.A minimum of 1 percent of the SRA gross acreage (6.43± acres), is provided in the form of Parks & Community Green Space. 7.The SRA includes, in the mixed-use Village Center, at a minimum, 45,000 square feet of neighborhood-scaled retail and office uses and 18,000 square feet of civic, government, and community uses. These minimum amounts are based upon the SRA Village requirements of 25 square feet of neighborhood-scaled retail and office uses and 10 square feet civic, governmental, and institutional uses, respectively, per dwelling unit. 8.The SRA includes a minimum requirement of 300 multi-family dwelling units (of which 180 will be located in the mixed use Village Center) and maximum allowance of 1,500 single family dwelling units, providing a diversity of housing types. 9.The SRA does not include lands within the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) Overlay. 10.The SRA does not include, nor is it adjacent to, any lands designated Flowway Stewardship Area (FSA) or Habitat Stewardship Area (HSA), or Water Retention Area (WRA). 11.The SRA has direct access to Oil Well Road, which is an arterial road which has adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development. Page 4 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 805 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 12.The SRA will have access to Collier County water and sewer services. 13.The proposed schedule of development within the SRA, is as follows: a.Anticipated timeframe for receipt of required jurisdictional agency permits and date of commencement of residential development: two years from approval of this SRA. b.Anticipated sequence of residential development: 250 units per year commencing after receipt of jurisdictional permits. c.Anticipated timeframe for commencement of minimum required neighborhood retail and office uses 8 years from date of approval of this SRA. d.Anticipated project completion date: ten years from date of approval of this SRA. III.REQUIRED PERIMETER LANDSCAPE BUFFERS1 LDC Required Minimum Buffers Provided Buffers North Minimum 15’ wide Type “B” Buffer, per LDC Section 4.06.02.C.2. Minimum 15’ wide Type “B” Buffer, per LDC Section 4.06.02.C.2. , located within a minimum 100’ wide Perimeter Open Space Tract2 South (along Oil Well Road) Minimum Type 20’ wide Type “D” Buffer, per LDC Section 4.06.02.C.2. Minimum Type 20’ wide Type “D” Buffer, per LDC Section 4.06.02.C.2., located within a minimum 100’ wide Perimeter Open Space Tract, except along the Village Center Oil Well Road frontage, where the Perimeter Open Space Tract is a minimum of 30 feet in width. 2 East (adjacent to future Big Cypress Parkway) Minimum 20’ wide Type “D” Buffer, per LDC Section 4.06.02.C.4. Minimum 20’ wide Type “D” Buffer, per LDC Section 4.06.02.C.4. (adjacent to future Big Cypress Parkway, located within a minimum 75’ wide Perimeter Open Space Tract. 2 West Minimum 15’ Type “B” Buffer per LDC Section 4.06.02.C.4. Minimum 15’ Type “B” Buffer per LDC Section 4.06.02.C.4., located within a minimum 65’ wide Perimeter Open Space Tract. 2 Table 1: Village Perimeter Buffer Requirements 1 At the developer’s discretion, a 10-foot wide pathway may be located within the Perimeter Open Space Tract, provided the required landscape buffer plantings are located between the property line and the pathway. Such pathways, if developed, are in addition to any required sidewalks. 2 The Perimeter Open Space Tracts may include easements for utilities and for access to the Faka Union Canal for maintenance. No Utilities will be located within the 15’ landscape buffer. Page 5 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 806 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) IV.MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DENSITY, MINIMUM REQUIRED DWELLING MIX BY TYPE, MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM REQUIRED SQUARE FOOTAGE OF NEIGHBORHOOD GOODS AND SERVICES, AND MINIMUM CIVIC, GOVERNMENTAL AND INSTITUTIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE 1.Maximum total number of dwelling units in the Village shall not exceed 1,800 dwelling units. 2.Maximum number of single family dwelling units 1 shall not exceed 1,500. 3.Minimum number of multi-family dwelling units1 shall be 300 units, of which a minimum of 180 units shall be located in the Village Center. 4.Maximum number of multi-family dwelling units1 shall be 1,000 5.Maximum and minimum amount of commercial development (Neighborhood Goods and Services) is 45,000 square feet. 6.Minimum required civic, governmental and intuitional square footage is 18,000 square feet. V.CONTEXT ZONES The village contains four distinct Context Zones: Village Center, Neighborhood General, Neighborhood Edge, and Village Amenity and Wellness Center. 5.1 Neighborhood General Context Zone The Neighborhood General Context Zone includes approximately 26.10± acres of land. 5.1.1 Allowable Uses and Structures 5.1.1. A. Permitted Uses and Structures: 1)Single-Family dwelling units. 2)Multi-family dwelling units. 3)Neighborhood recreation areas, limited to a maximum of 0.5 acres and a maximum of 10,000 s.f. of building area, and passive parks, limited to landscaped or natural areas and may include hardscape pathways or seating areas, benches, shade structures such as gazebos or pavilions, docks or piers. 5.1.1. B. Accessory Uses and Structures: 1)Typical accessory uses and structures incidental to residential development including walls , fences, gazebos, swimming pools, screen enclosures, utility buildings, chickee huts, air conditioning units, satellite antennas, and similar use s and structures. 2)Model homes, sales centers, and temporary uses are permitted throughout Neighborhood General in accordance with LDC Section 5.04.00. 1 The term multi-family used herein refers to the LDC definition of multi-family which is “A group of 3 or more dwelling units within a single building.” Detached single-family buildings and building containing two dwelling units (such as attached single-family, two family, and villas) are not considered multi-family and are subject to the 1,500 unit cap on single-family units. Page 6 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 807 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 5.1.2. Neighborhood General Development and Design Standards 5.1.2.A. Required Minimum Yards & Maximum Building Heights: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SINGLE AND TWO FAMILY MULTI-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD RECREATION AREAS/POOLS3 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED & TWO-FAMILY ZERO LOT LINE & TOWNHOUSE1 OTHER MULTI- FAMLY2 PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES MIN. LOT AREA 5,000 S.F. / UNIT 3,000 S.F. / UNIT 2,500 S.F./UNIT 20,000 S.F. N/A MIN. LOT WIDTH 43’ 30’ 20’/ unit 100’ N/A MIN. FLOOR AREA 1,200 S.F 1,200 S.F PER UNIT 1,200 S.F. PER UNIT 700 S.F. PER UNIT1 N/A MIN. FRONT YARD4 20’ 20’ 20’ 20” 10’ MIN. SIDE YARD 5’ 0 OR 5’5 0 OR 5’5 10’ 10’ MIN. REAR YARD 10’ 10’ 10’ 20’ 10’ MIN. LAKE SETBACK (from required 20’ wide lake maintenance easement) 6 0’ 0’ 0’ 0’ 0’ MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES 10’ 10’ 10’ 15’ or ½ Sum of BH, whichever is greater 10’ MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT - ZONED 2 STORIES NTE 42’ 2 STORIES NTE 42’ 2 STORIES NTE 42’ 3.5 STORIES NTE 50’ 2 STORIES NTE 42’ MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT - ACTUAL 50’ 50’ 50’ 60’ 50’ MAX. FAR N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ACCESSORY STRUCTURES MIN. FRONT YARD SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS MIN. SIDE YARD SPS SPS SPS 10’ 10’ MIN. REAR YARD 5’ 5’ 5’ 5’ 5’ MIN. LAKE SETBACK (from required 20’ wide lake maintenance easement) 6 0’ 0’ 0’ 0’ 0’ MAX. HEIGHT ZONED & ACTUAL SPS SPS SPS 42 FEET SPS Table 1: Neighborhood General - Required Minimum Yards Maximum Building Height S.P.S. = same as for principal structure; NTE = not to exceed; S.F. = square feet; BH = building height; N/A = not applicable Footnotes: 1.Zero Lot Line and Townhome Development means 3 or more attached units 2.Other Multi-family means 3 or more units in a building other than Zero Lot Line or Townhome Development. 3. Neighborhood Recreational Areas are intended to serve small neighborhoods within the Neighborhood General Context Zone. Neighborhood Recreation Areas are limited to a maximum of 1.0 acre and 10,000 s.f. of building area. 4. Front yards shall be measured as follows: −Setback is measured from the back of curb (if curbed) or edge of pavement (if not curbed). −If the parcel has frontage on two streets (corner lot), the frontage providing vehicular access to the unit shall be considered the front yard. The other frontage shall be 10’. −In no case shall the setback be less than 23 feet from the edge of an adjacent sidewalk, except in the case of si de-loaded garages where the garage is designed in such a way that a vehicle can be parked in the driveway without conflicting with, or encroaching upon, the adjacent sidewalk. 5. 5’ minimum side setbacks for single-family attached, two-family, duplex, zero lot line and townhomes must be accompanied by another 5’ minimum side setback on adjoining lot to achieve minimum 10’ separation. 6. The required 20’ wide lake maintenance easement shall be provided as a separate platted tract or designated as a separate tract on an SDP, in which case the setback for both principal and accessory structures is 0’. Page 7 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 808 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 5.2 Neighborhood Edge Context Zone The Neighborhood Edge Context Zone includes approximately 191.89± acres of land. 5.2.1 Allowable Uses and Structures 5.2.1. A. Permitted Uses and Structures: 1) Single-Family dwelling units. 2)Multi-family dwelling units if located within ½ mile of the Village Center, subject to standards set forth in Section 5.2.2, Table 2: Neighborhood Edge - Required Minimum Yards Maximum Building Height 3)Neighborhood recreation areas, limited to 1.0 acre, and allowing for passive parks, generally limited to landscaped or natural areas and may include hardscape pathways, seating areas, shade structures such as gazebos or pavilions, and docks or piers, and a building area not to exceed 5,000 square feet. 5.2.1. B. Accessory Uses and Structures: 1)Typical accessory uses and structures incidental to residential development including walls, fences, gazebos, swimming pools, screen enclosures, utility buildings, chickee huts, air conditioning units, satellite antennas, and similar uses and structures. 2)Model homes, sales centers, and temporary uses are permitted throughout Neighborhood Edge in accordance with LDC Section 5.04.00. Page 8 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 809 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 5.2.2.Neighborhood Edge Development and Design Standards 5.2.2.A. Required Minimum Yards & Maximum Building Heights: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS DWELLING TYPES NEIGHBORHOOD RECREATION AREAS/POOLS2SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED & TWO-FAMILY, VILLAS ZERO LOT LINE & TOWNHOUSE1 PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES MIN. LOT AREA 5,000 S.F. / UNIT 3,000 S.F. / UNIT 2,500 S.F./UNIT 5,000 S.F. MIN. LOT WIDTH 43’ 30’ 20’/UNIT N/A MIN. FLOOR AREA 1,200 S.F 1,200 S.F PER UNIT 1,200 S.F PER UNIT N/A MIN. FRONT YARD3 20’ 20’ 20’ 10’ MIN. SIDE YARD4 5’ 0 OR 5’ 0 OR 5’ 10’ MIN. REAR YARD 10’ 10’ 10’ 10’ MIN. LAKE SETBACK (from required 20’ wide lake maintenance easement) 5 0’ 0’ 0’ 0’ MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES 10’ 10’ 10’ 10’ MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT - ZONED 2 STORIES NTE 42’ 2 STORIES NTE 42’ 2 STORIES NTE 42’ 1 STORY NTE 35’ MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT - ACTUAL 50’ 50’ 50’ 50’ MAX. FAR N/A N/A N/A N/A ACCESSORY STRUCTURES MIN. FRONT YARD SPS SPS SPS SPS MIN. SIDE YARD SPS SPS SPS 10’ MIN. REAR YARD 5’ 5’ 5’ 5’ MIN. LAKE SETBACK (from required 20’ wide lake maintenance easement) 5 0’ 0’ 0’ 0’ MAX. HEIGHT ZONED & ACTUAL SPS SPS SPS SPS Table 2: Neighborhood Edge - Required Minimum Yards Maximum Building Height S.P.S. = same as for principal structure; NTE = not to exceed; S.F. = square feet; BH = building height; N/A = not applicable Footnotes: 1.Zero Lot Line and Townhome Development means 3 or more attached units 2.Neighborhood Recreational Areas are intended to serve small neighborhoods within the Neighborhood Edge Context Zone. Neighborhood Recreation Areas are limited to a maximum of 0.5 acres and a maximum of 5,000 s.f. of building area. 3.Front yards shall be measured as follows: −Setback is measured from the back of curb (if curbed) or edge of pavement (if not curbed). −If the parcel has frontage on two streets (corner lot), the frontage providing vehicular access to the unit shall be consider ed the front yard. The other frontage shall be 10’. −In no case shall the setback be less than 23 feet from the edge of an adjacent sidewalk, except in the case of side -loaded garages where the garage is designed in such a way that a vehicle can be parked in the driveway without conflicting with, or encroaching upon, the adjacent sidewalk. 4. 5’ minimum side setbacks for single-family attached, two-family, must be accompanied by another 5’ minimum side setback on adjoining lot to achieve minimum 10’ separation. 5. The lake required 20’ wide lake maintenance easement shall be provided as a separate platted tract or designated as a separate tract on an SDP, in which case the setback for both principal and accessory structures is 0’. Page 9 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 810 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 5.3. Village Amenity and Wellness Center Context Zone The Village Amenity and Wellness Center Context Zone includes approximately 10.74± acres of land. The Community Amenity and Wellness Center (location depicted on the SRA Master Plan in a 10.74± acre tract) may contain up to 30,000 square feet of building area. 5.3.1 Allowable Uses and Structures 5.3.1. A. Permitted Uses and Structures: 1)Facilities intended to provide recreational, social and wellness services to the residents and guests of Hyde Park Village SRA. Such facilities include but are not limited to: a clubhouse; physical fitness facilities; tennis, pickleball, basketball; bocce ball courts; swimming pools; dog park; barbecue area; and similar types of facilities and services. 2)Banks, credit unions and trusts (6011—6099), limited to Village residents and guests. 3)Child day care services (8351), limited to Village residents and guests. 4)Health services and offices (8011—8049), limited to Village residents and guests. 5)Financial Advisors (6282), limited to Village residents and guests. 6)Similar types of professional office uses providing wellness related counseling services limited to Village residents and guests. 5.3.1. B. Accessory Uses and Structures: 1)Typical accessory uses and structures incidental to the permitted uses described above, including walls, fences, bulkheads, gazebos, docks, piers, covered or uncovered, screen enclosures, utility buildings, chickee huts, air conditioning units, satellite a ntennas, and similar uses and structures. 5.3.2. Required Minimum Yards & Maximum Building Heights: Abutting a road: 20 feet Abutting a passive park: 0’ Abutting a residential lot or tract: 25’ Abutting a lake: 15 feet, except for chickee huts, gazebos, docks, and piers, for which no setback is required. Maximum Zoned Height: 50’ Maximum Actual Height: 60’ 5.4 Village Center Context Zone The Village Center Context Zone includes 26.20± acres of land. 5.4.1. Allowable Uses and Structures The Village Center shall be mixed use in nature, and shall provide a minimum of 180 multi-family units, 45,000 square feet of neighborhood-scale commercial and office uses (as listed in 5.4.1.A. below), including, at a minimum, 8 retail or office uses, and 18,000 square feet of civic, governmental, and institutional uses. Page 10 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 811 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) The following uses, as identified with a number from the Standard Industrial Classification Manual (1987), or as otherwise provided for within this section, are permitted by right, or as accessory uses within the Village Center. 5.4.1.A. Permitted Uses 1)Accounting and Bookkeeping services (8721). 2)Amusements and recreation services (7999 – limited to bicycle sales and rental). 3)Apparel and accessory stores (5611—5699). 4)Auto and home supply stores (5531). 5)Banks, credit unions and trusts (6011—6099). 6)Barber shops (7241, except for barber schools). 7)Beauty shops (7231, except for beauty schools). 8)Child day care services (8351). 9)Churches. 10)Civic, social and fraternal associations (8641). 11)Computer and computer software stores (5734). 12)Dry cleaning plants (7216, nonindustrial dry cleaning only). 13)Drug stores (5912). 14)Eating places (5812 only). All establishments engaged in the retail sale of alcoholic beverages for on-premise consumption are subject to locational requirements of LDC Section 5.05.01. 15)Essential services, subject to LDC Section 2.01.03. 16)Federal and federally-sponsored credit agencies (6111). 17)Food stores (groups 5411—5499). 18)Garment pressing, and agents for laundries and drycleaners (7212). 19)Gasoline service stations (5541, subject to LDC Section 5.05.05). 20)General merchandise stores (5331—5399). 21)Group care facilities (category I and II, except for homeless shelters); care units, except for homeless shelters; nursing homes; assisted living facilities, subject to all applicable state statutes and LDC Section 5.05.04. 22)Hardware stores (5251). 23)Health services, offices and clinics (8011—8049, 8071, 8082, 8092, and 8099). 24)Household appliance stores (5722). 25)Insurance carriers, agents and brokers (6311—6399, 6411). 26)Legal services (8111). 27)Libraries (8231). 28)Mortgage bankers and loan correspondents (6162). 29)Multifamily dwelling units 30)Paint stores (5231). 31)Physical fitness facilities (7991; 7911, except discotheques). 32)Real Estate (6531—6552). 33)Retail services - miscellaneous (5921—5963 except pawnshops and building materials, 5992-5999, except auction rooms, awning shops, gravestones, hot tubs, monuments, swimming pools, tombstones and whirlpool baths). 34)Tax return preparation services (7291). 35)Travel agencies (4724, no other transportation services). 36)United State Postal Service (4311, except major distribution center). 37)Veterinary services (0742, excluding outdoor kenneling). Page 11 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 812 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 38)Any other commercial or professional use which is comparable and compatible in nature with foregoing list of permitted uses, is considered be a neighborhood scale commercial, office, or civic, governmental, or institutional uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals or Hearing Examiner, pursuant to the applicable procedures set forth in LDC Section 10.08.00. 5.4.1.B. Accessory Uses 1)Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to the permitted uses above. 2)Parking structures, both detached and attached, not to exceed 35 feet in Actual height. 3)Outside storage or display of merchandise when specifically permitted for a use, otherwise prohibited, subject to LDC Section 4.02.12. 5.4.2. Village Center Development and Design Standards 5.4.2.A. Required Minimum Yards (Setbacks) and Maximum Building Heights: Table 2: Village Center - Required Minimum Yards Maximum Building Height DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS MULTIFAMILY AND ALF/GROUP HOUSING ONLY NON-RESIDENTIAL AND MIXED USE BUILDINGS PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES MIN. LOT AREA 20,000 S.F. 10,000 S.F. MIN. LOT WIDTH 100’ 100’ MIN. FLOOR AREA 700 S.F. PER UNIT 800 S.F. MIN. SETBACK FROM OILWELL AND ENTRANCE ROAD1 20’ 20’ FRONT YARDS2 0 to 10’ 0 to 10’ MINIMUM SETBACK FROM A RESIDENTIAL TRACT 0’ 20’ MINIMUM SETBACK FROM A NONRESIDENTIAL TRACT 15’ 5’ MIN. LAKE SETBACK (from Require 20’ wide lake maintenance Easement)3 0’ 0’ MIN. PRESERVE SETBACK 25’ 25’ MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES 15 FEET or ½ Sum of BH, whichever is greater 15 FEET or ½ Sum of BH, whichever is greater MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT - ZONED 4 Stories NTE 50’ 4 Stories NTE 50’ MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT - ACTUAL 60’ 60’ MAX. FAR (ALF/GROUP HOUSING) 0.45 0.45 ACCESSORY STRUCTURES MIN. FRONT YARD (ALL) SPS SPS MIN. SETBACK FROM A RESIDENTIAL TRACT SPS SPS MIN. SETBACK FROM A NONRESIDENTIAL TRACT SPS SPS MIN. LAKE SETBACK (from required 20’ wide lake maintenance easement)3 0’ 0’ MIN. PRESERVE SETBACK 10’ 10’ MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES 10’ 10’ MAX. HEIGHT - ZONED & ACTUAL 35’ 35’ Page 12 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 813 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) S.P.S. = same as for principal structure; NTE = not to exceed; S.F. = square feet; BH = building height; N/A = not applicable Footnotes: 1.Tracts adjacent to the minimum required 30’wide landscape buffer (located in a separate platted tract adjacent to Oil Well Road) shall provide a front yard setback, measured from the closest edge of the adjacent landscape buffer tract. Tracts adjacent to the primary access drives through the Village Center shall provide a front yard setback measured from the closest edge of the minimum required 10 foot Type “D” landscape buffer adjacent to the primary access drives through the Village Center (which may or may not be a separate platted tract.) 2.Except as described in footnote 1 above, front yards for parcels abutting a street or internal driveway shall be measured from the back of curb (if curbed) or edge of pavement (if not curbed). 3. The lake required 20’ wide lake maintenance easement shall be provided as a separate platted tract or designated as a separate tract on SDP, in which case the setback for both principal and accessory structures is 0’. Page 13 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 814 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) VI.DEVIATIONS 6.1. Village Center Standards 1.A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.ii.p)ii) “General Parking Criteria,” which states “The majority of parking spaces shall be provided off-street in the rear of buildings or along the side secondary streets. Parking is prohibited in front of buildings, …” to instead allow parking in front of buildings in the Village Center, when such parking is in support of a shopping center, as defined in the LDC, which includes a grocery store. A Type ‘D’ buffer per LDC at time of permitting will be required when parking is adjacent to or abutting a road. 2.A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.ii.q), which requires that the majority of parking be located in the rear of buildings and prohibits parking in the front of buildings except on street parking within the right-of-way to instead allow parking in the front, side and rear yards, when such parking is in support of a shopping center, as defined in the LDC, which includes a grocery store. A Type ‘D’ buffer per LDC at time of permitting will be required when parking is adjacent to or abutting a road. 6.2 Village Amenity and Wellness Center Standards 1.A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.iii.f)iv), “Non -residential uses,” which states “the maximum square footage per [non -residential] use shall be 3,000 square feet and per location shall be 15,000 square feet,” to instead allow the Community Amenit y and Wellness Center uses to be a maximum of 30,000 square feet. 6.3. Neighborhood General Standards (which apply to Villages per LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.iii): 1.A Deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.iii.e)ii), which states that in the case of “Multi-Family residential,” “side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 10 feet and rear yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 20 feet for the primary structure…” to instead allow for a side yard setback of 0 or 5 feet and a rear yard setback of 10 feet for zero lot line and townhome development, as set forth in Section 5.1.2.A. Neighborhood General - Required Yards & Maximum Building Height, Table 1. 2.A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.iii.e).i) and LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.iii, “Maximum Multi-family lot size,” which requires that multi-family residential lots be limited to a maximum of 4 acres, to instead allow lot sizes for multi -family without restriction as to maximum lot size in the Neighborhood General Context Zone, when located within 1/3 mile of the Village Center. 6.4 Neighborhood Edge Standards (which apply per LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.iii): 1.A Deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.iii.e)ii), which states that in the case of “Multi-Family residential,” “side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 10 feet and rear yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 20 feet for the primary structure…” to instead allow for a side yard setback of 0 or 5 feet and a rear yard setback of 10 feet for Single Family Page 14 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 815 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Attached & Two-Family as well as Villas, as set forth in SRA Section 5.2.2.A., Neighborhood Edge - Required Minimum Yards Maximum Building Height, Table 2. This deviation is a general deviation. The exact location is not known. 6.5 Transportation Standards 1.A deviation from LDC Section: 6.06.01.J, “Street System Requirements”, which requires “Dead-end streets shall be prohibited except when designed as a cul -de-sac. When a street is designed to be extended when the adjacent property is developed, a temporary cul -de- sac and right-of-way shall be designed. Cul-de-sacs in excess of 1,000 feet shall not be permitted unless existing topographical conditions or other natural features preclude a street layout to avoid longer cul-de-sacs,” to instead allow the maximum cul-de-sac length to be 2,500 feet as measured along the center line of the right-of-way from the intersecting right-of-way center line to the end of the cul -de-sac right-of-way. Permanent cul-de-sacs in excess of 1,200 feet shall include a mid-block turn-around. Temporary cul-de-sacs shall not be required to meet this standard. 2.A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.1.b.(11) “Figure 11 – Neighborhood Edge Collector Street” which requires a 12’ multi-use pathway and Section 6.06.02.A.2, which requires a sidewalk a minimum of 6’ wide on both sides of a Neighborhood Edge Collector Street, to instead allow a 10’ wide pathway on one side within the linear park/open space area where the Neighborhood Edge Collector Street abuts the Village Amenity and Wellness Center Context Zone. This deviation is a general deviation. The exact location is not known. 3.A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.1.b(6), “Figure 6, Local Street Neighborhood General,” which requires a 6-foot wide planting area between the 10 foot wide travel lane and the sidewalk, to instead allow for a 5-foot wide planting area between the 10 foot wide travel lane and the sidewalk for local roads within the project in Neighborhood General. In such cases, either a root barrier or structural soil shall be utilized. If the option of structural soil is utilized, a minimum of 2 c.f. of structural soil per square feet of mature tree crown projection shall be provided. This deviation is a general deviation. The exact location is not known. 4.A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.iv.g), which requires that street design and cross-sections in the Neighborhood Edge Context Zone adhere to [LDC sections] J.1.b. and to Figures 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, or 18., to instead allow local streets in the Neighborhood Edge Context Zone to adhere to 4,08.07.J.1.b. and to Figure 6, Local Street Neighborhood General, and to allow deviation 3) above to apply to such streets. This deviation is a general deviation. The exact location is not known. 5.A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.ii.q), which requires that the amount of required parking in the Village Center “be demonstrated through a shared parking analysis submitted with an SRA designation application…” and be “determined utilizing the m odal splits and parking demands for various uses recognized by ITE, ULI or other sources or studies…” to instead allow the parking demand analysis to be submitted at the time of initial Site Development Plan (SDP) or, at the discretion of the County Manage r or designee, at the time of a subsequent SDP or SDP Amendment, in order to allow for a Page 15 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 816 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) more comprehensive parking demand analysis based upon the mix of uses at the time of the initial SDP or subsequent SDP or SDP Amendment. 6.6 Sign Standards 1.A deviation from LDC Section 5.04.06.A.3.e, “Temporary Signs,” which allows temporary signs used on residentially zoned properties to be up to 4 square feet in area and 3 feet in height, to instead allow temporary signs or banners up to a maximum of 32 square feet in combined area and a maximum height of 8 feet, subject to approval under temporary sign permit procedures in the LDC. The temporary banner shall be limited to a maximum of 90 days sign for sales and marketing purposes, adjacent to Oil Well Road and internal to the site. The banner sign shall not to exceed 32 square feet in area and 8 feet in height and may be permitted for a maximum of 90 days during season defined as November 1 to April 30 per calendar year for a maximum of three (3) years. This deviation is a general deviation. The exact location is not known. 2.A deviation from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.5.a, “On-premises directional signs,” which requires on-premise directional signs to be “set back a minimum of 10 feet from the edge of the roadway, paved surface or back of the curb,” to instead allow a minimum of 5 feet from the edge of the roadway, paved surface or back of the curb. This deviation does not apply to County roads and is for signs internal to the site only. This deviation is a general deviation. The exact location is not known. 3.A deviation from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.6 “On-premises signs within residential districts,” which allows two ground signs with a maximum height of 8 feet, at each entrance to a multi-family or single-family development, to instead allow a maximum height of 12 feet for such ground signs located at the two project entrances (from Oil Well Road). 4.A deviation from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.2., “Real Estate Signs,” which identifies types of permitted real estate signs, to instead allow, in addition to other permitted signs, a maximum of 4 “Lifestyle Signs” located along Oil Well Road, leading to the project entryway(s), and to also allow such signs interior to the development without limitation. Lifestyle Signs shall be limited to a maximum of 18 square feet in size , 12 feet in height, and shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from Oil Well Road right-of-way and 5 feet from internal roadways. Lifestyle Signs are intended to advertise lifestyle amenities within the Hyde Park Rural Village, including but not limited to clubhouse(s), fitness center, sports and recreation facilities, and so forth. Such signs may be permitted initially for up to 10 years and may be extended by the Collier County Growth Management Department Administrator or designee for up to two additional years, upon demonstration by the developer that there is need based upon the remaining number of residential lots for sale within the Village. This deviation is a general deviation. The exact location is not known. 6.7 Landscape Standards 1.A deviation from LDC Section 4.06.02.C., Buffer Requirements, “Types of buffers”, Table 2.4 Information, Footnote (3) which requires “Buffer areas between commercial Page 16 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 817 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) outparcels located within a shopping center, Business Park, or similar commercial development may have a shared buffer 15 feet wide with each abutting property contributing 7.5 feet”, to instead allow a shared buffer 10 feet wide with each abutting property contributing 5 feet. 6.8 Other Deviations 1.A deviation from LDC Section 4.05.04.G, “Parking Space Requirements,” which requires 1 parking space per 100 square feet for recreation facilities (indoor) sports, exercise, fitness, aerobics, or health clubs to instead allow for parking for the Village Amenity and Wellness Center to be calculated at 1 space per 200 square feet of indoor square footage, excluding kitchen or storage space. 2.A deviation from LDC Section 3.05.10.A.2. – “Location Criteria,” which requires littoral shelf planting areas to be “concentrated in one location of the lake(s) preferably adjacent to a preserve area,” to instead allow for the required littoral shelf planting areas (LSPA) to be concentrated in certain specific locations. The locations and size of these areas, meeting or exceeding the required 7 percent per LDC Section 3.05.10.A.1.b., will be identified at the time of initial subdivision plat. 3.A Deviation from LDC Section 4.03.08.C, “Potable Water System,” which states “separate potable water and reuse waterlines…shall be provided…by the applicant at no cost to Collier County for all subdivisions and developments ” and “Reuse water lines, pumps, and other appurtenances will not be maintained by Collier County,” to instead allow for such facilities and/or appurtenances to be conveyed to and maintained by Collier County. This deviation is a general deviation. The exact location is not known. 4.A deviation from LDC Section 5.03.02.D.1, “Fences and Walls” whic h states that fences or walls are limited to a maximum height of 8 feet in commercial or industrial zoning districts, to instead allow a maximum height of 10 feet. VII.DEVELOPER/OWNER COMMITMENTS 7.1. Planning A.Neal Communities of Southwest Florida, LLC (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for monitoring of the SRA, as may be required by Collier County, and until no longer required by Collier County. The monitoring and report shall follow the same procedures and requirements set forth in LDC Section 10.02.02.F, PUD Monitoring Report requirements. This entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all commitments set forth in the SRA Document and in the Developer’s Contribution Agreement. At the time of this SRA approval, the Managing Entity is Neal Communities of Southwest Florida, LLC. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document, to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer sell off tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to County that includes, if applicable, an acknowledgement of the commitments required Page 17 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 818 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) by the SRA Document by the new owner and the new owner’s agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entity will not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section. When the County determines that the SRA Document commitments have been fulfilled, the Managing Entity shall no longer be responsible for the monitoring of this SRA. B.Issuance of a development permit by a County does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. C.All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. D.Owner shall submit an annual SRA Monitoring Report, in a form similar to a PUD Monitoring Report, identifying the number of residential units and retail, office, civic, governmental and institutional square footage, constructed within the SRA as of the date of the respective Monitoring Report. The Monitoring Report shall also address whether or not and to what degree the Developer commitments contained herein, or within a separate Developer’s Contribution Agreement have been satisfied. 7.2. Environmental A.The Developer shall adhere to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Black Bear Management Plan, as applicable. The informational brochure created by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) and titled “A Guide to Living in Bear County” will be distributed to future homeowners and construction/maintenance personnel. Residents will be provided with information on how to secure their garbage containers to discourage bears from foraging in trash receptacles and the project will utilize bear-proof dumpsters in locations to be determined at the time of Site Development Plan (SDP) approval. 7.3. Transportation A.Intensity of uses under any development scenario for the SRA is limited to a maximum of 1,685 two-way, unadjusted, average weekday pm peak hour total trips based on the use codes in the ITE Manual on trip generation rates in effect at the time of applicati on for SDP/SDPA or subdivision plat approval. B.Owner shall convey to Collier County at no cost to Collier County an easement in a form acceptable to Collier County to accommodate a transit stop and shelter within the SRA at a location agreed to by Collier County Public Transit Division Director. As part of site improvements authorized by the first Site Development Plan within the SRA, the Owner shall, at its sole expense, convey the easement and install shelter and related site improvements for the transit stop, utilizing a design consistent with established CAT architectural standards or consistent with project architectural standards if agreed to by CAT. Page 18 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 819 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) C.No more than 1,530 dwelling units will be issued certificates of occupancy until a minimum of 22,500 sq. ft. of the neighborhood retail and office uses have been developed and issued certificate(s) of occupancy. 7.4 Other A.Street trees will be provided throughout the Village in locations required by LDC Section 4.08.07. Such street trees shall be spaced forty feet (40’) on center and shall have a minimum average mature canopy spread of twenty feet (20’) or alternatively, for species with an average mature spread less than 20’, street trees shall be spaced a distance equal to twice the average mature spread. Page 19 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 820 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Exhibit A to SRA Document Page 20 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 821 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) EXHIBIT ASRA MASTER PLAN1A-MHO-RLSAOE - ESTATESOIL WELL ROAD3006000MINIMUM REQUIRED OPEN SPACE : 35% (224.88AC)OIL WELL ROADPOTENTIALRESIDENT ONLY ACCESSWITH GATED ENTRY*MULTI-FAMILY COMPONENT OF VILLAGE CENTER TOINCORPORATE A MINIMUM OF 2 ACRES OF LAKE INTO SITE PLAN ATTIME OF DEVELOPMENT.DESOTO BLVDFIRST RESUBMITTAL9/10/2018PROJECT BOUNDARY TOTAL =NEIGHBORHOOD EDGE LAKES / WATER MANAGEMENTLAKE MAINTENANCE EASEMENT /OPEN SPACE / LINEAR PARKSVILLAGE AMENITY & WELLNESSCENTERLAND USECOLORLEGENDACRESRIGHT OF WAY* VILLAGE CENTER POTENTIAL FUTURE RESIDENTONLY ACCESSNEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL37.3843.54247.41191.8926.1010.7426.20642.520.3258.94PROVIDED OPEN SPACE : 66% (423.87 AC)MAIN ENTRY ROADLOOP ROAD 60' ROW80' ROW50' ROW TYP.UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTEDSECOND RESUBMITTAL10/30/2018THRID RESUBMITTAL12/12/181 **E - ESTATESE - ESTATES MIN. 15' TYPE B LANDSCAPE BUFFERWITHIN A MIN. 100' PERIMETEROPEN SPACE TRACTMIN. 20' TYPE D LANDSCAPE BUFFERWITHIN A MIN. 75' PERIMETER OPENSPACE TRACT1MIN. 15' TYPE B LANDSCAPE BUFFERWITHIN A MIN. 65' PERIMETER OPEN SPACE TRACT PERIMETER OPEN SPACE TRACTMIN. 20' TYPE DLANDSCAPE BUFFERWITHIN A MIN. 30'PERIMETER OPENSPACE TRACTMIN. 20' TYPE D LANDSCAPE BUFFERWITHIN A MIN. 100' PERIMETER OPENSPACE TRACTTHIS SRA IS LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM OF 1,800DWELLING UNITS. IN NO CASE SHALL THE NUMBEROF SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS EXCEED 1,500. IN NO CASESHALL THE NUMBER OF MULTIFAMILY UNITS EXCEED1,000. A MINIMUM OF 300 MULTIFAMILY SHALL BEDEVELOPED, OF WHICH A MINIMUM OF 180 UNITSSHALL BE LOCATED IN THE VILLAGE CENTER.NOTE:1 LITTORAL PLANTING AREAS TO MEET REQUIRED 17.32 ACRES (7% OF PROPOSED LAKE AREAS) TO BE LOCATED AT TIME OF INITIAL PLAT.POTENTIALGUARDHOUSE / ENTRYTOWER FEATUREPOTENTIALGUARDHOUSE / ENTRYTOWER FEATUREPROPOSED FUTURE COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC ROWPOTENTIALINTERCONNECTIONTO FUTURECOLLIER COUNTYPUBLIC ROW100' ROW RESERVATION(12.27AC NOT PART OF SRA)950 Encore WayNaples, FL. 34110Phone: (239) 254-2000Florida Certificate ofAuthorization No.1772ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORSHYDE PARK2017.0012017.0012017.001_Mst7B.E.J.M.S.K.HMA4/2019As NotedVILLAGE4/20194/20199.A.7.bPacket Pg. 822Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) EXHIBIT ASRA MASTER PLAN2950 Encore WayNaples, FL. 34110Phone: (239) 254-2000Florida Certificate ofAuthorization No.1772ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORSHYDE PARK2017.0012017.0012017.001_Mst7B.E.J.M.S.K.HMA4/2019As NotedVILLAGE4/20194/2019NEIGHBORHOOD EDGEVILLAGE AMENITY & WELLNESSCENTERLAND USECOLORLEGENDACRESROWPROJECT BOUNDARY TOTAL =642.5226.2058.94191.8910.7443.54A-MHO-RLSAOE - ESTATESOIL WELL ROAD300600POTENTIAL FUTURE RESIDENTONLY ACCESS0.32OIL WELL ROADNEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL26.10DESOTO BLVD100' ROW RESERVATIONFIRST RESUBMITTAL9/10/2018 LAKES / WATER MANAGEMENTSECOND RESUBMITTAL10/30/20180*MULTI-FAMILY COMPONENT OF VILLAGE CENTER TOINCORPORATE A MINIMUM OF 2 ACRES OF LAKE INTO SITE PLAN ATTIME OF DEVELOPMENT.* VILLAGE CENTER THRID RESUBMITTAL12/12/1837.3815.90 ACRES247.411 **E - ESTATESE - ESTATES MIN. 15' TYPE B LANDSCAPE BUFFERWITHIN A MIN. 100' PERIMETEROPEN SPACE TRACTMIN. 20' TYPE D LANDSCAPE BUFFERWITHIN A MIN. 75' PERIMETER OPENSPACE TRACT1MIN. 15' TYPE B LANDSCAPE BUFFERWITHIN A MIN. 65' PERIMETER OPEN SPACE TRACT MIN. 20' TYPE DLANDSCAPE BUFFERWITHIN A MIN. 30'PERIMETER OPENSPACE TRACTMIN. 20' TYPE D LANDSCAPE BUFFERWITHIN A MIN. 100' PERIMETER OPENSPACE TRACTTHIS SRA IS LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM OF 1,800DWELLING UNITS. IN NO CASE SHALL THE NUMBEROF SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS EXCEED 1,500. IN NO CASESHALL THE NUMBER OF MULTIFAMILY UNITS EXCEED1,000. A MINIMUM OF 300 MULTIFAMILY SHALL BEDEVELOPED, OF WHICH A MINIMUM OF 180 UNITSSHALL BE LOCATED IN THE VILLAGE CENTER.NOTE:1 LITTORAL PLANTING AREAS TO MEET REQUIRED 17.32 ACRES (7% OF PROPOSED LAKE AREAS) TO BE LOCATED AT TIME OF INITIAL PLAT.PERIMETER OPEN SPACE TRACTLAKE MAINTENANCE EASEMENT /OPEN SPACE / LINEAR PARKS50' ROW TYP.UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTEDPOTENTIALRESIDENT ONLY ACCESSWITH GATED ENTRYPOTENTIALGUARDHOUSE / ENTRYTOWER FEATUREPOTENTIALGUARDHOUSE / ENTRYTOWER FEATUREPROPOSED FUTURE COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC ROWPOTENTIALINTERCONNECTIONTO FUTURECOLLIER COUNTYPUBLIC ROW(12.27AC NOT PART OF SRA)MINIMUM REQUIRED OPEN SPACE : 35% (224.88AC)PROVIDED OPEN SPACE : 66% (423.87 AC)9.A.7.bPacket Pg. 823Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) EXHIBIT A HYDE PARK VILLAGE SRA MASTER PLAN LOCATION MAP NTS PROJECT LOCATION MAP OIL WELL RD PROPOSED RURAL VILLAGE FIRST RESUBMITTAL 9/10/2018 REVISION DATE A SHEET 3 OF 7 9.A.7.b Packet Pg. 824 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) EXHIBIT A HYDE PARK VILLAGE SRA MASTER PLAN LEGAL DESCRIPTION FIRST RESUBMITTAL 9/10/2018 REVISION DATE A SHEET 4 OF 7 9.A.7.b Packet Pg. 825 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) EXHIBIT APEDESTRIAN / PATHWAYSPLAN KEY5950 Encore WayNaples, FL. 34110Phone: (239) 254-2000Florida Certificate ofAuthorization No.1772ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORSHYDE PARK2017.0012017.0012017.001_Mst7B.E.J.M.S.K.HMA4/2019As NotedVILLAGE4/20194/2019DESOTO OIL WELL ROAD3006000BLVD OIL WELL ROADSIDEWALKSLEGEND PERIMETER OPEN SPACE TRACT PATHWAYNOTES1.10 FOOT PATHWAY REQUIRED THROUGH LINEAR PARK ASDEPICTED, FOR CONNECTIVITY.2.AT THE DISCRETION OF THE DEVELOPER, LANDSCAPE BUFFERSMAY INCORPORATE UP TO A 10 FOOT WIDE PATHWAY, SINCE ALLPERMITTED BUFFERS EXCEED THE MINIMUM REQUIRED WIDTH BYAT LEAST 10 FEET.3.COLLECTOR AND ENTRY ROADS INCLUDE 4 FOOT BIKE LANES ONEACH SIDE.4.SIDEWALKS / BIKE LANES WILL CONNECT TO FUTURE FACILITIESWITHIN THE WIDENED OIL WELL ROAD RIGHT OF WAY.LINEAR PARK PATHWAYFIRST RESUBMITTAL9/10/2018LINEAR PATHWAYPERIMETER OPENSPACE TRACT PATHWAYSECOND RESUBMITTAL10/30/2018THRID RESUBMITTAL12/12/18SIDEWALKS (TYPICAL) THROUGHOUT DEVELOPMENTPOTENTIALFUTUREINTERCONNECTIONENTRYROADENTRYROADCOLLECTOR ROADPOTENTIAL RESIDENT ONLY ACCESS WITH GATED ENTRY100' ROW RESERVATIONFOR OIL WELL RD. NOT PART OF THIS SRA9.A.7.bPacket Pg. 826Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) SRA MASTER PLANWITH DEVIATIONS6950 Encore WayNaples, FL. 34110Phone: (239) 254-2000Florida Certificate ofAuthorization No.1772ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORSHYDE PARK2017.0012017.0012017.001_Mst7B.E.J.M.S.K.HMA4/2019As NotedVILLAGE4/20194/2019E - ESTATESA-MHO-RLSAO E - ESTATES E - ESTATESOIL WELL ROAD3006000OIL WELL ROADDESOTO BLVD 6.6.36.1.26.1.16.6.36.5.56.1.16.1.26.8.26.8.26.8.26.8.26.6.36.6.36.2.16.8.16.8.2NOTE: SEE SHEET 7 FOR DEVIATIONS6.8.26.8.26.8.26.8.26.8.26.8.26.8.26.8.26.8.26.8.26.8.26.8.26.8.46.8.46.3.16.3.16.3.26.3.26.5.56.5.16.7.16.7.1100' ROW RESERVATIONFOR OIL WELL RD. NOT PART OF THIS SRA9.A.7.bPacket Pg. 827Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) SRA MASTER PLANLIST OF DEVIATIONS7950 Encore WayNaples, FL. 34110Phone: (239) 254-2000Florida Certificate ofAuthorization No.1772ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORSHYDE PARK2017.0012017.0012017.001_Mst7B.E.J.M.S.K.HMA4/2019As NotedVILLAGE4/20194/2019 DEVIATIONS 9.A.7.bPacket Pg. 828Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Page 28 of 849.A.7.bPacket Pg. 829Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Page 29 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 830 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST; THENCE RUN N01°27'19"W ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE SAID SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 16, FOR A DISTANCE OF 150.03 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE RUN S89°44'02"W PARALLEL TO THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF OIL WELL RD, A 100 FOOT WIDE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR A DISTANCE OF 2670.49 FEET; THENCE RUN S89°44'15"W PARALLEL TO THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID OIL WELL RD FOR A DISTANCE OF 2667.65 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 16; THENCE RUN N00°51'44"W ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER FOR A DISTANCE OF 2557.67 FEET TO THE WEST 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 16; THENCE RUN N00°50'30"W ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER FOR A DISTANCE OF 2707.71 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 16; THENCE RUN N89°35'06"E ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 16 FOR A DISTANCE OF 2640.22 FEET TO THE NORTH 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 16; THENCE RUN N89°44'00"E ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 16 FOR A DISTANCE OF 2642.29 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 16; THENCE RUN S01°27'20"E ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 16 FOR A DISTANCE OF 2711.67 FEET TO THE EAST 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 16; THENCE RUN S01°27'19"E ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 16 FOR A DISTANCE OF 2561.62 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 642.5 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. BEARINGS REFER TO NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 16, AS BEING N89°35'06"E. Page 30 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 831 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) HYDE PARK VILLAGE Section 16, Township 48 South, Range 28 East Collier County, Florida Natural Resource Index Assessment October 2019 (Revised December 2019) Prepared for: Neal Communities of Southwest Florida, LLC. 5800 Lakewood Ranch Blvd. Sarasota, FL 34240 Prepared by: DexBender 4470 Camino Real Way, Suite 101 Fort Myers, FL 33966 (239) 334-3680 Page 31 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 832 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 1 INTRODUCTION This Natural Resource Index (NRI) Assessment Report (Assessment) documents the environmental conditions and NRI scores within Hyde Park Village and demonstrates that Hyde Park Village meets the Suitability Criteria contained in Section 4.08.07.A.1 of the adopted Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) amendments. This Assessment is submitted in support of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) Overlay District-Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) Designation Application on behalf of Neal Communities of Southwest Florida, LLC. This Assessment is consistent with the requirements of the RLSA Zoning Overlay District, LDC, Section 4.08.00. This SRA Designation Application involves the designation of 642.52± acres as Hyde Park Village located in Sections 16; Township 48 South; Range 28 East; Collier County (Exhibit 1). The project is located north of Oil Well Road. The proposed Rivergrass SRA project is to the east, vacant land is to the north, and the Faka Union Canal and Golden Gate lots are to the west. The entire subject parcel is within the proposed Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA). SITE CONDITIONS The vast majority of the property was cleared of native vegetation and converted to row crops and/or improved pasture prior to 1980. By 1993 the entire property, except for a small area in the southeast corner of the site, had been converted to and was apparently being used for row crop production. The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) issued an Environmental Resource Permit in 1998 authorizing a fill pit. Currently, the site consists of disturbed uplands, borrow pits, ditches, berms, and a preserve area located in the southeast corner. ASSESSMENT The purpose of this Assessment is to determine the current Natural Resource Index (NRI) values of the site. In addition, this assessment will document that the site’s proposed designation as an SRA is consistent with Section 4.08.07.A.1 of the Collier County Land Development Code. This NRI Assessment is intended to refine the NRI values that were assigned during the original Collier County RLSA Assessment Study. It is anticipated that only two of the six NRI Factors on the Stewardship Credit Worksheet have changed over time (Land Use – Land Cover and Listed Species Habitat). These two NRI factors have been updated for this application. Land Use – Land Cover The Land Use-Land Cover mapping from the Stage 1 Report did not accurately reflect current conditions. Therefore, the predominant vegetation associations were mapped in the field on 2017 digital 1” = 300’ scale aerial photography during ground truthing in June Page 32 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 833 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 2 and July 2017. Eight vegetation associations were identified using the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS). The attached Vegetation Map (Exhibit 2) depicts the approximate location and configuration of these vegetation associations and includes a summary of the acreages by FLUCCS Code. The site has been severely disturbed by past mining and agricultural activity. Extensive ditch and berm networks are present on the subject parcel and significant portions are dominated by exotic and nuisance vegetation. Listed Species Habitat In order to comply with Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) survey methodology guidelines, the site was surveyed for the occurrence of listed species using meandering pedestrian belt transects. A listed species survey was conducted during the early and mid-day hours of February 6 and 7, 2018. Meandering pedestrian belt transects were spaced approximately 50 to 200 feet apart. Observations were also made at selected points along the perimeter of the borrow areas and from a kayak. Additional observations were made while mapping vegetation and other site data collection in June and July 2017. An updated listed species survey was conducted on October 24th and 25th, 2019. The attached listed species survey (Exhibit 3) depicts the approximate location of the transects and any observed listed species. Also, on December 18, 2019, DexBender accompanied County staff on a site visit to review the parcel. No species listed by either the FWS or the FWC were observed on the site during the February 2018 protected species survey. A single little blue heron was observed in the northeast borrow area during the October 2019 survey. On the December 18, 2019 site visit, one listed species, a little blue heron (Egretta caerulea) was observed along the northwest borrow lake. A great egret (Ardea albass) was also observed withing the FLUCCS 740 near the southwest borrow lake. The great egret is not listed by the FWC or the USFWS. No other listed species have been observed onsite during protected species surveys or other site visits. In addition to the site inspections, a search of the FWC species database (updated June 2019) revealed no known protected species within the project limits. The project is located within a wood stork Core Foraging Area (Exhibit 3a) and is within the Florida panther Secondary Zone (Exhibit 3b). Soils and Surface Water The attached Soils Map (Exhibit 4) depicts soils information for the subject parcel obtained from the Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey. The soils onsite have been extensively modified and this soils mapping reflects pre-disturbance conditions. Given previous mining and agricultural uses on the subject parcel, the majority of the areas mapped as hydric soil no longer contain hydric soil characteristics. However, for this Assessment, the pre-disturbance soil mapping was utilized to determine the Soils and Surface Water Values. Other Designations Hyde Park Village is located within lands designated as “Open” on the adopted RLSA Stewardship Map and does not encroach into any Flow-way Stewardship Area (FSA), Page 33 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 834 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 3 Habitat Stewardship Area (HSA), or Water Retention Area (WRA). Hyde Park Village is not within the Area of Critical State Concern (Exhibit 5). DETERMINATION The NRI Assessment scores are graphically depicted in Exhibit 6. A table which includes onsite acreages by NRI value is provided as Exhibit 7. Based on the above information, there are no areas with a NRI value greater than 1.2 present on the subject parcel. Y:\NEAL-16\COLLIER\Natural Resource Index Assessment.docx Page 34 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 835 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 4 Exhibit 1 Location Map Page 35 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 836 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Page 36 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 837 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 5 Exhibit 2 Vegetation Maps Page 37 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 838 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Page 38 of 849.A.7.bPacket Pg. 839Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Page 39 of 849.A.7.bPacket Pg. 840Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Page 40 of 849.A.7.bPacket Pg. 841Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Page 41 of 849.A.7.bPacket Pg. 842Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 6 Exhibit 3 Protected Species Assessment Page 42 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 843 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Exhibit 3 HYDE PARK Section 16, Township 48 South, Range 28 East Collier County, Florida Protected Species Assessment May 2018 (Updated December 2019) Prepared for: Neal Communities 5800 Lakewood Ranch Blvd. Sarasota, FL 34240 Prepared by: DexBender 4470 Camino Real Way, Suite 101 Fort Myers, FL 33966 (239) 334-3680 Page 43 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 844 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 1 INTRODUCTION This 642.52 acre project is located within Section 16, Township 48 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. The project is located north of Oil Well Road. Rural Lands West is to the east, vacant land to the north, and the Faka Union Canal and Golden Gate lots are to the west. SITE CONDITIONS The vast majority of the property was cleared of native vegetation and converted to row crops and/or improved pasture prior to 1980. By 1993 the entire property, except for a small area in the southeast corner of the site, had been converted to and was apparently being used for row crop production. The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) issued an Environmental Resource Permit in 1998 authorizing a fill pit. Currently, the site consists of disturbed uplands, borrow pits, ditches, berms, and a 1.56 acre Conservation Easement (Appendix B) area located in the southeast corner. VEGETATIVE CLASSIFICATIONS The predominant vegetation associations were mapped in the field on 2017 digital 1” = 300’ scale aerial photography. The approximate property boundary was obtained from Hole Montes, Inc. and inserted into the digital aerial. Eight vegetation associations were identified using the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS). The attached Protected Species Assessment Maps (Appendix A) depict the approximate location and configuration of these vegetation associations and Table 1 summarizes the acreages by FLUCCS Code. A brief description of each FLUCCS Code is provided below. Table 1. Acreage Summary by FLUCCS Code FLUCCS CODE DESCRIPTION ACREAGE 211 Improved Pastures 110.33 437 Australian Pines 0.84 511D Canals / Ditches 9.22 619 Exotic Wetland Hardwoods 1.08 740 Disturbed Land 121.02 742 Borrow Areas 226.81 742V Vegetated Borrow Areas 164.49 743 Berms 8.73 Total 642.52 Page 44 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 845 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 2 FLUCCS Code 211, Improved Pastures Located along the southern end of the property, this area of improved pasture is vegetated by species such as broomsedge (Andropogon sp.), Caesar weed (Urena lobata), torpedo grass (Panicum repens), beggar tick (Bidens alba), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), and flatsedge (Cyperus spp.). FLUCCS Code 437, Australian Pine This association consists of a near monoculture of Australian pine (Casuarina equisetifolia). FLUCCS Code 511D, Canals / Ditches Numerous man-made ditches are present on the subject parcel and are primarily vegetated by scattered cattail (Typha sp.) and torpedo grass. FLUCCS Code 619, Exotic Wetland Hardwoods This area is dominated by exotic vegetation including Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) and melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia). Additional vegetative species include scattered willow (Salix caroliniana), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), and swamp fern (Blechnum serrulatum). FLUCCS Code 740, Disturbed Land Vegetation present in these disturbed areas includes beggars tick, torpedo grass, cogon grass (Imperata cylindrica), false buttonweed (Spermacoce sp.), smutgrass (Sporobolus indicus), hurricane grass (Fimbristylis sp.), dog fennel, Caesar weed, Bahia grass (Paspalum notatum), ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), scattered Brazilian pepper, and ear-leaf acacia (Acacia auriculiformis). FLUCCS Code 742, Borrow Areas These open water areas were excavated during previous mining activity on the subject parcel and lack significant coverage of emergent vegetation. FLUCCS Code 742V, Vegetated Borrow Areas This FLUCCS Code was used to denote the vegetated shorelines of the excavated borrow lakes (FLUCCS Code 742). Vegetation is dominated by cattail. Widely scattered willow, torpedo grass, and spikerush (Eleocharis sp.) are also present. FLUCCS Code 743, Berms The numerous perimeter and interior berms on the subject parcel are similar in vegetative composition to the areas mapped as disturbed land (FLUCCS Code 740) but include greater coverage by species such as smutgrass, Bahia grass, and ragweed. Page 45 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 846 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 3 SURVEY METHOD Based on the general habitat types (FLUCCS Codes) identified on-site there is a very low potential for a limited number of species listed as endangered, threatened, or species of special concern by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to potentially occur on the subject parcel. These species include gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi), red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), a variety of wading birds, Big Cypress fox squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia), and Florida bonneted- bat (Eumops floridanus). The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), which has been delisted by the FWC and FWS, is still protected by other regulations and was therefore included in the survey. The Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus), delisted in 2012, is still protected by the Florida Black Bear Management Plan and was therefore included in the survey. Please see Table 2 for additional listed species included in the survey. In order to comply with FWC/FWS survey methodology guidelines, each habitat type was surveyed for the occurrence of the species listed above using meandering pedestrian belt transects. Observations for listed species were made during specific protected species survey events. The meandering pedestrian belt transects were spaced approximately 50 to 200 feet apart. Observations were also made at selected points along the perimeter of the borrow areas and from a kayak. The approximate location of direct sighting or sign (such as tracks, nests, and droppings) of a listed species, when observed, was denoted on the aerial photography. Table 2. Listed Species That Could Potentially Occur On-site FLUCCS CODE Percent Survey Coverage Species Name Present Absent 211 80 Florida Sandhill Crane (Grus canadensis pratensis) Florida Panther (Felis concolor coryi) √ √ 437 80 None 511D 80 American Alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) Limpkin (Aramus guarauna) Little Blue Heron (Egretta caerulea) Reddish Egret (Egretta rufescens) Roseate Spoonbill (Ajaia ajaja) Snowy Egret (Egretta thula) Tricolored Heron (Egretta tricolor) Everglades Mink (Mustela vison evergladensis) √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Page 46 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 847 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 4 FLUCCS CODE Percent Survey Coverage Species Name Present Absent 619 80 None 740 80 Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) √ 742 80 American Alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) Florida Sandhill Crane (Grus canadensis pratensis) Limpkin (Aramus guarauna) Little Blue Heron (Egretta caerulea) Reddish Egret (Egretta rufescens) Snail Kite (Rostrhamus sociabilis) Snowy Egret (Egretta thula) Tricolored Heron (Egretta tricolor) Wood Stork (Mycteria americana) Everglades Mink (Mustela vison evergladensis) √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 742V 50 American Alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) Florida Sandhill Crane (Grus canadensis pratensis) Limpkin (Aramus guarauna) Little Blue Heron (Egretta caerulea) Reddish Egret (Egretta rufescens) Snail Kite (Rostrhamus sociabilis) Snowy Egret (Egretta thula) Tricolored Heron (Egretta tricolor) Wood Stork (Mycteria americana) Everglades Mink (Mustela vison evergladensis) √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 743 80 Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) √ Page 47 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 848 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 5 The 1" = 300’ scale aerial Protected Species Assessment Maps (Appendix A) depict the approximate location of the survey transects and the results of the survey. A listed species survey was conducted during the early and mid-day hours of February 6th and 7th, 2018. The weather at the time of the survey was warm and sunny with a light breeze. Additional observations were made while mapping vegetation and other site data collection in June and July 2017. An updated listed species survey was conducted during the early and mid-day hours of October 24th and 25th, 2019. The weather at the time of the survey was warm and partly cloudy with a light breeze. On December 18, 2019, DexBender accompanied County staff on a site visit to review the parcel. Prior to conducting the protected species survey, a search of the FWC listed species database (updated June 2019) was conducted to determine the known occurrence of listed species in the project area. The database indicated that Florida black bear have been recorded adjacent to the property. The Florida black bear is listed as threatened by the FWC but is not listed by the FWS. The property is within a wood stork core foraging area. The entire property is located within Panther Secondary Zone. SURVEY RESULTS No species listed by either the FWS or FWC were observed on the site during the February 2018 protected species survey. One listed species, Little Blue Heron (Egretta caerulea), was observed on the site during the October 2019 protected species survey. On the December 18, 2019 site visit, one listed species, Little Blue Heron (Egretta caerulea) was observed along the northwest borrow lake. A Great Egret (Ardea albass) was also observed withing the FLUCCS 740 near the southwest borrow lake. The Great Egret is not a listed by the FWC or the USFWS. In addition to the site inspection, a search of the FWC species database (updated June 2019) revealed no known protected species within the project limits. Y:\NEAL-16\PSA.Docx Page 48 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 849 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 6 Appendix A Protected Species Assessment Maps Page 49 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 850 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Page 50 of 849.A.7.bPacket Pg. 851Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Page 51 of 849.A.7.bPacket Pg. 852Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Page 52 of 849.A.7.bPacket Pg. 853Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Page 53 of 849.A.7.bPacket Pg. 854Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 7 Appendix B Conservation Easement Page 54 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 855 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Page 55 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 856 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Page 56 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 857 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Page 57 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 858 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Page 58 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 859 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Page 59 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 860 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Page 60 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 861 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Page 61 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 862 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Page 62 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 863 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Page 63 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 864 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 7 Exhibit 4 Soils Map Page 64 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 865 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Page 65 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 866 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 8 Exhibit 5 Aerial with Stewardship Overlay Page 66 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 867 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Hyde Park Village Exhibit 5. Aerial with Stewardship Overlay Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, Source: Esri,DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS UserCommunity, Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMapcontributors, and the GIS user community ³ Section: 16Township: 48Range: 28 10/29/2019 8:47:00 AM Y:\NEAL-16\GIS_GPS\NRIMaps\NRISteward.mxd Fort Myers (239) 334-3680 Permit Use Only - Not For ConstructionMap based on data obtained from Collier County.Property boundary provided by Hole-Montes, Inc. 0 5,000 10,0002,500 Feet Legend Flow-Way Stewardship Area (FSA) Habitat Stewardship Area (HSA) WRAs Hyde Park Page 67 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 868 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9 Exhibit 6 NRI Maps Page 68 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 869 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Hyde Park Village Exhibit 6. NRI Assessment Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, Source: Esri,DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS UserCommunity, Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMapcontributors, and the GIS user community ³ Section: 16Township: 48Range: 28 12/23/2019 11:37:16 AM Y:\NEAL-16\GIS_GPS\NRIMaps\NRITotals.mxd Fort Myers (239) 334-3680 Permit Use Only - Not For ConstructionProperty boundary provided by Hole-Montes, Inc.0 1,250 2,500625Feet Legend NRI Value 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 Page 69 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 870 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Hyde Park Village Exhibit 6a. NRI AssessmentStewardship Overlay Designation Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, Source: Esri,DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS UserCommunity, Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMapcontributors, and the GIS user community ³ Section: 16Township: 48Range: 28 10/29/2019 8:59:11 AM Y:\NEAL-16\GIS_GPS\NRIMaps\NRIStewvalue.mxd Fort Myers (239) 334-3680 Permit Use Only - Not For ConstructionProperty boundary provided by Hole-Montes, Inc.0 1,250 2,500625Feet Legend Property Boundary 0 Value Page 70 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 871 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Hyde Park Village Exhibit 6b. NRI AssessmentProximity Value Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, Source: Esri,DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS UserCommunity, Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMapcontributors, and the GIS user community ³ Section: 16Township: 48Range: 28 10/29/2019 9:02:23 AM Y:\NEAL-16\GIS_GPS\NRIMaps\NRISProxvalue.mxd Fort Myers (239) 334-3680 Permit Use Only - Not For ConstructionProperty boundary provided by Hole-Montes, Inc.0 1,250 2,500625Feet Legend Property Boundary 0 Value Page 71 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 872 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Hyde Park Village Exhibit 6c. NRI AssessmentListed Species Habitat Value [® [® Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, Source: Esri,DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS UserCommunity, Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMapcontributors, and the GIS user community ³ Section: 16Township: 48Range: 28 12/23/2019 11:48:56 AM Y:\NEAL-16\GIS_GPS\NRIMaps\NRISSpeciesvalue.mxd Fort Myers (239) 334-3680 Permit Use Only - Not For ConstructionProperty boundary provided by Hole-Montes, Inc.0 1,250 2,500625Feet Legend Property Boundary [®Little Blue Heron Value 0 0.4 Page 72 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 873 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Hyde Park Village Exhibit 6d. NRI AssessmentSoil and Surface Water Value Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, Source: Esri,DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS UserCommunity, Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMapcontributors, and the GIS user community ³ Section: 16Township: 48Range: 28 10/29/2019 9:08:28 AM Y:\NEAL-16\GIS_GPS\NRIMaps\NRISSoilsvalue.mxd Fort Myers (239) 334-3680 Permit Use Only - Not For ConstructionProperty boundary provided by Hole-Montes, Inc.0 1,250 2,500625Feet Legend Property Boundary Value 0 0.2 Page 73 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 874 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Hyde Park Village Exhibit 6e. NRI AssessmentRestoration Potential Value Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, Source: Esri,DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS UserCommunity, Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMapcontributors, and the GIS user community ³ Section: 16Township: 48Range: 28 10/29/2019 9:11:44 AM Y:\NEAL-16\GIS_GPS\NRIMaps\NRISRestvalue.mxd Fort Myers (239) 334-3680 Permit Use Only - Not For ConstructionProperty boundary provided by Hole-Montes, Inc.0 1,250 2,500625Feet Legend Property Boundary 0 Value Page 74 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 875 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Hyde Park Village Exhibit 6f. NRI AssessmentLand Use - Land Cover Value Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, Source: Esri,DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS UserCommunity, Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMapcontributors, and the GIS user community ³ Section: 16Township: 48Range: 28 10/29/2019 9:16:05 AM Y:\NEAL-16\GIS_GPS\NRIMaps\NRISFLUCCSvalue.mxd Fort Myers (239) 334-3680 Permit Use Only - Not For ConstructionProperty boundary provided by Hole-Montes, Inc.0 1,250 2,500625Feet Legend Property Boundary Value 0 0.2 Page 75 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 876 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 10 Exhibit 7 NRI Values by Acreage Page 76 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 877 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) NRI Value Acreage 0 332.1 0.1 0 0.2 93 0.3 0 0.4 198.4 0.5 0 0.6 19.0 0.7 0 0.8 0 0.9 0 1.0 0 1.1 0 1.2 0 1.3 0 1.4 0 1.5 0 Total Acreage 642.5 Total NRI >1.2 0 Exhibit 7. NRI Values by Acreage Page 77 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 878 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Page 78 of 849.A.7.bPacket Pg. 879Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Page 79 of 849.A.7.bPacket Pg. 880Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Page 80 of 849.A.7.bPacket Pg. 881Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Page 81 of 849.A.7.bPacket Pg. 882Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Page 82 of 849.A.7.bPacket Pg. 883Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Page 83 of 849.A.7.b Packet Pg. 884 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Page 84 of 849.A.7.bPacket Pg. 885Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.cPacket Pg. 886Attachment: Attachment B - SRA Credit Use & Reconciliation App (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.cPacket Pg. 887Attachment: Attachment B - SRA Credit Use & Reconciliation App (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.cPacket Pg. 888Attachment: Attachment B - SRA Credit Use & Reconciliation App (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.cPacket Pg. 889Attachment: Attachment B - SRA Credit Use & Reconciliation App (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.cPacket Pg. 890Attachment: Attachment B - SRA Credit Use & Reconciliation App (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.cPacket Pg. 891Attachment: Attachment B - SRA Credit Use & Reconciliation App (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.cPacket Pg. 892Attachment: Attachment B - SRA Credit Use & Reconciliation App (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.cPacket Pg. 893Attachment: Attachment B - SRA Credit Use & Reconciliation App (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.cPacket Pg. 894Attachment: Attachment B - SRA Credit Use & Reconciliation App (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.cPacket Pg. 895Attachment: Attachment B - SRA Credit Use & Reconciliation App (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.cPacket Pg. 896Attachment: Attachment B - SRA Credit Use & Reconciliation App (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.cPacket Pg. 897Attachment: Attachment B - SRA Credit Use & Reconciliation App (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.cPacket Pg. 898Attachment: Attachment B - SRA Credit Use & Reconciliation App (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) ‒ 1 ‒ PL20180000622, Hyde Park SRA Growth Management Department Zoning Division C O N S I S T E N C Y R E V I E W M E M O R A N D U M To: Timothy Finn, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section From: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section Date: December 27, 2019 Subject: Review of Proposed Stewardship Receiving Area for Consistency with the Growth Management Plan PETITION NUMBER: SRA PL20180000622 PETITION NAME: Hyde Park Village [rev:6 ‒ third review under this name] (FKA Winchester/Collier Lakes Village) REQUEST: This petition seeks to establish a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) for the new, Hyde Park Village project [the project] on an approximate 654.80-acre site in accordance with the provisions of the Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSAO) of Collier County, as contained in the Collier County Growth Management Plan’s Future Land Use Element and the Collier County Land Development Code. Development of the project entails a maximum of 1,800 dwelling units, 45,000 square feet of retail/office uses, and 18,000 square feet of civic uses. A total of ±12.27 acres are designated for public benefit use. LOCATION: The property is located west of DeSoto Boulevard (extended), one mile east of Everglades Boulevard, on the north side of Oil Well Road, within Section 16, Township 48 South, Range 28 East. Golden Gate Estates’ properties abut the subject property to the north and west and, adjacently-across Oil Well Road, to the south; and another proposed SRA project (Rivergrass) abuts the subject property to the east. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: OVERVIEW OF RURAL LAND STEWARDSHIP AREA POLICIES AND PROVISIONS AND GENERAL OBSERVATIONS: The Growth Management Plan (GMP) together with the Land Development Code (LDC) are used in determining the consistency of the request. To determine consistency with the more-general Policies and provisions of the Rural Land Stewardship Area (RLSA) Overlay found in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP, the specific policies and provisions of the Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay District (also referred to as the LDC Stewardship District) found in the LDC are taken into consideration. Where the proposal is in conformity with one area [the LDC], it reaches the ability to be found consistent with the other [the GMP]. Likewise, where the proposed SRA lacks conformity with the LDC, it may be found inconsistent with the GMP. This review memo will explain to what extent the SRA petition for the project achieves consistency. 9.A.7.d Packet Pg. 899 Attachment: Attachment C - FLUE Consistency Review Memo (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) ‒ 2 ‒ PL20180000622, Hyde Park SRA The subject property is designated Agricultural/Rural (Agricultural/Rural Mixed Use District) and is within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSAO) as depicted in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the GMP. This future land use designation (District) limits development to such uses as agriculture and related uses, essential services, residential (maximum density of 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres), parks and open space, earth mining, etc. The RLSAO provides for the designation of Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs) using Stewardship Credits generated by designation of Stewardship Sending Areas (SSAs). SRAs may vary in size and must contain a mixture of uses, as provided for in the RLSAO policies contained in the FLUE. These submittal revisions included substantive changes, which did not affect consistency findings with the Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay, as contained in the Future Land Use Element. Relevant to this Overlay, the planning strategies and techniques include urban villages, new towns, satellite communities, area-based allocations, clustering and open space provisions, and mixed-use development that allow the conversion of rural and agricultural lands to other uses while protecting environmentally sensitive areas, maintaining the economic viability of agricultural and other predominantly rural land uses, and providing for the cost-efficient delivery of public facilities and services. Specifically, the Overlay allows development in the form of towns, villages, hamlets, and compact rural developments (CRD), subject to certain criteria and development parameters, as a Stewardship Receiving Area, and allows “public benefit uses” such as public schools and public or private post-secondary institutions, including ancillary uses; community parks exceeding the minimum acreages required, municipal golf courses; regional parks; and governmental facilities. This application proposes the new Village [the project] SRA using the Rural Land Stewardship Credit System, as provided for under Policy 1.4 of the RLSAO. The SRA application further proposes that Stewardship Credits, enabling this SRA to be developed as a Village, will be obtained from permanent restrictions on the use of environmentally sensitive land (from the approved SSA). The SRA procedures and standards are outlined in Section 4.08.07 of the LDC. Specifically, the SSA to be used to enable the project to proceed as an SRA is subject to County review and approval at the SRA submittal stage. This SSA no. 7 has been reviewed and is companion to this SRA application [PL20160000148]. This SRA application states that the total acreage used to enable the Village to be approved under the RLSAO is 985.4 acres. The Village must meet the Collier County RSLA Overlay Stewardship Receiving Area Characteristics as identified in the table below. The table lists characteristic land uses and threshold requirements from the RLSA Overlay, [FLUE] Attachment C, followed by staff comments/analysis [in italics]. Underlined uses in the table are not required uses. After the table, the relevant RLSA Overlay Policies (Group 4 Policies) are listed, followed by staff comments/analysis [in italics]. Size (Gross Acres) 100 ‒ 1,000 acres; The SRA is ±654.80 acres total, or ±642.53* acres, excluding the ±12.27 acres of public benefit use (*ROW reservation). Residential Units (DUs) per gross acre base density 1 ‒ 4 DUs per gross acre; 1,800 DU/ ±654.80 acres = ±2.75 DU/ac. 9.A.7.d Packet Pg. 900 Attachment: Attachment C - FLUE Consistency Review Memo (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) ‒ 3 ‒ PL20180000622, Hyde Park SRA Residential Housing Styles Diversity of single-family and multi-family housing types, styles, [and] lot sizes; The “Village” includes ±1,500 single-family and ±300 multi- family residential units. Housing types include at least three single-family styles and multi-family residential buildings ranging from one to ten stories, situated on lots in the Context Zones allowing residential uses. Maximum Floor Area Ratio or Intensity Retail and Office ‒ 0.5; These uses and FAR are provided for in the mixed-use “Village Center”. Civic/Governmental/Institution ‒ 0.6; These uses and FAR are provided for in the mixed-use “Village Center”. Group Housing ‒ 0.45; not required – not proposed. Transient Lodging ‒ 26 units/ac. net; not required – not proposed. Goods and Services Village Center with Neighborhood Goods and Services in Village Centers ‒ Minimum 25 sq. ft. gross building area per DU; The “Village” includes 45,000 sq. ft. of neighborhood commercial uses which is the required amount (1,800 DUs x 25 sq. ft./DU). Water and Wastewater Centralized or decentralized community treatment system; Expansion of the Collier County Water-Sewer District will provide public water distribution and wastewater treatment utilities to the project. Interim Well and Septic; not required – not proposed. Recreation and Open Spaces Parks and Public Green Spaces within Neighborhoods (minimum 1% of gross acres); 6.43 acres are required (642.60* ac. x 1%), and 93.13 acres are provided. (*excluding the ±12.27 acres of public benefit use.) Active Recreation/Golf Courses; not required – not proposed. Lakes; provided, covering more than 231 acres. Open Space – minimum 35% of SRA; 224.90 acres of Recreation and Open Spaces are required (642.60* ac. x 35%), and 423.87 acres are provided (66%)***, 9.A.7.d Packet Pg. 901 Attachment: Attachment C - FLUE Consistency Review Memo (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) ‒ 4 ‒ PL20180000622, Hyde Park SRA per table on Exhibit A, SRA Master Plan. (*excluding the ±12.27 acres of public benefit use.) Civic, Governmental and Institutional Services Moderate Range of Services ‒ minimum 10 sq. ft./DU; 18,000 sq. ft. required (1,800 DUs x 10 sq. ft./DU); 18,000 sq. ft. proposed. Full Range of Schools; not required – not proposed. Transportation Auto-interconnected system of collector and local roads; required connection to collector or arterial; An interconnected road system is provided. A loop road within the SRA connects to Oil Well Road (CR 858), a rural major collector road as classified in the Transportation Element; an additional “potential resident only access” is provided onto the future north-south thoroughfare of Big Cypress Parkway, the roadway running between this development and the neighboring SRA project. Interconnected sidewalk and pathway system; provided. Equestrian Trails; not required – not proposed. County Transit Access; Plans to accommodate transit & intermodality are included within the “Village Center”. *** Note: “Open space” is defined specific to the RLSA in RLSA Policy 4.10, and with greater detail in LDC Section 4.08.01.X. ‒ Open space includes active and passive recreational areas such as parks, playgrounds, ball fields, golf courses, lakes, waterways, lagoons, flood plains, nature trails, native vegetation preserves, landscape areas, public and private conservation lands, agricultural areas (not including structures), and water retention and management areas. Buildings shall not be counted as part of any open space calculation. Vehicular use surface areas of streets, alleys , driveways , and off-street parking and loading areas shall not be counted as part of any open space calculation. Group 4 ‒ Policies to enable conversion of rural lands to other uses in appropriate locations, while discouraging urban sprawl, and encouraging development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques by the establishment of Stewardship Receiving Areas. Po licy 4.1: Collier County will encourage and facilitate uses that enable economic prosperity and diversification of the economic base of the RLSA. Collier County will also encourage development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques and facilitates a compact form of development to accommodate population growth by the establishment of Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs). Incentives to encourage and support the diversification and vitality of the rural economy such as flexible development regulations, expedited permitting review, and targeted capital improvements shall be incorporated into the LDC Stewardship District. The subject petition is for an SRA. 9.A.7.d Packet Pg. 902 Attachment: Attachment C - FLUE Consistency Review Memo (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) ‒ 5 ‒ PL20180000622, Hyde Park SRA Policy 4.2: All privately owned lands within the RLSA which meet the criteria set forth herein are eligible for designation as a SRA, except land delineated as a FSA, HSA, WRA or land that has been designated as a Stewardship Sending Area. Land proposed for SRA designation shall meet the suitability criteria and other standards described in Group 4 Policies. Due to the long-term vision of the RLSA Overlay… and in accordance with the guidelines [previously] established in Chapter 163.3177(11) F.S. [now: 163.3248] the specific location, size and composition of each SRA cannot and need not be predetermined in the GMP. In the RLSA Overlay, lands that are eligible to be designated as SRAs generally have similar physical attributes as they consist predominately of agriculture lands which have been cleared or otherwise altered for this purpose. Lands shown on the Overlay Map as eligible for SRA designation include approximately 74,500 acres outside of the ACSC (and 18,300 acres within the ACSC). Approximately 2% of these lands achieve an Index score greater than 1.2. Because the Overlay requires SRAs to be compact, mixed-use and self sufficient in the provision of services, facilities and infrastructure, traditional locational standards normally applied to determine development suitability are not relevant or applicable to SRAs. Therefore, the process for designating a SRA follows the principles of the Rural Lands Stewardship Act as further described herein. Land proposed for the SRA designation meets the suitability criteria and other standards described in RLSA Overlay Group 4 Policies. The subject site is designated on the RLSA Overlay Map as eligible for SRA designation. Policy 4.3: Land becomes designated as a SRA upon petition by a property owner to Collier County seeking such designation and the adoption of a resolution by the BCC granting the designation. The petition shall include a SRA master plan as described in Policy 4.5. The basis for approval shall be a finding of consistency with the policies of the Overlay, including required suitability criteria set forth herein, consistency with the intent of RLSA provisions in the LDC Stewardship District, and assurance that the applicant has acquired or will acquire sufficient Stewardship Credits to implement the SRA uses. Within one year from the effective date of this amendment, Collier County shall adopt LDC amendments to establish the procedures and submittal requirements for designation as a SRA, to include provisions for consideration of impacts, including environmental and public infrastructure impacts, and provisions for public notice of and the opportunity for public participation in any consideration by the BCC of such a designation. The property owner has submitted the required SRA application along with an SRA Master Plan as described in Policy 4.5. The total credits generated by and available from SSA no. 7 are 4,034.2. This project requires and consumes 3,692.32 Stewardship credits from SSA no. 7. This leaves a balance of 341.88 credits remaining with SSA no. 7. Policy 4.4 is not directed toward individual applications. Policy 4.5: To address the specifics of each SRA, a master plan of each SRA will be prepared and submitted to Collier County as a part of the petition for designation as a SRA. The master plan will demonstrate that the SRA complies with all applicable policies of the Overlay and the LDC Stewardship District 9.A.7.d Packet Pg. 903 Attachment: Attachment C - FLUE Consistency Review Memo (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) ‒ 6 ‒ PL20180000622, Hyde Park SRA and is designed so that incompatible land uses are directed away from wetlands and critical habitat identified as FSAs and HSAs on the Overlay Map. The applicant has submitted a master plan with their petition to demonstrate the SRA complies with all applicable policies of the Overlay and the LDC Stewardship District (RLSA zoning overlay). Matters of compliance or noncompliance with applicable policies of the Overlay are addressed throughout this memo. Compliance with applicable policies of the LDC is reviewed and determined by the Z oning Services Section, Comprehensive Planning Section, and other sections and divisions of the Growth Management Department. Matters of noncompliance with the LDC Stewardship District are also matters of noncompliance with this Overlay. Policy 4.6 is not directed toward individual applications. Policy 4.7: There are four specific forms of SRA permitted within the Overlay. These are Towns, Villages, Hamlets, and Compact Rural Development (CRD). The Characteristics of Towns, Villages, Hamlets, and CRD are set forth in Attachment C and are generally described in Policies 4.7.1, 4.7.2, 4.7.3 and 4.7.4. Collier County shall establish more specific regulations, guidelines and standards within the LDC Stewardship District to guide the design and development of SRAs to include innovative planning and development strategies as set forth [previously] in Chapter 163.3177 (11), F.S. [now: 163.3248] and 9J-5.006(5)(l). The size and base density of each form shall be consistent with the standards set forth on Attachment C. The maximum base residential density as set forth in Attachment C may only be exceeded through the density blending process as set forth in density and intensity blending provision of the Immokalee Area Master Plan or through the affordable housing density bonus as referenced in the Density Rating System of the Future Land Use Element. The base residential density is calculated by dividing the total number of residential units in a SRA by the overall area therein. The base residential density does not restrict net residential density of parcels within a SRA. The location, size and density of each SRA will be determined on an individual basis during the SRA designation review and approval process. The SRA location is designated on the RLSA Overlay Map as eligible for SRA designation. The SRA size and density are consistent with those set forth on Attachment C. Policy 4.7.1 does not apply to this application. Policy 4.7.2 is not directed toward individual applications, but is included here for informational purposes. Villages are primarily residential communities with a diversity of housing types and mix of uses appropriate to the scale and character of the particular village. Villages shall be not less than 100 acres or more than 1,000 acres. Villages are comprised of residential neighborhoods and shall include a mixed-use village center to serve as the focal point for the community’s support services and facilities. Villages shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods. Villages shall have parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods. Villages shall include neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, in a ratio as provided in Policy 4.15. Villages are an appropriate location for a full range of schools. To the extent possible, schools and parks shall be 9.A.7.d Packet Pg. 904 Attachment: Attachment C - FLUE Consistency Review Memo (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) ‒ 7 ‒ PL20180000622, Hyde Park SRA located adjacent to each other to allow for the sharing of recreational facilities. Design criteria for Villages shall be included in the LDC Stewardship District. Policies 4.7.3 and 4.7.4 do not apply to this application. Policy 4.8: An SRA may be contiguous to a FSA or HSA, but shall not encroach into such areas, and shall buffer such areas as described in Policy 4.13. A SRA may be contiguous to and served by a WRA without requiring the WRA to be designated as a SRA in accordance with Policy 3.12 and 3.13. The SRA is not contiguous to, and does not encroach into, an FSA or HSA. Policy 4.9: A SRA must contain sufficient suitable land to accommodate the planned development in an environmentally acceptable manner. The primary means of directing development away from wetlands and critical habitat is the prohibition of locating SRAs in FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs. To further direct development away from wetlands and critical habitat, residential, commercial, manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, and transient housing, institutional, civic and community service uses within a SRA shall not be sited on lands that receive a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2. In addition, conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, with the exception of those necessary to serve permitted uses and for public safety, shall not be sited on lands that receive a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2. The Index value of greater than 1.2 represents those areas that have a high natural resource value as measured pursuant to Policy 1.8. Less than 2% of potential SRA land achieves an Index score of greater than 1.2. The Environmental Planning Section will determine that all land within the proposed SRA possesses a Natural Resource Index value of less than 1.2. This SRA is not located in an FSA, HSA or WRA. Policy 4.10: Within the RLSA Overlay, open space, which by definition shall include public and private conservation lands, underdeveloped areas of designated SSAs, agriculture, water retention and management areas and recreation uses, will continue to be the dominant land use. Therefore, open space adequate to serve the forecasted population and uses within the SRA is provided. To ensure that SRA residents have such areas proximate to their homes, open space shall also comprise a minimum of thirty-five percent of the gross acreage of an individual SRA Town, Village, or those CRDs exceeding 100 acres. Lands within a SRA greater than one acre with Index values of greater than 1.2 shall be retained as open space. As an incentive to encourage open space, such uses within a SRA, located outside of the ACSC, exceeding the required thirty-five percent shall not be required to consume Stewardship Credits. Open space exceeds the minimum of thirty-five percent of the gross acreage*. 224.90 acres are required (±642.60* ac. x 35%), and ±334.53 acres or 52% are provided per staff calculations. [A 423.87-acre figure is provided in SRA materials.] No lands have Index values of greater than 1.2. The forecasted populations for the project is 3,634 (permanent), and 4,361 (seasonal). 9.A.7.d Packet Pg. 905 Attachment: Attachment C - FLUE Consistency Review Memo (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) ‒ 8 ‒ PL20180000622, Hyde Park SRA The portion of the site devoted to public benefit uses (*12.27 ac. reserved for future Oil Well Road ROW) do not require consumption of Stewardship Credits. The remainder of the SRA provides ±334.53 acres of open space, exceeding the minimum of thirty-five percent by ±109.63 acres, which is ±17% excess open space in the SRA.*** *** Note: See comments above at Recreation and Open Spaces in the table. Policy 4.11: The perimeter of each SRA shall be designed to provide a transition from higher density and intensity uses within the SRA to lower density and intensity uses on adjoining property. The edges of SRAs shall be well defined and designed to be compatible with the character of adjoining property. Techniques such as, but not limited to setbacks, landscape buffers, and recreation/open space placement may be used for this purpose. Where existing agricultural activity adjoins a SRA, the design of the SRA must take this activity into account to allow for the continuation of the agricultural activity and to minimize any conflict between agriculture and SRA uses. SRA application materials explain, “Many of the design and planning principles are oriented to protect natural resources, buffers, and wetland habitats areas, while developing… away from sensitive areas. Transitional uses, such as, water retention, passive recreation, and agricultural lands are used as buffers to protect sensitive areas. The perimeter has been designed to provide a transition from higher density and intensity uses within the SRA to lower density and intensity uses on adjoining property ”. But this explanation inaccurately characterizes the adjoining property to the east, as the adjacent Rivergrass SRA project is of relatively comparable density and intensity. Yet the perimeter of the Hyde Park SRA is designed without recognizing this difference where the two adjoining projects share a common boundary. As to whether the edges are well defined and designed to be compatible with the character of adjoining property [or of the same property as it becomes adjacently-across Big Cypress Parkway – the north- south thoroughfare to intervene between the two SRAs], Comprehensive Planning staff observes that some of the above-mentioned design principles have been employed, but defers the determination of compatibility with surrounding land uses to Zoning Services Section reviewers based on the totality of the project. Policy 4.12: Where a SRA adjoins a FSA, HSA, WRA or existing public or private conservation land delineated on the Overlay Map, best management and planning practices shall be applied to minimize adverse impacts to such lands. SRA design shall demonstrate that ground water table draw down or diversion will not adversely impact the adjacent FSA, HSA, WRA or conservation land. Detention and control elevations shall be established to protect such natural areas and be consistent with surrounding land and project control elevations and water tables. The SRA does not contain or adjoin FSA, HSA, WRA or existing public or private conservation land. Policy 4.13: Open space within or contiguous to a SRA shall be used to provide a buffer between the SRA and any adjoining FSA, HSA, or existing public or private conservation land delineated on the Overlay Map. Open space contiguous to or within 300 feet of the boundary of a FSA, HSA, or existing public 9.A.7.d Packet Pg. 906 Attachment: Attachment C - FLUE Consistency Review Memo (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) ‒ 9 ‒ PL20180000622, Hyde Park SRA or private conservation land may include: natural preserves, lakes, golf courses provided no fairways or other turf areas are allowed within the first 200 feet, passive recreational areas and parks, required yard and set-back areas, and other natural or man-made open space. Along the west boundary of the FSAs and HSAs that comprise Camp Keais Strand, i.e., the area south of Immokalee Road, this open space buffer shall be 500 feet wide and shall preclude golf course fairways and other turf areas within the first 300 feet. The SRA does not contain or adjoin FSA, HSA, or existing public or private conservation land. Policy 4.14: The SRA must have either direct access to a County collector or arterial road or indirect access via a road provided by the developer that has adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development in accordance with accepted transportation planning standards. No SRA shall be approved unless the capacity of County collector or arterial road(s) serving the SRA is demonstrated to be adequate in accordance with the Collier County Concurrency Management System in effect at the time of SRA designation. A transportation impact assessment meeting the requirements of Section 2.7.3 of the LDC, or its successor regulation shall be prepared for each proposed SRA to provide the necessary data and analysis. Application materials propose access to and from Oil Well Road (CR 858), a rural major collector road as classified in the Transportation Element; these two Oil Well Road accesses are both gated-with- guardhouses (as with a conventional, suburban gated community), providing the “MAIN ENTRY ROAD” and another secondary entry from the “Village Center” to the residential neighborhoods. [Oil Well Road capacity is also being evaluated for the adjacent Rivergrass SRA project, which is under concurrent review]. Hyde Park, and the adjacent Rivergrass SRA project rely upon development of Big Cypress Parkway – the future intervening roadway running between the two developments. A “POTENTIAL FUTURE INTERCONNECTION” is provided with the adjacent Rivergrass project, and, a “POTENTIAL RESIDENT ONLY ACCESS WITH GATED ENTRY” is planned from Big Cypress Parkway. Big Cypress Parkway is also being evaluated for the adjacent Rivergrass SRA project. Concurrency is determined at the time of subsequent development orders. Transportation Planning staff will review this project for its transportation impact, and Comprehensive Planners defer comments relative to these aspects of the review to the Transportation Planning Section. Policy 4.15.1: SRAs are intended to be mixed use and shall be allowed the full range of uses permitted by the Urban Designation of the FLUE, as modified by Policies 4.7, 4.7.1, 4.7.2, 4.7.3, 4.7.4 and Attachment C. An appropriate mix of retail, office, recreational, civic, governmental, and institutional uses will be available to serve the daily needs and community wide needs of residents of the RLSA. Depending on the size, scale, and character of a SRA, such uses may be provided either within the specific SRA, within other SRAs in the RLSA or within the Immokalee Urban Area. By example, each Village or CRD shall provide for neighborhood retail/office uses to serve its population as well as appropriate civic and institutional uses, however, the combined population of several Villages and Hamlets may be required to support community scaled retail or office uses in a nearby CRD. Standards for the 9.A.7.d Packet Pg. 907 Attachment: Attachment C - FLUE Consistency Review Memo (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) ‒ 10 ‒ PL20180000622, Hyde Park SRA minimum amount of non-residential uses in each category are set forth in Attachment C, and shall be also included in the Stewardship LDC District. The project provides for a full range of uses, including neighborhood retail/office uses and the appropriate civic and institutional uses, sufficient to meet the standards for the minimum amount of non-residential uses in each category required. The forecasted populations for the project are 3,634 (permanent), and 4,361 (seasonal). Application materials address most of the above issues and requirements within their Statement of Compliance, Village Plan, and its component Village Center, Neighborhood General, Neighborhood Edge, and Village Amenity and Wellness Center context zones. Specific requirements are contained in other Policies, and staff analysis is provided there. Policy 4.15.2: The Board of County Commissioners (BCC) may, as a condition of approval and adoption of an SRA development, require that suitable areas for parks, schools and other public facilities be set aside, improved, and/or dedicated for public use. When the BCC requires such a set aside for one or more public facilities, the set aside shall be subject to the same provisions of the LDC as are applicable to public facility dedications required as a condition for PUD rezoning. Suitable areas for parks, and other public facilities are set aside, improved, and/or dedicated for public use. The applicants have dedicated ±12.27 acres suitable for public uses (ROW reservation) within the SRA. Policy 4.15.3: Applicants for SRA designation shall coordinate with Collier County School Board [District] staff to allow planning to occur to accommodate any impacts to the public schools as a result of the SRA. As part of the SRA application, the following information shall be provided: 1. Number of residential units by type; 2. An estimate of the number of school-aged children for each type of school impacted (elementary, middle, high school); and, 3. The potential for locating a public educational facility or facilities within the SRA, and the size of any sites that may be dedicated, or otherwise made available for a public educational facility. Project development is planned in a single phase. SRA documents state ±1,500 single-family and ±500 multi-family residential units are permitted, with a maximum of 1,800 residential units, in aggregate. The Public Facilities Impact Assessment projects 543 new students to be generated from the 1,800 residences. This overall student figure is not allocated to the number of school-aged children for each type of school impacted (elementary, middle, high school), as required by this policy. A school site is not proposed to be set aside, improved, and/or dedicated for public use in the project – and may not be warranted based solely on the number of school-aged children in this SRA. Collier County School District personnel will review this project for its schools’ impacts, and Comprehensive Planners defer comments relative to these aspects of the review to School District reviewers. 9.A.7.d Packet Pg. 908 Attachment: Attachment C - FLUE Consistency Review Memo (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) ‒ 11 ‒ PL20180000622, Hyde Park SRA In general, having a local school internal to an SRA can: provide a sense of place, as schools are often a focal point within a community; result in fewer vehicle miles travelled as some students can walk or bike to school while others can be driven a shorter distance to reach the school; and, result in less need for school busing or shorter bus routes – all of which translates to fewer tax dollars spent to construct and/or maintain public roads. Policy 4.16: A SRA shall have adequate infrastructure available to serve the proposed development, or such infrastructure must be provided concurrently with the demand. The level of infrastructure provided will depend on the type of development, accepted civil engineering practices, and LDC requirements. The capacity of infrastructure serving the SRA must be demonstrated during the SRA designation process in accordance with the Collier County Concurrency Management System in effect at the time of SRA designation. Infrastructure to be analyzed includes transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, and solid waste. Transportation infrastructure is discussed in Policy 4.14. Centralized or decentralized community water and wastewater utilities are required in CRDs, Villages, and those CRDs exceeding 100 acres in size. Centralized or decentralized community water and wastewater utilities shall be constructed, owned, operated and maintained by a private utility service, the developer, a Community Development District, the Immokalee Water Sewer Service District, Collier County, or other governmental entity. Innovative alternative water and wastewater treatment systems such as decentralized community treatment systems shall not be prohibited by this policy provided that they meet all applicable regulatory criteria. Individual potable water supply wells and septic systems, limited to a maximum of 100 acres of any CRD, Village or CRD of 100 acres are permitted on an interim basis until services from a centralized/decentralized community system are available. Individual potable water supply wells and septic systems are permitted in Hamlets and may be permitted in CRDs of 100 acres or less in size. Expansion of the Collier County Water-Sewer District will provide public water distribution and wastewater treatment utilities to the project. Specific capital projects which support the project are not listed within the 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) or Capital Improvement Element (CIE) Schedule of Capital Improvements. (It is anticipated that any developer commitments related to utilities, transportation, or other public facilities, once finalized, will be specifically detailed in [a] Developer’s Contribution Agreement[s].) The funding sources of all capital improvements need to be identified as part of the approval of this SRA for the project. These matters are deferred to other departments and agencies for further remarks, and to public vetting. Policy 4.17: The BCC will review and approve SRA designation applications in accordance with the provisions of Policy 1.1.2 [now Policy 1.2] of the Capital Improvement Element (CIE) of the GMP for Category A public facilities. Final local development orders will be approved within a SRA designated by the BCC in accordance with the Concurrency Management System of the GMP and LDC in effect at the time of local development order approval. This project does not create a significant impact on countywide population as defined in Policy 1.1.2 [now 1.2] of the CIE. Expansion of the Collier County Water-Sewer District will provide public water distribution and wastewater treatment utilities to the project. The resolution [approving this expansion] 9.A.7.d Packet Pg. 909 Attachment: Attachment C - FLUE Consistency Review Memo (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) ‒ 12 ‒ PL20180000622, Hyde Park SRA was approved at a September 2018 Board meeting. Staff defers to the departments and agencies identified above involved directly with Concurrency Management for further remarks. Policy 4.18: The SRA will be planned and designed to be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County at the horizon year based on a public facilities impact assessment, as identified in LDC 4.08.07.K. and economic assessment, as identified in LDC 4.08.07.L. …Techniques that may promote fiscal neutrality such as Community Development Districts, and other special districts, shall be encouraged. At a minimum, the assessment shall consider the following public facilities and services: transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law enforcement, and schools. Development phasing, developer contributions and mitigation, and other public/private partnerships shall address any potential adverse impacts to adopted levels of service standards. The applicant asserts the project will be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County in the analysis provided in the Economic Assessment Report. Review of the Economic Assessment Report is deferred to other County staff. Policy 4.19: Eight credits shall be required for each acre of land included in a SRA, except for open space in excess of the required thirty-five percent as described in Policy 4.10 or for land that is designated for a public benefit use described in Policy 4.19. In order to promote compact, mixed use development and provide the necessary support facilities and services to residents of rural areas, the SRA designation entitles a full range of uses, accessory uses and associated uses that provide a mix of services to and are supportive to the residential population of a SRA, as provided for in Policies 4.7, 4.15 and Attachment C. Such uses shall be identified, located and quantified in the SRA master plan. This 1:8 ratio is met, and a full range of mixed uses are provided. The proposed SRA comprises ±654.80 acres; of those, ±461.54 acres require 3,692.32 credits (for calculation of needed credits in SRA materials, ±198.97 acres are deducted for excess open space and ±12.27 acres for public benefit use). Based upon earlier discussion of open space, this excess open space figure would be reduced to ±109.63 acres – leaving ±545.17 acres requiring 4,361.36 Stewardship credits. This is a shortage of 669 credits. Sufficient credits are available to enable development of the project with Stewardship credits derived [from SSA no. 7] but are not allocated in sufficient number to entitle the project, as currently proposed. (These changes to acreage and Stewardship credit figures affect numerous SRA materials, including the (draft) SRA Credit Agreement) Policy 4.20: The acreage of a public benefit use shall not count toward the maximum acreage limits described in Policy 4.7. For the purpose of this policy, public benefit uses include: public schools (preK-12) and public or private post-secondary institutions, including ancillary uses; community parks exceeding the minimum acreage requirements of Attachment C, municipal golf courses; regional parks; and governmental facilities excluding essential services as defined in the LDC. The location of public schools shall be coordinated with the Collier County School Board, based on the interlocal agreement [established pursuant to] 163.3177 F.S. and in a manner consistent with 235.193 F.S. Schools and 9.A.7.d Packet Pg. 910 Attachment: Attachment C - FLUE Consistency Review Memo (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) ‒ 13 ‒ PL20180000622, Hyde Park SRA related ancillary uses shall be encouraged to locate in or proximate to CRDs, Villages, and Hamlets subject to applicable zoning and permitting requirements. A total of ±12.27 acres are set aside for public benefit uses. Staff agrees with the classification of the specific uses as public benefit uses (based upon the description of “public benefit use” in the LDC). Public benefit use acreage has been removed for purposes of determining credit use and calculating overall SRA size. Policy 4.21 does not apply, as this site is not within the ACSC, Area of Critical State Concern. REVIEW OF SRA DOCUMENTS: At an October 18, 2019 meeting held among the application team and staff representatives, a number of updates, changes and explanations were discussed and agreed upon to address remaining issues. Those pertinent to this Consistency Review are identified below. As with other, recently-recommended SRA, staff suggested similar revisions be made to Hyde Park, and be reflected in the SRA Document and SRA Master Plan. • Deviations, 6.1.1) re: 4.08.07.j.3.a.v, Village Design Criteria, Center to Edge Density & Intensity Gradient, or Continuum = agreed to withdraw or revise to allow for neighborhood goods and services in Neighborhood General Context Zone, and to add to 5.1.1.A. a list of those neighborhood scale commercial uses (and appropriate accessory uses to 5.1.1.B.). [new comment, from the October meeting] Result, as of latest resubmittal: Deviation withdrawn; no issues remain with respect to this Deviation. • Deviations 6.1.2) and 3) re: Village Design Criteria, General Parking Criteria = agreed to revise with an additional specificity, such as “…and prohibits parking in the front of buildings, except on street parking within the right-of-way to instead allow parking in the front, side and rear yards, when such parking is within the same block perimeter as, and is in support of, a grocery store. …” and with recommendations for compensating/mitigating measures [new comment, from the October meeting] Result, as of latest resubmittal: now numbered as 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 – no revisions apparent; no issues remain with respect to these Deviations. • Deviations, 6.1.4) re: 4.08.07.J.2.d.iii.e.i, and 4.08.07.J.3.d.iii, Village Design Criteria, Maximum Multi-Family Lot Size = agreed to revise with additional specificity by indicating another maximum lot size, and with recommendations for compensating/mitigating measures; [new comment, from the October meeting] Result, as of latest resubmittal: now numbered as 6.3.2 – no revisions apparent; no issues remain with respect to these Deviations. • Deviations, 6.2.1) re: 4.08.07.2.d.iii.a, Neighborhood General, Center to Edge Density & Intensity Gradient, or Continuum = agreed to withdraw or revise to allow for neighborhood goods and services in Neighborhood General Context Zone, and to add to 5.1.1.A. a list of those neighborhood scale commercial uses (and appropriate accessory uses to 5.1.1.B.); [new comment, from the October meeting] 9.A.7.d Packet Pg. 911 Attachment: Attachment C - FLUE Consistency Review Memo (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) ‒ 14 ‒ PL20180000622, Hyde Park SRA Result, as of latest resubmittal: Deviation withdrawn; no issues remain with respect to this Deviation. • Deviations, 6.3.1) re: 4.08.07.J.2.d.iv.e, Neighborhood Edge, Parking Standards Same as Town Core Parking Standards = agreed to revise with an additional specificity, to avoid Town Center [Core] parking characteristics being applied throughout the project, per the LDC, and with recommendations for compensating/mitigating measures. [new comment, from the October meeting] Result, as of latest resubmittal: Deviation withdrawn; no issues remain with respect to this Deviation. • Deviations, 6.4.1) re: 6.06.01.J, Transportation Standards, Street System Requirements = agreed to be revised with a shorter maximum cul-de-sac length (1,200 ft.), and with recommendations for compensating/mitigating measures such as mid-way passing-points, etc. [new comment, from the October meeting] Result, as of latest resubmittal: now numbered as 6.5.1 – Deviation revised; no issues remain with respect to this Deviation. Additionally: Of the total number of residential units proposed, 300 are multi-family dwelling units; all of them now proposed outside the village center – leaving the village center not mixed (commercial, residential) use. Applicant agreed to revise materials to provide a percentage– or an outright number – of the MFR units inside the village center. Latest resubmittal SRA Document, Subsection 5.4.1.A, Village Center Context Zone, list of Permitted Uses, includes “Multifamily dwelling units”. Section 5.4.1, Village Center Context Zone, Allowable Uses and Structures, provides that “The Village Center is mixed use in nature, allowing multi-family development as well as the required 45,000 square feet of neighborhood -scale commercial and office uses, which will include, at a minimum, 8 retail or office uses, and 18,000 square feet of civic, governmental, and institutional uses”. This section of the SRA document however, does not reflect the applicant’s agreement to provide a percentage or an outright number of multi-family residential units inside the Village Center. The SRA document states in Section IV, that minimum number of multi-family dwelling units shall be 300 units, of which a minimum of 180 units shall be located in the Village Center. This180 unit figure should also be made part of Section 5.4.1, Village Center Context Zone, Allowable Uses and Structures. The petitioner had agreed to provide narrative statement(s) that describe and explain how this SRA exhibits the characteristics pertaining to the mixed use village center; neighborhood-scale retail and office uses; civic and institutional land uses; its compact, pedestrian-friendly form; the rural to urban continuum; the similar massing, volume, frontage, scale and architectural features within the village 9.A.7.d Packet Pg. 912 Attachment: Attachment C - FLUE Consistency Review Memo (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) ‒ 15 ‒ PL20180000622, Hyde Park SRA center; and, so forth, and to, point out where examples of these characteristics are found in the SRA Document and SRA Master Plan. Narrative statement(s) to describe and explain these characteristics for this SRA were not provided in resubmittal materials. While not required, they remain considerably useful support materials to all reviewers. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The requisite credits are either approved or pending approval, in sufficient number to enable development of the project, and; [new comment] 2. The proposed Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) for the project may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element, Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay. [new comment] 3. Comprehensive Planning also requests: a. Make the 180-unit multi-family dwelling figure part of Section 5.4.1, Village Center Context Zone, Allowable Uses and Structures, [new comment, from the October meeting] cc: Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager, Zoning Services Section David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section G:\RLSA SSAs SRAs\STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREAS\Hyde Park Village SRA\ \\bcc.colliergov.net\data\GMD-LDS\CDES Planning Services\Comprehensive\RLSA SSAs SRAs\STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREAS\Hyde Park Village SRA\SRA-2018-622 Con Rvws\PL18-622 Hyde Park Village Con Rev memo_rev6.3 FNL.docx 9.A.7.d Packet Pg. 913 Attachment: Attachment C - FLUE Consistency Review Memo (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 1 DEVELOPER AGREEMENT Hyde Park THIS DEVELOPER AGREEMENT (hereinafter referred to as the “Agreement”) is made and entered into this ______ of _________, 2020, by and among Neal Communities of Southwest Florida, LLC (hereinafter referred to as the “Developer”), whose address is 5800 Ranch Blvd., Sarasota, Florida 34240, on the one hand, and Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida (hereinafter referred to as the “County”) and the Collier County Water-Sewer District, on the other. RECITALS: WHEREAS, Developer has submitted a petition to establish a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) for a parcel consisting of approximately 654.79 acres located at 4697 Oil Well Road in Collier County, to be known as Hyde Park; and WHEREAS, as part of this development order, the parties wish to enter into this Developer Agreement which among other things concerns public utilities and transportation issues arising from this development. WITNESSETH NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of Ten Dollars (10.00) and other good and valuable consideration exchanged amongst the parties, and in consideration of the covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. All of the above RECITALS are true and correct and are hereby expressly incorporated herein by reference as if set forth fully below. 2. Paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 of this Agreement shall become effective upon the execution of this Agreement by both parties. The remaining provisions of this Agreement shall become effective upon the latter to occur (1) Board of County Commissioners approval of the Hyde Park SRA and expiration of all appeal periods related to such approval, (2) issuance of revised County (Oil Well Road widening); or (3) Developer’s South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) and Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE) permits. Public Utilities 3. Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) is currently engaging design/build teams for the design and construction of the potable water, wastewater, and Irrigation Quality (IQ) water infrastructure to serve the project. The design/build contract was approved by the Board of County Commissioners at their March 12, 2019 meeting. 4. CCWSD will provide appropriate infrastructure for fire service by the end of February 15, 2021. CCWSD shall have the operational flexibility to determine how it will meet Commented [S1]: Timing of remaining provision is still under discussion 9.A.7.e Packet Pg. 914 Attachment: Attachment D - Developer Agreement Hyde Park Draft (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 2 that deadline, including the option of installing a temporary well with sufficient pumping capacity to provide fire service to the community as necessary within the utility easement. . 5. CCWSD will make available potable water and wastewater service by May 7, 2021. If CCWSD is unable to meet this deadline, CCWSD will identify the best interim alternative acceptable to the Developer, with CCWSD paying all costs of providing interim potable water and/or wastewater service. 6. As set forth in Exhibit #A, Developer will provide CCWSD with an easement along the western and northern property line of Hyde Park Village and will have stub-outs in the locations for potable water, IQ water service, and for wastewater connections. The easement shall be conveyed in accordance with the Collier County Utilities Standards and Procedures Ordinance, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, no later than seven (7) days after the effective date of this provision. Developer will leave a gap in the berm in the approximate location identified in Exhibit #B to allow CCWSD access to the easement for pipeline construction and maintenance. 7. CCWSD shall pay the Developer the value of the land indicated in paragraph 6 above as determined by two accredited appraisers who are mutually agreed upon by the parties. The purchase price shall be based on the market value of the land as set aside just prior to the SRA action and shall be equal to the average of the two appraisals. The parties shall share equally in the appraisal costs. 8. Individual/single-family lots, multi-family tracts, and commercial tracts, will be irrigated solely by IQ water provided by CCWSD. Developer will at its sole cost and expense install the necessary IQ pipelines to these tracts. CCWSD will provide IQ water to these tracts at the then-current Board-approved rate for the type of service requested. Should there be insufficient IQ water available, CCWSD will supplement the IQ water with raw or potable water, charged at the same rate as IQ water. Developer will provide irrigation to perimeter berms, amenity center tracts and common areas (littorals and western lake park) via private lake withdrawal system. This provision is intended to run through perpetuity. 9. To help defray CCWSD’s initial costs in providing the needed services, within ninety (90) days of the effective date of this Agreement, Developer shall prepay water and wastewater impact fees for 250 ERCs at the then current rate. Developer may use 50% of these credits per dwelling unit as each building permit is issued. Impact fees will be prepaid at the then current rate and Developer shall be responsible for any difference between the prepayment amount per ERC and the rate in effect at the time of building permit application submittal. 10. Potable water and IQ water mains may be supplemented in the future with parallel mains on Oil Well Road. Developer shall construct stubs in key areas to provide for looping to those future mains in the general location identified on Exhibit C#. Transportation Commitments 11. Within 90 days from the effective date of this Provision, Developer shall convey 100’ feet of land along the southern property boundary to the existing Oil Well Road right-of-way 9.A.7.e Packet Pg. 915 Attachment: Attachment D - Developer Agreement Hyde Park Draft (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 3 to accommodate future widening. This right-of-way is approximately 12.27 acres. Developer shall convey the land to the County in fee simple, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, by statutory warranty deed. Developer shall provide at no cost to the County an attorney’s opinion of title, and Developer shall be responsible at all costs for promptly removing or curing any liens, encumbrances or deficiencies revealed in any title work. Developer will provide the County Attorney’s Office with an executed deed (including sketches and legal descriptions signed and sealed by a Florida Licensed Surveyor), suitable for recording. Upon receipt, the County shall record the deed in the Public Records of the County. Developer shall pay all costs associated with the recordation of the deed. At the time of the conveyance Developer shall receive Road Impact Fee Credits for this acreage in the amount established pursuant to paragraph 22 below. No further compensating right-of-way shall be necessary for site related right or left turn lanes on Oil Well Road. In addition, Developer will not be required to install or pay in lieu for a sidewalk, multi- use pathway or bike lanes within or along the Oil Well Road right of way. Developer will clear, grade, irrigate and grass the right of way being conveyed to the County. County shall reimburse Developer within TIMEFRAME TO BE DETERMINED of receipt of a written invoice from Developer for costs associated within the clearing and grading. Developer will remove all irrigation, at its cost, within the right of way when road widening of Oil Well Road commences in the area. Prior to commencing construction of the improvements (clearing and grading), the County and Developer shall cooperate to advertise and bid the improvements in accordance with the County’s normal solicitation procedures for public road projects. The County shall provide written notice to the Developer documenting the result of such solicitation and ranking all qualified bids from lowest to highest, with the dollar amount of the lowest qualified bid being hereinafter referred to as responsible bidders. Final reimbursement amount shall not exceed $XX or the low bid amount, whichever is less. The Developer may establish a Community Development District (CDD). If a CDD is established, the CDD will be responsible for implementing the commitments in this paragraph and upon providing written notice of such assignment to the County; the Developer will be released from all obligations under this paragraph. 12. Developer shall design the project stormwater lake system to provide for treatment and attenuation of stormwater runoff for the future widening of Oil Well Road. The stormwater area is approximately 11.06 acres. The required treatment and attenuation volumes are equivalent to the existing South Florida Water Management District permit (No. 11-01745-P, Application No. 061010-15) for Basins 500 and 600 of the Oil Well Road expansion. Developer will convey to the County a drainage easement and lake maintenance easement, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without responsibility for maintenance at the time of first subdivision plat or site development plan approval. Developer shall provide at no cost to the County an attorney’s opinion of title, and Developer shall be responsible at all costs for promptly removing or curing any liens, encumbrances or deficiencies revealed in any title work. Developer will provide the County Attorney’s Office with an executed easement (including sketches and legal descriptions signed and sealed by a Florida Licensed Surveyor), suitable for recording. Upon receipt, the County shall record the easement in the Public Records of the County. Developer shall pay all costs associated with the recordation of the easement. At the time of conveyance of the easement Developer shall receive Road Impact Fee Credits for this acreage in the amount established pursuant to paragraph 22 below. Developer shall be solely responsible for any permit fees and mitigation for any listed species and wetland impact required by any permitting agencies. The Developer may establish a Community Development District (CDD). If a CDD is established, the Formatted: Highlight Commented [S2]: Timeframe for reimbursement still under discussion. Formatted: Highlight Commented [S3]: Not to exceed still under discussion. 9.A.7.e Packet Pg. 916 Attachment: Attachment D - Developer Agreement Hyde Park Draft (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 4 CDD will be responsible for implementing the commitments in this paragraph and upon providing written notice of such assignment to the County; the Developer will be released from all obligations under this paragraph. 13. Maintenance and Repair of Stormwater Management System. The Developer shall be obligated to maintain the stormwater management system, which includes stormwater ponds, control structures, drainage structures, and pipe conveyance system from the connection points at the proposed right-of-way to the outfall at the Faka Union Canal, in perpetuity as generally depicted on Exhibit #, D, all at its sole cost and expense. Should the Developer fail to maintain the Stormwater Management System, the County may provide notice to the Developer in writing, specifying the nature of the deficiency. Within five working days following receipt of such notice, the Developer at its sole cost shall cause the appropriate repairs or cure to be effected. In the event damage to, or failure to maintain the Stormwater Management System results in a situation where public safety is at risk, (1) Developer shall effect repairs within twenty-four hours of receipt of the County’s written notice, or (2) County may, at its option, effect repairs to the improvements, without the need for prior notice to the Developer, and will promptly bill the Developer for all actual costs incurred in effecting the repairs. Developer shall reimburse the County for such costs within thirty days of receipt of the County’s bill. County shall be granted access to the stormwater system connected to the roadway at all times. Developer may assign the obligations under this paragraph to the CDD or a homeowners association and upon providing written notice of such assignment to the County; the Developer will be released from all obligations under this paragraph. 14. To allow for the future connection by the County of the stormwater generated by Oil Well Road, Developer shall install stormwater discharge points for Oil Well Road at the earlier of the County notifying the Landowner that it will commence construction of Oil Well Road or at time it constructs its stormwater management system in the vicinity of Oil Well Road. Discharge points, pipe sizes and required elevations will be finalized during the Developer’s SFWMD ERP process. For this portion of the project, Collier County will require two easements. The first is an easement to allow for the ultimate connection of the stormwater pipes from the roadway into the manholes. The second is for a drainage and maintenance easement along the conveyance pipes from the manholes to the stormwater lake and discharge. Within the earlier of 90 days of the first plat approval for the Development or at County’s written request, the Landowner will grant County temporary drainage easements, the form of which is attached as Exhibit #. E. The temporary drainage easements will be replaced with permanent platted easements when those portions of the Hyde Park Village are platted. All costs associated with these easements (title work, doc stamps, recording, etc.) will be paid by the Developer. Within TIMEFRAME TO BE DETERMINED of receipt of a written invoice from Developer, County shall reimburse the Developer the actual costs incurred by the Developer to install the discharge points. The costs include, but are not limited to mobilization, site work, installation costs, and material costs. Prior to commencing construction of the improvements, the County and Developer shall cooperate to advertise and bid the improvements in accordance with the County’s normal solicitation procedures for public road projects. The County shall provide written notice to the Developer documenting the result of such solicitation and ranking all qualified bids from lowest to highest, with the dollar amount of the lowest qualified bid being hereinafter referred to as responsible bidders. Final reimbursement Commented [S4]: Timeframe still under discussion 9.A.7.e Packet Pg. 917 Attachment: Attachment D - Developer Agreement Hyde Park Draft (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 5 amount shall not exceed $XX or the low bid amount, whichever is less. No Certificates of Occupancy for Hyde Park Village shall be issued until the temporary easements are recorded. 15. Five years after the completion of the construction of the stormwater lake and discharge system identified above and every five years thereafter, Developer shall perform an inspection by a certified engineer to assess the condition of the stormwater system. The inspection report shall be forwarded to the County for monitoring. Developer and its successors in interest, including any homeowner associations, will be solely responsible for the perpetual operation and maintenance of the shared stormwater management system, which includes everything from the manholes, to the conveyance pipes, to the stormwater lakes, to the ultimate permitted discharge. Notwithstanding the sole maintenance responsibility, the parties acknowledge that due to the importance of the drainage from roadway projects, the above drainage easement will include a maintenance easement to allow Collier County to do whatever it deems necessary to repair or maintain the drainage system. If, after reasonable written notice to the Developer of a repair or maintenance issue concerning the shared stormwater management system goes unheeded, the County may enter the Development for the purpose of repairing or maintaining the system, and the Developer will pay the County its full cost incurred in conducting such repair and maintenance. Developer may assign the obligations under this paragraph to the CDD or a homeowners association and upon providing written notice of such assignment to the County; the Developer will be released from all obligations under this paragraph. 16. Indemnification by and Liability of County. County shall be responsible for performing any cleanup of the stormwater management system (which conveys roadway runoff to the outfall at the Faka Union Canal) that may be required by local, state or federal regulations resulting from an accident or spill on Oil Well Road which discharges pollutants, hazardous waste or other material defined or designated as toxic or hazardous under local, state or federal regulations into the stormwater system. 17. Should the County be ready to construct Oil Well Road prior to the approval of the first development order establishing the stormwater management area, Developer shall provide an area identified on Exhibit # F to allow the County to place pond sites, which may be altered by the Developer once the development commences. The County will be responsible for all permitting and construction costs. 18. Developer, on behalf of itself, its successors and assigns (including any and all future owners and tenants, both commercial and residential, within the Development), will give all successors, assigns, tenants and buyers, both residential and commercial, who purchase or lease land from the Landowner a separate written notice of the planned Big Cypress Parkway and Oil Well Road roadway improvements with the statement that the County will not construct or contribute funding for the construction of any sound wall or other barrier of any kind to reduce the impact, noise, etc. 19. Within 60 days of request by Collier County, the Developer shall convey fee simple and free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, and in exchange for road impact fee credits, a parcel of land located approximately 100’ north and 100 feet west of the southeast corner of the Commented [S5]: Not to exceed still under discussion. Commented [S6]: Applicant does not agree with this language as it relates to Big Cypress Parkway. 9.A.7.e Packet Pg. 918 Attachment: Attachment D - Developer Agreement Hyde Park Draft (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 6 Hyde Park Village SRA to be used to facilitate right turning movements from the proposed public right-of-way onto Oil Well Road. The size of the parcel shall not exceed 5,000 square feet. Developer shall receive Road Impact Fee Credits for this acreage in the amount established pursuant to paragraph 22 below. 20. Upon meeting the minimum traffic signal warrants set forth by the Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices and within 90 days of written request by Collier County the Developer, or its successors or assigns, shall provide payment to Collier County of the SRA’s fair share cost of installation of a traffic signal at DeSoto Boulevard and Oil Well Road. 21. Within one hundred and eighty (180) days of the effective date of this provision, Developer will convey a twenty (20) foot wide access easement along the western border of the project adjacent to the existing BCB easement for the Faka Union Canal. Within ninety (90) days of the conveyance of the access easement, the County will pay to the Developer the amount established pursuant to paragraph 22 below. No structures of any kind will be allowed within that twenty (20) foot access easement. Prior to conveying the access easement to the County, the County shall receive a right-of- entry from the Big Cypress Basin to allow the Developer to hydro axe the eastern shore of the Faka Union Canal that is within the existing drainage canal. The Developer shall be reimbursed for such clearing as noted below. Developer shall clear, grade and sod the access easement area with Bahia grass. Within A TIMEFRAME TO BE DETERMINED, County shall reimburse the Developer for the clearing, grading and sodding of the access easement area and the clearing of the existing canal area. Prior to commencing construction of the improvements, the County and Developer shall cooperate to advertise and bid the improvements in accordance with the County’s normal solicitation procedures for public road projects. The County shall provide written notice to the Developer documenting the result of such solicitation and ranking all qualified bids from lowest to highest, with the dollar amount of the lowest qualified bid being hereinafter referred to as responsible bidders. Final reimbursement amount shall not exceed $XX or the low bid amount, whichever is less. 22. The value of the land indicated in paragraphs 11,12, 19 and 21 above shall be determined by two accredited appraisers who are mutually agreed upon by the parties. The purchase price shall be based on the market value of the land as set aside just prior to the SRA action and shall be equal to the average of the two appraisals. The parties shall share equally in the appraisal costs. 23. All Road Impact Fee credits identified herein shall run with the Development and shall be automatically reduced by the entire amount of each Road Impact Fee due for each Building Permit issued thereon until the Development is either completed or the credits are exhausted or otherwise assigned. Any assignments of Road Impact Fees shall be governed by the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, as amended from time to time. Commented [S7]: Timeframe still under discussion. Formatted: Highlight Commented [S8]: Final not to exceed amount still under discussion. Commented [S9]: Continued maintenance still under discussion. 9.A.7.e Packet Pg. 919 Attachment: Attachment D - Developer Agreement Hyde Park Draft (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 7 Legal Matters 24. This Agreement shall not be constructed or characterized as a development agreement under the Florida Local Government Development Agreement Act. 25. The burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon, and the benefits of this Agreement shall inure to, all assigns successors in interest to the parties to this Agreement. The term “Developer” shall include all of Developer’s assigns and successors in interest, including homeowner associations and commercial tenants. 26. In the event state or federal laws are enacted after the execution of this Agreement, which are applicable to and preclude in whole or in part the parties’ compliance with the terms of this Agreement, then in such event this Agreement shall be modified or revoked as is necessary to comply with such laws, in a many which best reflects the intent of this Agreement. 27. This Agreement shall be recorded by the County in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, within fourteen (14) days after the Effective Date. The Developer shall pay all costs of recording this Agreement. The County shall provide a copy of the recorded document to the Developer upon request. 28. In the event of any dispute under this Agreement, the parties shall attempt to resolve such dispute first by means of the County’s then-current Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedure, if any. Following the conclusion of such procedure, if any, either party may file an action for injunctive relief in the Circuit Court of Collier County to enforce the terms of this Agreement, and remedy being cumulative with any and all other remedies available to the parties for the enforcement of the Agreement. 29. Except as otherwise provided herein, this Agreement shall only be amended by mutual written consent of the parties hereto or by their successors in interest. All notices and other communications required or permitted hereunder (including County’s option) shall be in writing and shall be sent by Certified Mail, return receipt requested, or by a nationally recognized overnight delivery service, and addressed as follows: To County: Collier County Manager's Office 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 202 Naples, FL 34112-5746 To Developer: Neal Communities Attn: Timothy Oak 28100 Bonita Grande Drive Bonita Springs, FL 34135 (239) 405-7366 Email: toak@nealcommunities.com Neal Communities Attn: Patrick K. Neal 5800 Lakewood Ranch Blvd. North 9.A.7.e Packet Pg. 920 Attachment: Attachment D - Developer Agreement Hyde Park Draft (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 8 Sarasota, Florida 34240 (941) 328-1037 Email: pneal@nealcommunities.com Neal Communities Attn: James R. Schier 5800 Lakewood Ranch Blvd. North Sarasota, Florida 34240 (941) 328-1040 Email: jschier@nealcommunities.com 30. This Agreement (which include the references set forth in the Recitals) constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the activities noted herein and supersedes and takes the place of any and all previous agreements entered into between the parties hereto relating to the transactions contemplated herein. All prior representations, undertakings, and agreements by or between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement are merged into, and expressed in, this Agreement, and any and all prior representations, undertakings, and agreements by and between such parties with respect thereto hereby are canceled. 31. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed or construed to create between or among any of the parties any joint venture or partnership nor otherwise grant to one another the right, authority or power to bind any other party hereto to any agreement whatsoever. REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW 9.A.7.e Packet Pg. 921 Attachment: Attachment D - Developer Agreement Hyde Park Draft (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their appropriate officials, as of the date first above written. AS TO COUNTY and the COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT: ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, Clerk COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, on behalf of Collier County, Florida and as Ex-Officio the Governing Body of the Collier County Water-Sewer District. By: ___________________________ By: _____________________________ , Deputy Clerk , Chairman AS TO DEVELOPER: Neal Communities of Southwest Florida, LLC WITNESS: (Print full name) By: _____________________________ Printed Name: ____________________ Title: ___________________________ (Signature) (Print full name) STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _______day of ________, 2020, by _________________, as _____________________of Neal Communities of Southwest Florida, LLC. He is [ ] personally known to me, or [ ] has produced driver’s license number___________________ as identification. _________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC Name: ____________________________ My Commission Expires: ____________ Approved as to form and legality: _______________________________ Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney 9.A.7.e Packet Pg. 922 Attachment: Attachment D - Developer Agreement Hyde Park Draft (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS HOLE MONTES 9.A.7.e Packet Pg. 923 Attachment: Attachment D - Developer Agreement Hyde Park Draft (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS HOLE MONTES 9.A.7.e Packet Pg. 924 Attachment: Attachment D - Developer Agreement Hyde Park Draft (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) IRRIRRIRRIRRIRR IRR IRR IRR IRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRR IRRIRRIRRW W W W W W W WWWWWWWWWWWWIQIQIQIQIQWWWWWWWWWWWIQIQ IQIQIRR IRR WIQWWWWWWWW W W W W W WWWWIRRIRR IRR IRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRR IRR IRR IRRIRRIRR IRR IRRIRR IRR IRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRR WWWWWWIQIQIQIQIQIQIRR IRR IRR IRR IR R IRR IRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRR WWWWWIQIQIQIQIQIQIQIQIQIQIQIQIQIQ IQ IQIQIQIQIQWWWWWWWIQIQIQIQIQIQIQIQIQIQ IQ IQ IQ IRRIRRIRRIRR IRR IQIQIQIRRIR R IRR IRRIRRWWIQIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRWWWWIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRR IRRWWWWFMFMFMFMFMFMFMIQIQIQIQIQIQIQ IQ IRRIRRIRR IRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQIQ IQIQIQIQIQIQIQIQIQIQIQIQIQIQWWWWWWWWW W W W W W W W W W WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRR IRRIRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRR IRR IRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIR R IRR IRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRR IRR IRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRR IRR IRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRRIRRIRRIRR W IQIQIQIQ IQ IQ WWWWFMWWWWWWWWIQIQIQIQIQIQIQWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW W W IRRIRRIRRIRR IRRIRRIRRIRRIRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRRIRRIRRIRRIRR WIQFMIQWIQIQIQIQIQIQIQIQIQIQIQIQIQIQIRR IRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRRIRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRRIQIQIQIQ FMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWIQIQIQIQIQIQIQIQIQIQIQIQIQIQIQIQIQIQIQ IQIQIQIQIQIQIQIQIQIQIQIQIQIQIQIQIQFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMIRRIRRIRRIRRHOLEMONTES950 Encore WayNaples, FL. 34110Phone: (239) 254-2000Florida Certificate ofAuthorization No.1772ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS17001_FutureUtilAccess2017.001EXHIBIT11HYDE PARK VILLAGEFUTURE COLLIER COUNTY UTILITYACCESS LOCATIONSLAKE 1LAKE 2LAKE 3LAKE 11ALAKE 11BLAKE 15LAKE 14LAKE 12LAKE 13LAKE 10LAKE 8LAKE 9LAKE 7LAKE 5LAKE 6LAKE 16LAKE 4DryRetentionAreaACCESS LOCATIONACCESS LOCATIONACCESS LOCATION9.A.7.ePacket Pg. 925Attachment: Attachment D - Developer Agreement Hyde Park Draft (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) W W W WWWWWIQIQWWWWIQIQWWWW W W WWWWIQIQWWIQIQIQIQIQIQIQ IQIQWWWIQIQIQIQ IQWWWWFMFMFMIQIQIQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQIQIQIQIQIQWWWWW W W W W WWWWWWWIQIQ WWWWWIQIQIQWWWWWWWW IQIQIQIQ IQ IQIQIQ FMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMIQIQIQIQIQIQIQIQIQIQIQIQIQIQIQIQFMFMFMFMFMFM950 Encore WayNaples, FL. 34110Phone: (239) 254-2000Florida Certificate ofAuthorization No.1772EXHIBIT COIL WELL WIDENINGFUTURE UTILITY (W.M./I.Q.)CONNECTION POINTSOIL WELL ROADLAKE 1LAKE 2LAKE 3LAKE 4LAKE 5LAKE 7LAKE 8LAKE 6LAKE 9LAKE 10LAKE 11ALAKE 11BLAKE 12LAKE 13LAKE 15LAKE 14BIG CYPRESS PARKWAY9.A.7.ePacket Pg. 926Attachment: Attachment D - Developer Agreement Hyde Park Draft (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) AMENITY LAKE 2 (12.2 AC.) LAKE 1 (6.3 AC) LAKE 5 (71.8 AC.) LAKE 7 (23.3 AC.) LAKE 8 (15.1 AC.) LAKE 10 (20.8 AC.) LAKE 9 (7.5 AC.) LAKE 3 (13.0 AC.)LAKE 12(9.0 AC.)LAKE 13(4.4 AC.)LAKE 15 (7.6 AC.) LAKE 11 (42.9 AC.)LAKE 16 (1.4 AC.) LITTORAL LAKE 14 (2.4 AC.) LAKE 4 (3.2 AC.) LITTORAL LAKE 6 (6.2 AC.) LITTORAL SCALE IN FEET H:\2017\2017001\WP\DCA\Utility_Storm_Exhibits.dwg Tab: EXHIBIT_B Feb 11, 2020 - 1:24pm Plotted by: EricNeilSTORM DRAIN CONNECTION POINT CS-1 OUTFALL PIPE P1 P2 P3 P5 P4 OIL WELL ROAD LEGEND PROPOSED LAKE SYSTEM FOR OIL WELL ROAD WIDENING STORMWATER TREATMENT AND ATTENUATION (LAKES 1, 2, 3, 4, 11, PIPES P1-P7, CS-1 & OUTFALL PIPE) 45' UTILITY EASEMENT STORM DRAIN CONNECTION POINT P6 P7 100' R.O.W. RESERVATION PROPOSED LAKE SYSTEM FOR OIL WELL ROAD WIDENING STORMWATER TREATMENT AND ATTENUATION IF WIDENING OCCURS PRE-DEVELOPMENT (LAKES 1, 2, TEMPORARY SWALES, CS-1 & OUTFALL PIPE) TEMPORARY SWALE TEMPORARY SWALE TEMPORARY SWALE INSTALL TERMINAL M.H. (STA. 326+18.57,OFF. 202.29'L) INSTALL TERMINAL M.H. CS-2 OUTFALL PIPE 9.A.7.e Packet Pg. 927 Attachment: Attachment D - Developer Agreement Hyde Park Draft (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Exhibit E TEMPORARY DRAINAGE EASEMENT THIS TEMPORARY DRAINAGE EASEMENT, made and entered into this ____ day of _________________, 20___ by ____________________, whose mailing address is ________________, (hereinafter referred to as “Grantor”), to COLLIER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, whose mailing address is 3299 Tamiami Trail East, c/o the Office of the County Attorney, Suite 800, Naples, Florida 34112, its successors and assigns, (hereinafter referred to as “Grantee”). (Wherever used herein the terms "Grantor" and "Grantee" include all the parties to this instrument and their respective heirs, legal representatives, successors and assigns. Grantor and Grantee are used for singular or plural, as the context requires.) W I T N E S S E T H: Grantor, for and in consideration of TEN DOLLARS ($10.00) and other valuable consideration paid by the Grantee, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, hereby conveys, grants, bargains and sells unto the Grantee, a temporary easement for the purposes of constructing and maintaining a stormwater retention and treatment pond [SPECIFY PURPOSES] over, under, upon and across the following described lands located in Collier County, Florida, to wit: See attached Exhibit "A" which is incorporated herein by reference. Subject to easements, restrictions, and reservations of record. THIS IS/IS NOT HOMESTEAD PROPERTY TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same unto the Grantee, together with the right to enter upon said land, place, excavate, and remove materials for the purpose of constructing and maintaining a stormwater retention and treatment pond thereon [SPECIFY PURPOSES]. The easement granted herein shall constitute an easement running with the land and shall burden the lands described above until it’s termination. The term of this Temporary Drainage Easement shall commence upon the issuance of Grantee’s official Notice to Proceed to its roadway contractor for the construction of [ENTER PROJECT NAME AND NUMBER] and shall automatically terminate ____ days therefrom. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has caused these presents to be executed the date and year first above written. AS TO GRANTOR: _____________________________ By:_____________________________ Witness: _____________________________ Print Name: _____________________________ Witness: _____________________________ 9.A.7.e Packet Pg. 928 Attachment: Attachment D - Developer Agreement Hyde Park Draft (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Last Revised: 10/15/10 Print Name: STATE OF _________________ COUNTY OF _______________ The foregoing Temporary Drainage Easement was acknowledged before me this ______ day of __________________, 20_____, by _________, on behalf of ____________, who: _____ is personally known to me OR _____ produced __________________________________________as proof of identity. (affix notarial seal) ___________________________________ (Signature of Notary Public) ___________________________________ (Print Name of Notary Public) Serial / Commission # (if any):___________ My Commission Expires: _______________ Approved as to form and legality: _________ Assistant County Attorney 9.A.7.e Packet Pg. 929 Attachment: Attachment D - Developer Agreement Hyde Park Draft (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 950 Encore WayNaples, FL. 34110Phone: (239) 254-2000Florida Certificate ofAuthorization No.1772EXHIBIT FOIL WELL WIDENINGTEMP. STORM WATER EASEMENTOIL WELL ROADLAKE 1LAKE 29.A.7.ePacket Pg. 930Attachment: Attachment D - Developer Agreement Hyde Park Draft (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 10-24-19 NIM 9.A.7.f Packet Pg. 931 Attachment: Attachment E - NIM Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) frhrlnrBuilU h1trux NaplesNevus.com Published Daily Naples, FL 34110 Affi davit of Publication State of Florida Counties of Collier and Lee Before the undersigned they serve as the authority, personally appeared Natalie Zollar who on oath savs that she serves as lnside sales Manager of the NaDles Daily News. a dailv newsDaoer oublished at Naoles. in colller countv. Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee couities of Florida; that th-e attached copy of the advertisinq was published iri said newspaper on dates listed. Affiant further says that the said NaDles Daily News is a newsoaoe-r oubiished at Na-ples, in said Collier county, Florida, and that the said newsoaoer hai heretof6re been continubu!lv dublished in said Collier County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee countie's of Florida. each dav and has been ilntered as second class mail matter at the post office in Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, for aberiod of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached cody of advertisement; and iffiant fuhher iays that he hlas neithei paid noipromised any p_erson, or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Customer Ad Number Copyline P.O.# HOLE MONTES INC Pub Dates October 5, 2018 (sic ure of affiant) sworn to and subscribed before me This October 05, 2018 2128910 Petition SRA-P120180 R*J {, V.W /d4*^' '{#; (Signature of affiant) 9.A.7.f Packet Pg. 932 Attachment: Attachment E - NIM Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) xalLasxlwl,cor a FRroaY.ocToB€i5,201a t !ta Military program could be seen as bioweapon Using insects to infect crops poses concerns Odlc. Chcl.trd *h lo'ffibln NEW YOtd( - A Erarch amof t E U.s. milihry i! cdorlrgtl: paribllity of deployinS iffi ro nulre plds mre r6u6t by ahdlig thelr gffi. Sotuo(Pea eytlEwtmy b.cn a B pototlal biolo8iol w6po[In u oplDlon Fps FrblirhdThurday in tfE Furnd Sdre. thc authoE $y the U.S. necds to prw'lde greate! lstlficetlon for the peacetlme rcsrc}\ wilcll sk! to ENrntt paGffiiw hlts b 6opa .Iredy g@ina lnthe ield. Ttat mid mrk a &patu ftom the (ent wtdely ud proeduc of Semdcaly Eodrying wds fd sops suci a om ard $y, before tlEy gtw inoplms. IlE Eilit.ry resdcJlat ncy Ey! itt g€l ls to p@Ed thc rtion ! f@d sup plyfr@throB llk &ou8ht, qopdtr- ee eDd biot€rorim by GW kuetr to infed planb with vires dEt p!o- td asaiD* sdr dsEeB. 'food wity b Mtlonal s6!ity,' sld Blale 8ddE, st[ hea& tlF 2- ,rErld projd 8t the [kfe@ Ad- @ced Rseech Prol* AgeEy, u 3m of tlE U.S. Deprrtn ft of Deferoc. The Sule tEpem@t sid tlE po- is ls fo! lEGfirl Fl p6es rnd dcm V@late the Biologiel l^bdpoa Conwnuon. The U.S. Depatuent of Agricuhue sald its *ieDdfir @ paft c,fthe r@h whidr is b.lrg@ndffi- ed in omslned labd- Corn lot.phH. m urd h. rtudy lodit cry pl.d. tlrdth anglmar.d vlrulc, ,ENA vit1lg @ lrbr llE ilrnt'8 g$6 the plst's [ife. eru.-nE/rc Bldig rbdtr |1r8lE rc- leare of8enetlc modl0crtlon by meaN of lD!ec$,' etd Gretcy Kebnlda e ethld( at th. Hdingr Ccnta bteth- 16 l€slch lnsdtuE ln Gsrrle Ns York, who has rtudled gendlc modln- @do[ He wnt prrt of th Sd@ prps but s.rd IE*t Ali6 t4hnolog/ dJd ad up h.iDg deltrudiE. l(*bnlck qqtiorrd how rcll the vir@3 and lrectg @rryt8 them ord be @nEolH. '}lthetr !6u ee blting abou vuy small $irgs - in-st! ud mioober - it mtht be lrnpG- dblc to lt@lhm'oe tlE,/ &. ttr- trodued lnto farme6'felds, he s!ld. Dr. Davld Rdman, a pDfsor of EEdldn ard rd@biolo5r st Stanbrd who hE rdvircd tlE Ob.m .drnini-fr.dd onblode&rue b[ ls ret pan of *E DARPA teuri, qid the PfoldBdd play into long-mndiig fe{s amrg Mtri6 that ene6l6 hlght Ey to hlm dEir @p.. S{ll, R.ltM sid th. dmlotc/ @uldhelp hrmets68ht a-brd plsnt yl- The rechnology could work h dlfrer- u rriig!@tlEdalni' olprffi entways. ln the ntst phsse, aphlds -tl- @F fDm blot@orism 8@@ in- oy bws that feed by sucttng eap from s6r often sFad @p di'c!6, Rd- plMB - Irfued pbnB wlth a viru tM old DARPA is rrylry to w thc that tempotuily b[@8ht about a ralt. btlgr' m bblogr to 'rc@it them a 8nt r6dcheB @ al& tlyttrt to se lf alls'ln rpreadlng protdiE taltl Ths public is lnvited to attsnd a noighbodood intomallon m€eting held by Robsrt J. Mulhse, FACe Vbo Pcsidont, Planoing Seryices ot Hol6 Montss, lnc. ild Richard O. Yovilovich, Esquire, ol Colsman, Yovanovici and Koest8( P " on b€hal, of th€ prcpe.ty omr at ths following tim€ ild location: Wbdne8day, Octob.r 2{, 2018 at 5;g) p.m. Pose Luth.6n Church, Fallowshlp HaU 9850 lmmotalae 8oad, Napbs, Rorida 3i[12O The lollowing lomalappliction has b6sn made lo Collier County: Stewardshlp ReceMng 1p2 (SRA ln the ,om of a Vlllago ovtr 654,79i acrs of led loGted in sastern Collis County to b€ knowns Coluor Lakss Vfllags ("CLV'). The CLV is proposed to allow up to 1,800 dwslling unls (150Ot singlo tmily and 300r ruhi-family), 45,000 square leet of nsighbofiood commsrcial uses. and 18,000 squar€ lel ol civic, instttutlonal and govemmgntal usos, Th6 subisct propsrty is presentv zonad A-MHO-RLSAO. ThB site is boundsd on the soulh by Oil Wsll Road, on ths wst and north by Goldon Galo Estatos z6sd prcpfiis and on th6 €ast by A-MHO- BLgqO propertl$ h activs agriculture proposed ftr inctusion in ths Fural Leds W€sl SRA Tom Ogsignation. Th6 subigct property is b6ted at the hte66clion ol Oil Well Boad and Dssoto Blvd, North, approximatoly 4 miles easl o, lmmokales Road, in Sectlon 16, Townshts 48 South, Range 28 East, Colll€r County, Florida, I I I Colir L!k6 SffA TvE VALUE YOUR INPUT Busin€s and propgrly owners, r€sidsnts and visitors ar8 wslcomo to anend the prestatlon and disoss th€ projst with the owners and Collisr County starf. It you ar6 unablo to attond this m€ting, but hav€ quBtions or commnts, they can b0 dirgcted by mail. phone, or eroll to: Bobort J. Muhore, FAICe vlce PrssidEnt, Planning Servic6 Hol6 Montos, lnc. 950 Encore Way, Naples, Flo,ida 341 10 Phone: 239-25,1-200O, emalt bobmulhereehmeng.com ocrobtr 5,2018 ND2128910 UMttu NONPROFITS TFAT WORKEO WITX CFCC QURING HURRICANE IFMA COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS FINEMARK NATIONAL BANK & TRUST s:-.d FIRST FLORIDA INTEGRITY BANK H,l'dldfrli;hqnfffidwhr+. IN ()UR SPONSORS Naples Daily News 0 TICKETS :r ) i/ t rklEre,rydElldryum dl.labtu&l&rydftrk drFBk[6&@rdJ.e EtcHIil!d UUdtd. & iFiqe ee6Isif sm [rdE^re ll.@dAq#d&.!r4 !&hEFdkD&.tu[rd dk@1o, dth6dH! tu(h' d M&ghqnlkq'ktf, Ar.C.habG.!bC&tX.nk k*d& U,! MU.,trhtu hdroMddkl)&!6 kM$6d,*k[rFl(LkFlorhb.*!qne Mfr&*hroFld-xkscq*kredfEerq hr&ykbktr.Fd hi {r 16F.d rbq,qk&h lll7tt-hmfkk* S.&bnLtlrqqt.rfuLhdrB!&6deIHhxFn@.b!.&&Ukirlk6r hd{qhc/k..M The Greatest American* Silver Dollar Collection Own thc COfrPTEfE 9tter Elscnhover Year Sct Fot Lers Th.n t'10 P.t Coln! l....fah.6..U.d ttB B, h hq dDrld, rib dndMrry!l0dd@rbq ,@d ldthl!dk.qht<M&rbdulhm6{tuq, lIb& b& k {er il k[ 3ffd* GEdhtukrdb, tcd. Cdlcrh - odttD.S FtE 3HlPflxO d, d h 36ldbr*{vil-iEB ott*.d-l?-lnhdnb t-866-362-8388 loE cdf, rss2s{illb---*'dl if.li Govtrxr.cox' Gd3l.s. r.ro! *@,.w. $r 171 :+ sMr t M a,lst allr+3-tuBMkhlrr *d& ndt, ktulhro Mral td h U6bE$r&{kr,[ iu 6itblJd{,! U r.!6'b*E itutl llm-LHry*!litroEhbdI{.,r7tklkD'ih lldrl.MIrt9rtd t96,wD& JTLd dd U6d lr5 d 1176 b (& rdhldftffi&(urd b dqt, rk hry H sU rh os li e &kndk.t.tun.Mt! *t!dgtutu&&U[rd"o.dL,f,[,hI4llI&lL luid.DFd.dmdHddh: tuhidaDH.ttBt.lntrttu lllH-Dhha.Mi l6d lrr, F{drn,{rrh s&NhEattrlrerytubet&dha@bd{ba*doak 1lH-tu1*hrrhh ln lrTl xdFhd &Uhth B.ffih{hhkhlc |)&d,F{ddErilbtrd ww1 : : rl 9.A.7.f Packet Pg. 933 Attachment: Attachment E - NIM Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) NIM Summary Collicr Lakes Stewardship Receiving Area Designation (SRA-PL20180000622) October 24, 2018, 5:30 p.m. Peace Lutheran Church 9E50 Immokalee Road, Naples, Florida, 34120 The NIM was held for the above referenced petition. The petition is described as follows To establish a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) in the form ofa Village over 654.79+ acres of land located in eastem Collier County to known as Collier Lakes Village C'CLV'). The CLV is proposed to allow up to 1,800 dwelling units (1500+ single family and 300+ multi-family), 45,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses, and 18,000 square feet of civic, institutional and governmental uses ISRA-PL201 80000622]. Note: This is a summary of the NIM. An audio/video recording is also provided, On behalf of Applicants: Michael Greenberg, Southwest Florida Regional President, Neal Communities Robert Mulhere, FAICP, VP Planning, Hole Montes Richard Yovanovich, Esq., Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, PA James Banks, P.E., Transportation Consultant Barry Jones, P.E., Hole Montes, Inc. Dan Ciesielski, Land Development Manager, Neal Communities County Staff: Tim Finn, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section Gil Martinez, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section Mr. Mulhere started the presentation by introducing himself, the other consultants. and County staff. He explained the NIM process, the process for approval, and provided an overview of the project. Mr. Greenberg provided an overview of Neal Communities. Following Mr. Mulhere's presentation, there were approximately fifteen minutes of questions from the public in attendance. The following issues were raised: Traffic Concerns Concems were raised regarding the existing traffic on Oil Well Road. Mr. Mulhere explained that the project is reserving 100 feet adjacent to the southem property boundary for the future widening of Oil Wetl Road. The project is also being designed to accommodate storm water runoff from the Oil Well Road widening. Attendeess Thirteen members ofthe public attended. Page I of2 H:U0l7u0l70oI\wAsRANIMUIIM summary (l0-29'2018) docx 9.A.7.f Packet Pg. 934 Attachment: Attachment E - NIM Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Utilities Questions were raised regarding utility providers, as well as the needed infrastructure to support development. Collier County Public Utilities will be providing water and sewer service. The developer is working with the County to expand the necessary infrastructure. Mr. Mulhere explained that an economic assessment that analyzes and demonstrates fiscal neulrality is required as part of the application process. Impact Fees are also required to offset the developments impact on the necessary public facilities. General questions were raised regarding the ownership of the property. Mr. Mulhere explained that the current owner is Zurich Intemational, and Neal Communities is the contract purchaser. A concem was raised regarding the existing utility lines near the westem property boundary. Mr. Jones explained that the existing utility lines are not on the subject prope(y and will not be allected by the proposed development. Mr. Mulhere indicated that application materials are available to the public via the county website. The meeting conclucled at approximatelv 6:00 PM. Page 2 of 2 H:UOl7U0l7O0l\WnSRANIM\NIM Summary (10-29-2018).docx General/Misc. 9.A.7.f Packet Pg. 935 Attachment: Attachment E - NIM Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING coLLrER LAKES SRA (SRA-PL-20L8000A622) WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 20L8 AT 5:30PM PTEASE PRINT CLEARLY ***PLeAse be advL' ed*** The information on this sheet is to contact you regarding this project and future public meetings. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses, phone numbers and certain home addresses are public records once received by a Bovernment agency. lf you do not want your e-mail address, phone number or home address released if the county receives a public records request, you can refrain from including such information on this sheet. You have the option of checking with the county staff on your own to obtain updates on the project as well as checking the county Web site for additional information. Name Address City, State Zip E-MailAddress c.1.-l0 N Cc- l(r\[( (t (s.E3.o P7 j( Ro erulaa o I 5 G \r(o* I E t-<- EO PE {4 I //l n flel,.\ tJ'o il4 - 334rq 3 3 1116 t CL h/2" & t4 IkL/CorP e-a45 ha-u: rl 9.A.7.f Packet Pg. 936 Attachment: Attachment E - NIM Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE I hereby certiry that pursuant to Ordinance 2004-41, the Collier County Land Developmenr Code, as amended, I did cause the attached newspaper advertisement to appear and I did give notice by mail to the following property owners and/or condominium and civic associations whose members may be affected by the proposed land use changes ofan application request for a rezoning, PUD amendment, or conditional use, at least 15 days prior to the scheduled Neighborhood Information Meeting. For the purposes of this requirement, the names ond addresses of property owners shall be deemed lhose appearing on the latesl tax rolls of Collier County and any olher persons or entities who have made a formal request of the County to be notified. The said notice contained the laymen's description of the site property of proposed change and the date, time, and place of a Neighborhood Information Meeting. Per the attached letters, property owner's list, and copy of newspaper advertisement which are hereby made a part of this Affidavit of Compliance. (Signature of Applicant) ROBERT J. MULHERE . FAICP (Printed name of Applicant) STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing Affidavit of compliance was acknowledged before me this 5th Dav of October 2018. bv ROBERT J. MULHERE. FAICP. who is lly known to me or who has produced as identification. *,4\uu^, (Signature of Notary Public) Printed Name of Notary /.*J ffi tltrurr c,foarrUc.bdtLtLCor*5rrfItIIo I, Con. t*t Ir r, 2@0 ffi Ertht II:U017\2017001\WP\SRA\NlM\Afiidavil of Compliance NIM (l0-5-201t).d(r (Notary Seal) 9!rdvrq4ie Karol 9.A.7.f Packet Pg. 937 Attachment: Attachment E - NIM Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) - -r-a>.tat..t---.."-I lo"e, irt, tf< r{ ,i _ I r.' ,tt t.111 2 'ro,o.,rr.' rf':t 1. 1,,, i'lii,i'.l'J"" "' ,, , '.RJ.i .-.r-!FFtFaraF-ry i - - 9.A.7.f Packet Pg. 938 Attachment: Attachment E - NIM Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) NAPLESI{EWS.COM t FRIDAY,OCTOBER5,2OTS t t9A1 The public is invited to attend a neighborhood information meeting held by Robert J. Mulhere, FAICB Mce President, Planning SerUices of Hole Montes, lnc. and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire, of Coleman' Yovanovich and Koester, PA. on behalf of the property own€r at the following time and location: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 at 5r3O p.m. Peace Lutheran Church, Fellowship Hall 9850 lmmokalee Boad, Naples, Florida 34120 The following formal application has been made to Collier County: Petition SRA-PL2O18qxn622 - The petition is to establish a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) in the form of a Mllage over 654.79a acres of land located in eastern Collier County to be known as Collier lakes V]llage ("CLV"). The CLV is proposod to allow up to 1,800 dwelling units (1500* single family and 300i multFfamily)' 45,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses, and 18'000 square feet of civic, institutional and govemmental uses. The subject property is presently zoned A-MHO-RLSAO. The site is bounded on the south by Oil Well Road, on the wsst and north by Golden Gate Estates zoned properties and on the east by A-MHO- RLSAO properties in active agriculture proposed for inclusion in the Rural Lands West SRA Town Designation. The subject property is located at the intersection of Oil Wbll R<i'ad and Desoto Blvd. North, approximately 4 miles east of lmmokal€e Road, in Section 16, Township 48 South, Range 28 East' Collier County, Florida. iI I IliltCollier Lakes SRA WE VALUE YOUR INPUT Businsss and property owners, residents and visitors are welcome to attend the presentation and discuss the proiect with th€ owners and Collier County staff. lf you are unable to attend this meeting, but have questions or comments, they can be directed by mail, phone, or e-mail to: Robert J. Mulhere, FAICB Vice President, Planning Srervices Hole Montes, lnc. 950 Encore Way, Naples, Florida 341 l0 Phone: 239-254-2000, email: bobmulhere@hmeng.com October5,2018 ND-2128910 i I a t 9.A.7.f Packet Pg. 939 Attachment: Attachment E - NIM Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) }tHOLE nlMONTES 950 Encore Way. Naples, Florida 34110 . Phone 239.254.2000. Fex239.254.21i . Rc October 5,2018 Collier l,akes SRA (PL-20I 80000622) HM File No.: 2017.001 Dear Property Owner Please be advised that Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, Vice President, Planning services and Business Developmenl of Hole Montes, Inc. and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire, of Coleman, yovanovich and Koester, P.A. on behalf of the property owners, have filed the following formal application with Collier County: l'etition SRA-PL20180000622 - The petition is to establish a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) in the form ofa Village over 654.79+ acres ofland located in easlem Collier County to be known as Collier Lakes Village ("CLV"). The CLV is proposed to allow up to 1,800 dwelling units (l50G,r single family and 300+ multi-family), 45,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses, and 1 8,000 square feet of civic, institutional and governmental uses. The subject property is presently zoned A-MHO-RLSAo. The site is bounded on the south by oil well Road, on the west and north by Golden Gate Estates zoned properties and on the east by A- MHO-RLSAO properties in active agriculture proposed for inclusion in the Rural Lands west SRA Town Designation The subject property is located at the intersection of oil well Road and DeSoto Blvd. North, approximately 4 miles east of Immokalee Road, in Section 16, Township 48 South, Range 28 Easr, Collier County, Florida. In compliance with the Land Development code requirements, a Neighborhood Information Meeting will be held to provide you an oppo(unity 10 hear a presentation about this amendment and ask questions. The Neighborhood Information Meeting wi be held on wednesday, October 24,, 2018 at 5:30 p.m. at the Peace Lutheran Church, Fellowship Ha[, 9850 Immokalee Road, Naples, Florida 34120. Should you have questions prior to the meeting, please feel free to contact me ar 239-254-2000. Very truly yours, HOLE MONTES, INC. Naples . Fort Myers Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP Vice President, Planning Services RJIvI/sek 9.A.7.f Packet Pg. 940 Attachment: Attachment E - NIM Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) ,V'O srTdvrs ABATE, MARIE MILDRED SULLIVAN 223 STILLWATER CIR BROOKFIELo, CT 06804-..0000 ADAMA ET AL, JASON T 1732 W PIERCE AVE cHrcAco, tL 60622-'0000 ALEMAN, DABEIBA ROBERTO SANCHEZ 5142 ROMA ST AVE MARI& FL 34142---0000 ATVARAOO-MEZA, PEDRO ANA MIRIAM MEZA ARTI.JRO CARDENAS 3845 41ST AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120---1884 ALVAREZ, ANGELA ALVAREZ, MIGUEL=& CHRISTINE 8025 NW 185 TERR MtAMt, FL 33015--0000 AMADOR, YUNIER 3817 39TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120-{000 AMI,ROSE, JAMES P & DONNA J 3840 41ST AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120--1883 09 t8/09 t9@ tua^v ee^P slqllPdruoe uJur /9 x lxtu 9z lPu-rJol op ausnblE 09!8/09!9@ tus V r$!m stqsedum .8/9 z x ,, ! ozts loqEl ABSI,PHILIPE&GLORIAT 3790 S OtD 3C HWY GALENA, OH 43021-9438 ANDERSEN. AI.{THONY R 3790 35TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120-0000 BOYER, WARO L 4544 PINEWOOD DRIVE tEwrsToN, Mr 49756-0000 ANG, CHENG HEE 8417 HOLLOW BROOK CIR NAPLES, FL 34t79-9724 ARIAS, YOSMANI GAMBOA 4545 43RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120-0000 BAKER, CYNTHIA 853 LAMBTON CIR W LANCASTER, OH 43130*-0000 ..8ARBA{A H BOCK REVO TRUST 298154TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34720-7787 BETANCbRT, FELIEIA 1121 NW 24TH CT MtAMr, FL 33125--3101 BONILtA, 'ORGE L KARIN A CASTRO 4O3O 33RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120--0000 BROCX, DEVIN 5 & PAULA IvI 644 94TH AVE N NAPLES, FL 34708--2447 ARLEDGE, BEN'AMIN 4175 33RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120---4515 AVA(IAN, CHARLES M DONNA M BURDICK 2545 POINCIANA DR NAPLES FL 34105--0000 BALsEMO, FRANCESCO CARMEN UZCATEGUL 14743 INDIGO IAKES CIR NAPLES, FL 34119-0000 8ARONE, ANTHONY J 4170 33RD AVE NE NAPLES, Ft. 34120*4513 BETTENCOURT, RENEE M 3760 37TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120-_OOOO BLOCKER, DEAN KENNETH J BLOCKER 5R 1303 NEW MARKET RD W IMMOKA|-EE, FL 34742*2253 BREMER, CHRISTOPHER C ,IENNIFER EREMER 785-F MEADOWLAND DR NAPLE5, FL 34108--.r000 ARTESE, GRACE 4535 43RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120-{000 I i t I I t I I I I t I I I I I I I I I ) ) i I 1 I I EANDOMO, SORANGEL FERNANDO BANDOMO 1525 NE 180TH ST clrR& FL 32113-2294 STAPI.ES' E,.,.*JXTH;',];1il';,.1ffi'.l,i},frt':fl..'o1lu,%31*o,*04a AGUII.AR, SHEII.A I( 3850 43RD AVE NE NAPLE FL 34120--2918 eAEz, Mh-RirzA r 1011 NE LITNT RIVER DR M|AMt, FL 33138--{228 EtAROSLEYTR, GLENDAS G 5 BEARDSLEY RLT 12.30-98 2360 19TH ST SW NAPLES, FL 34777-4720 ' AuGUsrrN, FRAN( iESHLEh 2062 NW 104TH ST MIAMT, FL 33147--1349 li li It li )1 it il jr il ll I ll ll! rl IL jl lt ll 9.A.7.f Packet Pg. 941 Attachment: Attachment E - NIM Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) v'0 OgtS/Og t9@ /fie V3e^e slqllPdtuo3 urul /9 x urtu 9Z leuxo, op eNnbltl 09 t8/09 t9@ tuo^V t{l^r qqpduo.,8/q z x,|. 8z!s laqPl EBOWN S& |-AWRENCE F & RUTH 3820 41ST AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120--1883 srldvrs BRUNET, DANIEL 610 215T ST NW NAPLES, FL 34120-0000 CASTRO ET AI- MARINO M 1s308 5W 182ND TER M|AMt, Ft 33187--6229 BROOI(' VICIOR E & RALMETHA 122 HI.JDSON TER YONKERs, NY 10701--1914 BUSHEN, MARK E 4135 315T AVE NE NAPLE FL 34120---4s28 CARTER, REBECCA E 4525 43RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120-1553 CABEZAS, JUAN C & MICHELLE G 4431 43RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120---0000 CAPITAL HOMES INVEST & ALL LLC 2820 12TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120-0000 CARRASCO,ISAEL 3790 33RD AVE NE NAPLE FL 34120-0466 CABLE HOLDCO II INC ATTN: PROPERTYTAX DEPT 1701JOHN F KENNEDY BLVD FL32 PHIIADELPHt& PA 19103--2855 CAPO, BERTA 42E5 43RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120--0000 CASTRO, RAYMOND & CARMEN 30914TH Sr NE NAPLE5. FL 34120'-0000 CIARAMITARO, PAUL & LARISSA 150 PEACH CT MARCO lSl-AND, FL 34745-4727 CAPOTE, GUILLERMINA & KARIM 3830 37TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120-1520 CASTILLO, RAFAET A 215 W 2ND AVE KENNEWTCK, WA 99335-3918 CDC LAND INVESTMENTS LLC 2550 GOODLEITE RD N #1OO NAPLE FL 34103--0000 CHASE MRTG FINANCE CORP 3815 SW TEMPLE SALT r-A(E CITY, UT 84115--0000 COLLIER CNTY C/O REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 3335 TAMIAMI TR E, STE 101 NAPLES, FL 34112--0000 CORRADO, BRENDA 3780 415T AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120--1534 CULLISON, DYLAN FRANCESCA ROSE EROCK 4045 33RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120-0000 CONDE, OANIEL A MARIA E RENTERIA 4260 4OTH ST NE NAPLES, FL 34120-3252 COOK, ANNE GARRIS GEORGE HENRY COOK 3930 33RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120-4508 CORREIA ET UX, RICHARD W 144 NORTH ST wARE, MA 01082--1029 CUESTA, PEDRO P 7527 CRESCENT DR RAyTOWN, MO 64138-0000 D & I NAPLES INVESTORS LLC 19OO EMPRESS CT NAPLES, FL 34110-1004 OEAN, SHAWN 8067 DANCNG WIND LN f2OO5 NAPLES, FL 34119--0000 era E,tr trs' ..,^.^-l*^'l^.i:'"1:l ly1 ".::r11,::l*1,:.o".r^"u,,:g,g,x:l^",",^^ OEAN, SHAWN 8067 DANCING WIND LN#2005 NAPLES, Ft 34119-0000 EUTTARI, SAMUEL V & ANNA] 528 HIGHLAND TER PITMAN, NJ 08071*1524 il I I cAllx, r"urs NILDA A CAUX 23918TH AVE 5E NAPLES, FL 34117--{000 COCXERILL, CHERYL E 5444 FARMINGDALE OR WARRENTON, VA 20!87 _9279 il 9.A.7.f Packet Pg. 942 Attachment: Attachment E - NIM Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) , V?O OIA2-.IIMENEZ, ANTONIO L ELIANA P DIAZJIMENEZ 1868 HTGHWAY 73 SOUTH MARIANNA, FL 32/t48--0000 FIALLO, ADELA MATiLDE 550 SW 138TH AVE APT K212 PEMBROKE PINES, FL 33027--OOOO DUDAsH, WILLIAM ] 289 ROBBIE LN VALPARA|SO, tN 46385-8836 EDWAROS, DENISE M 4235 43RD AVE NE NAPLE FL 34120-2838 EXNER, TAUREL O WILLIAM EXNER 4380 33RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120-4506 FCE CONSTRUCNON INC 9077 GERVATR CtR #910 NAPLES, FL 3412HOOO FERNANDEZ, MARIANEI-A ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ PEREZ ROLANDO FERNANDEZ 275 ROLTINGWOOD TRAIL ALIAMONTE SPRING, FL 32714_.OOOO DECARO ESI CHARLES % ELVIRA CAULFIELD 168 MONROE ST MASTtC, NY 11950--4505 DIAZ, CESAR J 4240 33RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120-0000 FOX, SCOTT D & BEIH A 412043RD AVE NE NAPLES,FL 34120---2817 sTApn FS',,,",""110:l^'::".1;l::"^T:'i1:,:I]lill,:33u.111'x1f,o^n,o,.n nAL 09t8/09t9@ tu3^V ca^P alq[Eduo3 urtu /9 x tlrtx 9z lPtlJlol op 0l]enbB 09t8/09r9@ /tu3^V r[!/'^ elqllpdruoe ,,9/9 z x.l ezls lsqEl S]ldVIS FAIRHOMES PEARL PROPERTIES LLC 10 STATION LN UNIONVII.LE, ON CANADA U}R 1R4 FELICIANO, FIDEL M & MARTA 4065 3lSTAVE NE NAPLES, tL 34120---4452 FL STAR CONSTRUCTION LLC 7742 ALTCO RD FORT MYERS, FL 33912-OOOO FRNST INVESTMEMT INC 2580 DESOTO BTVD S NAPLES, FL 34117-1235 FAULKNER, ADRIAN &TAMMY 4095 31ST AVE NE NAPLE' FL 34I20-M62 FERNANDEZ, CAiILO'F REBECCA A FERNANDEZ 25419 NW 101ST PL HtGH 5PRrN65, FL 32543--9810 DETWEILER, TIMOTHY L DARLENE LANHAM 3810 39TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120-7560 DIAZ, EVALDO MARTHA ACOSTA 3845 27TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120-0000 DOR, CELITA 4220 4OTH ST NE NAP|"ES, FL 3412G-0000 DIAZ, OSMELJ & JACqUELINE 3770 41ST AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120-1534 DROZD ET UX, WALTER .J 35 COLONIAL DR ct-ARK,N.t 07066--2601 FERREL!, DOUGtAS.' SHAWNA L FERRELL 735 CORAL OR CAPE CORAL, FL 33904-5902 FORTES, HUGO I.AZARO IESSIE FORTES 14752 SW 159TH LN MlAlrll, FL 33187--1744 OIAZ, ALEERTO & HACINIA M 4048 33RD AVE NE NAPTES, FL 34120*-4514 FRONK ET UX, RAYfuIOND ] c/o MARSHA A BOt\4MER 4OS IUMPER DR S EUSHNELt- FL 33513---8401 FERNANDEZ-BRUBAKER TR, ELENA E FERNANDE2.ERUBAKER LIV/TRUST DAVID ALEXANDER FERNANDEZ 4201 5W 96TH AVE MtAMt, FL 33165--0000 ) I ) I I I FRESTA JOINT REV TRUST 6765 PLAINVIEW AVE sT LOUI5, MO 63109--0000 DURKAIACEK A 12761WATERUNE UNIT4 FT MYERS, FL 33908_OOOO ELLIOTT,,IAMES F 379139TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120--7546 i I l l I I i I I I I I I I I I I l ) I l l j 1 I ! I 1 I I I I i I I DUTHIE, CRISAN 221 PAUSADE AVE 8oGOTA, NJ 07503-1418 9.A.7.f Packet Pg. 943 Attachment: Attachment E - NIM Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Yr0 S]ldVIS FUNDOR& LEO & MONICA 303 71ST STREET GUTTENBERG, N,, 07093_.OOOO FURLONG, JAY 27 COlr LN NORWtCH, Cr 06350---2423 GAIVIEZ, NOEL & LEA M 3810 43RD AVE NE NAPTE FL 34120--0000 GARCIA, MARCELA D 4260 33R0 AVE NE NAPLET FL 34120-4504 GARZA, MANUELJOSHUA FELICIA GARZA 4185 43RD AVE NE NAPLET FL 34120--0000 GATOR INVESTMENT OF SW FL IINC 4184 6TH AVE NE NAPLES. FL 34120--0000 GOMEZ, FELIPE PASLO ROSALIA MIGUEL PABLO 4250 4oTH Sr N E NAPLES, FL 34120-3252 GOMEZ MARIBEL C 4430 KENTUCKY WAY AVE MAR|A FL 34142--5016 GONZALEZ, GRETIEL OSCAR GARCIA 839 COPA DEORO MARATHON, FL 33050_-OOOO GONZALEZ, YULLET VICHOT ALIAN ZAII,A LARA 4361 43RD AVE NE NAPLES, tL 34120-0000 GREENHALGH, KATHRYN BLAIR€ DONNA MARIE LESSARD 4345 43RD AVE N E NAPLET FL 34120--0000 HAEITAT FOR HUMANITY COLLIER COUNTY INC 11145 TAMIAMITRAIL E NAPLET rL 34r.13--0000 HALL,TIMOTHY BRIAN TIFFANY NICOTE HAI"L 3750 33RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120-0000 HAN, THIN T 34 ELIE CT SIATEN ISLAND, NY 10314_-6019 HARSTEIN ET AL, ANNETTE 102 WYMING AVE AUDUBON, NJ 08106-1557 HERNANOEZJR, CAESAR SAMANTHA ALEXANORIA MOLINA 4371 NE 43RD AVE NAPLET FL 34120-0000 09 t8i09 19@ tue^v 3s^P eElleduo, ruur l9 x uI! 9a puxoJ op ollanblB 09 t8/09 19@ tua^v qua otqoEduroc r8l9 z x . ! ozls pqEl HERNANDEZ, ERICK ALBITER 2517 30TH ST SW LEHIGH ACRES, FL 33976_0000 HERNANDEZ, ESTELA 3845 315TAVE NE NAPLET FL 34120-2924 GRIEsER, CHARI-ES 4670 45TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120--0000 HERNANOEZ, IRASHEMA PO BOX 1344 ESTERO, FL 33929--1344 HOUSEHOLDER, DIANE THOMAS F COLA 30 EVERGREEN DR GEORGETOWN, DE 19947.-9483 ITURRALDE, IOSE & AIDA PO BOX 110126 HtALEAH, Ft 33011--0126 JACQUES,IUAN F 382135TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120--0000 HERNANDEZ, MARIA E & RIGOBERTO JOSE RTUAOA PORTILLO 4155 43R0 AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120--0000 HERRERA, YANDRY GARCIA ODAIMY MAYOR 50LIs 4557 43RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120--0000 HUSTON JR, LEROY 5 & RUTH 3122 COLEMAN CI ROCK HtLl" SC 29732-8073 I C BROKERS NURSERY I.LC 3790 33 AVE NE NAPLES, FL 3412HOOO J GEISTWEITE REVTRUST 65515W 75TH TER souTH M|AMI, FL 33143--4673 JACKSON, DOTTIE 4277 43RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120--2838 sra pF F s"-"."110ii,:,"l l i:," 9:r*,::lli*,:y"^.::u.o,,xs^^,^, ^"n/,1A HEATH, LAUREN N 4210 3RD AVE NE NAPLE Fr 34120-4000 ii I i I : I I I 9.A.7.f Packet Pg. 944 Attachment: Attachment E - NIM Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) v?0 09t8/09 t9@ fua^vra^e 0lqlPduos u{u l9 x uJur gz lPul.rol op sllanbllJ 09 !8/0919@ tua^v qlpr slqltPdum ,,8/9 e x , [ ozls taqPl JANKOVIAK TR, PAUT R & DOROTHY ,AN(OVIAK FAMILYTRUST uTo 70/26100 1375 E TWINBROOK DR DEWTTT, Mt 48220-0000 JAMES F ASCHER LIV REVIRUST 3510 WtLD tNDt60 LN 80NlTA SPRlN65, FL 34134--7977 IEWELL LIVING TRUSI 5544 N NAVAjO AVE GLENDALE, WI 53217-5039 IOSEPH, MERIENNE 4075 3lSTAVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120--4462 KNOWLTON, JOHN DALE &.IULIE S 3957 315TAVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120--4403 , LAFTAMME TR, MAURICE BARBARA LAFLAMME TR LAFLAMME FAMILY INVTR 3.5.95 68 MARY LOU CT RAYNHAM, MA 02767-5253 TAWHORN ]R, CARL C KAREN J LAWHORN 8746 WINDING CREEK WAY PtcKERtN6TON, OH 43747 -78L7 JOHNSON, SEVERLY ANDREA CAOET 12301 NW 20TH CT PLANTATION, FL 33323_1949 JOSEPH, MICHAEL 4230 33RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120--4504 KOMPINSKI, NICHOI.AS 3835 41ST AVE N E NAPLES, Ft 34120-0000 LAPUENTE, ATAITI GUZMAN 4235 33RD AVE NE NAPLES, tL 34120-0000 LAYME, ANGIE E 1067 DUDLEY DR KISSIMMEE, FL 34758 2979 l LE, LINH D &TRANG NT 912 HERITAGE PKWY 5 ALLEN, TX 75002--5752 LEANDRE, WESLY & CARLINE 3585 2ND AVE 5E NAPLE FL 34117-{000 LEONARD, YORDANIS MILLARES 4453 43RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120-{000 LONDONO, LUIS BEATRIZ MAYA 3730 415T AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120---1534 LONGSTRETH, CODY R & 5UsAN M 3857 39TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120--0000 LUGONE' OILDA M 2146 DESOTO BLVD S NAPLES, Fr 34117-4000 MAOHU, DAISY % O'CONNOR TAW FIRM 2240 BELTEAIR RD sTE 115 CLEARWAIER,FL 33764-,0000 I l l i STAPLES",.""lx*'L?;.,I;1,,:f;#l,f .l:*Iili,,fll:,,"":flfl ,Hf ,%,** MATA LTC 7171SW 62ND AVE sIE 503 sourH MtAMt, FL 33143-4723 NTA SsldVIS JEMEC, LILTIE 4015 31ST AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120-4462 JOHNSON, CHERYL ANN 27830 SW 132ND CT HOMESTEAD, FL 33032---8553 KIRNON, ELVIS 4245 4OTH ST NE NAPLES, FL 34120.-3253 KWIK STOP LTC 215 SW 125TH AVE PLANTATION, FL 33325-.OOOO TARAM CONSTRUCTION INC 110 WILsON BLVD 5 NAPLES, FL 34117-0000 IAZO, OSNAIVY 3830 35TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120--3237 I I LEE ET UX, JAMES 11 KNOLL RD NORTH OAKS, MN 55127--6469 LIESER, GLORIA ANN DAVID A LIESER 2O7O RIVERSIDE DR coLUMBUS, OH 4322r---4013 LUBIN, WATSON & DAVI 3790 39TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120--0000 I I I I i I I LICOR, ORIOL YOHANY LICOR 6740 ROYAL MEIBOURNE DR HtALEAH, FL 33015---2121 I I t I I I I I t I I I I i I l \ I i I ) I I I j I I I I I I i I I It. I t I I I i I 9.A.7.f Packet Pg. 945 Attachment: Attachment E - NIM Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) ,v?0 OgtS/09t9@ iUoAV ca E onsEduroc tllur /g x urul9Z leulol0p ouenbry 09 tu09 1.9@ tue v $trvl elqltEduios ,8/9 z x " I szls laqel MARQUEZ, MARIO &TERESA INEZ 10210 sw 17TH CT I DAVTE, FL 33324-7453 ssldvrs MARTINEZ, ALBINO & JULIA 975 LEO CT MARCO |SLAND, FL 34145-5982 MC CANN, CHARLES E & DENISE A 3612 DOGWOOD 5T NW uNroNTowN, oH 446a5--9117 MENDOZA, DENIS F & ARJANI A 4120 33RD AVE NE NAPLES, tL 34120-0000 NAPLES FUNDING tLC 20 N MARTINGALE RD STE 180 SCHAUMEURG, lL 60172--0000 MALDONADO, MARGARITA RENE D MALDONADO 4217 43RO AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120- 2838 MARTINEZ, CRUZ & SHAWNA 1510 AVERY ELISSA LAN E CEDAR PARK, TX 78613..0000 NOZIL SYLVA LUCE NOZIL SYLVAIN 3744 415T AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120--1534 OLIVARES PROPERTIES INV LLC 9055 GERVAIS CIR APT 1407 NAPLES, FL 34120--0000 IVC GANN, PETER F & VIVIAN 841 95TH AVE N NAPLES, FL 34108---2458 MIRANDA MANUEL PROPERTIES CORP 12390 NE 2 COURT NORTH MtAMl, FL 33161---0000 MCWILLIAMS, DANE & ERANDY 3995 315T AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120--0000 MARTINEZ, SHELLY RICO ALVARADO 4O4O 33RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120-{514 MARTINEZ, WILLIAM 3785 37TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34720--2424 MORENO ET AL, EEATRIZ E C/O ANGELA M LONDONO 1OO1 MURCOTT DR NAPLES, tL 34120--1478 MORI-STEELE, NILDAJ 4180 33RD AVE NE NAPLE FL shrzo--4srg MOSKOS, BASIL L 134 EOSTON POSI RD WAYI-AND, MA 01778--0000 MUNOZ, FAEIAN RAMIRO CACERE5 P STEFANIA CACERES CARDENAS 3882 39TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120---0000 NEISON, STACY A 3790 43RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120-0457 MUSLIMANI, SALIM 376139TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34720--7546 NIACE, HEBERT RAYMONDE LUUEAN 4255 43RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120--0000 NOROILUS, ROSMICK & ROSE A 5775 PAITITED LEAF LN NAPLES, FL 34116--0000 O.8RIEN, SANORA MARIE CHARLES F O.BRIEN 3814 37TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 3412&-1520 ORTEGA, HECTOR & MIRTA 3975 315T AVE NE NAPLE FL 34120-4403 NISADA LLC iT411PINE RIDGE RD NAPLES, FL 34119---4066 NODA FI. CORP 3212OTH AVE NE NAPLES FL 34120--0000 rl NUNEZ, IBRAHIM & CARLENE 4290 33RD AVE NE NAPtES, FL 34120-4504 OLIVER, HADAD 3302 15TH SI SW LESIGH ACRES, FL 33976--2934 sTA ptr Fs".,^,,",110i1^*'.1 ;1,-:ygHlT::llill,:.,*..:::0,,x:1"^,", ^" MONROIG, LETICIA 3780 37TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120--2827 ir MURIEL D STOLMAN TRUST LINOA GUTIERREZ 3170 NEWMAN DR NAPLES, FL 34t!4--t204 i I ] I llA/l 9.A.7.f Packet Pg. 946 Attachment: Attachment E - NIM Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) .,vto S]NdVIS O58ORN, DEXTER & CHRISTINE 4680 43RD AVE NE NAPLES,FL 34120,--0000 OSBORN, DEXTER G MEGAN C OSBORN 4670 43RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120--1540 OVIES, CARLOS YHIRO 3740 43RD AVE NE NAPLES. FL 34120--0000 PAMPILLO, VIANA ACOSTA LUIS E LEDESMA 3795 37TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120-{000 PANTOJA, EDDY & ADRIANNA 3970 415T AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120*0000 PARENT, DALE L & LINDA D 43 SANDRA DR JAX BCH. FL 322s0--4068 PARK PLACE SECURTIES INC % OCWEN AfiENTION: VAULI DEPIARTMENT 5720 PREMIER PARK DR wE5T PAIM BEACH, Ft 33407--0000 PATTERSON, RONEY & SHARON 5OSl PALMETTO WOOOS DR NAPLES, Ft 34119-0000 PENA, YANEISY 3830 33RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120---0502 PEREZ, VIVIAN S ANTONIO AIVAREZ JUAN CARLOS ALVAREZ FIDELINAJ ALVAREZ 521 E ,MTH ST HIALEAH, FL 33013._1913 PINZON, MANUEL & JENNICER C 28OO FLETCHER AVE #11 LINCOLN, NE 68504-0000 PLOCK, DOUGLAS ANIHONY 11234TANGELO TERR BONTTA SPRtNGS, FL 34135--0000 PORTER, TIMOTHY AI.fREOO D FERNANDEZ 3915 33RD AVE NE NAPLE FL 34120--4553 PRICE, SONIA M 126 E 12TH STf38 NEW YORK, NY 10003--5331 PROENZA, VICTOR M RODRIGUEZ ZITA D PIEDRA BARRETO 4130 33RD AVE NE NAPLE FL 34120---0000 PROPER MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC 6188 MIRAMAR PKWY MIRAMAR, FL 33023-3940 qSMITH HOMES LLC % THE LIGHTSTONE GROUP 1985 CEDAR BRIDGE AVE STE 1 LAKEWOOD, Nl 08701---7031 QPCOM INC 5162 SW 173R0 AVE MTRAMAR, FL 33029--0000 QUINTERO,,IOSE ABREY A QUINTERO .IOHN QUINTERO ANA L MONIES 7570 NW 14TH ST STE 102 MlAMr, FL 33126--1701 RAMIREZ DESBY E 3766 39TH AV€ NE NAPLE FL 34720--7545 RAPP, ARHIAHNA 3735 39TH AVE NE NAPLET FL 34120-7546 RAUDNER, HANNES M AN6EL MARIA NAUDNER 3850 37TH AVE NE NAPLEs, FL 34120-1520 RELIK APPAREL INC 4385 22ND ST NE NAPLES, FL 34120--0000 REY, CHARLES & IVARIE 3760 43RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120 ,-04s7 ROBB!N5, WILLIAM K & VICKI L 4085 315TAVE NE NAPLE FL 34720--4462 0918/09t9@ tus^V 3a^E elq0edulo, urru 19 x uJru 9Z lplxro, op aFnbnl 0918/0919@ IJa^V q!,Yr alqrledtuos ,,8/9 Z x rl ozs laqel POLIZZI, JEFFREY 18 COLD SPRING RO MERCERVT tLE, I'lJ 04679 -227 1 PRINCE, THOMAS H & VALERIE M 9068 HUNTER BAY DR BRtGHTON, Mt 48114--4933 I I I I l I l I I I l l i I I I RENTERIA.HERRERA, IESU5 JUAN RAMON RENTERIA 4280 33RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120--0000 I STAPT-ES',',",,,,J10i1"'Jl'^l;l 111'#ffi.l'lii};llffh'il,u:";f,0..,,,* ROORIGUEZ, DAYMIS 1210 GOLDEN GATE SLVD E NAPLES, FL 34120--3601 n/la OSPINA, GUIDO E 8216 NW 201ST ST HIALEAH, FL 33015-5936 I I I ! t I i i i I I I I i L I I ( I I i I i I l i I I 9.A.7.f Packet Pg. 947 Attachment: Attachment E - NIM Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) v?0 09t8/o9ts@ tu3^v 3a^s sEllPdujo3 txrx 19 x uJuJ 9z FurJol op 0uanb[] 09 t8l09 t9@ tua^v qurv\ 3lq[sdu$ r8/9 z x ,, l. ozls laqEl RODRIGUEZ, PEDRO E 2420 5W 83RD CT MrAMr, FL 33155--2462 ssTdvrs ROI"OAN, JUAN L ERIKA PEREZ 3765 39TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120-0000 ROMAN, KELLY MICHELLE 3820 43RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120--2918 ROMERO, CELINA MI,IANGO 3745 415T AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120-,-0000 ROMERO, JOSE O & CETINA M 2185 GREENBAC( CIR fi 7.102 NAPLES, FL 34112-3948 ROSALES, DONALD A 15111SW 58TH ST MtAMt, FL 33193-3008 ROSALES, JOSEA EETANCOURT KYRENIS N ESPINOSA SAMADA 4340 33RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120--0000 sAN JUAN, MAXIMO ALEIDA BRIZUELA SAN ]UAN 6423 COLLINS AVE APT 303 MIAMI BEACH, FL 33141-4640 SANCHEZ, ROBERTO PEREZ 4175 43RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120_-OOOO SANIILLI, MARLENE J 224 oWL CT FREMONT, CA 94539-6200 SANTO' KAREN 6ANZO JULIO H SOTO SWABY 3770 33RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120-0000 RODRIGUEZ, JAVIER C & ANA L 3820 37TH AVENUE NE NAPLES, FL 34120---0000 SILVA CANDIDO & MARIA M 15435 SW 26TH TER MtAMt, Ft 33185-4866 SIMKONIS, NATHAN W LINDSAY A BOYER 4335 43RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120--0000 SCAGLIA, PABLO & VANESSA 674 NW 134TH PL MlAMt, FL 33182--1668 SHERAKO TR, FRANKI FARHATJ XHAWAIA TR RESTTRUST NANA B LONG BAY STREET PHARMACY 523 HONEYTLOWER LOOP BRADENTON, FL 34212-.OOOO SINGLfiARYSR, CHARLES K CATHERINE A SINGLETARY 2590 WILSON BI.VD N NAPLES, FL 34120-3302 5MITH, MARCIAJ 376135TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34T20_7479 STEC,ADOLFE&BERNICE 22 FOSTER AVE VALLEY STREAM, NY 11580_2936 SCHEPPERLY, DYTAN J 3830 39TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120-0000 SEK, KAZIMIERZ 3863 4lSTAVE NE NAPLET FL 34120-1884 S]OSTRAND ET UX, N ROBERT 8512 SHOAL CT EAKERSF|EtD, CA 93312*5513 SLANOA ET UX, JOSEPH E % LEON SLANDA 352 AUDUBON RO LEEDS. MA 01053-9770 sIEVEs, LORENZO RAMIREZ ELIDA LOPEZ 3782 33R0 AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120---0466 sTAp0 trs' ._,",^.11Tp:'"1;i:,"S:'j1:,::l*i,:1^'^:,:u.,0,,::l^^,,^" STRONG, VICKI tYNN 2390 8TH AVE SE NAPLES, FL 34117-0000 SOUTHWEST PERMACULTURE LTC 2921SHERMAN AVENUE NAPLE FL 34120--0000 RO'AS,ISAURA 4420 33RD AVE NE NAPLEs, FL 34120---4551 ROMERO, JAVIER 8247 NW 194TH TER HIALEAH, FL 33015-6951 SOIIZ, RENE A 6039 SHALLOWS WAY NAPLET FL 34109-0000 STEVENST& DONALD ulo 4126107 MARY M STEVENS TR u"ro 4l26lot 6281SEA GRASS I.N NAPLES, FL 34116-5435 rlll 9.A.7.f Packet Pg. 948 Attachment: Attachment E - NIM Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 'vt0 0918/09 t9@ tuo v ce P sn0Edujos urLrr /9 x ur''! 9z lBtxrol op alanbnJ 0g 18/09 t9@ Ira v q$ etq0Pduros ,8/9 z x .l. szls laqEl s3!dvrs T & ] S VENTURA 2018 REV TRUST 1550 SONORA CT PALM SPRTNGS, CA 92264---3560 TIGHE, MICHAEL EOWARD 15l FTAMINGO RD TUCKERTON, N.J 08087---2408 SUAREZ, NOEL % AMERICAN PRIME LLC 5775 BLUE LAGOON DR #350 MrAMt, FL 33126--0000 T METRO CONSTRUCTION LLC 485l TAMIAMITRL N NAPLES, FL 34103--0000 THAMMAVONG, ADISONE PHETHSAKHONE THAMMAVONG 2550 6TH AVE NE NAPLES, Ft 34120---7602 TORRES, RO6ELIO HERNANDEZ 3755 41ST AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120---1535 IRIANA,ILEANA JORGE GOMEZ 100005w3RDST MrAMl, FL 33174--0000 VEG4 EDILEYDIS & RAYDEL 3775 41ST AVENUE NE NAPLES, FL 34120-t000 SUNSHINE FL APARTMENTs INC 1O3O PORT ORANGE WAY NAPLES. FL 34120-0000 TARPON IV LLC 18305 S|SC YNE BI-VD STE 400 AVENTURA Fr 33L60-2L72 THOMPSON, STE2HEN S PATRICIA LTHOMPSON 4295 315T AVE NE NAPI"E5, FL 34!20-4495 TRAVIS DELAsHMET TARA DELAsHMET 381135TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120-3238 TURCZYN LIVING TRUST 4581oAK 5T oscoDA, Mt 48750-0000 URBIN4 ADALID 3735 37TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120-0000 VILLARRAGA EDISON & MARIA 4420 43RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120---OOOO WILLIAMS, TAUREL 7849 DIOIOO BLVD MIRAI\4AR, FL 33023--0000 WINCHESTER LANO LLC lOONTAMPAST#3700 TAMPA, FL 33602--0000 TREGANZA MAT & HATHAIRATH 2480 5TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120--0000 UPADHYAYA NARENORA R & MAYURI 11067 GARDEN RIDGE CT DAVTE, FL 33328--7308 VALENZUEI.A, NEHEMIAS 4265 31ST AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120---4495 WELLS, NADINE GTADYS KRISTIN L WEL6 2344 HERITAGE GREENS DR NAPLES, FL 34119--3312 i I VAUBEL, vERNoN r & cARoLE 4901 W 54TH ST PRAIRIE VILtAGE, KS 65208-1325 WILLIAMS, I(RISTIAN L 377139rH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 3412G--7546 I t WITSON TR, GEORGE G RITA M WITSON TR KIM M SHERMAN TR uro 6l!6105 10220 FAIRWAY DR ELLICOTT CITY, MD 21042-2115 ZUFERRI, AIDA L 3815 37TH AVE NE NAP|-ES, FL 34120--1521 WIISON, WAOE & RACHEL 3980 33RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120-.OOOO GOLDEN GATE CIVIC ASSOC. 47O I GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY NAPLES, FL 34I 16 label slze l' x 2 5/8' mmpatible witi Avery @S160/8160 ''ltc.16 f^rmet 16 mm y 67 mm mmnatihta evpa trvcrv @5160/g160 ola VALLE, ]ORG. ALBERTO iLORES 5495 25TH PLSW NAPLES, Ft 34116---0000 VARGHESE, GEORGE CHECHAMMA GEORGE 703 SHERMAN AVE THORNWOOD, NY 10594-1428 TAYLOR, CYNTHIA L ]ENNY REES-ANDERSON CHRISTINE GROENEWALD 5781 DRUMMOND WAY NAPLEs, FL 34119--9s26 ULLOA, YADIEL 60MEZ 3730 37TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120--2827 I l I i l I I l 1 I ) I I I l i I I I l 9.A.7.f Packet Pg. 949 Attachment: Attachment E - NIM Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 1,L-5-L9 NIM 9.A.7.f Packet Pg. 950 Attachment: Attachment E - NIM Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) LE ENGINEERS PTANNERS SURVEYORS Re: 950 Encore Way .Naples, Florida 34110. Phone 239.254.2000. Fax: 239.254.2099 October 24,2019 VIA HAND DELruERY Tim Finn, AICP, Principal Planner Growth Management Division 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Hyde Park Village SRA (SRA-PL20180000622) 2nd Neighborhood Information Meeting HM File No.2017.001 Dear Mr. Finn: Enclosed please find the following documents in accordance with Collier County's Neighborhood Information Meeting requirements: o One (l) original executed Affidavit of Compliance (signed by Robert J. Mulhere);o One (l) copy of the Neighborhood Information Meeting Notice advertisement which ran in the Naples Daily News on October 21,2019 o One (1) copy of Neighborhood Information Meeting Notification Letter sent to Property Owners on October 21,2019;and o One (1) copy of Property Owners List. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact me. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, HOLE MONTES,INC. Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP Vice President, Planning Services & Business Development RJlWsek Enclosures as noted. H:U017\201700I\WASRA\2nd NII\ATF 191024 ltr tr MM support documcnrs.docx Naples . Fort Myers 9.A.7.f Packet Pg. 951 Attachment: Attachment E - NIM Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) AFFIDAYIT OF COMPLIANCE I hereby certifu that pursuant to Ordinance 2004-41, the Collier County Land Development Code, as amended, I did cause the attached newspaper advertisement to appear and I did give notice by mail to the following property owners and/or condominium and civic associations whose members may be aflected by the proposed land use changes ofan application request fot a rezoning, PUD amendment, or conditional use, at least 15 days prior to the scheduled Neighborhood Information Meeting. For the purposes of this requirement, the names and addresses of property owners shall be deemed those appearing on the latest tdx rolls of Collier County and any other persons or entities who have made a formal request of the County lo be notified. T\e said notice contained the laymen's description of the site property of proposed change and the date, time, and place ofa Neighborhood Information Meeting. Per the attached letters, property owner's list, and copy of newspaper advertisement which are hereby made a part ofthis Affidavit of Compliance. gnature o f Applicant) ROBERT J. MUL}IERE. FAICP (Printed name of Applicant) STATE OF FLORIDA COLNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing Affidavit of compliance was acknowledged before me this of October 2019. bv ROBERT J. MI]I,FAICP. w is oersonallv to me or who has prod uced as identification. (si of Notary Public) g Print Name of Notary STEPNAI{I€ I(^ROT Notrry Publlc - Sl.t! ot Florldr Commis!lon a tf 9399E0 My Comm. trplrer Mar 9, 2020 Sqrhdfiq{h il1al. ilrry Aro. H:Uol 7U0l 7001\WASRA\2nd NtM\Aftidavil of Comptianc. NIM (10-24-20tg).doc (Notary Seal) 9.A.7.f Packet Pg. 952 Attachment: Attachment E - NIM Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) l I I 2 E E F ? held by Robert J.M ulhere,EAI CP,Vice Hole Montes, Inc. and Richard D. Yovanovich and Koester, P.A. on following time and location: bf the 5, -i 2019 Collier l47lJlD ImmoLaleRor4 The followilg formal appfication has Petition SRA-PL201Efln0622 - Thepetitioh Receiving Area (SRA) in the land located in east'ern Collibr Hyde Park Village ls single family and commercial uses, and 18,000 governmental uses. The subject property is presently l zoBed :t ^A-bounded on the sotth by oil Well the Gate Estates zoned Parkway and A-MHO. The subject ls Iorvated at DeSoto Section 16, Township Business and property owners, residents and visitors are welcome to attend the presentation and discuss the project with the owners and Collier county staff If you are rlnable to attend this meeting, but have questions or comments, they can be directed by mail, phone, or e-mail to: Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, Vice president, planning Services Hole Montes, Inc. ,, 950 Encore Way, Naples, Florida 34110 Phone: 239 -254-2000, email: bobmulhere@hmeng.com @1alHt ; i v I L t, I I I Hyde 1m ..: I WE VALITE YOUR INPI-TT 9.A.7.f Packet Pg. 953 Attachment: Attachment E - NIM Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) ENGINEERS : PLANNERS SURVEYORS Re 950 Encore Way . Naples, Florida 34110 . Phone 239.254.2000. Fax:239.254.2099 October 2I,2019 Hyde Park Village SRA (PL-20180000622) HM File No.: 2017.001 Dear Property Owner: Please be advised that Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, Vice President, Planning Services and Business Development of Hole Montes, Inc. and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire, of Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, P.A. on behalf of the properfy owners, have filed the following formal application with Collier County: Petition SRA-PL20180000622 - The petition is to establish a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) in the form of a Village over 654.79+ acres of land located in eastern Collier County to be known as Hyde Park Village. Hyde Park Village is proposed to allow up to 1,800 dwelling units (1500+ single family and 300+ multi-family), 45,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses, and 18,000 square feet of civic, institutional and govemmental uses. The subject property is presently zoned A-MHO-RLSAO. The site is bounded on the south by Oil Well Road, on the west and north by Golden Gate Estates zoned properties and on the east by the future Big Cypress Parkway and A-MHO-RLSAO properties The subject properly is located at the intersection of Oil Well Road and DeSoto Blvd. North, approximately 4 miles east of Immokalee Road, in Section 16, Township 48 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. In compliance with the Land Development Code requirements, a Neighborhood Information Meeting will be held to provide you an opportunity to hear a presentation about this amendment and ask questions. The Neighborhood Information Meeting will be held on Tuesday, November 5,2019 at 5:30 p.m. at the Collier County UF/IFAS Extension, Multi-Purpose Room, l4T00Immokalee Road, Naples, FL34120. Should you have questions prior to the meeting, please feel free to contact me at239-254-2OOO. Very truly yours, HOLE MONTES,INC. J. Mulhere, FAICP Vice President, Planning Services RJIWsek Naples . Forl Myers 9.A.7.f Packet Pg. 954 Attachment: Attachment E - NIM Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) *o TnnP,,#',1','il:^?llffT,f,,Sf,##?iil'#i"',,'i,l-**' SIIdVIS 4285 43RD AVE NE TRUST 230 EAST 79TH 5T APT f 5C NEW YORK, NY 10075--0 ACOSTA, NORBERTO YUSIMI FERNANDEZ 3822 35TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120-.0 ALEMAN, DABEIBA ROBERTO SANCHEZ 5142 ROMA ST AVE MARIA, FL 34142_0 ALVARADO-MEZA, PEDRO ANA MIRIAM MEZA ARTURO CARDENAS 3845 41ST AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120-1884 AMADOR, YUNIER 3817 39TH AVE NE NAPLES FL 34120--0 ANG, CHENG HEE 8417 HOLLOW BROOK CIR NAPLES, FL 341L9_-9724 ARLEDGE, BENJAMIN 4175 33RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120-4515 BAKER, CYNTHIA 853 LAMBTON CIR W LANCASTER, OH 43130_-0 BARBARA H BOCK REVO TRUST 2981 54TH AVE NE NAPLE FL 34720-!787 BETANCORI FEL|CtA 1121 NW 24TH CT MrAMt, FL 33125_-3101 I I I I I I I I ABATE, MARIE MILDRED SULLIVAN 223 STILLWATER CIR BROOKFIELD, CT 06804.-0 ADAMA ET AL, JASON T 7732W PIERCE AVE CHICAGO, tL 50522---0 ALEMAN, DABEIBA ROBERTO SANCHEZ 5142 ROMA ST AVE MAR|A FL 34L42-O ALVAREZ, ANGELA ALVAREZ, MIGUEL=& CHRISTINE 8025 NW 185 TERR MtAMl, FL 3301s---O AMBROSE, JAMES P & DONNA J 3840 41Sr AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120--1883 APRYL NOEL ZRUST 4140 33RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120_-0 ARTESE, GRACE 4535 43RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120--0 BALSEMO, FRANCESCO CARMEN UZCATEGUL 14743 INDIGO LAKES CIR NAPLES, FL 34119-.0 BARONE, ANTHONY J 4170 33RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120--4513 BETIENCOURT, RENEE M 3750 37TH AVE NE NAPLE' FL 34120--0 ABSI, PHILIP E & GLORIA T 3790 S OLD 3C HWY GALENA, OH 43021---9438 AGUILAR, SHEILA K 3860 43RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34t20---29t8 ALL AROUND QUALITY HOMES INC 1125 SW TRAFALGAR PKWY CAPE CORAL, FL 33991_0 ALVAREZ, JUAN CARLOS 521 E 44 STREET HIALEAH, FL 33013_.0 ANDERSEN, ANTHONY R 3790 35TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120_0 ARIAs, YOSMANI GAMBOA 4545 43RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120-0 AVAKIAN, CHARLES M DONNA M BURDICK 4242 4oTH Sr NE NAPLET FL 34120-32s2 BANDOMO, SORANGEL FERNANDO BANDOMO 1525 NE 180TH ST clTRA, FL 32773--2294 BEARDSLEY TR, GLENDA S G 5 EEARDSLEY RLT 12.30-98 2350 19TH ST SW NAPLES, FL 347t7--4720 BLANCO, JORGE ALBERTO SICILIA YULIET PEREZ PEREZ 3842 37TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120-.-0 : I i I I i I : ! I i i I I I I i i.! t I I STAP[ES't.. .. label size 1" x2 ill" compatible with Avery @S160/8160FtinnAttc dn formal 25 mm v 67 mm nnmnalihle evcc Averv Oi16O/g160 n/,.a v?0 ' ) I i I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ; I I I I I I I I I I : : I I I I I II I i I I I I I i I I 9.A.7.f Packet Pg. 955 Attachment: Attachment E - NIM Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) V'O ELOCKER, DEAN KENNETH J ELOCKER SR 1303 NEW MARKET RD W I MMOKALEE, FL 34142-_2253 BOYER, WARD L 4644 PINEWOOD DRIVE LEW|STON, Ml 49756--0 BROOKS, VCTOR E & RALMETHA 122 HUDSON TER YONKERS,NY 10701--1914 BUTTARI, RICHARD 406 CAMDEN AVE MAGNOLT& NJ 08049--0 CALIX, LUIS NILDA A CALIX 2391 8TH AVE SE NAPLES, FL 34T17_O CARRASCO, ISAEL 3790 33RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120_0 CASTELLANOS, FABIO A CINDYJ CAST 37703TIH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120-.0 CHASE MRTG FINANCE CORP 3815 SW TEMPLE SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84115-0 COLLIER CNW C/O REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 3335 TAM|AMI TR E, STE 101 NAPLES, FL 34112--0 COLLIER LAND HOLDINGS LTD 2550 GOODLETTE RD N #1OO NAPLES, FL 34103-0 09 tBl09 t96r tuery canu appeduoc rxtx /9 x ulx 9Z lutulol op eganbg 0g lB/09 L9@ tua^V ql^,l alq[Eduoc ,,919 Z'x ,,1ezp pqul BONILLA, JORGE L KARIN A CASTRO 4O3O 33RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120--0 BREMER, CHRISTOPHER C JENNIFER BREMER 785-F MEADOWLAND DR NAPLES, FL 34108-_0 BRUNET, DANIEL 610 21ST ST NW NAPLES, FL 34120--0 CABEZAS, JUAN C & MICHELLE G 4431 43RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120_-0 CAPOTE, GUILLERMINA & KARIM 3830 37TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120--1520 CARRASCO, ISAEL 3790 33RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120--456 CASTILLO, RAFAEL A 215 W 2ND AVE KENNEWICK, WA 99336_3918 CIARAMITARO, PAUL & LARISSA 150 PEACH CT MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145.-4727 COLLIER CNry C/O REAL PROPERW MANAGEMENT 3335 TAMIAMITR E, STE 101 NAPLES, FL 34112-0 COLLIER LAND HOLDINGS LTD 2550 GOODLETTE RD N #1OO NAPLES, FL 34103-.{ BORDON, ALISVET SURELMY MONTERO GARCIA 4O2O 33RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120_-0 BROCK, DEVIN S & PAULA M 644 94TH AVE N NAPLES, FL 34708---2447 BUSHEN, MARK E 4135 31ST AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120--4528 CABLE HOLDCO II INC ATTN: PROPERTY TAX DEPT 1701 JOHN F KENNEDY BLVD FL 32 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103--2855 CARRASCO, ISAEL 3790 33RD AVE NAPLES, FL 34120_0 CARTER, REBECCA E 4525 43RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120-1553 CDC LAND INVESTMENTS LLC 2550 GOODLETTE RD N #1OO NAPLES, FL 34103-0 COCKERILL, CHERYL E 54'14 FARMINGDALE DR WARRENTON, V A 20187 -927 9 COLLIER CNTY C/O REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 3335 TAMIAMI TR E, STE 101 NAPLES, FL 34112_0 CONDE, DANIEL A MARIA E RENTERIA 4260 40TH Sr NE NAPLES, FL 34720-_3252 S]ldVIS I I.t I I I I I .l I I I I 1 I I l i I I : I I i I I I I I I I I I I I i'r I I i I i \ I I I ,| \ I l I I I .) I I I l I ! ':-- I I I I I L i I I I I i l I t)' I I I I I I l I I I I I I I l i I I i I I I I I ! I t I -STAPLES' u,,;10"'l'll',1;:fX;?I,fH*H,T[,Tfl.yi:ff Hfi,,,,,,,0da ! I I I ( I 9.A.7.f Packet Pg. 956 Attachment: Attachment E - NIM Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) V'O 0eru,ers@,,0^w'il:fJljli,f:,"'-H[i'Hiiil'#li,:x,l'"* s=ldvls COOK, ANNE GARRIS GEORGE HENRY COOK 3930 33RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120_-4508 CUESTA, PEDRO P 7527 CRESCENT DR RAYTOWN, MO 64138._0 DEAN, LEON JAMES 8057 DANCING WIND LN #2005 NAPLES, FL 34119--0 DIAZ, ALBERTO & HACINIA M 4048 33RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120-45L4 DIAZ, OSMEL J & JACQUELINE 3770 41ST AVE NE NAPLES,FL 34120--.1534 DROZD ET U& WALTER J 35 COLONIAL DR CLARK NJ 07056--2601 DUTHIE, CRISAN 221 PALISADE AVE BOGOTA NJ 07503-1418 ELLIOTT, JAMES F 3791 39TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34720-7546 EXPOS|TO, ANTONI0 2254 SW 6TH ST MlAMt, FL 33135--0 FELICIANO, FIDEL M & MARTA 4065 31ST AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34L20-_M62 CORRADO, BRENDA 3780 41ST AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120---1534 D & J NAPLES INVESTORS LLC 19OO EMPRESS CT NAPLES, FL 34110--1004 DEAN, LEON JAMES 8067 DANCING WIND LN#2005 NAPLES, FL 34119-.0 DIAZ, CESAR J 4240 33RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120_-0 DIAZ-JIMENEZ, ANTONIO L ELIANA P DIAZ-JIMENEZ 1870 HIGHWAY 73 MAR|ANNA FL 32448-5048 DUDASH, MARIE 4483 43RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120--0 EDWARD BOCK REV LIVTRUST 2981 54TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34720---L787 ERNST INVESTMENT INC 2580 DESOTO BLVD S NAPLES, FL 34117--1236 FAIRIlOMES PEARL PROPERTIES LLC 10 STATION LN UNIONVILLE L3R 1R4 CANADA FERNANDEZ, CARLOS F REBECCA A FERNANDEZ 25419 NW 101ST PL H|GH SPR|NGS, FL 32643*9810 CORREIA ET UX, RICHARD W PO BOX 265 oRRS |SLAND, ME 04066---0 D R HORTON INC 10541 BEN C PRATT SIX MILE CYPRESS PKWY #1OO FORTMYERS, FL 33966--0 DETWEILER, TIMOTHY L DARLENE LANHAM 3810 39TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120-7560 DIAZ, EVALDO MARTHA ACOSTA 38452T1H AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120-0 DOR, CELTTA 4220 4OTH ST NE NAPLES, FL 34120--0 DURKA, JACEK A 12751 WATERLINE UNIT 4 FT MYERS, FL 33908_-0 EDWARD' DENISE M 4235 43RD AVE NE NAPLET FL 34120--2838 EXNER, LAUREL D WILLIAM EXNER 4380 33RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120--4506 FAULKNER, ADRIAN & TAMMY 4095 315T AVE NE NAPLES, Ft 34720---4462 FERNANDEZ, MARIANETA ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ PEREZ ROTANDO FERNANDEZ 275 ROLLINGWOOD TRAIL ALTAMONTE SPRING, FL 32774_-0 \ I ii qTApn pq'. tabel size 1 ,, x 2 5/8,' compatible with Avery @b160/8160(4-..-!- r-.^-_^+ 4c -.a t, ^, _- ^^_h^+ihta ^,,aa tr,aar 6tlAn/OrAn A'A I t I I I I i ! i I I il 9.A.7.f Packet Pg. 957 Attachment: Attachment E - NIM Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) vt0 FERNANDEZ-BRUBAKER TR, ELENA E FERNANDEZ.BRUBAKER LIV/TRUST DAVID ALEXANDER FERNANDEZ 4201 SW 96TH AVE MlAMt, FL 33165-{ FJJ CONSTRUCTION INC 4287 23RD AVE SW NAPLES, FL 34115---0 FOX, SCOTT D & BETH A 4120 43RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34L20--2877 FUNDORA, LEO & MONICA 303 71ST STREET GUTTENBERG, NJ 07093--.0 eaHzn, rueruuelibSHua FELICIA GARZA 4185 43RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120_0 eo|Ez, MnRtgEL c 4430 KENTUCKY WAY AVE MARIA, FL 34142--5015 GRETNHALGH, rnrHRyru amRr DONNA MARIE LESSARD 4345 43RD AVE N E NAPLES, FL 34120_0 HALL, TIMOTHY BRIAN TIFFANY NICOLE HALL 3760 33RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120-0 HERNANDEZJR, CAESAR SAMANTHA ALEXANDRIA MOLINA 4371 NE 43RD AVE NAPLES, FL 34120_0 HERNANDEZ, IRASHEMA PO BOX 1344 ESTERO, FL 33929--1344 09lB/09 t9@ tuany caae elq3pdrxoc utut /9 x urrx 9Z lerxlol 0p egenbg; 09tg/09t9@ tue^VqIM a;qpeduoc "Bl9Zx "l ezls loqBl FERRELL, DOUGLAS J SHAWNA L FERRELL 735 CORAL DR CAPE CORAL, FL 33904--5902 rl sren CcirusrRucnoN LLc 7742 ALTCO RD FORT MYERS, FL 33912_-0 FRESTA JOINT REV TRUST 6755 PLAINVIEW AVE sT LOU|S, MO 63109-0 GAMEZ, NOEL & LEA M 3810 43RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120---0 eeron truvesrMENT oF sw FL rNc 2950 1OTH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120--0 Go-ruznLrz, e nrrrEl OSCAR GARCIA 3765 37TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120.--0 entrSrR, cHARLES 4670 45TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120_0 HAN, THIN T 34 EUE CT STATEN |SLAND, NY 10314--6019 HERNANDEZ, ERICK ALBITER 2617 30TH ST 5W LEHIGH ACRES, FL 33976-_0 HERNANDEZ, MARIA E & RIGOBERTO JOSE R TSADA PORTILLO 4155 43RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120*0 S]ldVIS "j I I'i I I i I I I I I I I I I FIALLO, ADELA IV1ATILDE 550 5W 138TH AVE APT K212 PEMBROKE PINES, FL 33027_.0 FORTES, HUGO LAZARO JESSIE FORTES 14752 SW 169TH LN MlAMl, FL 33L87--7744 FRONK ET UX;RAYMOND J C/O MARSHA A BOMMER 408 JUMPER DR S BUSHNELT FL 33513--8401 GARciA, MARCELA D 4260 33RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34720-4504 GoMEz, FELIPE PABLO ROSALIA MIGUEL PABLO 4250 4OTH ST NE NAPLES, FL 34720_3252 GONZALEZ, YULLET VICHOT ALIAN ZAILA LARA 4361 43RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120--0 GUZMAN, AT,AIN SUSEL CASTANEDA 4235 33RD AVE NE NAPLET FL 34120-0 HARSTEIN ETAI. ANNETTE 102 WYMING AVE AUDUBON,NJ 08106--1557 HERNANDEZ, ESTELA 3845 31ST AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34720--2924 HERRER& YANDRY GARCIA ODAIMY MAYOR SOLIS 4657 43RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120_-0 I I I I i I I I I I l i I ! I I I I I i I I I i i I I ( I I t I I I i I I l I ! I I I I I I i t I I I I I I I j I I I ! I I i l I cT^Do tre't.. . labelsize 1" x.Z 5/8" compatible withAvery@8160/8160 ^, _< -^_-^+!h,^ ^.:^ n.,^-,, AE{anror^^ I I I I I I I I t I i I I i ) I I I I i I I I I I I I 9.A.7.f Packet Pg. 958 Attachment: Attachment E - NIM Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) V'O HUSTON JR, LEROY S & RUTH 3122 COLEMAN CT ROCK HrLL, SC 29732---8073 J GEISTWEITE REV TRUST 5551 SW 75TH TER souTH MtAMt, FL 33143--4673 JAMES F ASCHER LIV REV TRUST 3510 WILD INDIGO LN BONITA SPR| N6S, FL 34734-7977 JOHNSON, BEVERLY ANDREA CADET 12301 NW 20TH Cr PLANTATION, FL 33323--1949 JOSEPH, MICHAEL 4230 33RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34720---4504 KOMPINSKI, NICHOLAS 383541STAVEN E NAPLES, FL 34120-..0 LAGUERRE, WILLIAM GI-ADIMAR DE JESUS MARIN 4461 43RD AVE N E NAPLET FL 34120-*0 TAWHORN JR, CARL C KAREN J LAWHORN 8746 WINDING CREEK WAY PICKERINGTON, OH 43147 -78L7 LE, LINH D & TRANG NT 912 HERITAGE PKWY S ALLEN, TX 7so02-5762 LICOR, ORIOL YOHANY LICOR 5740 ROYAL MELBOURNE DR H|ALEAH, FL 33015__2121 09IBi09 t9@ fiany cane e;qgeduoc urul Z9 x rurx 9Z leu:ol op elpnbgT 09 tg/09 t9@ tuaay qyu alqgeduoc ,,8/g Z x .. t ezp laqBl I C BROKERS NURSERY LLC 3790 33 AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120_-0 JACKSON, DOTTIE 4277 43RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120--2838 JEMEC, LILLIE 4015 3$T AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34T20_4462 JOHNSON, CHERYLANN 27830 SW 132ND CT HOMESTEAD, FL 33032-8553 KIRNON, ELVIS 4245 4OTH ST NE NAPLES, FL 34120--3253 ITURRALOE, JOSE & AIDA PO BOX 110125 HIALEAH, FL 33011_-126 JACqUES, JUAN F 3821 35TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120.-0 JEWELL LIVING TRUST 5544 N NAVAJO AVE GLENDALE, WI 53217--5039 JOSEPH, MERIENNE 4075 31ST AVE NE NAPLET FL 34120-4462 KNOWLTON, JOHN DALE & JULIE S 3957 31ST AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120--'1403 LAFLAMMETR, MAURICE BARBARA LAFLAMME TR LAFLAMME FAMILY INV TR 3-5.95 211 CROSS ST BRIDGEWATER, MA 02324_-0 LARAM CONSTRUCTION INC 110 WILSON BLVD S NAPLET FL 34117--0 LAZO, OSNAIVY 3830 35TH AVE NE NAPLET FL 34720-3237 LEONARD, YORDANIS MILLARES IT453 43RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34L20_-O LONGSTRETH, CODY R SUSAN M LONGSTRETH 3857 39TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 341.20_0 S]ldVIS KWIK STOP LtC 215 SW 125TH AVE PLANTATION, FL 33325--0 IAPUENTE, ALAIN GUZMAN 4235 33RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120.-0 LAYME, ANGIE E 1057 DUDLEY DR KlsstMMEE, FL 34758--2919 LEANDRE, WESLY & CARLINE 3585 2ND AVE SE NAPLES, FL 34117-0 LONDONO, LUIS BEATRIZ MAYA 3730 41ST AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120__1534 ti qTADn trq'j.. labelsize 1', xZS/8,'compatiblewithAvery@8I60/g160 r+i^r,^s^ ,^ J^,_-l oE hn u C7 6h ^^h^a+iht^ ^,-^ n.,^^, /6\AlA^/OJAn ai A i I I I I I i I I i I I II I I I 9.A.7.f Packet Pg. 959 Attachment: Attachment E - NIM Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) vt0 LUB|N, WATSON & DAV| 3790 39TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120._0 MALA LLC 7171 SW 62ND AVE STE 503 SOUTH MIAMI, FL 33743_4723 MARQUEZ, MARIO & TERESA INEZ 10210SW TTIHCf DAV|E, FL 33324-7453 MARTINEZ, JORDAN RAUL 1210 GOLDEN GATE BLVD EAST NAPLES, FL 34120---3501 MC CANN, CHARLES E & DENISE A 3612 DOGWOOD 5T NW uNloNTowN, oH 4468s-9117 MESA, YUSAITY 455r. NW 25TH ST LAUDERHTLT_ FL 33313-0 MORENO ET AL, BEATRIZ E C/O ANGELA M LONDONO 1OO1 MURCOTT DR NAPLES, FL 34I20-_L478 MULLINS, ROSA SOL.ANGE GABRIEL P TAKAHASHI 5135 4OTH ST NE NAPLES FL 3412O_O MURIEL D STOLMAN TRUST LINDA GUTIERREZ 3170 NEWMAN DR NAPLES, FL 34114-_1204 NELSON, STACY A 3790 43RD AVE NE NAPLET FL 34720--_457 09 tB/09 tS@ tuany cale elqpduroc uux /g x uJru 9Z lpultol 0p arcnbul 09lg/0919@ tuery qpl alqleduoc ,,glg Z x ,,1azp laqel LUGONES, OILDA M 2146 DESOTO BLVD S NAPLES, FL 34117--0 MALDONADO, MARGARITA RENE D MALDONADO 42L7 43RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120-2838 MARTINEZ, ALBINO & JULIA 975 LEO sr MARCO |SLAND, FL 34145--5982 MARTINEZ, SHELLY RICO ALVARADO 4O4O 33RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120-4514 MC GANN, PETER F & VIVIAN 841 95TH AVE N NAPLES, FL 34108-2458 uoNnotc, LEflciA 3780 37TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34L20_2827 MORI-STEELE, NILDA J 4180 33RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120--4513 MUNOZ, FABIAN RAMIRO CACERES PERLA S CACERES CARDENAS 3882 39TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120--0 MUSLIMANI, SALIM 3761 39TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34L20--7546 NIACE, HEBERT RAYMONDE LUUEAN 4265 43RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120___0 MADHU, DAISY % O,CONNOR LAW FIRM 2240 BELLEAIR RD STE 115 CLEARWATER, FL 33764---0 MARoNDA HoMES lNc oF FLoRIDA 9416 CAMDEN FIELD PARKWAY RIVERVIEW, FL 33569_{ MARii NEZ, CRUZ & SHA_WNA 1510 AVERY ELISSA LANE CEDAR PARK,TX 78613-0 MARTINEZ, WILLIAM 3785 37TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120-2828 ntENoozn, DENIs F a arunNt I 4120 33RD AVE NE NAPLES FL 34120-.0 MORENO ETAL, BEATRIZ E C/O ANGELA M LONDONO 1OO1 MURCOTT DR NAPLES, FL 34720-7478 MOSKOT BAS|L L 134 EOSTON POST RD WAYLAND, MA 01778---0 MURIEL D STOLMAN TRUST LINDA GUTIERREZ 3170 NEWMAN DR NAPLES, FL 34TT4-_T204 NASH, KEVIN M 4335 43RD AVE N E NAPLES, FL 34120-0 NIEI.SEN, REBECCA LEE ERICK VAUGHN NIELSEN 3820 41ST AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120--0 S]TdVIS I : I I I I I j I I : I I l I I I i i I I I I I t I I I I I I i I I I 1 I I I I I ) -.:. Irit ill:It lilrlr it ltll lliljl I I I i I I I QTADN trE'labelslze 1" x.2 SlB" compatible withAvery @5160/8160 A..__.. ar. F^. a ^A I I i I I I I I I I I I I i I i I I i I I I ) I I I I I I I I I i i ,l l I I I I I I 9.A.7.f Packet Pg. 960 Attachment: Attachment E - NIM Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) \tt0 09 t8/0919@ tus^V ca^E elqoPduo3 u.rur 19 x uflJ 9Z lpuroJ op aUanbST 0g t&/09 ! @ /ue v q{,!l elqopduoe .88 z x . t ozts lsqpl slldvrs NOZII- SYLVA LUCE NOZIL SYLVAIN 3744 41ST AVE NE NAPLE FL 34120-1534 O'BRIEN, SANDRAMARIE CHARTES F O'BRIEN 3814 37TH AVE NE NAPLES FL 34120-1520 OTERO, KEVIN J ARIAS MELBAA RAMIREZ ORTIZ 4507 43RD AVENUE N€ NAPtrt FL 3412G-{ NUNEZ, IBRAHIM & CARLENE 4290 33RD AVE NE NAPLE FL 34120--4504 OTIVARES PROPERTIES INV LLC 9055 GERVAIS CIR APT 1407 NAPLE FL 34120--{ NORDITU' ROSMICK & ROSE A 5775 PAINTED LEAF LN NAPLES, FL 34116--0 oAKS ET Al. KRTST|N 455 RILEY AVE WORTHINGION,OH /+3085-{ ORTEGA HECTOR & MIRTA 3975 3lSTAVE NE NAPLES FL 34L2O-4403 PORTER, TlMOTHY AI.fREDO D FERNANDEZ 3915 33RDAVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120--4553 OVIES, CARLOS YHIRO 3740 43RD AVE NE NAPLE FL 34120---0 PARENT, DALE L & LINDA D 43 SANDRA DR JAX 8CH, FL 32250--4068 PEREZ, IAZARO SONIATERAN 4045 33RD AVE NE NAPTE FL 34120-0 POLIzzI, JEFFREY 18 COLD SPRING RD MERCERVI TLE, N' 08679-227 7 PR|CE, SON|A M 126 E 12TH Sr fl38 NEW YORK, NY 10003-5331 OSPINA, GUIDO E 8215 NW 201ST 5T HTALEAH, tL 33015-s936 PINZON, MANUEL & JENNICER C 28OO FLETCHER AVE f11 LINCOLN, NE 68504--0 PAMPILLO, VIANA ACOSTA IUIS E IEDESMA 3795 37TH AVE NE NAPIES, FL 34120--{) PAR( PTACE SECURTIES INC % OCWEN ATTENTION: VAULT DEPTARTMENT 5720 PREMIER PARK DR WEST PALM BEACH, FL 331107-{) PANTOJA, EDDY & ADR'ANNA 3970 41ST AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120-0 PENA, YANEISY 3830 33RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120_502 OSBORN, DEXTER G MEGAN C OSEORN 467043RD AVE NE NAPLE FL 34120-1i540 PREMIER INVESTMENT LLC 115 2ND ST NE NAPLES, FT 34116_0 PROPER MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC 5188 MIRAMAR P(WY MIRAI4AR, FL 33023_3940 PRINCE, THOMAS H & VALERIE M 9068 HUNTER BAY DR BRIGHTON, Mt 48114-4933 PROENZA V|CTOR M RODRTGUEZ ZITA D PIEDRA BARREIO 4130 33RD AVE NE NAPLES, Ft" 34120--0 QPCOM INC 5162 SW 173R0 AVE MIRAMAR, FL 33029-{ QTID0 trq' ... tab8l slzs 1' x 2 5/8' mmpat bls wtfi Avery @s160/8160 NISAOA LLC 4604 ABACA CIR NAPTE FL 34119--0 q SMITH HOMES LLC % THE LIGHTSTONE GROUP 1985 CEDAR BRIDGE AVE sTE 1 TAKEWOOD,NJ 08701-7031 OSBORN, DEXTER & CHRISTINE 46EO 43RD AVE NE NAPLE FL 34120-0 PLOCK, DOUGLAS ANTHONY 11234TANGELO TERR BONTTA SPRINGt FL 34135--0 9.A.7.f Packet Pg. 961 Attachment: Attachment E - NIM Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) v,0 QUINTERO, JOSE ABREY A QUINTERO JOHN QUINTERO ANA L MONTES 7570 NW 14TH ST STE 102 MIAMr, FL 33126---1701 RAUDNER, HANNES M ANGEL MARIA RAUDNER 3850 37TH AVE NE NAPLET FL 34120-1520 ROBBINS, WILLIAM K & VICKI L 4085 31ST AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120--4462 ROMERO, CELINA MIJANGO 3745 415T AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120-_0 ROMERO, JOSE O & CELINA M 2185 GREENBACK CIR # 7.102 NAPLES, FL 34112-3948 sAMPLES, uuCEit & KENNETH 4210 33RD AVE NE NAPLE FL 34120-0 SANTIAGO AMADOR, ODALYS TOMASA DANIELA GARCIA SANTIAGO 4230 4OTH ST NE NAPLE FL 34120-0 SCACLIA, PABLO & VANESSA 674 NW 134TH PL MtAMl, FL 33182-1668 SILVA, CANDIDO & MARIA M 15435 SW 26TH TER MlAMl, FL 33185---4866 (!TA ftfi Ee@ 09 tg/Og lq@ fuany canu elqoudruoc ulu /g x rxru gZ lBruJol op eganbgS 09lg/09 t9@ tuany qim qqoeduoc "Bl9 Zx "l azls loqel RAMIREZ, DEBBY E 3766 39TH AVE NE NAPLET FL 34120--7s4s RENTERTA-HERRenn, irsus JUAN RAMON RENTERIA 4280 33RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120_-0 RODRIGUEZ, JAVIER C & ANA L 3820 37TH AVENUE NE NAPLES, FL 34120---0 ROLDAN, JUAN L ERIKA PEREZ 3765 39TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120--0 RoMERo, arlilunuo alrxAru DEir 4240 4OTH ST NE NAPLES, FL 34120-0 ROSALES, OOrunlO A 15111 5W 58TH 5T MtAMt, FL 33193-3008 SAN JUAN, MAXIMO ALEIDA BRIZUELA SAN JUAN 5423 COLLINS AVE APT 303 M|AMI BEACH, FL 33141---4640 SANTILLI, MARLENE J 224 oWL Cr FREMONT, CA 94539-5200 ScHrpprRly, oyutt.t 3830 39TH AVE NE NAPLET FL 34120-0 SINGLETARY SR, CHARLES K CATHERINE A SINGLETARY 2690 WILSON BLVD N NAPLES, FL 34120--3302 label size 1" x.2 518" compatibte with Avery @S160/9160 S]ldVIS RAPP, ARHIAHNA 3735 39TH AVE NE NAPLES, Fl 34120-7546 REY, CHARLES & MARIE 3760 43RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34720--457 noontcuEz, pr6no E 2420 SW 83RD CT MtAMt, FL 33L55-2462 ROMAN, KELLY MICHELLE 3820 43RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120--2918 hourno,.rAvrEn 8247 NW 194TH TER HIALEAH, FL 33015-_6951 ntiSAr-rs, toSe n sETANcounr KYRENIS N ESPINOSA SAMADA 4340 33RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120_0 sANcHEz, rioeenfo penr2 4175 43RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120--0 SANTOS, KAREN GANZO JULIO H SOTO SWABY 3770 33RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120-0 sEK, KAZIMtERZ 3853 41Sr AVE NE NAPLET FL 34120-1884 SLANDA ET UX, JOSEPH E % LEON SLANDA 352 AUDUBON RD LEEDS, MA 01053--9770 i l I I I i I I i I I I I I I I I I I..\ I I i I ! I I i I I I I I I i ; .l I I I ROJAS, ISAURA 4420 33RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120-4551 I i i : I I l 1 i I I I I I t i i ! i I I I I I I i I t I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I i I t I I I I I I I i I I i I I t I I I I I i l i I I I I I i I I I i' I I ; I I I : I I I i I i .,) I I i I 1 i I II ! I ; I i I t I I I I I t I I I I 9.A.7.f Packet Pg. 962 Attachment: Attachment E - NIM Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) \r90 09 t8/09 t9@ tusAV co B a|qlEduoc ujlr /9 x ultr SZ lEmrol 0p s$onbn? 09 t8/09 t g@ tu8 v qt^,r en[Eduoe r8/9 z x i t szls lsqsl UPADHYAYA NARENDRA R & MAYURI 11067 GARDEN RIDGE cr DAVTE, Ft 33328-7308 VALLE, JORGE ALBERTO FTORES 5495 25TH PL SW NAPIES, FL 3411G-{ S]?dVIS SOLIZ, RENE A 6039 SHALTOWS WAY NAPLES, FL 34109-{) SMITH, MARCIA] 376135TH AVE NE NAPLE FL 34120-1879 SOGNARE LLC 3605 ENTERPRISE AVE STE 253 NAPTE FL 34104-{ SOUTHWEST PERMACULTURE t"LC 2921SHERMAN AVENUE NAPLES, FL 3412O..O STEC,ADOLFE&EERNICE 22 FOSTER AVE VALLEY STREAM, NY 11580-2936 STEVES, LORENZO RAMIREZ ETIDA LOPEZ 3782 33RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120--466 STRONG, VIC(ILYNN & JACK L 2390 8TH AVE SE NAPLE FL 34117--0 SUNSHINE Ft APARTMENTS INC 1O3O PORT ORANGE WAY NAPLE FL 34120--{ SUNSHINE FL APARTMENTS INC 1O3O PORT ORANGE WAY NAPLE Fr 34120--0 T&J S VENTURA 2018 REV TRUST 1550 SONORACT PALM SPR|NGt CA 92764-3560 TARPON IV LLC 18305 BISC YNE BIVD SrE ir00 AVENTURA, FL 33L@.2172 THOMPSON, STEPHEN S PATRICIA TTHOMPSON 4295 3lSTAVE NE NAPI-ES, FL 34120-4495 THOMPSON, STEPHEN S PATRICIA LTHOMPSON 4295 315T AVE NE NAPLET FL 3472O-qt95 TRAVIS DEIASHMET TARA DELASHMET 381135TH AVE NE NAPLET FL 34120-3238 TRIANA, ILEANA JORGE GOMEZ 10000sw3RDsr MrAMl, FL 33174--{ TRYFU' TOBY W 3995 315TAVE NE NAPtEt FL 34120--{ uttoA, YADTEL GOMEZ 3730 37TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120-2827 TORRES, ROGELIO HERNANDEZ 3755 415T AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120-1535 SUAREZ, NOEL % AMERICAN PRIME LLC 5775 EtUE LAGOON DR #350 MtAMl, FL 33126-{ sYNERGY INVEST TLC 518 AVELI.INO ISLES CIR APT 4201 NAPLES, FL 34119-0 THAMMAVONG, ADISONE PHETHSAKHONE THAMMAVONG 2550 6TH AV€ NE NAPLES, FL 34120-7602 TIGHE, MICHAEL EDWARD 151 FLAMINGO RD TUCKERTON,N, 08087-2i48 STEVENSTR, DONALD urD 4126107 MARY M STEVENSTR wo 4l26lit 5281SEA GRASS LN NAPLE FL 34116-5435 TURCAN LIVING TRUST 4581oAK 5T oscoDA, Mr 48750-0 UREINA, ADALID 3735 37TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120-0 VATENZUELA, NEHEMIAS 4255 31ST AVE NE NAPLE FL 34120-4495 Iabel slz8 1 " x 2 ,8' compatible wifi Avery @51 60/81 60 TREGANZA, MAT & HATHAIRATH 2'$0 6fH AVE NE NAPLE Ft- 34120-0 VARGHESE, GEORGE CHECHAMMA GEORGE 703 SHERMAN AVE THORNWOOD, NY 10594-1428 i I I I t I I I e'r^Do Ee@ 9.A.7.f Packet Pg. 963 Attachment: Attachment E - NIM Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) V?O VARGHESE, GEORGE CHECHAMMA GEORGE 703 SHERMAN AVE THORNWOOD, NY 10594-1428 VILTARRAGA, EDISON & MARIA 4420 43RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120--0 WILLIAMS, LAUREL 7849 DIOTDO BLVD MIRAMAR, FL 33023_0 WINCHESTER LAND LLC 1OO N TAMPA ST # 37OO TAMPA FL 33602-0 Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association PO Box 990596 Naples, FL 34116 VAUBEL, VERNON L & CAROLE 4901 W 64TH ST PRAIRIE VILLAGE, KS 66208_1325 WELLS, NADINE GLADYS KRISTIN L WEL6 2344 HERITAGE GREENS DR NAPLES, FL 34119--3312 WILSON TR, GEORGE G RITA M WILSON TR KIM M SHERMAN TR ulD 6h6/Os 10220 FAIRWAY DR ELLTCOTT C|TY, MD 21042--2115 WONG, PETER NGOC TANG NHUC ROBYN PHUNG 3103 JACKSON AVE ROSEMEAD, CA 91770-0 ogrs/oetso",e^v3il:^'J1ili,fT,ffi##::il'#i-'1J;,l-*'-, sSldvIS I i I I ) I I I I I I .J I I I I I I I I I I I I I ) l i I I I I i I I I I I I i i I I I I l I I OTA tln EC@ label size 1" x.2 518" compatible with Avery @S1 60/8160 VEGA, EDILEYDIS & RAYDEL 3775 41ST AVENUE NE NAPLES, FL 34120-0 wir-uaMs, KR|SIAN L 3TI39TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120--7546 WILSON, WADE & hAcHEL 3980 33RD AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120_0 ZUFERRI, AIDA L 3815 37TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120-1521 I I I i I I i I .l I I I ! I I I I l I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I i I i I I I t I I i I I I I I ! i I I I I I i I I I I I I I I ) I I I i ; I 9.A.7.f Packet Pg. 964 Attachment: Attachment E - NIM Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) HOLE MONTES 950 Encore Way . Naples, Florida 34110 'Phone 239.254.2000 ' Fax 239.254.2099 Novemberll,20l9 VIA HAND DELIVERY Tim Finn, AICP, Principal Planner Growth Management Division 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Re:Hyde Park Village SRA (SRA-PL20180000622) 2"d Neighborhood Information Meeting HM File No. 2017.001 Dear Mr. Finn: Enclosed please find the following in accordance with Collier County's Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) requirements for the NIM held on November 5, 2019, for the above-referenced projects: I ) copy of Affidavit of Publication; I ) copy of Meeting Summary of the NIM; l) copy of sign-in sheet from the NIM; and I ) flash drive with recording of the NIM. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact me. lfyou have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, HOLE, MONTES, INC. Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP Vice President, Planning Services & Business Development RJM/sek Enclosures as noted. H:Uol7UOl7Ool\Wf$RAUnd NUvflTF l9l I I I lr tt post NIM documcnts.docx NaPles' Fo( lvlyers a a a One One One ( ( ( (One 9.A.7.f Packet Pg. 965 Attachment: Attachment E - NIM Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) NIM SUMMARY Hyde Park Stewardship Receiving Area Designation (SRA-PL20180000622) Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 5:30 p,m. Collier County UF/IFAS Extension, Multi-Purpose Room 14700 Immokalee Road, Naples, FL 34120 The NIM was held for the above referenced petition. This Second NIM was required since it has been just over one year since the original NIM was held. The petition is described as follows To establish a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) in the form of a Village over 654.79+ acres of land located in eastern Collier County to known as Collier Lakes Village ("CLV"). The CLV is proposed lo allow up to 1,800 dwelling units (150G+ single family and 30Gr multi-family), 45,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses, and 18,000 square feet of civic, institutional and govemmental uses ISRA-PL20180000622]. Note: This is a summary of the NIM. An audio recording is also provided. Attend€es: County Staff: Tim Finn, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section Seven members ofthe public attended. Mr. Mulhere started the presentation by introducing himsell the other consultants, and County staff. He explained the NIM process, the process for approval, provided an overview of the history of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) overlay, and provided an overview of the project. Mr. Greenberg provided an overview ofNeal Communilies. Following Mr. Mulhere's presentation, there were approximately fifteen minutes of questions from the public in attendance. The following issues were raised: Stormwatcr Ma ment Questions were raised regarding the stormwater management plan, and the proposed developments iitpact on rhe Picayune Strind. Birry Jones, P.E. explained that therc will be a perimeter berm around the site, containing stormwater internaily on the site. There will be four intemal control points; and two ;;;;;;;;;;#"i;oinrs that witl discharge to the adjacent faka Union Canal. Stormwater will be treated iia an internal lake system utilizing a network of littoral planting areas. The projects potential impact on t. pi*yr". Strand restoration hai been addressed with the South Florida water Management District ti-nWfr4bl i"ri"g,he permitting process. The site will take in and treat stormwater runoff from Oil Well I l:U0l7UO 17001\wP\S RAVnd NIMNIM Summary (l l'6-2019) dn docr On behalf of Applicants: Michael Greenberg, Southwest Florida Regional President, Neal Communities Robert Mulhere, FAICP, VP Planning, Hole Montes Richard Yovanovich, Esq., Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, PA James Banks, Transportation Consultant Barry Jones, PE, Hole Montes Dan Ciesielski, Land Development Manager, Neal Communities 9.A.7.f Packet Pg. 966 Attachment: Attachment E - NIM Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Road once it is widened which will result in enhanced water treatment (as compared to the current conditions). Questions were raised regarding the proposed deviations. About 20 deviations have been requested. Most reflect deviations that have been supported by staff during the application process for similar SRA applications in the area. The deviations are to allow for design flexibility, such as cul-de-sac lengths, street widths to allow the accommodation of Collier County Utility hookups, and to allow parking in front ofthe retail shopping center in the Village Center, ifa grocery store is included. Village Desisn Questions were asked about what makes the village design innovative. The RLSA program was designed with innovative requirements. The proposed development meets or exceeds these innovative design requirements. The Village complies with the LDC - RLSA definition of a Village and locates the more intense and high density development closer to Oil Well Road. There is a central amenity center for residents and guests that is easily accessible via walking or bicycle. The Village includes a connected system of sidewalks pathways and a multi-modal street system. Questions were raised regarding the number of multi-family units and the location of multi-family development in relation to the proposed entrance gates. The applicant has committed to providing a minimum often percent ofthe overall units, 180 units, as multi-family. The housing types have not been determined yet. The project has been designed to accommodate multi-family in the Village Center, which may be located outside the proposed entrance gates, or in the Neighborhood Ceneral context zone behind the entrance gates. Questions were raised regarding how many sending credits the project will be urilizing. The Village requires 3,547.76+ stewardship credits (subject to change). These credits will be transfened from Stewardship Sending Area 7 (near Lake Trafford). The meeting concluded at approximately 5:55 PM. Deviations Gencral/Misc. Il:UOl7UOl700l\WASRAUnd NIM\NIM Summary (l l -6-2019) rjm.docx 9.A.7.f Packet Pg. 967 Attachment: Attachment E - NIM Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Publlshed Daily Naples, FL 3411O HOLE IIIONTES ASSOCIATES lNC 950 ENCORE WAY, SUtrE 200 NAPLES, FL 34fi0 Affldavlt of Publlcatlon STATE OF W|SCONSIN COUNTY OF BROWN Betore the undoBignsd they sorvo as the authorlty, personally appeared sald legal clotk who on oeth says that (s)he serves as legal clert olthc Napler Dally |,lcts, a dally newspsp€r published at Naples, ln Colllcr County, Flodda; dlstributed ln Collier and Lee countles ol Flodda;that the attached copy of the advertblng was publbhcd ln sald ncwspaper on dates listed. Atfisnt furiher says that the said Nsplos Daily Nervs is a ncwspaper publbhod et tlapl€t, ln said Collier County, Florida, end thst the SeU na,vspapor hss heretoforc be€n continuously publishcd in said Collior County, Fbriia; distdbuted in Collier and Lae countiss of Floda, each day and has bo€n entered a9 gecond dsss mail mattet at th€ post offcs ln Naples, in sald Collier County, Floriia , for a perlod of ons year nsxt pr€coding tho first publlcation of tho attache<l copy of advertissnont and affiant fuiher says that hc has ncithcr pald nor promisod any poBon, or corporatlon any dlscount , rebate, commlssion or refund for tho purposo of securlng lhis adverlisement for publication h thc seH na'wpepcr. Octobor 21,2019 ar- Subscribed and sworn to before on Novemborl, 2019: -*--J a-^ o . f Y\ rtr\ d)-o<L') Notary, State of Wl, County of Erown My corilnistim aryiras: Auguat 6,2021 Publication Cost: 3945.00 Ad No: GC10291439 Customer No: 324483 PO#: RA MONDLO H Notary Public Sttte o, WiEconsin Bt*flnu 9.A.7.f Packet Pg. 968 Attachment: Attachment E - NIM Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 5:30 p.m. Collier County UF/IFAS Extension, Multi-Purpose Room 14700 Immokalee Road, Naples, FL lll20 The following formal application has been made to Collier County: Petition SRA-PL20180000622 - The petition is to establish a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) in the form of a Village over 654.79+ acres of land located in eastern Collier County to be known as Hyde Park Village. Hyde Park Village is proposed to allow up to 1,800 dwelling units (1500+ single family and 3001 multi-family), 45,000 square leet of neighborhood commercial uses, and 18,000 square feet of civic, institutional and governmental uses. The subject property is presently zoned A-MHO-RLSAO. The site is bounded on the south by Oil Well Road, on the west and north by Golden Gate Estates zoned properties and on the east by the future Big Cypress Parkway and A-MHO-RLSAO properties. The subject property is located at the intersection ol Oil Well Road and DeSoto Blvd. North, approximately 4 miles east ol Immokalee Road, in Section 16, Township 48 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. I I I{ B fl stta id I t I{UT ,t rt c.*rr. aArau:5 ra lm Hyde Park Village SRA WE VALUE YOUR INPUT Business and property owners, residents and visitors are welcome to attend the presentation and discuss the project with the owners and Collier County staff. If you are unable to attend this meetinS, but have questions or comments, they can be directed by mail, phone, or e'mail to: Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, Vice President, Planning Services Hole Montes, Inc. 950 Encore Way, Naples, Florida 341l0 Phone: 239-254-2000, email: bobmulhere@hmeng'com The public is invited to attend a neighborhood information meeting held by Robert J. Mulhere, FAICB Vice President, Planning Services of Hole Montes, Inc. and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquirg of Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, PA. on behalf of the property owner at the iollorving time and location: SUBJE T 9.A.7.f Packet Pg. 969 Attachment: Attachment E - NIM Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) *E[@ -@ r@lEi@ rl!@ -6ffi wAltrII ril l4"""d.,""t.(M t'ffi,ffi} "i@ -E thc rob nnwo.k tm C;E!@ thal,ob natx6.* c@{'c dH@,,*-l} l.lEE[fltt @ :''.J:::*t ir,l@ aE@ ffiia,i@D -int91{i.41er(ri@ e{Ero,kedM'qq @-ffi Th. Ehli. h irvncd lo .rtnd ! nciarlhlrhri{ i(ltretun dcriil hcld tt turtafl , MdlxE illcP. \rs Pandol PLdinr S.Fi.6 ol Hol. Mdnk , h. .!td richld D Yowovklr Er{unr. of Cokmi,YMBi.t .,r, Xcc.i lA. on b.D.lr oI lt! ttotRrl, dBr rl rh. lollein, rin. .nd l@tion: Tr.a.r. lJor.di I :t 19 ,!O F.C.[t cBtr UTmIS Err.do.. M.U.Plrre Ro6 l.rlD tlmLh. t6.l :\rrLr. lL .LUo Th! tullNine lortulat!h.(rn hlr E(rn mrd. !, Cnrli{ C !nrr. ttddd Slr-Pl20lt0tao6rt . Ths netitio. ir ro 6llbliih i StMrd{hil Rsivin! Am 6IA) in rh. torm ol . Vill.8. oB 65:1.19! .!ri ot l.nd l*.t.{ in .dcm Colli.r Counr, ro b. lnlM u Hrd. hrl vill.8., Hrds Pt* vilhs. t Dololaj ro ruo* u,! ro l.tm Jsllii, uniu r lI0i rrrrc irmly.id ]tlri uli-hn'l)I al,fl{quE fer o{ nci$bodsJ @heNiJ t6 JnJ ltJE,rrrB [.d of rivk, iNr'rurion.l ud Tlc .!bj$r n^,Drn, i. tE*nll, zonlrj A-MllO-tll O Thc .ilc n hJudld on lh. suh t, Oil w.! E rd, ,n th. *!c .od nunh by Cold.r C.rc Err.r6 ,on d IDFnig rid on rhc ql bt UE f(ua Bb cyt\d Pr*D.,.trd A-MHGRLS O nllFnie Tt. rlbFll tIopcny ! lMl.,, rr lhc i.r!n4lio! ot Od wcll RlrJ .tul D(Soro Ulv,j. Noflh, .rrornur.lr a mikr ot of Imorr].. Ro.(I n s.crid 16. Toruhi,l 4l Soodl' R.n8. 2t Ea{. Cotlid Co{trry. Ho.id!. lr'E v UlElotrl lf,"PtrT BcitrN rn,l nDltrry omr\ 6id.it. rtu vi.lbu .E Elon. ro rumd rrr D6anlxioi rn,, J'gu rhc roitr Mrhth.@n.drnJ colht counly {r[. Il you rt un.bi.lo.l'c,J lhit n cliitr bol h.Equo'ionr or oriM.|r rh.y .rn h. ,liGr.'i b, tuil. nhonc or +mil lo' Roh. l Mulh.e. FAICP. Vir Pr6id.nt, Phnni4 S.ricB Hol. Morl.a lE. e50 F^ns $t!, srdcr t lorida Yl l0 Pln,nc: 2t9.21+Zxn. !t.il lnlDll.n@rm..o ffi*_- - tFo P.*waco sRA 0@EEElfit@lElD rq u. "'uqi q r h ry,. idd d!'^rdhwlu'dn|4r.!t.lbl:'t@ r,,En'& itu'drdII d.r 116 tr,{. drd b D lmdih hd tur @r dn b (!., 5 turh d !n.lM Ftr'ff' '6!db 6*6 rt ! d & dd t 6r .,id. rddid,rr(odd.t6Fd b'd *Itit . - ."-,..- ." -* "r;,{dufr,!{bdk(d, $,lxma..*"-^"" "" &! e[,!(lrx!l!-Er]]ltL-, 9.A.7.f Packet Pg. 970 Attachment: Attachment E - NIM Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING HYDE PARK SRA (SRA-PL-20180000622) TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5,20L8 AT 5:30PM PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY ...PLLAse bc advked... The information on this sheet is to contact you regarding this project and future public meetings. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses, phone numbers and certain home addrettes are public records once received by a government atency. lf you do not want your e-mall address, phone number or home address released if the county rec€ives a public records request, you can refrain from including such information on this sh€et. You have the option of checking with the county staff on your own to obtain updates on the project as well as checking the county Web site for additional information. Name Address City, State Zip E-Mail Address Julia Martinez 975 Leo Court Marco lsland, FL Peter Vazquez 1525 San Marco Drive Marco lsland, FL Pavazquez20l 6@gmail.com Timothy Finn 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL Timothy.Finn@colliercountw.com April Olson '1495 Smith Preserve Way Naples, FL April@conservancv.oro Meredith Budd 2590 Golden Gate Parloivay Naples, FL meredith b@FWFonline.org Hannes Raudner 3850 37th Ave. NE Naples, FL hannesraudner@yahoo.com Angel Raudner 3850 37m Ave. NE Naples, FL angelraudner@yahoo.com 9.A.7.f Packet Pg. 971 Attachment: Attachment E - NIM Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Page 1 of 5 H:\2017\2017001\WP\SRA\5th Resubmittal\Public Facilities Report (rev 11-25-2019).docx HYDE PARK SRA PUBLIC FACILITIES IMPACT ASSESSMENT Solid Waste According to the Collier County 2017 AUIR, currently there is an existing landfill capacity of 17,244,316 tons, and a ten-year landfill capacity requirement of 2,625,495 tons. The estimated life of the landfill is 50 years. This is adequate to accommodate additional tons per capita generated by the proposed project. All solid waste and recycling collection, handling, and disposal would be handled by the Collier County licensed contractor and the residents would be billed for the cost of collection and disposal. Any commercial components of the proposed development would secure service from a licensed solid waste / recycle contractor that is permitted to operate within Collier County. Stormwater Management The stormwater management system will comply with SFWMD, State County, and Federal standards for water quality treatment and discharge rates and will result in no adverse impacts to stormwater management (drainage) level of service. The Hyde Park property is currently permitted as a commercial mining operation by South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) and has a perimeter control berm that contains the 25 year, 3 day storm with zero discharge prior to discharge through a control structure to the adjacent Faka Union Canal. The property also has a small conservation area in the SE corner that is covered by a conservation easement dedicated to SFWMD which will be vacated during the ERP permitting process. This small wetland is isolated but will be retained as required by SFWMD The proposed development scenario would involve a reshaping of most of the existing lakes to create a site plan with more curvilinear road network that is typical of large scale residential developments throughout Southwest Florida. The revised lake system would begin discharging at a controlled bleed down rate at the current control elevation and reach the full discharge allowance during the 25 year, 3 day peak storm event with discharge occurring through two structures that would be connected via pipes to the Faka Union canal. The system would provide the treatment and attenuation volumes required by the SFWMD rules and the littoral shelves required by Collier County LDC. In addition to providing the required treatment and attenuation volumes for the proposed Hyde Park SRA, the draft DCA anticipates that Hyde Park Phase 1 will accept, treat, and attenuate the stormwater runoff from the proposed Oil Well Road expansion along the southern border. This mil e long stretch of road expansion is currently designed to flow into two offsite ponds that would have to be acquired by Collier County Transportation. The following sections detail the benefits to Collier County that are derived by the project agreeing to accept, attenuate, treat, and convey the stormwater from Oil Well road Basins 500 and 600. The existing permit includes a total of 11.07 acres for the proposed pond sites. The county has agreed to reimburse the applicant for the equivalent acreage as part of the DCA. The cost to clear the property would be approximately $3,000 per acre for a total of $33,000 9.A.7.g Packet Pg. 972 Attachment: Attachment F - Public Facilities Impact Assessment (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Page 2 of 5 H:\2017\2017001\WP\SRA\5th Resubmittal\Public Facilities Report (rev 11-25-2019).docx The ponds would require the excavation of approximately 50,000 CY of material at an average cost of $3 per CY for a total excavation cost of $150,000. The pond sites would require approximately 11,000 SY of sod at a cost of $2.70 per SY = $29,700. A fenced perimeter with a total length of 4,350 LF of 6’ tall fence at a cost of $20 / LF + 2 gates * $1,000 per gate for a total cost of $89,000. Total savings related to the construction costs of the county ponds = $301,700. The outfall system for the two ponds would no longer be required since Hyde Park would accept and conveys the stormwater to the Faka Union Canal. The drainage elements that will no longer be required include the following pipes and structures: 4298 LF 36” RCP * $110 / LF = $472,780.00 253 LF 30” RCP * $93.75 / LF= $23,718.75 88 LF 24” RCP * $69.04 / LF = $6,075.52.00 13 Storm Manholes * $7800 each = $101,400.00 2 control structures * $7800 each = $15,600.00 Total cost savings from the outfall system = $619,574.27 All prices are based on the 12-month average prices for FDOT District 1 through May 2018. Once constructed and secured the ponds, structures, and outfall system would require continual maintenance in perpetuity. For the purpose of this exercise, we have assumed a 30-year period at $5,000 per year for a savings of $150,000.00. In addition to these substantial savings, the Hyde Park system has been designed to provide 150% of the required water quality which is 50% more than the existing permitted system would provide for Oil Well road Basins 500 and 600. The discharge rates from the runoff into the Faka Union Canal were set by a pre vs post analysis in the existing permit. If the water is routed through the Hyde Park system, the discharge rates to the Faka Union Canal will be reduced by over 85% from the currently approved permitted discharge rates. For background, the existing basins are permitted to discharge at a rate of 0.75 CFS/acre while the revised design will limit the discharge rate to the currently approved rate of .09 CFS/acre for the Faka Union Canal. There are numerous drainage pipes in the current roadway design that convey water to the permitted ponds that would not have to be built if Hyde Park agrees to accept the stormwater , and others that could be substantially downsized. The reduced peak stages that result by routing the water through the Hyde Park system provides sufficient freeboard to allow for greater head loss in the piping system that conveys the runoff to the Hyde Park lake system. A more extensive analysis would be required to confirm the savings possible as a result of the reduction in pipe sizes, so they have not been quantified as part of this exercise. The existing Oil Well Road permit has higher control elevations for the two basins (500 and 600) that will drain into the Hyde Park system. In the existing SFWMD conceptual permit, Basin 500 has a current control elevation of 18.75 NGVD = 17.5 NAVD. The corresponding area will now discharge into a lake with a control elevation of 13.5 NAVD or 4 feet lower. Basin 600 has a current control elevation of 19.0 NGVD 9.A.7.g Packet Pg. 973 Attachment: Attachment F - Public Facilities Impact Assessment (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Page 3 of 5 H:\2017\2017001\WP\SRA\5th Resubmittal\Public Facilities Report (rev 11-25-2019).docx = 17.75 NAVD. The corresponding area will now discharge into a lake with a control elevation of 14.0 NAVD or 3.75 feet lower. As a direct result of the lower control elevations, the 25 year, 3 day peak stages used to determine the minimum road elevation for this 5,350± LF segment of Oil Well Road will provide the county the opportunity to substantially reduce the elevation of the proposed roadway while still meeting the standard design parameters. Basins 500/600 currently have peak stages of 18.75 and 19.15 NAVD, respectively, compared to the peak stages of 15.25 NAVD (-3.5’) and 15.69 NAVD (-3.46’) that will occur if the water is routed into the Hyde Park system. Lowering one mile of roadway with a 200’ cross section by 3.5’ on average would reduce the required fill by (5,280 * 200 * 3.5)/27 = 136,900 CY in place. A conservative assumption of $16 per CY of imported fill results in an estimate of $2.2M in savings in imported fill material. If the standard 40% differential is applied between in place quantity versus truck measure quantity and the standard $16 per CY truck measure was utilized, the cost savings in fill would increase to $3.1M. The reduction in the amount of imported fill should also reduce the duration of the construction activity which would result in additional unquantified savings The existing bridge is at elevation 18.0 NAVD +/- which should be sufficient if the road is redesigned to take advantage of the lower peak stages in the lake systems accepting the runoff. If the County were to use our control elevations (established by Faka Union Canal elevations and approved by SFWMD) as a precedent for the segment immediately east of Faka Union (Basin 400), that segment could also be lowered which would allow the existing bridge across Faka Union to be incorporated into the road design. The estimated savings related to the cost of the single bridge would be in the $1.1 M - $1.3 M range. In summary, directing the storm water from Oil Well Road Basins 500 and 600 to the Hyde Park project will benefit Collier County by saving the county taxpayers approximately $1.07M in construction and operation costs, improving the water quality of the discharge, reducing the discharge rates to meet the current allowable discharge rates, and offering the County additional opportunities for cost savings should they choose to redesign the roadway to take advantage of the reduced peak stages. The developer of Hyde Park will be responsible for all costs associated with the design, permitting, construction, and operation of the proposed stormwater improvements required to serve the Hyde Park development. Water and Wastewater The Hyde Park DCA includes sections that confirm that Collier County Utilities will supply both potable water and sewer service to the Hyde Park Development. Please refer to the DCA for more detail with respect to the utility agreement 9.A.7.g Packet Pg. 974 Attachment: Attachment F - Public Facilities Impact Assessment (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Page 4 of 5 H:\2017\2017001\WP\SRA\5th Resubmittal\Public Facilities Report (rev 11-25-2019).docx Irrigation Water The Hyde Park DCA confirms that CCU will provide IQ water to the residential and commercial lots within Hyde Park. The common areas and buffers will be irrigated via lake water withdrawn from the onsite lake system. The lake water will be supplemented with well water withdrawn from the Lower Tamiami Aquifer for the 68.6 acres of common area to be irrigated from the lakes. The monthly maximum withdrawal from the aquifer will be 11.8 million gallons with an average annual allocation of 96.1 million gallons. Two recharge wells are planned for the project. The applicant has a water use permit pending with SFWMD for this purpose. Please see SFWMD Application #190701-14 for further detail if needed. The Hyde Park HOA will own and manage the irrigation system for the common areas and buffers. Please refer to the DCA for greater detail. School Concurrency The adopted level of service for schools is based upon permanent FISH capacity: 100% for high sc hool Concurrency Service Areas (CSAs); 95% for elementary CSAs; and 95% for middle school CSAs. The subject site is within the E10 North Central Area CSA for elementary schools, the M3 North Central Area CSA for middle schools, and the H3 North Central Area CSA for high schools. The FISH capacity and enrollment data below is per the Collier County Public Schools Capital Improvement Plan, for fiscal years 2019 through 2038. The E10 CSA includes two elementary schools, Corkscrew and Estates. They have a combined FISH capacity of 1,499 students, a 2017/2018 peak enrollment of 1,220 students, and a projected 2022/2023 enrollment of 1,195 students (80% capacity). The M3 CSA includes three middle schools, Corkscrew, Golden Gate, and Cypress Palm. They have a combined FISH capacity of 3,219 students, a 2017/2018 peak enrollment of 2,606 students, and a projected 2022/2023 enrollment of 2,537 students (79% capacity). The H3 CSA includes two high schools, Golden Gate and Palmetto Ridge. They have a combined FISH capacity of 3,995 students, a 2017/2018 peak enrollment of 3,822 students, and a projected 2022/2023 enrollment of 3,995 (100% capacity). According to the Collier County Public Schools CIP, enrollment at Golden Gate and Palmetto Ridge is being monitored. The proposed development consists of 1,500 single-family and 300 multi-family residences. Applying the student generation rates established in the 2015 Collier County School Impact Fee Study, the project is anticipated to generate 543 new students at build out. Residential Unit Type Units SGR Projected Students Single Family Product A 534 0.34 182 Single Family Product B 598 0.34 203 Single Family Product C 368 0.34 125 Multi-Family (Apts) 1-10 Stories 300 0.11 33 Total 1,800 543 As the total projected number of students will be distributed between the E10, M3, and H3 CSAs, the proposed development will not generate enough students to cause a substantial change in the level of 9.A.7.g Packet Pg. 975 Attachment: Attachment F - Public Facilities Impact Assessment (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Page 5 of 5 H:\2017\2017001\WP\SRA\5th Resubmittal\Public Facilities Report (rev 11-25-2019).docx service. Additionally, neighboring Rural Lands West has committed to allocate acreage for the development of new school facilities. As a result, no additional public educational facilities are proposed within the SRA. Per a meeting on April 27, 2018 with County staff members Amy Lockhart and Tom Eastman, this project will not trigger level of service issues given existing and planned schools based on their analysis. The proposed SRA will result in a permanent population of approximately 3,634 people, and a seasonal population of approximately 4,361 people. Residential Unit Type Units Permanent Population Hyde Park Permanent Population Peak Seasonal Population Hyde Park Peak Seasonal Population Multi-Family (Apts) 1-10 Stories 300 1.05 315 1.26 378 Single Family Product A 534 2.21 1,181 2.65 1,418 Single Family Product B 598 2.21 1,323 2.65 1,588 Single Family Product C 368 2.21 814 2.65 977 Total 1,800 3,634 4,361 Fire Control and Rescue District The subject site is within the North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District. An EMS/fire station is located at 13240 Immokalee Road, approximately 6.2 miles west of the property. Transportation Impacts See attached the attached Traffic Analysis for transportation impacts. 9.A.7.g Packet Pg. 976 Attachment: Attachment F - Public Facilities Impact Assessment (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) Hyde Park Village Economic Assessment Collier County Collier County Schools North Collier Fire & Rescue Initial Submission: June 12, 2018 Revised: July 17, 2019 Roads Water and Wastewater Stormwater Management Irrigation Water Revised: November 13, 2019 Roads 9.A.7.h Packet Pg. 977 Attachment: Attachment G - Economic Assessment (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 2 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. 4 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 7 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................ 8 MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS .................................................................................................................. 9 Development Assumptions ....................................................................................................... 9 Revenue Assumptions ............................................................................................................. 10 Sales, Just, and Taxable Values .............................................................................................. 10 Property Taxes ....................................................................................................................... 11 Expenditure Assumptions ........................................................................................................ 11 COLLIER COUNTY FISCAL IMPACTS .............................................................................................. 12 Collier County Operating Impacts ............................................................................................ 12 Collier County Operating Revenue Projections ........................................................................ 12 Collier County Operating Expenditure Projections .................................................................. 13 Collier County Capital Impacts ................................................................................................. 14 Collier County Capital Impacts by Department ..................................................................... 14 NORTH COLLIER FIRE & RESCUE DISTRICT ................................................................................... 26 North Collier Fire & Rescue Capital Impacts ............................................................................ 26 North Collier Fire & Rescue Annual Operating Impacts ........................................................... 28 COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOLS FISCAL IMPACT ................................................................................ 29 Collier County Schools Capital Impacts .................................................................................... 29 Collier County Schools Operating Impacts ............................................................................... 31 APPENDIX .................................................................................................................................... 34 GENERAL AND LIMITING CONDITIONS ........................................................................................ 50 9.A.7.h Packet Pg. 978 Attachment: Attachment G - Economic Assessment (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 3 Table 1: Hyde Park Development Program ................................................................................ 10 Table 2: Hyde Park Residential Sales, Just, and Taxable Values.................................................. 10 Table 3: Hyde Park Nonresidential Sales, Just, and Taxable Values ............................................ 11 Table 4: Hyde Park County Tax Base at Buildout ........................................................................ 11 Table 5: Collier County Millage Rates ......................................................................................... 11 Table 6: Hyde Park Operating Annual Net Impact at Buildout ................................................... 12 Table 7: Hyde Park Annual Operating Revenue Projections ....................................................... 12 Table 8: Hyde Park Annual Operating Expenditure Projections ................................................. 13 Table 9: Hyde Park Impact Fee Revenue for Collier County ....................................................... 15 Table 10: Hyde Park Law Enforcement Capital Impacts ............................................................. 17 Table 11: Hyde Park Law Enforcement Level of Service ............................................................. 18 Table 12: Hyde Park Law Enforcement Equipment Cost per Certified Police Officer ................. 18 Table 13: Hyde Park Correctional Facilities ................................................................................ 19 Table 14: Hyde Park Correctional Facilities Capital Cost............................................................. 19 Table 15: Hyde Park Correctional Facilities Indexed Cost per Resident ...................................... 19 Table 16: Hyde Park EMS Capital Impacts .................................................................................. 20 Table 17: Hyde Park EMS Allocated Capital Cost ........................................................................ 20 Table 18: Hyde Park Regional Parks Capital Impacts .................................................................. 21 Table 19: Hyde Park Regional Parks Level of Service .................................................................. 21 Table 20: Hyde Park Regional Parks Indexed Capital Cost per Acre ........................................... 21 Table 21: Hyde Park Community Parks Capital Impacts ............................................................. 22 Table 22: Hyde Park Community Parks Level of Service ............................................................. 22 Table 23: Hyde Park Community Parks Indexed Capital Cost per Acre ....................................... 22 Table 24: Hyde Park Libraries Capital Impacts ............................................................................ 23 Table 25: Hyde Park Library Facilities Level of Service ............................................................... 23 Table 26: Hyde Park General Government Capital Impacts ........................................................ 24 Table 27: Hyde Park General Government Capital Cost ............................................................. 24 Table 28: Hyde Park North Collier Fire & Rescue District Capital Impacts .................................. 27 Table 29: Hyde Park Fire & Rescue District Capital Costs ........................................................... 27 Table 30: Hyde Park North Collier Fire & Rescue Impact Fee Revenues ..................................... 28 Table 31: Hyde Park Big Corkscrew Island SDA Annual Operating Impacts at Buildout .............. 28 Table 32: Hyde Park Projected Public School Enrollment ........................................................... 29 Table 33: Collier County School District 2022‐23 Available Capacity .......................................... 29 Table 34: Hyde Park Projected Enrollment by School Type ........................................................ 30 Table 35: Hyde Park School Capital Costs ................................................................................... 30 Table 36: Hyde Park School Impact Fee Revenue ....................................................................... 31 Table 37: Hyde Park School Net Capital Impacts – Total Cash Flow Approach ........................... 31 Table 38: Hyde Park Local Ad Valorem School Operating Taxes at Buildout .............................. 33 9.A.7.h Packet Pg. 979 Attachment: Attachment G - Economic Assessment (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Hyde Park Village provides Collier County the unique opportunity to transform an underutilized 655‐acre site, currently permitted as a mining operation, to a vibrant mixed‐use community which is projected to increase the tax value of the property fr om $210,000 today to $473.5 million at buildout. Hyde Park Village is strategically located near elementary and middle schools with available capacity and within 1.6 miles of a planned fire and EMS facility which North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District has readied for vertical development. Since the capital impacts on Collier County are more limited due to distinct location factors, Hyde Park Village is projected to be fiscally neutral. As discussed in this report, the project has the potential to generate significant cost savings to Collier County with regard to Oil Well Road’s stormwater management system. Figure 1: Hyde Park Site and Public Facilities Location Source: HoleMontes, 2018 As reflected in the table below, Hyde Park Village will generate substantial tax and impact fee revenues for Collier County, the North Collier Fire & Rescue District, and Collier County Schools. The results are presented at the project’s buildout. 9.A.7.h Packet Pg. 980 Attachment: Attachment G - Economic Assessment (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 5 Summary Table 1: Hyde Park Village Fiscal Highlights *Based on FY 2018 operating millage for the Big Corkscrew Island SDA. ** The Florida Legislature sets the majority of school district operating revenues through statewide equalization formulas. Source: DPFG, 2018 Hyde Park Fiscal Highlights Year At Buildout Year At Buildout Collier County:Countywide MSTU Hyde Park Ad Valorem Tax Base 473,701,000$ 473,701,000$ Current Taxable Value of Parcel (654 acres) 210,000 210,000 Increase in Tax Base 473,491,000$ 473,491,000$ Hyde Park Net Annual Fiscal Benefit Countywide MSTU Hyde Park Total Annual Operating Revenues 2,552,000$ 455,000$ Hyde Park Total Annual Operating Expenditures 2,443,000 380,000 Hyde Park Total Annual Net Operating Surplus 109,000$ 75,000$ North Collier Fire and Rescue District:Fire District Hyde Park Annual Ad Valorem Tax Revenues* 1,658,000$ Hyde Park Total Annual Operating Expenditures 690,000 Hyde Park Total Annual Net Operating Surplus 968,000$ Collier County Schools:School District Hyde Park Ad Valorem Tax Base 498,752,000$ Hyde Park Net Fiscal Benefit:Annual Operating**Total Capital Annual Ad Valorem Operating/Total Capital Revenues 1,816,000$ 27,350,000$ Annual Ad Valorem Operating/Total Capital Expenditures 1,816,000 27,350,000 Annual Ad Valorem Operating/Total Capital Surplus ‐$ ‐$ Hyde Park Annual Ad Valorem Tax Revenues: At Buildout Collier County 1,689,000$ Collier County MSTU 382,000 North Collier Fire & Rescue 1,658,000 Collier County Schools ‐ Ad Valorem Operating 1,816,000 Collier County Schools ‐ Capital Improvement 738,000 Total Hyde Park Annual Ad Valorem Tax Revenues 6,283,000$ Impact Fee Revenue:Project Total Community Parks 1,538,000$ Regional Parks 4,411,000 Roads 13,309,000 EMS 242,000 Government Buildings 1,592,000 Libraries 552,000 Law Enforcement 1,003,000 Jail 849,000 Water 4,650,000 Wastewater 4,902,000 Total Collier County Impact Fees 33,048,000$ Collier County Schools 14,038,000$ North Collier Fire & Rescue 1,089,000 Total Impact Fee Revenue 48,175,000$ 9.A.7.h Packet Pg. 981 Attachment: Attachment G - Economic Assessment (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 6 Developer Agreements, as described in this report, will be negotiated with the County prior to the SRA approval. As demonstrated in this report, DPFG concludes that the proposed Hyde Park Village is fiscally neutral, as defined, for Collier County, the North Collier Fire & Rescue District, and the Collier County School District. Summary Table 2: Hyde Park Net Fiscal Impact Conclusions per Taxing Authority Source: DPFG, 2018 Jurisdiction Net Fiscal Jurisdiction Net Fiscal Collier County Collier County Annual Operations: Annual Operations and Capital: General Funds Grouping Neutral Water Neutral MSTU Neutral Wastewater Neutral Capital: Capital and Operations: Community Parks Positive Solid Waste Neutral Regional Parks Positive Stormwater Neutral Roads Neutral North Collier Fire & Rescue District EMS Neutral Annual Operations Positive Government Buildings Neutral Capital Positive Libraries Positive Collier County Schools Law Enforcement Neutral Annual Operations* Neutral Jail Neutral Capital Neutral * The Florida Legislature sets the majority of school district operating revenues through statewide equalization formulas. 9.A.7.h Packet Pg. 982 Attachment: Attachment G - Economic Assessment (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 7 INTRODUCTION An Economic Assessment is required as part of the Stewardship Receiving Area (“SRA”) Designation Application Package, and each SRA must demonstrate that its development, as a whole, will be fiscally neutral or positive to the County tax base. At a minimum, the Economic Assessment shall consider the following public facilities and services: transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law enforcement, emergency medical services, fire, and schools. The Hyde Park Village (“Hyde Park” or “Village”) SRA, proposed by Neal Communities of Southwest Florida, LLC (“Developer”), is located in eastern Collier County in Section 16, Township 48 South, and Range 28 East. The Village consists of 654.79 acres. Hyde Park is bounded on the south by Oil Well Road, on the West by a 100± foot wide drainage canal and Golden Gate Estates zoned properties, to the North by Golden Gate Estates zoned properties, and to the East by a future public roadway, and then A‐MHO‐RLSAO properties which are in active agriculture and which are proposed for designation as an SRA Village (Rivergrass). Desoto Boulevard terminates at Oil Well Road approximately 1,000 feet from the eastern boundary of the SRA. In accordance with the RLSA Overlay definition of a Village, Hyde Park is primarily a residential community which includes a diversity of housing types and a maximum of 1,800 dwelling units. Hyde Park includes a 26.20± acre mixed‐use Village Center providing for both residential multi‐ family development and neighborhood scaled retail, office, civic and community uses. The SRA is designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation through an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving the entire Hyde Park and with an interconnected system of streets, dispersing and reducing both the number and length of vehicle trips. Hyde Park also includes a centrally located Village Amenity and Wellness Center and several linear parks located within the Neighborhood Edge Context Zone. Development Planning & Financing Group, Inc. (“DPFG”) was retained to prepare an Economic Assessment for the Hyde Park SRA. This report provides complete and transparent support for the methodology, assumptions, and calculations applied to demonstrate fiscal neutrality for the Hyde Park SRA for Collier County (“County”), the North Collier Fire & Rescue District, and the Collier County School District (“School District”). 9.A.7.h Packet Pg. 983 Attachment: Attachment G - Economic Assessment (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 8 METHODOLOGY The Government Finance Officers Association (“GFOA”)1 outlines the most common methods for estimating service costs in fiscal impact analysis as: average cost, marginal cost, comparisons to other governments and econometric modeling. In many cases, fiscal impact analysis uses a combination of these methods to generate a projection.  Average Cost is the easiest and most common method and assumes the current cost of serving residents and businesses will equal the cost of serving the new development. The average cost method provides a rough estimate of both direct and indirect costs associated with development. However, this method does not account for demographic change, existing excess capacity or potential economies of scale in service delivery. Methods of calculating average cost include per capita costs, service standard costs and proportional valuation costs.  Marginal Cost uses site‐specific information to determine services costs for a new development. A case study approach is typically necessary to g ather detailed information about the existing capacity within public services and infrastructure to accommodate growth from a development project. This method assumes that information about local service levels and capacity is more accurate than standards based on average data  Comparable Governments incorporate the experience by similar governments with comparable development projects. Studying other governments before and after specific projects can provide useful information in determining additional costs and the increase in costs over a long period of time.  Econometric Modeling uses complex econometric models and is best used for estimating impacts from large projects that create many indirect effects on the existing community such as a utility plant or an entertainment center. The fiscal impact analysis of Hyde Park uses a marginal/average cost hybrid methodology to determine the project’s impact on capital and operating costs. Personnel and operating costs were projected on a variable, or incremental basis, as were expenditures for certain capital improvements. Revenues, such as property taxes, were projected on a marginal basis whereas revenues attributable to growth were reflected on an average basis. Allocation bases include Permanent Population, Peak Seasonal Population, Peak Seasonal Population and Employment, and Peak Seasonal and Tourist Population and Employment. Persons per residential product type and employees per nonresidential land uses were obtained from the County’s 2016 Emergency Medical Services Impact Fee Update, the most recently published source (see Appendix). 1 Michael J. Mucha, “An Introduction to Fiscal Impact Analysis for Development Projects,” (white paper, Government Finance Officers Association, 2007), www.gfoa.org 9.A.7.h Packet Pg. 984 Attachment: Attachment G - Economic Assessment (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 9 The analysis includes the following general funds: 2 (001) General Fund, (003) Emergency Disaster, (007) Economic Development, (011) Clerk of Circuit Court, (040) Sheriff, (060) Property Appraiser, (070) Tax Collector, and (080) Supervisor of Elections. A reconciliation of these funds to the County’s budget documents is provided in the Appendix. The analysis also includes (111) Unincorporated Area General Fund MSTU, the North Collier Fire Control & Rescue District, and the Collier County School District. The respective FY 2018 budgets of the County, the North Collier Fire Department, and the School District form the basis for the service levels and revenue and cost assumptions. This “snapshot” approach does not attempt to speculate about how services, costs, revenues and other factors will change over time. Instead, it evaluates the fiscal impact to the County as it currently conducts business under the present budget. The impacts of self‐supporting funds (e.g. enterprise funds) were not included in this analysis as is typical in fiscal impact analysis. Utility rates and capacity fees are established through independent studies. Public utilities generally benefit from economies of scale (i.e. more customers) since rate structures are dependent upon recovering fixed infrastructure costs. MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS Major assumptions supporting the Hyde Park Economic Assessment are summarized in this section. The financial model and assumptions are provided in the Appendix. Balance Carryforwards were excluded from allocation to avoid overstatement of revenues. Interfund transfers were analyzed in depth and their classifications in the model were carefully reviewed. Revenue and costs are projected i n constant 2018 dollars, with no adjustment for future inflation. The use of a constant dollar approach in fiscal impact analysis produces annual and buildout results that are readily comparable and understandable. Results have been rounded to the nearest one thousand dollars ($1,000). Development Assumptions Table 1 presents the Hyde Park development program proposed by the Applicant which was the input used to determine the operating and capital impacts of the project. 2 Collier County considers this listing of general funds as the “General Fund Grouping.” 9.A.7.h Packet Pg. 985 Attachment: Attachment G - Economic Assessment (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 10 Table 1: Hyde Park Development Program Source: Neal Communities, DPFG, 2018 Revenue Assumptions Sales, Just, and Taxable Values Estimates of sales, just, and taxable values for the residential units are shown in Table 2. The sales values of the residential product types were provided by the Applicant. The eligible homestead percentage per residential product type used in computing the taxable value per unit was based on County averages published by the Shimberg Center for Housing Studies at the University of Florida. According to the Shimberg Center, the median assessed value of a single‐family home in unincorporated Collier County is $261,840. In comparison, the average assessed value for Hyde Park single‐family homes is $329,000 which is 26 percent higher than the County’s median value. Table 2: Hyde Park Residential Sales, Just, and Taxable Values Source: Neal Communities, Shimberg Center for Housing Studies (Univ. of FL), DPFG, 2018 Table 3 reflects the estimates of sales, just3, and taxable values for the nonresidential land uses. Sales values were based on construction cost per square foot estimates from R.S. Means, “Square Foot Costs,” 38th Edition, 2017 and also considered comparable properties from the County Property Appraiser’s database. In comparison, the per square foot values in Table 3 are well 3 In determining just value, reasonable fees and costs of purchase (for example, commissions) are excluded. Land Use by Impact Fee Category Units Residential (Units) Multi‐Family (Apts) 1‐10 Stories 300 Single Family Product A 534 Single Family Product B 598 Single Family Product C 368 Total Residential 1,800 Non‐Residential Sq Ft Commercial 45,000 Land Use by Impact Fee Category Units Sales Value per Unit Just Value per Unit Average Taxable Value per Unit Residential (Units) Multi‐Family (Apts) 1‐10 Stories 300 168,000$ 158,000$ 158,000$ Single Family Product A 534 282,000$ 265,000$ 232,300$ Single Family Product B 598 344,000$ 323,000$ 290,300$ Single Family Product C 368 373,000$ 351,000$ 318,300$ Total Residential 1,800 9.A.7.h Packet Pg. 986 Attachment: Attachment G - Economic Assessment (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 11 below the $275 per square foot building cost estimate assumed in the 2016 General Governmental Buildings Impact Fee Update. Table 3: Hyde Park Nonresidential Sales, Just, and Taxable Values Source: RS Means, Collier County Property Appraiser, DPFG, 2018 At buildout, the real property tax base generated for the County is estimated to exceed $473.7 million as reflected in Table 4. Table 4: Hyde Park County Tax Base at Buildout Source: Neal Communities, DPFG, 2018 Property Taxes Table 5 reflects the millage rate assumptions for Collier County used in the analysis. Table 5: Collier County Millage Rates Source: Collier County, 2018 Expenditure Assumptions A detailed evaluation of expenditures by the General Funds Group and the MSTU General Fund was performed to determine which were variable (i.e. assumed to fluctuate with growth) or fixed (i.e. not impacted by growth) in nature. For equitable matching of revenues and expenses, certain adjustments were made to account for funding sources from other funds. The primary demand bases in the average cost/revenue calculations were new population and employment for the County and new students for the School District. Non‐Residential Sq Ft Value perSq Ft/ Unit Just Value per Sq FT Taxable Value per Sq Ft Commercial 45,000 256$ 256$ 256$ Units or Taxable Value Land Use Sq Ft per Unit/SF At Buildout Residential Multi‐Family (Apts) 1‐10 Stories 300 $ 158,000 47,400,000 Single Family Product A 534 $ 232,300 124,048,000 Single Family Product B 598 $ 290,300 173,599,000 Single Family Product C 368 $ 318,300 117,134,000 Total Residential 1,800 $ 462,181,000 Non‐Residential Commercial 45,000 $ 256 11,520,000 Total Non‐Residential (sf) 45,000 $ 11,520,000 Total Tax Base $ 473,701,000 3.5645 County General Fund 0.8069 MSTD General Fund 0.0293 Water Pollution Control 9.A.7.h Packet Pg. 987 Attachment: Attachment G - Economic Assessment (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 12 COLLIER COUNTY FISCAL IMPACTS Collier County Operating Impacts Table 6 presents the annual net operating fiscal impact of Hyde Park at buildout. Hyde Park is deemed fiscally neutral with respect to County’s Operating Impacts. Table 6: Hyde Park Operating Annual Net Impact at Buildout Source: DPFG, 2018 Collier County Operating Revenue Projections Projected County annual operating revenues at buildout are summarized in Table 7. Hyde Park is projected to generate annual operating revenues of $2.6 million for the County’s General Funds and $455,000 for the MSTU General Fund. Table 7: Hyde Park Annual Operating Revenue Projections Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2018 Net Operating Impact Countywide MSTU Hyde Park Total Annual Operating Revenues 2,552,000$ 455,000$ Hyde Park Total Annual Operating Expenditures 2,443,000 380,000 Hyde Park Total Annual Operating Surplus 109,000$ 75,000$ At Buildout MSTU GENERAL FUND REVENUES At Buildout Ad Valorem Taxes 382,000$ Licenses & Permits 4,000 Charges for Services 26,000 Fines & Forfeitures 3,000 Miscellaneous Revenues 2,000 Interest/ Miscellaneous 1,000 Communication Services Tax 37,000 Total MSTU Annual Operating Revenues 455,000$ GENERAL FUND GROUPING REVENUES At Buildout Ad Valorem Taxes 1,689,000$ Licenses & Permits 2,000 Inter‐Governmental Revenues 6,000 State Revenue Sharing ‐ Growth Portion 89,000 Half Cent Sales Tax 385,000 Charges for Services 258,000 Fines & Forfeitures 4,000 Miscellaneous Revenues 1,000 Interest/ Miscellaneous 8,000 Indirect Service Charge 56,000 Transfers from Constitutional Officers 48,000 Reimburse from Other Departments 6,000 Total General Funds Annual Operating Revenues 2,552,000$ 9.A.7.h Packet Pg. 988 Attachment: Attachment G - Economic Assessment (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 13 Collier County Operating Expenditure Projections Projected County annual operating expenditures at buildout are presented in Table 8. Hyde Park is expected to generate annual General Funds service demand of $2.4 million and $380,000 of MSTU General Fund service demand. The Appendix contains a detailed breakdown of operating costs by line item category. Table 8: Hyde Park Annual Operating Expenditure Projections GENERAL FUND GROUPING EXPENDITURES At Buildout Board of County Commissioners 25,000$ County Attorney 10,000 Property Appraiser 55,000 Supervisor of Elections 19,000 Clerk of Courts 37,000 Sheriff 1,276,000 Tax Collector 102,000 Administrative Services 2,000 Human Resources 8,000 Procurement Services 7,000 Bureau of Emergency Services 22,000 Planning 1,000 Circuit & County Court Judges 1,000 Public Defender 3,000 State Attorney 3,000 County Manager Operations 5,000 Office of Management & Budget 5,000 Public Services Administration 2,000 Domestic Animal Services 33,000 Community and Human Services 37,000 Library 81,000 Parks & Recreation 102,000 Public Health 4,000 Public Transit and Neighborhood Enhancement 2,000 Facilities Management 109,000 Transfer to 101 Transp Op Fund 157,000 Transfer to 301 Capital Projects 24,000 Transfer to 310 Growth Mgt Transportation Cap 12,000 Transfer to 313 Gas Tax Cap Fund 72,000 Transfet to 426 CAT Mass Transit 17,000 Transfer to 427 Transp Disadvantaged 26,000 Transfer to 490 EMS Fund 126,000 Transfer to 491 EMS Grant Fund 9,000 Distributions in Excess of Fees to Govt Agencies 49,000 Total General Funds Annual Operating Expenditures 2,443,000$ 9.A.7.h Packet Pg. 989 Attachment: Attachment G - Economic Assessment (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 14 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2018 Collier County Capital Impacts Collier County Capital Impacts by Department Methodologies upon which the County’s impact fees are based generally use the consumption or existing inventory replacement approach rather than an improvements‐driven approach. For example, the County’s Parks impact fee is calculated by dividing the existing inventory of park facilities, including land at current replacement value, by the existing population or relevant demand base. This methodology does not consider the timetable over which the existing facilities were acquired, available capacity within existing facilities, or long‐range capital improvement plans with timetables for delivery of new facilities. Impact fee methodologies are typically designed to generate the maximum amount of impact fees a jurisdiction can legally assess. Impact fee calculations include a credit component to recognize future revenue streams which will be used to fund capital expansion and certain debt service payments. The credit component prevents new development from being charged twice for the same facility. The analyses of the General Funds and the MSTU General Fund account for these credits by recognizing capital outlays and applicable transfers (e.g. subsidized capital acquisition and capital fund debt service) as expenditures. This approach is very conservative because the associated expenditures include growth and non‐growth related capital outlays and capital fund subsidies. In comparison, the credit component of the impact fee calculation is limited to certain growth‐related capital outlays and capital fund subsidies. Impact fee updates for Transportation, Correctional Facilities, and Parks and Recreation were adopted in 2015, and the corresponding adopted rates have been indexed annually. EMS, Government Buildings, Libraries, and Law Enforcement impact fee studies were updated in 2016, and the associated rates were adopted in 2017. Annual indexing will be applied in interim years. MSTU GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES At Buildout Board of County Commissioners 13,000$ Communications & Customer Relations Division 11,000 Growth Management Administration 5,000 Planning 15,000 Regulation 43,000 Maintenance 71,000 Bureau of Emergency Services 1,000 Project Management 8,000 Community and Human Services 1,000 Parks & Recreation 148,000 Transfer to 306 Parks Capital Fund 14,000 Transfer to 313 Gas Tax Cap Fund 32,000 Indirect Cost Reimbursement 18,000 Total MSTU Annual Operating Expenditures 380,000$ 9.A.7.h Packet Pg. 990 Attachment: Attachment G - Economic Assessment (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 15 Over buildout, new development will be charged impact fees at rates enacted by the County at that time. The capital needs of Hyde Park were discussed with the Sheriff, EMS, the North Collier Fire & Rescue District, and the School District. The capital analyses for these services were prepared in accordance with the case study approach. For the remaining service departments, when the achieved level of service (“LOS”) for a particular public facility currently exceeds the adopted LOS, then the adopted LOS was applied in calculating demand to (1) recognize existing capacity and (2) avoid overstating demand. When the achieved LOS for a particular facility was less than the adopted LOS, then the achieved LOS was used when calculating demand to avoid charging new development for a higher LOS than provided to existing development. Data from the 2017 Audit Update and Inventory Report on Public Facilities (“AUIR”), the most recent source available, was generally used to calculate the achieved LOS. Other inputs were obtained from the relevant impact fee studies. Projected impact fee collections for Parks, Transportation, EMS, Government Buildings, Libraries, Law Enforcement, Jails, and Water and Wastewater are reflected in Table 9. Impact fee revenues for the North Collier Fire & Rescue District and the School District are presented in subsequent sections of this report. The County’s impact fee schedule is included in the Appendix. Table 9: Hyde Park Impact Fee Revenue for Collier County Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2018 Impact Fee Type Total Fees Community Parks 1,538,000$ Regional Parks 4,411,000 Roads 13,309,000 EMS 242,000 Government Buildings 1,592,000 Libraries 552,000 Law Enforcement 1,003,000 Jail 849,000 Water 4,650,000 Wastewater 4,902,000 Total Collier County Impact Fees 33,048,000$ Collier County Schools 14,038,000 North Collier Fire & Rescue 1,089,000 Total Impact Fees 48,175,000$ 9.A.7.h Packet Pg. 991 Attachment: Attachment G - Economic Assessment (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 16 Collier County Road Capital Impacts The capital impact of Hyde Park on County roads is described below. Roadway Impacts & Mitigation Based upon the findings of the Hyde Park Traffic Impact Statement, dated November 4, 2019, it has been determined that Hyde Park will not adversely impact the surrounding road network or cause any roadways to operate below their adopted level of services. This conclusion is based upon the findings that Collier County's existing plus committed (E + C) road network has adequate capacity to accommodate the 2030 background traffic “plus” site‐generated traffic. The report does estimate that Vanderbilt Beach Road (between Livingston Road and Logan Boulevard) will operate at LOS F by the year 2030 regardless of the development of Hyde Park. The report noted that this determination is based on the 2019 AUIR’s growth rate of 3.56 percent, which likely overstates the next 10‐year growth trend. Also, Collier County has established a maximum service capacity of 3,000 vphpd for this six‐lane divided arterial which is lower than the roadway’s true capacity. Because Hyde Park does not cause any transportation deficiencies to occur, the Developer will not be required to fund any offsite roadway improvements/mitigation, other than the road impact fees, which will be used to fund a portion of the costs of area‐wide improvements as set forth by Collier County’s Capital Improvement Element and Long‐Range Transportation Plan. Although Hyde Park will not adversely impact any roadways, or cause any roadways to operate below their adopted levels of service, and the E + C network will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service at project build‐out, the Developer will be required to pay for its portion of “consumed” capacity via payment of road impact fees. As set forth by the County’s Impact Fee Ordinance, the fees are a pro rata assessment towards the funding of area‐wide transportation improvements in order to support new growth. The amount of road impact fee paid per type of land use are determined via a “consumption‐based impact fee approach,” in which new development is charged based upon the proportion of vehicles‐miles of travel (“VMT”) that each unit of new development is expected to consume of a lane mile of roadway network. The cost of consumed lane mile is based upon current roadway construction costs within the County. Therefore, the payment of road impact fees is the project’s pro rate share of funding transportation improvements that are deemed necessary to support the demands generated by growth. In exchange for receiving road impact fee credits, the Developer will dedicate 100’ of right‐of‐ way along the project’s southern boundary, which will be needed to widen Oil Well Road. Also, in exchange for receiving road impact fee credits, the Developer will provide stormwater runoff storage capacity for the portion of Oil Well Road in front of the project. By doing so, there will be cost savings to the County by reducing the size and/or number of pond sites. 9.A.7.h Packet Pg. 992 Attachment: Attachment G - Economic Assessment (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 17 Hyde Park is deemed fiscally neutral with respect of Road capital impacts. Collier County Law Enforcement Capital Impacts The Law Enforcement impact fee includes the capital construction and expansion of police service related to land facilities, and capital equipment required to support police service demand created by new growth. Facilities and equipment consist primarily of centralized and support buildings, patrol cars and other equipment. Fees are assessed at the recommended level. Revenues and costs associated with maintaining and operating the Law Enforcement facilities and equipment are provided in the General Funds Operating Impacts section. Direct capital impacts on Law Enforcement are presented in Table 10. Based on discussions with the Sheriff’s Office, capital demands from Hyde Park include the cost to equip certified officers. No satellite office is needed. The calculated surplus will be used to fund other Law Enforcement capital needs. Table 10: Hyde Park Law Enforcement Capital Impacts Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2018 Law Enforcement Capital Revenues: Impact Fee Revenue 1,003,000$ Other Capital Revenues* 182,000 Total Capital Revenues 1,185,000$ Law Enforcement Direct Capital Costs: Satellite Office Cost N/A Estimated Satellite Office Sq Ft ‐ Land and Building Cost per Sq Ft 219$ Law Enforcement Facility Cost ‐$ Law Enforcement Equipment Cost Equipment Value per Certified Police Officer 106,000$ Certified Police Officers at Achieved LOS 7.7 Law Enforcement Equipment Cost 818,000$ Total Law Enforcement Direct Capital Costs 818,000$ Law Enforcement Capital Revenues in Excess of Direct Capital Co sts 367,000$ Law Enforcement Indirect Capital Costs: Law Enforcement Direct Capital Surplus 367,000 Land and Building Cost per Sq Ft 219$ Additional Law Enforcement Facility Sq Ft Funded 1,676 *Included in the Collier County General Funds expenditures analysis. Hyde Park Funded Law Enforcement Facilities 9.A.7.h Packet Pg. 993 Attachment: Attachment G - Economic Assessment (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 18 The County’s achieved LOS for Law Enforcement is 1.77 officers per 1,000 peak population; whereas, the adopted LOS is 1.84. As such, the achieved LOS was used to estimate the number of certified police officers needed to serve Hyde Park. Table 11: Hyde Park Law Enforcement Level of Service Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2018 The $219 per square foot value of the satellite office in Table 10 was obtained from the 2016 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Update. The equipment value per certified police officer is calculated in Table 12. Table 12: Hyde Park Law Enforcement Equipment Cost per Certified Police Officer Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2018 Collier County Correctional Facilities Capital Impacts The Correctional Facilities impact fee includes jail facilities (land and building) and equipment. Fees are assessed at the recommended level. Revenues and costs associated with maintaining and operating correctional facilities and equipment are provided in the General Funds Operating Impacts section. Correctional Facilities capital impacts are presented in Table 13. The calculated surplus will be used to fund other Correctional Facility capital needs. Peak Seasonal Population 4,361 Achieved LOS (Officers per 1,000 Peak Residents) 1.77 Funded Facilities and Equipment for Certified Police Officers 7.7 LOS Share Law Enforcement Facilities Item Amount Equipment Inventory Value 70,020,524$ Number of Certified Police Officers 660 Equipment Value per Officer 106,000$ 9.A.7.h Packet Pg. 994 Attachment: Attachment G - Economic Assessment (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 19 Table 13: Hyde Park Correctional Facilities Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2018 The capital cost for correctional facilities is calculated below. Table 14: Hyde Park Correctional Facilities Capital Cost Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2018 The indexed capital cost per bed is calculated in Table 15. Table 15: Hyde Park Correctional Facilities Indexed Cost per Resident Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2018 Correctional Facilities Capital Revenues: Impact Fee Revenue 849,000$ Other Capital Revenues* 47,000 Total Capital Revenues 896,000$ Correctional Facilities Capital Costs: Correctional Facilities Direct Capital Costs ‐$ Correctional Facilities Capital Revenues in Excess of Direct Capital Costs 896,000$ Indirect Capital Costs (Indexed) 894,000$ Correctional Facilities Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs 2,000$ *Included in the Collier County General Funds expenditures analysis. Hyde Park Funded Share Jail Facilities Land Use Functional Population Coefficient Units/ Square Feet Functional Population Single Family Detached Less than 4,000 sq ft 1.81 1,500 2,714 Multi Family 0.83 300 249 Retail 6,001 to 25,000 sfgla 2.45 45,000 110 Total Functional Population 3,073 2017 Indexed Capital Cost per Functional Population 290.98$ Total Capital Cost 894,000$ Residential Seasonal Population and Employment 4,468 2017 Indexed Capital Cost per Peak Population 200.09$ Description Figure Net Asset Value ‐ Indexed 111,592,344$ Number of Beds 1,304 Net Asset Value per Bed 85,577$ Current LOS (Beds per 1,000 Functional Residents) 3.40 Asset Value per Functional Resident 290.98$ 9.A.7.h Packet Pg. 995 Attachment: Attachment G - Economic Assessment (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 20 Collier County Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Capital Impacts According to discussions with EMS management, capital revenues collected from Hyde Park will be used to fund the new EMS facility planned for 22 Avenue NE/Desoto Blvd N. According to the County’s Capital Improvement Plan, the facility is scheduled to open in FY 2019. Table 16: Hyde Park EMS Capital Impacts Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2018 Hyde Park’s allocated share of the new facility is $213,000; whereas, the project will generate EMS capital revenues of $248,000. Table 17: Hyde Park EMS Allocated Capital Cost Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2018 Hyde Park Regional Parks Capital Impacts The County imposes separate impact fees for community and regio nal parks. Revenues and costs associated with maintaining and operating the County’s Parks facilities are provided in the General Funds and MSTU Operating Impacts section. Regional Park capital impacts are presented in Table 18. The calculated surplus will be used to fund other Regional Park capital needs. EMS Capital Revenues: Impact Fee Revenue 242,000$ Other Capital Revenues* 6,000 Total Capital Revenues 248,000$ EMS Direct Capital Costs: Cost of new Desoto Blvd station per AUIR 1,924,566$ Portion Funded by Hyde Park 0.13 Allocated Share of New Owned Station 248,000$ EMS Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs ‐$ *Included in the Collier County General Funds net fiscal impact buildout analysis. Hyde Park Funded EMS Owned Facilities Peak Seasonal Population 4,361 Current LOS (Owned Stations per Peak Residents) 0.000025 # of Stations (LOS) 0.11 Cost of new Desoto Blvd station per AUIR 1,924,566$ Allocated Share of New Owned Station 213,000$ LOS Share of Owned EMS Facilities 9.A.7.h Packet Pg. 996 Attachment: Attachment G - Economic Assessment (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 21 Table 18: Hyde Park Regional Parks Capital Impacts Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2018 The County’s achieved LOS for Regional Parks is 1.72 acres per 1,000 peak population; whereas, the adopted LOS is 2.70 acres. As such, the achieved LOS was used to estimate the number of Regional Park acres needed to serve Hyde Park. Table 19: Hyde Park Regional Parks Level of Service Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2018 The indexed capital cost per Regional Park acre is calculated in Table 20. Table 20: Hyde Park Regional Parks Indexed Capital Cost per Acre Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2018 Hyde Park Community Parks Capital Impacts Community Parks capital impacts are presented in Table 21. The direct capital impact on Community Parks is shown in Table 21. The calculated surplus will be used to fund other Community Park capital needs. Regional Park Capital Revenues Impact Fee Revenue 4,411,000$ Other Capital Revenues* 229,000 Total Capital Revenues 4,640,000$ Regional Park Indirect Capital Costs 2017 Indexed Land & Facility Cost per Acre 590,288$ Regional Park Acres at Achieved LOS 7.50 Hyde Park Funded Regional Park Acres 4,426,000$ Regional Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs 214,000$ *Included in the Collier County General Funds and MSTU expenditures analysis. Hyde Park Funded Regional Park Facilities Peak Seasonal Population 441,688 Regional Park Acres (Achieved LOS) 759.42 Regional Park Acres per 1,000 population 1.72 Hyde Park Peak Seasonal Population 4,361 Hyde Park Regional Park Acreage 7.50 LOS Share of Regional Park Facilities Component Regional Park Land Purchase Cost per Acre 450,000$ Landscaping, Site Preparation, and Irrigation Cost, per acre 40,000 Total Land Cost per Acre 490,000$ Facility & Equipment Cost per Acre 43,634 Total Land & Facility Cost per Acre 533,634$ 2017 Index 1.106 2017 Indexed Cost per Acre 590,288$ 9.A.7.h Packet Pg. 997 Attachment: Attachment G - Economic Assessment (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 22 Table 21: Hyde Park Community Parks Capital Impacts Source: Collier County, Neal Communities, DPFG, 2018 In comparison, the County’s adopted LOS for Community Parks is 1.20 acres per 1,000 peak population, and the achieved LOS is 1.32 acres. As such, the adopted LOS was used to estimate the number of Community Park acres needed to serve Hyde Park. Table 22: Hyde Park Community Parks Level of Service Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2018 The indexed capital cost per Community Park acre is calculated in Table 23. Table 23: Hyde Park Community Parks Indexed Capital Cost per Acre Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2018 Hyde Park Libraries Impacts Libraries impact fees include land, building, furnishings, and collection materials to serve the entire County. Fees are assessed at the recommended level. Revenues and costs associated with maintaining and operating the County’s Libraries facilities are provided in the General Funds Operating Impacts section. Community Park Capital Revenues Impact Fee Revenue 1,538,000$ Other Capital Revenues* 25,000 Total Capital Revenues 1,563,000$ Community Park Indirect Capital Costs 2017 Indexed Land & Facility Cost per Acre 282,573$ Community Park Acres at Achieved LOS 5.23 Hyde Park Funded Community Park Acres 1,479,000$ Community Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs 84,000$ Hyde Park Funded Community Park Facilities Community Park Adopted LOS 1.20 Hyde Park Peak Seasonal Population 4,361 Hyde Park Community Park Acreage 5.23 LOS Share of Community Park Facilities Component Community Park Land Purchase Cost per Acre 107,000$ Landscaping, Site Preparation, and Irrigation Cost, per acre 10,000 Total Land Cost per Acre 117,000$ Facility & Equipment Cost per Acre 148,328 Total Land & Facility Cost per Acre 265,328$ 2017 Index 1.065 2017 Indexed Cost per Acre 282,573$ 9.A.7.h Packet Pg. 998 Attachment: Attachment G - Economic Assessment (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 23 Libraries capital impacts are presented in Table 24. The calculated surplus will be used to fund other Library capital needs. Table 24: Hyde Park Libraries Capital Impacts Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2018 The County’s adopted LOS for Library facilities is 0.33 square feet per 1,000 peak population; whereas, the achieved LOS is 0.42 square feet for owned facilities. As such, the adopted LOS was used to estimate the library square footage needed to serve Hyde Park. Table 25: Hyde Park Library Facilities Level of Service Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2018 The library square foot value of $243, and the unit cost per capital value of $42 were obtained from the 2016 Library Impact Fee Update. Government Buildings Capital Impacts Government buildings impact fees include remaining non‐enterprise County land, buildings, information technology and vehicles. Fees are assessed at the r ecommended level. Revenues and costs associated with maintaining and operating the County’s General Government facilities are provided in the General Funds Operating Impacts section. Library Capital Revenues: Impact Fee Revenue 552,000$ Other Capital Revenues* 74,000 Total Capital Revenue 626,000$ Library Capital Costs: Library Facility Cost Library Sq Ft at Adopted LOS 1,439 Library Facility Cost per Sq Ft 243.20$ Library Facility Cost 350,000$ Library Materials/Collections Unit Cost per Capita 41.70$ Peak Seasonal Population 4,361 Total Items 182,000$ Total Library Capital Costs 532,000$ Library Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs 94,000$ *Included in the Collier County General Funds expenditures analysis. Hyde Park Funded Library Facilities Peak Seasonal Population 4,361 Sq Ft per Peak Seasonal Resident at Adopted LOS 0.33 Library Sq Ft (Adopted LOS) 1,439 LOS Share of Library Facilities 9.A.7.h Packet Pg. 999 Attachment: Attachment G - Economic Assessment (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 24 General Government capital impacts are presented in Table 26. The net result of $(1,000) is due to rounding. Table 26: Hyde Park General Government Capital Impacts Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2018 Library capital costs are calculated in Table 27. Table 27: Hyde Park General Government Capital Cost Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2018 Hyde Park is deemed fiscally neutral with respect to County Capital Impacts. Government Building Capital Revenues: Impact Fee Revenue 1,592,000$ Revenue Credits* 53,000 Total Capital Revenue 1,645,000$ Government Building Capital Costs: Government Building Direct Capital Costs ‐$ Government Buildings Capital Revenues in Excess of Direct Capital Costs 1,645,000$ Government Building Indirect Capital Costs (Indexed): 1,646,000$ Government Building Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs (1,000)$ *Included in the Collier County General Funds expenditures analysis. Hyde Park Funded Government Buildings Land Use Functional Population Coefficient Units/ Square Feet Functional Population Single Family Detached Less than 4,000 sq ft 1.81 1,500 2,716 Multi Family 0.86 300 258 Retail 6,001 to 25,000 sfgla 2.45 45,000 110 Total Functional Population 3,084 2017 Indexed Capital Cost per Functional Population 533.72$ Total Capital Cost 1,646,000$ Residential Seasonal Population and Employment 4,468 2017 Indexed Capital Cost per Peak Population 368.40$ 9.A.7.h Packet Pg. 1000 Attachment: Attachment G - Economic Assessment (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 25 Water and Wastewater The Hyde Park Village DCA includes sections that confirm that Collier County Water‐Sewer District (“CCWSD”) will supply both potable water and sewer service to the Hyde Park Development. Please refer to the DCA for more detail with respect to the utility agreement, including the fiscal requirement to prepay a portion of the impact fees. Hyde Park is deemed fiscally neutral with respect to Collier County’s Water and Wastewater capital and operating impacts. Stormwater Management Stormwater retention and detention will comply with Florida Water Management District (“SFWMD”) requirements, and State and County standards for off‐site discharges will be met, resulting in no adverse impacts to stormwater management (drainage) level of service. The Hyde Park property is currently permitted as a commercial mining operation by SFWMD and has a perimeter control berm that contains the 25 year, 3 day storm with zero discharge prior to discharge through a control structure to the adjacent Faka Union Canal. The property also has a small conservation area in the SE corner that is covered by a conservation easement dedicated to SFWMD which will be vacated during the ERP permitting process. This small wetland is severely degraded and is isolated. SFWMD staff has agreed to the proposed vacation and related impacts to the isolated wetland. The perimeter berm is in place and functioning as designed and permitted by SFWMD. The permitted control structure was never constructed. The proposed development scenario would involve a reshaping of most of the existing lakes to create a site plan with more curvilinear road network that is typical of large scale residential developments throughout Southwest Florida. The revised lake system would begin discharging at a controlled bleed down rate at the current control elevation and reach the full discharge allowance during the 25 year, 3 day peak storm event with discharge occurring through two structures that would be connected via pipes to the Faka Union canal. The system would provide the treatment and attenuation volumes required by the SFWMD rules and the littoral shelves required by Collier County LDC. In addition to providing the required treatment and attenuation volumes for the proposed Hyde Park SRA, the draft DCA anticipates that Hyde Park Phase 1 will accept, treat, and attenuate the stormwater runoff from the proposed Oil Well Road expansion along the southern border. This mile long stretch of road expansion is currently designed to flow into two offsite ponds that would have to be acquired by Collier County Transportation. The Developer of Hyde Park will be responsible for all costs associated with the design, permitting, construction, and operation of the proposed stormwater improvements required to serve the Hyde Park development. In the event that the Oil We ll Road runoff was routed through the system and the internal pipes had to be upsized to accommod ate the additional volumes, the 9.A.7.h Packet Pg. 1001 Attachment: Attachment G - Economic Assessment (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 26 Developer may seek road impact fee credits via the Developer’s Agreement for the cost of the pipe upsizing. Hyde Park is deemed fiscally neutral with respect of Stormwater Management capital and operating impacts. Irrigation Water The Hyde Park Village DCA confirms that CCWSD will provide Irrigation Quality (IQ”) water to the residential and commercial lots within Hyde Park. The common areas and buffers will be irrigated via lake water withdrawn from the onsite lake system. The Hyde Park Homeowners Association will own and manage the irrigation system for the common areas and buffers. Please refer to the DCA for greater detail. Hyde Park is deemed fiscally neutral with respect of Irrigation Water capital and operating impacts. Solid Waste Single family residences are required to have garbage disposed of through the County’s contractor, and residents are billed mandatory collection fees for the cost of collection and disposal service The Collier County Landfill is financed and operated under design/build/operate Landfill Operating Agreement with Waste Management Inc. of Florida (“WMIF”). All capital revenue and expenses incurred, including new cell construction, are paid through tipping fees paid to WMIF. Under the LOA, (a) no debt is carried by the County; (b) design/build/operate provisions ensure proper cell capacity; and (c) landfill cells vary by size and disposal capacity. The 2017 Solid Waste AUIR projects the County has 50 years of remaining landfill capacity. Revenues and expenses of the solid waste operations describe above are accounted for in the County’s Solid Waste Fund, a self‐supporting enterprise fund. Hyde Park is deemed fiscally neutral with respect to Collier County’s Landfill. NORTH COLLIER FIRE & RESCUE DISTRICT North Collier Fire & Rescue Capital Impacts Hyde Park is located within the Big Corkscrew Island Service Delivery Area (“SDA”) of the North Collier Fire & Rescue District (“Fire & Rescue District”). Based on discussions with Fire & Rescue District personnel, Hyde Park is within 1.6 miles of a planned fire and EMS facility which North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District has already 9.A.7.h Packet Pg. 1002 Attachment: Attachment G - Economic Assessment (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 27 prepped for vertical development. The project has no incremental impact on the building and equipment programmed for the new joint facility. Table 28: Hyde Park North Collier Fire & Rescue District Capital Impacts Source: North Collier Fire & Rescue District, DPFG, 2018 Capital costs are estimated in Table 29. Table 29: Hyde Park Fire & Rescue District Capital Costs Source: North Collier Fire & Rescue District, DPFG, 2018 Projected impact fee revenues are presented in Table 30 and total $1.1 million. Fire District Capital Revenues: Impact Fee Revenue 1,089,000$ Other Capital Revenues* 65,000 Total Capital Revenue 1,154,000$ Fire District Direct Capital Costs: North Collier Fire District Direct Capital Costs (Indexed) 1,154,000$ Fire District Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs ‐$ *Included in the North Collier Fire & Rescue operating expenditures analysis. Hyde Park Funded Fire Stations Land Use Functional Population Coefficient Units/ Square Feet Functional Population Single Family Detached Less than 4,000 sq ft 1.71 1,500 2,565 Multi Family 0.87 300 261 Retail 6,001 to 25,000 sfgla 2.46 45,000 111 Total Functional Population 2,937 2017 Indexed Capital Cost per Functional Population 392.85$ Total Capital Cost 1,154,000$ Residential Seasonal Population and Employment 4,468 2017 Indexed Capital Cost per Peak Population 258.28$ 9.A.7.h Packet Pg. 1003 Attachment: Attachment G - Economic Assessment (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 28 Table 30: Hyde Park North Collier Fire & Rescue Impact Fee Revenues Note: These impact fee rates take effect October 1, 2018. Source: North Collier Fire & Rescue District, DPFG, 2018 North Collier Fire & Rescue Annual Operating Impacts Because the current operating millage of the Big Corkscrew Island SDA is geared to much lower density development, Hyde Park is currently projected to generate significant operating surpluses. However, a vote on non‐ad valorem fire assessment fees is included on the August 28, 2018 ballot. If approved, the fees will go into effect on October 1, 2019, and the millage rate will likely decrease to 0.5 mill in each Service Delivery Area. The combination of the non‐ad valorem fire assessment fee and the ad valorem assessment fee at a proposed 0.5 mills districtwide is anticipated to increase the District’s General Fund revenue by $3.5 million annually. Table 31: Hyde Park Big Corkscrew Island SDA Annual Operating Impacts at Buildout Source: North Collier Fire & Rescue District, DPFG, 2018 Units or Fire Sq Ft Impact Fee Total Residential Multi‐Family (Apts) 1‐10 Stories 300 322.64$ 97,000 Single Family Product A 534 634.16$ 339,000 Single Family Product B 598 634.16$ 379,000 Single Family Product C 368 634.16$ 233,000 Total Residential 1,800 1,048,000$ Non‐Residential Retail 6,001‐25,000 sf 45,000 0.91396$ 41,000 Total Non‐Residential (sf)45,000 41,000$ Total Fire & Rescue Impact Fees 1,089,000$ Annual Revenues: Hyde Park Ad Valorem Tax Base 473,701,000$ Big Corkscrew Island SDA Millage Rate 3.50 Annual Ad Valorem Revenues 1,658,000$ 1,658,000$ Annual Expenditures: 2017‐18 North Collier Fire Budget: Personnel Expenses 28,798,383$ Operating Expenses 4,966,479 Debt Service 519,775 Capital 291,500 Total Expenditures 34,576,137$ North Collier Fire District Functional Population 147,405 Operating Cost per Functional Resident 235$ Hyde Park Functional Population 2,937 Annual Operating Cost 690,000$ 690,000$ Annual Operating Surplus 968,000$ Annual Operating Impacts Big Corkscrew Island SDA at Buildout 9.A.7.h Packet Pg. 1004 Attachment: Attachment G - Economic Assessment (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 29 Hyde Park is deemed fiscally positive with respect to the North Collier Fire & Rescue Control District. COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOLS FISCAL IMPACT Collier County Schools Capital Impacts The projected enrollment of Hyde Park on the Collier County School District is shown in Table 32. The student generation rates in the 2015 School Impact Fee Update, the most recent data available, were used to calculate enrollment. Table 32: Hyde Park Projected Public School Enrollment Source: Collier County School District, Neal Communities, DPFG, 2018 Hyde Park is located in the E10 North Central Area CSA for elementary schools, the M3 North Central Area CSA for middle schools, and the H3 North Central Area CSA for high schools. The FISH capacity and enrollment data from the Collier County Public Schools Capital Improvement Plan Fiscal Years 2019‐2038 is shown in Table 33. As indicated, the School District is expecting additional available elementary and middle school seats in FY 2 022‐23. The projected enrollment decline for those school types is a function of age cohort trends and the potential effects from Collier Charter Academy (K‐8) opening in the 2017‐18 school year. Table 33: Collier County School District 2022‐23 Available Capacity Source: Collier County School District, Neal Communities, DPFG, 2018 Residential Unit Type Units SGR Projected Students Multi‐Family (Apts) 1‐10 Stories 300 0.11 33 Single Family Product A 534 0.34 182 Single Family Product B 598 0.34 203 Single Family Product C 368 0.34 125 Total Residential 1,800 543 # School Year Opened FISH Capacity 2017‐18 2017‐18 Peak Enrolled 2017‐18 Available Seats 2022/23 Enrolled 2022/23 Available Seats Elementary 1 Corkscrew 1999 809 631 178 599 210 2 Estates 2004 690 589 101 596 94 Total Elementary 1,499 1,220 279 1,195 304 Middle 1 Corkscrew 2000 1,014 778 236 734 280 2 Cypress Palm 2007 1,146 718 428 742 404 3 Golden Gate 1981 1,059 1,110 (51) 1,061 (2) Total Middle 3,219 2,606 613 2,537 682 High (1) 1 Golden Gate 2004 1,989 1,872 117 1,795 194 2 Palmetto Ridge 2004 2,006 1,950 56 2,200 (194) Total High 3,995 3,822 173 3,995 0 Note 1: New high school planned for opening in 2023. 9.A.7.h Packet Pg. 1005 Attachment: Attachment G - Economic Assessment (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 30 A comparison of Hyde Park’s projected public school enrollment by school type to available capacity anticipated in FY 2022‐23 is shown in Table 34. Table 34: Hyde Park Projected Enrollment by School Type Source: Collier County School District, Neal Communities, DPFG, 2018 Based on discussions with School District staff, the new studen ts from Hyde Park are not expected to trigger level of service issues given existing and planned schools. At this point, it cannot be determined how many, if any, new student seats will be required for Hyde Park’s elementary and middle school students. The capital costs of the Hyde Park students are presented in Table 35 and are based on the 2015 School Impact Fee Update which includes a capitalized interest component. These estimates are very conservative as they do not consider statutory student station cost caps set forth by F.S. 1013.64(b) which became effective on July 1, 2017. As of June 2018, the statutory cost caps are Elementary $22,402, Middle $24,191, and High $31,423. Table 35: Hyde Park School Capital Costs Source: Collier County Schools, DPFG, 2018 School impact fee revenue, under the adopted rates as of February 8, 2018, is shown in Table 36. School Type Projected Students Percent North Central CSA Available Capacity 2022‐23 Elementary 248 46% 304 Middle 118 22% 682 High 177 33% 0 Total 543 100% Facility Costs Students Cost per Student Total School Facility Cost: Elementary TBD 36,058$ TBD Middle TBD 42,266 TBD High 154 48,381 7,451,000 Cost of New School Facilities 154 48,383$ 7,451,000$ Transportation and Ancillary Costs ‐ Initial: Transportation 543 $ 1,097 596,000 Anxillary Facility 543 $ 1,206 655,000 Total Transportation/Ancillary 543 $ 2,303 1,251,000 Total Capital Costs 16,026$ 8,702,000$ TBD = To Be Determined 9.A.7.h Packet Pg. 1006 Attachment: Attachment G - Economic Assessment (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 31 Table 36: Hyde Park School Impact Fee Revenue Source: Collier County Schools, DPFG, 2018 As seen in Table 37, capital revenues consist primarily of ad valorem taxes and impact fees. The Capital Outlay Millage, which is determined locally by the School Board within parameters established by the State Legislature, is currently 1.48 mills. The millage was lowered from the statutory maximum of 1.50 mills in FY 2018; however, increased property values resulted in additional Capital Outlay revenues. Table 37: Hyde Park School Net Capital Impacts – Total Cash Flow Approach Source: Collier County Schools, DPFG, 2018 Collier County Schools Operating Impacts The Florida Legislature establishes the school operating millage based on the General Appropriations Act. Legislative committees meet to debate continuing and new initiatives in Units or Sq Ft Total Residential Multi‐Family (Apts) 1‐10 Stories 300 2,844.19$ 853,000 Single Family Product A 534 8,789.54$ 4,694,000 Single Family Product B 598 8,789.54$ 5,256,000 Single Family Product C 368 8,789.54$ 3,235,000 Total 1,800 14,038,000$ Rates As of Feb 8, 2018 School Impact Fee Revenue Capital Improvement Tax* School Impact Fee Revenue 14,038,000$ Direct School Capital Expenditures: New High School 7,451,000$ New School Buses K‐12 596,000 Direct School Capital Expenditures: 8,047,000$ Other Eligible Capacity‐Adding Capital Expenditures 5,991,000$ Total School Impact Fee Expenditures 14,038,000$ Capital Improvement Tax Revenue School District Capital Tax ‐ Residential 13,068,000$ School District Capital Tax ‐ NonResidential 244,000 Total School Capital Revenues 13,312,000$ School Capital Expenditures: School Bus Replacement Cost 596,000$ Charter School Pass‐Through 423,000 Other Direct School and/or Systemwide Capital Expenditures 12,293,000 Total School Capital Expenditures 13,312,000$ * Consistent with 25‐Year Credit Period in CCPS School Impact Fee Study. Revenue/Expense 9.A.7.h Packet Pg. 1007 Attachment: Attachment G - Economic Assessment (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 32 education and set a budget based on these results within the General Appropriations Act. The State budget determines the Required Local Effort Millage (“RLE”) for each school district. The RLE is the amount of funding that each district provides annually towards the cost of the Florida Education Finance Program (“FEFP”). The aggregate RLE for all school districts is prescribed by the Legislature as a specific line item in the annual General Appropriations Act. The Commissioner of Education is also authorized to adjust the millage rate to make sure no school district’s RLE exceeds 90 percent of that district’s total FEFP entitlement. The Legislature establishes a per student funding amount which is based upon the local authorities taxing of both the RLE and the 0.748 discretionary tax millage. According to the School District, the school tax millage for Collier County is much lower than the statewide average and typically ranks within the three lowest out of all Florida school districts. A comparison of the School District’s tax roll and millage history is shown in Figure 3. Figure 2: Collier County School District Tax Roll and Millage History Source: Collier County School District, 2018 Because the Legislature sets the majority of school district operating revenues through a series of statewide equalization formulas, most fiscal analysts do not attempt to model school operating impacts. An estimate of local ad valorem school operating revenues is shown in Table 38. 9.A.7.h Packet Pg. 1008 Attachment: Attachment G - Economic Assessment (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 33 Table 38: Hyde Park Local Ad Valorem School Operating Taxes at Buildout Source: Collier County Schools, DPFG, 2018 Hyde Park is deemed fiscally neutral respect to the Collier County School District. School District Operating Results At Buildout Ad Valorem Local Millage ‐ Residential 3.642 1,774,000$ Ad Valorem Local Millage ‐ NonResidential 3.642 42,000 Ad Valorem Local Millage Revenues 1,816,000$ Ad Valorem Local Millage Operating Expenditures 1,816,000$ Ad Valorem Local Millage Net Revenues ‐$ Operating Millage 9.A.7.h Packet Pg. 1009 Attachment: Attachment G - Economic Assessment (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 34 APPENDIX Appendix Table 1: Collier County Base Assumptions Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2018 COLLIER COUNTY STUDY PERIOD FY 2018 County Budget Year COLLIER COUNTYWIDE POPULATION 368,073 2018 County Permanent Population ‐ Collier County 2017 AUIR 1.20 Seasonal Population Coefficient ‐ Collier County 441,688 2018 County Peak Seaonal Population ‐ Collier County 2017 AUIR 73,615 2018 County Peak Seasonal Population COLLIER COUNTYWIDE EMPLOYMENT 196,065 Collier County 2016 EMS Impact Fee Update 0.8897602 FTE Conversion Factor ‐ IMPLAN 174,451 Collier County 2016 EMS Impact Fee Update COLLIER COUNTY PEAK TOURIST POPULATION 230,700 Collier County CVB 2017 Profile ‐ March 2017 7,442 Peak Daily Tourists COLLIER COUNTYWIDE POPULATION AND JOBS 542,524 County Permanent Population and Jobs 616,139 County Peak Seasonal Population and Jobs 623,581 County Peak Seasonal Population, Tourists, and Jobs COLLIER UNINCORPORATED COUNTY POPULATION 326,511 2018 Unincorporated County Permanent Population ‐ Collier County 2017 AUIR 1.21 Seasonal Unincorporated Population Coefficient ‐ Collier County 395,964 2018 Unincorporated County Peak Seaonal Population ‐ Coll ier County 2017 AUIR 69,453 2018 Unincorporated County Peak Seasonal Population COLLIER COUNTY UNINCORPORATED EMPLOYMENT 154,752 Allocation based on Collier County 2016 EMS Impact Fee Update COLLIER COUNTY UNINCORPORATED POPULATION AND JOBS 481,263 County Permanent Population and Jobs 550,716 County Peak Seasonal Population and Jobs COLLIER COUNTY MILLAGE RATES 3.5645 County General Fund 0.8069 MSTD General Fund 0.0293 Water Pollution Control COLLIER COUNTY % HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION Shimberg Center for Housing Studies ‐ 2017 Final Tax Roll Year 65% Single Family 31% Condominium 50,000$ County Homestead Exemption 25,000$ School Homestead Exemption 9.A.7.h Packet Pg. 1010 Attachment: Attachment G - Economic Assessment (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 35 Appendix Table 2: Hyde Park Resident Population and Seasonal Population Coefficients Source: Neal Communities, Collier County, DPFG, 2018 Appendix Table 3: Hyde Park Population and Employment Estimates Source: Neal Communities, Collier County, DPFG, 2018 Appendix Table 4: Hyde Park Population and Employment Summary Source: Neal Communities, Inc., Collier County, DPFG, 2018 Appendix Table 5: Hyde Park Public School Enrollment Source: Collier County Schools, DPFG, 2018 Land Use by Impact Fee Category Permanent Population Per Unit Seasonal Index Peak Seasonal Persons Per Unit Residential (Units) Multi‐Family (Apts) 1‐10 Stories 1.05 1.20 1.26 Single Family Product A 2.21 1.20 2.65 Single Family Product B 2.21 1.20 2.65 Single Family Product C 2.21 1.20 2.65 Land Use by Impact Fee Category Units Units Total Units Peak Seasonal Persons Per Unit Peak Seasonal Population Permanent Population Per Unit Permanent Population Residential (Units) Multi‐Family (Apts) 1‐10 Stories 300 300 1.26 378 1.05 315 Single Family Product A 534 534 2.65 1,418 2.21 1,181 Single Family Product B 598 598 2.65 1,588 2.21 1,323 Single Family Product C 368 368 2.65 977 2.21 814 Total Residential 1,800 1,800 4,361 3,633 Non‐Residential Occup % Sq Ft Total Sq Ft Employment Coefficient Employees Retail 6,001‐25,000 sf 95% 45,000 45,000 2.50 107 Cumulative Population and Employment At Buildout Permanent Population 3,633 Permanent Population and Jobs 3,740 Residential Seasonal Population 4,361 Residential Seasonal Population and Tourists 4,361 Employment 107 Residential Seasonal Population and Employment 4,468 Residential Seasonal Population, Tourists, and Employment 4,468 Residential Unit Type Units SGR Projected Students Multi‐Family (Apts) 1‐10 Stories 300 0.11 33 Single Family Product A 534 0.34 182 Single Family Product B 598 0.34 203 Single Family Product C 368 0.34 125 Total Residential 1,800 543 9.A.7.h Packet Pg. 1011 Attachment: Attachment G - Economic Assessment (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 36 Appendix Table 6: Hyde Park County Tax Base Source: Neal Communities, Collier County, Shimberg Center for Housing Studies (Univ. of FL), DPFG, 2018 Appendix Table 7: Hyde Park School District Tax Base Source: Neal Communities, Collier County, Shimberg Center for Housing Studies (Univ. of FL), DPFG, 2018 Units or Taxable Value Land Use Sq Ft per Unit/SF At Buildout Residential Condo, Duplex, or Single‐Family Attached ‐ ‐$ ‐$ Multi‐Family (Apts) 1‐10 Stories 300 158,000$ 47,400,000 Single Family Product A 534 232,300$ 124,048,000 Single Family Product B 598 290,300$ 173,599,000 Single Family Product C 368 318,300$ 117,134,000 Total Residential 1,800 462,181,000$ Non‐Residential Retail 6,001‐25,000 sf 45,000 256$ 11,520,000 Total Non‐Residential (sf)45,000 11,520,000$ Total Tax Base 473,701,000$ Units or Taxable Value Sq Ft per Unit/SF At Buildout Residential Condo, Duplex, or Single‐Family Attached ‐ ‐$ ‐$ Multi‐Family (Apts) 1‐10 Stories 300 158,000$ 47,400,000 Single Family Product A 534 249,000$ 132,966,000 Single Family Product B 598 307,000$ 183,586,000 Single Family Product C 368 335,000$ 123,280,000 Total Residential 1,800 487,232,000$ Non‐Residential Retail 6,001‐25,000 sf 45,000 256$ 11,520,000 Total Non‐Residential (sf)45,000 11,520,000$ Total Tax Base 498,752,000$ 9.A.7.h Packet Pg. 1012 Attachment: Attachment G - Economic Assessment (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 37 Appendix Table 8: FY 2018 Collier County General Funds and MSTU Revenue Budget Summaries Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2018 Ad Valorem TaxesLicenses & PermitsInter‐Governmental RevenuesState Revenue SharingHalf Cent Sales TaxFed Payment in Lieu of TaxesCharges for ServicesFines & ForfeituresMiscellaneous RevenuesInterest/ MiscellaneousIndirect Service Charge Carry Forward001 General Fund 298,046,800$ 317,300$ 453,000$ 10,000,000$ 39,000,000$ 900,000$ 12,896,000$ 401,000$ 201,700$ 860,000$ 8,053,100$ 51,431,600$ 002 Impact Fee Deferral Program ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 9,000 003 Emergency Relief ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,400 ‐ 488,100 007 Economic Development ‐ ‐ 400,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 15,600 ‐ 1,718,200 011 Clerk of Circuit Court ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3,087,800 ‐ ‐ 15,000 ‐ ‐ 040 Sheriff ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 060 Property Appraiser ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 070 Tax Collector ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 21,456,600 ‐ ‐ 250,200 ‐ ‐ 080 Supervisor of Elections ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total General Fund Grouping Revenues 298,046,800$ 317,300$ 853,000$ 10,000,000$ 39,000,000$ 900,000$ 37,440,400$ 401,000$ 201,700$ 1,143,200$ 8,053,100$ 53,646,900$ Ad Valorem TaxesLicenses & PermitsInter‐Governmental RevenuesState Revenue SharingHalf Cent Sales TaxFed Payment in Lieu of TaxesCharges for ServicesFines & ForfeituresMiscellaneous RevenuesInterest/ MiscellaneousIndirect Service Charge Carry Forward111 Unincorporated Area General Fund 41,794,300$ $ 450,000 ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 3,353,100$ 339,000$ 232,100$ 120,000$ ‐$ 7,436,300$ GENERAL FUND GROUPING REVENUES AND SOURCESUNINCORPORATED GENERAL FUND REVENUES AND SOURCESCommunication Services TaxSpecial AssessmentsTransfers from General Fund (001)Transfers from Constitutional Officers Other TransfersReimburse from Other DepartmentsLess 5% Required by Law Total001 General Fund ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 6,600,000$ 2,182,800$ 792,700$ (18,183,300)$ 413,952,700$ 002 Impact Fee Deferral Program ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 9,000 003 Emergency Relief ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (200) 490,300 007 Economic Development ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (20,800) 2,113,000 011 Clerk of Circuit Court ‐ ‐ 6,823,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ (154,400) 9,771,400 040 Sheriff ‐ ‐ 174,720,200 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 174,720,200 060 Property Appraiser ‐ ‐ 6,739,300 ‐ 723,200 ‐ ‐ 7,462,500 070 Tax Collector ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 21,706,800 080 Supervisor of Elections ‐ ‐ 3,702,100 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3,702,100 Total General Fund Grouping Revenues ‐$ ‐$ 191,984,600$ 6,600,000$ 2,906,000$ 792,700$ (18,358,700)$ 633,928,000$ Communication Services TaxSpecial AssessmentsTransfers from General Fund (001)Transfers from Constitutional Officers Other TransfersReimburse from Other DepartmentsLess 5% Required by Law Total111 Unincorporated Area General Fund 4,600,000$ 37,000$ 841,900$ 200,000$ 493,300$ 21,500$ (2,546,900)$ 57,371,600$ GENERAL FUND GROUPING REVENUES AND SOURCESUNINCORPORATED GENERAL FUND REVENUES AND SOURCES9.A.7.hPacket Pg. 1013Attachment: Attachment G - Economic Assessment (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 38 Appendix Table 9: FY 2018 Collier County General Funds Revenue Demand Units Source: Collier County, DFPG, 2018 Appendix Table 10: FY 2018 Collier County MSTU Revenue Demand Units Source: Collier County, DFPG, 2018 General Fund Grouping Revenue Category Budget Demand Base Multipli er Base Demand $ Per Demand Unit Ad Valorem Taxes 298,046,800$ CUMULATIVE AV 1.00 N/A N/A Licenses & Permits 317,300 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 542,524 0.58$ Inter‐Governmental Revenues 853,000 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 542,524 1.57$ State Revenue Sharing ‐ Fixed Portion 998,000 FIXED 1.00 ‐ N/A State Revenue Sharing ‐ Growth Portion 9,002,000 PERMPOP 1.00 368,073 24.46$ Half Cent Sales Tax 39,000,000 PERMPOP 1.00 368,073 105.96$ Fed Payment in Lieu of Taxes 900,000 FIXED 1.00 ‐ N/A Charges for Services 37,440,400 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 542,524 69.01$ Fines & Forfeitures 401,000 PEAKPOP 1.00 441,688 0.91$ Miscellaneous Revenues 201,700 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 542,524 0.37$ Interest/ Miscellaneous 1,143,200 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 542,524 2.11$ Indirect Service Charge 8,053,100 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 542,524 14.84$ Carry Forward 53,646,900 FIXED 1.00 ‐ N/A Transfers from General Fund (001) 191,984,600 FIXED 1.00 ‐ N/A Transfers from Constitutional Officers 6,600,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 616,139 10.71$ Other Transfers 2,906,000 FIXED 1.00 ‐ N/A Reimburse from Other Departments 792,700 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 616,139 1.29$ Less 5% Required by Law (18,358,700) FIXED 1.00 ‐ N/A Total 633,928,000$ 231.81$ General Fund Grouping Revenue Category Budget Demand Base Multipli er Base Demand $ Per Demand Unit Ad Valorem Taxes 41,794,300$ CUMULATIVE AV 1.00 N/A N/A Licenses & Permits 450,000 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 481,263 0.94$ Charges for Services 3,353,100 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 481,263 6.97$ Fines & Forfeitures 339,000 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 481,263 0.70$ Miscellaneous Revenues 232,100 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,716 0.42$ Interest/ Miscellaneous 120,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,716 0.22$ Carry Forward 7,436,300 FIXED 1.00 ‐ N/A Communication Services Tax 4,600,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,716 8.35$ Special Assessments 37,000 FIXED 1.00 ‐ N/A Transfers from General Fund (001) 841,900 FIXED 1.00 ‐ N/A Transfers from Constitutional Officers 200,000 FIXED 1.00 ‐ N/A Other Transfers 493,300 FIXED 1.00 ‐ N/A Reimburse from Other Departments 21,500 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,716 0.04$ Less 5% Required by Law (2,546,900) FIXED 1.00 ‐ N/A Total 57,371,600$ 17.64$ 9.A.7.h Packet Pg. 1014 Attachment: Attachment G - Economic Assessment (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 39 Appendix Table 11: Hyde Park General Funds Revenue at Buildout Source: Collier County, DFPG, 2018 Appendix Table 12: Hyde Park MSTU Revenue at Buildout Source: Collier County, DFPG, 2018 GENERAL FUND GROUPING REVENUES Demand Base At Buildout Ad Valorem Taxes CUMULATIVE AV 3.5645$ 1,689,000$ Licenses & Permits PERMPOP&JOBS 0.58$ 2,000 Inter‐Governmental Revenues PERMPOP&JOBS 1.57$ 6,000 State Revenue Sharing ‐ Growth Portion PERMPOP 24.46$ 89,000 Half Cent Sales Tax PERMPOP 105.96$ 385,000 Charges for Services PERMPOP&JOBS 69.01$ 258,000 Fines & Forfeitures PEAKPOP 0.91$ 4,000 Miscellaneous Revenues PERMPOP&JOBS 0.37$ 1,000 Interest/ Miscellaneous PERMPOP&JOBS 2.11$ 8,000 Indirect Service Charge PERMPOP&JOBS 14.84$ 56,000 Transfers from Constitutional Officers PEAKPOP&JOBS 10.71$ 48,000 Reimburse from Other Departments PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.29$ 6,000 Total General Funds Annual Operating Revenues 231.81$ 2,552,000$ $ Per Demand MSTU GENERAL FUND REVENUES Demand Base At Buildout Ad Valorem Taxes CUMULATIVE AV 0.8069$ 382,000$ Licenses & Permits PERMPOP&JOBS 0.94$ 4,000 Charges for Services PERMPOP&JOBS 6.97$ 26,000 Fines & Forfeitures PERMPOP&JOBS 0.70$ 3,000 Miscellaneous Revenues PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.42$ 2,000 Interest/ Miscellaneous PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.22$ 1,000 Communication Services Tax PEAKPOP&JOBS 8.35$ 37,000 Reimburse from Other Departments PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.04$ ‐ Total MSTU Annual Operating Revenues 17.64$ 455,000$ $ Per Demand 9.A.7.h Packet Pg. 1015 Attachment: Attachment G - Economic Assessment (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 40 Appendix Table 13: FY 2018 Collier County General Funds and MSTU Expenditure Budget Summaries Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2018 Personal ServicesOperating Services Capital OutlayGrants and Aid RemittancesAdvance/RepayIndirect Cost ReimbursementTransfers to Constitutional OfficersTransfers to General Fund (001)Other Transfers Reserves001 General Fund 33,903,700$ $ 35,626,000 371,500$ 3,404,400$ 4,727,700$ 1,325,000$ ‐$ 206,905,500$‐$ 87,238,600$ 40,450,300$ 002 Impact Fee Deferral Program ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 9,000 ‐ ‐ 003 Emergency Relief ‐ 50,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 440,300 007 Economic Development 7,000 ‐ 850,000 3,600 ‐ ‐ ‐ 011 Clerk of Circuit Court 7,940,600 1,625,500 205,300 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 040 Sheriff 141,308,500 26,394,900 7,016,800 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 060 Property Appraiser 5,771,100 1,666,400 25,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 070 Tax Collector 11,365,500 2,610,400 627,600 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 080 Supervisor of Elections 2,204,200 1,477,900 20,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total General Fund Grouping Expenditures 202,493,600$ 69,458,100$ 8,266,200$ 3,404,400$ 5,577,700$ 1,325,000$ 3,600$ 206,905,500$ 9,000$ 87,238,600$ 40,890,600$ Personal ServicesOperating Services Capital OutlayGrants and Aid RemittancesAdvance/RepayIndirect Cost ReimbursementTransfers to Constitutional OfficersTransfers to General Fund (001)Other Transfers Reserves111 Unincorporated Area General Fund 18,043,000$ $ 15,791,700 411,100$ ‐$ 500,000$ ‐$ 2,192,400$ 1,374,400$ 396,400$ 15,679,500$ 2,983,100$ GENERAL FUND GROUPING EXPENDITURES/EXPENSESUNINCORPORATED GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES/EXPENSESRestricted for Unfunded RequestsDistribution of Excess Fees to Govt Agencies TotalPersonal ServicesOperating ServicesCapital OutlayGrants and AidRemittances001 General Fund ‐ ‐$ 413,952,700$ 78,033,300$ 002 Impact Fee Deferral Program ‐ ‐ 9,000 ‐ 003 Emergency Relief ‐ ‐ 490,300 50,000 007 Economic Development 1,252,400 ‐ 2,113,000 860,600 011 Clerk of Circuit Court ‐ ‐ 9,771,400 9,771,400 040 Sheriff ‐ ‐ 174,720,200 174,720,200 060 Property Appraiser ‐ ‐ 7,462,500 7,462,500 070 Tax Collector ‐ 7,103,300 21,706,800 14,603,500 080 Supervisor of Elections ‐ ‐ 3,702,100 3,702,100 Total General Fund Grouping Expenditures 1,252,400$ 7,103,300$ 633,928,000$ 289,203,600$ Restricted for Unfunded RequestsDistribution of Excess Fees to Govt Agencies TotalPersonal ServicesOperating ServicesCapital OutlayGrants and AidRemittancesIndirect Cost Reimbursement111 Unincorporated Area General Fund ‐$ ‐$ 57,371,600$ 36,938,200$ GENERAL FUND GROUPING EXPENDITURES/EXPENSESUNINCORPORATED GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES9.A.7.hPacket Pg. 1016Attachment: Attachment G - Economic Assessment (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 41 Appendix Table 14: FY 2018 Collier County Expenditure Budget Summaries Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2018 Fund # General Fund Description Total Budget 001 General Fund 413,952,700$ 002 Utility Impact Fee Deferral Program 9,000 003 Emergency Disaster 490,300 007 Economic Development 2,113,000 011 Clerk of Circuit Court 9,771,400 040 Sheriff 174,720,200 060 Property Appraiser 7,462,500 070 Tax Collector 21,706,800 080 Supervisor of Elections 3,702,100 Total General Fund Groupings 633,928,000$ Fund Type Operating Budget General Fund Groupings 289,203,600$ Special Revenue Funds 150,471,300 Capital Funds ‐ Enterprise Funds 43,986,600 Internal Service Funds 71,161,800 Trust and Agency Funds 16,700 Transfers and Reserves 153,745,500 Total Operating Services, Excluding Public Utilities 708,585,500$ Division/Agency Operating Budget Board of County Commissioners 15,257,800$ Constitutional Officers 228,397,800 Administrative Services 170,290,500 Growth Management 120,009,800 Court Related Agencies 5,665,100 Office of County Manager 50,079,400 Public Services 102,547,100 Public Utilities ‐ Facilities Management 16,338,000 Total Operating Services, Excluding Public Utilities 708,585,500$ Public Utilties 232,459,000 Total Operating Budget 941,044,500$ 9.A.7.h Packet Pg. 1017 Attachment: Attachment G - Economic Assessment (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 42 Appendix Table 15: FY 2018 Collier County Appropriations by Program Budget Summaries Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2018 Division General Funds Grouping Total Special Revenue Funds Total Capital Funds Total Enterprise Funds Total Internal Service Funds Total Trust and Agency Funds Total Transfers and Reserves Total General Funds Grouping Total Less Remittances Board of County Commissioners 8,925,900$ 3,375,800$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 12,301,700$ 4,991,500$ County Attorney 2,772,700 183,400 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,956,100 2,772,700 Property Appraiser 7,638,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 7,638,000 7,638,000 Supervisor of Elections 3,767,100 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3,767,100 3,767,100 Clerk of Courts 10,261,200 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 10,261,200 10,261,200 Sheriff 178,139,600 3,652,400 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3,014,000 184,806,000 178,139,600 Tax Collector 14,822,200 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 7,103,300 21,925,500 14,822,200 Administrative Services 643,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 643,000 643,000 Dori Slosberg Driver Education ‐ 223,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 223,000 ‐ Fleet Management ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 9,215,200 ‐ 611,600 9,826,800 ‐ Motor Pool Capital Recovery Program ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,960,300 3,385,900 ‐ 10,332,000 16,678,200 ‐ Human Resources 2,151,800 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,151,800 2,151,800 Information Technology ‐ 1,293,900 ‐ ‐ 9,736,300 ‐ 1,273,200 12,303,400 ‐ Procurement Services 1,937,100 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,937,100 1,937,100 Risk Management ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 48,824,400 ‐ 36,049,700 84,874,100 ‐ Communications & Customer Relations Division ‐ 1,377,200 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,377,200 ‐ Bureau of Emergency Services 3,023,400 102,500 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 440,300 3,566,200 3,001,500 Emergency Medical Services EMS ‐ ‐ ‐ 31,746,600 ‐ ‐ 2,029,300 33,775,900 ‐ Fire Districts ‐ 2,460,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 473,800 2,933,800 ‐ Growth Management Administration ‐ 20,075,200 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 20,075,200 ‐ Planning 109,800 3,327,200 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3,437,000 109,800 Regulation ‐ 25,153,600 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,130,200 27,283,800 ‐ Maintenance ‐ 19,810,800 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 19,810,800 ‐ Improvement Districts and MSTU ‐ 2,084,300 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 793,100 2,877,400 ‐ Operations ‐ 7,407,400 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 109,900 7,517,300 ‐ Project Management ‐ 5,459,700 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 90,300 5,550,000 ‐ Airport ‐ ‐ ‐ 3,415,000 ‐ ‐ 1,009,900 4,424,900 ‐ Reserves and Transfers ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 29,033,400 29,033,400 ‐ Court Administration ‐ 2,910,600 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 245,700 3,156,300 ‐ Circuit & County Court Judges 65,900 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 65,900 65,900 Public Defender 303,400 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 303,400 303,400 State Attorney 345,800 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 345,800 345,800 Guardian Ad Litem Program 4,600 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 4,600 4,600 Court Related Technology ‐ 1,034,100 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 755,000 1,789,100 ‐ County Manager Operations 1,358,100 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,358,100 1,358,100 Corporate Compliance and Performance Impr. 648,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 648,000 648,000 Office of Management & Budget 1,334,600 1,234,200 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 172,500 2,741,300 1,334,600 Tourist Development Council ‐ 12,405,900 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 9,131,200 21,537,100 ‐ Pelican Bay Services ‐ 4,816,900 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,993,100 6,810,000 ‐ Business and Economic Development 2,421,300 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3,272,700 5,694,000 799,900 Ava Maria Innovation Zone ‐ 1,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 114,200 115,200 ‐ Bayshore CRA ‐ 6,034,700 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3,080,200 9,114,900 ‐ Immokalee CRA ‐ 1,098,800 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 962,000 2,060,800 ‐ Public Services Administration 363,900 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 363,900 363,900 Operations and Veteran Services 935,900 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 935,900 935,900 Domestic Animal Services 3,371,600 81,200 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 278,700 3,731,500 3,371,600 Community and Human Services 7,416,300 815,100 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 705,500 8,936,900 7,416,300 Library 8,173,400 374,800 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 11,600 8,559,800 8,173,400 Museum ‐ 2,040,700 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 471,400 2,512,100 ‐ Parks & Recreation 10,311,900 16,167,200 ‐ ‐ ‐ 16,700 35,279,200 61,775,000 10,311,900 University Extension Service 756,600 75,500 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 45,100 877,200 756,600 Public Health 1,815,600 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,815,600 1,815,600 Public Transit and Neighborhood Enhancement 347,800 ‐ ‐ 5,864,700 ‐ ‐ 897,600 7,110,100 347,800 Improvement Districts and MSTU ‐ 5,305,200 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 623,900 5,929,100 ‐ Facilities Management 15,037,100 89,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,211,900 16,338,000 15,037,100 Total 289,203,600$ 150,471,300$ ‐$ 43,986,600$ 71,161,800$ 16,700$ 153,745,500$ 708,585,500$ 283,625,900$ 9.A.7.h Packet Pg. 1018 Attachment: Attachment G - Economic Assessment (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 43 Appendix Table 16: FY 2018 Collier County General Funds Expenditure Demand Units Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2018 Department Budget Demand Base Multiplier Base Demand Board of County Commissioners 4,991,500$ PERMPOP 0.50 368,073 6.78$ County Attorney 2,772,700 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 616,139 2.25$ Property Appraiser 7,638,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 616,139 12.40$ Supervisor of Elections 3,767,100 PERMPOP 0.50 368,073 5.12$ Clerk of Courts 10,261,200 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 616,139 8.33$ Sheriff 178,139,600 PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 1.00 623,581 285.67$ Tax Collector 14,822,200 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 542,524 27.32$ Administrative Services 643,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 616,139 0.52$ Human Resources 2,151,800 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 616,139 1.75$ Procurement Services 1,937,100 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 616,139 1.57$ Bureau of Emergency Services 3,001,500 PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 1.00 623,581 4.81$ Planning 109,800 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 616,139 0.18$ Circuit & County Court Judges 65,900 PEAKPOP 1.00 441,688 0.15$ Public Defender 303,400 PERMPOP 1.00 368,073 0.82$ State Attorney 345,800 PERMPOP 1.00 368,073 0.94$ Guardian Ad Litem Program 4,600 PERMPOP 1.00 368,073 0.01$ County Manager Operations 1,358,100 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 616,139 1.10$ Corporate Compliance and Performance Impr. 648,000 FIXED 1.00 ‐ N/A Office of Management & Budget 1,334,600 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 616,139 1.08$ Business and Economic Development 799,900 FIXED 1.00 ‐ N/A Public Services Administration 363,900 PERMPOP 0.50 368,073 0.49$ Operations and Veteran Services 935,900 FIXED 1.00 ‐ N/A Domestic Animal Services 3,371,600 PERMPOP 1.00 368,073 9.16$ Community and Human Services 7,416,300 PERMPOP 0.50 368,073 10.07$ Library 8,173,400 PEAKPOP 1.00 441,688 18.50$ Parks & Recreation 10,311,900 PEAKPOP 1.00 441,688 23.35$ University Extension Service 756,600 FIXED 1.00 ‐ N/A Public Health 1,815,600 PERMPOP 0.20 368,073 0.99$ Public Transit and Neighborhood Enhancement 347,800 PERMPOP 0.50 368,073 0.47$ Facilities Management 15,037,100 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 616,139 24.41$ General Funds Grouping Totals Less Remittances 283,625,900$ Remittances 5,577,700 FIXED 1.00 ‐ N/A General Funds Grouping Totals Plus Remittances 289,203,600$ Transfer to 101 Transp Op Fund 21,670,400 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 616,139 35.17$ Transfer to 111 Unincorp Gen Fd 841,900 FIXED 1.00 ‐ N/A Transfer to 298 Sp Ob Bond 2,855,200 FIXED 1.00 ‐ N/A Transfer to 301 Capital Projects 13,977,800 FIXED 1.00 ‐ N/A Transfer to 301 Capital Projects 3,335,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 616,139 5.41$ Transfer to 306 Parks Ad Valorem Cap Fund 1,100,000 FIXED 1.00 ‐ N/A Transfer to 310 Growth Mgt Transportation Cap 1,670,400 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 616,139 2.71$ Transfer to 313 Gas Tax Cap Fund 9,980,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 616,139 16.20$ Transfer to 314 Musuem Cap 313,500 FIXED 1.00 ‐ N/A Transfer to 325 Stormwater Cap Fund 1,627,000 FIXED 1.00 ‐ N/A Transfet to 426 CAT Mass Transit 1,765,000 PEAKPOP 1.00 441,688 4.00$ Transfer to 427 Transp Disadvantaged 2,681,400 PERMPOP 1.00 368,073 7.28$ Transfer to 490 EMS Fund 17,579,100 PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 1.00 623,581 28.19$ Transfer to 491 EMS Grant Fund 1,250,000 PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 1.00 623,581 2.00$ Transfer to 506 IT Capital 750,000 FIXED 1.00 ‐ N/A Transfer to 523 Motor Pool Capital 239,900 FIXED 1.00 ‐ N/A Transfer to 662 Legal Aid 147,700 FIXED 1.00 ‐ N/A Transfer to 681 Court Services 1,518,900 FIXED 1.00 ‐ N/A Transfers to General Fund (001) 9,000 FIXED 1.00 ‐ N/A Other Transfers 3,935,400 FIXED 1.00 ‐ N/A Advance/Repayments 1,325,000 FIXED 1.00 ‐ N/A Transfers to Constitutional Officers 206,905,500 FIXED 1.00 ‐ N/A Reserves 40,890,600 FIXED 1.00 ‐ N/A Restricted for Unfunded Requests 1,252,400 FIXED 1.00 ‐ N/A Distributions in Excess of Fees to Govt Agencies 7,103,300 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 542,524 13.09$ Total 633,928,000$ 1.00 562.31$ $ Per Demand 9.A.7.h Packet Pg. 1019 Attachment: Attachment G - Economic Assessment (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 44 Appendix Table 17: FY 2018 Collier County MSTU Expenditure Demand Units Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2018 Department Budget Demand Base Multiplier Base Demand Board of County Commissioners 1,183,400 PERMPOP 0.50 326,511 3.62$ Communications & Customer Relations Division 1,377,200 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 550,716 2.50$ Growth Management Administration 559,600 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,716 1.02$ Planning 1,809,500 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,716 3.29$ Regulation 5,328,100 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,716 9.67$ Maintenance 8,798,300 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,716 15.98$ Bureau of Emergency Services 102,500 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,716 0.19$ Project Management 939,500 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,716 1.71$ Pelican Bay Services 150,000 FIXED 1.00 ‐ N/A Immokalee CRA 207,500 FIXED 1.00 ‐ N/A Community and Human Services 105,600 PERMPOP 0.50 326,511 0.32$ Parks & Recreation 13,392,900 PEAKPOP 1.00 395,964 33.82$ Transfer to 306 Parks Capital Fund 1,250,000 PEAKPOP 1.00 395,964 3.16$ Transfer to 313 Gas Tax Cap Fund 4,000,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,716 7.26$ Transfer to 325 Stormwater Cap Fund 4,267,900 FIXED 1.00 ‐ N/A Improvement Districts and MSTU 291,700 FIXED 1.00 ‐ N/A Indirect Cost Reimbursement 2,192,400 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,716 3.98$ Remittances 500,000 FIXED 1.00 ‐ N/A Transfers 7,932,400 FIXED 1.00 ‐ N/A Reserves 2,983,100 FIXED 1.00 ‐ N/A Total 57,371,600$ 1.00 86.52$ $ Per Demand 9.A.7.h Packet Pg. 1020 Attachment: Attachment G - Economic Assessment (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 45 Appendix Table 18: Hyde Park General Funds Expenditures at Buildout Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2018 GENERAL FUND GROUPING EXPENDITURES Demand Base At Buildout Board of County Commissioners PERMPOP 6.78$ 25,000$ County Attorney PEAKPOP&JOBS 2.25 10,000 Property Appraiser PEAKPOP&JOBS 12.40 55,000 Supervisor of Elections PERMPOP 5.12 19,000 Clerk of Courts PEAKPOP&JOBS 8.33 37,000 Sheriff PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 285.67 1,276,000 Tax Collector PERMPOP&JOBS 27.32 102,000 Administrative Services PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.52 2,000 Human Resources PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.75 8,000 Procurement Services PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.57 7,000 Bureau of Emergency Services PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 4.81 22,000 Planning PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.18 1,000 Circuit & County Court Judges PEAKPOP 0.15 1,000 Public Defender PERMPOP 0.82 3,000 State Attorney PERMPOP 0.94 3,000 County Manager Operations PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.10 5,000 Office of Management & Budget PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.08 5,000 Public Services Administration PERMPOP 0.49 2,000 Domestic Animal Services PERMPOP 9.16 33,000 Community and Human Services PERMPOP 10.07 37,000 Library PEAKPOP 18.50 81,000 Parks & Recreation PEAKPOP 23.35 102,000 Public Health PERMPOP 0.99 4,000 Public Transit and Neighborhood Enhancement PERMPOP 0.47 2,000 Facilities Management PEAKPOP&JOBS 24.41 109,000 Transfer to 101 Transp Op Fund PEAKPOP&JOBS 35.17 157,000 Transfer to 301 Capital Projects PEAKPOP&JOBS 5.41 24,000 Transfer to 310 Growth Mgt Transportation Cap PEAKPOP&JOBS 2.71 12,000 Transfer to 313 Gas Tax Cap Fund PEAKPOP&JOBS 16.20 72,000 Transfet to 426 CAT Mass Transit PEAKPOP 4.00 17,000 Transfer to 427 Transp Disadvantaged PERMPOP 7.28 26,000 Transfer to 490 EMS Fund PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 28.19 126,000 Transfer to 491 EMS Grant Fund PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 2.00 9,000 Distributions in Excess of Fees to Govt Agencies PERMPOP&JOBS 13.09 49,000 Total General Funds Annual Operating Expenditures 562.31$ 2,443,000$ $ Per Demand 9.A.7.h Packet Pg. 1021 Attachment: Attachment G - Economic Assessment (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 46 Appendix Table 19: Hyde Park MSTU Expenditures at Buildout Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2018 MSTU GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES Demand Base At Buildout Board of County Commissioners PERMPOP 3.62$ 13,000$ Communications & Customer Relations Division PEAKPOP&JOBS 2.50$ 11,000 Growth Management Administration PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.02$ 5,000 Planning PEAKPOP&JOBS 3.29$ 15,000 Regulation PEAKPOP&JOBS 9.67$ 43,000 Maintenance PEAKPOP&JOBS 15.98$ 71,000 Bureau of Emergency Services PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.19$ 1,000 Project Management PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.71$ 8,000 Community and Human Services PERMPOP 0.32$ 1,000 Parks & Recreation PEAKPOP 33.82$ 148,000 Transfer to 306 Parks Capital Fund PEAKPOP 3.16$ 14,000 Transfer to 313 Gas Tax Cap Fund PEAKPOP&JOBS 7.26$ 32,000 Indirect Cost Reimbursement PEAKPOP&JOBS 3.98$ 18,000 Total MSTU Annual Operating Expenditures 86.52 380,000$ $ Per Demand 9.A.7.h Packet Pg. 1022 Attachment: Attachment G - Economic Assessment (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 47 Appendix Table 20: Collier County Impact Fee Schedule Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2018 Land Use Demand Unit Community Parks Regional Parks Roads EMS Schools (Rates As of Feb 8, 2018) Government Buildings Condo, Duplex, or Single‐Family Attached Unit 455.20$ 1,230.24$ 4,844.91$ 67.50$ 2,844.19$ 443.94$ Multi‐Family (Apts) 1‐10 Stories Unit 455.20$ 1,230.24$ 5,541.89$ 67.50$ 2,844.19$ 443.94$ Single Family Detached < 4,000 Sq Ft Living Unit 933.83$ 2,694.32$ 7,443.99$ 142.07$ 8,789.54$ 934.34$ Single Family Detached 4,000+ Sq Ft Living Unit 1,067.72$ 3,080.67$ 8,958.89$ 159.33$ 8,789.54$ 1,047.91$ Retail 6,001‐25,000 sf Sq Ft ‐$ ‐$ 10.67640$ 0.19230$ ‐$ 1.27547$ Land Use Demand Unit Libraries Law Enforcement Jail Water Wastewater Condo, Duplex, or Single‐Family Attached Unit 159.78$ 296.56$ 259.25$ 2,562.00$ 2,701.00$ Multi‐Family (Apts) 1‐10 Stories Unit 159.78$ 296.56$ 228.91$ 2,562.00$ 2,701.00$ Single Family Detached <4,000 Sq Ft Living Unit 336.05$ 586.95$ 499.19$ 2,562.00$ 2,701.00$ Single Family Detached 4,000+ Sq Ft Living Unit 376.63$ 661.09$ 570.90$ 2,562.00$ 2,701.00$ Retail 6,001‐25,000 sf Sq Ft ‐$ 0.76499$ 0.67571$ 38,430.00$ 40,515.00$ 9.A.7.h Packet Pg. 1023 Attachment: Attachment G - Economic Assessment (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 48 Appendix Table 21: Hyde Park Impact Fee Revenues Source: Collier County, Neal Communities, DPFG, 2018Land UseDemand UnitsDemand Unit Community Parks Regional Parks Roads EMS Schools (Rates As ofFeb 8, 2018) Government Buildings Libraries Law Enforcement Jail Water WastewaterCondo, Duplex, or Single‐Family Attached ‐ Unit 455.20$ 1,230.24$ 4,844.91$ 67.50$ 2,844.19$ 443.94$ 159.78$ 296.56$ 259.25$ 2,562.00$ 2,701.00$ Multi‐Family (Apts) 1‐10 Stories 300 Unit 455.20$ 1,230.24$ 5,541.89$ 67.50$ 2,844.19$ 443.94$ 159.78$ 296.56$ 228.91$ 2,562.00$ 2,701.00$ Single Family Product A 534 Unit 933.83$ 2,694.32$ 7,443.99$ 142.07$ 8,789.54$ 934.34$ 336.05$ 586.95$ 499.19$ 2,562.00$ 2,701.00$ Single Family Product B 598 Unit 933.83$ 2,694.32$ 7,443.99$ 142.07$ 8,789.54$ 934.34$ 336.05$ 586.95$ 499.19$ 2,562.00$ 2,701.00$ Single Family Product C 368 Unit 933.83$ 2,694.32$ 7,443.99$ 142.07$ 8,789.54$ 934.34$ 336.05$ 586.95$ 499.19$ 2,562.00$ 2,701.00$ Retail 6,001‐25,000 sf 45,000 Sq Ft 10.67640$ 0.19230$ ‐$ 1.27547$ ‐$ 0.76499$ 0.67571$ Land UseDemand UnitsDemand Unit Community Parks Regional Parks Roads EMS Schools (Rates As ofFeb 8, 2018) Government Buildings Libraries Law Enforcement Jail Water WastewaterCondo, Duplex, or Single‐Family Attached ‐ Unit ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ Multi‐Family (Apts) 1‐10 Stories 300 Unit 137,000 369,000 1,663,000 20,000 853,000 133,000 48,000 89,000 69,000 769,000 810,000 Single Family Product A 534 Unit 499,000 1,439,000 3,975,000 76,000 4,694,000 499,000 179,000 313,000 267,000 1,368,000 1,442,000 Single Family Product B 598 Unit 558,000 1,611,000 4,452,000 85,000 5,256,000 559,000 201,000 351,000 299,000 1,532,000 1,615,000 Single Family Product C 368 Unit 344,000 992,000 2,739,000 52,000 3,235,000 344,000 124,000 216,000 184,000 943,000 994,000 Retail 6,001‐25,000 sf 45,000 Sq Ft ‐ ‐ 480,000 9,000 ‐ 57,000 ‐ 34,000 30,000 38,000 41,000 Total 1,538,000$ 4,411,000$ 13,309,000$ 242,000$ 14,038,000$ 1,592,000$ 552,000$ 1,003,000$ 849,000$ 4,650,000$ 4,902,000$ Rounding ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total of Buildout Schedules 1,538,000$ 4,411,000$ 13,309,000$ 242,000$ 14,038,000$ 1,592,000$ 552,000$ 1,003,000$ 849,000$ 4,650,000$ 4,902,000$ 9.A.7.hPacket Pg. 1024Attachment: Attachment G - Economic Assessment (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Appendix Table 22: Collier County School District Base Assumptions Source: Collier County School District, DPFG 2018 STUDENT GENERATION RATES ‐ 2015 IMPACT FEE UPDATE 0.34 Single Family 0.11 Multi Family and Single Family Attached 0.28 Mobile Home FY 18 SCHOOL FTE ENROLLMENT 19,886 Elementary 9,824 Middle 13,337 High 698 Alternate Schools 3,112 Contracted Services (328) To Balance to Budgeted FTE 46,529 Total FY 18 GENERAL FUND BUDGET 46,529 Enrollment 9,652$ General Fund Cost per Student SCHOOL ENROLLMENT 2015 IMPACT FEE UDPATE 49% Elementary 23% Middle 28% High 100% Total FY 18 MILLAGE RATES 2.894 Required Local Effort 0.748 Discretionary ‐ Addiitional Millage 3.642 Total General Fund Millage 1.480 Capital Improvement Millage 5.122 Total Millage 2.894 Required by State Law 2.228 Total Discretionary Local 5.122 Total Millage 9.A.7.h Packet Pg. 1025 Attachment: Attachment G - Economic Assessment (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) HYDE PARK VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT GENERAL AND LIMITING CONDITIONS Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that the data contained in this report are accurate as of the date of this study; however, factors exist that are outside the control of DPFG and that may affect the estimates and/or projections noted herein. This study is based on estimates, assumptions and other information developed by DPFG from its independent research effort, general knowledge of the industry, and information provided by and consultations with the client and the client's representatives. No responsibility is assumed for inaccuracies in reporting by the client, the client's agent and representatives, or any other data source used in preparing or presenting this study. This report is based on information that was current as of June 2018 (except for the sections identified as being updated in July 2019 and November 2019), and DPFG has not undertaken any update of its research effort since such date. Because future events and circumstances, many of which are not known as of the date of this study, may affect the estimates contained therein, no warranty or representation is made by DPFG that any of the projected values or results contained in this study will actually be achieved. Possession of this study does not carry with it the right of publication thereof or to use the name of DPFG in any manner without first obtaining the prior written consent of DPFG. No abstracting, excerpting or summarization of this study may be made without first obtaining the prior written consent of DPFG. Further, DPFG has served solely in the capacity of consultant and has not rendered any expert opinions. This report is not to be used in conjunction with any public or private offering of securities, debt, equity, or other similar purpose where it may be relied upon to any degree by any person other than the client, nor is any third party entitled to rely upon this report, without first obtaining the prior written consent of DPFG. This study may not be used for purposes other than that for which it is prepared or for which prior written consent has first been obtained from DPFG. Any changes made to the study, or any use of the study not specifically prescribed under agreement between the parties or otherwise expressly approved by DPFG, shall be at the sole risk of the party making such changes or adopting such use. This study is qualified in its entirety by, and should be considered in light of, these limitations, conditions and considerations. 9.A.7.h Packet Pg. 1026 Attachment: Attachment G - Economic Assessment (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1027Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1028Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1029Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1030Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1031Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1032Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1033Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1034Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1035Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1036Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1037Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1038Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1039Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1040Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1041Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1042Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1043Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1044Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1045Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1046Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1047Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1048Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1049Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1050Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1051Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1052Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1053Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1054Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1055Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1056Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1057Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1058Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1059Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1060Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1061Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1062Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1063Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1064Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1065Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1066Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1067Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1068Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1069Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1070Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1071Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1072Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1073Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1074Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1075Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1076Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1077Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1078Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1079Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1080Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1081Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1082Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1083Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1084Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1085Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1086Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1087Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1088Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1089Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1090Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1091Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1092Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1093Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1094Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1095Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1096Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1097Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1098Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1099Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1100Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1101Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1102Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1103Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1104Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1105Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1106Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1107Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1108Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1109Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1110Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1111Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1112Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1113Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1114Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1115Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1116Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1117Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1118Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1119Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1120Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1121Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1122Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1123Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1124Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1125Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1126Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1127Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1128Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1129Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1130Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1131Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1132Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1133Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1134Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1135Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1136Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1137Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1138Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1139Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1140Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1141Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1142Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1143Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1144Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1145Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1146Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1147Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1148Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1149Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1150Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1151Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1152Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1153Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1154Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1155Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1156Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1157Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1158Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1159Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1160Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1161Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1162Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1163Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1164Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1165Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1166Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1167Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1168Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1169Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1170Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1171Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1172Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1173Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1174Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1175Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.i Packet Pg. 1176 Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1177Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.i Packet Pg. 1178 Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.i Packet Pg. 1179 Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.i Packet Pg. 1180 Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.i Packet Pg. 1181 Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1182Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1183Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1184Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1185Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.i Packet Pg. 1186 Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1187Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1188Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.i Packet Pg. 1189 Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1190Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1191Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1192Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.i Packet Pg. 1193 Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.i Packet Pg. 1194 Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1195Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1196Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1197Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1198Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1199Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1200Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1201Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.i Packet Pg. 1202 Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1203Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1204Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1205Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1206Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1207Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1208Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1209Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1210Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.i Packet Pg. 1211 Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1212Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1213Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.i Packet Pg. 1214 Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.i Packet Pg. 1215 Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.i Packet Pg. 1216 Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1217Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1218Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1219Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1220Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1221Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1222Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1223Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1224Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1225Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1226Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1227Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1228Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1229Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.i Packet Pg. 1230 Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.i Packet Pg. 1231 Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.i Packet Pg. 1232 Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1233Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1234Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1235Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1236Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1237Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1238Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1239Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1240Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1241Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1242Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1243Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1244Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1245Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1246Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1247Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1248Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1249Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1250Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1251Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1252Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1253Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1254Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1255Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1256Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1257Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1258Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1259Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1260Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1261Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1262Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1263Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1264Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1265Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1266Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1267Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1268Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1269Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1270Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1271Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1272Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1273Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1274Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1275Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1276Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1277Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1278Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1279Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1280Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1281Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1282Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1283Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1284Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1285Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1286Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1287Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1288Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1289Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1290Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1291Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1292Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1293Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1294Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1295Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1296Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1297Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1298Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1299Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1300Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1301Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1302Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1303Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1304Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1305Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1306Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1307Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1308Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1309Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1310Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1311Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1312Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1313Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1314Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1315Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1316Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1317Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1318Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1319Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.i Packet Pg. 1320 Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1321Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1322Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1323Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1324Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1325Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1326Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1327Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1328Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1329Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1330Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1331Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1332Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1333Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1334Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1335Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1336Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.i Packet Pg. 1337 Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1338Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1339Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1340Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1341Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1342Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1343Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1344Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1345Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1346Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1347Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1348Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1349Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.i Packet Pg. 1350 Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.i Packet Pg. 1351 Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.i Packet Pg. 1352 Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.i Packet Pg. 1353 Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.iPacket Pg. 1354Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.i Packet Pg. 1355 Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.i Packet Pg. 1356 Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.i Packet Pg. 1357 Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA)) 9.A.7.i Packet Pg. 1358 Attachment: Attachment H - Application Back up Materials (11197 : 9.A.7-Hyde Park Village (SRA))