Loading...
CCPC Agenda 03/04/2021 Collier County Planning Commission Page 1 Printed 2/24/2021 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 March 4, 2021 9: 00 AM Edwin Fryer- Chairman Karen Homiak - Vice-Chair Karl Fry- Secretary Christopher Vernon Paul Shea, Environmental Joseph Schmitt, Environmental Robert Klucik, Jr. Thomas Eastman, Collier County School Board Note: Individual speakers will be limited to 5 minutes on any item. Individuals selected 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. March 2021 Collier County Planning Commission Page 2 Printed 2/24/2021 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call by Secretary 3. Addenda to the Agenda 4. Planning Commission Absences 5. Approval of Minutes A. 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes 6. BCC Report - Recaps 7. Chairman's Report 8. Consent Agenda 9. Public Hearings A. Advertised 1. ***NOTE: This item has been continued from the February 18, 2021 CCPC Meeting ***PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA-A Resolution of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners designating 999.81 acres within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area zoning overlay district as a Stewardship Receiving Area, to be known as the Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area, which will allow development of a maximum of 2,600 residential dwelling units, of which a minimum of 10% will be multi-family dwelling units, 10% will be single family detached and 10% will be single family attached or villa; an aggregate minimum of 65,000 square feet and an aggregate maximum of 80,000 square feet of neighborhood-scale commercial and office in the village center context zone and neighborhood commercial context zone; a minimum of 26,000 square feet of civic, governmental and institutional uses; senior housing including adult living facilities and continuing care retirement communities and limited to 300 units if located in the neighborhood general context zone; and 18.01 acres of amenity center site; all subject to a maximum pm peak hour trip cap; and approving the Stewardship Receiving Area credit agreement for Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area and establishing that 6697.76 stewardship credits are being utilized by the designation of the Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area. The subject property is located east of Desoto Boulevard, south of Oil Well Road and west of the intersection of Oil Well Grade Road and Oil Well Road, in Sections 22, 23, 26, 27, 34 And 35, Township 48 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner] March 2021 Collier County Planning Commission Page 3 Printed 2/24/2021 2. ***NOTE: This item has been continued from the February 18, 2021 CCPC Meeting ***PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA - A Resolution of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners designating 999.74 acres within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Zoning Overlay District as a Stewardship Receiving Area, to be known as the Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area, which will allow development of a maximum of 2,750 residential dwelling units, of which a minimum of 10% will be multi-family dwelling units, 10% will be single family detached and 10% will be single family attached or villa; a minimum of 68,750 and maximum of 85,000 square feet of commercial development in the village center context zone; a minimum of 27,500 square feet of civic, governmental and institutional uses in the village center context zone; senior housing including adult living facilities and continuing care retirement communities limited to 300 units and no commercial uses in the neighborhood general context zone; and 14.86 acres of amenity center site; all subject to a maximum pm peak hour trip cap; and approving the Stewardship Receiving Area credit agreement for Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area and establishing that 6742 Stewardship Credits are being utilized by the designation of the Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area. The subject property is located approximately 4 miles south of Oil Well Road, east of Desoto Boulevard between 4th Avenue NE and 8th Avenue SE in Sections 2, 3, 10 and 11, Township 49 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: James Sabo, Principal Planner] B. Noticed 10. Old Business 11. New Business A. ***NOTE: This item has been continued from the February 18, 2021 CCPC Meeting ***Town Plan-This is information related to the creation of an SRA Town by amending the Longwater Village SRA to add 515.1 acres to form a town SRA, which Town will also address impacts from the Rivergrass Village SRA, and the Bellmar Village SRA. No action is required other than being informed. The Board of Collier County Commissioners (BCC) will be asked to approve a Town Agreement at the April 27, 2021, BCC hearing when the Longwater Village SRA and Bellmar Village SRA petitions are also heard. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner] 12. Public Comment 13. Adjourn 03/04/2021 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 5.A Item Summary: 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes Meeting Date: 03/04/2021 Prepared by: Title: Operations Analyst – Planning Commission Name: Diane Lynch 02/19/2021 12:40 PM Submitted by: Title: Manager - Planning – Zoning Name: Ray Bellows 02/19/2021 12:40 PM Approved By: Review: Planning Commission Diane Lynch Review item Completed 02/19/2021 12:44 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 02/22/2021 9:39 AM Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 02/22/2021 4:51 PM Zoning Anita Jenkins Additional Reviewer Completed 02/23/2021 10:26 AM Planning Commission Edwin Fryer Meeting Pending 03/04/2021 9:00 AM 5.A Packet Pg. 4 February 4, 2021 Page 1 of 82 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, February 4, 2021 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: Edwin Fryer, Chairman Karen Homiak, Vice Chair Karl Fry Joe Schmitt Paul Shea Robert L. Klucik, Jr. Tom Eastman, Collier County School Board Representative ABSENT: Christopher T. Vernon ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney 5.A.a Packet Pg. 5 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 2 of 82 P R O C E E D I N G S CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good morning, everyone. Please take your seats. And welcome to the, shall we say, cool February 4, 2021, meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. Will everyone please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sir. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Do I have a button or something that I can push to get your attention now? CHAIRMAN FRYER: I don't think you do, but I'll try to -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: A new chair, I thought I might have moved up in the world. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I will try to be attentive. And if I'm not being sufficiently attentive, raise your voice a little. COMMISSIONER FRY: Robb, it was a lateral move that you made. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah, I know; yeah, it was. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Secretary, please call the roll. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Shea? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm here. Chairman Fryer? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Vice Chair Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Vernon. (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Klucik? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Chairman, we have a quorum of six out of seven. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Addenda to the agenda, Mr. Bellows or Mr. Frantz. MR. BELLOWS: I have no changes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No changes. Thank you, sir. All right. Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is on February 18. Does anyone know whether he or she will not be able to be in attendance at that meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, it looks like we will be in good shape. At the end of our substantive agenda, I'm going to save at least 30 minutes time for some old business and new business matters that I'd like to talk about having to do with upcoming agendas. So if we're not completed by, say, 4:00 p.m., I'll ask for a hard break at that time so that we can talk about some things that -- well, I've got a couple on my mind and others may as well. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: As is typical, are we planning to break around noon? 5.A.a Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 3 of 82 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. We can decide that right now or wait and see how the flow goes. Is it important that we -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, I'm just meeting somebody, and I just want to tell them, but that's -- it shouldn't -- the meeting shouldn't hinge on anything. I'm just asking out of curiosity if that's your plan. CHAIRMAN FRYER: The plan would be not to interrupt a presentation at an awkward point. But within that framework, we're going to shoot for noon or as close as we can -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- to that. Thank you, Commissioner. All right. Let's see. There are no minutes before us for action, so we can move to Item 6, which is the BCC report/recaps. Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On January 26th, the Board of County Commissioners heard the Sabal Bay PUD rezone and amendment to add 102 acres and 230 dwelling units. That was approved by the Board by a vote of the 4-1 with Commissioner Taylor opposed. There were two items on the summary agenda. That was the conditional use for the EMS safety service facility on DeSoto and Golden Gate Boulevard and the LDC amendments, some of those dealing with the Golden Gate Parkway Professional Office District. Those were approved on the summary agenda. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Chairman's report. I have a couple of small things, and then one I'm going to use as a tease for what I want to talk about, or one of the things I want to talk about under old or new business. First of all, another shout out to our County Attorney, Jeff Klatzkow, for an excellent job in the presentation that he and his colleagues made for us under the workshop. It was very, very informative, so much appreciation to you, County Attorney Klatzkow. Second, a word of thanks to staff for providing us with the looks ahead, and I see we have another one that's before us. I think these are extremely helpful, and I assume everyone knows that with access to CityView on the county website we can get working on these projects well before our agenda packet comes through. And so particularly, in times like these when we have lots of very consequential matters in front of us, it's helpful to know as far in advance as possible what we have coming. Now, in exchange, we have to agree that we're not going to be critical of staff if the agenda changes from these estimates, because that's all they are is estimates. And so this is staff's best guess, but it's not anything that is carved in stone. But I think it's very helpful and, I think it's also helpful, those of us who want to be following what the Hearing Examiner is looking at, have those matters summarized also on the agenda and can be referred to, so that's all good. Then the one thing that I want to tease a little bit for later discussion has to do with our agenda. And as you know from looking at the looks ahead, we're scheduled to hear two RLSA village applications on the 18th, and those are always not only consequential but extremely detailed, lots of permutations and aspects of the issues that arise, and I want to be fair in not taking undue advantage of Planning Commissioners' time. So I'm going to want to talk about whether we want to go forward scheduling both of those on the 18th or put one off to the 4th of March where right now we don't have a crowded agenda, if anything at all. So that we will talk about and have a conversation about as we move forward. Consent agenda, we have none. ***Public hearings, advertised, the first one is 9A1, PL20190002416. This is the Town of Ave Maria Stewardship Receiving Area proposed amendments. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sir. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 4 of 82 COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Before we get into that -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- can I bring something up? CHAIRMAN FRYER: You certainly may. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And it's germane to what you were just speaking about. It goes to Item 6, which was the report of the county commissioners, their action. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: For this look-ahead, could that also include kind of a chart with the recent votes that we've taken and the subsequent actions that the county has taken so we kind of have a written record of -- you know, so we're seeing what -- you know, what happens to our recommendation? Sure, we get it, you know, orally, I guess, but it would be nice to see it in writing, too. And it seems like they're already putting it in writing in some format so that they can present it to us. So if we could just add it to the look-ahead. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Bellows, do you want to respond to that? I have no objection to adding that. MR. BELLOWS: Well, the Board of County Commissioners' web page has a BCC recap, and that's where some of this information is taken from. MR. KLATZKOW: Just add the recap. Just add the recap to the -- and we're done. MR. BELLOWS: Okay. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Thank you. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. All right. So this is Ave Maria. All those wishing to testify in this matter, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ex parte disclosures from the Planning Commission starting, please, with Mr. Eastman. MR. EASTMAN: None. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER FRY: Ditto. CHAIRMAN FRYER: In my case, materials and communications with staff and also members of the public, and a site visit. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm sorry; I did have a very brief conversation with Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And I need to add that as well, because I had a very brief one as well. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I did not. No. Okay. Now -- I was almost confused here for a minute. No, I have no disclosures. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I had a discussion with Mr. Yovanovich reference this petition. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes, I attended the official NIM and then -- and I do not -- I don't think I was a commissioner at the time, and then I attended the informal community meeting that the developer had subsequent. And I did speak with staff, I did speak to developer representatives about this, and I will also disclose that I have been a tenant of the applicant or a close associate of the applicant, Ave Maria Development, for 11 years. My law practice has been renting space. I don't know if that's 5.A.a Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 5 of 82 relevant, but Mr. Klatzkow said I should at least bring it up so that we can -- everyone knows that I'm disclosing it. MR. KLATZKOW: No, I think the disclosure's important, and I don't believe it's an issue. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Thank you very much. Applicant, please proceed. Mr. Arnold. MR. ARNOLD: Good morning. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Planning Commission members. I'm Wayne Arnold with Q. Grady Minor & Associates, certified planner, and our team today representing the Barron Collier companies is Austin Howell, who is part of the applicant team; Rich Yovanovich is, of course, the land-use attorney; and Norm Trebilcock is here as our transportation engineer in the event you have some questions regarding transportation. Ave Maria, as you well know, it's under development. It was the first SRA and town in Collier County. And we are making several changes that I consider to be sort of cleanup, and as this project evolves and it matures, I think you're going to continue to see some tweaks. This was, as I said, the first project that came about as a town, and there's some nuances there that we're continuing to work through. It is a stewardship area. It's about 5,000 acres. So we've got several requests, and I have them bullet pointed here, and I'm going to go through each of those, and then I'll go through some slides that talk a little bit more about those. So one of the changes we're making is to redesignate about five acres that's presently part of the services district, and the services district is really their utility site, and it would redesignate that to a Town Center 3 designation, and I'll go through that in a little bit more detail in a moment. We're increasing the civic uses significantly from 148,500 square feet to 350,000 square feet which will accommodate a proposed hospital that's to be constructed near the Arthrex site on Oil Well Road. We're modifying this to add a trip cap for the project. Much like you see for a Planned Unit Development, we're adding a trip cap for all of Ave Maria, which in the future that would allow us to hopefully make some adjustments in land-use allocation without necessarily the need to modify a trip cap. We're going to -- if you've been to Ave Maria, there is a mini warehouse CubeSmart that's been constructed there. It's fairly small. It's a little over 40,000 square feet. It was ledgered at the time against our retail square footage in the project. It's not really an industrial use, and Arthrex has really consumed almost all of that industrial space, so we created a separate line for the indoor self-storage. It's not a new insertion of a use. It's been accounted for. Norm has accommodated that in his trip analysis that he conducted to set the trip cap. But we were just trying to keep the ledgering straight, as the county staff didn't really know where to put it, and we didn't think it fit any of the categories that are established for Ave Maria. In the town center area, it has signage criteria. We're asking for that signage criteria to not only be subject to the town center criteria but also the Collier County Land Development Code for buildings. I'll give you an example. There's a convenience store out there that doesn't really fit the mode of having wall signage and things that you would find if you're on a pedestrian-oriented site. So we would like that to be subject to the county's regular code requirements for those types of commercial signs. We're asking for a deviation to allow an off-premise sign on Oil Well Road. There's presently one at the intersection of Camp Keais Road and Immokalee Road that some of you may have seen in your travels. There's a photograph of it in your report, but we're asking for one as well on Oil Well Road. And we're then asking for another deviation, and this is something you've seen on a couple of other of the villages that have come through, but we're asking to deviate from the maximum acreage size of four acres for multifamily. We initially asked for that to be up to 50 acres for our multifamily sites, and we subsequently, to our neighborhood meeting, reduced that request to 25 acres. Your staff report incorrectly states that the request was for 50 acres. It initially was, but 5.A.a Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 6 of 82 it's been reduced to 25 acres, and it's my understanding that that's similar to -- I think it was Hyde Park, Rich. You can correct me if I'm wrong. MR. YOVANOVICH: Rivergrass. MR. ARNOLD: Rivergrass, I'm sorry. Hyde Park had an unlimited acreage relative to the multifamily. It was Rivergrass that had the 25-acre limitation that we're asking for as well. So that describes the overall changes we're asking to make. The current master plan -- this relates to that services district. So this is -- the arrow's pointing to the purple area, and that's the utility site. I didn't put it in the presentation, but -- do we have access to the visualizer, Ray? This is an aerial photograph of the services site. And you can see right now it has a water and sewer plant. There's a cellular tower that operates telemetry and phone services for the town, and the portion that's accessed off the same road as the park, we were redesignating about five acres there to be a Town Center 3, which the intent here is to allow services that the community needs as it matures. There's really no place out there for lawn service providers, pool cleaning people to have a shop set up for them where they can have a place for themselves. And so they're traveling great distances to be here in some cases, so it makes sense to have a location in town for them, and this made the most sense from a community standpoint because it was sort of tucked in and away. And if you go out there, there's a huge berm that surrounds this site, so it's very little that you can even see for these -- I wouldn't call them quasi-industrial uses, but they are services where they have trucks and potentially trailers and things like that that they will need stowage. So if I can -- so on this image you can see the arrows pointing to where we've redesignated about that five acres in yellow, and that's how it would be reflected on the overall master plan. That's a little bit closer of a blowup, and you can see how that relates. It goes from all being services to a portion of Town Center 3. Potential hospital site, identified it with the star. So that's Arthrex's facility off of Oil Well Road, and the hospital's yet to be determined exactly how many beds it will be, but we've asked for a square footage that seems consistent with at least the Colliers' discussion with a hospital group that wants to be located there. I think most of the community supports having a hospital facility to service Ave Maria. I don't think there's objections that I'm aware of related to the request to expand the civic use size. We have several text revisions. This is the one that reflects the square footage increase for the civic. Also, the 40,400 square feet for mini-storage, and this is where we also inserted the trip cap. So the SRA trip cap is going to be 4,697 vehicles per hour. And I'm sure if you have questions, Norm can explain exactly how he came up with that trip cap. But we felt like this was the direction to go so we have, as I mentioned, latitude in the future to maybe manipulate some of the land-use changes without intensifying the overall project. We've updated a couple of the LDC sections here to reference the signage that would be allowed in the town centers consistent with our request. This related to our deviation for the multifamily. Right now the LDC says that multifamily sites cannot exceed four acres, and none of us really know the history of where the four-acre number was established. And I know you've heard this discussion before on your other villages, but if you're in a master planned community, a four-acre tract to develop a multifamily product when you're going to have a bundled golf community, for instance, as Lennar will out at Ave Maria, it doesn't really make sense to have to fragment your development into these four-acre chunks of land, because all it does, as Rich has said, it provides firms like mine a lot more engineering fees to do multiple site plans for something that you could have accomplished as one master plan. So I know there was some pushback, and staff says they're not supporting the 25 acres, but we think we're asking for something that's a functional size as a master developer. You all see several multifamily apartment complexes, for instance, come through, and those typically can be in 5.A.a Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 7 of 82 the 20-acre range and, larger, but we've limited this to 25 acres and hope that you can support that. And we've got an image if we want to get into more detail on that specific request if we have questions. The other deviation related to the off-site sign. And this is an image of what the sign would be with some sizes in it. And if you look at the one that's on Immokalee and Camp Keais Road, it's essentially an off-site sign announcing Ave Maria. So, obviously, as people migrate to Ave Maria from the East Coast of Florida, they come up State Road 29 and then over on Oil Well Road to the site. This is sort of an announcement, and the location is just east of the Ave Maria entrance about a quarter of a mile. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt, did you wish to be heard at this time? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll wait till after he's done. I have a question on the four -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- issue, but I'll wait till -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- till it's time for questions. MR. ARNOLD: So I put this lifestyle sign in here. This was a question that had come up at our neighborhood information meeting. There are signs sort of like this throughout the community, and I put it in there because there was some thought from staff early on that we need might need to add some criteria. We have community signage already established that these were permitted under, so I'm not going to -- we ultimately had no further discussion with staff on that, so... COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman. MR. ARNOLD: And that was it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Regarding that last slide, I don't want to jump ahead of you. It's just because it was germane to -- I thought he was going to keep going, Commissioner Schmitt, so I can wait, or whatever. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, I'll wait till -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Your call. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. Well, I'll just ask you. So when we were at the information meetings, the issue that I thought came up is that the signage is not in compliance right now with the existing code? MR. ARNOLD: I hate to say it's not in compliance because they were permitted signs, but the question the county had was were they permitted, I guess, adequately, and under what criteria. And as far as I know, that's gone no further. There's no code case against them. And we put this in case -- I didn't want to have to go back and have another neighborhood meeting because I didn't talk about this issue. So I put it in so we could talk about it and if, as we furthered the discussion, we had to put in some criteria, I was covered. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: But as of now your petition has nothing to do with these lifestyle signs. MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know what lifestyle signs are. It's just -- they're just advertising signs, when you come down to it. The distinction that we're having internal discussions with are signs that are internal to the community, which we don't really care about, and then signs that are on -- I'll call them external signs, signs that are, like, on the right-of-way. And the one thing the county doesn't want to see is, in essence, small billboards, you know, "buy our community," "what a wonderful community," "this is a great lifestyle in our community." That's 5.A.a Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 8 of 82 what we're trying to regulate. We're not really regulating the internal signs. So whatever they put inside, we don't really care. It's sort of like a store or -- we don't really care about the signage you put inside the store; it's what's outside that the public sees that matters. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, I mean, the issue here, these signs are on the roads that are owned by the local government, and -- MR. KLATZKOW: Well, that would be -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, no. MR. KLATZKOW: That's an internal issue. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, no, it's not. It's not an internal issue. They still have to meet the code. There is a county code for such signs. MR. KLATZKOW: What I'm telling you is that what the county cares about from a public policy standpoint is what I'll call the external signs that the public sees. The internal signs, we don't really care about that as much. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: You don't enforce the code there, or you do? MR. KLATZKOW: I'm telling you what the internal discussions -- I'm telling you what the discussion have been. It's not my job to enforce the code. That's on the County Manager's side. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Sure, sure. The only reason it's an issue is there's a sign bloat. There's, you know, probably 100 signs on a couple miles of road, and so in the community it's an issue; that's all. But it doesn't appear that we're taking that up, so it's not an issue for us. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have to ask, then, well, why doesn't your community board take issue with that? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: We have no authority. That's a county -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Certainly you do. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: We don't. Well, we do. It's our land, but the county -- the board, before I was on the local board, chose to give an easement to the developer to put whatever signs they want up, that's all. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Like I said, you do have authority. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Do you want to go further with your other comments? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I'll go with the four acres. Wayne, of course, you and I go way back. And I, too, don't understand what a four-acre limitation -- and I noted that staff is not approving. Typically, four acres would be, what, maybe two or three buildings at best in a cluster development. It just doesn't make any sense that it be limited to four acres. MR. ARNOLD: I have an exhibit, Mr. Schmitt, I can put on the visualizer. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, please. Because I can't recall why it was limited to four acres. I have no idea. Yeah, that's exactly what it would be is -- MR. ARNOLD: So here's an exhibit that Barron Collier created, and it shows these little boxes, and you put buildings inside a four-acre-or-less tract. And what happens, and the reason it's important to have more than four acres when you have a master developer, is that you would have the other side of this -- this shows the no limitation, and you end up with the exact same product. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And that would be -- and that would be developed as one site plan, then. MR. ARNOLD: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: One SDP, one submittal. MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And, frankly, a condominium type -- it could be a 5.A.a Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 9 of 82 condominium-type development. The other would be multiple developments. MR. ARNOLD: Yeah, and I think, Mr. Schmitt, I just -- you know, trying to go back to the whole theory of the town, and I guess if the developer had chosen to create multiple multifamily tracts that would be four acres so you wouldn't end up with, you know, a monolithic building that's, you know, a mile long -- but I mean, that's not how developers develop property. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. MR. ARNOLD: And I just -- the scenario doesn't seem to make sense when in this particular case a developer like Lennar -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: My only recollection, if it was going to be some kind of a, what do you want to call it, community blocks or city blocks that would be developed. But I have to concur, the four-acre limitation -- though it may make sense -- it may have made sense 20 years ago, when I look at it today it just doesn't make sense, and I think the deviation and the request for deviation is certainly appropriate and justified. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Quickly, to the four acres. I believe you mentioned the major criteria for wanting 25 acres was not so much this as it was being able to incorporate a golf course; is that correct or inaccurate? MR. ARNOLD: It's one example, and it's an existing example. Lennar is purchasing a large tract of land, and they want to do a bundled golf community with condominiums surrounding a golf course. And if they have to create small, little four-acre segments, it's really, I guess, a very inefficient way to develop land by just having to create these little four-acre-or-less tracts in which to put buildings and then have to deal with a setback from that boundary that's really an artificial boundary and then come in for another Site Development Plan on one more building. So this just makes a lot more efficient sense from a development standpoint. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Well, I look forward to asking staff. You know, they recommended denial of that deviation, so I look forward to hearing what they have to say. But my other question is about the signage. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: You showed an exhibit. You mentioned the internal signs. If they're not part of this discussion, and Robb has said they are an issue internally, but they're not really part of our -- no the other ones, the internal -- the lifestyle signs that are inside the community. If they're not addressed in this, why are you showing them? MR. ARNOLD: This was part of our presentation at the neighborhood information meeting. Because I wanted to make sure if staff was going to tell us we needed to adopt criteria to have those signs, I wanted to make sure I didn't have to readvertise and go back because I forgot to tell somebody I'm potentially dealing with lifestyle signs. COMMISSIONER FRY: But staff did not dictate that you had to address those signs? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just a clarification on this four-acre. I mean, the way you depict it, it does sound kind of silly if you can put a bunch of four-acre plots together and make a large community. So I'm gathering that the regulations doesn't say you can't have adjacent four-acre multifamily. Is that -- MR. ARNOLD: That's correct, it does not. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So it does seem silly without that qualification, because I thought the idea would be to separate the units around. If you can just put them next to each other, it does sound kind of silly. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 10 of 82 MR. ARNOLD: It doesn't seem to make a lot of sense unless you look at it in the context if there were going to be strict block requirements. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Exactly. MR. ARNOLD: That would be the only context, but we don't have those criteria in the neighborhood general category where these can be constructed. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: This may go back to the -- I hate to bring it up -- the Community Character Plan. That was part of the ongoing dialogue at the time in Collier County and -- when the county implemented the Community Character Plan and the infamous Dover-Kohl study. MR. ARNOLD: It could have been. I just don't recall. Maybe Anita has further recollection, but I don't. From our perspective, in today's environment, it just does not make sense to restrict those to four acres in size. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Did the community raise any objections to this at the -- and I'll ask Robb this as well. Any issues from the community in regards to the clustering like this into one large development? MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Schmitt, at 50 acres there was a lot of question in how large these were going to be; is this something that could be retrofitted into an established community, et cetera. I didn't attend the second informal meeting, but it's my understanding that when they were -- discussed that we modified the acreages limitation to 25 acres, that there were no comments. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No. I would absolutely disagree with that. I think we listened to the change that was proposed. And I don't -- the feedback that I get as a leader in the community and an elected official out there and someone who people come to when these things come up to get my spin or my understanding of these things, there's still opposition to this. The 25 acres really doesn't mean much compared to the 50. I mean, it's a move, but it doesn't mean much. I will ask -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What's the basis -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Oh, the basis is -- well, first of all, this graphic is helpful because what it shows is, if you do something that's unobjectionable, you can do something that's unobjectionable. But someone already mentioned, you also could build a large, long building if it's 25 acres that, you know, that snakes, and it imposes a different character on the community and on nearby communities. You also mentioned a developer like Lennar, and I agree with you. A developer like Lennar is not going to probably do something that seems to be offensive or unpleasant that people would object to. But we're not always going to have a development like Lennar, and that's what I would suggest. They should be asking for a deviation for this project. They want carte blanche to do this deviation throughout with no idea who the developer's going to be. We don't know if Ave Maria Development is going to continue to be the owner of this whole project. They could sell it next week. I don't think they will. But we should have policy that helps us accomplish in the goals of our community regardless of who the owner is. And I do think it's -- you know, if this was just a petition for this project, I would probably have no objection to it. I would ask a lot of questions, but I would say, yes, let's have a deviation for this project. And I would say that, you know, they asked for 50; they got 25. They're showing this. I mean, why don't you show what you're doing, and have you been able to do -- you know, what are you actually doing at Lennar, and have you been impeded from being able to do that? You sought a builder, the builder was attracted, you know, under the current conditions, under the current code, and they're building a beautiful project. And I think they're able to do it because I think they're selling -- they're already selling the project. So if you could speak to that, 5.A.a Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 11 of 82 that would be interesting. Do you have those drawings? Because Mr. Bellows -- or Mr. Sabo forwarded some drawings to me of the Lennar project, the multifamily. MR. ARNOLD: I do not have them, no. I haven't seen them. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Sabo, will you be able to show them later? MR. SABO: I can pull them up. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: He's got to come up to the microphone. MR. YOVANOVICH: My understanding, Commissioner Klucik, is -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Introduce yourself, sir. MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, I'm sorry. For the record, Rich Yovanovich. My understanding, that in the interim Lennar is doing exactly what you see on this screen, which is doing a small four-acre SDP, then doing another small four-acre SDP, then doing another small four-acre SDP to get to the overall -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Is this representative of the actual project or is -- MR. YOVANOVICH: This is -- this is an example of what -- what can occur under the regulations today. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No. But is this something Lennar -- MR. YOVANOVICH: This is not Lennar's. I'm just saying the concept of how they're doing it. I'm not saying this is Lennar. I'm just saying -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And that's why I started out by saying, this slide shows that you can do something unobjectionable under the existing rule or under the new rule, and that's -- my point is, it doesn't show all the other iterations and configurations that might not be as pleasant, you know, to the people that -- you know, the 3,000 homeowners that have already committed -- either own or have committed to buy a home in Ave Maria. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I understand that concept. And maybe I misheard you. I don't think anybody's going to come in with a building that you can really sell that's going to be 25 -- a 25-acre building or several-hundred-foot-long monolithic building, because that's just not the market. So, I mean, it wasn't our intent to provide an opportunity for someone to come in and build a big, long, huge building on greater than four acres that would be objectionable to the community. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, I would just interrupt you there and say that so many things have happened in the 13 years since I've been a homeowner in Ave Maria that weren't anticipated and that the market -- you know, the market has changed dramatically. MR. YOVANOVICH: There's no question -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Ebbed and flowed. And so that representation, right now maybe you're right. And, again, I'll go back to what I say, our job as commissioners is to do something that withstands the long haul and that looks in the interest of -- you know, the greater interest of the community, the common good. The developer -- I say at every one of our meetings -- I'm one of the elected officials on the board out there for our district board. I say it at every meeting. I give the developer a hard time, and they answer my questions, and they generally, you know, satisfy me, but I keep asking hard questions, and I always explain that I think we have a good developer. I think we have the best developer out there, but that doesn't mean that they don't -- you know, they don't deserve scrutiny. If we actually -- if they're going to be a good developer, they will get scrutinies from bodies like us and like our local body and the people. And you do well. And, you know, this developer does well, but this is scrutiny right now. MR. YOVANOVICH: And perhaps -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Just a moment, if I may. Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. As far as massing of buildings, our current architectural standards would prevent the type of building that you're talking about, if it were a 5.A.a Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 12 of 82 90- or 100-foot or more type of building. They're going through the review process. It doesn't come to this committee, but through the staff review process, there are architectural standards that would prohibit that type of development. And I don't know if staff can highlight that, because there certainly would be in the review process. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. We would have to comply with the county's architectural standards. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: What -- Mr. Klucik, what I'm going to see is if we can maybe come up with a maximum length of a building. I don't have that off the top of my head. But I think that's really -- am I right, that's a concern about how long the building -- because there's going to have to be building separation under the code. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I would say length, height, the massing of it. You could do something beautiful like what Lennar is doing. And, I'm sorry, market conditions can change. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And you can do something, you know -- I mean, let's face it, there are -- there are homes that we've built out there that are very different than what the expectation was, you know, in the beginning. And I'm not saying there's something wrong with that. I'm just saying that we don't know. And so you could propose this for this project, and you wouldn't have any resistance, and you could move forward, I think, but to say we have to have this new standard across the other -- how many homes do we have left to build, 7,000 homes, what, 2,500 of which will be multifamily homes; is that about right? MR. YOVANOVICH: That's a potential, yeah. I have to pull up the exact. There is a breakdown within Ave Maria. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. So we're talking about a lot of homes over a long period of time in which market conditions can change and, you know, I'm here championing the homeowner who's afraid of what -- you know, of the unknown. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And so I think our code should address and bridal the unknown. And what I would say is, maybe I'm wrong, but the developers, attorneys, and staff wrote the code that says four acres. Somewhere along the line that's what your team, your client's team, the applicant's team thought was a good idea, whether they thought it was a good idea because we've got to do that or we won't get it passed or it's a good idea because that's the character of the community we want, but it wasn't the county that said, oh, you can only do four acres. MR. YOVANOVICH: You know -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And so now you're asking to change something that -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I recognize -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: If it's onerous, it's onerous because the developer sold this onerous plan to all the people that are investing, you know, their lives into this community as homeowners. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand, and I was not on the team -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- when it was done, and I've asked the question "why." COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I look around, and nobody could tell me why that was in there when you can clearly end up with -- through piecemealing Site Development Plans, you can -- you can -- if there was a desire that you could never have a subcommunity within Ave Maria greater than four acres, you would have said you can't put one next to each other, so -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: The whole idea is setbacks and parking. MR. YOVANOVICH: And we're meeting every one of them -- 5.A.a Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 13 of 82 COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Excuse me. Setbacks and parking and buffers and all of that stuff is different if you're developing a large piece than if you're developing a bunch of small pieces. And this example doesn't show that, but there are examples that you could show where it would make a difference; am I right? MR. YOVANOVICH: Maybe. I don't know. I haven't -- what I'm -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So first of all, you know, as far as I'm concerned, this example is useful for the point that was made, but it's not useful or it actually -- you know, I would say I can use it -- what I said. It shows something unobjectionable that can be done under the old code or the proposed code. MR. YOVANOVICH: What I'm going to say in response is there's an envelope -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Pardon. MR. YOVANOVICH: There's an envelope. I'm going to take this off. There's a four-acre envelope, right? Take one of these boxes. It's a four-acre envelope with setbacks that are required, buffers that are required, and every one of those is met under this example. Everything else inside of that envelope, as long as I meet the development standards for height and I get through the architectural review with the county, there's all kinds of different permutations that can occur with those buildings. I can't -- I can't give you every example of what could happen out there, but what I'm suggesting is this is a fairly representative type of development that would occur and that we can do it any way under the existing regulations. If the goal of the code was to create an opportunity for engineering firms to make more money by doing SDPs, that's a great -- that's a great goal for the engineering companies, but it didn't have a planning purpose is what I'm trying to suggest. And I'm just trying -- I don't know why the four acres is there. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, I would suggest that the whole SRA included brochure language as code, which described a very bucolic, walkable, shady, you know, wonderful place. And I'm not saying that, you know, 50 acres, which is what your original proposal was, you know, the applicant apparently thinks large 50-acre multifamily home units is something that fits in with that, and I'm not saying it doesn't. But there are people who, obviously, think it doesn't. And you're saying you can still do it, but you have to -- but you're inhibited -- the current code inhibits that. At least it slows it down or it makes you think, oh, it's going to be more costly -- MR. YOVANOVICH: More expensive. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- to put that together. And maybe it's good that there's a roadblock or a speed bump, you know. And like I said, in this case I think the solution is you come before this board and then we approve it. Wow, this Lennar project is great. Who would be against it? And then we all say, great, deviation, whatever it is that you've proposed, that's wonderful. We're granting it. And that might be a little bit more costly. I certainly understand that's a hurdle, okay. Well, I'm advocating at this point I think that's a hurdle that should be there. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I understand. And I want to just clarify one thing on the record. I wasn't there either, but my understanding was that the informal meeting -- and I think what you said is the information was taken in. There certainly was not negative feedback at that meeting. I'm not saying you didn't get negative feedback after the meeting. But it's correct that it was not an issue that was discussed in detail like we're discussing right now. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. I chose to keep quiet because I was -- you know, I'm a commissioner. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And so I participated by listening. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. I just want to make sure that we didn't misrepresent that -- 5.A.a Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 14 of 82 COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah, sure, and I certainly didn't mean to say that there was a -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- something that was unethical or, you know, dishonest about your representation. You're right, it was largely virtual, you know, and it was -- people were listening. And there wasn't a lot that was new, and -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I know. And I've been in a few meetings with you where you've never hesitated to do what you're doing right now. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: So -- which is great. I don't mind. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I love my town. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know you do. So usually when there's an issue, it comes up and we have a discussion. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Personally, I'm grateful that we have an insider from Ave Maria on this issue, as I'm sure none of us are as familiar with Ave Maria as you are. It's nice to have your perspective, so I do appreciate it. It sounds to me like we have the applicant saying that the rule of four acres appears to be arbitrary, so I'll be looking to staff to tell us if it's not arbitrary, what is the justification. I guess for me, if it's not -- if it's not arbitrary, I'd like to understand what the risk is of expanding the limit to 25 acres, but I'll wait for that. I would like to ask Jeff, Attorney Klatzkow, all these projects have to go through review by staff. And are we unduly worried about the risk of something untoward or heinous being permitted out there in Ave Maria if we did have a 25-acre limit and they had -- and they could create a 25-acre site plan? MR. KLATZKOW: I wouldn't rely on staff. I'd rely on your own judgment. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: I mean, staff's here to give you recommendations and advice but, at the end of the day, as I said at the prior meeting, you are the Planning Commission and, you know, it's your responsibility to ensure that these projects are in the public's interest. COMMISSIONER FRY: I know. I just know that it's always brought up that regardless of what we decide, they have to go through the approval process, the SDP, and they're always -- these -- you talk about environmental and wastewater, all those types of requirements need to be met. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Can I bring something up to answer that? COMMISSIONER FRY: Sure. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I will give an example of the most recent SRA or the only SRA amendment that I think has happened in this project. And I brought it up before, and you know what I'm going to mention. So they asked for a deviation -- or a change to the SRA to allow exceptions for street trees when the conditions on the lot make it difficult to have the street trees that the code requires. So this board, I think, and then the County Commissioners heard that story, oh, wow, we have these -- you know, it's a good story, and any body that is in charge of regulations like that ought to make exceptions. The problem is the exception -- and I will always be that person that advocates for this from now on. The exception should also state that the exception can't become the rule, so there needs to be a limit in there. They went on to build a community that has zero street trees by taking advantage of the exception that has hundreds of houses in it with zero street trees because they count trees that are 20 feet away from the street as street trees. So every street in Ave Maria is shady and tree lined with sidewalks except in that 5.A.a Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 15 of 82 community, because they asked for an SRA exception, they got it, and then they -- you know, they didn't -- they took advantage of it. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And so I think we as commissioners can, you know, be wary of those things and, you know, try to come up with decisions that factor in that we don't really know the implications exactly, what the implications are going to be. COMMISSIONER FRY: Point well taken. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'd like to, if I may comment. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I'm sorry. My point was that the staff allowed that through, and maybe if I had -- you know, if someone had known that they were going to do that, you know, someone could have objected to it, but that was kind of a private process between the -- I mean, maybe there was some public. It was, you know, on the website if you wanted to go find it. But I just wanted to tie it into what you -- the point you made. We can count on the staff. The staff does their job. The rule said that you have an exception, and they met the exception, every single lot. So the county can -- you know, the staff, we can only count on them to actually do what the regulation says, and they shouldn't do something beyond that, I guess, you know; that would be my point. So we need to be careful. CHAIRMAN FRYER: If I may, so that perhaps in anticipation of what Mr. Sabo will say, perhaps other members of staff, I don't -- I don't want the impression to be left that the four-acre determination was capricious or unreasonable or just pulled out of thin air at the time it was made. I fully expect that it relates to such things as buffering, which is important from an aesthetic point of view and setbacks and the like for the overall quality of life in an area. Now, one can disagree about the need for setbacks and buffering when you have higher density buildings that look alike and perhaps are structured for multifamily, but I don't think we should scratch our head and say, were our predecessors in planning, were they -- you know, were they crazy or not thinking properly? I think they were thinking quite properly. It's just that some may disagree at this later time whether that's advisable. And the final point I want to make, and take Rivergrass as an example, they get 25 acres, but Rivergrass, nothing had been developed. So now we're dealing with a going concern which has been quite significantly developed. And 25 acres might work in an undeveloped Rivergrass from the startup, but we're nearing buildout here. I mean, not -- it's very well built out. And so you have issues of compatibility, I think, that arise if you put 25 acres in Ave Maria versus putting 25 acres in something that is still on the planning board -- on the drawing board, rather, like Rivergrass. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman, I would say I agree with you that the four acres was imposed. No one seemed to object to it. I would say that the four acres came from the applicants but, you know, we don't know. But certainly there's no history where it was contentious. And you're exactly right, everyone went forward with that, and now that 2,800 people, you know, have bought homes, it seems that you have an obligation, you know, to assess whether it's alike or different from Rivergrass. What I would say as well as is I had a question about the signage. And I would like to see what the signage -- this is the commercial signage in the town center -- what the before and after looks like, what's possible now, and what is -- you know, what is the code now, and what is the change that you're suggesting. MR. ARNOLD: I don't have a specific detail for every single tenant, because that's what it would be. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: This is one -- this is one of the bullet points in your first 5.A.a Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 16 of 82 slide in which you talked about the major changes that you're, you know, asking for. And since -- if we don't know what the before and after looks like, then I would just -- MR. ARNOLD: And, Mr. Klucik, not to cut you off, but we're asking for exactly what any other commercial use can have for signage. The town center criteria was set up to be, in some instances, very pedestrian, which makes sense for some of the signage. It doesn't make sense for the uses that you have like a convenience store that is auto-oriented and not pedestrian-oriented. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, right, and I think that's for the Commission to decide if we understand what it is now and what it is in the future, because right now you -- again, you have these same 2,800 homeowners who have a community where the signage is already established, the legal requirements for signage is already established and being followed, and I don't understand why we wouldn't see what the change would look like, the before. And it's not a big deal. It's just, I'm asking to see -- MR. ARNOLD: I don't know. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- what is the current -- and I'm sure someone can get that to us, if it's -- staff has to do it, what the standard is now and what it would -- what the possibilities would be in the future, and hopefully, staff, somebody will address that for us. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Arnold. MR. ARNOLD: I'm finished with my presentation, so I'm happy to answer any other questions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any other questions from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just to go back to the history of the SRA, I mean, the SRA was actually developed in concert between Barron Collier and at that time Ave Maria, which was Monahan. I'm trying -- I lost his name for a minute. And they actually hired a private consulting firm that put some of that language together. And if I recall, I believe it was WilsonMiller that did a lot of the original language. MR. ARNOLD: It was. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Anita, you may have some history as to why the four acres exist because you were at one time part of that firm. But when the SRA language came in and a lot of that was vetted through the public as we went through the development in the approval process, this was one of the first -- it was the first SRA to come in under the Rural Land Stewardship, so -- and you're correct, I mean, the four -- if we're going to -- we're discussing the four acres, I'm sure there was a reason many years ago as to why that was proposed by both Barron Collier and -- in concert working with WilsonMiller. So -- but at the same point, you point out how it can be -- what it actually can create under those rules. So I'd be interested when staff comes up to see if Anita has any history as to the origin of the four acres and why it was proposed originally at four acres. MR. ARNOLD: And, Mr. Schmitt, to that point I would just simply say that what we're asking to deviate from is the Land Development Code. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes, I understand. MR. ARNOLD: And Barron Collier did not write your Land Development Code. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. It went through the public process. It went through all the public hearings. Staff certainly shepherded it through and, of course, it went before the Board. And all during that time frame nobody ever made any -- that I can recall, any comments regarding the four-acre limitation. Again, the only thing I can translate it to is part of what was originally envisioned as part of the community character and the blocks -- city blocks being developed at the -- in the original proposal. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 17 of 82 I'm not against it. I agree with -- 25 acres, to me, makes sense instead of four separate SDPs and four separate submittals, and it just seems to make sense. But I -- enough of my comments. Thanks. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: So Robb is speaking as if Lennar -- and I think it's been almost presented like Lennar is controlling the development of this entire project. The owner is Ave Maria Development. Can you please explain the ownership -- the development ownership chain and who the developers are -- who the builders are. MR. ARNOLD: The primary developer is Barron Collier Companies as Ave Maria Development. They have sold off parcels out there to Pulte Homes, for instance. They've sold off tracts to Lennar. They've sold off parcels to other builders. They've partnered with other builders and doing some of that work themselves. There are multiple people doing work out there. Lennar was one good example, Mr. Fry, that I could tell you it's ongoing in this sort of an example where they're having to carve the bundled golf community up into small little fragments in order to meet the code. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But Barron Collier is still the controlling entity; is that correct? MR. ARNOLD: In some sort. It's not Barron Collier but, yes, an entity of. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: An entity of Barron Collier, yeah. MR. ARNOLD: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: How do you incorporate a golf course with four-acre parcels, or is it -- is the golf course itself not subject to the four-acre -- MR. ARNOLD: The golf course would not be subject to that limitation. It's only for multifamily dwelling units. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any other questions or comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Does the applicant have further presentation? Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, just since we brought up Thomas Monahan. I also want to bring up the memory of Paul Marinelli who, unfortunately, expired prematurely, you know, and he couldn't really see the Ave Maria really take off. And he was also part of the project. He was the president of Barron Collier company, I believe, at the time. MR. ARNOLD: Correct. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I just want to remember both of them, you know, for -- obviously, I get to enjoy it every day, but it's a huge asset to our county and, certainly, I can't believe I get to live there every day. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is that it, applicant? MR. ARNOLD: That's it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Any further questions or comments before we have staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Mr. Sabo. COMMISSIONER FRY: Will we be hearing from Norm Trebilcock? CHAIRMAN FRYER: We can. We'll call him up, yeah. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I do have a question for Mr. Sabo just to clarify something that I was asking him to present. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 18 of 82 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go right ahead. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: You had sent links to some of the project materials for the Lennar project or, you know, in the public record. So it was the actual plan that looks like what's on here but for the actual two-story and four-story. If you have that and you can show that at some point, that would be great, or certainly somebody on staff. Is that something you think we can do? MR. SABO: For the record, James Sabo, Comp Planning Manager. Yes, I have those. I had trouble with the link, pulling it up, but one of our staffers, Diane Lynch, was kind enough to pull it up onto the podium, so we should be able to pull it up without an issue. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. And, likewise, if we can, you know, clarify what is the current signage rule, and then what would the new one be? MR. SABO: That I need a little bit more time because I was spending time pulling up the site plan. So if you can give me a little more time for that, we can -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thank you. MR. SABO: -- we can get that addressed as well. I want to address a couple of things while this graphic is up. I understand the issue with four acres and the presentation that they would have to submit multiple times for SDP. You can submit for an SDP at the county, under several tracts, one SDP application. So just to clarify -- clarify that. Additionally, I got some information from the County Attorney to apparently -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So a lot of administrative burden is actually -- it's not -- they didn't have to submit -- for this project, they wouldn't have to submit five site plans, SDPs? MR. SABO: No, no. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: They could submit one but with these bundling requirements? MR. SABO: Correct, correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Wait -- wait a minute. But you still would have tracts you would still have to put in setbacks, meet setback requirements. You still would have the separate requirements for buffering unless you asked for a deviation between the tracts for buffering. So it's not simply you could just cluster it and submit. You still have to meet all the other requirements per each tract. I want to make that clear. That's not -- what you said is true, but it also is true that you still have to comply with all the other requirements -- MR. SABO: That is -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- or ask for deviations from those requirements. MR. SABO: That is correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. SABO: You would have to meet buffering -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. MR. SABO: -- and setback requirements on each parcel. So, essentially -- I don't know how to use the stick on here -- but their Tract E -- that entire boundary of Tract E would have buffers and setbacks. The entire boundary of Tract -- I got the gag. All right. There it is. Okay. So on Tract E you'd have to meet the buffer and setback requirements. For Tract D, you would have to meet the buffer and setback requirements. Tract C, et cetera. You could submit all those under a single SDP application, you are correct. I just want to make sure that the correct information is portrayed. But, yes, you are correct, Commissioner Schmitt, you would have to meet all those standards. Okay. Now, the County Attorney sent information that -- I guess the visualizer had 5.A.a Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 19 of 82 information about 4,697 peak-hour trips. The SRA document has 4,320 p.m. peak-hour trips. So that would be their standard, 4,320; just to clarify that. So just to get to our recommendation, which is to not approve the Deviation 1, the 25 acres larger than the four-acre maximum. The intent is compact urban design and to promote walkability. So that is why we -- our recommendation, why we are recommending against the deviation. The other part of that recommendation is Ave Maria is an established town. It's already being built. The development pattern, the expectations of the community is already that four acres is the maximum size of the parcel. Yes, yes, you can connect those parcels together, but you do still have to meet those setbacks and buffers on each tract. And, essentially, that's our recommendation: Approval minus the -- minus the deviation. And then I can -- for Mr. Klucik I can try to pull up these plans. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Just as a -- can I ask a question, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, please, go ahead. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So what is the -- you know, as a planner, and when we have our code, what is the purpose of the buffer and setback requirements in general? MR. SABO: In general is to create a buffer or a softening of the edge of the property to set the buildings back, set the properties, the fronts of the buildings back so that there's space in front. It's to -- you know, other than that, I can't really explain it. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So it's more for aesthetics and noise, things like that? MR. SABO: Correct. MR. BELLOWS: I can also help -- for the record, Ray Bellows. It also helps establish the human scale of what is desired for that type of zoning district, that type of residential unit. So you want to make sure you have adequate trees and landscaping and vegetation in a residential environment, or otherwise you have more of a downtown city-type residential environment. This is a Rural Lands Stewardship Area. The original intent is to keep these smaller-scale structures with a lot of vegetation and make pedestrian access through, you know, smaller shops, instead of having a monolithic type of one structure on the entire acreage there. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And I'm in agreement with seeking to fulfill that objective. I'm sorry that what's not before us today is an application that would allow for some buffering but perhaps not the full buffering that would be called for, but this would allow for absolutely no buffering and limited setbacks and would apply to the entire community of Ave Maria, which is also disturbing. I've got some other points that I'm going to raise. But Commissioner Fry will be recognized. COMMISSIONER FRY: So in, I guess, trying to wade through this four-acre versus 25 acres versus maybe we reduce it to 10, you know, we have the ability to do whatever we think we see fit. Allura was an apartment complex that came to us. It was on 35 acres. It ended up being, I think, 300 units or so. Is that -- that had setbacks and, you know, aesthetics and buffering. What about Allura? Allura would not be possible, I don't -- I'm not sure if it would be possible with this four-acre limit. But is there something about Allura that isn't walkable, that isn't compact urban design? MR. BELLOWS: Well, Allura's not in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area. COMMISSIONER FRY: I understand that, but it's at least something we can visualize. We had personal -- MR. BELLOWS: And it's more of an urban/suburb design versus a rural, you know, design intended for the Rural Lands Stewardship Area. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm just not clear what you're looking to end up with with the four-acre limit. What you're -- 5.A.a Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 20 of 82 MR. BELLOWS: I think the idea is to get something, as the applicant has depicted here, a project similar to that. I think that was the original intent versus one large building that could have covered the entire acreage. COMMISSIONER FRY: But to me that's a very -- that's like a block-style development, whereas if they had a larger area and they could have buildings at angles and, you know, a much more creative design would be possible if they had the ability to draw with a brush on a larger easel, I guess, or a larger template. MR. BELLOWS: I agree wholeheartedly, but this is just for illustrative purposes by the applicant to show what's possible. It's not their attempt at designing something. CHAIRMAN FRYER: The Chair recognizes Ms. Jenkins. MS. JENKINS: Good morning. Anita Jenkins, for the record, the Zoning Director. To put the history on the four acres, the full code has to be in context. So the code for the Rural Land Stewardship SRA towns was written to be compact, pedestrian-oriented, and walkable. So the four-acre block for the multifamily was one of the intentions to meet that goal. So we're implementing policy in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area with a full code, and this is one part of the code that implements that policy of walkable. It helps to establish the interconnectivity through the town where when you get larger tracts, you break the interconnectivity. It's not that they couldn't come in with a plan that would be 25 acres and they could demonstrate how they maintain the interconnectivity for the town, so they could accomplish that, but that was the history behind that four-acre. And, Commissioner Schmitt, you're right, when you bring up the Community Character Plan, these are common planning principles for community development that intends to be walkable and compact is to set some development standards that are different than suburban standards where you see the larger multifamily tracts in the coastal area in particular. So they could accomplish these things. I think in both ways we could find solutions to maintain the intent and the scale of the town while they can also bring in a 25-acre piece at the same time. Also, one thing to mention, it was brought to my attention that the architectural standards do not apply to a multifamily project that is not adjacent to a collector or arterial roadway. So that's just something to keep in mind as well. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So can you explain that again. MS. JENKINS: The architectural standards found in our Land Development Code do not apply to multifamily housing that is not adjacent to collector arterial roadways. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So right now what would be a restriction on length or height? Is that what you're talking about, things like length and height, or what other -- what are the other architectural -- MS. JENKINS: Yeah, yes. And facing and articulation and things like that. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So what are the standards, then, that would be required for a multifamily? MS. JENKINS: The standards would not apply for multifamily that does not -- that is not adjacent to a collector. So they would bring in in an SDP their architectural standards for review. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So that's a clean slate, and they bring something in, and then through the process it gets approved or disapproved. There's no -- there are no actual limits imposed, standards imposed? MS. JENKINS: If it's not adjacent to a collector arterial, right. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So I think I'm being seemingly pedantic. I do that sometimes because I don't understand and I ask another question. So does that mean it could be 12 stories? In theory, they could propose 12 stories, and then it would be up -- through the planning you would say, you know, that's not going to work here 5.A.a Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 21 of 82 or, you know, what -- that's why I'm asking. MS. JENKINS: So you do have to -- they would have to comply with their own height limits that they would have in their Ave Maria SRA document. So there are some development standards that they would comply with there. I'm just speaking to the Land Development Code and the architectural standards that would apply to the multifamily. If there are standards in the SRA that would apply to multifamily, they would have to be consistent with those standards. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So can we get somebody to confirm what the height standard is for multifamily in Ave Maria? MS. JENKINS: Sure. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Ms. Jenkins, I just wanted to confirm, because to me this -- it's very -- it's clear to everybody that the intent was always that you could put multi four-acre parcels together in multifamily? It was always the intent? See, I view that more, the four-acre, as you missed the phrase that says you can't put two four-acre units adjacent; otherwise, to me, it's a much cleaner, easier -- you get something better if you put them all under one, as Commissioner Fryer was saying, where you could do a lot more in terms of creativity and buffering and aesthetics. So it just seems to me like you forgot the line that says you can't put four-acre parcels next to each other in multifamily. MS. JENKINS: The intent of the four acres was to maintain interconnectivity so that you don't have a 50-acre parcel that is not interconnected with the rest of the town. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But the picture they just showed is -- MS. JENKINS: And that's what I'm saying. I think that the code can be met and demonstrated with four-acre tracts without losing that interconnectivity and that scale. It's really about the town scale and interconnectivity that you're trying to achieve with the overall code as a whole. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Now, how does that -- I guess I don't see the interconnectivity. You have interconnectivity within the development when you stack them all together around each other. I guess I don't see what you're losing on the interconnectivity side when you end up with 25 acres that are four-acre parcels. MS. JENKINS: Well, I think that the illustration that is on the screen now, you can see that that area then does not have connections. It's just one large parcel, so you don't have interconnections that are through. Now, I understand that when you're trying to do multifamily along a golf course, that's going to be a different scenario. But if you remember the SRA in general, we were thinking transect, right? So you would expect the higher densities to be in more of the higher density areas in block formations for walkability. But when you're developing it along a golf course, then that interconnectivity may not be as high-density intersections as you would have in a block configuration. So there's always some chance for, you know, needing flexibility for this. But the idea that you're looking at here is that you do just have that a series of multifamily that's not interconnecting with the full town. MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, if I can -- if I can add to that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, go ahead, and then Commissioner Fry after that. MR. SABO: On your podium screen there, or the visualizer screen there, that is the current Lennar National Golf Club SDP for the multiple family condominium product that they are selling now or building now. Those two parcels with the dark line in between, those are four-acre parcels. Mr. McLean informed us that the LDC allows, under a unified Site Development Plan, relief between those buffers. So there is -- in our LDC code the ability to remove some of those buffers if the parcels are attached or connecting or adjacent, abutting. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 22 of 82 Now, what -- to your point, Mr. Shea, I don't know what happened with the SRA. I'm not sure exactly what happened, but it is possible that the words, you can't butt them together, you can't put four or five in a row or whatever that -- you know, that may have been eliminated or not included, whatever, but the -- I think the intent of the four acres was to disburse the parcels throughout the community, and there is technically a loophole here that you can stack them together or put them in rows, but I don't necessarily know that that was the intent, so I hope that answers some of the question. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Based on that drawing that you're showing us, I guess I'm not seeing any advantage or restriction gained by the four-acre limitation compared to just letting that be one site plan. If the buffers are relaxed or suspended when you're putting them together on an SDP, then what are we gaining by restricting them to four acres? MR. SABO: Yeah, that's a great point. That is a great point, and I don't have the answer to that. As I mentioned, it may have been an oversight, you know, 14, 15 years ago when the SRA was put together, that -- you know, the people who put them together are humans, right? So they may be left out. We don't want them all stacked up together, maybe. COMMISSIONER FRY: I could see if you don't want large developments in large -- large areas, large communities that have no interconnectivity, so you've cut off a whole section of the development from another, but that's still very possible, as it is shown here with the four-acre limitation. MR. SABO: Right. Agreed. COMMISSIONER FRY: The other question I had for you, Mr. Sabo, had to do with the trip cap. One of your first comments was that the SRA has -- shows a trip cap of 4,300-and-some trips, correct? MR. SABO: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: But their application is for a trip cap of 4,600 and some, I believe, or am I -- or was that just a correction on what they're asking for, or is there a difference between the two? MR. SABO: It was pointed out to me, Mr. Fry, that there was something on the visualizer that had 4,697. COMMISSIONER FRY: Correct. MR. SABO: And that is incorrect. The SRA document has 4,320, so just to make that clear. And we can -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. MR. SABO: -- get Mr. Trebilcock, but he's nodding his head, so it looks like -- COMMISSIONER FRY: So the actual ask is 4,300-and-some trips as is in the SRA document? MR. SABO: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's not what I found in the materials. COMMISSIONER FRY: Nor I. CHAIRMAN FRYER: What I found was that the original ask was for 46- and some change, and after some back and forth with staff, it was brought down to 43- and some change. COMMISSIONER FRY: But the final is 4,300. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, that's where we are now, just like we're at 25 acres, but the original ask was 50. Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I'm going to go back to the drawing that's on the visualizer right now. This is the current proposal? MR. SABO: Correct. Tract 1, The National, Ave Maria -- 5.A.a Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 23 of 82 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. MR. SABO: -- and Lennar Homes, correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And so each one of those darkened blocks, I call them, the borders, that's four acres each? MR. SABO: Correct. The left side of the screen, it's sort of a C-shaped pointing north. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yep. MR. SABO: That's a four-acre parcel, and then to the right it's -- it's got kind of a bulb-out there, that's also a four-acre parcel. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, then I guess I'm going to ask Wayne, then. Wayne, what would be different on this site plan if you were allowed to go to the 25-acre limit or, Rich, do you want to address that? Because it appears that Lennar is coming in with the request regardless of the four-acre or 25-acre limitation. I go back -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let me interject, if I may, please. We did not call up staff during the applicant's presentation, and the applicant will have a full opportunity to rebut and answer additional questions. Unless you feel very strongly about it, I would suggest that we wait until the applicant is back up in rebuttal. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I'd like to get my question answered. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Does staff object? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We're discussing -- we're discussing a plan that was put up by staff. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I think my question is very relevant to the issue at hand, because this was introduced by staff; this was not introduced by the applicant. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm not arguing with the importance of your question. I just want to try to be even-handed in allowing interruptions. And so I'm going to turn to Ms. Jenkins and say, what would staff prefer on this? We didn't -- we didn't call Mr. Sabo up during the applicant's presentation. MS. JENKINS: Oh, I'm fine with the questions being answered as you have them from anyone that you want to ask the question of. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I'm glad you're fine with it, because we control the proceedings, and I'm going to ask the question anyway. MS. JENKINS: I'm fine. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, my experience, in the one or two times that I've done this, you've asked staff up many times during our presentation -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Absolutely. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- and they answered questions. So, I mean, I've been flexible. It's always been friendly about how we do this. Mr. Schmitt, the only thing different between what you have here, instead of doing it six times, six-plus times to get to 25 acres, we would do it once. You'll get the same big picture. The 25 acres is going to look the same, but we'll do five separate or six separate Site Development Plans to come up with this very same plan because it's going to continue on. This is -- assuming it was a 25-acre thing. If this is four acres and four acres and four acres and four acres, it's going to look the very same at the end if I'd have come in with one 25-acre project. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But it might have had more buffering. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, it would not. We're not getting out of any buffering. We are providing all required perimeter buffers on this project. We're not getting out of any of the perimeter buffers. This is purely an internal issue, as we were talking about earlier. The buffer on the street, going to be the same. The buffer on the left-hand side, going to be the same when you get to the end of the development. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 24 of 82 (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. YOVANOVICH: Buffer along the golf course is going to be the same. What? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Buffer between the buildings? MR. YOVANOVICH: Buffer between your buildings? This is your code right now. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, but the buffer between the buildings, we would at least be able to discuss if you came in with an SDP that was an aggregation of four-acre lots aggregating 25. MR. YOVANOVICH: We don't come to the Planning Commission for Site Development Plans. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: We don't come to the Planning Commission for Site Development Plans. Your staff has approved, I'm assuming, correct, Mr. McLean, you've -- approved this -- MR. McLEAN: I'll put it on the record. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- drawing. So the buffer between the tracts is not required under the code. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, it would be required. They asked for -- MR. YOVANOVICH: The out -- external boundary would be -- is required, and we're going to meet all of those, but the internal can be eliminated under the uniform Site Development Plan process. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So you said you'd have to do it six times, but it seems as though maybe you did -- maybe, you know, it was a choice because you're starting a new project and you're going slow. You actually could have done all six in one SDP. You would have just had -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'd have to do six SDPs. I have to do six. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, we -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- just had Mr. Sabo say that you could do it all as one. So it's -- the answer is, one of you is right, and I'm certainly not saying that I know who's right. But you're saying you couldn't submit one SDP, and Mr. Sabo is saying that you could submit just one SDP. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's news to me. We're almost -- during the break I'm going to confirm that, because -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- I've never been under the impression I can come in with a 25-acre SDP for a multifamily project. I've always been -- and if we're wrong, then I don't even know why I'm here, to be honest with you, because I'm going to go to 50 acres, you know, and I'm going to be unlimited is what I'm being told. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: What I would say is you submitted -- here you submitted an eight-acre SDP. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's Lennar. I didn't -- I'm saying, this is the first I've heard of it, Mr. Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Excuse me. Excuse me. Excuse me. The applicant or the applicant's -- the person who bought the land who would be benefiting from a change in their future development submitted this plan, and it has eight acres, and you're the one that said it was one SDP. Maybe it wasn't. You don't know. MR. YOVANOVICH: It wasn't me. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: You don't know, I understand. You're just -- it wasn't 5.A.a Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 25 of 82 yours to shepherd through because it was Lennar. But from what Mr. Sabo is saying, you could do eight acres, you could do 25 acres, whatever. You can do it as one plan. It's a little more cumbersome because you have to put the parcels together. I mean, that was your opening argument is that you can submit, you know, the -- you know, you had the graphic there, you can bundle it all together. But you're saying that you would have had to -- in that bundle that you showed, you would have had to do five separate SDPs. MR. YOVANOVICH: I would have had to -- yeah, to get to 25, I would have done six plus. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So I guess we need to know for sure what is the requirement. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll go back to my question. I mean, that's the crux of the entire argument. Can they -- can, in fact, this -- could this have come in with a -- I'll call it a cluster development of showing the full 25 acres? And it appears it can. There's no -- I don't think there's any restriction. MR. SABO: That's my understanding. MR. KLATZKOW: Matt, could you -- since this is the guy in charge of it, let's get Matt's -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. KLATZKOW: -- ruling, as it were. MR. YOVANOVICH: I can assure you, if I'd known I could have done this with one 25-acre SDP, I wouldn't be here. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, life is short. Let's see what the man has to say. MR. McLEAN: I didn't swear in, so I apologize on that part. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We'll swear you in. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. McLEAN: I do. Matt McLean, Director of Development Review. The question at hand is the four-acre piece. If an SDP comes in and it does have tracts that are carved up into four-acre sections, they can submit one unified Site Development Plan for multiple parcels and effectively do what you're seeing on the screen. That is how that one was permitted. There are perimeter buffer requirements, but in the internal tract line, which is in the middle of the particular document that you see in front of you, the code does not require internal buffer between the two multifamily buildings. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Wow. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: Then what is the benefit of a four-acre tract limit? MR. McLEAN: I can't say if there's a benefit one way or the other. I can say that they can develop it that way under the current code. They just have to be defined as four-acre tracts. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I go back to the original intent as Anita pointed out. It was -- the four acres was once when it was envisioned it would be walkable city blocks. And that's what I recall when this first was being developed, and they would be separate sections with parallel streets in a walkable interconnected community. But, Anita, you talked about interconnectivity. I mean, this is -- essentially, it is interconnected. It depends how you determine interconnected. There is one street that connects all the buildings, and it just happens to be where the parking and the drive -- and I guess it's -- all these are facing the golf course. MR. KLATZKOW: Unless I'm missing something here, and staff can clarify, this entire 5.A.a Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 26 of 82 issue we're talking about is not relevant. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. MR. KLATZKOW: Because they can do it anyway. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: They can do it anyway. That's what -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I think it's important to parse out what that actually means and if, in fact, that -- MR. KLATZKOW: But if they -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) THE COURT REPORTER: I can only get one at a time. MR. KLATZKOW: Hold on. If they can do it anyway, there's no need to request a deviation. It's a nonissue. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's a nonissue. MR. KLATZKOW: So we've just spent an hour on a nonissue. MR. YOVANOVICH: With all due respect, I want clearly on the record that the reference -- Wayne, I need that back. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I'm going to interrupt you. MR. YOVANOVICH: You may. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thank you. Okay. So I want clarification on -- you know, so we talked about there's no need for buffers internally between the two lots. So right now where we have those two buildings that are at the borderline, could they be connected? Could they -- you know, could they straddle that border as one solid unit so that we have one long, serpentine building? Because I think that does, then, change interconnectivity, because if you have a long building -- you know, the idea that it's limited to four acres actually limits how long a building can be unless -- unless you could have one long building if you put the lots together. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. You get into zero lot line restrictions and other requirements. If those buildings were connected, and I -- I'm going back to -- MR. McLEAN: Again, Matt McLean for the record. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- review. Matt, if you have one up against the lot line, you're in a zero lot line, and you're now into the building code in regards to fire code and access and all the other type of things. I do not believe you could staddle one building across the two parcels. MR. McLEAN: As the regulations stand today for the SRA, and within the Land Development Code, you still would have to meet setbacks from that tract line, so you would not be able to have a building that combined and went over that tract line. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: But if it was eight acres, so if this was all able to be developed as one, then that building could be twice as long; is that true? MR. McLEAN: If the limitation was eight acres, they could -- they could build one building within the eight-acre tract, if they so choose -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So -- in essence -- MR. McLEAN: There would not be a tract line, then, at this point -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. What I'm saying is there's a difference. There clearly is a difference, and we've already heard -- and it makes sense. And I'm not even arguing that that would be wrong. We've already heard, you know, if they get 25, then they're going -- it's going to be easier to do 50 or 75 or 100 in one fell swoop, and the only restriction is, you know, what we just said, you know. So my whole point is, this is a speed bump and it is meaningful. It might not be as meaningful as, you know -- you know, we don't know the history. It might not be as meaningful 5.A.a Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 27 of 82 as it could have been if they said you can't put two together but, obviously, that's not the case. But it is meaningful, and it does change the character of what they can do, and it does make it more walkable because you can't have a really long serpentine building, and that is definitely not walkable. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, the way this is shown, you could have the three buildings on the east -- correction, west side of this -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: You can shove them together. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You could have them together. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right, but then you couldn't have all five buildings together which -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You could not. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: If that was one eight-acre parcel that was submitted as one project, because we've increased it to 25 acres, then that could be one long building. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And all I'm saying is is that that's fine, we can decide that that's what we want the code to allow, and I'm saying -- I'm arguing that I don't think that's good. I think that does change the character. It changes the walkability. It changes the expectation of, you know, the 2,800 homeowners who are already there, and, you know, what the county has already said is the requirement. And I think if you're going to make this change, especially because -- you know, the applicant is largely saying they can do what they want to do anyways. It's just a matter of taking some of the paperwork burden away. Well, I think we've just come up with a reason to keep the burden of the paperwork there, and I -- that's it right there. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Let me go back to the staff. James, if, in fact -- and I'll ask during the break if you can confer with the applicant, because if, in fact, this is allowable as was attested to, I would like you to confer with the applicant to see if they're going to withdraw their request for the deviation, because it seems to be a moot point. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes. MR. SABO: Understood. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's not. I can answer that. It's appropriate now? And Matt McLean will correct me if I'm wrong, because he only lets me play engineer a couple times a year, and I want to save it. But that line that's there becomes a tract line, and we've got to meet the setback from that line. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: So if I had the 25-acre parcel, if I somehow got that building a little bit too close to that tract line when I built it, I don't have to come in and ask for a variance. That's -- when you're forcing me to identify the specific internal tract lines, you have issues with setbacks from those internal tract lines; not building separation, but set back from those individual tract lines. So what we're trying to say is, give me the 25-acre envelope. I will meet all of the height requirements. I will meet all of the perimeter buffer requirements. I will meet all of the building separation requirements. And I can do that with one Site Development Plan instead of six platted lines with six platted internal setback lines for buildings is all I'm suggesting. MR. KLATZKOW: So you're actually getting to Commissioner Klucik's point: You want to be able to put in big boxes. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I didn't say that, Jeff. What I'm saying -- MR. KLATZKOW: Well, if the issue here is separation between buildings and meeting the setbacks here, Mr. Klucik's point is spot on. What the four acres is doing is it's stopping you from putting in what I'll just call the big boxes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Your setbacks are going to be dictated on the height of 5.A.a Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 28 of 82 the building, regardless, so you -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm going to have building separation requirements. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You've got building separation based on the height of the building, and how would that differ than what's shown for the separation from the lot line? MR. YOVANOVICH: I missed the -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. You've got -- let's go between those two buildings there between the lot lines. You've got -- and I -- it's too hard to read what the distance is. But would that distance be different if, in fact, it were one tract? You still have to have building separation based on one-half the height of the building. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll have the same building separation but on there also, when you look, there's also a lot line -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- setback as well. We have to meet both of those if you break this into four-acre lots in one 25-acre Site Development Plan. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: You have those internal lines as well for building setbacks. I don't know what you get out of this whole process of making us break up the lines like that into four separate or six separate lots. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, you didn't hear my point? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, you know, the answer is, I could come in under the code -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Would you believe me if I told you that I just made the point? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I know better. I know better. That's my line. I didn't license it to you. I didn't license it to you. What I'm saying, Mr. Klucik, we could come in today with one big building on the four-acre tract. I could come in -- if I wanted to do a 400-foot-long building on that one-acre tract -- on that four-acre tract, I can do it, and I could do it on the next one and the next one and the next one. The market's going to dictate what people really want to buy. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. And we've already -- MR. YOVANOVICH: So let's not -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: We've already acknowledged that the market changes, and we have no idea what the market is going to be like, and the whole idea is our land use -- our code, which the SRA is a part -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- tries to protect us from just, you know, absolute market conditions ruling how we build and how we develop, and you know that as well as I do. I mean, I'm stating the obvious. That's the whole point is we're trying to inhibit an absolute market condition base. The market conditions might be we want a really long building on four acres. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I could do that today. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right now -- right now, Lennar's a great developer or great builder, Ave Maria Development is a great developer, and so this is great. And like I said, in the beginning, fine, let's get a -- you know, apply, and we'll approve this whole project. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry, and then -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I don't speak for the whole Commission, obviously. But in my view, you take this down, you know, as a deviation, for this particular project, and I don't think you have any pushback. And, you know, do you have to then keep doing that, you know, for the next project and the next project? Yeah, I get it. In that scenario, you would have to keep coming back for a larger deviation if you thought you needed it. In this case, you don't even need the deviation because it will probably be more expensive to come to us to ask to get the change 5.A.a Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 29 of 82 when all you would have to do is submit your 25 acres in one plan. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry, and then we'll have a break. COMMISSIONER FRY: At the risk of reinforcing anything that Mr. Yovanovich says, I will simply observe that even in that left or the right four-acre parcel, what I think -- the point I'm taking from Rich's statement is that instead of those three buildings, they could have put one long building, and they chose not to because the market would not support that. So I think because they have building separation -- unless we believe they're going to put in some super long building, then -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, we've already -- COMMISSIONER FRY: -- the risk of the 25 acres, I think, is negligible. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: But we've already had, you know, people talking about putting in different types of housing, you know, for different markets. Obviously, this is a golf course community. You're not going to sell large, you know -- and it's non-coastal. You know, you're out here. You're not going to sell a big building. COMMISSIONER FRY: But the only thing that you're -- the four-acre limit restricts is that you can't have a mile-long building -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, I think that in itself would be a reason to not change the code, I mean, in my view, to -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: On that note, if we may, we'll have a 13-minute recess until 10:45. (A brief recess was had from 10:32 a.m. to 10:45 a.m.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ladies and gentlemen, let's reconvene, please. And we were in a spirited dialogue when we recessed, but this is staff's presentation time, and we'll return to that, if we may. Mr. Sabo and Ms. Jenkins. MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, James Sabo, Comp Planning Manager, for the record. We have nothing further. Our recommendation is approval with removal of Deviation No. 1. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I do have a question. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, please, go ahead. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Oh, I'm sorry, Ms. Jenkins. MS. JENKINS: Okay. Anita Jenkins. I was just going to answer a question that someone asked about the height. The height in neighborhood general is 3.5 stories for multifamily. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: All right. So I understand that these buildings are four stories based on, I think, the drawings that you had -- that were in some of the packet. So is -- are some of these buildings four stories, or are they three-and-a-half? And I guess that's a question that I'll ask the applicant. But I'll ask you, I had asked about commercial signage, you know, the difference. I know you said you needed some time. Are you still working on that, or can you answer? MR. SABO: I am. I need additional time. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any other questions or comments for staff? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, just -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- to follow up on whether there's four stories or not is irrelevant. It can't exceed, what, three-and-a-half stories, you said? That's the limit. MS. JENKINS: That's for neighborhood general, 3.5. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: For neighborhood general. Okay. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 30 of 82 COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So is this project submitted as four, and is it approved at four, or is the -- did I misread the -- MS. JENKINS: When you say "this project" -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: This particular drawing is Lennar -- yeah, you're right. This project is not before us. My question is specific to the drawing in the -- MS. JENKINS: The drawing just disappeared. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah, the drawing that just disappeared. Since it's up there and we're referencing it and since we're mentioning the height restriction, am I correct that this project is four stories, or is it not? MS. JENKINS: Let me ask Mr. McLean if this is the same -- I can't read it on the screen here, but this is the same illustration, Mr. McLean, that we looked at earlier that had the height limit of 3.5 stories. MR. McLEAN: It's 35 feet. MS. JENKINS: Thirty-five feet. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Ah, okay. So maybe the four stories are contained within 35 feet? I guess I'll ask the applicant. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. I want to interject something very quickly while we're waiting, and that is that I had made a commitment to our court reporter that I would ask everyone respectfully, please try not to talk on top of one another because she can only record what one person is saying at a time. And so let's enable her to create a faithful reproduction of what's happening by speaking just one at a time. Thank you. Mr. McLean. MR. McLEAN: Matt McLean, Director of Development Review. The max height on this particular development's 35 feet, and it is within the code requirements. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anything else from staff? MR. SABO: No, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I have some questions and comments that I'd like to make. No one else is illuminated at this point, so I'm going to proceed. There's been talk of the hospital use, which I think everybody -- I presume everyone is in full agreement that if there were a hospital there, that would be a very good thing and a desirable thing. And in allowing for the density that a hospital would need, I think, is a good idea. But are there other uses that could be made of this property if the hospital arrangement never came to pass that we should, perhaps, consider limiting the density for hospital uses rather than anything more broad? Do you have an observation on that, Mr. Sabo? MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, I agree with your statement based -- excuse me -- based on the civic uses, municipal buildings, schools, hospitals, things like that, those would all be permitted uses if it is in your purview to limit the civic uses to specifically hospital for -- or for whatever percentage of 350,000 you would see fit. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. I'd ask other members of the Planning Commission if this is an important point to them or not. Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's not an important point. I think limit -- just saying if it was for civic, to me, is fine. But let's go back to when Arthrex first put its building in there. Did it not have to come in for some kind of a site -- or amendment to the SRA to allow for the -- Arthrex to go in because it's -- what is it? I guess it's not a factory, but whatever they would term that as, an industrial site, as you enter. Would that be a similar type thing where they could now have civic center and say, no, we don't want the civic center, I'm going to put in a, I don't 5.A.a Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 31 of 82 know, FedEx distribution center? MR. SABO: No, not as a civic use. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: The change that they required, I think, to come before the Board was to move the town center -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, it was. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- designation, which is where you can -- town center is simply -- I mean, I guess it's equivalent to commercial. You know, it's one designation. And they had acreage along -- they had acreage along Camp Keais Road that they changed to be residential, and then they moved that acreage to be along -- to front Oil Well Road, so I think that's what that was. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. So if we stuck -- good point. So if we stuck with civic, that kind of change could not take place. MR. SABO: For that parcel, correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That parcel, unless they came back in through some kind of an amendment. Does that help you? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, I guess -- yes, I'd ask Commissioner Klucik if he believes that -- the folks in Ave Maria, are they looking specifically at a hospital as an objective or any civic use? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, I think -- you know, I just speak for myself. When I heard this proposal, you know, before I was a Planning Commissioner and I looked at it, I, you know, was looking at the idea of increased civic uses, and I was trying to understand exactly how it all works, and it's a little confusing. But I think because of the definition of the civic uses, it does -- to me, I thought that was limitation enough, and I certainly haven't seen or heard, you know, anybody objecting to that. And I think -- I don't think that the designation that we're changing applies to any particular acreage. It's within the whole project; is that right? We're changing a designation to increase this civic usage, but it applies to anywhere where you could do civic usage wherein the SRA. We're just saying that there's now an increased acreage that's possible. MR. SABO: That's my understanding. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: But it doesn't apply to any particular tract of land, except the only tracts that are available for civic use is limited. MR. SABO: That is correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. The recharacterization -- I'm sorry, Commissioner. Let me just finish. Yeah, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The recharacterization of the mini-warehouse use from industrial to mini-warehouse has the effect of freeing up the area for more industrial. And I just want to be sure that that was contemplated by the people of Ave Maria and that they're comfortable with more industrial. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, again, I'll speak for myself. I didn't hear anyone objecting to that, you know, in my analysis. You know, I look at that as -- there are a lot of limitations on what -- you know, to begin with, what kind of commercial and how much can be out there. And I don't think that this -- you know, I mean, it's after the fact. You know, they did something and they said we want to tweak it and reconfigure it so that we can, you know, do something different. I think what they put in there, you know, hasn't been objectionable, and I don't foresee where it would -- you know, what it would be that would be that objectionable because, again, I don't think the developer would ever feel like that could work for them because 5.A.a Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 32 of 82 they still have 7,000 more houses to sell. So I'm not worried, and I haven't heard anybody else express concern. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's what I needed to know. Commissioner Schmitt, I'll call on you, and then I'll come back to myself. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Just going back to the hospital. The only thing I was concerned about is they have to go through, as you well know, the certificate of need and go through the state and all the other requirements. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: They actually don't. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, that has been repealed. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: That's been done away with legislatively. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: CONs are gone. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: There you go. I was just concerned if they had to do that and then they changed it. But no, disregard. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Let's see. Oh, on the TIS. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. Please. TIS? CHAIRMAN FRYER: The Traffic Impact Statement. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Ah, sorry. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sure. The -- you know, I like to think that there is at least a plausible scientific basis behind the calculations that are made for a TIS, but I frequently am proven wrong in that sanguine assumption. And in this case the traffic consultant came in initially at 4,697, I think, and then was trimmed back down to 43-and-something. So it sounds -- it sounds less scientific and more like horse trading or negotiation. How would you characterize that process, Mr. Sabo? MR. SABO: I'm going to defer that question to our Transportation staff. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good. Mr. Walker's [sic]. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Sawyer. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sawyer, I mean. Excuse me. MR. SAWYER: For the record, Mike Sawyer, Transportation Planning. And I did walk up here, so that gets you a bit towards "Walker." CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you for covering for me. MR. SAWYER: The issue that we had with Ave Maria is that we had a TIS that was originally done as part of the original SRA. Subsequent to that, there was an amendment that was done. And what we needed to do was to make sure that we were on an even playing field with our current standards. That was accomplished. One of the other challenges that we had is that the original SRA actually had a single category for residential. It didn't -- it basically lumped together single-family and multifamily. And so what we had to do, working with the consultant, was to figure out how we could balance that out, split out the single-family, the multifamily, and then basically, again, get to that firm basis. And, quite honestly, it took us a couple of iterations of the TIS to actually get there. I think what we have is a good reflection of both what the original SRA trips would be, according to current standards, as well as the amendment and then now what they're proposing to do, which is basically to keep what those trips were, currently, and get that into a form that we can actually start reviewing to. And keep in mind, the trips for Ave Maria are vested. They're banked. So if you go into the AUIR, you'll see those numbers as part of those banked numbers. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else have questions? Go ahead, Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mike, if those numbers are banked, then why -- and if I understand this correctly, they're not asking for additional trips. They're saying -- they're basically 5.A.a Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 33 of 82 formalizing a trip cap based on the utilization prior to this application, is that correct, and saying that will exist in perpetuity and this will apply to it, or is that trip cap changing based on this application? I'm unclear on that. MR. SAWYER: The trip cap is remaining the same according to the -- again, the original SRA and the amendment that was done. The reason that we wanted to have the trip cap is that it allows staff to review to that standard as the SDPs and the plats come in. Every time something comes in, Development Services looks at those numbers, keeps track of them and, if you will, starts counting them down. It also allows for the applicant to have a certain flexibility in the types of development that actually occurs within the development itself. We've got a scenario that they presented this time that shows the hospital and the other uses that you see. And that all works into those uses. Ultimately, if you did all of them to the maximum number allowed, it would exceed that trip cap. COMMISSIONER FRY: I see. So what you're saying is there really was never a formal trip cap established for the SRA, so you went back and you calculated, based on the uses that had already been approved, what that might be, and you're establishing that as a trip cap moving forward, giving them flexibility in how they utilize that trip cap? Is that an accurate reproduction of where we're at? MR. SAWYER: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anything else for traffic? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, thank you, Mr. Sawyer. MR. SABO: Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Sabo, I want to loop back if I can to be sure that I have gained an accurate understanding from the dialogue that we had about four acres versus 25 acres and the like. I see that I had made an onerous assumption about buffering, that you can -- you could have four-acre parcels together without a requirement of buffering between them, correct? MR. SABO: That is my understanding, correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. But if you -- if you have a requirement that they come in with an aggregation divided into four-acre parcels, at least you prevent the serpentine snake, the long building that Commissioner Klucik was concerned about; am I correct? MR. SABO: That is correct, it would prevent elongated buildings. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. And they would be able to come in with one Site Development Plan. It just would have to be divided into four-acre lots, and they couldn't have one building crossing those lines? MR. SABO: That is correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And the proposal at this point is that the applicant is requesting that the 25 acres apply to the entire Ave Maria rather than just this project? MR. SABO: That is correct. That's my understanding as well, correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: They could have -- they could have come in and asked that this simply be applicable to the single project, right? MR. SABO: That is correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: What single project? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Can we approve an amendment that puts that limitation on it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, we could. COMMISSIONER FRY: What single project are we talking about? 5.A.a Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 34 of 82 CHAIRMAN FRYER: The application that's before us as opposed to the entire -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Actually, no. Mr. Chairman, I don't think that's true. I think the application before us doesn't make any distinctions. This drawing happens to be an example of the project that Lennar is doing, but I don't think any language in the application -- I could be wrong. I don't think any application in the language [sic] specifies. I think we could specify -- we would need to get staff to give us some input as to the specifics. We could specify that it would be limited to this National PUD, or I don't know what it's called. You know, whatever the designation is. But I don't -- am I right that right now application has no distinction about this Lennar project? MR. SABO: That is correct. So what you could do, what is in your purview, the Lennar project was, obviously, developed with four-acre parcels. If you remove this deviation completely, they would still continue to be able to develop four-acre parcels that are abutting and aggregate them together but, Mr. Klucik is correct, if the deviation is allowed, they could create 25-acre parcels from now on. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I think the distinction that I would make is, I do trust both the market conditions and Lennar at this point, that I wouldn't expect them, for instance, to put all those buildings together to make one long building, you know, if -- which is what they could do if we made this change, you know, and limited it to this project. And so I'm not -- I'm satisfied that I don't think that that will be a problem for this acreage, this project. And so I would be willing to say for that project the 25 acres is not a problem for me. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But we're concerned, I think, about having the 25 acres apply to the entirety of Ave Maria. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah, right, the other 7,000 units that are yet to be developed, exactly. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That clarifies it. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: As I read this application, it is to amend the Town of Ave Maria SRA and master plan with a basket of changes. It is not a single project that's being proposed here. So I guess we keep talking about a project, but these are general changes to the master plan for Ave Maria. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right, that was my point, is that if we were going to say we want to limit it, we would definitely need, you know, I think even legal input but certainly staff input as to how we would amend what we would be approving to make sure that it's just applying to -- at least certain portions. Maybe the 25-acre piece just applies to this one project. COMMISSIONER FRY: To what one project? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Oh, to the National Golf Course that Lennar is putting in and that Planned Unit Development for the National. Now, I'm not saying that -- you know, that that's the way to go. I'm saying that seems like it's worth looking at. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let me ask the County Attorney if we would have it within our power to recommend that all of these special provisions apply only to the current project. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I talk? CHAIRMAN FRYER: I want to hear from the County Attorney first. MR. KLATZKOW: Boy, I hate doing stuff piecemeal like this. I also hate deviations, by the way, unless there's a substantial reason for it, because there's a reason why we have things in the code. And you guys look at the code, and you are approving it, and the next thing you know, somebody comes in, I need a deviation. Why? Because I need it. And the next thing you know, you have crappy buildings all over the place. You could do it but, honest to God, I mean, this was supposed to be -- the vision was 5.A.a Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 35 of 82 supposed to be -- this was supposed to be a town, and the town was supposed to have a certain look to it. It was supposed to be developed in a certain way. And, unfortunately, the residents don't have, really, the input that they should have in this, to be quite blunt. It's developing almost like a regular PUD, almost, where a developer comes in, and every time he wants -- sees a market opportunity, he comes in and says, well, now I want to do this. Now I want to do that, and -- rather than growing in an integrated manner, which was the whole point of this, to get a town in an integrated manner and to have a certain look to it. So, no, I'm not a big fan of deviations because it's, like, there's always a market reason for it, and the market changes like this (indicating). And so a year from now there's another market change, then the year after that there's another market change, and the next thing you know, you've got this development that's not what everybody intended and certainly not what the people are buying into. But if you're asking me, do you have the power to do that, yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm trying to find our presentation so I can at least put the master plan up and let's talk about -- is this it? Okay. Thank you. So this is Ave Maria. It's roughly 5,000 acres. It's got a university in it. It's a big area. It's a town. To expect us to know on the date we submitted the first SRA document that we knew how every one of these roughly 4,000 acres was going to develop is an unfair burden when you put together that SRA document. The Land Development Code was specifically amended to allow for deviations in towns. I know that because we did it because originally the way it was written is if you -- when you did your first SRA document, you were married to it. You were never allowed to have flexibility to whatever the Land Development Code said. So we came in because things change over time. So the deviation process was specifically added to address towns and for allowing us to do it as amendments to the SRA, because before a few years ago, you couldn't even do that. So I want to -- and I'm going to make sure -- Austin's going to correct me. I would -- and can you come up real quick. What I think Mr. Klucik is saying for the Lennar development, not just this one condominium portion within the development -- it's right here, right? MR. HOWELL: Uh-huh. MR. YOVANOVICH: You know what -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: We call that the National project. MR. YOVANOVICH: But I want -- I just want the Planning Commission to understand where that is, and I'm trying to figure out how I mark this. I don't think if I do this -- did I make a mark? I did. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yep. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's where Lennar's developing right now. That's their golf course community. Actually, I missed it a little bit. It comes down here. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Just -- let me just say, I think this is an older graphic, so it doesn't really -- it portrays a prior -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It shows the land mass, but it doesn't show the actual buildout. What I'm saying is the land mass where I think Mr. Klucik is saying he is comfortable with this deviation applying is that land mass; is that correct? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes, that would be the footprint of what's being proposed as the National -- Lennar's National Golf Course community. MR. YOVANOVICH: So we will come up with an appropriate descriptor of that land mass before we get to the Board of County Commissioners to say the requested deviation to be able to do 25-acre parcels will only apply to this land mass, so it will be a very limited deviation. We'll 5.A.a Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 36 of 82 have to follow the other process that's in your code anywhere else in Ave Maria, but for the deviation purposes, this land mass is where we would do the deviation. And I think that is -- is that what you're -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. I mean, that sounds appealing to me. I think that, you know, the commissioners should all have a chance, you know, to ask more questions if we're limiting it to that. I think that's a -- yes, I think you have summed up what I think I could support. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. And that works for us. I mean, we'll deal -- if we have another master developer that comes in and decides they need an area-wide deviation, we'll come in. I'm not going to come in for every SDP. I mean, that's -- and ask for a -- we're not going to do that. But for this master development area, we'll limit the requested deviation to that area, and hopefully that addresses the concern that some people have about a community-wide deviation and the unknown that might occur through that. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And while you're up here, I want to just say that I actually, you know, would want to underscore what Attorney Klatzkow expressed, because I could have said the exact same thing. The only thing I would add is that, you know, having lived there and been there for 13 years from the very beginning, I would say that I'm very grateful that Ave Maria Development and Barron Collier stuck with it. They came up with a plan to try to sell homes when nobody was buying homes and, yes, it deviated from their original plan. You know, when they did it, they didn't really have to make too many changes to do their big Maple Ridge project, but they stuck with it. And I was wondering, you know, when are they going to walk away because we were there for a long time, and there was nobody buying houses. And I only make that point just to say that I really do -- you know, I don't just say these things about our developer because I feel like I have to. Ave Maria Development does a great job. And that doesn't mean that I won't continue to ask pesky questions. MR. YOVANOVICH: It wouldn't be as much fun for me if you didn't. And I just wanted to point out the evolution of the town, and, Mr. Klucik, you're aware of this, Arthrex expanded greatly out there. It was never contemplated that Arthrex was going to be there. So we came in and we gave them a bigger land mass, and we gave them more square footage, because we didn't have enough square footage set aside for light industrial. So it did evolve, and we've made changes based upon what's been for -- and I think they've all been positive changes for the community. I mean, I think Ave Maria is a great community. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: The reduced street trees, I don't like that. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know. We'll -- but anyway. Generally, I'd like to think -- so hopefully that addresses the concern of some of the Planning Commissioners that have concerns about the applicability of the deviation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Question for Rich. Do you agree with staff's interpretation that you can consolidate four-acre parcels into a single site plan and submission now that you've had the chance to read? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. The only thing I learned -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: The only reason I say that is you said you'd drop your request for Deviation No. 1 if they were correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I -- it still is important for this piece of property to not have to worry about those lot lines. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So I don't want to totally eliminate it because it is important for this, and I think the more limited application is a better application. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. And the other question is, do we have to act on this 5.A.a Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 37 of 82 other -- why do we have to make -- we can vote to not approve the deviation, but it sounds like we can -- why would we apply it to a project that's not even before us? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I think you're correct, and as has been said by the County Attorney numerous times, we can make whatever recommendation we wish. We're not limited by what the application is. We can -- you know, we can either carve out in this particular case the project and say that the deviation will apply there but not elsewhere. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But I'm concerned, and I share the County Attorney's concern that that -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. I'm not willing to do that, because I haven't seen anything on that project other than Mr. Klucik's opinion that it's a good project. So I'm not willing to vote to waive it on that one project. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I absolutely appreciate that point, which is why I was kind of hesitant, you know, a little bit about it. My whole idea is that's how I would -- you know, that was my first feedback. My very first feedback back before I was a planning commissioner to the developer or, you know, to the -- even to the County Commissioner was that they should -- you know, no one would -- you know, we would -- our fears would not be there, anyone who has fears like me, but the concerns people have would disappear if you showed us the project, the project that this deviation applies to, and then we can say, oh, okay, I can live with that; that's -- there's no -- there's no reason to not give a deviation, or whatever the reason is, it's overcome by the upside. And I certainly understand Attorney Klatzkow's, you know, concern that we're just making deviations all the time, but I think that's exactly what -- it's more appropriate to make a deviation when we know what's before us, and then we can say, what is the downside, whatever. And I would also say that the process -- you know, I agree with you that the process to approve something like that, I don't think it's fair for all of you to just say, oh, well, Commissioner Klucik thinks it's cool, so thumbs up. I agree with you. I just -- the reason I'm willing to be supportive of it is because that's what I've been encouraging or hopeful that the developer would do all along when they do things in Ave Maria. MR. KLATZKOW: And if you guys want to see what it's actually going to look like, you can say, come back and show us exactly the project that you need this deviation for. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's kind of where I'm headed, I think. Thank you. Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Rich, the amendments before us is a basket of amendments. This deviation applies to this particular project, but there is -- there's self-storage units in here. There's the hospital use. There's signage, all that stuff. But am I correct that the only thing that really applies directly to that project, maybe signage a little bit, too, is majorly this deviation? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. That's the primary -- the primary -- one of the -- the primary amendment that applies to this property is the deviation. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. But we really are -- we're amending the overall SRA for Ave Maria through this process. MR. YOVANOVICH: Process, correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I will just say that we still -- you know, I don't want -- what I don't want procedurally or due-process-wise, I don't want -- since we still don't have an answer on the signage, you know, my question that the staff, I'm asking them to get back to us on, I don't want to mess up the due process for the applicant, because I don't want to vote until I know the answer to that question. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 38 of 82 MR. YOVANOVICH: And if I can, just so we know, this project that Mr. Klucik knows what it is is a gated community and it's an enclave within Ave Maria. So the impacts of this deviation are very limited and will only be felt, if you will, by the internal residents of that community. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, I would say that I learned something at our last district meeting on Monday, because we were looking at the bonds, you know, issuing the bonds. It actually is not a gated community, because these are public -- those roads are going to end up being publicly owned roads, and so there will be controlled access but anyone can actually enter the property. They just -- there's some certain -- there's a gatehouse. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's true. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So it actually is -- the government out there will own the streets. MR. YOVANOVICH: You're right. It's controlled access through the gates. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm not sure I understand all the ramifications of that nuanced difference. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, simply that the public has a right to go there. So the idea that it's restricted to the people that live there as far as having an interest would not actually be accurate. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So the gatehouse is a visual deterrent at most. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I think they can -- yeah. I don't really know how it works. It's a little strange to me. MR. YOVANOVICH: They can still ask you to present your identification, things like that -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- but they can't stop you, Mr. Fryer, from going through the gate if you say I want to go through the gate. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Got it. Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. That's no different than a CDD. All our CDDs are the same. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The gatehouses look nice. They can slow you down, but everybody has a right, because -- to enter. MR. YOVANOVICH: If those roads are built by the CDD. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: If those roads are public. MR. YOVANOVICH: Because not all CDDs use -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: They can stop and validate your insurance, your license and other type of things prior to entering the community, but it's -- the CDDs are the same as -- same thing, because they used the public municipal bonds to pay for the infrastructure. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And what I would say is the reason I bring that up, you know, based on what Mr. Yovanovich said, is that it will be used for walking, biking. You know, so the appearance, you know, the buffering, you know, the setbacks actually will matter to people who do use that. You know, the public is free to go in there recreationally. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anything further, Mr. Yovanovich? And I'm going to turn it back over to staff to see if they have anything further. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. I'm just as curious to see what staff's going to present on the signs, because there's no pictures of signs in the development order, so... CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Jenkins, do you want the floor? MS. JENKINS: Yes, sir. Anita Jenkins, for the record. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 39 of 82 I just wanted to make a correction. When I reported the height for multifamily at 3.5, that is in accordance with the LDC. The Ave Maria SRA document allows four stories for multifamily in neighborhood general. So I just wanted to make sure the record was correct on that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Mr. Sabo, anything further from you, sir? MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, no. Our recommendation is removal of Deviation No. 1 and recommending approval to the Board of County Commissioners. To Mr. Klucik's question, I put information or put requests out. I don't have an answer yet for the signage. So I would just need either additional time -- I don't know how you want to -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, there may be a motion to table. I mean, that's how we would -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. I would -- I would make the motion to table it until we get that question answered. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's -- that will be in order. After we ask for staff to complete and then public input and then rebuttal, and then the motion to table would be in order. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: You're welcome to remind me when it's time. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'll do my best. Mr. Sabo, anything further, sir? MR. SABO: No, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Mr. Frantz, do we have any registered speakers? MR. FRANTZ: (Witness shakes head.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's -- you're nodding no? MR. FRANTZ: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any member of the public who is present wish to be heard on this matter? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Seeing none, we'll ask the applicant to present rebuttal. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm trying to -- Mr. Chairman, can I have one minute to look something up before I say something about signs under the RLSA program? I don't want to -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Certainly. Do you want a five-minute continuance or, rather, recess? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. No more than five minutes. I just don't want you to all sit here and watch me scroll. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: We're still going to watch you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We'll be in recess for five minutes until 11:26. (A brief recess was had from 11:21 a.m. to 11:26 a.m.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ladies and gentlemen, let's reconvene. And we'll ask Mr. Yovanovich and his team to present rebuttal. MR. YOVANOVICH: On the sign issue, under the county's Land Development Code standards for -- for the RLSA, it specifically says that in the town core -- and then it incorporates into the town center the standards that are in the town core. It specifically says we're to follow the county's sign code. So all we're asking you is to make us consistent with the Land Development Code to allow us to use the sign code in the town center, because that's what the RLSA has always intended. So we're just asking to let us go back to that. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Can you point me to a page? Because I actually have that document up. MR. YOVANOVICH: I can't point you to a page, but I can show you. MR. BELLOWS: Do you want to put it on the visualizer? 5.A.a Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 40 of 82 MR. YOVANOVICH: Will that work? MR. BELLOWS: We'll try it. MR. YOVANOVICH: So, Mr. Klucik, under town core, that's what it says regarding signs. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. So this is section -- what is the actual document we're looking at? MR. YOVANOVICH: The Land Development Code and the MUNI code, 4.08.07.J. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: This is LDC; this is not the SRA? MR. YOVANOVICH: This is the LDC. And what I'm asking you to do is put us back to what the LDC -- that is really weird. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. I guess my question is more what does -- I'm assuming that, fine, this is -- you have to meet this, but if the SRA is more restrictive, then you also have to meet the SRA. So that's really my concern. MR. YOVANOVICH: What I'm -- and I understand that. What I'm suggesting to you is when Ave Maria came through, it was the very first town that came through the process. It may have been close to or near the same time as the LDC. There are -- do you have the pictures, Wayne? MR. ARNOLD: It's right behind you. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know how good that picture is. But when you look through, you can see that the types of signs that they're showing work great in the core. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So this is the SRA? MR. YOVANOVICH: This is the SRA. These work great on the core when you're walking and up down the street, like 5th Avenue, when you have those signs. It doesn't work when you get to the shopping centers that are also allowed in the town centers and you have multiple tenants in a building, and they can't get the signage to let people know -- because of the orientation of these town centers, to let them know who the vendors are in these shopping centers, and we're just trying to give our tenants sign visibility so we can continue to attract providers in the town. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. So what -- other than this page, which I really can't see that well, what is the -- can you actually give me the reference? Because I can pull at least that page up. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's Page 40, the town plan. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And then what is the -- what is the other language that otherwise -- so it's saying you can do these things, and it gives examples, I'm assuming. But other than that, what does the SRA actually say? MR. YOVANOVICH: That's it. These signs. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So it says you're allowed to do this. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's it. It doesn't let me go to the -- it doesn't let me go to the -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. But what I would say is early on the developer put up some commercial buildings and, you know, they knew -- you know, they knew they were going to do that, and I think the whole idea of this -- you know, I mean, I realize now you're asking for a change. The community now functions fine, and everyone knows where everything is and, you know, and we can find things, and the expectation is that there's not a lot of signage. Unfortunately, we have all the street signs on -- you know, on the subdistrict roads that I, you know, kind of complained about already. We have pollution in that regard, sign pollution. But there isn't -- you know, it's actually really nice. You can see what's there. You can see, oh, it's a Mobil station. I mean, everybody knows there's a Mobil station. If you drive by, you see it. Now, I understand you might have a situation where a building is not fronting the street and then it would be more difficult for people to understand where that business is. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 41 of 82 MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And we cannot do -- we can do nothing to help that businessperson know that their business is in that building because we don't have the appropriate signage. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And what I would say is given -- you know, this is my impression on this. If right now you're extremely restricted under the SRA, then simply adopting what applies across the board, you know, to the county, I don't think is the appropriate solution. I think some in between where you actually factor in the uniqueness of this community is the appropriate change. And that -- that's not what we're seeing. What we're seeing is, whatever the county standard is applies to Ave Maria. We already heard about Ave Maria being unique. MR. YOVANOVICH: Ave Maria was first. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I assume -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And what -- with -- the one thing about Ave Maria is there's 20 years of lessons learned about tweaks that need to occur for Ave Maria to continue to thrive. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. And what I just said is perhaps a tweak is appropriate but simply adopting the countywide standard for signs I don't think is a tweak. I think that's saying, oh, it's just like every community. And so what I'm -- you know, my thought is, I welcome a sign change proposal, you know. I won't -- you know, I would make an amendment to disapprove this one, you know, that portion of it precisely because I think something other than simply adopting the county rule would be appropriate. MR. YOVANOVICH: And we respectfully disagree. We think that the county's sign standards are very strenuous, and if they're good enough for the regular citizens of Collier County and the restrictive nature, I don't think we're in any way harming the residents of Ave Maria by applying those same standards. And we would request that you approve that deviation that we requested, the limitation on the deviation, on the size and, again, with any -- any further questions you may have... I do want to point out that this has got to be the first time I've ever been accused of overstating the amount of traffic, because my engineer came in with a number that staff -- we worked through and realized that we had overstated the impact, and that was an honest discussion back and forth, and we hope you'll approve that trip cap as well and every other amendment we're requesting so we can go to the Board of County Commissioners for a final decision. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Staff has recommended approval of the sign. The only thing that you've recommended denial of is Deviation 1, correct, Mr. Sabo, which had to do with the 4-acre to 25-acre increase for multifamily? MR. SABO: For the record, James Sabo. Yes, that is correct; however, I think Mr. Klucik brings up a good point. There is a lot of uniqueness to Ave Maria, and part of their problem is they don't have the ability to put up signs that -- you know, marquee type signs and gas station signs and things like that. It may be appropriate for Ave Maria to have slightly different standards. Maybe not as restrictive as the town core but not as liberal as the remainder of the community. So Santa Barbara and Davis is different than an intersection in Ave Maria. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah, and I think that's a great summary. And I am doing my best, because I do work with the developer on a lot of things and I will be over the long haul. And I'm trying to be very fair, and I'm not trying to just say no. I'm trying to suggest that there be something that's appropriate for the community. I agree. I agree. If there's a business and it's not, you know, doesn't have frontage, you know, on the street, nobody's going to know where it is. What's the solution? I think there should be one. I just disagree that it should just be whatever is allowed elsewhere in the county precisely because there's a reason the SRA has no -- you know, limits the signs right now. So just saying, oh, whatever the -- whatever the county requirements are is good enough. It's not that Ave Maria is better. It's that Ave Maria is different. That's all. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 42 of 82 And it's -- it definitely would be out of character. The signs that would be allowed under the code, if we just adopted the code, would definitely be out of character and would change the character of what's already established in Ave Maria. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Signs in the county have been a significant emotional event for many years; it goes back almost 20 years when the sign code was changed. We probably have the most restrictive sign code in the nation. And when Ave Maria came out -- and some of the examples that were shown in the SRA were examples that were submitted in the SRA because they wanted to exceed the county standards. County standard does not allow neon lights, or neon -- signs require backlighting and other type of requirements; height limitations. So to be concerned -- just to ease your concern, the sign standards within the LDC are very, very restrictive, and when the SRA was developed, the town wanted to exceed those standards. That's why they developed the sign standards for the SRA. I don't think you're putting yourself at risk in regards to complying with the LDC because it is very -- they are very restrictive. But that's just -- just a little history on signs. I'm sure, Jeff, you can highlight as well the history of signs in Collier County, and some of it is probably even long before your time. Yeah, you were still on the county staff then when we -- MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. I'm the guy -- I'm one of the guys who redid the sign code once upon a time. You're absolutely right, we have a very restrictive sign code. It's an aesthetics issue so that -- the Board of County Commissioners wanted certain aesthetics for the community, and we have our sign code. So you go up -- I look at Lee County, because I drive a lot there, and I look at their signage, and I think it's ghastly. And then I drive around Collier County and I look at our signage, and it's just much nicer. But, you know, if the people of Ave Maria are looking for something in between -- I mean, I'm hearing from Mr. Klucik, but that's just one individual. I don't know what the community wants. You may want to start thinking about some sort of advisory board, by the way, setting up over there that could -- either an advisory board that's created by the Board of County Commissioners or just a private advisory board that you can come and say, look, you know, we've met and this is what the community feels like, because I think the Planning Commission could give that far more weight with the Board of County Commissioners. How many people live in Ave Maria now? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, there's 2,800 from what I understand; 2,800 homes have been sold. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. So you've probably got about 5-, 6,000 people there already. And you might want to think about establishing it, because it's one thing to say that, you know, I think the community should do this. It's another thing to say that, you know, we've met as advisory board, that -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And what I would say to that specific issue is I don't think anyone in town has any idea that this is even on the radar to be able to put up the kind of commercial signs that you would find throughout the county. Nobody even understands that's what this is before us. MR. KLATZKOW: Right. But if you had your own advisory board that met on a regular basis, these are the issues you can talk about. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. Oh, absolutely. MR. KLATZKOW: And then come back to the Planning Commission and the Board of 5.A.a Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 43 of 82 County Commissioners: This is what our community wants. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. What I would say is I have a decent read on the people that communicate with me, which are many, but I certainly am not going to say that everybody agrees with me. MR. KLATZKOW: The commissioner's absolutely right. We have a very tight sign development code. But if you guys want something more, you need to tell the Board that. But it's just you right now. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, and other thing I would point out is that we're going from something that's unique to Ave Maria to just saying, well, whatever the county comes up with is good for us. And I think actually we should -- if we're going to change the signage, it should be a specific signage not it just goes with the flow of whatever the county's going to do. And I certainly don't discount that the county has -- you know, has done something good in its, you know, limitations on signage. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, there are a number of directions we could go on this. First I want to ask Mr. Sabo, is staff's recommendation with respect to the signage the same as it was in the written materials? MR. SABO: Well -- all right. So can I change my mind? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Uh-huh. MR. SABO: All right. Since Mr. Klucik brought this up -- this is a good point -- the option that you have is to remove that portion of it. They have lived with the signage thus far and could potentially live with it another six months or whatever it is. That's one option. Or you could simply approve it. Like Mr. Schmitt said, the sign code we have is very restrictive. That's an option. So it's really up to you. I think he brings up a good point, I really do, and -- but ultimately it's a policy decision recommendation on your part. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we understand. Thank you. I just -- I was looking for something tangible, if you will, concrete example of language that we could -- that we could embrace. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So, Mr. Chairman, what I would say is because this was brought up at the information meetings that the developer had, when I asked staff about this particular issue, they hadn't -- they weren't really that knowledgeable about it as if it wasn't on their radar screen. And that's maybe because they were saying, oh, we want to adopt the county standards, and so no one really thought too much about it. But that's all I'll say. And, you know, I'm not -- certainly not trying to sell you out that you hadn't done your job, but it was foreign that it was even part of the -- if you look at the staff recommendations, I don't even think it really mentions the signage as an issue that they really had an opinion one way or the other on. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we have several options before us. One of them would be to continue this matter to a date certain soon and ask staff to come back with a recommendation that recognizes the uniqueness of Ave Maria and put that before us for consideration. Another would be to take negative action on the request that's before us so that it could go on to the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, I'm going to go ahead and make that first motion, that we table this or we continue it to get more feedback on this signage. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, we're not going to agree. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we'll hear -- Commissioner Schmitt, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Let's look at the deviation, what it's asking for. It's asking for one specific thing: Location of off-premises directional signs. Typically, it says no more than 1,000 feet from the building. They're asking for 4,500 feet. So we're not changing in any way, shape -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: That's not the one. There's two different sign issues. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 44 of 82 That's a specific sign issue, and then there's a sign issue for the town center. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The town center is clearly defined in the SRA. And it probably -- has a greater flexibility than what's allowed in the current code. MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman -- Mr. Chairman, I put up the proposed amendment language. Here at the bottom is signage. The new language is a strikethrough and the underline. So the town core shall apply, the community general standards shall apply, and then where that doesn't or where it's limited, they would rely on LDC Section 5.06.04.F., which is the county standards for signage. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. MR. SABO: So that's what Mr. Klucik is concerned about is the generalness of the county's sign standards applied to Ave Maria. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. So what I really see is that there -- we can ignore the first two, town core and community general, and just apply the third one, because it's "or." So there really is no specific sign standards for Ave Maria if we were to adopt this, and I don't think that's the way to go. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's not the way it reads. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, I would argue that it does, but I certainly am open to someone else -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It reads that you have the town core standards and the community general standards or the LDC, so you've got three different standards. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And you only have to comply with one of them. So if you don't like or can't comply with the first two, you could -- because it's "or," you could comply with the third. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Change it to "and." CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's kind of where we are now. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. Where we are now is exactly that, because you would still have the more restrictive pieces of the town and community. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Yovanovich, do you want to be heard on this? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. I think at this point, I think it's only fair to let the applicant -- you guys vote however you vote; make your recommendation. We've been in this process for almost a year. I don't know how many months it's going to take Mr. Sabo to come up with his newly designed potential sign that he wants to recommend that you guys approve for Ave Maria. I'll be honest with you, I'm a little taken aback at the change from the recommendation of approval to maybe not a recommendation of approval from staff. So I think it's only fair to have our amendments heard, voted on, and we can move forward to the Board of County Commissioners with your recommendation on each of these individual -- MR. KLATZKOW: But the Board relies on your recommendation. You can make it, you can not make it, you can continue it. If you feel the need to continue it to give the Board a proper recommendation, then do so. If you feel you can make a recommendation to the Board now, then do so. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Sabo, how long would it take for you to bring something back to us with respect to this signage question? MR. SABO: This -- to clarify, for the record, I would not draft sign ordinance language. I would put that to the applicant to come up with sign standards. They would have, you know, however much time that they would need to develop standards specific to Ave Maria and then, you know, whatever our hearing schedule would be. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there any reason why this would drag on longer than, like, 5.A.a Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 45 of 82 between now and the 18th of February? MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Chairman, you have our standard. We have given you the standard that the developer would like to see happen, which is to follow the code. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I understand. MR. YOVANOVICH: So he's telling me to go back and bring something else to you in order for you to make a decision. He's not going to come up with -- to anything else. He says he's not doing anything other than shift it to me to try to figure out what I want the signs to look like. We know what we want the signs to look like. They're the signs that are in the code. There's no reason to continue me for me to come back and say, I really meant it when I said we wanted to refer to the standards that are in the code. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We could -- we could ask for staff to draft sign language, and particularly in consultation with Commissioner Klucik, that might be acceptable to us, and I think it could be done in very short order and -- certainly within the next two weeks, and if that's the wish of the Board, we've got -- we've got a motion. It hasn't been seconded yet. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is that something we could review and pass on the consent agenda if we -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- reviewed it in advance? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, you can't. You can't do that, because I have to have some input on that, on the sign. I mean -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, you'd have input during the consent agenda. MR. YOVANOVICH: You can't reconsider things on the consent agenda. The consent agenda is to make sure that staff did what you directed them to do, and all you're directing staff to do is to come up with something and present back to you for discussion, and you can't -- you can't do that in the consent agenda. MR. KLATZKOW: He's right. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And all I would say is that I don't think the community has any understanding that the -- that we would see different signage at this point based on what has happened, because it's been undersold and underplayed as we're simply adopting the county standards, and people -- that doesn't mean anything to anybody. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: That's my opinion. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Would you -- Commissioner Schmitt, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. No disrespect to the Commissioner representing the community, but that's one person. I don't -- we had nobody else from the public speak, we had no concerns. They do have a board out there. And we're sort of recreating on the fly here, and that -- it's really concerning to me that we have one outspoken commissioner, that we're sort of now going back to the drawing board. I haven't heard from anybody else, and I -- this was not an issue until discussed today. I'm just confused by this whole aspect of wanting to rewrite the sign code which, frankly, when we did the sign code in this county, it took probably well over a year, and we hired a consultant, we had community meetings, and it was a pretty extensive operation in order to amend the LDC. And then all of the nonconforming signs that were out there were noted, the code enforcement issues. I mean, this is not something that can be done by the seat of the pants. So I'm just questioning the whole process. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, I think that what you could do is you could take the existing code that does apply, this 5.06.04.F, and you could see if there's anything that would be tweaked specific to Ave Maria. What we're saying is that Ave Maria should not have any specific 5.A.a Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 46 of 82 sign standard that's different than anywhere else. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I can say that for the entire county. I mean, I know Ave Maria's different, but do we want another sign code for each rural village? I mean, this, to me, is going down a slippery slope. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, in this case, we already have something unique, and we're saying let's do away with it, but there's really no good reason to do away with it. The argument is, you know, we have a potential issue down the road with some shop owner, and there is no current issue. And they're asking to get rid of something without a real grounding for it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: So the concern is that where you have visible shopping centers that have signs that are flush with the face of each storefront, this would introduce the possibility that they could put a marquee sign out in front of all the shopping centers that shows Publix, Bealls, so on so forth, and that's your concern; is that correct? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: That's my concern. And I certainly don't think [sic] that some form of that might be appropriate, but there's no -- right now it's whatever is allowed throughout the county, and I don't even know what that is. CHAIRMAN FRYER: County Attorney. MR. KLATZKOW: Let me just -- because I've got a process concern here. Mr. Sabo's already said that he has no intention of having staff come back with anything. There is no community organization -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. MR. KLATZKOW: -- that can come up with something. There just isn't. I'm very uncomfortable with a single person dictating new code that everybody has to live with. So if -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well -- and that's not what I'm proposing. I'm proposing that we not approve this change -- MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, no. That's different. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- and we work with what we've got, and if there -- if there is, you know, some other way to go forward with it with a modification, then that's fine. But I'm not proposing a modification. I'm trying to -- MR. KLATZKOW: May I finish? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, no. Mr. Attorney, I'm going to -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. KLATZKOW: You're going to wind up winning if you keep your mouth shut. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I just want to explain that what I'm suggesting is to try to accommodate a change that I think could be good, and I am agreeing with the applicant that maybe a change is good. And so I'm trying to actually be very accommodating and open to the idea that maybe we should change this. And what I'm saying is, you know, let's not go all the way to the end. Let's go somewhere in the middle. And I apologize, I -- you know -- MR. KLATZKOW: There's no middle to go to, because staff is not going to come up with anything, all right. So if there's no middle to come up with from the signage standpoint, no other issue, there's no point in continuing this. It's not like we're going to have public hearings and hear from the people of Ave Maria as to what kind of signage code you have. So the issue then comes down to, do we keep the requirements as they are today, which is the SRA, or do we do away with the SRA requirements and, oh, by the way, once you do that, those other towns are going to ask for "me too, me too," all right. This is just not going to be limited to Ave Maria. I've seen this game work before. So the questions are, are you going to get rid of the SRA requirements, or are you going to keep them? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And what I would -- 5.A.a Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 47 of 82 MR. KLATZKOW: And it's a yes/no. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: What I would say if we say no, if we say we're not going to get rid of them, then I think that, you know, the applicant is likely to come back with something that, you know, maybe is in between. You know, and they can say they're not going to, they refuse, they have it -- you know, I get that. That's their right to assert that they want all or nothing, but at the same time, I think, you know -- and I also think couldn't we direct staff to come up with a proposal to change this, to modify it? CHAIRMAN FRYER: We could, but as a practical matter -- and I'm trying to evolve here as this develops. I'm sensitive to the right, if you will, of the applicant to get this resolved and for it to get onto the Board of County Commissioners. We have options in place where we can express our point of view with respect to the sign issue and with respect to the acreage issue, Deviation 1. We could vote to approve the application but deny those two pieces of it. And stating our reasons cogently, we would send it on to the Board of County Commissioners. And if at that point, if there's a large assemblage of members of Ave Maria or spokespeople who have been delegated the responsibility of speaking for a larger group, they can appear before the Board of County Commissioners and make that case. So that's my -- go ahead, Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: I just want to clarify one thing. We are not trying to avoid the Land Development Code RLSA sign requirements. You're not opening up Pandora's box. We're saying we want to meet the Collier County established Land Development Code sign requirements for SRAs. We want to meet the code. That's what we're asking for. We're not asking for an exemption from the LDC. We are not -- so don't -- we're not opening a Pandora's -- we're not asking for an exception. We want to meet the code. And I want to -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So I want to -- MR. YOVANOVICH: One more thing. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Yovanovich -- MR. YOVANOVICH: My NIM, my NIM for this project was in August of 2019. August of 2019 we had a follow-up voluntary -- 2019, sorry -- 2020, 2020. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Twenty. MR. YOVANOVICH: Wrong year. COVID's got me off by a year. So from August until now, we haven't heard a peep from the residents of Ave Maria saying we have a problem with these signs. We had a follow-up voluntary NIM; didn't hear a peep. I respect Mr. Klucik's opinion. I'm not saying he doesn't have a very strong opinion, and he's expressed them many times in the past. I'm fine with that. But we haven't heard from the residents of Ave Maria saying we are opposed to what was requested. I don't know that Mr. Klucik's read the sign code yet himself to know whether or not he has an objection to what the county code is. But we haven't heard from the residents of Ave Maria opposing this sign -- our request to be using the county code. So I want to just put that in context, and I would hope that we can move forward with a recommendation of approval of the modifications that we've requested and, obviously, you'll -- somebody will make a motion, and we'll figure out what the will of the Board -- or the Planning Commission is. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we have a motion before us, and -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I would like to respond to Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please go ahead. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So what I would say is, right now -- and you can answer me if -- would you be able to put up a marquee type sign now? Would the applicant be able to -- or in Ave Maria, in the area like, for instance, in front of a -- not in the town core but in the town center. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 48 of 82 MR. YOVANOVICH: You mean a directory sign that lists the names of the tenants? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, yeah. Like a lighted sign that has the colored -- well, the colored plastic signs, that, you know -- or colored glass signs that are in front of shopping centers. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know that there -- I don't know that the colored glass signs -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And the point of it is that you're asking that you would be able to do that, and I get that, and I'm not opposed to some form of that. What I'm saying is that I think it should be unique to the community that is unique, that has also been sold to us as unique. And all I'm saying now is is you're right, the people have not spoken because they have no idea -- they have no comprehension of what this proposal is because, as I said, it was not really discussed that much and, as I said, the staff didn't even realize it was something to really weigh in that much on about, because when I asked them specific questions, they -- it was as if, what? That's not part of the -- you know, what are you talking about? Okay. Now, I knew it was part of it because I had gone to the meetings. And so, you know, to your credit, you never -- it's not that you didn't talk about it. It's that it didn't seem like it was an issue, and if you recall, I thought you were suggesting that we were going to have signage initially because of the way it was worded; it was incorrectly worded on your material that you presented, and it was in -- where people would live. You wanted signs. That's how it was worded, and it had to -- you know, you had to go on record and correct that, that that was not what you were proposing. So there was some confusion here. And I also will say, I'm an elected representative in that community. I was recommended for appointment to this position because Commissioner McDaniel, who's also representing of people of Ave Maria, thought that I had my finger on the pulse of the community. I am not saying that everyone feels the way I do, but I certainly will tell you that I don't -- you know, I don't think I'm off in being concerned about this. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Question for the Chair. What stage are we in? Are we in deliberation here, or are we still in rebuttal? Are we in deliberation? CHAIRMAN FRYER: This is still rebuttal. We have not moved to deliberation. COMMISSIONER SHEA: We shouldn't be having motions made then. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, no. You asked for the opinion of -- the input from the staff, and I don't think we are in rebuttal. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I'm sorry, of the community. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, how about can you put the motion up if we haven't gone through the -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we haven't had a second, first of all, and I haven't heard Mr. Yovanovich, basically, rest. So as far as I'm concerned, we're still in rebuttal. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm only responding to comments that are occurring with regard to questions. And, you know, if you're going to stop asking staff questions and you're going to not -- I just only request that I be given an opportunity to respond to staff comments that I may believe are not totally accurate. I'm done with my presentation. And I'm perfectly fine with resting and having you-all go to a motion to deliberate, but I only ask is if you bring staff up and ask them questions, that I be provided the same courtesy. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's fair enough. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 49 of 82 Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Rich, are you -- in this signage section, are you really trying to address the situation where a non-street-facing business does not have adequate signage? MR. YOVANOVICH: We are trying to make sure that businesses that want to come to Ave Maria stand a fighting chance of being successful. That's why we're making these changes just to the town center. We're not doing anything in neighborhood general. It's just the business districts, if you will, within Ave Maria. So we're not -- we're not making up a problem. We're addressing a problem to bring businesses to Ave Maria. COMMISSIONER FRY: I get it, but Robb's -- and I have to say, if they have flush signs and this would open up the possibility that every commercial development, whether it faces a collector road or an arterial, you could put up a marquee sign with all the businesses listed, and that's against the vision of Ave Maria, and then I see that as a valid concern. So that's simply -- my question is: Are we -- do we need to invoke the entire LDC when we have an SRA signage, or are you really looking to address a specific situation that we could do in a more limited fashion? MR. ARNOLD: This is Wayne Arnold. If I might address that questions, please. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. MR. ARNOLD: The signage in the town core right now -- and I don't want to -- I need to correct you. A marquee sign is not a multi-tenant sign. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. MR. ARNOLD: That would be a directory sign -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: -- in the county's nomenclature. A marquee sign is specifically allowed here, and it allows it to be attached to a theater to indicate the shows that are being played. That's the limitation in the town core. What it doesn't allow is a multi-tenant facility, if you go to a medical appointment, it doesn't allow you have to directory sign where you can have multiple doctors' names listed on it. It doesn't allow you to have a gas station sign. It doesn't make any provisions for those things. And we have a -- we have other things outside the town core. But as your LDC even says, it says, you go to the town core, if you're in any of the other context zones, but then at town core, if you read the section that Rich put on the visualizer, it says per signage for the LDC. So every other town that's out there, if they didn't come and ask for a specific standard, they would defer back to the LDC, which I think we all agree is a fairly significant standard. But here, just one example, Mr. Fry, was a directory sign that's not permitted. COMMISSIONER FRY: Oh, it would -- even with this change it would not be permitted. MR. ARNOLD: It would not with the change, yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I will ask, it says, signage within Town Center 1. Town Center 1, is that where the Mobil station is, or what is Town Center 1? What -- I'm trying to make sure that I know -- MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Klucik, they all allow the same. Town Centers 1, 2, and 3 all refer you back to town core. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. But this particular deviation -- or change, excuse me, is limited, is that correct, to Town Center 1? I mean, that's what I'm reading. MR. ARNOLD: That's not my language. That is not the proposed change. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: All right. So then I'm not even looking at what we're -- the commissioners aren't even looking at the language, so I have a problem with that. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's in your resolution. MR. ARNOLD: It should be in your resolution if you're looking at that, Mr. Klucik. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 50 of 82 COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. And I'd like someone, if we could, have staff put that up for us. MR. SABO: The resolution is in front of you. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: That is the resolution, all right. So the resolution limits these -- this change to Town Center 1, and I'm asking for someone to clarify, because there's more than one town center. MR. YOVANOVICH: What you're not seeing, Mr. Klucik, is they didn't share with you the language in Town Center 2 and 3. That says signage within Town Centers 2 and 3 shall comply with the town core. So you have one page. You don't have the next page on there to show you that it applies to all three town centers. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: All right. So -- okay. Well, can I see that? MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: If it's town core -- I realize you could have misspoken -- then if it refers to town core, then for 2 and 3 this new thing wouldn't apply. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. The way it works is the town core is where you identify the types of signs you're allowed to have. Then you go to Town Centers 2, 3 -- 1, 2, and 3, and it says, refer back to town core for the types of signs you're allowed to have in Town Centers 1, 2, and 3. What we've added to our language is the ability to do the town core signs that are in our SRA document, or the LDC signs. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And all I'm saying is as written there that would be limited to Town Center 1 unless -- unless the Town Center 2 standard says whatever applies for Town Center 1 also applies to Town Center 2. What is it that you'd like me to look at? MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the resolution that talks about the revisions we're making to Town Center 2, which is the very same language. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. Ah. So it's on a different page? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay, great. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: You can keep that, but I need it back. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: That's very helpful. That's not the resolution you have? MR. SABO: That is not the resolution that I have. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, it's the resolution that I printed from your website. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Do you have it up on yours? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, do you need -- MR. KLATZKOW: Why don't we take lunch, and we can figure out exactly what we're talking about during the break. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's what we'll do. Would anyone object if we came back a little -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Do you want a full hour? COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. It's 12:09. COMMISSIONER FRY: So does Terri. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We'll stand in recess until 1:10, an hour and one minute. (A luncheon recess was had from 12:09 p.m. to 1:10 p.m.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ladies and gentlemen, let's reconvene, please. When last we were together, I believe the applicant had rested with the request that if we then end public comment and call staff back, that we would give the applicant a chance to rebut. So without objection, we will do that, but first Mr. Sabo has a clarification. MR. SABO: Correct. James Sabo, for the county. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 51 of 82 Just to clarify, my recommendation to the Planning Commission has not changed. My recommendation is approval with the removal of Deviation 1. What I wanted to clarify is the information that Mr. Klucik brought up is information that you could consider, but it is up to you. It's up to you to consider the information he brought up regarding signage, so -- but my recommendation stands as presented. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you for that clarification, sir. Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And so I would basically withdraw my motion and replace it with a motion to pass it in accordance with the staff's recommendation but without the sign -- with the sign piece dropped that we discussed in detail for the commercial signs in Town Center 1. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So the motion would be that we accept staff's recommendation on Deviation 1 but then add that we're going to keep the SRA signage. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Sign for activity center the same. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So that's a motion. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just a procedural -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: We're going to have lots of discussion, but we're going to put a -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: But a procedural thing. Can you just make a motion before you get to deliberation? CHAIRMAN FRYER: You can. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Any time you want? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, absolutely. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just, procedurally, I'm trying to understand this. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No. We will -- we will have lots of discussion on this, and we're going to begin our discussion with a motion and possibly a second, but we're not going to end deliberation or discussion until everybody has had everything to say that they wish. County Attorney. MR. KLATZKOW: Ray, have we any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: I don't have any registered. I'll check with online. No, no online. MR. KLATZKOW: Do you want to close the public portion? CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to do that, yes. We will close the public portion on the -- with the condition that if for some reason we asked staff to come back, we'll give the applicant a chance to also rebut. But I'd hope that we can get through this without having to reopen. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And, Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, I thought we were already at that point. So, obviously, without hearing from the public, my motion would have been premature, and that certainly was not my intent because I thought we had already asked the public for comment. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We did. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: We did. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You were right, we did. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thank you. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER FRY: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's moved and seconded, and we will now have a full and complete discussion. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'll kick it off. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please do. COMMISSIONER FRY: The reason I seconded the motion is I believe that -- I look at 5.A.a Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 52 of 82 the justification to approve deviations to be that there is a demonstrated benefit to the deviation and a significant benefit to it. We've established that the applicant is able to design all the same similar communities with very, very minor differences with the four-acre limitation on multifamily homes in place, so that's why I do support denying that deviation. And to the signage, a similar viewpoint, I guess a similar framework in looking at it. My concern with opening it up is that I think we have established, through testimony, that including -- expanding it to include the LDC, while the LDC may be considered, quote, restrictive, we have identified at least one area where it's less restrictive which would allow the addition of directory signs to any commercial shopping center in Ave Maria, and that's not a -- that is an expansion of the signage rules. And I get the impression that the people in Ave Maria maybe like the flush mounted signs. And the client -- the applicant did present, I thought, a very reasonable request, which you as well, Mr. Klucik, thought was reasonable, which is how do we let people know that that those off-street businesses are there? So I do believe that an exception of some kind would be justified there, but I do not believe that opening the entire less restrictive LDC, we have enough information -- or I have enough information to support that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I'm really not clear on the motion regarding signs. What was that meaning we will stay with the staff recommendation? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No. The staff recommendation with the one change is that, as to the addition or the change to adopt the LDC signage standard for Town Center 1 is -- we approve it without that, without any change to the signage. We would -- we're approving the sign that's off property, but we're not approving the internal signage standards change. That's what my motion is. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, again, I'm going back to the -- I'm looking at the resolution. So how would that resolution read, so I'm clear? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: All right. I'm sorry. I'll have to call it up. What page is the resolution on? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Let's see. That section was -- James, you -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: 9A1C, attachment to your resolution, 100620? MR. SABO: Page 75 and Page 96. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: That's not what I'm seeing here. MR. SABO: Page 75. Page 96. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: All right. Well, I'm opening up the agenda with all of the information attached, and I'm trying to find a page number there. That's what I have. COMMISSIONER FRY: Seventy-five and 96 of what packet that -- MR. SABO: The proposed resolution. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Mine, I'm at Page 28 of 2, 448. But it says, signage within Town Center 1 shall comply with town core standards, strike through the "and." COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Strike that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So community general standards or LDC. So you're recommending that that -- basically the section that says LDC Section 5.06.04.F come out? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. I believe the language that is currently in there is the part that is not underscored, and so my amendment is removing the portion that is underscored, which says "or LDC Section 5.06.04.F." COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So in that regard, there's no change in the signage criteria for Ave Maria other than the deviation for the off-premise sign? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 53 of 82 COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And, of course, minus the 25, the increase to 25 acres. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's Deviation 1. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's Deviation 1. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yep. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, the issue here is -- and I have to agree with -- we've had two public hearings -- or two public meetings, none of which this was an issue, and all of a sudden now it's an issue because, of course, you raised it as an issue. And as far as with regards to the applicant, the purpose of this was to allow for businesses that don't front a frontage street. So now we're basically saying they will not be able to put up any kind of -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Directory. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- directory sign or other type of sign. Even if they put the hospital in or another type of facility, directional signs or multi signs for hospitals, doctors' office locations, all those kinds of things, none of that can be done now. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, right, without them submitting something that -- for instance, I would support -- well, not us. We make a recommendation, but that the commissioners would support. I think that's the appropriate way to do it is to not -- to not bite this off now this way. I don't think that that's appropriate. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So based on your recommendation, if the hospital goes in, they're prohibited from putting any type of internal signage? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, they would be if they didn't ask for a deviation, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. So if we wanted to put any kind of directional signs within, let's say, the interior portion of the hospital property for location to the emergency room or doctors' offices or other type of things, in order to do that, they would have to come and amend the SRA again. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I don't think that's the case, because right now we have so many directional signs in town; then we must be breaking the code all over the place. So that -- you know, certainly in Ave Maria there are a lot of directional signs that tell you how to get to the doctor's office and how to get to the town center and how to get to the school and the university. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. I don't know, because I don't know if that is basically part of the sign -- sign ordinance, and I don't have that in front of me. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. There, I believe, was an investigation of some of those signs, and a lot of those signs were not permitted through the county. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's what I thought. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, that leaves -- it leaves a situation for the applicant then. In order to put any type of signage, they would have to make that clear back to the residents and come back in with another amendment. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. And I think that you would get support from the community, and I'm certainly -- I haven't represented that there's widespread disagreement with that. What I've -- what I'm saying is I would -- if you went and polled the people in town, they would have no idea that that's actually on the table. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Despite the fact that we've had two public meetings and -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, I told you that when they couched it in the first meeting, they actually had it -- actually, in the second meeting, I had to correct what they were saying they were proposing in the second meeting. They actually -- so in both meetings they actually had slides that said they were proposing that in the residential areas they could have 5.A.a Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 54 of 82 commercial signs. Because it was a typo. I agree it was a typo. Let me finish. So when I went into the meeting and when people went into the meeting, we were concerned about that. And then the response was, oh, no, no, no, that's just in the town center, in the commercial areas. And then because people were relieved that the big issue of having those signs in residential areas, you know, was no longer an issue, there was not really a discussion or an understanding of what the proposed change really was. And I'm quite confident that there's a lack of knowledge that that's what this proposal is actually proposing. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I agree. I'm just one guy, but I'm actually not just one guy. I'm a guy that actually does have my finger on the pulse of the community. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I can't support the recommendation to eliminate this request. I think that the LDC standards are very restrictive and certainly would not be abusive or -- in any way to the Town of Ave Maria. In fact, I believe that the standards that are now allowed within Ave Maria, frankly, exceed the LDC standards. So as proposed, I cannot support the petition. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would support it -- the limit of the acreage, even though I think it's sort of onerous. But the applicant's going to be able to do what they could even without the limitation. So I would agree with the staff recommendation on that. But for the signage, I think it ought to stay with the staff recommendation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: I was just thinking about your question, Joe, and not having the background you do, if I simply see a reference to an LDC section and I'm in Ave Maria, even sitting here, I would not know the full ramifications of that. So I'm thankful that that came up today, because it would not have been included in the application had it not in some way expanded what they could do sign-wise. And I -- my personal concern is not understanding exactly what the ramifications are and knowing that there already is a sign ordinance or rules in place in Ave Maria under the SRA, are we opening Pandora's box to some unintended consequences like directory signs where they may not be desired. That was a concrete example, you know, throughout Ave Maria. And I guess I feel, by having it on the record, if the applicant chooses to approach it or go forward with the County Commission and have them vote differently, at least the issue is on the table. So that is why I seconded the motion. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Shea? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I support Joe's position. I support voting approval on the staff's recommendation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Is there -- yeah, Vice Chair. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I will support Joe's view on the signage, too, because I sat here through all the Land Development Code amendments, and it was very lengthy and very thorough, and I don't see any reason for it not to apply here. There's no reason, because maybe then your -- the Ave Maria has code violations. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, there probably are issues out there that are code violations. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, we also have the ability to now -- if we do approve what Joe's suggesting, to see if the public really is against it, and you have to get -- and get to the commissioners' level as well, if you really have some good public views against the approval. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Chair would entertain a motion to amend the main motion if someone wishes to make it. COMMISSIONER FRY: Can we hear from Karen? 5.A.a Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 55 of 82 CHAIRMAN FRYER: We did. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That was me talking. COMMISSIONER FRY: Oh, I'm sorry. What I meant to say was, thank you, Karen, for weighing in. I meant the Chairman. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We have a motion and a second. Do we have to call the question? CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, we can -- there could be a move -- a motion to amend the main motion to express -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I make a motion to amend -- to approve as staff proposed. I still believe that the 25 acres is certainly not -- would create a problem in any way, shape, or form. But it's clear from the staff's position that the -- that the current design can proceed with the four acres. So it does not create an undue hardship other than it does create somewhat of an engineering and technical problem for the applicant, but it looks like it's easy enough to get through it. So I would make a recommendation to support -- to amend and support the staff recommendation as proposed that is denying the recommendation for the 25 acres but keeping the sign language as stated -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- and as proposed in the current recommendation from staff. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes, I'd second that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. It's been moved and seconded to amend the main motion by reverting to the proposal that staff has brought forward which is to deny Deviation 1 but in all other respects to approve. Is there any further discussion on the motion to amend? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not -- and this is just a -- this is a vote on the motion to amend, not the main motion. All those in favor of amending the main motion, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Opposed. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. It passes 4-2. Did I count that correctly? All right. So now we have a main motion that is identical to staff's recommendation that we approve this but with the exception of Deviation No. 1. Any other discussion on the main motion as amended? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I'll simply say that I'm going to vote no just because of -- you know, I want the amendment that was amended out in, and that's the basis for my objection. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Can I just -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would encourage that we go back to Ave Maria and get their input prior to the Board of County Commissioners so that there's clarity so that the folks in Ave Maria have a clear understanding of the -- both the pros and cons and, frankly, any second and third order impacts this may have. My biggest concern is lack of directional signs and the inability to do internal directional signs that they would now be allowed to do under the LDC. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 56 of 82 COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: What I would say just to my neighbors, so that's -- you know, if you feel strongly about this, then, you know, you've now been told that that would be the way to -- you know, you have to make yourselves known, your voices heard. I certainly am not going to, you know, run and act like this is a burning issue. I made my point, and I do think that it's -- you know, it's -- something in between would be better than just adopting the -- you know, the county's code, but obviously that, you know, hasn't persuaded this panel. But I just -- you know, if people in town do feel strongly that they don't want to have commercial signs, then they need to speak up between now and the commission meeting. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. You didn't? COMMISSIONER SHEA: No, he did. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: No. I just applaud what you said, Joe. I think we're doing our job here. We're putting the issues on the table. In my opinion, yeah, maybe some analysis between now and the County Commission meeting it would be helpful to know exactly what ramifications there are from having the LDC sign ordinance brought in. You know, does it actually create a problem or does it not? I feel similar on the four-acres to 25-acre discussion. It's very possible that that really has no real negative ramifications on the intent, but I don't feel I have enough now to say for sure that it doesn't, and that's why I voted to maintain the four-acre limitation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anyone else wish to be heard? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Then we have an amended main motion in front of us, which is to accept the recommendation of staff, which was to recommend approval of the application with the exception of Deviation 1, which we disapprove of. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those if favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Opposed. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes 4-2. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Chairman, just to clarify, the vote was to forward the approval of the staff as proposed, which was denying recommendation -- deny the -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Deviation 1. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- deviation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I know that's what you meant. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. The amendment -- the amendment reverted it back to the -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- staff recommendation. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay, good. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I would just like to say to my colleagues I really do appreciate that you thought my contribution was helpful to understand Ave Maria better. Obviously, the developer understands Ave Maria very well, too. And, you know, it's -- I was -- I 5.A.a Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 57 of 82 enjoyed having the chance, you know, to weigh in, and I'm very proud of the community, and I'm sure it will continue to be a great place regardless, you know, of how this ends up panning out. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, thank you very much. And for my part, I'll simply say that your contribution was very, very well received and appropriate, and we thank you, and Ave Maria's lucky to have you out here carrying the flag. All right. Anything else on this before we go on to the next one? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: ***The next one is a companion item. It is 9A2 and 9A3. And these are -- these are, respectively, PL20200001448 and PL20200002056. They are City Gate Commerce Park. It's a PUDA and a DOA, a development order amendment. Without objection, we'll do as we usually do on these companions and we'll discuss them together but vote on them separately. And we will first ask all those wishing to testify in this matter, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Ex parte disclosures beginning with Mr. Eastman, please, sir. MR. EASTMAN: None. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER FRY: Staff materials and conversation with the engineering team for the applicant. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. In my case, materials from an exhibit -- and communications with staff and applicant's agents as well as a site visit. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes, I had a conference with Ms. Harrelson and her team, because I can't remember who was there except for Josh. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Likewise, I had a conversation with Jessica and her team regarding the petition. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I spoke with staff. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: Ms. Harrelson, you may proceed. MS. HARRELSON: Good afternoon. Jessica Harrelson, certified planner with Davidson Engineering here representing the applicants in the City Gate Commerce Park PUDA and DOA. Here with me today is Josh Fruth, vice president of Davidson Engineering; Roger Rice, representative for City Gate; Sean Callahan, representing Collier County; and Norm Trebilcock, the traffic consultant. We have a PowerPoint presentation prepared that Josh and I will run through and then answer any questions that you have. City Gate Commerce Park is depicted by the red dashed line that you see in this aerial here. It is located in the northeast quadrant of the I-75 and Collier Boulevard intersection lying east of Collier Boulevard. City Gate is an existing PUD and development order originally approved in 1988 and permits a variety of office, commercial, and industrial land uses. Requested updates include the addition of medical office, 10,000 square feet, for essential service personnel only to the sports complex extension that's located here in this hatched area. It's 128 acres. And pursuant to the addition of medical office, the two-way p.m. peak-hour trips have been updated for the sports complex extension to a total of 345. This results in a total of 6,344 two-way p.m. peak-hour trips for City Gate overall. Essential services are defined as those services and facilities including utilities, safety services, and other government services necessary to promote and protect public health, safety, and welfare, including but not limited to police, fire, emergency medical, public park, public library 5.A.a Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 58 of 82 facilities, and all other services designed and operated to provide water, sewer, gas, telephone, electricity, cable television or communications to the general public by providers that have been approved and authorized according to laws having appropriate jurisdiction in government facilities. Deviation No. 6 is an existing deviation within the PUD relating to directional signs internal to the PUD. This deviation has been updated to increase the number of signs, the sign area, and height. Again, these signs are internal to the PUD and are necessary for way finding. Approval of this deviation has no negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Existing Deviations 13, 15, 16 and 17 relating to grass parking for the sports complex project has been updated to also include lots abutting the sports complex project that provide overflow parking for the sports complex project. The number of permitted caretaker units has been updated from seven to total of 10. These are permitted east of the FPL easement. The reason for the increase is to address the needs of large landowners within City Gate and also due to the requested decrease in minimum lot size east of the FPL easement. A deviation has been added to allow the South County Regional Water -- Water Treatment Plant's directional sign to be located off site within Lot 11 of City Gate. This will allow the sign to be placed on the exterior side of the fence and be visible to the public. A deviation has been added to request a reduction in the number of required parking spaces for a proposed warehouse facility that is planned west of the sports complex project known as Uline. This will allow the facility to meet actual parking demands and allow more open space to be provided on site. And as you may know, Uline and the Board entered into a contribution agreement in October of 2020. As I mentioned previously, the minimum parcel size for the lots east of the FPL easement have been reduced from one acre to a quarter acre. Parcel width is being reduced from 150 feet to 50 feet. Lots that are one acre or greater will have a side yard requirement of 25 feet, and lots less than an acre will have a side yard requirement of seven-and-a-half feet. City Gate has a required yard plan which requires that native vegetation be retained in the required yards for each lot or unified development. Language has been added to allow these lots surrounding the lake and recreational tract known as the Tract RL campus to have the option to provide required native vegetation within different lots located within the PUD. This will allow for larger pockets of native vegetation to be provided. The maximum zoned height for the sports complex project has been updated from 75 feet to 90 feet and the actual height from 85 feet to 100 feet. This applies to lots west of the sports complex project, east of the FPL easement, and south of City Gate Boulevard north, that includes uses that are compatible and complementary to the sports complex project. The purpose of the increase is to address the height needed for a tower element of a proposed resort that may be located adjacent to the sports complex project, and the star is the location of the potential resort location. The master development plan has been updated to reflect the changes that I have gone over, to update the current lot configuration, and to also show the relocation of City Gate Boulevard south. A neighborhood information meeting was held at the sports complex project on December 17th. There were no objections from the public related to the updates being requested with this amendment. And now Josh Fruth will come up and finish. MR. FRUTH: Hello, Commissioners. For the record, Josh Fruth, vice president, Davidson Engineering. A little history on City Gate. You guys have seen us quite often, but there are some new board members, so we wanted to go through a few items. City Gate, as Jessica mentioned, was 5.A.a Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 59 of 82 originally approved zoning in 1988, which predates the adoption of the Comprehensive Growth Management Plan from Collier County in 1989. In 2016, the Board of Commissioners started their site selection for what is now knowns as the Paradise Coast Sports Complex. The original rezone came before this Planning Commission in 2017 to update the PUD ordinance. Preliminary site design also started in 2017, and in 2018 we had additional rezone updates that came before the Board at the same time we started construction on Phase 1 of the sports complex. Last year we had some updates related to the overall PUD, and Phase 1 completion is pushing towards -- was pushing towards the end, and today's application is -- that Jessica just covered now. The importance of the '88 application is the establishment of the zoning -- commercial and industrial zoning for the MPUD. That PUD document was approved as 88-93 in 1988, as I mentioned. So part of the history, going towards the sports complex and the property in the overall PUD, as you see on the screen here is some -- a little bit of history with the newspaper articles. But the Board of County Commissioners, as I mentioned, in 2016 started the site selection. On the right-hand side of your screen, in May of 2016, Commissioner Saunders had a town hall to address what, at the time, the Hunden Strategic Partners had identified as 28 probable sites for the sports complex for Collier County. That was whittled down to a handful and then again reduced. Some of these sites are shown on the screen between North Collier Regional Park, the Golden Gate Golf Course at the time, which the county did not own, East Naples, and Manatee Park. Eventually reduced down to three sites: City Gate, the already owned county 305 parcel, which is between City Gate and the landfill, and the Magnolia Pond site, which is across the street from City Gate. So as we roll through to 2017, the purchase and sale agreement between City Gate and Collier County, and development happens, and we start pushing forward. The point of the site selection is that we recently received a noise complaint unrelated to these applications, so on behalf of Collier County, I'd like to address those, because we do want to be a good neighbor. In 2016, part of those -- that site selection was listening to the neighbors and, as I mentioned, the North Collier Regional Park was on the list, but that park, as you will see soon, here, the proximity to the residential zoning was much closer than this site, and this site gave the county a little bit more flexibility with the acreage of the 305 acres that the county already owned. As you see on your screen here, we had originally placed a 3,000-seat stadium near the right-of-way to the north, which would be close to the residential -- residentially zoned district. We listened to the public. We shifted things around. In 2018, as the county moved forward and into '19 and clearing, the design team, Collier County and the Board of Commissioners said, you know, we're going to move forward with the City Gate property as noted. We shifted, which you'll see here. This is an aerial of May. The four fields in Phase 1 were completed. The stadium construction continues, but we shifted that away from the residentially zoned district for a reason, because we were listening to the public moving forward. Here we are today. You can see the development in the foreground here. This is the stadium, which will be plus or minus, hopefully, opening up here within a month-and-a-half. And the importance here is that, again, remember, zoning was established for the City Gate PUD in 1988. The noise complaint is coming from the parcel that is starred on your screen. This is an aerial from 1993. The property is undeveloped. In 2002, the property is now developed. The residential property was developed actually in 2000. And on the screen here you can see the distances to the residentially zoned district to the property line of the sports complex, which is within the PUD. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 60 of 82 The property in question is roughly 745 feet from the property, another 14 -- or total of about 1,400 feet from what is now the food truck and bar pavilion area. And as you guys probably know, the Collier County noise ordinance exempts parks from being required to follow the overall noise decibels and items related to complaints; however, as I mentioned, we want to be a good neighbor, so the property, which is industrial zoned, as you guys know, is permitted to be up to 87 decibels. And so we started doing some sound testing. And for point of reference, normal speaking volume is roughly 60 decibels; thunder is 120 decibels; your refrigerator's 50; vacuum cleaner is 60 to 85; alarm clock, 65 to 80; chainsaw, 125; lawnmower and rifle, handgun, shotgun, between 163 and 170 decibels. So those sound readings are shown on the screen here. You have the yellow, red, green, and blue. Again, we took the readings from the right-of-way, not from the actual property lines. So we were a little bit away from the property closer to the residential. And the highest reading we had was at 10:30 in the morning, and this is important to understand, that these readings followed and started the day before the neighborhood information meeting. And the reason we started this is because this complex was built mainly -- and one of the big events was the football university, and that event takes place every Christmas -- every week before Christmas. So we started on December 16th, had these readings through December 22nd. On December 18th at 10:30 in the morning in yellow, which is the food truck bar area, there was a DJ doing announcements of teams. That reading was at 88 decibels. However, the exact same time, if you move to the red or blue or screen area, which is closer to the residentially zoned district, those readings dropped to 52 to 55 decibels, which, as I mentioned, normal speaking volume is 60 decibels. So the importance of this is, again, I've highlighted here the rifle, handgun, shotgun, between 163 and 170 decibels. As I mentioned, we had the reading at 10:30 at 88. The property in question, which is starred on the screen, is a football throw's away from an active outdoor gun range, which is much closer in proximity than the distances we've shown on the screen. Also, for reference, North Collier Regional Park. The -- some of the fields as shown on the screen to the right are just a little over 300 feet away from the residentially zoned district as opposed to what the Paradise Coast complex is, 700 plus 230 rough [sic] or minus feet. So with that, I will open it up for questions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I want to go back, go back to -- and, Jessica, you and I discussed this. And staff may be able to address this as well. Please go back to the slide regarding essential services personnel, and let's talk about the medical facility. Because my concern is -- I have no issue with the medical facility, but my issue is, I believe this was a misrepresentation. So who is building the medical facility? MR. FRUTH: The medical facility was added -- again, Josh Fruth with Davidson -- was added at the request of Collier County. There is 10,000 square feet of general office on the sports complex extension already. The request was to -- for the medical office for -- as defined here for the essential service governmental facilities. Since Collier County -- again, this is a request to get it in there. This does not mean it's going to happen, but it is a request to give Collier County the flexibility and option to have a medical office building since they are a self-insured company. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Okay. I have no issue with that, but it says for essential services personnel. Who -- in our discussion on the phone yesterday, you classified -- or, Jessica, you classified essential services personnel is, essentially, everybody that works for the county. I think that's a very broad expansion of the term "essential services personnel." My issue is, in the staff report and as publicly advertised, why not just have stated that it 5.A.a Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 61 of 82 was a medical office facility to service government county employees? I disagree with classifying essential services personnel. Everywhere else we talk about essential services personnel when we talk about affordable housing, when we talk about availability of housing, essential services personnel were typically, as classified, firemen, EMS, teachers, medical services, staff, and other related fields. This is, essentially, now for all county employees. I don't have an issue with that. But why didn't we just state that and say it was for county employees? Why are we using the term "essential services personnel" to classify -- to cover all government employees? MR. FRUTH: Well -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And whose idea was that? Because I believe this was a misrepresentation. MR. FRUTH: I understand what you're stating, Commissioner. I think working with staff and our client, which is the Board of County Commissioners and the County Manager's Office, we believe that those that we are representing would be the ones that would be using this facility if the county did, you know, decide to move forward with a facility of this nature. With that said, in coordinating with county staff at Growth Management, I think that, quite honestly, we didn't even think twice about it because of the way this definition on the screen reads today. Governmental facilities was our intent. It was the intent for those that are employed by Collier County to use the facility. So it was not anybody's ill will to steer it in the wrong direction. It was just, we agreed upon it and we moved on. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. Well, again, to me it's a misrepresentation of what's being asked for because -- is Mr. Bellows now deemed essential under this? Ray, no disrespect, but you're now essential. MR. FRUTH: Well, given the state of pandemic, you know, I think everybody's essential in the county, right? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Given the way this is described, Jeff, are you essential, too? MR. KLATZKOW: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. I just have a real problem with the fact that -- why not just have stated that this was for government and county employees? There's nothing wrong with that. I just have a problem the way it was advertised and the way it is being presented to this board. MR. FRUTH: I understand, Commissioner, and I think, like I said, before it was not intended to be that way. We agreed upon it, so we moved on. So there was actually no rebuttal about it. It was just one of those things, as you know, when you agree, you move forward. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I note it for the record then. Next thing, let's talk about the caretaker units. Put up the slide -- where are the location of the caretaker units? MR. FRUTH: Okay. So as Jessica mentioned, there are 10 proposed. We have seven already in the PUD as approved from the 2020 ordinance. Collier County has one caretaker right here that is -- right now is -- will be plus or minus about five to six weeks away from being ready for CO and deliverable to the caretaker which will be occupied by a deputy sheriff. It is very similar to the Collier County Public Schools. That is the exact model that was adopted. I'm going to go to a few extra slides here so I can walk you guys through this. Give me one second, please. So the definition of the caretaker is an accessory use to the principal use exclusive to the property owner, tenant, or designated employee, and any other requirement which the County Manager or designee determines necessary to mitigate adverse impacts. So in the case of Collier County for the sports complex, at the time of design and review, 5.A.a Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 62 of 82 we wanted to adopt the Collier County's Public Schools' model, because we wanted to have security on site, and the thought behind this, how do we make this happen and how and what do we determine the caretaker and how many? So fast forward to today and where we're at, take Golden Gate High School for instance, 69 acres on your screen right here. There is a caretaker. One caretaker on the property. The new high school, which is in design right now, which Davidson Engineering is doing, there is a proposed caretaker in the corner of the property, 61 acres. Mike Davis Elementary, immediately east of Golden Gate High School, 17-and-a-half acres. If you take Mike Davis and Golden Gate High School, you have roughly 80 acres. The sports complex project is 195 acres. If you double Mike Davis and Golden Gate High School, that would mean we would have four caretakers. We're asking for three. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. MR. FRUTH: Three because of where we're locating them -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You're asking for 10. MR. FRUTH: Three for the sports complex. I'll get to the 10. Yes, you are correct. Three for the sports complex, one right here in Phase 1, we have two in Phase 2, and then the 10, the additional seven, are because of what we just talked about Jessica presented with Uline and entering into a contribution agreement with Collier County. We have two large landowners in this PUD now. Collier County is one of those, and Uline is one. Uline just closed on 102 acres, so they would have two caretakers as well. But with these PUD revisions in front of you today, because of the land that remains since we had two big chunks taken down, the land along the canal could be smaller lots, smaller businesses, business caretakers. So we wanted to have that provision added to allow for some additional just in case those businesses wanted them, and then also in case the distribution facility wanted to add some to theirs as well. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. So these caretaker units, are they residential units where people actually live in them? MR. FRUTH: They are. They are business -- they are tied to the businesses. And the resident -- in Collier County's case, a sheriff deputy would be living in the unit. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Tom, do -- the caretaker units, do they live in those units on the schools? MR. EASTMAN: Yes, they do live in the units. The school district does not charge rent for that. And it's a long-standing program that we've had. The idea is that you'll have less vandalism if there's a police presence there. And they've also been helpful in terms of doing routine checks of the property to make sure that it's safe and secure. Another reason that we're in support of it at the school district is the Collier County Sheriff's Office provides YRDs and a police presence in our school system during the school hours. And it's a way to help with affordable housing to keep police officers in residence at a low cost. So I guess one question would be, will -- the police that are living in this project, will they be charged a rent, or will they be rent-free like with the school district? MR. FRUTH: Sean Callahan is here. He'll speak on behalf of that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, because I have more questions about the caretaker unit. I want to know -- go ahead and answer Tom's, because I want to follow up on some more questions. MR. CALLAHAN: For the record, Sean Callahan. I'm the Executive Director of Corporate Business Operations in the County Manager's Office. I oversee the operational aspects of the sports complex. So with respect to the three caretakers residences, it is our intent to enter into an agreement 5.A.a Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 63 of 82 with the Sheriff's Office. We haven't determined whether we would charge rent or not for the division. My understanding is in the past that it's been done both ways. MR. EASTMAN: Not at our -- not with respect to the school district. We've never charged rent, so that would be a misunderstanding. They've always lived there rent-free. And getting back to the medical office, will teachers be allowed to go to the medical office, or is that just strictly county employees? MR. CALLAHAN: I believe we've only looked at it strictly for county employees at this point. MR. EASTMAN: Then I would agree with Commissioner Schmitt's comments regarding labeling that essential service personnel 100 percent. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Who's going to -- so who's in the other caretaker units? Because caretaker -- again, the reason I asked Tom is because I know exactly what they're for at the school. MR. CALLAHAN: Sure. And, Commissioner -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And this is a -- it sounds like we're trying to put 10 units into an area and calling it a caretaker when, in fact, they're really not a caretaker. You're providing housing for 10 people within the county, maybe one or two sheriffs. And who's going to control who goes into those units? Is that a county function? Is that your function? MR. CALLAHAN: I can speak with respect to the three units that are assigned to the sports complex. Those will be sheriff's deputies. I'll defer questions to Mr. Fruth on who goes in the other ones. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And is that a requirement, or is that just how you're choosing to use it? To you. MR. CALLAHAN: The county has no intent to -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, I know. And I guess what I'm saying is, it's a caretaker residence. It's kind of a generic term, and it doesn't seem to require that any particular person live there. And I guess -- and it might not even be something that this board, you know, weighs in on, because it seems like it's something bigger than that, or maybe it is exactly what the Planning Commission should be weighing in on. I guess I'm trying to figure out, could you authorize your deputy to live there because they've had, you know, a rough time finding housing that they can afford? You know, I'm just throwing something out, you know. No, that's really for you, because you're the one that said you've been the one that kind of determines -- manages these facilities. MR. CALLAHAN: I can tell you that the sports complex has no intent to do it with anybody except for a sheriff's deputy. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. But you wouldn't be restricted? MR. CALLAHAN: I don't believe so, the way it's currently written, no. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right, okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, let me go back to the Uline facility. You said they're going to have how many caretaker units? Were the -- MR. FRUTH: They have zero right now. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Zero, okay. MR. FRUTH: Because they took down a large land chunk, they could have a couple if they chose to do. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But they're a private industry. MR. FRUTH: They are. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And they're going to be a tenant on the property. MR. FRUTH: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Why would the county build them a caretaker facility? 5.A.a Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 64 of 82 MR. FRUTH: The county is not building them a caretaker facility. I don't -- I never said that. I don't know who said that. This would be -- the rest of the caretakers, the remainder, the request is to increase it to 10. Collier County is using three of the 10 that will be -- that would be within the PUD ordinance. The other seven would be private if a business chose to build a caretaker. One for such instance that you'll see around town is there are caretakers that live at storage facilities. The guard at the gate will often live in a studio-style apartment at the entrance of a storage facility. That's not uncommon. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But those are all private businesses. MR. FRUTH: Correct. All the remainder of the caretakers would be private businesses. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It would not be under county control? MR. FRUTH: That is correct, yes. Collier County has an agreement to have three of the 10 that are within the PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And these are simply scattered throughout the complex. They're not -- they're not in any central location? MR. FRUTH: Yes. Right now the other seven are not spoken for. They're -- you know, it may be built out with no more caretakers and Collier County is the only one that has three deputy sheriffs living on their property. But to have the option, again, caretakers is a right within the industrial district. We're just, you know, updating the way that it reads because of the lot sizes with the two large landowners that are now there, Collier County and Uline, and then the smaller lots that remain because it could be more businesses. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just have one other point. Go back to the slide where you showed the news articles. Yeah, can you go back the one off there, because I want to look at -- I mean, this is just for general public consumption. And I know the bullet states -- right there. The bullet states -- this is from 2016 -- 60 to $80 million. What's our total cost now for construction? Somewhere in the neighborhood of, what, 140 million? MR. FRUTH: Well, no. I would not say 140 million, but I believe if you go back on the record from the December 8th Board of County Commissioner meeting, at the time Deputy County Manager Nick Casalanguida stated that we would probably be around $100 million. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, okay. I mean, just showing that number 60 to 80 is, again, a misrepresentation. I know it was 2016, but we ought to tell the truth and be factual and note that it's well -- it's over $100,000 [sic] for that sports complex to date. MR. FRUTH: Correct. The intent of this on the screen was to show that town hall meeting that was held on May 17th, 2016, and the sites that were whittled down from the 28th that I mentioned. It was no intent to mislead any of this information. Again, this is taken from my 2018 presentation to this board, which is why I wanted to show it because, again, we have new board members. I wanted to bring you guys up to speed with some of the history. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: My only other comment -- and I'll raise it with Nancy. It's just an issue of when we make a bullet statement and we go an increased number, I would have preferred we had identified from two. And I had to ask Jessica that in regards to the height, but I got the impression we were coming in for after the fact. But, Nancy, you don't have to answer it now. I'll just point it out when you're up there. But it -- I did ask the question, because I thought you were coming in for an after-the-fact height limitation. I have no issue with it. I just didn't know what the height was. It would have been a lot easier for us on the Board when we have a statement and it's increased from 75 feet to 100 feet. Okay. Thanks. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 65 of 82 COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm just curious, the other seven caretaker cottages or residences, those would be designed, built, paid for by the businesses that they support? MR. FRUTH: That is correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: Correct. So we're not -- Collier County's not paying for those? MR. FRUTH: Collier County's not responsible for any other caretaker units. COMMISSIONER FRY: You alluded to the relocation of City Gate Boulevard, was it south, or was it north? MR. FRUTH: City Gate Boulevard South, you are correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is there -- is that -- is there a slide that shows exactly how it's being relocated? I guess that's it. It's moved to the north now? MR. FRUTH: Yeah. Actually, let me go to the end of this presentation where I was so I can show you the rendering. It's directly related to the October 2020 contribution agreement that Jessica mentioned between the Board and Uline. In that agreement, Uline is making, roughly, six-and-a-half million dollars worth of contributions, including relocating the roadway. In the agreement, Collier County agreed to allow for the location of the roadway because the plat comes before the Board of County Commissioners and that roadway, as you can see here, is aligned roughly plus-or-minus 300 feet off of the southern property line of the PUD. Going to this slide, you can see the roadway moves to so -- it's roughly about 50 feet off of the property line. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. Last question: This includes a reduction in the side yard setbacks, the properties over one acre and then those under an acre. What is the reason for that? What's the vision? MR. FRUTH: So the reduction is because the lot is getting smaller. If we still had the 25-foot-wide side yards and you have a property that is a quarter acre, 25 feet on each side, you pretty much leave yourself with nothing to build. COMMISSIONER FRY: So, I guess, why are the lots getting smaller? What are you envisioning changes -- what will go in now that wouldn't have gone in? MR. FRUTH: That's a good question. So as I mentioned, we have two large landowners now which have taken down, combined, 100 and -- plus or minus 170 acres of the 419, but remember that 419 also includes the sports complex extension. The only land that is remaining in the PUD is the land that is along the canal, the northern limits of the PUD. It would be these lots up here north of the sports complex and west of Big Cypress Basin's emergency operations field station. These are smaller lots, obviously. So you're not going to have another distribution center. You're not going to build another sports complex. So the thought there is that there's probably going to be businesses that come in that complement Collier County Sports Complex. So if it's a complement, they're not going to be building, you know, 10, 15-acre businesses. They're probably going to be the smaller quarter-acre to two-acre type facilities. COMMISSIONER FRY: So that applies only to the leftover lots to the -- lots to the north, is what you're saying? MR. FRUTH: That is correct, yes. So it applies to everything east of the FPL easement, but there's only this land remaining for sale. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Eastman. MR. EASTMAN: Just going back to the caretaker units, we don't use that term at the school district. We just call them police residential trailers. And I also wanted to get this on the record. The school district does not pay for those trailers to be constructed or purchased. We simply supply a cement pad, and the police officers purchase their own trailers, and they can remove them when they're no longer living there. So the school district does not pay for their actual living unit, but they let them live on that cement pad on the school site free of charge, 5.A.a Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 66 of 82 rent-free, and in exchange for their sort of keeping an eye out on the place and to help our local police with their housing situation. MR. FRUTH: Correct. Mr. Eastman, as you noted, here is the Triple G site, we call it, as a future sheriff's residence. In the case of Collier County, I will say for the record that the cost savings for the county, what we did was a direct material purchase for this caretaker unit. It was double-dipped. It was used as a caretaker -- as a construction trailer, and then it is converted to the caretaker. So instead of Collier County renting or building into the contractor's model to rent a construction trailer for three years, the direct material purchase was part of the guaranteed maximum price, and then it's converted to a caretaker in the end. So it was a dual purpose, and actually Collier County saved money by doing it that way. MR. EASTMAN: Would you say that you had three construction trailers or 10 potentially, or how many construction trailers were there? MR. FRUTH: So there is -- there is one construction trailer right now, and the other two have not been built because Phase 2 is just starting clearing right now. But the contractor does have for this phase planned for a doublewide which would be equal to two trailers. MR. EASTMAN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. Go ahead, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Just, you know, to make me better informed, I thought I heard you say that there's a right for industrial property to have caretaker facilities; is that what you said? MR. FRUTH: That is correct. The Land Development Code allows for industrial zoning to have caretakers. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And so then this Uline would otherwise have an ability to have some sort of a caretaker facility? MR. FRUTH: Well, they fall into the PUD zoning district now, so it -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So it wouldn't. MR. FRUTH: In effect, if it's silent in the PUD, it would revert back to the Land Development Code. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So there would be some provision where they would be able to have these caretaker cottages even without saying we're going to have seven. MR. FRUTH: That's correct, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: But it would be a lesser number, or how does that work? MS. HARRELSON: Jessica Harrelson. I believe it's one per principal use. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. All right. Well, I just wanted to -- you know, I mean, that was something that's novel to my knowledge, and that's interesting. I'd never even thought about that before, so I learned something today. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes, on the caretaker line again, it's authorized in industrial zoning but, of course, this is a PUD, and your statement that since the PUD is silent, it reverts back to the industrial zoning criteria? MR. FRUTH: If the PUD was silent, it would revert back to the Land Development Code. But our PUD is not silent. Again, it is already approved to have seven. We're asking -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct, it has seven. MR. FRUTH: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But in your justification -- and I'm reading the staff report -- it's sort of like we would like three more; we really can't justify why we need three more. MR. FRUTH: Well, as I mentioned already, the justification is because of the two large 5.A.a Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 67 of 82 landowners and then the additional application request before you today to reduce the minimum lot width, lot acreage, and coverage because we feel that there are businesses that will be coming to support Collier County's Paradise Coast Sports Complex. With the smaller businesses, we do not know if they're going to ask for a caretaker. We just want to plan for the future. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But if -- and it's public knowledge because I think it's already been advertised that they're looking at a major hotel or some other type of recreational facility coming in. Is the thought that one of these caretaker units will be to support that operation as well? MR. FRUTH: As of right now, no, the resort has not asked for a caretaker unit. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Anything else for Mr. Fruth or Ms. Harrelson? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Do you have more for us? MR. FRUTH: No, we will rest. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. FRUTH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. So am I now to understand that we will now hear from staff's employees? Ms. Gundlach. MS. GUNDLACH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner. And staff is recommending approval of the proposed City Gate PUD amendment and development order amendment. And if you have any questions, it would be our pleasure to answer them today. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Nancy, I would just ask for future reference -- and this was an existing PUD. And it says, you know, increase the number of caretaker units to a maximum of 10. It would have been nice to have said, to increase from seven to 10. Likewise, for the maximum height, increase -- and I had to ask Jessica this because I did not go back and look at the original ordinance, the maximum zoned height, and you're going from an actual height of 85 to 100. So just for future reference, if we do that type of -- it just makes our job a little easier to understand what you're presenting, because I immediately highlighted that saying, well, why are they asking for this? And my question to Jessica was, is this something for after the fact or some other requirement? I understand now what it's for, and I don't have an issue with it. It just makes it easier. MS. GUNDLACH: Sure, I can do that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anyone else for Ms. Gundlach? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: I will say that I'm fully supportive of this application. The one concern I had was adequately addressed in my meeting with staff on Tuesday; I'll just bring that forward so that people can be aware of it. But there is a -- there's a deficient road segment in question here, and it's Segment 33 of Collier Boulevard/951, and the minimum -- the existing AUIR LOS is F, and the minimum standard, I believe, is E. So that was a red flag. But I've now been informed that FDOT has some scheduled improvements and, according to staff, these improvements, once they're in place, will alleviate the concern that we would otherwise have as a result of this segment being deficient. Did I say that right? MS. GUNDLACH: Mike, can you confirm that? MS. SCOTT: For the record, Trinity Scott, Transportation planning. Yes -- 5.A.a Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 68 of 82 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go right ahead, Trinity. MS. SCOTT: -- you're correct, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Thanks. You're going to be Mike Walker again if you keep walking up here. So I just wanted to make that -- make that point clear because, you know, deficient roads are of concern to us, but since that is going to be adequately dealt with, I am fully supportive of this application. Anybody else have any questions or comments for staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, thank you, Ms. Gundlach. MS. GUNDLACH: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Does the applicant have anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any public speakers registered? MR. FRANTZ: We have one registered public speaker. I'm going to say the name wrong, but Ulrike Uncle. MS. UNCLE: That's me. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Would you please spell your name for us, ma'am. MS. UNCLE: U-l-r-i-k-e. It's a German name. It's Ulrike. And my name is Ulrike Uncle, and I am the yellow star on your little map, which I think it's more like a black star when you don't want me there. I'm coming before you because I'm the resident who had the noise complaint. And even though I understand that everybody plays by the rules and everything is to code, it still doesn't comply to what I'm going through, and it is that I now have -- I feel like I live on a football field all day long, and the -- and the decibels are all fine. They're all not above anything, but there are tournaments Friday, Saturdays. Now they started concerts. So when I go home to my home I wanted to have my peace and quiet and read my book on the porch, I hear screaming, yelling, whistleblowing, which is all normal for that facility, so nobody does anything wrong. But when you hear that 12 hours a day all weekend long and during the week at the evenings because there's training going on, it is very -- I don't know. I want to compare it to -- we all had that flight, three-hour flight where the baby cries in the rear, and everybody gets so annoyed and nobody can do anything. That's how I feel. I feel -- even though everybody does everything right and I want to be a good neighbor, I want to voice my discomfort of what is there. And what I'm asking for is the PUD shows that there are some sound vegetation walls, something that would at least make it less. And so even what you did was the buffer, which is there at the moment, which will go away because these are the only properties that are going to be sold, has -- yeah, that's a picture from my backyard. So this is my backyard. I see the football stadium. I can tell you the color of the jerseys. And, yeah, the distances are all correct to your -- whatever the regulations are. It is very, very annoying. And I sent in some sound bites just to let them hear. You mentioned the shooting range which is next to me. That's 20 minutes a day. I can live with that. You know, if somebody trains to shoot, that's a 20-minute thing I can live with. But every weekend or almost every weekend -- and it will be every weekend, there will be games. There will be whistling, and there will be screaming and yelling of cheering parents, which is normal. So I've just tried to find some relief that I can have my peace and quiet when I go home. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. From the applicant, then, are there plans for berms or other barriers to mitigate the noise from escaping? 5.A.a Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 69 of 82 MR. FRUTH: Again, Josh Fruth with Davidson Engineering. The photo on the screen is from 2018 prior to any improvements being completed. We have completed. It has not gone through CO yet. So, again, this will eventually mature and grow up. I explained at the neighborhood information meeting that at maturity this -- plus one of the issues is we are required by code to remove exotics. Fortunately for this property, City Gate does have a required yard plan versus a preserve, so we have strategically placed those required yards along the City Gate Boulevard north corridor north of those fields, but we had to remove the exotics. We did replant, as part of the code. Another item that the Board of County Commissioners approved as a new pilot program for landscaping we've been working with the Naples Botanical Gardens for more resiliency, more native vegetation, and those plants are in the ground. So the views will change. It just will take some time, obviously, for resiliency, not planting 20-, 30-foot-tall trees. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think the lady is talking more about noise than views. MS. UNCLE: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Are berms being employed in this? MS. UNCLE: We do not have berms planned along the buffer. This, as you see here, is along the canal on the south side of the canal. For noise purposes there are no planned noise walls or berms because, in reality, including I-75, those walls -- they don't block 100 percent of the noise, so that was not planned in this PUD. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there anything within reasonable economic parameters that could be done to mitigate this problem somewhat for the lady? MR. FRUTH: Can you give me five minutes to discuss? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. In fact, we'll take our midafternoon break and give you -- we'll take -- COMMISSIONER FRY: May I ask her one question? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, please. Go ahead, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER FRY: I think he's going to release you, so I wanted to just ask you a quick question. So you're here, you are the one star. Nobody else is here. But how do your neighbors feel? You live in a line of homes, correct? I know they're large lots. MS. UNCLE: Right. COMMISSIONER FRY: But how do they feel? Are there other people that share your sentiments? MS. UNCLE: Well, everybody said, well, if you can get something, we all sign it. I think my unique situation is that my house is at the back. I have like, what, 30 feet to the canal. Everybody else's house is on the street, and they have some sort of greenery in their backyard, which is my front yard. So the neighbor next to me, which is the shooting range, is quiet because he has a shooting range. So he doesn't -- and I might not should have said that, but he is the one who -- who is happy that he can do what he does. So people tell me -- yeah, you know, I'm the bad guy, and I'm coming forward to voice my opinion, and everybody would sign afterwards. COMMISSIONER FRY: But you're in a unique situation, meaning you are more impacted than your neighbors are. MS. UNCLE: Yes. Especially now since all the green area -- and that will go away anyway. So I can -- like I said, I have straight view to the -- to the facility and to the games and to the property. COMMISSIONER FRY: But I think Josh is saying that that is temporary; that will change over time. MR. FRUTH: Yeah, that is correct. It will change. MS. UNCLE: But they're little -- at the moment, they're planted hedges. They are four 5.A.a Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 70 of 82 feet tall. They don't do much, and I don't think they're ever going to be bigger and more dense to somewhat block the noise. And the view is not -- is not the issue at all. It's really -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Noise. MS. UNCLE: -- the continuous noise all day long. That's what goes on. It's the crying baby in the three-hour flight. That's what it is. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We'll take a 10-minute break until 2:33, and then we'll hear back from the applicant. MR. FRUTH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: In recess. (A brief recess was had from 2:23 p.m. to 2:33 p.m.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ladies and gentlemen, let's reconvene, please. Before we continue with this matter, there are a couple of things that I want to address, and the first one was the absence of Commissioner Chris Vernon. I'm kind of out of the loop now. It used to be, and I think the way Mark had it as well, that commissioners would contact me and let me know if they were not available, and I would ask for a reason and, really, any reason would do. But we don't want to leave it out there as an unexcused absence. So what do we know? MR. BELLOWS: We did have a conversation with him yesterday, and he said he had a conflict with a prior appointment that he couldn't get out of. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Perfect. Then that will go down as an excused absence. Thank you very much. The other thing is is I've spoken with Mr. Yovanovich and his client, IRRV. Realizing the lateness of the hour and that we're going to review -- we're going to reserve 30 minutes or so to talk about agendas, would prefer -- he would prefer not to start and then be interrupted. So without objection from the Planning Commission, we will simply make note that this -- that his matter, IRRV, is continued until the 18th. It will be the first item on the agenda for February 18th. There's no objection, so that's how that will go. Mr. Fruth. MR. FRUTH: Thank you, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But you're going to get into the discussion of what we're going to do on the 18th. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Absolutely, yeah, by all means. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That complicates issues. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It does complicate it a bit, and we're absolutely going to get into that. Thank you. MR. FRUTH: Thank you, Commissioner. For the record, Josh Fruth. So I have talked to both of our -- of the applicants, Collier County and City Gate, and I have also talked to the neighbor represented here on the map in front of you. I explained where we're at and what we can do. The -- I'm showing you this map again because through here, as part of the development of the sports complex and the master stormwater system for the PUD, we have a cleared drainage easement that is in line of sight of the resident in question. We are offering to work with the resident to do a dense landscape buffer, not canopy trees but landscape buffer, within this drainage easement area, which is approximately 50 feet wide, because there will be development on that property in the future, and then that canopy -- or that hedge would be maintained to opaqueness and levels that will assist with views and sound. We cannot build a wall. We can't do anything like that, but that's the best we can offer and, as I explained to the property owner and -- where we're at, and we're willing to commit to that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you very much. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 71 of 82 Ms. Uncle, would you like to respond to that? Is that satisfactory to you? I think it shows a level of responsiveness on the part of the county. MS. UNCLE: First of all, I want to thank you that so much time got into my little complaint. I didn't know that when I complained for the first time that this much study has been done, and I appreciate your willingness to help me. And I will do what I can do on my side. I don't know if that alleviates the problem, but at least we have something to move forward and for me to hope that it will get better. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. I thank you, applicant, for your willingness to -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: And can I ask a question? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, please, of course, Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: And I know I might be kicking a dead horse. But I live about a mile from Gulf Coast High School. I don't think sound barriers will make a difference, my -- because it doesn't. And we have acres of trees between -- and I'm not complaining about it. I'm fine with it because it's periodic, not continuance like hers. But don't they make some kind of more directional speakers that don't have to fill the neighborhood with that noise? I think that would help her more than a buffer. I don't think the buffer's going to do anything for her sound issue, because it doesn't for us. MR. FRUTH: Good point, Commissioner Shea. So I mentioned on the record already about the I-75 walls. We agree. I told her that. I said, one thing that will help her as part of this PUD to make these lots smaller, we will have more buildings and businesses that come in. Those hardened surfaces will help reflect that sound. But to answer your question directly, there's already a provision that we put in the PUD in 2018 to have the sound amplified and directed to the south. COMMISSIONER SHEA: The direction's important. MR. FRUTH: Away from the residents, yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: The 60 dBs is like we're talking now, and I can sit a mile away, and it sounds just like we're talking now, and it can be irritating. So it's direction. MR. FRUTH: It's in the PUD already. There's already a provision in there for that. We acknowledge that. Again, an hour ago when I was going through this, history was important because we listened to the public. North Collier said too close to the residents. Whittled down to a site of this size because the county owned land, but we put in those provisions listening to the commissioners and the residents to, you know, amplify any sound, direct it to the south. So, for instance, the stadium, the north deck, if you look at the PUD, the videotronics board there that's there and the sound that is there, it's on the north end for a reason, because you can still have an event and amplify sound to the south. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. And you'll continue to work with Ms. Uncle -- MR. FRUTH: We will. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- and keep her apprised of what's being done and receive her input? MR. FRUTH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Thank you, ma'am. MS. UNCLE: Maybe just one more thing. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go right ahead. MS. UNCLE: What you said is -- the direction doesn't matter, because screaming and yelling kids are screaming and yelling kids. They're -- or cheering parents. That is the noise that's annoying. It's -- right now there's no speaker system. And that -- there was one day, and that was shut down, I guess, by the police or so. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 72 of 82 COMMISSIONER SHEA: Oh, wow. MS. UNCLE: My concern, or my future concern will be we have that football stadium, and I think there will be concerts every weekend. And I saw that the provision was that it will face to the south. But it's so close that it doesn't matter what direction it goes. A concert is a concert, and it will be loud. And if that's another thing I need to look forward to -- I mean, I'm just looking down -- we are just in the beginning of this development. And I hope it will be successful, but I'll go down with it; that's how I feel. So I wanted to just voice that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, ma'am. MS. UNCLE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thanks very much. Any further discussion? Oh, are there any more speakers registered, Mr. Frantz? MR. FRANTZ: There are no more speakers for this item. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Any member of the public who's present wishes to be heard on this, now would be the time. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, and without objection, we'll close the public comment portion and open it up for deliberation, discussion, and vote by the Planning Commission. Who'd like to lead off? COMMISSIONER FRY: I move for approval with the additional condition, the offer from Mr. Fruth to build a dense hedge buffer to benefit this nearby resident. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Is there a second to the motion? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Is this for the PUDA, because there's -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. We're starting with the PUDA -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just have a comment. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would support the motion, but I'm going to make two provisions. One is that staff make a correction when this goes before the Board of County Commissioners that they delete any reference to the term "essential services personnel." If the intent is to open it to the entire Collier County staff, then they identify it as such, because essential services personnel, like I said, is a definition that is different. You had the definition, and I think it's a broad stretch to say that everybody in the county staff is essential. If they were, none of them would have been laid off during the pandemic. But the second one is, I'm still having a tough time justifying, just because we're asking -- we already have seven caretaker units and we'd like three more just because we think we may need three more, I just don't find that to be justification to ask for that change in the PUD. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. On the first point, with respect to essential services personnel, would the applicant be willing to revise that? MR. FRUTH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. How would you -- what would you propose to say instead? MR. FRUTH: Well, we'll work with county staff with Ray and Nancy to come up with the correct language before it goes -- MR. KLATZKOW: It's Collier County employees, right? MR. FRUTH: That is correct. MR. KLATZKOW: That's your phrase. MR. FRUTH: Yep. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: I would amend the motion to include the first item. The 5.A.a Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 73 of 82 second item I'm not sure I see the ramifications one way or the other enough to know on that one. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. So it's been moved, and we need a second. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? This is on the PUDA. All those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You convinced me. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Passes -- it passes unanimously, 6-0. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I feel beat. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And then we have the DOA. Would there be a motion on that? COMMISSIONER FRY: So moved. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion on the DOA? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you very much. MR. FRUTH: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER FRY: I was not objecting to your -- I just did not know in my own mind whether it's something worth pursuing. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It just was kind of like we want this because we want it. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: But today everything is -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I didn't want it to become a -- you know, a -- kind of a trailer park back there, is what I -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: We've got at least one matter to discuss. I don't know whether it's under old business or new business. By the way, though, I'll raise this for discussion. It has to do with our template, agenda template. Right now it has new business coming before old business, and I'm accustomed under Robert's Rules of seeing -- we deal with old business before we come to new business. And so it seems to me that we should reverse the order in the template unless -- does anybody have an objection to us doing that? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: What would be the order, then? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, the template agenda that we use, after we go through our scheduled hearings, it then goes to new business and then after that old business. And it seems to 5.A.a Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 74 of 82 me that those two should be reversed. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I agree. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion on that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Then without objection, we'll ask staff to change the template so that we deal with old business first and then new business. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I'm just imagining the last time it was moved that they swap them the other way; when that was. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, not within my tenure, but that's -- well, who knows. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Chairman, I have a similar request regarding the agenda. If it's timely -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, please. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- I'll introduce it. I really appreciate the additional bookmarks that have been added to the agenda, to the packet. I wanted to request one additional one which would be a book -- a specific bookmark for the NIM synopsis for each item; would that be possible? I don't see any bookmarks for the NIMs, but that's one of the things that I think we all want to refer to. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I just want to make sure I understand. So in your electronic agenda, you want a bookmark where it solely says neighborhood information meeting, or in the hard copy packets you get? COMMISSIONER FRY: I don't get a hard copy. So it's the digital, yes. You always have the NIM synopsis in there. It just would be great to have a direct bookmark for it so we can refer to it because we often refer to it in the meeting as well; we go back and recite something that was said in the NIM. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And you're talking about a bookmark within that action -- that agenda item? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Within the PDF. COMMISSIONER FRY: Correct. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: But with -- like -- so there would be -- if we were hearing three items, there would be three NIM summaries. CHAIRMAN FRYER: This would be a subset of the item that we're talking about? COMMISSIONER FRY: Correct. MR. BELLOWS: Oh, I'm glad you clarified that. So -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Throwing a bookmark in. MR. BELLOWS: It's separate where all the NIMs are under one category; you can just go check it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, no. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, it's not. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: City Gate had it. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So when you look at the agenda item that we're hearing -- MR. BELLOWS: You want to see NIM. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- within that there would be a sub-element for the NIM. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's been in there anyway. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. It's my understanding that most of the time we get this from the applicant. It's part of their scanned packet. So we'd have to figure out a way to separate them because they come as -- with the rest of their backup material. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Do you see? COMMISSIONER FRY: I do now. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 75 of 82 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: He found it. He's -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Vice Chair Homiak -- MR. KLATZKOW: Make it a condition for the applicant to have it separate. That takes the work off staff. COMMISSIONER FRY: That would be great. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Excellent. Okay. This is under old business, which I think is where we should be before we get to new business. And I'm going to -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Are we going to talk about the next item -- did we vote on continuing the next item or not? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I thought we did without objection. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, I thought we did. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: The -- I'm just going to ask for a brief status report from staff on -- and I'm not necessarily pushing for a hurry, but when might staff have a recommendation to us about how to decide whether a matter comes before the HEX or the CCPC? Have you had meetings on that, or it's in progress? MR. BELLOWS: It's in progress. We have been communicating amongst staff and with the Hearing Examiner as well, so we will at some point come back to you with some proposals. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: In that regard, could you come up with some kind of a decision matrix where you show what the item is and -- you know what I mean as far as a decision tree? Do you know what I'm talking about? How you would say yes or no? MR. BELLOWS: In the earlier discussion today. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Just so it graphically portrays where you make the decision and the criteria for that decision and as to whether it comes -- goes to the Hearing Examiner or the Planning Commission. I'm comfortable with what we've been doing, quite honestly, because I'm well aware of the issues that the Hearing Examiner has been entertaining. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. One of the options that I was thinking of is that we take out any discretion and just say, these are the items that are going to the HEX, period. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's fine. MR. BELLOWS: But we're evaluating all those options, and we'll be able to respond at some point. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to be sure it hadn't been lost. Appreciate that. All right. Any other old business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: New business? I had mentioned as a tease, sort of, that I'm concerned about our workload, and I want to be sure that we remain in charge of our own workload to the extent that it's at all practicable. And February 18's coming up. We had two RLSA villages scheduled to be heard on that day, and now we've got an RFMUD rural village that will begin to be heard on that day. And it's obvious that we -- you know, those are all matters of considerable importance and consequence, and we're not -- we're not going to get to a point of voting on all three of those. One, maybe. So I would like us to consider having a continuance now on the second of the two RLSA villages so that we as Planning Commissioners don't need to be fully prepared on something there's just no reasonable likelihood that we're going to get to on the 18th. Any comments on that? COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm just curious if those were presented on the same day because the intent was to present them as companion items. They're totally unique, I understand. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 76 of 82 But was there -- was there intent in having them on the agenda for the same day that we might not be aware of in making this decision? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, there are some things that are floating around and about, and I don't believe staff is ready to make a formal comment on it. But I will simply say to you that it has been brought to my attention unofficially that there are discussions ongoing about possibly wrapping the three RLSA villages together into a town. And that may or may not happen, and staff is not in a position to say anything on it, but I'm just telling you that I've heard that through the grapevine. But from my point of view, whether that happens or not, these are -- these are -- the two coming up, just like the first one we heard, these are separate and distinct matters, and they would not be heard, in my judgment at least, as if they were companions like if we have a GMPA and a PUD or the very same facts. These are entirely separate facts. COMMISSIONER FRY: So they would be single threaded. We do one, finish it, and then do the next. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think so. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Is the idea, though, that if this change were to happen, then what we do might end up being moot? CHAIRMAN FRYER: It might. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: But we wouldn't necessarily make that call to not do it because the applicant has put their application in and we need to just move forward? CHAIRMAN FRYER: I don't know whether anything is going to come to fruition with respect to what we'll call aggregation. And I don't want the decision that we make or that I'm asking that we might consider making today to be dependent upon whether we're going to be deciding on an aggregated entity of some kind or individually. I'm assuming it's going to be individual. And all I'm trying to do -- it's very, very narrow. I'm just trying to protect ourselves from having to prepare fully for something that there's just no likelihood we're going to have to vote on on the 18th. So what -- what do the other Planning Commissioners -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I appreciate that you're, you know, being forward thinking so that, you know, we don't -- plus, I think that helps the applicants as well. They don't -- they're not here ready to present something that they're not going to present. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Exactly. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Absolutely. And I think staff -- staff has already flagged March 4th, where I don't think there's anything yet on, for a continuation of what we have for February 18. So the natural way of dealing with this, in my view -- and I want to hear what others have to say -- would be that we take the second -- the second scheduled RLSA. Was it Longwater, or was it Bellmar? I don't know. But the one -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Bellmar. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Bellmar is the second one? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, then we would continue Bellmar to March 4. Now, we may not reach it on March 4, but at least we, as a Planning Commission, would know that we would not have to be prepared to make a final recommendation on that on February 18th. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would agree. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Me, too; I agree. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Have you had a chance to talk to the applicant and get their position with respect to the change you're making? 5.A.a Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 77 of 82 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Only preliminarily, but I see that Mr. Yovanovich is here, and he'd certainly be -- we'd welcome his input. MR. EASTMAN: And I certainly appreciate what you're trying to do, and I think it's smart. I just think that knowing the applicant's position is an important factor in making the decision. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's hear from Mr. Yovanovich, who's approaching. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's good afternoon, right? For the record, Rich Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It is. MR. YOVANOVICH: We had already planned on our calendar that there was a likelihood that you would not finish both villages on -- is it the 18th? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that one would probably get continued to the 4th, so we've already blocked out those days. I do think that -- I think the second village will go a little quicker. I know they're separate and distinct, but once you get the rhythm of understanding what you're reviewing for the first one, hopefully the second presentation will go a lot quicker; we won't have to repeat ourselves. But I know there will be big issues, but we anticipate -- we're hopeful that you'll complete the review of both villages by the 4th. And, so with that -- and I think what you're proposing will more likely get us to there, so... CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So any further comment on any of this? MR. YOVANOVICH: So we would hear Longwater on the 18th and Bellmar -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: We would hear Longwater first presumably on the 18th after we finish with IRRV. MR. YOVANOVICH: IRRV? COMMISSIONER FRY: Irvo (phonetic). CHAIRMAN FRYER: And then Bellmar after that. But, undoubtedly, that will go to March 4, and Longwater may also. Hope not. MR. YOVANOVICH: Hope not. MR. KLATZKOW: All right. So, Ray, you'll note on the agenda, because they've both been advertised for the 18th, right? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, we'll have to make a note of the continuance. MR. KLATZKOW: On the agenda so they don't have to readvertise. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: May I have a motion to that effect? COMMISSIONER FRY: Moved. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So moved. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER FRY: Second. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Just to restate what I believe we're doing is we are going to continue Bellmar to a date certain, namely March 4, but -- and we will leave Longwater on the February 18 agenda and hoping that we will reach it on that time. But the first item on the February 18 agenda will be IRRV. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And am I right that on the 4th we would hear -- if we didn't finish with Longwater, then we would hear that before Bellmar -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- on the 4th? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. And Ms. Jenkins provided me with a list of dates when 5.A.a Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 78 of 82 this room is available if we want to put on a special meeting. They are Friday, February 19; Monday, March 15; Tuesday, March 16. It may be premature for us to do that, but if we don't do it, we may lose those dates, so just -- MS. JENKINS: Commissioner, if I may, Anita Jenkins. You may consider the 19th as an alternative or an extra day for the 18th in case you don't finish the Immokalee Road Rural Village and you want to get the other villages started. You do have that availability on Friday, February 19th, for this room. CHAIRMAN FRYER: What does the Planning Commission think about, then, us reserving February 19 for either a start or a continuation of Longwater? COMMISSIONER FRY: With my business, I cannot commit to two days in a row. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood. COMMISSIONER FRY: I would try to make it work, but I cannot commit to it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I would certainly likely want to attend at least one of those sessions virtually. COMMISSIONER SHEA: And I can't make the 19th. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, let's -- then we'll hear these, you know, as we can, and we may have to bump things back. But we'll move with all deliberate speed, and we'll go in that order. So it's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? If not, all those in favor of that action, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Are you on new business still? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So I have a -- since we don't chat much, I have a dilemma. This is related to One Naples. We've already heard on it, and I don't even know if I'm allowed to talk about it anymore. But in reading the newspaper, in talking to staff, and in talking with one of the commissioners, I think there's a big misunderstanding of what we did at that meeting, and I'm worried that it's going to be presented by -- and staff report is -- as I see that it happened here. How do we request that we have the ability or suggest maybe the Chair has the ability to review staff's report to the commissioners before it's issued particularly as it reflects upon what happened here? MR. KLATZKOW: Let me just short-circuit this. The staff report's going to be published in the electronic agenda, so you'll have access to it approximately a week before the matter is heard. If upon your reading it you believe that there is anything that is in error about that, you can talk to the staff, and if they disagree with you, then you're free to talk to the individual commissioners and just let them know what you think happened. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: What is the nature of the concern that you have as to what 5.A.a Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 79 of 82 will be presented -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- or how it will be summarized? COMMISSIONER SHEA: How it will be summarized as what actually happened. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, that's what I'm saying. Do you have an indicator of what you think is going to be the misunderstanding? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I think when you read the newspaper, you talk to staff and you talk to the commissioners, then think that the application as proposed was voted at a draw, 3-3, and the application as proposed was never voted on. So, in essence, nobody supported the basic application. So they don't really understand -- and the newspaper was very misleading in that sense as well -- that the commissioners here, nobody would make a motion to support it, which to me is basically a 7-nothing defeat of the proposal. MR. KLATZKOW: Hold on, hold on, hold on. MR. YOVANOVICH: Hold on. I'm getting really nervous -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: No, I'm talking. I don't have to hold on. All I'm saying is there was not a draw in the vote. We voted on a modified proposal which the applicant said he would not accept. So to picture -- or to visualize what we did as a draw is wrong since he's going -- they're going to the Board or the commissioners with the full application again, not the modified one. That's all I'm saying. I just want it represented properly what happened here. MR. YOVANOVICH: Since we're talking about an item that's very important to one of my clients -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Sure. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- can I please say something? MR. KLATZKOW: Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Shea -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: You know what, I'm going to object to that. I don't think this is the time for hearing from -- you know, from others. I think this is a discussion amongst -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: I would agree. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't think you should be discussing this petition outside of an advertised public hearing. MR. KLATZKOW: No, this is an advertised public hearing. MR. YOVANOVICH: My item. My item was not specifically noticed, and I'm a little concerned about the record. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I just want to address one comment that Mr. Shea made about what's being presented. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Just a moment here. I'm going to make a ruling, and then if the Planning Commission wants to overrule me, they can. We're not going to talk about the substance -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Exactly. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- the issues of One Naples. We're going to talk about how we proceed and how we assure that our point of view as a Planning Commission is fairly and accurately represented in staff material. And so on that basis, and in keeping -- I hope we'll all be in keeping with that, I'm going to rule that it's out of order for Mr. Yovanovich to address the Planning Commission at this time. Now, if anybody wants to make a motion to overrule me, the floor is yours. If not, there we have 5.A.a Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 80 of 82 it. All right. I'd like to comment on what Commissioner Shea has said, because I happen to agree with him. And I don't believe that we as a Planning Commission should be having input on any aspect of the staff report except that part that deals with what the Planning Commission said and did. (Commissioner Schmitt left the boardroom for the remainder of the meeting.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: So I'm not looking for, certainly, a role for myself or for the Planning Commission in looking over the shoulders of staff as they prepare their own staff report. But there have been times -- and I don't believe that staff is at all ill-motivated or acting improperly. It's just, naturally, if you get a situation, let's say, where -- well, I'll mention Heritage Bay even though we're not going to be talking about it, but it was an example of where the Planning Commission ruled in a way that was contrary to staff. Now, we haven't seen the staff report yet on Heritage Bay, but it puts staff in a position where they have to be very careful to fairly represent the -- and in full -- fully and fairly represent what the Planning Commission said and why. And that's asking an awful lot of an entity who has -- whose recommendation has not been followed. And so that is -- that's something that I would -- I would like us to perhaps talk about and think about. And in those cases where the Planning Commission has gone in a direction that's different from staff, that there might be some intermediate oversight. And I would be glad to play that role. And not to grind my own axe, but just to be sure that someone who's looking exclusively after what the Planning Commission said and did, that such a person had looked at that language and had some input in it before it goes out in the staff report. The problem is that if -- that if it's not in the staff report, it's going to be given second shrift. Even if you stand up and speak -- even a Planning Commissioner were to stand up and speak at a BCC meeting, it's just not going to have the same imprimatur as if it had been included in the staff report. So that's my two cents. I'd like to hear from -- what others have to say on that point. COMMISSIONER FRY: I think what Jeff said is the appropriate way for us to move forward is to -- is to take the initiative to review what was written, and then if we feel it's not accurate, we -- I guess you're saying we could call or email the elected commissioners? MR. KLATZKOW: Keep in mind the material thing that staff looks at is what did the motion say and what were their votes, okay. You could have four days of discussions prior to that. They don't matter. What staff is going to report to the Board is what was the motion and what was the vote, okay. That motion is in the transcript. Court reporter's very good with that; gets the transcript pretty quick. And if you think that the staff report is inaccurate, the first thing I would suggest is you look at the actual motion that was made, all right, and what the vote was, and then if you think staff made an error, by all means you've got -- you've got some time between the published agenda and when it gets to the Board, and staff can make the change, all right. They have no agenda, all right. But I will tell you that a lot of times you think you know what you voted on, but then when you look at the motion, it's like, oh, which sometimes is why I interject and I try to get more clarification on the motion, because you've got like, multiple days of hearings, and in your head you think you know what you've ruled, but sometimes that's not really what happened. So that's what I would suggest, that if you're concerned about One Naples -- and don't trust anything you read in Naples Daily News. If you're concerned about One Naples, by all means, look at the staff report, and if you think it's wrong, first look at the actual motion that you made. And if staff is wrong, they will correct it, or you can call me, and I'll make sure that they correct it, all right? But you may be surprised that your memory as to what you thought you voted on, because I'm pretty sure what staff does is they actually look at what -- the motion that was made 5.A.a Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 81 of 82 when they're doing the staff report. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I have not ever seen a revision that has been publicly posted to an agenda packet, but are you saying -- MR. KLATZKOW: No, we can do that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You can? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, and we've done that not necessarily for a staff recommendation, but we've done it in the past where we fixed the record. It's not rare. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: But I'm pretty sure -- and, Ray, correct me if I'm wrong, but they look at the actual motion that was made, and that's what's in the staff report. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. We view the video of the meeting or we get the transcript and look at that as well. But the combination of the two, we verify everything and make sure we get it right, because we don't want it to go before the Board with an incorrect representation of the Planning Commission vote. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I understand. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Does the Planning Commission -- or does -- the County Commission, do they get to see the original draft that was presented to us? So a lot of times we're -- you know, in this case for sure, we were modifying the ordinance that was drafted for us, and we decided to amend that draft ordinance, correct, and that's what we ended up passing. Did they see the -- you know, the unadulterated initial piece that would have been in accord with staff recommendation, or is it in accord -- is that original ordinance in accord with the applicant? You know, how is -- and if they don't see the original, then it doesn't matter. If they only see what we voted on then -- MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. Normally what happens -- and Ray will correct me -- is that there are changes that are made during the discussions, the applicant makes those changes, staff ensures that the changes were made, and that the planning -- so to the planning board recommendation is on that amended item, and that's what the Board sees. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And they don't really know what the original looked like? They just see what we ended up voting on? MR. KLATZKOW: They just see what -- because the applicant's agreed, yeah, I'll change the ordinance, so boom, boom, boom, so that's what they're seeing. They're seeing the ordinance as amended by mutual agreement between the Planning Commission and the applicant, and then the staff report on that. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: But it's not necessarily always by mutual agreement? MR. KLATZKOW: Oh, no, it's always by mutual agreement; otherwise, you don't have -- otherwise, you don't really have a recommendation. If you -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No. Like today we voted, and it was -- it wasn't what the applicant agreed to. We decided to modify. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. And so they'll -- they'll see what was presented here -- and you're right on this particular case -- and then the Planning Commission -- it will be part of the recommendation is the Planning Commission voted but they wanted to see this change or they wanted to see that change. COMMISSIONER FRY: But the applicant has the ability to modify the application between now and when it goes to the County Commission, correct? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, because at the end of the day the applicant's looking for four votes, and at the end of the day, the applicant may decide that it's in their best interest to abide by the Planning Commission vote so that they can get their item passed. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) February 4, 2021 Page 82 of 82 COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. Now I understand what you were saying as far as when it ends up going to the county commissioners, it generally is going to be amended by the applicant -- MR. KLATZKOW: Generally, yeah. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- for that reason, and if not, then it won't be. MR. KLATZKOW: No. You get items like One Naples which is an outlier. It just is. But, you know, we'll deal with it when it gets to the Board. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So I suggest we do this -- because I think Commissioner Shea's point is well taken. But I don't want to anticipate a shortcoming on the part of staff when they haven't -- when they haven't prepared their report yet. But I'm going to be looking carefully at what is submitted to the BCC on One Naples and Heritage Bay and see how that is -- how that is handled. It's sometimes a daunting task to represent a point of view that you officially as staff don't share, didn't embrace, but it can be done. It's just it takes some careful drafting and some objectivity. So I suggest that we table this and see how things come out on those two and see if we're comfortable. There may not be a problem. But I'm glad you brought that up. Anybody else want to weigh in on that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. I don't have anything further to talk about under new business. Does anybody else have any new business they want to bring up? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, public comment, any member of the public wish to be heard on any item that was not on our agenda? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, and without objection, we're adjourned. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:11 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION _____________________________________ EDWIN FRYER, 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.a Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: 02-04-21 CCPC - Unsigned Formatted (15113 : 2/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) 03/04/2021 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.1 Item Summary: ***NOTE: This item has been continued from the February 18, 2021 CCPC Meeting ***PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA-A Resolution of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners designating 999.81 acres within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area zoning overlay district as a Stewardship Receiving Area, to be known as the Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area, which will allow development of a maximum of 2,600 residential dwelling units, of which a minimum of 10% will be multi-family dwelling units, 10% will be single family detached and 10% will be single family attached or villa; an aggregate minimum of 65,000 square feet and an aggregate maximum of 80,000 square feet of neighborhood-scale commercial and office in the village center context zone and neighborhood commercial context zone; a minimum of 26,000 square feet of civic, governmental and institutional uses; senior housing including adult living facilities and continuing care retirement communities and limited to 300 units if located in the neighborhood general context zone; and 18.01 acres of amenity center site; all subject to a maximum pm peak hour trip cap; and approving the Stewardship Receiving Area credit agreement for Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area and establishing that 6697.76 stewardship credits are being utilized by the designation of the Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area. The subject property is located east of Desoto Bouleva rd, south of Oil Well Road and west of the intersection of Oil Well Grade Road and Oil Well Road, in Sections 22, 23, 26, 27, 34 And 35, Township 48 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner] Meeting Date: 03/04/2021 Prepared by: Title: Planner, Principal – Zoning Name: Nancy Gundlach 02/24/2021 2:58 PM Submitted by: Title: Manager - Planning – Zoning Name: Ray Bellows 02/24/2021 2:58 PM Approved By: Review: Planning Commission Nancy Gundlach Review item Skipped 02/19/2021 1:49 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Nancy Gundlach Review Item Skipped 02/19/2021 1:49 PM Zoning Nancy Gundlach Review Item Skipped 02/19/2021 1:49 PM Zoning Nancy Gundlach Additional Reviewer Skipped 02/19/2021 1:49 PM Planning Commission Edwin Fryer Meeting Pending 03/04/2021 9:00 AM Zoning Nancy Gundlach Additional Reviewer Skipped 02/19/2021 1:49 PM 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 87 LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 Page 1 of 30 STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION – ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: FEBRUARY 18, 2021 SUBJECT: SRA-PL20190001836, LONGWATER VILLAGE STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA (SRA). COMPANION ITEM TO SRA- PL20190001837, BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, AND THE TOWN PLAN _______________________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNERS/AGENTS: Applicant: Mr. Patrick L. Utter, Vice President Collier Enterprises Management, Inc. 2550 Goodlette Road North, Suite 100 Naples, FL 34103 Property Owners: Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. and CDC Land Investments, LLC 2550 Goodlette Road North, Suite 100 Naples, FL 34103 Agents: Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire Hole Montes, Inc. Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. 950 Encore Way 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34110 Naples, FL 34103 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-24-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 Page 2 of 30 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-24-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 Page 3 of 30 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-24-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 Page 4 of 30 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider a Resolution of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners designating 999.81 acres within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area zoning overlay district as a stewardship receiving area, to be known as the Longwater Village SRA. The subject SRA will allow development of a maximum of 2,600 residential dwelling units, of which a minimum of 10% will be multi-family dwelling units, 10% will be single-family detached, and 10% will be single-family attached or villa; a minimum of 65,000 square feet of neighborhood-scale commercial and office in the village center and a maximum of 80,000 square feet of neighborhood-scale commercial and office in the stewardship receiving area; a minimum of 26,000 square feet of civic, governmental and institutional uses; senior housing including adult living facilities and continuing care retirement communities and limited to 300 units if located in the neighborhood general context zone; and 18.01 acres of amenity center site; all subject to a maximum p.m. peak hour trip cap; and approving the stewardship receiving area credit agreement for Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area, and establishing that 6,697.76 stewardship credits are being utilized by the designation of the Longwater Village SRA. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property, consisting of 999.81 acres, is located east of DeSoto Boulevard, south of Oil Well Road, and west of the intersection of Oil Well Grade Road and Oil Well Road, in Sections 22, 23, 26, 27, 34, and 35, Township 48 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. (See the Location Map on page 2 of this Staff Report.) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay District (RLSA) was developed in order 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 a Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) in exchange for Stewardship Credits, which are used to entitle the Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA). Longwater Village SRA requires 6,697.76 credits to entitle 837.22 acres of development. (Note: no credits are required for the 162.59 acres exceeding 35% of the open space required within the SRA.) The Natural Resource Index Assessment documents the existing conditions and Natural Resource Index (NRI) scores within the proposed SRA for the Longwater Village SRA. It should be noted that the NRI scores demonstrate that the Longwater Village SRA meets the Suitability Criteria contained in the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). Please see the Environmental Review Section of this Staff Report for further information. The Longwater Village SRA is one of four SRAs that have either been submitted to Collier County or have received an SRA designation. The other three SRA Villages located within the vicinity of Longwater Village SRA along the future Big Cypress Parkway are Hyde Park Village (PL20180000622) and Rivergrass Village SRA (PL20190000044) which have received SRA 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-24-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 Page 5 of 30 designation, and Bellmar Village (PL20190001837) which is also scheduled for hearings at this time. The Longwater Village SRA is 999.81 acres and consists of two context zones which are required per the SRA Overlay regulations: Neighborhood General and mixed-use Village Center. The Village has access to and is located south of Oil Well Road and east of the proposed Big Cypress Parkway. The Village is separated into two pieces by the proposed SSA 17. The southern half has a 20.08 acre Village Center. The northern half has a 2.99 acre Neighborhood General Commercial Area. A lengthy perimeter lake system runs along 70-75% of the boundary of the Village. The lake system serves as part of the Village stormwater system and acts as a deterrent to wildlife. This SRA application for Longwater Village SRA will include approximately: • 2,600 residential dwelling units with a density of 2.6 units per acre (or 3.11 units per acre based upon 837.22 acres requiring Stewardship Credits and excluding open space acreage above 35%); o a minimum of 40 multi-family dwelling units located within the Village Center Context Zone; • a minimum of 65,000 square feet and a maximum of 80,000 square feet of neighborhood scaled retail and office uses; • a minimum of 26,000 square feet of civic, governmental, and institutional uses. The Village will also have other uses such as three Amenity Centers, and Park Preserves, and Parks. The required minimum of 35% open space is 349.93 acres, and 51.26% open space or 512.52 acres has been provided. For further information, please see Attachment A-Proposed SRA Resolution. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Undeveloped land and farmland with a zoning designation of Agriculture-Mobile Home Overlay-Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay-Barron Collier Investments/Barron Collier Partners-Stewardship Sending Area-9 (A-MHO-RLSAO-BCI/BCP-SSA-9), and a zoning designation of Agriculture-Mobile Home Overlay-Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (A-MHO-RLSAO), and then Rivergrass Village SRA, and Oil Well Road, a 4-lane divided Minor Arterial Roadway. East: Undeveloped land and farmland with a zoning designation of Agriculture-Mobile Home Overlay-Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay-Collier Land Holdings and Collier Development Corporation-Stewardship Sending Area-15 (A-MHO-RLSAO-CLH and CDC-SSA-15), and a zoning designation of A-MHO-RLSAO South: Undeveloped land with a zoning designation of A-MHO-RLSAO 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-24-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 Page 6 of 30 West: Undeveloped land with a designation of A-MHO-RLSAO, Rivergrass Village SRA, and developed residential land with a zoning designation of Estates (E), and undeveloped land and farmland with a zoning designation of A-MHO-RLSAO AERIAL PHOTO 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-24-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 Page 7 of 30 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: 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 GMP. Please see Attachment B- Consistency Review Memorandum. Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition and recommends the following: 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: In evaluating the Longwater Village SRA, staff reviewed the applicant’s Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) dated August 4, 2020, for consistency using the applicable 2019 and 2020 Annual Update and Inventory Reports (AUIR). According to the SRA document and noted above, the applicant is requesting a maximum of 2,600 residential dwelling units, up to 80,000 square feet of retail/office uses, and 26,000 square feet of civic, governmental, and institutional uses. The TIS provided with the petition outlines a potential development scenario for 1,503 single-family residential dwelling units, 1,097 multi-family 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-24-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 Page 8 of 30 dwelling units, up to 26,000 square feet of governmental and institutional uses, and 80,000 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 in Section VIII Developer Commitments, 8.3.A. Transportation, of a maximum of 2,078 two-way, unadjusted, average weekday PM peak hour trips. According to the TIS, the project impacts the following County roadways: Existing Roadway Conditions: Roadway/ Link # Link Location 2019 AUIR LOS P.M. Peak Hour Peak Direction Service Volume/Peak Direction 2019 AUIR Remaining Capacity Projected P.M. Peak Hour/Peak Direction Project Traffic1 2020 AUIR LOS 2020 AUIR Remaining Capacity Oil Well Road/ 121.2 Oil Well Grade to Ave Maria Blvd B 2,000/West 1,458 252/WB B 1,456 Oil Well Road/ 121.1 Desoto Blvd to Oil Well Grade B 1,1002/West 558 252/WB B 556 Oil Well Road/ 120.0 Everglades Blvd to Desoto Blvd B 1,1002/West 526 238/WB B 518 Oil Well Road/ 119.0 Immokalee Road to Everglades Blvd C 2,000/East 808 300/EB C 633 Desoto Boulevard/ 138.0 Golden Gate Blvd to Oil Well Road B 800/South 662 252/SB B 652 Everglades Blvd/ Oil Well Road to C 800/North 308 41/NB C 240 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-24-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 Page 9 of 30 136.0 Immokalee Road Everglades Blvd/ 135.0 Golden Gate Blvd to Oil Well Road C 800/North 339 126/NB C 324 Wilson Blvd/ 118.0 Immokalee Road to Golden Gate Blvd B 900/South 549 41/SB B 550 Randall Blvd/ 133.0 Everglades Blvd to Desoto Blvd C 900/East 248 126/EB C 235 Randall Blvd/ 132.0 Immokalee Road to Everglades Blvd D 9003&4/East 64 174/EB D 7 Vanderbilt Beach Rd/ 112.0 Logan Blvd to Collier Blvd C 3,000/East 1,156 111/EB C 917 Golden Gate Blvd/ 17.0 Collier Blvd to Wilson Blvd D 2,300/East 570 111/EB D 390 Golden Gate Blvd/ 123.0 Wilson Blvd to 18th Street NE/SE C 2,300/East 1,016 174/EB C 845 Golden Gate Blvd/ 123.1 18th Street NE/SE to Everglades Blvd C 2,300/East 1,025 182/EB C 855 Golden Gate Blvd/ 124.0 Everglades to Desoto Blvd B 1,010/East 778 245/EB B 773 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-24-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 Page 10 of 30 Immokalee Road/ 45.0 Wilson Blvd to Oil Well Road D 3,3004/East 476 174/EB D 525 Immokalee Road/ 44.0 Collier Blvd to Wilson Blvd D 3,3004/East 362 223/EB E 95 Immokalee Road/ 43.2 Logan Blvd to Collier Blvd D 3,200/East 284 111/EB D 435 Collier Blvd/ 31.1 Golden Gate Blvd to Pine Ridge Road C 3,000/North 1,071 111/NB C 925 Pine Ridge Road/ 125.0 Logan Blvd to Collier Blvd C 2,400/East 853 56/EB C 782 1. Source for P.M. Peak Hour/Peak Direction Project Traffic is August 4, 2020; Traffic Impact Statement provided by the petitioner. 2. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Direction Service Volume does not consider a committed improvement (Ave Maria Developer Agreement). The committed project will increase the service volume to 2,000. 3. A portion of this link is committed for widening; Immokalee Road to 8th Street; P.M. Peak Hour Peak Direction service volume will increase to 2,000. The remainder of the link’s service volume will remain unchanged. 4. Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension is scheduled for construction within the Five-Year Capital Improvement Element and is anticipated to provide relief to the corridor. PM Peak Hour Peak Direction remaining capacity does not account for the expected diversion. For consistency purposes, the Capital Improvement Element of the Growth Management Plan – Projects identified in years 3, 4 & 5 of the Schedule of Capital Improvements are considered for consistency when reviewing land use applications for compliance with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element. The following improvements are considered for consistency purposes: • Vanderbilt Beach Road – Collier Boulevard to 16th Street • Vanderbilt Beach Road – 16th Street to Everglades Boulevard • 16th Street Bridge connecting Golden Gate Boulevard to Randall Boulevard • Randall Boulevard – Immokalee Road to 8th Street NE 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-24-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 Page 11 of 30 • Wilson Boulevard – Golden Gate Boulevard to Immokalee Road Based on this information, staff finds the application consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element. 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.” Staff finding: The Longwater Village SRA is proposing access points on both Oil Well Road and the future Big Cypress Parkway. Staff recommends approval of the proposed access points shown on the master plan for this petition, however, nothing in this development order will vest the developer to anything more than a right in/right out at those locations. Directional and full median openings may be contemplated at the time of Site Development Plan (SDP) or Plat and Plan (PPL). Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states: “The County shall require, wherever feasible, the interconnection of local streets between developments to facilitate convenient movement throughout the road network. 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 of such 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 Longwater Village SRA’s Master Plan shows an interconnection to Rivergrass Village that runs parallel to Oil Well Road. Staff Recommendation: Transportation Planning staff finds this petition consistent with the GMP. Transportation Planning Staff recommends approval of this petition subject to the following Conditions of Approval: 1. Within 90 days of the approval of the first development order (SDP or PPL), the applicant must pay $622,000.00 to fulfill the fair share mitigation for operation impacts as supported by the August 4, 2020, Traffic Impact Statement. 2. The Developer shall be required to improve 18th Avenue NE from the project entrance to Desoto Boulevard to minimum County standards as shown in Appendix B of the Land Development Code. These improvements are not eligible for road impact fee credits. 3. The applicant acknowledges the following are outside of the review for this petition. School sites A and B (56th Avenue N.E. and 2nd Avenue N.E.) have not been evaluated for transportation impacts as part of this request. Evaluation of both sites will require standard TIS and operational review at the time of permitting. The operational review 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-24-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 Page 12 of 30 will require a determination of 56th and 2nd Avenue’s ability to accommodate school operations and activities. However, it is noted in the commitment as stated, the Collier County Public Schools (CCPS) shall be responsible for the roadway improvements necessary for both school sites; not the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (CCBCC). Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) and FLUE related to Environmental Planning: Environmental Planning staff have found this project to be consistent with the CCME and 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 14 has been approved and SSA 17 must be approved for the petitioner to obtain credits for the development of the SRA. STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this SRA petition and the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based. The listed criteria are noted explicitly in the LDC and require staff evaluation and comment. The criteria shall be used as the basis for a recommendation of approval or denial by the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) to the Board of Collier County Commissioners (BCC). Notwithstanding the above, staff reviewed the determinants for adequate findings to support the proposed SRA application as follows: Environmental Review: LDC Section 4.08.07.A.1.d requires that SRAs with lands greater than one acre and a Natural Resource Index (NRI) value greater than 1.2 shall be retained as open space and maintained in a predominantly natural vegetated state. There are four acres within the proposed SRA that yield an NRI score above 1.2; these acres are located in the southwestern portion of the village. The majority of 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 Stewardship Area is addressed by the creation of the required Stewardship Sending Areas (SSA). SSA 14 has been approved and SSA 17 must be approved for the petitioner to obtain credits for the development of the SRA. Evaluation of Suitability Criteria in LDC section 4.08.07.A: • 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 four acres having an NRI value greater than 1.2 and these lands have been designated as “park preserves;” therefore, residential, commercial, manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, transient housing, institutional, civic, and community service uses will not be sited in these “park preserves” but may be sited on the remaining lands within the SRA. • Conditional use essential services and government essential services, 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 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-24-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 Page 13 of 30 (LDC Section 4.08.07.A.1.c). There are four acres having an NRI value greater than 1.2 and these lands have been designated as “park preserves;” therefore, conditional use and governmental essential services will not be sited on these “park preserves” but may be sited on the remaining lands within the SRA. • 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 (LDC Section 4.08.07.A.1.d). There are four acres having an NRI value greater than 1.2 and these lands have been designated as “park preserves” and will be retained in a natural vegetated state. • 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 (LDC Section 4.08.07.A.1.g). The project does not encroach into an FSA or HSA; it is adjacent to WRA lands and provides the required buffers as indicated on the SRA Master Plan. SSA credits required for SRA Designation: Environmental Planning staff reviewed this petition in conjunction with Geographic Information System (GIS) staff who provided the following information regarding the generation of stewardship credits: The Stewardship credits for Longwater Village SRA are generated from SSAs 14 and 17. Both SSAs are located on properties within and adjoining the Camp Keais Strand, a major flow way system connecting Corkscrew Marsh at its northern end and adjoining the Okaloacoochee Slough. The credit calculation is based on the total acreage of Longwater Village, which is 999.81 acres. The minimum open space requirement is 349.93 acres; the applicant has proposed 512.52 acres of open space. The total acreage that consumes credits is 837.22 acres. Therefore, Longwater Village requires 6,697.76 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 occurred as a result of detailed onsite FLUCFCS mapping conducted in 2015. Minor changes have occurred to the Listed Species Habitat factor that affects index scoring for the SRA; as a result, four acres of land exceeded 1.2 within the SRA boundary. Longwater Village SRA credits are generated from Stewardship Sending Areas 14 and 17, which have 2,515.7 available credits and 4,519.5 potential credits, respectively. Site Description: The subject property consists of 999.81 acres of disturbed lands. The property is currently being used for agricultural activities, including row crops and improved pasture. The property includes widely scattered lands comprised of exotic vegetation, non-forested uplands, forested uplands, and forested wetlands. A FLUCFCS map detailing land use is contained in Exhibit 4 of the Natural Resource Index Assessment. The vegetated areas within the southern half of the SRA boundary 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-24-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 Page 14 of 30 will be retained as “park preserves.” Wetland mitigation for impacts to this area will be addressed through the South Florida Water Management District Environmental Resource Permitting process. Listed Species: The Longwater Village SRA project is located within the boundary of the previously proposed Rural Lands West project. Listed species surveys were conducted throughout the area in various years between 2007 and 2016. The surveys were conducted for wildlife species listed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as endangered, threatened or species of special concern and plants listed by Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS and USFWS as endangered, threatened, or commercially exploited. Eagles and their nests were also included as part of the wildlife surveys. Surveys conducted between 2007 and 2009 and 2014 through 2016 indicate the following species have been present within the Longwater Village SRA boundary: American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), little blue heron (Egretta caerulea), tri-colored heron (Egretta tricolor), wood stork (Mycteria americana), Florida sandhill crane (Grus canadensis pratensis), crested caracara (Caracara cheriway), Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus) and Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi). The current wildlife survey, conducted in 2019, revealed the following species were observed onsite: American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), Florida sandhill crane (Grus canadensis pratensis), wood stork (Mycteria americana), roseate spoonbill (Platalea ajaja), little blue heron (Egretta caerulea), tri-colored heron (Egretta tricolor), and Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi; see Appendix I of the Listed Species Survey). There are four protected plants listed in the LDC as “Less Rare Plants” that were identified within the project boundary: butterfly orchid (Encyclia tampensis), giant wild pine (Tillandisa utriculata), inflated wild pine (Tillandsia balbisiana) and stiff-leafed wild pine (Tillandsia fasciculata). Environmental Review recommends approval of this petition subject to the following Conditions of Approval: 4. 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. 5. SSA 17 shall be approved prior to or as a companion item to the Longwater Village SRA. Public 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 irrigation quality (I.Q.) water services will be extended to the project through the neighboring Rivergrass Village SRA from the Northeast Utility Facilities (NEUF) site at 825 39th Avenue NE (adjacent to the Collier County fairgrounds). The CCWSD has agreed to reimburse the developer for the cost of upsizing certain transmission mains within the Rivergrass Village SRA and to connect Longwater Village to Rivergrass Village, as needed for potable water, wastewater, and I.Q. water services to the Longwater Village SRA and as identified in Schedules 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-24-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 Page 15 of 30 B and C of the Agreement to Provide Potable Water, Wastewater and Irrigation Water Utility Services (Utility Agreement). See Attachment C-Agreement to Provide Potable Water, Wastewater, and Irrigation Water Utility Services. As previously agreed, the CCWSD will extend transmission mains to a point of connection (POC) at the western boundary of the Rivergrass Village SRA, which coincides with the northeast corner of the adjacent Hyde Park Village SRA. The pipelines were designed to provide a minimum service pressure of 60 PSI at the POC. Additionally, the CCWSD will construct an interim 1.5 MGD wastewater treatment facility at the NEUF site to serve the project and other developments in the northeast service area. Utility services are scheduled to be provided to the Rivergrass POC by June 30, 2022. The developer will be responsible for the design, permitting, construction, and conveyance of utility system infrastructure internal to both SRAs pursuant to the Collier County Utilities Standards and Procedures Ordinance (Ord. No. 2004-31, as amended). The developer has committed to conveying a minimum 5-acre utility site in the vicinity of the general services area to the CCWSD for the construction and operation of utility services. Residents and businesses will receive individually metered irrigation services and will pay standard I.Q. rates. Deviation 3 in subsection 7.5 of the SRA document allows for the I.Q. water distribution system to be conveyed to and maintained by Collier County, contrary to LDC 4.03.08 C. This same deviation was previously approved for the Rivergrass Village and Hyde Park Village SRAs. The Public Utilities Department recommends approval of this petition subject to the following Condition of Approval: 6. The Agreement to Provide Potable Water, Wastewater, and Irrigation Water Utility Services shall be adopted concurrently with the Longwater Village SRA Resolution. Collier County Public Schools (CCPS) District Review: CCPS staff has reviewed the petition and has determined there is existing or planned capacity within the next five years at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. However, when the Longwater Village SRA is considered along with Bellmar Village SRA and Rivergrass Village SRA, they collectively result in the School District exceeding its estimated capacity. SRA Document Commitment 8.5 addresses this issue by requiring the developer will convey real property for a high school, a middle school, and an elementary school in exchange for impact fee credits. Please note at the time of SDP or PPL, the development will be reviewed to ensure there is capacity either within the concurrency service area the development is located in or in adjacent concurrency service areas. Architectural Review: Architectural staff has reviewed this petition and recommends approval. Landscape Review: Landscape staff has reviewed this petition and recommends approval. Fire Review: Fire staff has reviewed this petition and recommends approval. 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-24-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 Page 16 of 30 Community and Human Services Review (Housing) Review: Housing staff has reviewed this petition and has found that the proposed SRA does not address housing affordability. LDC Section 4.08.07 requires that an SRA “offer a range of housing types and price levels to accommodate diverse ages and incomes.” The SRA Document contains no details regarding price levels, ages, or incomes of the proposed units or residents of the SRA. The applicant must revise the SRA Document to include such details in order that staff may confirm the SRA is diverse in housing type, prices, ages, and incomes. Absent of such details in the SRA Document, staff proposes the following recommendation in order to ensure compliance with LDC 4.08.07 and the provision of diverse housing types, prices, ages, and incomes: Longwater Village shall commit at least 10% of the units (260 units) are be sold at purchase prices near the Moderate, and Gap affordability ranges (product types: Town Home, Villa 1, Coach, & Villa 2). Product Type Units Sales Value Suggested Affordability Commitment of Products 1, 2, 3, & 4 Percent of Product Income Level 1 Town Home 204 $250,000 48 24%Moderate 2 Villa 1 319 $260,000 74 23%Moderate 3 Coach 258 $280,000 62 24%Gap 4 Villa 2 316 $310,000 76 24%Gap 5 Single-family Product A 493 $365,000 0%Market Rate 6 Single-family Product B 402 $400,000 0%Market Rate 7 Single-family Product C 436 $430,000 0%Market Rate 8 Single-family Product D 172 $460,000 0%Market Rate Total 2600 260 10% This would ensure 10% of the units in the Longwater Village SRA will meet the LDC requirement to provide units and at a range of incomes and price levels. It is recommended that Longwater Village SRA also consider the donation of a residential parcel to the County, to an Affordable Housing Land Trust, or to a County’s designee in order to address the housing needs of households at the Low and Very-Low income levels. A contribution to the Collier County Local Housing Trust Fund may also serve to mitigate for units unable to be made available on-site. Enacting the staff’s recommended condition of approval would ensure compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07 J. 3. a. iv. to, “Offer a range of housing types and price levels to accommodate diverse ages and incomes.” Housing staff recommends approval of this petition subject to the following Condition of Approval: 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-24-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 Page 17 of 30 7. Longwater Village shall commit at least 10% of the units (260 units) are sold at purchase prices near the Moderate and Gap affordability ranges (product types: Town Home, Villa 1, Coach, & Villa 2); or as an alternative, land or units in (or proximal to) the SRA shall be reserved for the development of housing that is affordable. Economic Assessment Review: Section 4.08.07 (L) of the 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 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 999.81 acres within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Zoning Overlay District as an SRA, to be known as the Longwater Village SRA (Longwater), allowing for the development of residential, commercial, and civic/governmental/institutional land use components. Longwater 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. See Attachment D-Economic Assessment. DPFG measured the fiscal neutrality at the horizon year (Year 10/2031 buildout) using a “marginal/average 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 (see Attachment E-Peer Review Draft) 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 further stated that “the analysis is professionally prepared and thorough in its treatment of revenues and expenses, is accurate in its determination that the Longwater Village development would meet the County’s requirements for Fiscal Neutrality.” 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 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-24-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 Page 18 of 30 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 adopted rates at the time of application, and as previously stated, does not include any projections for impact fee increases or decreases. Any staff comments that affect the anticipated impact fee revenue are 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 analysis concludes that adequate revenue will be generated by the proposed project, through millage, fees, and other applicable funding sources to fund the attributable increase in operating costs, to the various facilities, generated by the development. The same approach used for the capital revenue, to note any comments or observations that may affect the anticipated revenue, is used for the information related to millage rates and other governmental revenue sources used for this analysis. Transportation – Fiscally Neutral. See Transportation Review Section of this Staff Report and Attachment F-Public Facilities Impact Assessment, to be read in combination with the following: Based on staff’s review of the Traffic Impact Statement, intersection analysis, and fair share mitigation reports, a majority of the projected deficiencies at build-out exist both without and with the project. At build-out, the adopted level of service standard for roadway capacity would be exceeded by the existing, committed, and vested trips, plus additional projected background trips from sources other than the development project under review, with the exception of one roadway. For the roadways that would be deficient both without and with the project, per Florida Statute 163.3180, since the project is not causing the deficiency, the projected deficiency cannot be cured by the development. For the one roadway segment identified in the TIS that is anticipated to exceed its level of service standard with the project traffic, Florida Statute 163.3180 provides the basis for a capacity proportionate share calculation and also requires a credit for impact fees anticipated to be paid by the applicant. Therefore, if the capacity proportionate share estimate exceeded the amount of impact fees anticipated, the Developer would be required to remit the difference. However, in this instance, the Developer’s anticipated impact fees will exceed the capacity proportionate share for the adversely impacted roadway segment. Therefore, no additional capacity proportionate share payment can be required. The applicant will be paying impact fees for the proposed land uses to off-set their growth-related demand for infrastructure. Based on a previously approved landowner contribution agreement, the applicant will also provide right-of-way and stormwater management area at pre-SRA values. They have also committed to the perpetual maintenance of the shared stormwater management system at their sole cost. The applicant has analyzed multiple intersections within the area of significant impact and will be paying a proportionate share toward operational improvements necessary to accommodate the development. This operational proportionate share is included as a condition of approval for the SRA. 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 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-24-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 Page 19 of 30 proposed development. The main demand generated by Longwater will be the 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. In order to clarify questions that arose from staff’s review of this category, an alternate analysis was utilized to validate the finding of fiscal neutrality. DPFG, Jacobs, and staff all conclude that this category is fiscally neutral. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) – Fiscally Neutral. See Attachment F-Public Facilities Impact Assessment, to be read in combination with the following: DPFG worked directly with 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, including the acquisition of a new site for a co-located EMS station at DeSoto Blvd. and Golden Gate Boulevard. This site is one of up to three that will utilize the One-Cent Infrastructure Surtax to provide certain EMS capital construction needs. The use of these funds will allow impact fees generated by Longwater and other surrounding communities and development to be utilized for capital equipment needs and other EMS capital priorities and projects. Therefore, currently, there is not a need for a specific land site within this proposed development. 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 (Naples 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. A minor funding shortfall was identified through the staff analysis; however, the amount is de minimis, totaling approximately the value of .15 acres, therefore, it does not change the finding of fiscal neutrality for this category. 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-24-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 Page 20 of 30 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. This category showed a slight surplus in funding generated by the analysis, which was confirmed by staff. Public Utilities (Water, Wastewater, Irrigation Water and Solid Waste) – Fiscally Neutral. See Public Utilities Review Section of this Staff Report and Attachment F-Public Facilities Impact Assessment, to be read in combination with the following: DPFG collected information prepared for, and directed by, Collier County Public Utilities Department 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, as applicable, attributable to the project. Pending Board approval, utility services will be provided in accordance with the amended Interlocal Agreement that accompanies this petition, which must be adopted concurrently with or prior to the SRA ordinance. This Agreement also includes provisions related to the pre-payment of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees for the capacity equivalent of 350 ERC’s each. The developer will be responsible for the 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). As provided in the review comments, Water, wastewater, and irrigation quality (I.Q.) water services will be extended to the project through the neighboring Rivergrass Village SRA from the Northeast Utility Facilities (NEUF) site. Stormwater Management – Fiscally Neutral. See Attachment F-Public Facilities Impact Assessment, to be read in combination with 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 Longwater water management system serving the development. Staff will continue to work with the Developer in areas where the private and public stormwater management systems interact and the ongoing management of the flowway systems as they transition between private and public lands. 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-24-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 Page 21 of 30 To the extent that Longwater 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. Based on the above, the determination of fiscal neutrality is reasonable. North Collier Fire & Rescue District – Fiscally Neutral. See Fire Review Section of this Staff Report and Attachment F-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 within the service boundary of a planned, co-located facility that is owned by the District. Therefore, there is not a need for a specific land site within this proposed development. The applicant will be paying impact fees for the proposed land uses to off-set 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 Attachment F-Public Facilities Impact Assessment, 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. Currently, there is existing or planned capacity, over a five-year period to serve the proposed development. However, when Longwater is considered along with other neighboring development, “they collectively result in the School District exceeding its estimated capacity.” Therefore, the SRA Document provides a commitment that the Developer will convey real property for a high school, middle school, and elementary school in exchange for impact fee credits. 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, also considering any Developer Agreements/Interlocal Agreements related to impact fees, 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 fiscal neutrality. Other Facilities – Fiscally Neutral. 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. 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-24-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 Page 22 of 30 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 affect 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. The future use of any type of debt as a funding mechanism is evaluated on a facility by facility basis, including the business case for such borrowing, and will also be reviewed for the appropriateness of such costs, as applicable, for inclusion into applicable impact fee studies. Finally, 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: The Longwater 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 interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods…” As previously stated, the Village consists of two context zones, Neighborhood General and Village Center. The Neighborhood General context zone is approximately 979.73 acres and allows for residential development consisting of single-family and multi-family residential dwelling units. Senior/group housing including but not limited to Adult Living Facilities (ALF), Independent Living Facilities (ILF), and Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRC) are permissible. A 2.99-acre Neighborhood General Commercial Area is also allowed in the Neighborhood General context zone. The maximum zoned and actual building heights are 50 and 62 feet. The Village Center context zone is approximately 20.08 acres and is mixed-use, allowing for multi-family development, commercial, office, civic, governmental, and institutional uses. As previously stated, a minimum of 65,000 square feet and a maximum of 80,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses, and a minimum of 26,000 square feet of civic, governmental, and institutional uses will be provided. The maximum zoned and actual building heights are 50 and 60 feet. The Village Center is located on the south side of the SRA along the future Big Cypress Parkway. A 2.99 acre Neighborhood General Commercial Area is located on the north side of the SRA along Oil Well Road. The Longwater 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. 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-24-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 Page 23 of 30 DEVIATION DISCUSSION: The petitioner is seeking nine deviations from the requirements of the LDC. The deviations are directly extracted from SRA Document Section VII. Deviations. The petitioner’s rationale and staff analysis/recommendation are outlined below. SRA Document Section 7.1. Neighborhood General Standards: Deviation # 1 seeks relief 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 Amenity Center sites and related uses to be a maximum of 30,000 square feet each. Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: Community Centers will provide multiple amenities and uses for Village residents (and guests). This effectively reduces external trips. This also requires flexibility in size, in order to be sufficient to meet market demands. Note: This LDC Provision (and thus this deviation request) is unique to the RLSA Overlay. 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 # 2 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.1.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 15 feet for zero lot line and townhome development, as set forth in Table 1: Neighborhood General - Required Minimum Yards and Maximum Building Height. 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 effectively and efficiently they must be consistent with the design used in other similar developments where the market has responded favorably. There are many approved PUDs that allow for such setbacks 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. 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 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-24-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 Page 24 of 30 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.” SRA Document Section 7.2. Transportation Standards: Deviation # 3 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.1.b., “Figures 5, 6, and 7, Local Street Neighborhood General,” which requires a 6-foot-wide planting area between the travel lane and the sidewalk, to instead allow for a 5-foot-wide planting area in the same location 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. Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: This is a minimal reduction and is required to ensure the necessary (LDC required) 23 feet, measured from the back of the sidewalk to the garage, to allow room to park a vehicle on the driveway without parking over the sidewalk. See Local Street Cross Section below. The substantive deviations from the LDC cross-section for a local road in a village are (1) the planting area between the sidewalk and travel lane is 5 feet versus 6 feet and the width of the travel lane is (11 verses 10 feet). Note: This local street cross-section is unique to the RLSA - SRA Village. (Note: Please see SRA Resolution for enlargement of the above Section). 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 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-24-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 Page 25 of 30 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.” The RLSA cross-sections show a 6-foot wide planting strip whereas LDC section 4.08.07.J.3.ii.r. allows for a minimum of a 5-foot wide planting area between the sidewalk and curb provided there is root barrier or structural soil used. Structural soil in the amount of 2 cubic feet per square feet of mature tree crown projection is the industry standard for the recommended quantity of structural soil. Deviation # 4 seeks relief from 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 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 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 Justification: 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 (11), F.S.” SRA Document Section 7.3. Sign Standards: Deviation # 5 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.5.a, “On-premises directional signs within residential districts,” 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 setback of 5 feet from the edge of the roadway, paved surface or back of the curb, limited to signs internal to the SRA only. This excludes signage along County owned roadways. Petitioner’s Justification: 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 utilized for 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 Note: This deviation is from a requirement that applies throughout the County (per Section 5.06.00 (Signs Regulations). Note that the deviation does not apply to such signs located along County Roads. 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-24-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 Page 26 of 30 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.” SRA Document Section 7.4. Landscape Standards: Deviation # 6 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02.C., Buffer Requirements, “Types of buffers,” Table 2.4 Information, Footnote (3) which requires “Buffer areas between commercial 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. Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: The combined 10-foot shared buffer will provide for sufficient separation and “breaking up” of parking areas within the Village Center. Note: This deviation is from a requirement that applies throughout the County and similar deviations have been granted. 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.” SRA Document Section 7.5. Other Deviations: Deviation # 7 seeks relief 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 Amenity Center sites to be calculated at 1 space per 200 square feet of indoor square footage, excluding kitchen or storage space. Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: The project will have a complete system of interconnected sidewalks, pathways, and bike lanes throughout, allowing residents to travel to the amenity center without using a car. Additionally, the centrally located Amenity Centers (both north and south) are restricted for use by only Village residents and guests and are not open to the general public. The 1 space per 100 square feet for these “community” amenity centers is excessive. Note: This deviation is from a requirement that applies throughout the County and similar deviations have been granted. 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-24-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 Page 27 of 30 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 # 8 seeks relief from LDC Section 3.05.10.A.2. – “Location Criteria,” which requires that “LSPA [littoral shelf planting areas] shall be concentrated in one location of the lake(s), preferably adjacent to a preserve area,” to instead allow for required littoral shelf planting areas to be aggregated in certain specific development lakes, including the development lake and WRA system that runs along the eastern perimeter of the SRA. Petitioner’s Justification: 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 areas. They will be designed to recreate wetland function, maximize its habitat value and minimize maintenance efforts. They will enhance the survivability of the littoral area plant species, as there is a lower survivability rate in littoral planting areas along larger lakes subject to more variable water levels and wind and wave action, which negatively affects these littoral planting areas. 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.” The concentration of littoral plantings in lakes and waters of the 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. Deviation # 9 seeks relief from 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. Petitioner’s Justification: 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). The Deviation is supported by Utilities staff. 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-24-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 Page 28 of 30 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.” NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The agent/applicant duly noticed and held the required NIM on June 25, 2020, at 5:30 p.m. at New Hope Conference Center, 7675 Davis Boulevard, Naples, Florida. Approximately two residents attended the NIM. For further information, please see Attachment G: NIM Summary. Staff has received one letter of objection. Please see Attachment H-Letter of Objection. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney’s office reviewed the staff report for Petition Number PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA on February 1, 2021. The following criteria apply to the creation of an SRA: 1. Consider: Compatibility with adjacent land uses. 2. Consider: An SRA must contain sufficient suitable land to accommodate the planned development. 3. Consider: Residential, commercial, manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, and 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. 4. Consider: 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 land that receives a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2, regardless of the size of the land or parcel. 5. Consider: 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. 6. Consider: 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. 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-24-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 Page 29 of 30 7. Consider: 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. 8. Consider: 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. 9. Consider: 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. 10. Consider: Conformity of the proposed SRA with the goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP. 11. Consider: Suitability criteria described in Items 2 through 9 above [LDC Section 4.08.07 A.1.] and other standards of LDC Section 4.08.07. 12. Consider: 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. 13. Consider: Assurance that applicant has acquired or will acquire sufficient Stewardship Credits to implement SRA uses. 14. Consider: Impacts, including environmental and public infrastructure impacts. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Collier County Planning Commission, acting as the local planning agency and the Environmental Advisory Council, forward Petition SRA-PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA, to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval subject to the following Conditions of Approval: 1. Within 90 days of the approval of the first development order (SDP or PPL), the applicant must pay $622,000.00 to fulfill the fair share mitigation for operation impacts as supported by the August 4, 2020, Traffic Impact Statement. 2. The Developer shall be required to improve 18th Avenue NE from the project entrance to Desoto Boulevard to minimum County standards as shown in Appendix B of the Land Development Code. These improvements are not eligible for road impact fee credits. 3. The applicant acknowledges the following are outside of the review for this petition. School sites A and B (56th Avenue N.E. and 2nd Avenue N.E.) have not been evaluated for transportation impacts as part of this request. Evaluation of both sites will require standard 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-24-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001836 February 24, 2021 Page 30 of 30 TIS and operational review at the time of permitting. The operational review will require a determination of 56th and 2nd Avenue’s ability to accommodate school operations and activities. However, it is noted in the commitment as stated the Collier County Public Schools (CCPS) shall be responsible for the roadway improvements necessary for both school sites; not the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (CCBCC). 4. 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. 5. SSA 17 shall be approved prior to or as a companion item to the Longwater Village SRA. 6. The Agreement to Provide Potable Water, Wastewater, and Irrigation Water Utility Services shall be adopted concurrently with the Longwater Village SRA Resolution. 7. Longwater Village shall commit at least 10% of the units (260 units) are sold at purchase prices near the Moderate, and Gap affordability ranges (product types: Town Home, Villa 1, Coach, & Villa 2); or as an alternative, land or units in (or proximal to) the SRA shall be reserved for the development of housing that is affordable. Attachments: Attachment A: Proposed SRA Resolution Attachment B: Consistency Review Memorandum Attachment C: Agreement to Provide Potable Water, Wastewater, and Irrigation Water Utility Services Attachment D: Economic Assessment Attachment E: Peer Review Draft Attachment F: Public Facilities Impact Assessment Attachment G: NIM Summary Attachment H: Letter of Objection Attachment I: Application 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Staff Report Longwater Village 2-24-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.bPacket Pg. 121Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT Collier Enterprises Management, Inc. 2550 North Goodlette Road, Suite 100 Naples, FL 34103 The Longwater Professional Consulting Team includes: Agnoli, Barber & Brundage (ABB) – Engineering Coleman Yovanovich & Koester – Legal Counsel Development Planning & Financing Group (DPFG) – Fiscal Analysis Hole Montes, Inc. – Planning and Permitting Passarella & Assoc., Inc. (PAI) – Environmental Permitting Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, Inc. – Transportation Water Science Associates – Water Permitting CCPC DATE______________ BCC DATE _______________ EXHIBIT B 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 2 of 15 Longwater Village SRA (PL20190001836) (1-25-2021) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. OVERVIEW/VILLAGE DESIGN 3 II. SRA STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE/SUITABLITY CRITERIA 3 III. REQUIRED PERIMETER BUFFERS 4 IV. MINIMUM REQUIRED AND MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE 5 DENSITY AND INTENSITY V. CONTEXT ZONES 5 5.1 Neighborhood General 5 5.2 Village Center 8 VI. EXCAVATIONS 11 VII. DEVIATIONS 11 7.1 Deviations from Neighborhood General Standards 11 7.2 Transportation Standards 11 7.3 Signs Standards 11 7.4 Landscape Standards 12 7.5 Other Deviations 12 VIII OWNER/DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS 12 8.1 Planning 12 8.2 Environmental 13 8.3 Transportation 13 8.4 Parks and Recreation 14 8.5 School 14 8.6 Other 15 EXHIBITS Exhibit A – Sheet 1: SRA Master Plan (Color) Exhibit A – Sheet 2: SRA Master Plan (Black & White) Exhibit A – Sheet 3: SRA Mobility Plan Exhibit A – Sheet 4: SRA Master Plan with Deviations Exhibit A – Sheet 5: SRA Master Plan with Deviation Description Exhibit A – Sheet 6: Typical Local Street Cross Section Exhibit A – Sheet 7: Main Spine Road Cross Section Exhibit B – Sheets 1-10: Sketches and Legal Descriptions Tracts 1 & 2 Exhibit C – Sheet 1: Legal Descriptions for School Sites A & B Exhibit D – Sheet 1: Location Map Exhibit E – Sheets 1-10: Property Ownership/Statement of Unified Ownership Exhibit F – Sheets 1-42: Natural Resource Index Assessment Page 2 of 86 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 3 of 15 Longwater Village SRA (PL20190001836) (1-25-2021) I. OVERVIEW/VILLAGE DESIGN AND PROJECT DEVELOPMENT Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) is located in eastern Collier County in portions of Sections 22, 23, 26, 27, 34 and 35, Township 48 South, and Range 28 East. Longwater Village SRA (“Village”) contains a total of 999.81 ± acres. The Village is located south of Oil Well Road, west of the intersection of Oil Well Grade Road and Oil Well Road. The Village is bisected by proposed Stewardship Sending Area 17 (SSA 17). Lands to the north, south, and east of the southern section are zoned A-Agricultural and are proposed to be designated SSA 17 under the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) Overlay. To the west, a portion of the southern section of the Village abuts the proposed future Big Cypress Parkway right-of- way (ROW). The remainder of the lands to the west are zoned A -Agricultural and are proposed to be designated SSA 17. Lands to the south and west of the northern section of the Village are zoned A- Agricultural and are proposed to be designated SSA 17; lands to the east are zoned A-Agricultural and designated SSA 15. The northern section abuts Oil Well Road to the north. The land within both portions of the Village SRA have been in active agricultural production for many years. In accordance with the RLSA Overlay definition, the Village is primarily a residential community which includes a diversity of housing types and a maximum of 2,600 dwelling units. The Village includes a 20.08± acre mixed-use Village Center providing for the required neighborhood-scaled retail, office, civic, and community uses. The SRA is designed to encourage pedestrian/bicycle circulation via an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system including bike lands on the spine road, serving the entire Village and with an interconnected system of streets, dispersing and reducing both the number and length of vehicle trips. II. SRA STATEMENT OF SUITABILITY CRITERIA PER LDC SECTION 4.08.07, PARAGRAPHS A, B, and C AND RLSA OVERLAY ATTACHMENT C 1. The SRA contains 999.81± acres. 2. The SRA includes 4 acres of lands with a Natural Resource Index (NRI) greater than 1.2, which will remain in a natural vegetated state. 3. The Village SRA does not include, nor is it adjacent to, any lands designated Flowway Stewardship Area (FSA) or Habitat Stewardship Area (HSA). The Village does not include lands designated Water Retention Area (WRA). Along the eastern boundary of the Village, there is a perimeter lake system, designed for stormwater management purposes, and as a deterrent t o wildlife. Portions of the lake system, outside of the Village boundary, are designated WRA. These lakes are within the boundaries of SSA 17 in various locations. 4. The SRA does not include any lands within the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) Overlay. 5. The required minimum Open Space (35%) is 349.93 acres. The SRA master plan provides for 512.52± acres of Open Space (51.26± percent), 162.59 acres above the RLSA 35% requirement. 6. The SRA is designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods, including bike lanes on the spine road, with connecting pedestrian paths . 7. The SRA provides an interconnecting roadway with the Rivergrass SRA. 8. The SRA provides parks within and accessible by neighborhoods. 9. The SRA contains two Context Zones (as required for the Village form of SRA): Neighborhood General and mixed-use Village Center. 10. Within the Village Center Context Zone and the commercial area within the Neighborhood General Context Zone, the SRA shall provide the following: a minimum of 65,000 square feet Page 3 of 86 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 4 of 15 Longwater Village SRA (PL20190001836) (1-25-2021) and a maximum of 80,000 square feet of neighborhood scaled retail and office uses ; a minimum of 26,000 square feet of civic, government, and institutional uses; and a minimum of 40 multifamily dwelling units will be within the Village Center Context Zone. 11. The SRA allows for up to 2,600 dwelling units (2.6 dwelling units per gross acre and 3.11 units per acre based on the 837.22 acres requiring Stewardship Credits and excluding open space acreage exceeding 35%). 12. In compliance with the requirement to provide a diversity of housing types within a Village, a minimum of 10% of units shall be multi-family, based upon the Land Development Code (LDC) definition of Multifamily Dwelling (a group of 3 or more dwelling units within a single building), a minimum of 10% of the units shall be single family detached, and a minimum of 10% of the units shall be single family attached or villas. 13. Approximately 39.71 acres of active and passive parks and community green space is provided, including approximately18.01 acres of amenity center sites and approximately 21.70 acres of parks and park preserves, which exceeds the required minimum of 1% of SRA gross acreage, (10 acres). 14. The SRA has direct access to Oil Well Road, which is classified as an arterial road. The SRA will also have direct access to the future Big Cypress Parkway, which will be designed as an arterial roadway. 15. The SRA is consistent with the standards set forth in the RLSA Overlay Attachment C, applicable to Villages. 16. The total acreage requiring stewardship credits is 837.22 acres (total SRA acreage excluding open space exceeding 35%) acres. At the required 8 Stewardship Credits per acre, 6,697.76 Stewardship Credits are required to entitle the SRA. 17. The Village will be served by the Collier County Water and Sewer District. 18. The proposed schedule of development within the Village SRA, is as follows: a. Anticipated timeframe for receipt of required jurisdictional agency permits (or permit modifications) 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 federal, state, and local 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: twelve (12) years from date of approval of this SRA. III. REQUIRED PERIMETER BUFFERS1 Adjacent to Oil Well Road Minimum 25’ wide Type D Buffer per LDC Section 4.06.02.C.4. All other Perimeter Buffers Adjacent to Preserve or SSA No Buffer Required (except as required by the South Florida Water Management District) Adjacent to A – Agriculture Minimum 10’ wide Type “A” buffer per LDC Section 4.06.02.C.1. Adjacent to future Big Cypress parkway (along SRA Western Boundary). Minimum 25’ wide Type “D” Buffer per LDC Section 4.06.02.C.4. Table 1: Village Perimeter Buffer Requirements 1At the developer’s discretion, a 10-foot wide pathway may be located within required perimeter landscape buffers 25’ or greater in width, provided the required plantings are located between the property line and the pathway. However, in such cases, the buffer width shall be increased by 5 feet above the minimum required width. A 10-foot wide pathway may also be located within perimeter buffers that are less than 25’ in width, however, in such cases, the buffer width shall be increased in width by 10 feet above the minimum required width. Page 4 of 86 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 5 of 15 Longwater Village SRA (PL20190001836) (1-25-2021) IV. MINIMUM REQUIRED AND MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DENSITY AND INTENSITY The maximum total number of dwelling units in the Village shall not exceed 2,600 dwelling units. Multi-family dwelling units may be located within both the Village Center and the Neighborhood General Context Zones. The minimum required amount of neighborhood commercial development within the Village Center is 65,000 square feet and the maximum shall not exceed 80,000 square feet. A minimum of 26,000 square feet of civic, governmental , and institutional uses is required. V. CONTEXT ZONES The Village contains two distinct Context Zones: Neighborhood General and Village Center. 5.1 Neighborhood General Context Zone The Neighborhood General Context Zone includes approximately 979.73± acres of land. 5.1.1 Allowable Uses and Structures 5.1.1. A. Permitted Uses and Structures2: 1) Single-Family dwelling units. 2) Multi-family dwelling units located within ½ mile of the Village Center or the commercial area of the Neighborhood General Context Zone, as depicted on the SRA Master Plan. 3) Senior/Group Housing, including but not limited to Adult Living Facilities (ALF), Independent Living Facilities (ILF), and Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRC), not to exceed 300 units in this SRA, subject to Florida statutes and the applicable provisions of LDC Section 5.05.04 - Group Housing, located within ½ mile of the Village Center or the Commercial area of the Neighborhood General Context Zone , as depicted on the SRA Master Plan. 4) Within the commercial areas of the Neighborhood General Context Zone depicted on the SRA Master Plan - any permitted use listed in Section 5.2.1.A. II. of this SRA Document. Such uses, if developed, may be counted towards meeting the required 65,000 minimum of neighborhood scaled retail and office uses or the required 26,000 square feet of civic, government, and institutional uses, as applicable, and is subject to the maximum allowed 80,000 square of neighborhood scaled retail and office uses . Such uses shall be subject to the development standards for Non-Residential and Mixed-Use Buildings set forth under Section 5.2.2.2.A., Table 2: Village Center - Required Minimum Yards Maximum Building Height. 5) Utility facilities for water/wastewater, subject to the applicable standards set forth in Section 5.05.12 of the LDC. 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 (subject to the applicable standards set forth in Section 5.05.12 of the LDC), chickee huts, air conditioning units, satellite antennas, and similar uses and structures. 2 Note: Existing agricultural operations may continue on an interim basis until a Site Development Plan or Subdivision Plat, as the case may be, is approved for a particular parcel. Page 5 of 86 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 6 of 15 Longwater Village SRA (PL20190001836) (1-25-2021) 2) Model homes, sales centers and other temporary uses are permitted throughout Neighborhood General as provided for in LDC Section 5.04.00, and in this SRA Document. 3) Clubhouses and amenity centers for residents and guests, which may include clubhouses, fitness facilities, and typical recreational uses, including swimming pools, tennis courts, pickle ball courts, dog parks, and similar facilities. 4) Neighborhood recreation areas limited to a maximum of 2.0 acres and a maximum of 10,000 square feet of building area. Neighborhood recreation areas may include swimming pools, tennis courts, pickle ball courts, and similar neighborhood recreation facilities. 5) Passive parks, limited to landscaped or natural areas and may includ e hardscape pathways or seating areas, benches, shade structures such as gazebos or pavilions, docks, or piers. 6) Within the commercial area of the Neighborhood General Context Zone, uses accessory to commercial neighborhood scaled retail and office and civic, government, and institutional uses shall be as set forth in Section 5.2.1.B of this SRA Document. Page 6 of 86 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 7 of 15 Longwater Village SRA (PL20190001836) (1-25-2021) 5.1.2. Neighborhood General Development and Design Standards 5.1.2.A. Required Minimum Yards1& Maximum Building Heights: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SINGLE AND TWO FAMILY MULTI-FAMILY CLUBHOUSES/RECREATION AND FITNESS FACILTIES PER 5.1.1. B. (3); NEIGHBORHOOD RECREATION AREAS PER 5.1.1.B.(4) SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED & TWO- FAMILY ZERO LOT LINE & TOWNHOME5 ALF, ILF, CCRC & OTHER MULTI-FAMILY6 PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES MIN. LOT AREA 5,000 S.F. / UNIT 3,000 S.F. / UNIT 2,500 S.F./UNIT 20,000 S.F./LOT N/A MIN. LOT WIDTH 40’ 30’ 20’/UNIT 100’ N/A MIN. FLOOR AREA 1,200 SF 1,200 S.F./ UNIT 1,200 S.F./UNIT 700 S.F./UNIT7 N/A FLOOR AREA RATIO N/A N/A N/A 0.45 (only applies to ALF, ILF, CCRC) N/A MIN. FRONT YARD2 22’ 22’ 22’ 20’ 20’ MIN. SIDE YARD3 5’ 0 OR 5’ 0 or 5’ 10’ 10’ MIN. REAR YARD 10’ 10’ 15’ 20’ 10’ MIN. LAKE SETBACK4 20’ 20’ 20’ 20’ 20’ MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES 10’ 10’ 10’ 15’ OR ½ SUM of BH for Structures Exceeding 35’ BH 10’ MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT - ZONED 35’ 35’ 35’ 3.5 Stories NTE 50’ 3.5 Stories NTE 50’ MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT - ACTUAL 42’ 42’ 42’ 62’ 62’ ACCESSORY STRUCTURES MIN. FRONT YARD SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS MIN. SIDE YARD SPS SPS SPS SPS 10’ MIN. REAR YARD 5’ 5’ 5’ 5’ 5’ MIN. LAKE SETBACK3 10’ 10’ 5’ 5’ 5’ MAX. HEIGHT ZONED & ACTUAL SPS SPS SPS 42’ 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. Setbacks from Park Preserves shall be as set forth in LDC Section 3.05.07.H.3. 2. Front yards shall be measured as follows: − 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 setback along the other frontage shall be a minimum of 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 encroach ing upon, the adjacent sidewalk. 3. 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. 4. The required 20’ lake maintenance easement shall be provided in a separate platted tract and the setback for both principal and accessory structures may be reduced to 0’. 5. Zero Lot Line and Townhome Development means 3 or more attached units, typically one or 2 stories in height. 6. Other Multi-family means 3 or more units other than Zero Lot Line or Townhome Development, typically more than 2 stories in height. 7. Minimum floor area is not applicable to ALF, ILF, or CCRC units. Minimum floor area per unit for rental apartments shall be 550 square feet. Page 7 of 86 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 8 of 15 Longwater Village SRA (PL20190001836) (1-25-2021) 5.2 Village Center Context Zone The Village Center Context Zone includes 20.08± acres of land. 5.2.1. Allowable Uses and Structures The Village Center is mixed use in nature, requiring a minimum of 40 multi-family dwellings, a minimum of 65,000 square feet and maximum of 80,000 square feet of neighborhood-scale commercial and office uses, and a minimum of 26,000 square feet of civic, governmental and institutional uses. A minimum of eight (8) retail or office establishments providing neighborhood-scale commercial and office uses shall be provided. 5.2.1.A. Permitted Uses I. Multi-Family Dwelling Units subject to the applicable development standards set forth in Paragraph 5.1.2.A, Table 1.; and, II. The following neighborhood-scale commercial and office uses, and civic, governmental, and institutional 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. 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 section 5.05.01. 15) Engineering, Architectural and Surveying Services (8711-8713) 16) Essential services, subject to Section 2.01.03. 17) Federal and federally sponsored credit agencies (6111). 18) Food stores (groups 5411 - 5499). 19) Garment pressing, and agents for laundries and drycleaners (7212). 20) Gasoline service stations (5541, subject to LDC Section 5.05.05). 21) General merchandise stores (5331 - 5399). 22) Group care facilities (category I and II, except for homeless shelters); care units, except for homeless shelters; nursing homes; assisted living facilities pursuant to applicable Florida Statutes; and continuing care retirement communities pursuant to applicable Florida Statutes; all subject to Section 5.05.04 of the LDC. Page 8 of 86 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 9 of 15 Longwater Village SRA (PL20190001836) (1-25-2021) 23) Hardware stores (5251). 24) Health services, offices and clinics (8011 - 8049, 8071, 8082, 8092, and 8099). 25 Household appliance stores (5722). 26) Insurance carriers, agents and brokers (6311 - 6399, 6411). 27) Legal services (8111). 28) Libraries (8231). 29) Mortgage bankers and loan correspondents (6162). 30) Paint stores (5231). 31) Passenger Car Rental (7514) 32) Physical fitness facilities (7991; 7911, except discotheques). 33) Public Safety Facilities and other governmental services including, but not limited to, fire, emergency management and law enforcement facilities, and public libraries (8231, 9221, 9222, 9224, 9229, 9111, 9121, 9131, 9199). 34) Real Estate (6531 - 6552). 35) Retail Nurseries, Lawn and Garden Supply Stores (5261). 36) 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). 37) Elementary and Secondary Schools, Colleges, Universities, Professional Schools and Technical Institutes, public or private (8211, 8221-8222) 38) Tax return preparation services (7291). 39) Travel agencies (4724, no other transportation services). 40) United State Postal Service (4311, except major distribution center). 41) Veterinary services (0742, excluding outdoor kenneling). 42) Any other use which is comparable and compatible in nature with foregoing list of permitted uses, is considered to be a neighborhood scale commercial, office, or civic, governmental, or institutional uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Hearing Examiner, pursuant to the applicable procedures set forth in LDC S ection 10.08.00. 5.2.1.B. Accessory Uses 1) Accessory uses to residential multi-family development subject to the applicable development standards set forth in Paragraph 5.1.2.A, Table 1. 2) Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to the permitted neighborhood-scale commercial and office uses, and civic, governmental, and institutional uses above. 3) Parking structures detached or attached, not to exceed 35 feet in Actual height. Page 9 of 86 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 10 of 15 Longwater Village SRA (PL20190001836) (1-25-2021) 5.2.2. Village Center Development and Design Standards 5.2.2.A. Required Minimum Yards (Setbacks) and Maximum Building Heights: Table 2: Village Center - Required Minimum Yards Maximum Building Height Footnotes: 1. Retail and office uses are subject to a maximum FAR of 0.5. Civic, governmental and institutional uses are subject to a maximum FAR of 0.6. 2. Tracts abutting the minimum required 25’wide landscape buffer (located in a separate platted tract adjacent to Oil Well Road) shall provide a front yard setback, measured from the abutting landscape buffer tract. Tracts abutting the project entrance road shall provide a front yard setback measured from the 10-foot landscape buffer tract adjacent to the entry road. 3. Except as described in footnote 2 above, front yards for parcels abutting a street or internal driveway shall be measured from the right-of-way line. 4. The required 20’ lake maintenance easement shall be provided in a separate platted tract and the setback for both principal and accessory structures may be reduced to 0’. 5. The minimum floor area is not applicable to ALF, ILF, or CCRC units. The minimum floor area per unit for rental apartments shall be 550 square feet. S.P.S. = same as for principal structure; NTE = not to exceed; S.F. = square feet; BH = building height; N/A = not applicable DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ALF, ILF, CCRC & MULTI-FAMILY ONLY BUILDINGS NON-RESIDENTIAL AND MIXED-USE BUILDINGS1 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 Unit5 800 S.F. for Commercial Units 700 S.F. for Residential Units MIN. SETBACK FROM OILWELL ROAD AND ENTRANCE ROAD2 20’ 20’ FRONT YARDS3 20’ 0’ or 20’ MINIMUM SETBACK FROM A RESIDENTIAL TRACT 0’ 20’ MINIMUM SETBACK FROM A NONRESIDENTIAL TRACT 15’ 5’ MIN. LAKE SETBACK4 20’ 20’ 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 0.45 (only applies to ALF, ILF, and CCRC) See footnote 1. 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 SETBACK4 20’ 20’ MIN. PRESERVE SETBACK 10’ 10’ MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES 10’ 10’ MAX. HEIGHT - ZONED & ACTUAL 35’ 35’ Page 10 of 86 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 11 of 15 Longwater Village SRA (PL20190001836) (1-25-2021) VI. EXCAVATIONS The following criteria shall apply to excavations within the Longwater SRA: All excavation permit applications within the Longwater SRA and related Stewardship Sending Areas (SSAs) shall be reviewed as Development Excavation Permit applications. Within the boundary of the Longwater SRA and related SSA(s), fill material may be hauled from one construction site to another. Fill may be placed up to, but not within, the edge of all conservation easements, preserves, and Water Retention Area (WRA’s). VII. DEVIATIONS 7.1 Neighborhood General 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 Amenity Center sites and related uses to be a maximum of 30,000 square feet each. 2) A Deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.1.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 15 feet for zero lot line and townhome development, as set forth in Table 1: Neighborhood General - Required Minimum Yards and Maximum Building Height, excluding County owned roadways. 7.2 Transportation Standards 1) A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.1.b, “Figures 5, 6, and 7, Local Street Neighborhood General,” which requires a 6-foot-wide planting area between the travel lane and the sidewalk, to instead allow for a 5-foot-wide planting area in the same location 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. 2) 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 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 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. 7.3 Sign Standards 1) A deviation from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.5.a, “On-premises directional signs within residential districts,” 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 Page 11 of 86 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 12 of 15 Longwater Village SRA (PL20190001836) (1-25-2021) a minimum setback of 5 feet from the edge of the roadway, paved surface or back of the curb, limited to signs internal to the SRA only. This excludes signage along County owned roadways. 7.4 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 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. 7.5 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 Amenity Center sites 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 that “LSPA [littoral shelf planting areas] shall be concentrated in one location of the lake(s), preferably adjacent to a preserve area,” to instead allow for required littoral shelf planting areas to be aggregated in certain specific development lakes, including the development lake and WRA system that runs along the eastern perimeter of the SRA. 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. VIII. DEVELOPER/OWNER COMMITMENTS 8.1. Planning A. One entity (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 procedure s 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 a separate Owner/Developer Agreement. At the time of this SRA approval, the Managing Entity is Collier Enterprises Management, Inc. 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 the Owner/Developer sells off tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to the County that includes, if applicable, an acknowledgement of the commitments required Page 12 of 86 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 13 of 15 Longwater Village SRA (PL20190001836) (1-25-2021) 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 provide an annual SRA monitoring report, in a form similar to a PUD monitoring report, identifying the number of residential units constructed by type within the SRA, and amount of retail, office, civic, government, and institution square footage constructed within the SRA. The Report shall also address whether or not or to what degree the Owner/Developer Commitments contained herein have been satisfied. 8.2. Environmental A. The Owner/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. 8.3. Transportation A. Intensity of uses under any development scenario for the SRA is limited to a maximum of 2,078 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 application for SDP/SDPA or subdivision plat approval. B. The Owner shall convey an easement to Collier County, at no cost to County and free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, in a form acceptable to Collier County to accommodate a transit stop and shelter within the SRA at a location agreed to by the Collier County Public Transit Division Director. As part of the site improvements authorized by the initial Site Development Plan within the SRA, the Owner shall, at its sole expense, install the 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 and convey the easement. Page 13 of 86 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 14 of 15 Longwater Village SRA (PL20190001836) (1-25-2021) C. No more than 1,820 dwelling units will be issued certificates of occupancy until a minimum of 30,000 sq. ft. of the neighborhood retail and office uses and a minimum of 20 multi- family dwelling units have been developed in the Village Center and issued certificate(s) of occupancy. 8.4 Parks and Recreation A. The SRA shall include a minimum of one (1) children’s playground that conforms to appropriate ASTM standards, which shall be a minimum of 2,500 square feet in size. The location of this playground shall be identified at the time of subdivision plat or SDP, as the case may be, for the development phase or area within which the playground is to be included. 8.5 School A. The Applicant shall reserve School Site A and School Site B (School Reservation), defined on Exhibit C for the District School Board of Collier County, Florida (District). Upon Approval and non-appealable SRAs for Longwater and Bellmar Villages, and all required and non-appealable permits from the South Florida Water Management District or any federal or state regulatory authorities, the District shall have up to two years to provide written Notice to Applicant of its intent to purchase either or both of the parcels. After providing Notice, the District shall close on the parcel or parcels within 6 months of providing Notice to the Applicant. In accordance with Florida Statutes Section 1013.14(1)(b), the District will obtain two (2) app raisals for the School Site A and B from independent state certified appraisers, to establish the value of the School Sites. The appraisal date shall be the day prior to the Approval of the SRAs. The average appraised value of the two appraisals, not to exceed $23,000/acre, shall constitute the amount of credit available to the Applicant as a prepayment of Educational Impact Fees upon conveyance of the School sites to the District. With respect to the conveyance of real property, by the Applicant to the District, the School Reservation of School Site A and B to the District fully mitigates for the development’s impact to the elementary, middle and high schools needed to serve Rivergrass, Longwater, and Belmar SRAs. The Applicant will use commercially rea sonable efforts to include School Site B within Owners’ conceptual ERP permits for Bellmar Village from the South Florida Water Management District and the Army Corp of Engineers. If Owners are successful in including School Site B within its conceptual permits for Bellmar Village, the District shall reimburse the Owners’ for any Panther (or other species) mitigation required by such permits, upon actual payment and completion of the mitigation and Owners’ written request to District, which reimbursement shall be calculated by Owners’ on a proportionate share basis of the acreage of School Site B to the total acreage of the Bellmar Village project. The reimbursement amount shall be added to the value of the real property conveyed to the District and shall become part of the Educational Impact Fee credit issued to the Applicant/Owner. School Site A shall be used only for a public high school and/or middle school and School Site B shall be used only for a public elementary school, and not for any other pu rpose, Page 14 of 86 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 15 of 15 Longwater Village SRA (PL20190001836) (1-25-2021) which restrictions shall be deed restrictions attached to and incorporated in the conveyance deed. School Site A shall have direct and permanent access (in accordance with County Standards) to 56th Avenue NE, utilizing a non-exclusive access easement. School Site B shall have direct and permanent access (in accordance with County Standards) to 2nd Avenue NE, utilizing a non-exclusive access easement. The District shall be responsible for the construction of all access improvements from the edge of the public right-of-way into the School Sites. The District shall cause the School Sites’ storm water management systems to be designed and permitted to provide the necessary onsite water management system including the quality and quantity of water storage required for the development of the School Sites. The discharge rates of the School Sites water management systems shall be consistent with the agricultural permitted rate of discharge at the time each water management system is constructed, in accordance with SFWMD Permit Number 11-00112- S for School Site A, and SFWMD Permit Number 11-01178-S or the subsequent SFWMD development permit for School Site B. The offsite discharges of water from the School Sites to the agricultural water management area within the Shaggy Cypress Water Management District, as provided in the South Florida Water Management District Permit System Area shall be designed to provide for pump discharges and/or elevated discharge conditions within the Shaggy Cypress Water Management District. Applicant will convey a 10-foot wide underground utility easement over and across School Site B adjacent to the future Big Cypress Parkway to the Lee County Electric Cooperative. 8.6 Other A. Street trees will be provided throughout the Village. Within the Village Center Context Zone, street trees shall be spaced forty feet (40’) on center and within the Neighborhood General Context Zone, street trees shall be spaces 60 feet on center. Street trees 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 15 of 86 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 16 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 146Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 17 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 147Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 18 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 148Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 19 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 149Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 20 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 150Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 21 of 869.A.1.b Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Page 22 of 869.A.1.b Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Page 23 of 869.A.1.b Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Page 24 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 154Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 25 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 155Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 26 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 156Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 27 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 157Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 28 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 158Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 29 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 159Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 30 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 160Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 31 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 161Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 32 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 162Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 33 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 163Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 34 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 164Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 35 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 165Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 36 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 166Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 37 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 167Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 38 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 168Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 39 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 169Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 40 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 170Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 41 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 171Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 42 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 172Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 43 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 173Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 44 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 174Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 45 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 175Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 46 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 176Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 47 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 177Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 48 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 178Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 49 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 179Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 50 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 180Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 51 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 181Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 52 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 182Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 53 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 183Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 54 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 184Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 55 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 185Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 56 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 186Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 57 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 187Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 58 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 188Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 59 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 189Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 60 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 190Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 61 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 191Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 62 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 192Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 63 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 193Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 64 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 194Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 65 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 195Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 66 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 196Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 67 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 197Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 68 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 198Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 69 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 199Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 70 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 200Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 71 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 201Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 72 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 202Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 73 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 203Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 74 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 204Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 75 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 205Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 76 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 206Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 77 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 207Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 78 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 208Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 79 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 209Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 80 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 210Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 81 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 211Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 82 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 212Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 83 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 213Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 84 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 214Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 85 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 215Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 86 of 869.A.1.bPacket Pg. 216Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Longwater SRA Credit Agreement - SSA 14 & SSA 17 (1-21-2021) STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA CREDIT AGREEMENT SSA 14 & SSA 17 THIS STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA CREDIT AGREEMENT (hereinafter referred to as the (“Agreement”) is made and entered into this ____ day of ___________, 2021, by and between COLLIER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereinafter referred to as “County” whose mailing address is the Harmon Turner Building, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida 34112, Collier Enterprises Management, Inc. hereinafter referred to as “Applicant” whose mailing address is 2550 Goodlette Road North, Suite 100, Naples, Florida 34103, and Collier Land Holdings, Ltd., a Florida limited Partnership and CDC Land Investments, LLC., a Florida limited liability company, hereinafter collectively referred to as “Owner”, whose mailing addresses are 2550 Goodlette Road North, Suite 100, Naples, Florida 34103, for the purpose of designating the number of “Stewardship Sending Area” (SSA) Credits consumed in the designation of Longwater Village as a Stewardship Receiving Area and the source of those SSA credits pursuant to Section 4.08.07.C.11 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). RECITALS 1. Applicant has applied for SRA designation for Longwater Village and said SRA is approximately 999.81 acres in size. 2. The County has reviewed the SRA Designation Application, along with all support documentation and information required by Section 4.08.07 of the LDC and determined that SRA designation for the Longwater Village is appropriate. 3. The County, Applicant and Owner have reached agreement on the number of Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) Credits required to be utilized for such designation. 4. The County, Applicant and Owner agree that this SRA Credit Agreement is in compliance with and fully meets the requirements of the Collier County Growth Management Plan and LDC. EXHIBIT C 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Longwater SRA Credit Agreement - SSA 14 & SSA 17 (1-21-2021) NOW THEREFORE in consideration of the above premises and the expenditure of credits and authorizations granted hereby and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 1. Applicant and Owner are hereby utilizing and transferring 6,697.76 Stewardship Credits (Credits) which shall be applied to the SRA land described in Exhibit “A” in order to carry out the plan of development on the 999.81 acres proposed in the Longwater Village Development Document and summarized hereinafter. 2. Exhibit “A” is the legal description of the 999.81 acres that constitute the Longwater Village SRA. 3. Attached hereto is Exhibit “B” the Longwater Village Master Plan which depicts the land uses within the SRA. Also attached as Exhibit “C” is the Longwater Village Land Use Summary which identifies the number of residential dwelling units, gross leasable square footage of retail and office uses, and the other land uses depicted on the Longwater Village Master Plan. 4. Pursuant to Section 4.08.07.B.2 of the LDC, the designation of a SRA requires eight Stewardship Credits to be transferred to an SRA in exchange for the development of one acre of land within Longwater Village. Applicant and Owner are transferring enough credits to allow development on 837.22 acres, since 162.59 acres of excess open space does not consume Credits. Once credits are transferred, they may not be recaptured by Applicant and Owner. 5. Applicant and Owner will be utilizing credits generated from Stewardship Sending Area 14 (SSA approved) in the amount of 2,515.70 Credits and from Stewardship Sending Area 17 (SSA pending) in the amount of 4,182.06 Credits. 6. Pursuant to Resolution No._______, the County has approved Longwater Village as an SRA consisting of 999.81 acres and has approved the Longwater Village Master Plan and Development Document. 7. Applicant and Owner acknowledge that development of SRA land may not commence until a SRA Credit Agreement Memorandum is recorded with the Collier County Clerk of Courts. 8. This Agreement may only be amended by written agreement of all the parties hereto. Page 2 of 16 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Longwater SRA Credit Agreement - SSA 14 & SSA 17 (1-21-2021) IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized officers or representatives and their official seals hereto affixed the day and year first written above. Attest: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, Clerk COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ____________________________ By: _________________________________ , Deputy Clerk _________________________, Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: By:______________________________ Assistant County Attorney WITNESS: COLLIER ENTERPRISES MANAGEMENT, INC. (Signature) ________________________________ By:_______________________________ (Print full name) Printed Name:________________________ Title: _____________________________ (Signature) (Print full name) STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing Stewardship Receiving Area Credit Agreement was executed before me this ____day of ___________, 2021, by means of _____ physical presence or _____ online notarization, by _______________, as _____________ of Collier Enterprises Management, Inc., who is personally known to me ________ or who has produced _________ as identification. ___________________________________ Notary Public Print Name__________________________ (SEAL) Certificate No._______________________ My Commissioner Expires__________ Page 3 of 16 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Longwater SRA Credit Agreement - SSA 14 & SSA 17 (1-21-2021) WITNESS: COLLIER LAND HOLDINGS, LTD, A Florida limited liability limited partnership By: Collier Enterprises, Inc. a (Signature) Florida Corporation, it’s General Partner ________________________________ By:_______________________________ (Print full name) Printed Name:________________________ Title: _____________________________ (Signature) (Print full name) WITNESS: CDC LAND INVESTMENTS, LLC, A Florida limited liability company (Signature) ________________________________ By:_______________________________ (Print full name) Printed Name:________________________ Title: _____________________________ (Signature) (Print full name) STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing Stewardship Receiving Area Credit Agreement was executed before me this ____day of ___________, 2021, by means of _____ physical presence or _____ online notarization, by _______________, as _____________ of Collier Enterprises, Inc., General Partner of Collier Land Holdings, Ltd., who is personally known to me ________ or who has produced _________ as identification. ___________________________________ Notary Public Print Name__________________________ (SEAL) Certificate No._______________________ My Commissioner Expires__________ Page 4 of 16 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Longwater SRA Credit Agreement - SSA 14 & SSA 17 (1-21-2021) STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing Stewardship Receiving Area Credit Agreement was executed before me this ____day of ___________, 2021, by means of _____ physical presence or _____ online notarization, by _______________, as _____________ of CDC Land Investments, LLC, who is personally known to me ________ or who has produced _________ as identification. ___________________________________ Notary Public Print Name__________________________ (SEAL) Certificate No._______________________ My Commissioner Expires__________ Page 5 of 16 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Longwater SRA Credit Agreement - SSA 14 & SSA 17 (1-21-2021) SRA CREDIT AGREEMENT EXHIBIT “A” LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF LONGWATER SRA TRACT 1 ALL THAT PART OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF AFORESAID SECTION 23; THENCE S 89°44'59" W ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 23 A DISTANCE OF 770.02 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTH LINE S 00°15'01" E A DISTANCE OF 50.00 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH A LINE 50.00 FEET SOUTHERLY FROM AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 23, SAID INTERSECTION ALSO BEING THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF OIL WELL ROAD (200’ R.O.W.) AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN BEING DESCRIBED; THENCE S 00°15'01" E A DISTANCE OF 132.67 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS S 89°44'59" W AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 105.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 45°24'58" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 83.23 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 260.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 34°17'57" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 155.64 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 440.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09°35'51" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 73.70 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 700.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 25°06'08" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 306.68 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 349.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 32°28'18" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 197.79 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1500.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 44°43'03" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 1170.70 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 300.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 75°37'38" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 395.98 FEET; THENCE S 58°44'36" W A DISTANCE OF 390.72 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 100.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 69°52'03" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 121.94 FEET; THENCE S 11°07'28" E A DISTANCE OF 438.61 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 400.00 FEET; Page 6 of 16 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Longwater SRA Credit Agreement - SSA 14 & SSA 17 (1-21-2021) THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 85°28'03" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 596.68 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 200.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 50°30'49" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 176.33 FEET; THENCE S 23°49'47" W A DISTANCE OF 390.51 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 400.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 36°52'30" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 257.44 FEET; THENCE S 13°02'43" E A DISTANCE OF 465.37 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 240.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 103°55'42" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 435.33 FEET; THENCE N 89°07'01" W A DISTANCE OF 1055.37 FEET; THENCE N 00°47'57" W A DISTANCE OF 97.59 FEET; THENCE N 52°33'15" W A DISTANCE OF 70.08 FEET; THENCE N 57°28'41" W A DISTANCE OF 90.17 FEET; THENCE N 54°29'18" W A DISTANCE OF 56.40 FEET; THENCE N 54°52'27" W A DISTANCE OF 222.49 FEET; THENCE N 55°41'14" W A DISTANCE OF 108.91 FEET; THENCE N 64°37'19" W A DISTANCE OF 52.01 FEET; THENCE N 64°31'02" W A DISTANCE OF 71.77 FEET; THENCE N 25°28'58" E A DISTANCE OF 46.08 FEET; THENCE N 17°41'24" E A DISTANCE OF 159.37 FEET; THENCE N 19°24'48" E A DISTANCE OF 130.30 FEET; THENCE N 17°41'12" E A DISTANCE OF 152.31 FEET; THENCE N 19°39'43" E A DISTANCE OF 163.63 FEET; THENCE N 16°58'54" E A DISTANCE OF 115.30 FEET; THENCE N 19°45'12" E A DISTANCE OF 95.09 FEET; THENCE N 18°30'01" E A DISTANCE OF 108.19 FEET; THENCE N 07°16'45" E A DISTANCE OF 105.99 FEET; THENCE N 07°21'52" E A DISTANCE OF 1053.05 FEET; THENCE N 06°59'59" E A DISTANCE OF 321.33 FEET; THENCE N 09°15'09" E A DISTANCE OF 78.59 FEET; THENCE N 08°05'25" E A DISTANCE OF 95.78 FEET; THENCE N 06°17'00" E A DISTANCE OF 93.24 FEET; THENCE N 02°27'15" E A DISTANCE OF 72.03 FEET; THENCE N 02°13'12" W A DISTANCE OF 94.12 FEET; THENCE N 04°52'08" W A DISTANCE OF 109.91 FEET; THENCE N 04°16'40" W A DISTANCE OF 108.24 FEET; THENCE N 05°59'47" W A DISTANCE OF 114.91 FEET; THENCE N 04°38'07" W A DISTANCE OF 258.02 FEET; THENCE N 04°52'41" W A DISTANCE OF 67.12 FEET; THENCE N 86°56'23" W A DISTANCE OF 6.72 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON- TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS S 61°34'15" W AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 260.00 FEET; Page 7 of 16 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Longwater SRA Credit Agreement - SSA 14 & SSA 17 (1-21-2021) THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 62°08'22" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 281.98 FEET; THENCE N 03°35'48" W A DISTANCE OF 43.18 FEET; THENCE S 81°12'45" W A DISTANCE OF 65.23 FEET; THENCE S 78°47'29" W A DISTANCE OF 97.37 FEET; THENCE S 80°53'38" W A DISTANCE OF 85.87 FEET; THENCE S 82°51'24" W A DISTANCE OF 71.47 FEET; THENCE S 26°22'26" W A DISTANCE OF 82.01 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON- TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS S 72°06'35" W AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 145.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 28°18'25" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 71.64 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS S 43°21'21" E AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 240.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 34°06'47" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 142.89 FEET; THENCE N 80°45'27" E A DISTANCE OF 217.01 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 340.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 51°27'13" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 305.33 FEET; THENCE N 01°50'26" W A DISTANCE OF 102.10 FEET; THENCE S 88°36'14" E A DISTANCE OF 412.53 FEET; THENCE S 88°38'16" E A DISTANCE OF 496.61 FEET; THENCE N 00°15'01" W A DISTANCE OF 885.00 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH A LINE 50.00 FEET SOUTHERLY FROM AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 23, SAID INTERSECTION ALSO BEING THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF OIL WELL ROAD (200’ R.O.W.); THENCE N 89°44'59" E ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE A DISTANCE OF 1709.53 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED. CONTAINING A TOTAL AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 217.18 ACRES. REFERENCE ABB DRAWING #12347-SD Page 8 of 16 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Longwater SRA Credit Agreement - SSA 14 & SSA 17 (1-21-2021) LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF LONGWATER SRA TRACT 2 ALL THAT PART OF SECTIONS 22, 23, 26, 27, 34 AND 35, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF AFORESAID SECTION 27; THENCE N 89°44'09" E A DISTANCE OF 210.00 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH A LINE 210.00 FEET EASTERLY FROM AND PARALLEL WITH THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 27 AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN BEING DESCRIBED; THENCE N 00°15'51" W ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE A DISTANCE OF 556.73 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID PARALLEL LINE N 89°44'09" E A DISTANCE OF 42.00 FEET; THENCE S 81°09'45" E A DISTANCE OF 24.85 FEET; THENCE S 81°12'57" E A DISTANCE OF 43.68 FEET; THENCE S 67°50'53" E A DISTANCE OF 24.15 FEET; THENCE N 51°13'46" E A DISTANCE OF 14.44 FEET; THENCE N 83°34'26" E A DISTANCE OF 20.97 FEET; THENCE N 85°47'56" E A DISTANCE OF 58.59 FEET; THENCE S 81°25'21" E A DISTANCE OF 65.83 FEET; THENCE S 82°24'10" E A DISTANCE OF 79.32 FEET; THENCE S 81°49'19" E A DISTANCE OF 85.24 FEET; THENCE S 83°07'42" E A DISTANCE OF 94.54 FEET; THENCE S 83°26'41" E A DISTANCE OF 106.68 FEET; THENCE S 85°55'20" E A DISTANCE OF 176.04 FEET; THENCE S 87°21'52" E A DISTANCE OF 151.35 FEET; THENCE S 83°34'18" E A DISTANCE OF 108.51 FEET; THENCE S 87°03'30" E A DISTANCE OF 191.80 FEET; THENCE S 89°27'05" E A DISTANCE OF 171.39 FEET; THENCE S 87°33'10" E A DISTANCE OF 126.34 FEET; THENCE S 88°43'19" E A DISTANCE OF 98.64 FEET; THENCE S 86°48'38" E A DISTANCE OF 96.80 FEET; THENCE S 89°40'09" E A DISTANCE OF 130.03 FEET; THENCE S 87°42'01" E A DISTANCE OF 124.74 FEET; THENCE S 87°24'48" E A DISTANCE OF 107.14 FEET; THENCE S 87°48'06" E A DISTANCE OF 127.16 FEET; THENCE S 88°11'19" E A DISTANCE OF 153.59 FEET; THENCE N 89°59'01" E A DISTANCE OF 59.76 FEET; THENCE N 02°51'20" E A DISTANCE OF 51.25 FEET; THENCE N 03°37'35" W A DISTANCE OF 40.26 FEET; THENCE N 07°54'23" E A DISTANCE OF 75.33 FEET; THENCE N 10°03'15" E A DISTANCE OF 64.18 FEET; THENCE N 11°19'06" E A DISTANCE OF 80.02 FEET; THENCE N 10°47'45" E A DISTANCE OF 79.50 FEET; THENCE N 09°49'17" E A DISTANCE OF 94.43 FEET; THENCE N 10°03'11" E A DISTANCE OF 127.62 FEET; Page 9 of 16 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Longwater SRA Credit Agreement - SSA 14 & SSA 17 (1-21-2021) THENCE N 09°16'25" E A DISTANCE OF 110.89 FEET; THENCE N 10°39'25" E A DISTANCE OF 144.00 FEET; THENCE N 08°44'32" E A DISTANCE OF 112.11 FEET; THENCE N 10°18'07" E A DISTANCE OF 145.41 FEET; THENCE N 10°24'56" E A DISTANCE OF 170.23 FEET; THENCE N 09°04'56" E A DISTANCE OF 101.38 FEET; THENCE N 10°37'21" E A DISTANCE OF 181.28 FEET; THENCE N 09°57'51" E A DISTANCE OF 121.94 FEET; THENCE N 09°16'33" E A DISTANCE OF 159.76 FEET; THENCE N 08°05'45" E A DISTANCE OF 73.91 FEET; THENCE N 12°06'17" E A DISTANCE OF 47.98 FEET; THENCE N 07°00'32" E A DISTANCE OF 96.94 FEET; THENCE N 12°44'08" E A DISTANCE OF 48.22 FEET; THENCE N 29°04'09" E A DISTANCE OF 51.97 FEET; THENCE N 56°52'43" E A DISTANCE OF 32.67 FEET; THENCE S 79°47'55" E A DISTANCE OF 110.65 FEET; THENCE S 79°01'08" E A DISTANCE OF 91.37 FEET; THENCE S 78°51'16" E A DISTANCE OF 140.42 FEET; THENCE S 79°29'47" E A DISTANCE OF 89.62 FEET; THENCE S 79°26'32" E A DISTANCE OF 117.52 FEET; THENCE S 79°45'16" E A DISTANCE OF 73.96 FEET; THENCE N 46°57'48" E A DISTANCE OF 29.89 FEET; THENCE N 10°52'29" E A DISTANCE OF 123.93 FEET; THENCE N 07°32'25" E A DISTANCE OF 88.34 FEET; THENCE N 08°07'07" E A DISTANCE OF 139.48 FEET; THENCE N 07°54'40" E A DISTANCE OF 114.89 FEET; THENCE N 08°49'12" E A DISTANCE OF 128.22 FEET; THENCE N 10°33'53" E A DISTANCE OF 99.66 FEET; THENCE N 08°25'59" E A DISTANCE OF 62.05 FEET; THENCE N 26°54'30" E A DISTANCE OF 49.71 FEET; THENCE N 62°45'00" E A DISTANCE OF 42.18 FEET; THENCE S 89°01'30" E A DISTANCE OF 98.14 FEET; THENCE S 88°17'00" E A DISTANCE OF 127.41 FEET; THENCE S 89°11'00" E A DISTANCE OF 106.29 FEET; THENCE S 89°22'11" E A DISTANCE OF 181.67 FEET; THENCE S 89°07'05" E A DISTANCE OF 73.95 FEET; THENCE N 89°37'05" E A DISTANCE OF 158.00 FEET; THENCE N 01°22'47" E A DISTANCE OF 56.60 FEET; THENCE N 01°05'56" E A DISTANCE OF 175.96 FEET; THENCE N 00°58'55" E A DISTANCE OF 120.19 FEET; THENCE N 00°57'09" E A DISTANCE OF 106.25 FEET; THENCE N 01°25'58" E A DISTANCE OF 172.25 FEET; THENCE N 00°59'37" E A DISTANCE OF 129.98 FEET; THENCE N 02°13'52" E A DISTANCE OF 174.99 FEET; THENCE N 01°13'07" E A DISTANCE OF 170.11 FEET; THENCE N 12°23'44" E A DISTANCE OF 65.85 FEET; THENCE N 65°07'26" E A DISTANCE OF 58.11 FEET; Page 10 of 16 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Longwater SRA Credit Agreement - SSA 14 & SSA 17 (1-21-2021) THENCE N 87°35'09" E A DISTANCE OF 97.09 FEET; THENCE S 89°03'01" E A DISTANCE OF 139.85 FEET; THENCE N 89°08'08" E A DISTANCE OF 159.59 FEET; THENCE N 89°55'58" E A DISTANCE OF 184.84 FEET; THENCE S 89°48'17" E A DISTANCE OF 242.95 FEET; THENCE S 89°18'36" E A DISTANCE OF 127.18 FEET; THENCE N 88°20'13" E A DISTANCE OF 150.51 FEET; THENCE S 89°00'04" E A DISTANCE OF 160.58 FEET; THENCE N 88°46'01" E A DISTANCE OF 151.90 FEET; THENCE S 79°22'05" E A DISTANCE OF 52.74 FEET; THENCE S 38°06'03" E A DISTANCE OF 57.21 FEET; THENCE S 01°21'28" E A DISTANCE OF 145.54 FEET; THENCE S 00°55'57" W A DISTANCE OF 150.31 FEET; THENCE S 01°33'09" W A DISTANCE OF 207.79 FEET; THENCE S 01°31'44" W A DISTANCE OF 141.52 FEET; THENCE S 01°23'16" W A DISTANCE OF 164.71 FEET; THENCE S 01°00'09" W A DISTANCE OF 148.59 FEET; THENCE S 00°45'36" W A DISTANCE OF 132.20 FEET; THENCE S 16°36'47" E A DISTANCE OF 77.60 FEET; THENCE S 86°36'24" E A DISTANCE OF 218.27 FEET; THENCE N 84°38'32" E A DISTANCE OF 57.46 FEET; THENCE N 88°29'19" E A DISTANCE OF 188.83 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON- TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS S 13°14'14" W AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 142.04 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 38°04'57" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 94.41 FEET; THENCE S 33°28'54" E A DISTANCE OF 33.93 FEET; THENCE S 23°45'58" E A DISTANCE OF 31.88 FEET; THENCE S 07°59'32" E A DISTANCE OF 22.70 FEET; THENCE S 08°09'03" W A DISTANCE OF 100.81 FEET; THENCE S 08°57'38" W A DISTANCE OF 111.86 FEET; THENCE S 08°49'05" W A DISTANCE OF 400.00 FEET; THENCE S 07°59'07" W A DISTANCE OF 98.77 FEET; THENCE S 08°51'00" W A DISTANCE OF 462.69 FEET; THENCE S 07°42'34" W A DISTANCE OF 120.29 FEET; THENCE S 10°03'37" W A DISTANCE OF 256.55 FEET; THENCE S 08°03'15" W A DISTANCE OF 87.61 FEET; THENCE S 07°57'36" W A DISTANCE OF 129.24 FEET; THENCE S 08°50'57" W A DISTANCE OF 158.37 FEET; THENCE S 10°16'55" W A DISTANCE OF 137.59 FEET; THENCE S 07°03'24" W A DISTANCE OF 160.41 FEET; THENCE S 09°24'12" W A DISTANCE OF 179.42 FEET; THENCE S 06°37'32" W A DISTANCE OF 158.52 FEET; THENCE S 09°53'05" W A DISTANCE OF 158.01 FEET; THENCE S 21°33'21" W A DISTANCE OF 55.08 FEET; THENCE S 82°19'46" W A DISTANCE OF 77.36 FEET; THENCE N 89°13'46" W A DISTANCE OF 151.12 FEET; Page 11 of 16 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Longwater SRA Credit Agreement - SSA 14 & SSA 17 (1-21-2021) THENCE N 89°21'51" W A DISTANCE OF 108.57 FEET; THENCE N 85°59'59" W A DISTANCE OF 198.45 FEET; THENCE S 15°53'00" W A DISTANCE OF 96.05 FEET; THENCE S 07°02'17" W A DISTANCE OF 26.49 FEET; THENCE S 37°20'43" W A DISTANCE OF 68.14 FEET; THENCE S 31°23'33" W A DISTANCE OF 40.71 FEET; THENCE S 16°20'58" W A DISTANCE OF 220.13 FEET; THENCE S 22°59'53" W A DISTANCE OF 41.27 FEET; THENCE S 18°29'23" W A DISTANCE OF 69.29 FEET; THENCE S 08°48'18" W A DISTANCE OF 56.10 FEET; THENCE S 10°10'49" W A DISTANCE OF 65.97 FEET; THENCE S 05°30'03" W A DISTANCE OF 45.04 FEET; THENCE S 06°57'16" W A DISTANCE OF 106.82 FEET; THENCE S 08°43'39" W A DISTANCE OF 105.41 FEET; THENCE S 08°55'48" W A DISTANCE OF 91.41 FEET; THENCE S 24°00'42" W A DISTANCE OF 77.21 FEET; THENCE S 09°30'12" W A DISTANCE OF 55.93 FEET; THENCE S 08°14'59" W A DISTANCE OF 126.14 FEET; THENCE S 08°53'46" W A DISTANCE OF 119.38 FEET; THENCE S 08°24'46" W A DISTANCE OF 145.38 FEET; THENCE S 08°20'38" W A DISTANCE OF 216.11 FEET; THENCE S 08°26'17" W A DISTANCE OF 152.97 FEET; THENCE S 08°18'20" W A DISTANCE OF 131.25 FEET; THENCE S 04°08'24" W A DISTANCE OF 228.36 FEET; THENCE S 03°50'33" W A DISTANCE OF 214.51 FEET; THENCE S 04°31'40" W A DISTANCE OF 180.53 FEET; THENCE S 04°04'11" W A DISTANCE OF 292.07 FEET; THENCE S 04°08'09" W A DISTANCE OF 211.01 FEET; THENCE S 04°07'35" W A DISTANCE OF 350.99 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 143.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 88°27'15" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 220.77 FEET; THENCE N 87°25'10" W A DISTANCE OF 263.63 FEET; THENCE S 56°31'23" W A DISTANCE OF 414.66 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 57°01'49" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 24.88 FEET; THENCE S 00°30'26" E A DISTANCE OF 645.03 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 60°47'29" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 26.53 FEET; THENCE S 61°17'55" E A DISTANCE OF 999.19 FEET; THENCE S 75°46'34" E A DISTANCE OF 12.50 FEET; THENCE N 89°49'28" E A DISTANCE OF 334.67 FEET; THENCE S 20°39'26" E A DISTANCE OF 334.38 FEET; THENCE S 39°21'06" W A DISTANCE OF 979.22 FEET; Page 12 of 16 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Longwater SRA Credit Agreement - SSA 14 & SSA 17 (1-21-2021) THENCE N 34°40'36" W A DISTANCE OF 115.45 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON- TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS S 52°57'38" W AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 28.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 43°56'52" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 21.48 FEET; THENCE S 89°44'47" W A DISTANCE OF 204.14 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON- TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS N 00°27'23" W AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 142.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 53°45'39" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 133.24 FEET; THENCE N 36°53'55" W A DISTANCE OF 134.23 FEET; THENCE N 40°42'25" W A DISTANCE OF 39.74 FEET; THENCE N 36°14'22" W A DISTANCE OF 229.41 FEET; THENCE N 36°53'55" W A DISTANCE OF 663.78 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 77°05'58" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 33.64 FEET; THENCE S 66°00'07" W A DISTANCE OF 1347.27 FEET; THENCE S 60°11'58" W A DISTANCE OF 35.81 FEET; THENCE N 31°43'05" W A DISTANCE OF 38.54 FEET; THENCE N 36°09'51" W A DISTANCE OF 40.59 FEET; THENCE N 20°45'08" W A DISTANCE OF 21.76 FEET; THENCE N 29°12'25" W A DISTANCE OF 26.75 FEET; THENCE N 21°48'56" W A DISTANCE OF 51.21 FEET; THENCE N 32°54'14" W A DISTANCE OF 137.82 FEET; THENCE N 40°35'17" W A DISTANCE OF 78.60 FEET; THENCE N 68°24'48" W A DISTANCE OF 37.30 FEET; THENCE N 53°10'07" W A DISTANCE OF 32.15 FEET; THENCE N 21°13'51" E A DISTANCE OF 40.37 FEET; THENCE N 22°02'47" W A DISTANCE OF 44.59 FEET; THENCE N 07°21'32" W A DISTANCE OF 56.07 FEET; THENCE N 06°28'35" E A DISTANCE OF 66.40 FEET; THENCE N 09°56'22" E A DISTANCE OF 69.15 FEET; THENCE N 03°38'16" E A DISTANCE OF 51.88 FEET; THENCE N 07°17'28" E A DISTANCE OF 82.16 FEET; THENCE N 06°29'56" E A DISTANCE OF 74.86 FEET; THENCE N 06°07'02" E A DISTANCE OF 85.01 FEET; THENCE N 03°46'47" E A DISTANCE OF 82.82 FEET; THENCE N 05°23'36" E A DISTANCE OF 74.88 FEET; THENCE N 02°17'48" E A DISTANCE OF 105.33 FEET; THENCE N 01°38'19" E A DISTANCE OF 59.59 FEET; THENCE N 00°48'14" E A DISTANCE OF 50.18 FEET; THENCE N 02°25'45" W A DISTANCE OF 70.13 FEET; THENCE N 00°54'02" E A DISTANCE OF 73.67 FEET; THENCE N 00°51'34" W A DISTANCE OF 54.76 FEET; THENCE N 15°43'00" W A DISTANCE OF 48.82 FEET; THENCE N 13°29'58" E A DISTANCE OF 47.07 FEET; Page 13 of 16 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Longwater SRA Credit Agreement - SSA 14 & SSA 17 (1-21-2021) THENCE N 00°44'51" E A DISTANCE OF 55.85 FEET; THENCE N 10°39'19" E A DISTANCE OF 32.52 FEET; THENCE N 04°07'17" E A DISTANCE OF 41.62 FEET; THENCE N 12°35'16" E A DISTANCE OF 38.67 FEET; THENCE N 00°20'34" W A DISTANCE OF 38.40 FEET; THENCE N 18°05'31" E A DISTANCE OF 47.83 FEET; THENCE N 03°58'33" W A DISTANCE OF 48.95 FEET; THENCE N 19°51'27" E A DISTANCE OF 34.70 FEET; THENCE N 09°34'39" E A DISTANCE OF 34.06 FEET; THENCE N 04°50'50" W A DISTANCE OF 28.60 FEET; THENCE N 02°58'56" W A DISTANCE OF 30.74 FEET; THENCE N 44°25'19" W A DISTANCE OF 31.56 FEET; THENCE N 41°39'56" W A DISTANCE OF 33.84 FEET; THENCE N 06°02'21" E A DISTANCE OF 19.31 FEET; THENCE N 29°15'43" W A DISTANCE OF 30.89 FEET; THENCE N 50°20'45" W A DISTANCE OF 65.85 FEET; THENCE N 37°39'56" W A DISTANCE OF 20.94 FEET; THENCE S 87°18'03" W A DISTANCE OF 18.51 FEET; THENCE N 86°53'50" W A DISTANCE OF 40.70 FEET; THENCE N 57°38'19" W A DISTANCE OF 57.04 FEET; THENCE N 02°52'44" E A DISTANCE OF 160.84 FEET; THENCE N 49°42'21" W A DISTANCE OF 597.21 FEET; THENCE S 89°37'33" W A DISTANCE OF 99.83 FEET; THENCE S 89°55'08" W A DISTANCE OF 166.80 FEET; THENCE S 88°18'59" W A DISTANCE OF 113.40 FEET; THENCE S 80°55'44" W A DISTANCE OF 95.52 FEET; THENCE S 79°29'17" W A DISTANCE OF 110.57 FEET; THENCE S 76°51'49" W A DISTANCE OF 41.22 FEET; THENCE S 80°58'38" W A DISTANCE OF 97.67 FEET; THENCE S 79°59'43" W A DISTANCE OF 718.60 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2600.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09°06'00" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 412.95 FEET; THENCE S 00°15'45" E A DISTANCE OF 12.29 FEET; THENCE S 89°44'15" W A DISTANCE OF 35.00 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH A LINE 210.00 FEET EASTERLY FROM AND PARALLEL WITH THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 27; THENCE N 00°15'45" W ALONG SAID PARALLEL A DISTANCE OF 2691.34 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBE D. CONTAINING A TOTAL AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 782.63 ACRES. REFERENCE ABB DRAWING #12347-SD Page 14 of 16 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Longwater SRA Credit Agreement - SSA 14 & SSA 17 (1-21-2021) SRA CREDIT AGREEMENT EXHIBIT “B” Page 15 of 16 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Longwater SRA Credit Agreement - SSA 14 & SSA 17 (1-21-2021) SRA CREDIT AGREEMENT EXHIBIT “C” Land Use Summary Use Density or Intensity Residential Up to 2,600 Dwelling Units Neighborhood Commercial Min. 65,000 and Max. 80,000 square feet Civic, Governmental, Institutional Min. 26,000 square feet • Longwater Village SRA contains 999.81± acres. • Longwater Village contains approximately 39.71 acres of active and passive parks and community green space, exceeding the requirement to provide at least 1 percent of the Village gross acreage (10 acres, rounded), in the form of Parks & community Green Space. • Longwater Village includes 4 acres of lands with a natural Resource Index greater than 1.2. • Longwater Village provides 512.52± acres of open spaces (51.26± percent) of Open Space, 162.59 acres above the RLSA 35% requirement for Open Space. • Total acreage requiring stewardship credits is 837.22 acres (total Village acreage excluding open space exceeding 35% and public use acreage). • At required 8 Stewardship Credits per acre, 6,697.76 Stewardship Credits are required. • Longwater Village SRA does not include lands within ACSC Overlay. • Longwater Village SRA does not include, nor is it adjacent to, lands designated Flowway Stewardship Area (FSA), Habitat Stewardship Area (HSA). • Longwater Village does not include any lands designated Water Retention Area (WRA). Page 16 of 16 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Longwater SRA Resolution 1-26-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) ‒ 1 ‒ PL20190001836, Longwater 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: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section From: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section Date: August 20, 2020 Subject: Future Land Use Element Consistency Review of Proposed Stewardship Receiving Area PETITION NUMBER: SRA PL20190001836 PETITION NAME: Longwater Village [REV: 1.4.2] REQUEST: This petition seeks to establish a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) known as Longwater Village on a ±999.8-acre site in accordance with provisions of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay as contained in the County’s Growth Management Plan’s Future Land Use Element and County’s Land Development Code. The proposed SRA indicates 2,600 dwelling units, with no fewer than 26 0 multi- family dwelling units, from 65,000 to 80,000 sq. ft. of retail/office uses, and no less than 26,000 square feet of civic, government, and institutional uses. Dissimilar figures are provided in different SRA application materials – some providing the specificity necessary that is not provided elsewhere. By example, the SRA Economic Assessment used the following development assumptions: • total townhomes, duplexes, and single-family attached = 1,097 units • total single family < 4,000 sq. ft. = 1,503 units • non-residential 50,001 – 100,000 sq. ft = 65,000 sq. ft. of retail/office uses • neighborhood civic = 26,000 sq. ft. of civic, government and institutional uses The SRA Project Narrative & Statement of Compliance indicates that the minimum 35% Open Space requirement for the SRA (349.92 acres) will be met and exceeded. The SRA Project Narrative & Statement of Compliance indicates that the minimum 1% Parks & Community Green Space requirement for the SRA (10 acres) will be met. A commitment to provide a 2,500 sq. ft. children’s playground is provided in the SRA document. The locations for the parks, totaling 12.6 acres, are shown on Master Plan. No areas are designated for public benefit use. LOCATION: The ±999-acre property comprises 2 geographic areas – north and south – arching from Oil Well Road to Desoto Boulevard, within Sections 22, 23, 26, 27 34, and 35, Township 48 South, Range 28 East. The Longwater Village north area lies immediately south of Oil Well Road (CR 858) at Oil Well Grade Road, and lies approximately 1,100 ft. east of the proposed Rivergrass Village south area. The Longwater north area bows southwest to connect (by roadway) with the south area. The larger, Longwater south area comprises an area up to approximately 900 ft. east of Desoto Boulevard North [also, adjacently 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: Attachment B-Consistency Review Memorandum 9-1-20 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) ‒ 2 ‒ PL20190001836, Longwater SRA east of (the future) Big Cypress Parkway]. A portion of Golden Gate Estates is adjacent to the west of the Longwater south area. The proposed Rivergrass Village lies to the northwest and its south area lies from approximately 700 ft. to 1,800 ft. from the Longwater south area. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: 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). Owners of property within this FLUM designation may develop their property under the baseline conditions ‒ agriculture and related uses, essential services, single-family residential at a maximum density of 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres, parks and open space, earth mining, etc. – or choose to participate in the RLSAO. The RLSAO 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 and the RLSA Zoning Overlay. RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA POLICIES AND PROVISIONS AND GENERAL OBSERVATIONS: The GMP, together with the LDC, are used in determining the consistency of the request. To determine consistency with the more-general Policies and provisions of the FLUE’s RLSAO, the specific policies and provisions of the RLSA Zoning District Overlay. Within the RLSAO, the conversion of rural and agricultural lands to urban villages, new towns and satellite communities is based on area-based allocations, clustering and open space provisions, mixed- use development, and other planning strategies and techniques, 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 RLSAO 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 Longwater development using the Rural Lands Stewardship Credit System, as provided for under RLSAO Policy 1.4 in the FLUE. 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 approved SSAs). The SRA procedures and standards are outlined in Section 4.08.07 of the LDC. Specifically, the SSAs to be used to enable the project to proceed as an SRA are subject to County review and approval at the SRA submittal stage. The SSA documents submitted for review include the Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) Credit Use and Reconciliation Application (dated 6/01/2020) for SSA 14 and 17. All SSAs must be approved and Stewardship Credits submitted before or concurrent with this SRA. 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: Attachment B-Consistency Review Memorandum 9-1-20 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) ‒ 3 ‒ PL20190001836, Longwater SRA The relevant RLSAO Policies (Group 4 Policies) are listed below, followed by staff comments/analysis [in italics]. 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. [This application is for an 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 many of the other standards described in RLSA Overlay Group 4 Policies. The subject site is designated on the RLSA Overlay Map as eligible for SRA designation (“Open”).] 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. The County has adopted LDC amendments to establish the procedures and submittal requirements for 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: Attachment B-Consistency Review Memorandum 9-1-20 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) ‒ 4 ‒ PL20190001836, Longwater SRA designation as a SRA, providing for consideration of impacts, including environmental and public infrastructure impacts, and for public notice of and the opportunity for public participation in any consideration by the BCC of such a designation. [The petitioner has submitted the required SRA application along with an SRA Master Plan as described in Policy 4.5. Consistency with the intent of RLSA provisions in the “LDC Stewardship District” (RLSA zoning overlay) is addressed later herein.] 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 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 intended to demonstrate the SRA complies with the applicable policies of the Overlay and the LDC Stewardship District. Matters of compliance and non-compliance with applicable policies of the Overlay are addressed throughout this memo. Compliance with applicable policies of the LDC is reviewed and determined by the Zoning Services Section, Comprehensive Planning Section, and other sections and divisions of the Growth Management Department. Matters of non-compliance with the LDC Stewardship District may also be matters of noncompliance with this Overlay.] 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 [FLUE] 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: 163.3168] and 9J- 5.006(5)(l). The size and base density of each form shall be consistent with the standards set forth on [FLUE] Attachment C. The maximum base residential density as set forth in [FLUE] 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 [the] 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. This SRA must meet the Collier County RSLA Overlay Stewardship Receiving Area Characteristics as identified for Villages 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 bold italics]. Underlined uses in the table are not required uses. 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: Attachment B-Consistency Review Memorandum 9-1-20 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) ‒ 5 ‒ PL20190001836, Longwater SRA Size (Gross Acres) 100 ‒ 1,000 acres; [The SRA is ±999.8 acres total.] Residential Units (DUs) per gross acre base density 1 ‒ 4 DUs per gross acre; [2,600 DU/ ±999.8 acres = ±2.60 DU/ac. proposed in the SRA.] Residential Housing Styles Diversity of single-family and multi-family housing types, styles, lot sizes; [The SRA includes up to 2,240 single-family, with no fewer than 260 multi-family dwelling units (2,600 DUs total).] Maximum Floor Area Ratio or Intensity Retail and Office ‒ 0.5; [These uses are provided for in the mixed- use Village Center, Neighborhood General Goods & Services, and Amenity Centers context zones. FAR is not provided. Intensity is shown by proposed square footages below.] Civic/Governmental/Institution ‒ 0.6; [These uses are provided for in the mixed-use Village Center. FAR is not provided. Intensity is shown by proposed square footages below.] Group Housing ‒ 0.45; [not required – ALFs (Adult Living Facility) and CCRCs (Continuing Care Retirement Community) proposed. FAR is provided.] 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; [(2,600 DUs x 25 sq. ft./DU) = 65,000 sq. ft. required. The SRA allows 65,000 to 80,000 sq. ft. of all commercial uses, with the minimum neighborhood-scale goods and services provided in Village Center, with additional goods & services in Neighborhood General Goods & Services, and Amenity Center areas.] Water and Wastewater Centralized or decentralized community treatment system; [Proposed service by County Public Utilities.] Interim Well and Septic; [not required – not proposed.] Recreation and Open Spaces Parks and Public Green Spaces within Neighborhoods (minimum 1% of gross acres); [9.98 acres are required (999.8 acres x 1%).] Active Recreation/Golf Courses; [not required – not provided.] Lakes; [provided, covering more than 264 acres.] Open Space – minimum 35% of SRA; [±350 acres of Recreation and Open Spaces required ‒ ±512 acres provided.]*** Civic, Governmental and Institutional Services Moderate Range of Services ‒ minimum of 10 sq. ft./DU; [26,000 sq. ft. required (2,600 DUs x 10 sq. ft./DU); 26,000 sq. ft. proposed.] Full Range of Schools; [not required – proposed off-site, in proximity.] 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: Attachment B-Consistency Review Memorandum 9-1-20 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) ‒ 6 ‒ PL20190001836, Longwater SRA Transportation Auto-interconnected system of collector and local roads; required connection to collector or arterial; [A number of residential ‘pods’ each connect to a spine road with a single intersection, while no “interconnected system of collector and local roads” is provided; the spine road connects to Oil Well Road (CR 858), a minor arterial road as classified in the Transportation Element, and the future north- south thoroughfare of Big Cypress Parkway. Interconnection with the Rivergrass development was agreed to be provided in the formal hearing of that SRA, and Longwater SRA materials have been revised to reflect these changes.] Interconnected sidewalk and pathway system; [required.] Equestrian Trails; [not required – not proposed.] County Transit Access; [not required – not proposed.] *** 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. Policy 4.7.1 does not apply to this application. Policy 4.7.2: 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 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 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. [This SRA is primarily a residential development providing for two (2) housing types (single- and multi- family), and senior housing facilities. This SRA allows a mix of uses – residential, recreational, civic/institutional, and commercial. The site comprises ±999.8 acres. Open space is provided throughout the SRA, and parks or public green spaces are provided within neighborhoods. The Village Center allows a mix of uses – multi-family dwelling units; a variety of commercial uses (minimum of 65,000 s.f. required); and, civic, institutional and governmental uses (minimum of 25,000 s.f. required). 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: Attachment B-Consistency Review Memorandum 9-1-20 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) ‒ 7 ‒ PL20190001836, Longwater SRA Although the Longwater Economic Assessment indicates a mix of housing of 1,503 single-family detached residences, to 1,097 townhomes, duplexes, and single-family attached residences, creating a single-family to multi-family ratio of 58%꞉42%. However, staff notes there appears to be a disconnect between the residential use, and non-residential use, mix assumptions in the Assessment contrasted with those which are required or committed to in the SRA Document. However, the proposed ratio committed to in the SRA Document is ≤90%꞉≥10% as compared to the Countywide ratio of 50%꞉45% (remaining units are mobile homes, etc.). This results in a disconnect between the housing mix assumed vs. that which is required/committed to. 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 w ithout requiring the WRA to be designated as a SRA in accordance with Policy 3.12 and 3.13. [The SRA is not contiguous to lands designated FSA or HSA but is contiguous to lands designated WRA. The project is served by contiguous WRA land uses (lakes and road rights-of-way) that are not designated SRA and not calculated as project open space.] 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/li ght 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 rep resents 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. [Staff defers review and comment pertaining to the Natural Resource Index value within the SRA to specialists of the Environmental Planning Section of the County’s Development Review Division.] 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 [open space] 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. 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: Attachment B-Consistency Review Memorandum 9-1-20 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) ‒ 8 ‒ PL20190001836, Longwater SRA 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. [Lakes, road rights-of-way, and perimeter buffers are located along the SRA perimeter except where abutting Oil Well Road, future Big Cypress Parkway road right-of-way, and land designated as “Open” that is not used within this SRA project. These adjacent ”Open” areas are predisposed to development as road rights-of-way for interconnection between the two areas of the SRA and between neighboring SRAs (including one agreed upon with the Rivergrass SRA since this SRA’s initial submittal). Where neighboring or adjacent projects may develop, the density and intensity on each property may be somewhat the same or may be very different – and transitions must ensure the compatibility with the character of adjoining property. Comprehensive Planning staff 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 subject site is located within land designated as “Open” on the RLSA Stewardship Map. The site does not adjoin HSA or conservation land but does adjoin FSA and WRA lands [abuts a WRA based on earlier statements]. Staff defers review and comment pertaining to these aspects of the SRA to specialists of the Environmental Planning Section of the County’s Development Review Division regarding impacts upon groundwater, and the water detention and control elevations.] 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 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. 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: Attachment B-Consistency Review Memorandum 9-1-20 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) ‒ 9 ‒ PL20190001836, Longwater SRA [The SRA adjoins an FSA along its northeasterly boundary, south of Oil Well Road ‒ but does not adjoin other FSAs, HSAs, or conservation lands.] 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. [Access is to Oil Well Road, a minor arterial road as classified in the Transportation Element, and future Big Cypress Parkway. The Capacity analysis is deferred to Transportation Planning Section staff. Concurrency is determined at the time of subsequent development orders.] Policy 4.15.1: SRAs are intended to be mixed use and shall be allowed the full range of uses permitted by th e Urban Designation of the FLUE, as modified by Policies 4.7, 4.7.1, 4.7.2, 4.7.3, 4.7.4 and [FLUE] 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 minimum amount of non-residential uses in each category are set forth in [FLUE] Attachment C, and shall be also included in the Stewardship LDC District. [This SRA allows mixed uses – residential, civic/institutional, recreational, and commercial uses similar to those in the LDC’s C-3, Commercial Intermediate, zoning district. While the SRA document allows for 65,000 to 80,000 sq. ft. of goods and services, the minimum neighborhood scaled goods and services are provided in the Village Center, with additional goods & services in Neighborhood General Goods & Services, and Amenity Center areas.] 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 applic able to public facility dedications required as a condition for PUD rezoning. [Acreage exceeding the minimum acreage requirements is proposed for “public benefit use”. Open space is provided in excess of that required.] 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: Attachment B-Consistency Review Memorandum 9-1-20 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) ‒ 10 ‒ PL20190001836, Longwater SRA Policy 4.15.3: Applicants for SRA designation shall coordinate with Collier County School Board 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. School sites are not set aside, improved, and/or dedicated for public use inside the development. Collier County Public Schools requested development commitments for two school sites in exchange for educational impact fee credits, located as follows: • An 88.3-acre site located north of the (proposed) “Rivergrass” SRA project, near 56th Avenue NE. This site will be used as a dual-site for 2 schools: either high/middle, high/elementary, or middle elementary; and, • A 20.35-acre site located north of the (proposed) “Bellmar” SRA project, near Golden Gate Boulevard East. This site will be used as an elementary school site. The RLSA encourages school facilities to be located within Villages and Towns (read, “within the specific SRA, within other SRAs in the RLSA or within the Immokalee Urban Area” per Pol. 4.15.1), and does not support the creation of new trips, or failure to consider reducing the length and number of trips ‒ in accordance with FLUE and Transportation Element policies and provisions ‒ to these facilities. The School Impact Analysis projects 632 new students to be generated from the 2,600 residences [4,478 permanent / 5,373 seasonal residents]. This overall student figure is allocated to the number of school- aged children for each type of school impacted (elementary: 287, middle: 139, high school: 205). Staff defers review and comment on the adequacy and accuracy of data submitted with this application to School District personnel.] 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 form of SRA development, accepted civil engineering practices, and LDC requirements. The capacity of infrastructure necessary to serve the SRA at build-out must be demonstrated during the SRA designation process. 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 Towns, Villages, and those CRDs exceeding one hundred (100) acres in size, and may be required in CRDs that are one hundred (100) acres or less in size, depending upon the permitted uses approved within the CRD. 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 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Attachment B-Consistency Review Memorandum 9-1-20 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) ‒ 11 ‒ PL20190001836, Longwater SRA 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 Town, 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. [The demand for potable water will be approximately 0.929 million gallons per day (average) and 1.208 million gallons per day (3-day maximum). Sanitary sewers must be designed to accommodate approximately 0.664 million gallons per day (average) and 0.995 million gallons per day (3-day maximum). Adequate infrastructure to develop the project is planned with centralized water supply facilities and wastewater collection and treatment services provided by Collier County. Collier County expanded its jurisdictional Water-Sewer District service area boundary in September 2018, encompassing this area (FKA Big Cypress). The Capital Improvements Element of the Growth Management Plan identifies the phased construction of a new regional water treatment plant ($82.5M) and a new water reclamation facility ($106M) at the Northeast Utility Facilities (NEUF) site to support this (and other) development.] 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 the Countywide population as defined in Policy 1.1.2 of the CIE. Staff defers review and comment on concurrency management to the Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees, and Program Management Division – for which review occurs at the time of subsequent development order.] 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. The BCC may grant exceptions to this Policy to accommodate affordable housing, as it deems appropriate. 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 development will be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County in the analysis provided in the Economic Assessment Report. Staff defers to the Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees, and Program Management Division involved in the review of the Economic Assessment. 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: Attachment B-Consistency Review Memorandum 9-1-20 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) ‒ 12 ‒ PL20190001836, Longwater SRA This SRA project is just one of several similar proposals, with its application materials templated upon, other SRA or SRA applications.] Policy 4.19: Eight (8) 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 t o and are supportive to the residential population of a SRA, as provided for in [FLUE] Policies 4.7, 4.15 and [FLUE] Attachment C. Such uses shall be identified, located and quantified in the SRA master plan. [The proposed SRA comprises ±999.8 acres; of those, ±838 acres require ±6,700 credits, and this 1:8 ratio is met. (see Policy 4.3 comments).] 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 [FLUE] 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, 163.3177 F.S. and in a manner consistent with 235.193 F.S. Schools and related ancillary uses shall be encouraged to locate in or proximate to Towns, Villages, and Hamlets subject to applicable zoning and permitting requirements. [No acreage exceeding the minimum acreage requirements is proposed for “public benefit use”. School sites are not set aside, improved, and/or dedicated for public use in the development. Collier County Public Schools requested development commitments for two school sites outside this, or other SRAs, in exchange for educational impact fee credits. By Policy 4.15.1, school facilities are more specifically encouraged to be located within Villages and Towns.] Policy 4.21 does not apply, as this site is not within the ACSC, Area of Critical State Concern. Review of select FLUE Policies (followed by staff analysis in [italics]): Policy 5.6 requires new development to be compatible with, and complementary to, surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code. [Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to the Zoning Services staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. The County recognizes Smart Growth policies and practices in its consideration of future land use arrangements and choice-making options. FLUE Objective 7 and Policies 7.1 through 7.4 promote Smart Growth policies for new development and redevelopment projects pertaining to access, interconnections, open space, and walkable communities. Objective 7: Promote smart growth policies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and adhere to the existing development character of the Collier County, where applicable, and as follows: 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: Attachment B-Consistency Review Memorandum 9-1-20 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) ‒ 13 ‒ PL20190001836, Longwater SRA Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. [This property fronts Oil Well Road (CR 858), classified as a minor arterial road in the Transportation Element. Connection to Oil Well Road is designed to meet at a single access point where a non-village like spine road intersects with Oil Well from the northerly portion of the project. This property also fronts the future N‒S Big Cypress Parkway, classified as a future collector road in the Transportation Element. Connection to the future Big Cypress Parkway is designed to meet at a single access point where the spine road intersects with Big Cypress Parkway from the southerly portion of the project. Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. [Internal accesses are provided for the proposed development, including indirect accesses into the northerly and southerly residential areas from the non-village like spine road and indirect access into the residential area and Village Center tract. The project is proposed as a “Village”. Design parameters for villages differ [from this Policy], and this project must meet the RSLA Overlay, Group 4 Policies specific to Stewardship Receiving Areas.] 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. [This property (Longwater south area) fronts the future Big Cypress Parkway, classified as a future collector road in the Transportation Element. The proposed Rivergrass SRA (south area) is located north and west of this project site. Interconnection between the two projects is provided.] Policy 7.4: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. [This SRA provides for different dwelling unit types and sizes, open space, and civic/institutional/government facilities. Sidewalks are provided alongside local streets that channel all vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, and nonmotorized vehicles to the project’s single (±3-mile long) spine road.] REVIEW OF SRA DOCUMENTS: • SRA Economic Assessment ▪ Development Assumptions, Table 1, identifies a single, non-residential category providing 80,000 sq. ft. of retail space; however, this project is required to provide a minimum of 65,000 sq. ft. neighborhood-scale goods and services, which are not distinguished here from the 15,000 sq. ft. left for providing more-intense, community-scale goods and services. This table also identifies a non-residential category for the required 26,000 sq. ft. of civic, governmental and institutional services. 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: Attachment B-Consistency Review Memorandum 9-1-20 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) ‒ 14 ‒ PL20190001836, Longwater SRA CONCLUSIONS: General Observations on RLSAO Policies • RLSAO Policy 4.2 provides that, “land proposed for SRA designation shall meet the suitability criteria and other standards described in Group 4 Policies” and Policy 4.3 provides that, “the basis for approval shall be a finding of consistency with the policies of the Overlay”. Where the proposed project is found to be consistent with these Policies of the Overlay, it may be supported for approval. • RLSAO Policy 4.2 further provides that, “the Overlay requires SRAs to be compact, mixed-use and self-sufficient...”. Where the proposed project is found to be compact, mixed-use and self- sufficient, it may be supported for approval. • RLSAO Policy 4.7 provides that, “the size and base density of each form (of SRA) shall be consistent with the standards set forth on [FLUE] Attachment C.” Where the size and base density of the proposed project is found to be consistent with the standards set forth on [FLUE] Attachment C, it may be supported for approval. • RLSAO Policy 4.7.2 provides that, “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,” “shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods” and, “have parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods.” Where the proposed project is found to provide a diversity of housing types and mix of uses appropriate to the scale and character of the particular village, it may be supported for approval. • RLSAO Policy 4.7.2 further provides that, “Villages... shall include a mixed-use village center to serve as the focal point for... support services and facilities”, “include neighborhood scaled retail and office uses” and “are an appropriate location for... schools”. Where the proposed project is found to provide a mixed-use village center serving as the focal point for support services and facilities, including neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, it may be supported for approval. • RLSAO Policy 4.10 provides that, “open space shall... comprise a minimum of thirty-five percent of the gross acreage of an individual SRA ...Village”. Where the proposed project is found to be consistent with this Policy, it may be supported for approval. • RLSAO Policy 4.11 provides that, “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” and that “the edges of SRAs shall be well defined and designed to be compatible with the character of adjoining property.” Where the proposed project is found to provide perimeter land uses compatible with adjoining properties, it may be supported for approval. 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: Attachment B-Consistency Review Memorandum 9-1-20 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) ‒ 15 ‒ PL20190001836, Longwater SRA • RLSAO Policy 4.13 provides that, “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”. Where the proposed project is found to provide a buffer between the SRA and any adjoining FSA, HSA, or existing public or private conservation lands, it may be supported for approval. • RLSAO Policy 4.14 provides that, “no SRA shall be approved unless the capacity of County collector or arterial road(s) serving the SRA is demonstrated to be adequate... at the time of SRA designation.” Where the proposed project is found to be served by collector or arterial road(s) providing adequate capacity at the time of SRA designation, it may be supported for approval. • RLSAO Policy 4.15.1 provides that, “SRAs are intended to be mixed use and shall be allowed the full range of uses permitted by... Policies 4.7 ...4.7.2 ...and ...Attachment C” and that, “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 ...may be required to support community scaled retail or office uses”. Where the proposed project is found to provide a mixed-use Village Center including no less than 65,000 sq. ft. of neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, and no less than 26,000 sq. ft. of civic and institutional uses, it may be supported for approval. cc: Anita Jenkins, AICP, Interim Director, Zoning Division Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager, Zoning Services Section G:\RLSA SSAs SRAs\STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREAS\Longwater Village SRA\ G:\CDES Planning Services\Comprehensive\RLSA SSAs SRAs\STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREAS\Longwater Village SRA\SRA-2019-1836 Con Rvws\PL19-1836 Longwater Con Rev memo_REV4.2 fnl.docx 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: Attachment B-Consistency Review Memorandum 9-1-20 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Attachment C-Agreement to Provide Water Sewer and Irrigation - Revised CAO stamped 1-20-21 (003) (15115 : PL20190001836, 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: Attachment C-Agreement to Provide Water Sewer and Irrigation - Revised CAO stamped 1-20-21 (003) (15115 : PL20190001836, 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: Attachment C-Agreement to Provide Water Sewer and Irrigation - Revised CAO stamped 1-20-21 (003) (15115 : PL20190001836, 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: Attachment C-Agreement to Provide Water Sewer and Irrigation - Revised CAO stamped 1-20-21 (003) (15115 : PL20190001836, 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: Attachment C-Agreement to Provide Water Sewer and Irrigation - Revised CAO stamped 1-20-21 (003) (15115 : PL20190001836, 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: Attachment C-Agreement to Provide Water Sewer and Irrigation - Revised CAO stamped 1-20-21 (003) (15115 : PL20190001836, 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: Attachment C-Agreement to Provide Water Sewer and Irrigation - Revised CAO stamped 1-20-21 (003) (15115 : PL20190001836, 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: Attachment C-Agreement to Provide Water Sewer and Irrigation - Revised CAO stamped 1-20-21 (003) (15115 : PL20190001836, 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: Attachment C-Agreement to Provide Water Sewer and Irrigation - Revised CAO stamped 1-20-21 (003) (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA Economic Assessment Collier County Collier County Schools North Collier Fire & Rescue Initial Submission: November 11, 2019 Revised: March 11, 2020 Added 15,000 sq. ft. Commercial Roads Emergency Medical Services Water and Wastewater Revised: May 24, 2020 Roads - Narrative Only Revised: August 6, 2020 Roads – Fair Share Mitigation Revised: January 8, 2021 Water and Wastewater – Narrative Only Schools – Narrative Only Prepared By: 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 2 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 4 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 6 METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................................. 6 MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS .................................................................................................................... 8 Development Assumptions ......................................................................................................... 8 Revenue Assumptions ................................................................................................................. 9 Sales, Just, and Taxable Values ................................................................................................ 9 Property Taxes ....................................................................................................................... 10 Expenditure Assumptions ......................................................................................................... 10 COLLIER COUNTY FISCAL IMPACTS ............................................................................................... 10 Collier County Operating Impacts ............................................................................................. 10 Collier County Operating Revenue Projections ......................................................................... 11 Collier County Operating Expenditure Projections ................................................................... 12 Collier County Capital Impacts .................................................................................................. 13 Collier County Capital Impacts by Department ..................................................................... 13 NORTH COLLIER FIRE & RESCUE DISTRICT .................................................................................... 29 North Collier Fire & Rescue Capital Impacts ............................................................................. 29 North Collier Fire & Rescue Annual Operating Impacts ............................................................ 30 COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOLS FISCAL IMPACT ................................................................................. 30 Collier County Schools Capital Impacts ..................................................................................... 30 Collier County Schools Operating Impacts ................................................................................ 33 APPENDIX ...................................................................................................................................... 35 GENERAL LIMITING CONDITIONS.................................................................................................. 51 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 3 Table 1: Longwater Development Program ................................................................................... 8 Table 2: Longwater Residential Sales, Just, and Taxable Values ................................................... 9 Table 3: Longwater Nonresidential Sales, Just, and Taxable Values ............................................. 9 Table 4: Longwater County Tax Base at Buildout ........................................................................ 10 Table 5: Collier County Millage Rates .......................................................................................... 10 Table 6: Longwater Operating Annual Net Impact at Buildout ................................................... 11 Table 7: Longwater Annual Operating Revenue Projections ....................................................... 11 Table 8: Longwater Annual Operating Expenditure Projections ................................................. 12 Table 9: Longwater Impact Fee Revenue for Collier County ....................................................... 14 Table 10: Longwater Law Enforcement Capital Impacts ............................................................. 17 Table 11: Longwater Law Enforcement Level of Service ............................................................. 17 Table 12: Longwater Law Enforcement Equipment Cost per Certified Police Officer ................. 18 Table 13: Longwater Correctional Facilities ................................................................................. 18 Table 14: Longwater Correctional Facilities Capital Cost............................................................. 18 Table 15: Longwater Correctional Facilities Indexed Cost per Resident ..................................... 19 Table 16: Longwater Allocation of New EMS Station Cost .......................................................... 20 Table 17: Longwater EMS Capital Impact .................................................................................... 20 Table 18: Longwater Regional Parks Capital Impacts .................................................................. 21 Table 19: Longwater Regional Parks Level of Service .................................................................. 21 Table 20: Longwater Regional Parks Indexed Capital Cost per Acre ........................................... 21 Table 21: Longwater Community Parks Capital Impacts ............................................................. 22 Table 22: Longwater Community Parks Level of Service ............................................................. 22 Table 23: Longwater Community Parks Indexed Capital Cost per Acre ...................................... 22 Table 24: Longwater Libraries Capital Impacts ............................................................................ 23 Table 25: Longwater Library Facilities Level of Service ............................................................... 23 Table 26: Longwater General Government Capital Impacts ....................................................... 24 Table 27: Longwater General Government Capital Cost ............................................................. 24 Table 28: Longwater North Collier Fire & Rescue District Capital Impacts ................................. 29 Table 29: Longwater Fire & Rescue District Functional Population ............................................ 29 Table 30: Longwater North Collier Fire & Rescue Impact Fee Revenues .................................... 30 Table 31: Longwater Big Corkscrew Island SDA Annual Operating Impacts at Buildout ............. 30 Table 32: Longwater Projected Public School Enrollment ........................................................... 31 Table 33: Longwater Projected Enrollment by School Type ........................................................ 31 Table 34: Longwater School Capital Costs ................................................................................... 32 Table 35: Longwater School Impact Fee Revenue ....................................................................... 32 Table 36: Longwater School Net Capital Impacts – Total Cash Flow Approach .......................... 32 Table 37: Longwater Local Ad Valorem School Operating Taxes at Buildout.............................. 34 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Collier Enterprises Management, Inc. is proposing the establishment of a Stewardship Receiving Area (“SRA”) on a site less than 1,000 acres in site in eastern Collier County. The proposed SRA, Longwater Village (“Longwater” or “Village”), is east of Desoto Boulevard and south of Oil Well Road. In accordance with the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (“RLSA”) Overlay definition of a Village, Longwater is primarily a residential community which includes a diversity of housing types and a maximum of 2,600 dwelling units. The Village concept plan includes 80,000 square feet of commercial uses and 26,000 square feet of neighborhood civic space. The proposed Longwater Village is strategically located within a mile of a planned fire facility which is owned by the North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District. As reflected in the table below, Longwater 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, as required by LDC. Summary Table 1: Longwater Village Fiscal Highlights Longwater SRA Fiscal Highlights At Buildout At Buildout Collier County:Countywide MSTU Longwater SRA Ad Valorem Tax Base 805,353,000$ 805,353,000$ Longwater SRA Net Annual Fiscal Benefit Countywide MSTU Longwater SRA Total Annual Operating Revenues 3,987,000$ 734,000$ Longwater SRA Total Annual Operating Expenditures 3,062,000 490,000 Longwater SRA Total Annual Net Operating Surplus 925,000$ 244,000$ North Collier Fire and Rescue District:Fire District Longwater SRA Annual Ad Valorem Tax Revenues*3,020,000$ Longwater SRA Total Annual Operating Expenditures 1,042,000 Longwater SRA Total Annual Net Operating Surplus 1,978,000$ Collier County Schools:School District Longwater SRA Ad Valorem Tax Base 838,655,000$ Longwater SRA Net Fiscal Benefit:Annual Operating**Total Capital Annual Ad Valorem Operating/Total Capital Revenues 3,005,000$ 42,073,000$ Annual Ad Valorem Operating/Total Capital Expenditures 3,005,000 42,073,000 Annual Ad Valorem Operating/Total Capital Surplus -$ -$ Longwater SRA Annual Ad Valorem Tax Revenues: At Buildout Collier County 2,871,000$ Collier County MSTU 650,000 North Collier Fire & Rescue 3,020,000 Collier County Schools - Ad Valorem Operating 3,005,000 Collier County Schools - Capital Improvement 1,258,000 Total Longwater SRA Annual Ad Valorem Tax Revenues 10,804,000$ 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 5 *Based on FY 2020 operating millage for the North Collier Fire & Rescue District and the FY 2020 millage rates for the Collier School District. ** The Florida Legislature sets the majority of school district operating revenues through statewide equalization formulas. Source: DPFG, 2020 As demonstrated in this report, DPFG concludes that the proposed Longwater Village is fiscally positive for the North Collier Fire & Rescue District, and fiscally neutral, as defined, for Collier County and the Collier County School District. Summary Table 2: Longwater Net Fiscal Impact Conclusions per Taxing Authority * The Florida Legislature sets the majority of school district operating revenues through statewide equalization formulas. Source: DPFG, 2020 Impact Fee Revenue: Impact Fee Revenue Fair Share Mitigation Impact Fee Revenue and Fair Share Mitigation Community Parks 1,903,000$ -$ 1,903,000$ Regional Parks 5,400,000 - 5,400,000 Roads 17,737,000 622,000 18,359,000 EMS 303,000 - 303,000 Government Buildings 1,993,000 - 1,993,000 Libraries 680,000 - 680,000 Law Enforcement 1,268,000 - 1,268,000 Jail 1,088,000 - 1,088,000 Water - Residential Only 6,662,000 - 6,662,000 Wastewater - Residential Only 7,023,000 - 7,023,000 Total Collier County Impact Fees 44,057,000$ 622,000$ 44,679,000$ Collier County Schools 16,331,000$ -$ 16,331,000$ North Collier Fire & Rescue 1,432,000 - 1,432,000 Total Impact Fee Revenue 61,820,000$ 622,000$ 62,442,000$ Jurisdiction Net Fiscal Jurisdiction Net Fiscal Collier County Collier County Annual Operations:Annual Operations and Capital: General Funds Grouping Positive Water Neutral MSTU Positive Wastewater Neutral Capital:Capital and Operations: Regional and Community Parks Positive Solid Waste Neutral Roads Neutral Stormwater Neutral EMS Neutral North Collier Fire & Rescue District Government Buildings Neutral Annual Operations Positive Libraries Positive Capital Positive Law Enforcement Neutral Collier County Schools Jail Neutral Annual Operations*Neutral Capital Neutral 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 6 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 buildout. 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. In accordance with the RLSA Overlay definition of a Village, Longwater is primarily a residential community and includes a diversity of housing types and a maximum of 2,600 dwelling units. The proposed Village Center provides for the required neighborhood-scaled retail, office, civic, and community uses. The SRA is designed to encourage pedestrian/bicycle circulation via 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. Development Planning & Financing Group, Inc. (“DPFG”) was retained to prepare an Economic Assessment for the Longwater Village SRA. This report provides complete and transparent support for the methodology, assumptions, and calculations applied to demonstrate fiscal neutrality for the Longwater Village SRA for Collier County (“County”), the North Collier Fire & Rescue District, and the Collier County School District (“School District”). 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 gather detailed information about the existing capacity within public services and infrastructure to accommodate 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.1.e Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 7 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 Longwater Village 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 housing unit by product type and square feet per employee for the nonresidential land uses were obtained from the County’s 2016 Emergency Medical Services Impact Fee Update, the most recently published source (see Appendix).2 The analysis includes the following general funds:3 (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 FY 2019 budget4 of the County and the FY 2020 budgets for 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 2 Impact fee updates for Parks and Recreation, Correctional Facilities, Transportation, and Schools are currently underway. 3 Collier County considers this listing of general funds as the “General Fund Grouping.” 4 The County’s FY 2020 full budget document was not available when this report was prepared. The document is typically published in January. The FY 2020 millage rate did not change from the rate adopted for FY 2019. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 8 independent studies. Public utilities generally benefit from economies of scale (i.e. more customers) since rate structures are dependent upon recovering fixed infrastructure costs. Based on pre-Application discussions with County staff, the County accepts the methodology described in this report and applied in previous Economic Assessment reports prepared by DPFG. In particular, the County accepts the preparation of the analysis at the year of buildout (or horizon year) under a snapshot approach which reflects the intended land uses of the project as a whole. In addition, there are no monitoring requirements with respect to the fiscal impact of an SRA Village. MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS Major assumptions supporting the Longwater Village 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 classification s in the model were carefully reviewed. Revenue and costs are projected in constant 2019 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 Longwater Village development program which was used to estimate the operating and capital impacts of the project. Table 1: Longwater Development Program Source: Collier Enterprises, DPFG, 2020 Land Use by Impact Fee Category Units Residential Total Condo, Duplex, Single-Family Attached 1,097 Total SFD < 4,000 Sq Ft 1,503 Total Residential 2,600 Non-Residential Sq Ft Retail 50,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft 80,000 Neigborhood Civic 26,000 Grand Total Non-Residential (sf)106,000 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 9 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 Collier County (unincorporated) averages published by the Shimberg Center for Housing Studies at the University of Florida. Table 2: Longwater Residential Sales, Just, and Taxable Values Source: Collier Enterprises, Shimberg Center for Housing Studies (Univ. of FL), DPFG, 2019 Table 3 reflects the estimates of sales, just5, 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,” 40th Edition, 2019 and also considered values from the County Property Appraiser’s database. Table 3: Longwater Nonresidential Sales, Just, and Taxable Values Source: RS Means, Collier County Property Appraiser, DPFG, 2020 At buildout, the real property tax base generated for the County is estimated to exceed $805.4 million as reflected in Table 4. 5 In determining just value, reasonable fees and costs of purchase (for example, commissions) are excluded. Product Type Units Sales Value per Unit Just Value per Unit Taxable Value per Unit Town Home 204 250,000$ 235,000$ 219,500$ Villa 1 319 260,000$ 244,400$ 228,900$ Coach 258 280,000$ 263,200$ 247,700$ Villa 2 316 310,000$ 291,400$ 275,900$ Total Condo, Duplex, Single-Family Attached 1,097 277,247$ 260,612$ 245,112$ SFD Product A < 4,000 sq ft 493 365,000$ 343,100$ 310,100$ SFD Product B < 4,000 sq ft 402 400,000$ 376,000$ 343,000$ SFD Product C < 4,000 sq ft 436 430,000$ 404,200$ 371,200$ SFD Product C < 4,000 sq ft 172 460,000$ 432,400$ 399,400$ Total SFD < 4,000 Sq Ft 1,503 404,088$ 379,843$ 346,843$ Total Single-Family Detached 1,503 404,088$ 379,843$ 346,843$ Total Residential 2,600 Non-Residential Sq Ft Sales Value per Sq Ft Just Value per Sq Ft Average Taxable Value Retail 50,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft 80,000 189.50$ 189.50$ 189.50$ 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 10 Table 4: Longwater County Tax Base at Buildout Source: Collier Enterprises, DPFG, 2020 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, 2019 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 r evenues 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. COLLIER COUNTY FISCAL IMPACTS Collier County Operating Impacts Table 6 presents the annual net operating fiscal impact of Longwater Village at buildout. Longwater Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect to County’s Operating Impacts. Units or Taxable Value Land Use Sq Ft per Unit/SF At Buildout Residential Total Condo, Duplex, Single-Family Attached 1,097 245,112$ 268,888,000$ Total SFD < 4,000 Sq Ft 1,503 346,843$ 521,305,000 Total Residential 2,600 790,193,000$ Non-Residential Retail 50,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft 80,000 189.50$ 15,160,000 Total Non-Residential 80,000 15,160,000$ Total Tax Base 805,353,000$ 3.5645 County General Fund 0.8069 MSTD General Fund 0.0293 Water Pollution Control 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 11 Table 6: Longwater Operating Annual Net Impact at Buildout Source: DPFG, 2020 Collier County Operating Revenue Projections Projected County annual operating revenues at buildout are summarized in Table 7. Longwater Village is projected to generate annual operating revenues of $4.0 million for the County’s General Funds and $734,000 for the MSTU General Fund. Table 7: Longwater Annual Operating Revenue Projections Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2020 Net Operating Impact Countywide MSTU Longwater SRA Total Annual Operating Revenues 3,987,000$ 734,000$ Longwater SRA Total Annual Operating Expenditures 3,062,000 490,000 Longwater SRA Total Annual Operating Surplus 925,000$ 244,000$ At Buildout GENERAL FUND GROUPING REVENUES At Buildout Ad Valorem Taxes 2,871,000$ Licenses & Permits 2,000 Inter- Governmental Revenues 7,000 State Revenue Sharing - Growth Portion 119,000 State Sales Tax 488,000 Charges for Services 346,000 Fines & Forfeitures 5,000 Miscellaneous Revenues 2,000 Interest/ Miscellaneous 10,000 Indirect Service Charge 70,000 Transfers from Constitutional Officers 59,000 Reimburse from Other Departments 8,000 Total General Funds Annual Operating Revenues 3,987,000$ MSTU GENERAL FUND REVENUES At Buildout Ad Valorem Taxes 650,000$ Licenses & Permits 4,000 Charges for Services 30,000 Fines & Forfeitures 2,000 Miscellaneous Revenues 2,000 Interest/ Miscellaneous 1,000 Communication Services Tax 45,000 Reimburse from Other Departments - Total MSTU Annual Operating Revenues 734,000$ 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 12 Collier County Operating Expenditure Projections Projected County annual operating expenditures at buildout are presented in Table 8. Longwater Village is expected to generate annual General Funds service demand of $3.1 million and $490,000 of MSTU General Fund service demand. The Appendix contains a detailed breakdown of operating costs by line item category. Table 8: Longwater Annual Operating Expenditure Projections GENERAL FUND GROUPING EXPENDITURES At Buildout Board of County Commissioners 30,000$ County Attorney 13,000 Property Appraiser 71,000 Supervisor of Elections 24,000 Clerk of Courts 49,000 Sheriff 1,674,000 Tax Collector 129,000 Administrative Services 3,000 Human Resources 10,000 Procurement Services 9,000 Bureau of Emergency Services 29,000 Planning 1,000 Circuit & County Court Judges 1,000 Public Defender 4,000 State Attorney 5,000 Guardian Ad Litem Program - County Manager Operations 6,000 Office of Management & Budget 6,000 Public Services Administration 2,000 Domestic Animal Services 41,000 Community and Human Services 45,000 Library 98,000 Parks & Recreation 120,000 Public Health 4,000 Public Transit and Neighborhood Enhancement 2,000 Facilities Management 146,000 Transfer to 101 Transp Op Fund 179,000 Transfer to 310 Growth Mgt Transportation Cap 76,000 Transfer to 426 CAT Mass Transit 23,000 Transfer to 427 Transp Disadvantaged 31,000 Transfer to 490 EMS Fund 158,000 Distributions in Excess of Fees to Govt Agencies 73,000 Total General Funds Annual Operating Expenditures 3,062,000$ 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 13 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2020 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. EMS, Government Buildings, Libraries, and Law Enforcement impact fee studies were updated in 2016, and the associated rates were adopted in 2017. Impact fee updates for Parks and Recreation, Correctional MSTU GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES At Buildout Board of County Commissioners 17,000$ Communications & Customer Relations Division 15,000 Growth Management Administration 6,000 Planning 18,000 Regulation 53,000 Maintenance 95,000 Bureau of Emergency Services 1,000 Project Management - Community and Human Services 2,000 Parks & Recreation 182,000 Transfer to 306 Parks Capital Fund 36,000 Transfer to 310 Growth Mgt Cap 42,000 Indirect Cost Reimbursement 23,000 Total MSTU Annual Operating Expenditures 490,000$ 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 14 Facilities, Transportation, and Schools are currently underway. Over buildout, new development will be charged impact fees at rates enacted by the County at that time. The capital needs of Longwater Village were discussed with the Sheriff, EMS, the North Collier Fire & Rescue District, and the School District . The capital analysis for these services was prepared in accordance with their input. 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 2018 Audit Update and Inventory Report on Public Facilities (“AUIR”), the most recent source available, was generally used to calculate the achieved LOS.6 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: Longwater Impact Fee Revenue for Collier County Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2020 6 DPFG reviewed the draft 2019 AUIR and noted overall consistency with the 2018 AUIR level of service standards and available inventory except for Regional Parks. A corresponding adjustment was made in the Regional Parks analysis based on County Staff recommendations. Impact Fee Type Total Fees Community Parks 1,903,000$ Regional Parks 5,400,000 Roads 17,737,000 EMS 303,000 Government Buildings 1,993,000 Libraries 680,000 Law Enforcement 1,268,000 Jail 1,088,000 Water - residential only 6,662,000 Wastewater - residential only 7,023,000 Total Collier County Impact Fees 44,057,000$ Collier County Schools 16,331,000 North Collier Fire & Rescue 1,432,000 Total Impact Fees 61,820,000$ 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 15 Collier County Road Capital Impacts The Longwater Village SRA is a proposed mixed-use development in eastern Collier County located east of Desoto Boulevard and south of Oil Well Road (CR 858). The landowner is responsible to pay an appropriate fee required by the County’s Road Impact Fee Ordinance as building permits are issued for the proposed project. Road impact fees are estimated at $17.7 million and significantly exceed the Concurrency Fair-Share estimate of $700,000 as shown in the “Preliminary Concurrency Fair-Share – August 2020” document prepared by Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA. Proposed internal roads, driveways, internal alleys, internal sidewalks/pathways and interconnections to adjacent developments are site related improvements and are not subject to impact fee credits. In addition, the landowner is required to provide appropriate turn lanes at project entrances as required at the time of site development approval. These improvements are considered site related. It is noted that if turn lane improvements require the use of County’s Right-of-Way (“ROW”) or easements, compensating ROW along the development frontage may need to be provided without cost to Collier County as a consequence of such improvement. Operational impacts of the development project traffic are mitigated for those intersections failing to achieve acceptable performance characteristics. Consistent with the information illustrated in the adopted Collier County Traffic Impact Study guidelines, mitigation improvements are considered acceptable if capacity is added that restores or improves the delay and v/c (volume/capacity) ratio to the levels provided in the base scenario. Base scenario is defined as the analysis of existing traffic plus background traffic for the estimated build-out year on the E + C (existing plus committed) significantly impacted roadway network. As illustrated in the Traffic Impact Statement associated with the zoning application for the subject development, Synchro 10 software was used to perform intersection Level of Service (“LOS”) analysis at specific locations. Based on the results of the Synchro intersection analyses, the following geometric improvements may be necessary to address project related level of service deficiencies: • Oil Well Road and DeSoto Blvd intersection – signalization • Randall Blvd and Everglades Blvd intersection – signalization • 18th Ave NE and DeSoto Blvd intersection – signalization; add southbound left-turn lane on DeSoto Blvd 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 16 Fair share percentage determination illustrates traffic impacts in the AM and PM p eak periods. The project share of cost has been based on the proportion of the project peak hour traffic contributed to the improvement location relative to the total new peak hour 203 0 traffic volumes. A cash contribution of $622,000 will be paid for the intersection improvements. Furthermore, the landowner will improve 18th Ave NE from the project entrance to DeSoto Blvd at an estimated cost of $240,000. This onsite project improvement is in addition to the costs outlined in Figure 1. Contribution requirements for transportation related impacts are summarized in the Cost Allocation Table reflected in the “Fair-Share Mitigation Operational Impacts” report prepared by Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA. The landowner contribution of $622,000 will be paid in addition to the road impact fees of $17.7 million for a total of $18.4 million in transportation- related payments. Figure 1: Longwater Fair-Share Mitigation for Operational Impacts Source: Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA, 2020 Longwater Village 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 Longwater Village include the cost to equip certified 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 17 officers. At this time, there is not the need for a specific land site within Longwater Village for a substation; however, there may be need in the future for a work station to serve development in the area. As shown below, impact fees are adequate to fund Longwater Village’s proportionate share. Table 10: Longwater Law Enforcement Capital Impacts Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2020 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 Longwater Village. Table 11: Longwater Law Enforcement Level of Service Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 The $219 per square foot value of the satellite office in Table 10 was obtained from the 2016 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Update. The equipment value per certified police officer is calculated in Table 12. Law Enforcement Capital Revenues: Impact Fee Revenue 1,268,000$ Other Capital Revenues*230,000 Total Capital Revenues 1,498,000$ Direct Capital Costs: Law Enforcement Equipment Cost Equipment Value per Certified Police Officer 106,000$ Certified Police Officers at Achieved LOS 9.5 Law Enforcement Equipment Cost 1,008,000$ Total Law Enforcement Direct Capital Costs 1,008,000$ Law Enforcement Capital Revenues in Excess of Direct Capital Costs 490,000$ Law Enforcement Indirect Capital Costs: Law Enforcement Direct Capital Surplus 490,000$ Land and Building Cost per Sq Ft 219$ Additional Law Enforcement Facility Sq Ft Funded 2,238 Law Enforcement Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs -$ Longwater SRA Funded Law Enforcement Facilities Peak Seasonal Population 5,373 Achieved LOS (Officers per 1,000 Peak Residents)1.77 Funded Facilities and Equipment for Certified Police Officers 9.5 LOS Share Law Enforcement Facilities 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 18 Table 12: Longwater Law Enforcement Equipment Cost per Certified Police Officer Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 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. Table 13: Longwater Correctional Facilities Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2020 The capital cost for correctional facilities is calculated below. Table 14: Longwater Correctional Facilities Capital Cost Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2020 The indexed capital cost per bed is calculated in Table 15. Item Amount Equipment Inventory Value 70,020,524$ Number of Certified Police Officers 660 Equipment Value per Officer 106,000$ Correctional Facilities Capital Revenues: Impact Fee Revenue 1,088,000$ Other Capital Revenues*60,000 Total Capital Revenues 1,148,000$ Capital Cost (Land, Building, Vehicles, and Equipment) - Indexed 1,148,000$ Correctional Facilities Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs -$ *Included in the Collier County General Funds expenditures analysis. Longwater SRA 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 1,503 2,719 Total Condo, Duplex, Single-Family Attached 0.94 1,097 1,031 Retail 50,001 to 100,000 sfgla 2.46 80,000 197 Total Functional Population 3,947 2018 Indexed Capital Cost per Functional Population 290.98$ Total Capital Cost 1,148,000$ Residential Seasonal Population and Employment 5,563 2018 Indexed Capital Cost per Peak Population 206.36$ 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 19 Table 15: Longwater Correctional Facilities Indexed Cost per Resident Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 Collier County Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Capital Impacts According to EMS management, Longwater Village will be primarily served by a new EMS facility planned for the corner of Desoto Blvd./Golden Gate Blvd East. The County acquired the site in January 2020. The Greater Naples Fire Rescue District will co-locate a fire facility at the site. EMS management anticipates the station will be placed in service in 2022. The cost of the new facility will be funded by the County’s One-Cent Infrastructure surtax which was authorized in 2018. If additional EMS capacity is needed to serve Rivergrass SRA Village, and potentially Hyde Park SRA Village and Longwater SRA Village, EMS management anticipates leasing space for an additional vehicle at the new NCFR station planned for 22nd Avenue/Desoto Blvd N. Because NCFR is planning to maintain an apparatus at the new EMS station, the two entities may enter into a mutual cost-sharing arrangement. 7 The EMS level of service in the County’s AUIR is approximately 1 unit (vehicle, equipment, station space) per 16,400 population; however, in addition to this metric, EMS also relies on demand factors such as response time and call volume to site new facilities. Call volume is affected by demographics in the service area. For example, nearly 70 percent of the County’s ambulance fee collections are from Medicare and Medicaid patients. Table 16 compares calculates the net allocable cost of the new EMS station to Longwater Village using a peak seasonal resident population approach. 7 As described in the 2019 AUIR, the County currently leases 14 EMS stations. For 10 of the 14 leased stations, no rent is paid but rather a shared monthly utility charged is a ssessed. Annual lease payments for EMS facilities are considered in the County operating impact section of this report. 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.1.e Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 20 Table 16: Longwater Allocation of New EMS Station Cost Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2020 Table 17 compares the allocable cost of the new station to projected impact fees for Longwater Village. Table 17: Longwater EMS Capital Impact *Included in the Collier County General Funds net fiscal impact buildout analysis. Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2020 Longwater Regional Parks Capital Impacts The County imposes separate impact fees for community and regional 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. Allocation of New EMS Station Proportionate Allocation 2019 AUIR Cost of Shared Station: Facility $ 1,325,000 Equipment 551,057 Total Capital Cost of Shared Station 1,876,057$ Less One-Cent Infrastructure Surtax Funding (1,325,000) Net Allocable Cost 551,057$ Demand Base 16,400 Per Capita Cost 33.60$ Longwater Village Peak Resident Population 5,373 EMS New Station Cost Allocable to Longwater Village 181,000$ EMS Capital Revenues: Impact Fee Revenue 303,000$ Other Capital Revenues*7,000 Total Capital Revenues 310,000$ EMS New Station Cost Allocable to Longwater Village 181,000$ Net Capital Revenues Available for EMS Growth- Related Capital Needs 129,000 EMS Total Capital Cost 310,000$ Longwater Village EMS Capital 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 21 Table 18: Longwater Regional Parks Capital Impacts Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 The County’s adopted LOS for Regional Parks is 2.70 acres per 1,000 peak population. County Staff recommended the application of an adjusted achieved LOS of 1.82 acres per 1,000 peak population for purposes of this analysis. Table 19: Longwater Regional Parks Level of Service Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 The indexed capital cost per Regional Park acre is calculated in Table 20. Table 20: Longwater Regional Parks Indexed Capital Cost per Acre Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 Longwater Community Parks Capital Impacts Community Parks capital impacts are presented in Table 21. Regional Park Capital Revenues Impact Fee Revenue 5,400,000$ Other Capital Revenues*283,000 Total Capital Revenues 5,683,000$ Regional Park Indirect Capital Costs Indexed Land & Facility Cost per Acre 590,288$ Regional Park Acres at Achieved LOS 9.78 Longwater SRA Funded Regional Park Acres 5,772,000$ Regional Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs (89,000)$ Community Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs 112,000 Total Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs 23,000$ *Included in the Collier County General Funds and MSTU expenditures analysis. Longwater SRA Funded Regional Park Facilities Regional Park Achieved LOS per County Staff 1.82 Longwater SRA Peak Seasonal Population 5,373 Longwater SRA Community Park Acreage 9.78 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$ 2018 Index 1.106 2018 Indexed Cost per Acre 590,288$ 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 22 Table 21: Longwater Community Parks Capital Impacts Source: Collier County, Collier Enterprises, DPFG, 2019 The County’s adopted LOS for Community Parks is 1.20 acres per 1,000 peak population , and the achieved LOS is 1.47 acres. As such, the adopted LOS was used to estimate the number of Community Park acres needed to serve Longwater Village. Table 22: Longwater Community Parks Level of Service Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 The indexed capital cost per Community Park acre is calculated in Table 23. Table 23: Longwater Community Parks Indexed Capital Cost per Acre Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 Longwater 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 1,903,000$ Other Capital Revenues*31,000 Total Capital Revenues 1,934,000$ Community Park Indirect Capital Costs Indexed Land & Facility Cost per Acre 282,573$ Community Park Acres at Adopted LOS 6.45 Longwater SRA Funded Community Park Acres 1,822,000$ Community Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs 112,000$ Regional Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs (89,000) Total Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs 23,000$ Longwater SRA Funded Community Park Facilities Community Park Adopted LOS 1.20 Longwater SRA Peak Seasonal Population 5,373 Longwater SRA Community Park Acreage 6.45 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$ 2018 Index 1.065 2018 Indexed Cost per Acre 282,573$ 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA 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: Longwater Libraries Capital Impacts Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 The County’s adopted LOS for Library facilities is 0.33 square feet per 1,000 peak population; whereas, the achieved LOS is 0.31 square feet for owned facilities. As such, the achieved LOS was used to estimate the library square footage needed to serve Longwater Village. Table 25: Longwater Library Facilities Level of Service Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 The library square foot value of $243, and the unit cost per capita value of $39 were obtained from the 2016 Library Impact Fee Update. Government Buildings Capital Impacts Government buildings impact fees include remaining non-enterprise County land, buildings, information technology and vehicles. Fees are assessed at the recommended level. Revenues and costs associated with maintaining and operating the County’s General Government facilities are provided in the General Funds Operating Impacts section. General Government capital impacts are presented in Table 26. Library Capital Revenues: Impact Fee Revenue 680,000$ Other Capital Revenues*100,000 Total Capital Revenue 780,000$ Library Capital Costs: Library Facility Cost Library Sq Ft at Achieved LOS 1,687 Library Facility Cost per Sq Ft 243.20$ Library Facility Cost 410,000$ Library Materials/Collections Unit Cost per Capita 38.62$ Peak Seasonal Population 5,373 Total Items 208,000$ Total Library Capital Costs 618,000$ Library Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs 162,000$ *Included in the Collier County General Funds expenditures analysis. Longwater SRA Funded Library Facilities Peak Seasonal Population 5,373 Sq Ft per Peak Seasonal Resident at Achieved LOS 0.31 Library Sq Ft (Achieved LOS)1,687 LOS Share of Library Facilities 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 24 Table 26: Longwater General Government Capital Impacts Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2020 General government capital costs are calculated in Table 27. Table 27: Longwater General Government Capital Cost Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2020 Longwater Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect to County Capital Impacts. Water and Wastewater The following table is a calculation of the Longwater Village potable water demands and wastewater generation with all factors and assumptions: Government Building Capital Revenues: Impact Fee Revenue 1,993,000$ Revenue Credits*67,000 Total Capital Revenue 2,060,000$ Government Building Capital Costs: Government Building Indirect Capital Costs :2,060,000$ Government Building Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs -$ *Included in the Collier County General Funds expenditures analysis. Longwater SRA Funded Government Buildings Land Use Functional Population Coefficient Units/ Square Feet Functional Population Single Family Detached Less than 4,000 sq ft 1.81 1,503 2,722 Total Condo, Duplex, Single-Family Attached 0.86 1,097 945 Retail 50,001 to 100,000 sfgla 2.46 80,000 197 Total Functional Population 3,864 Capital Cost per Functional Population 533.72$ Total Proportionate Capital Cost 2,060,000$ Residential Seasonal Population and Employment 5,563 Capital Cost per Peak Population 370.30$ 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 25 Figure 2: Longwater Water and Wastewater Demands Longwater Water and Wastewater Demands Wastewater Potable Water Wastewater to water conversion = 1.5 Residential 2,600 DU @ 200 gpd = 520,000 gpd 2,600 DU @ 300 gpd = 780,000 gpd Commercial 80,000 sf @ 0.15 gpd = 12,000 gpd 80,000 sf @ 0.23 gpd = 18,000 gpd Civic 26,000 sf @ 0.15 gpd = 3,900 gpd 26,000 sf @ 0.23 gpd = 5,850 gpd 535,900 gpd 803,850 gpd 535,900 gpd = 0.54 mgd ADF 803,850 gpd = 0.80 mgd ADF M3D Factor = 1.5 M3D Factor = 1.3 M3D Flow = 0.80 mgd M3D Flow = 1.05 mgd Source: Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc., Hole Montes, 2020 Potable water services for the Longwater Village project will be provided by the Collier County Water and Sewer District from existing and planned facilities per a proposed Interlocal Agreement that outlines commitments from Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. and CDC Land Investments, LLC and the Big Cypress Stewardship District. The estimated potable water demand for residential development at the project is based on 300 gpd per D.U. (residential), and 2,600 residences. Potable water demand for commercial development is based on 23 gpd per 100 feet square or 0.23 gpd/sf. Using these assumptions, potable water demand for the Longwater Village development at buildout is projected to be approximately 0.8 MGD average daily demand and 1.05 MGD maximum 3-day demand. Wastewater services for the Longwater Village project will be provided by the Collier County Water and Sewer District from existing and planned facilities per a proposed Interlocal Agreement that outlines commitments from Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. and CDC Land Investments, LLC and the Big Cypress Stewardship District. Anticipated wastewater generated by the development is based on a per capita daily volume of 200 gpd per D.U. for 2,600 residences. Wastewater demand for commercial development is based on 15 gpd per 100 feet square or 0.15 gpd/sf. This results in build out wastewater flows of 0.54 MGD on an average daily basis and 0.8 MGD on a maximum 3-day basis. Refer to the proposed Interlocal Agreement for a description of the commitments, including the prepayment of a portion of water and wastewater impact fees. Longwater Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect to Collier County’s Water and Wastewater capital and operating impacts. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 26 Stormwater Management The project’s stormwater management system has received a Conceptual Approval permit from the SFWMD (#11-03949-P). The criteria used in the preparation of this plan was based on the predevelopment agricultural stormwater management system currently in place. Stormwater discharges from the lands in question are equal or less pre versus post on both a peak rate and total volume perspective. As such, the discharges mimic that of undeveloped lands. Therefore, in the event of a change to the agreement between Collier County and the Big Cypress Basin concerning the lands to the south of I-75, no impact on any downstream system above and beyond that of undeveloped land would be realized and thus there is no impact on County stormwater facilities caused by the development of this property above and beyond undeveloped land. Collier County currently maintains no onsite stormwater infrastructure and will not in the future. The receiving water of the stormwater discharges from Longwater Village is the existing agricultural water management system aka Water Retention Area (“WRA”), which ultimately discharges to the Merrit Canal via Camp Keais Strand. No WRA areas are included within the village SRA area. The peak allowable discharge rate in Collier County applicable to this project based on ord. 90 - 10 is 0.15 cfs/acre. The proposed surface water management system will be based on the permitted agricultural system currently in place and operational. The peak discharge rate of 0.03 cfs/ac will be used to match that of the agricultural system in an effort to maintain the hydrological regime that has existed for many years on this site. The evaluation of offsite discharge rate shall be made at the outfalls of the agricultural system in accordance with the Conceptual Approval permit (11-03949-P) issued by SFWMD for this and its surrounding applicant owned property. The flowways within this project are natural wetland systems. The capacity that exists prior to development will exist after development and will not be increased nor decreased. No surrounding properties currently flow through the SRA area of this project. The same predevelopment drainage basin boundaries will be maintained by the proposed design. Stormwater water quality treatment within this SRA will be predominantly accomplished by wet detention (lakes) located within the SRA and overlapping into the WRA areas as permitted by SFWMD. Commercial areas will also utilize dry detention pretreatment areas in accordance with SFWMD requirements. Discharges from the SRA water management system to natural WRA areas will occur only after water quality volumes have been achieved and will be by permitted control structures and facilities. Initial phases of development may pump stormwater after treatment consistent with the pre-development drainage of the land. The provided water quality treatment volume of this SRA will be in accordance with the approved SFWMD ERP, inclusive of an additional 50 percent of water quality to be provided in excess of the calculated base water 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 27 quality volume for compliance with the interim watershed management plan. Water quantity treatment will occur in both the SRA sited lake system and the WRA areas in concert. Several alterations to the WRA areas adjacent to the Village were proposed and approved by SFWMD with the Conceptual Approval Permit. Stormwater management/buffer lakes and their associated containment berms have been permitted in select locations in the existing WRA’s. These modifications were confined to areas of the WRA that exhibited heavy exotic infestation and had little to no habitat function. All of these alterations have mitigation identified in the permit which will be made upon implementation of the impact. The water management concept for Longwater Village involves the use of the existing agricultural water management system. The proposed system design will use permitted control elevations, discharge rates and discharge locations. The plan as proposed has received a Conc eptual Approval Permit issued by SFWMD. All discharges to the WRA (wetland) areas from development will be made only after water quality volumes have been provided in the development area. Areas of the WRA will be excavated to form parts of the internal buffer lake system. Areas to be excavated are low quality exotic impacted areas and will be mitigated for through the SFWMD process. The only fill areas within WRA’s will be berms associated with the surface water management system. which will be mitigated through the SFWMD process. No impacts are proposed to Camp Keais Strand by this project. Collier County will bear no responsibility for or cost associated with the Longwater Village water management system; therefore, the fiscal impact to Collier County is neutral. Longwater Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect of Stormwater Management capital and operating impacts. Irrigation Water The Longwater Village project site has a long history of permitted agricultural withdrawals from the Water Table and Lower Tamiami Aquifers that has not resulted in adverse impacts to natural environments. At build-out, the Longwater Village project will result in converting approximately 1,000 acres of agricultural land into a residential development. The agricultural water allocations currently permitted and used within the Longwater Village project area total approximately 3.37 MGD on an annual average basis and approximately 8.86 MGD on a maximum monthly basis. The transition of agricultural use to residential/commercial use will result in approximately 30 7 acres of landscaping and turf within the Longwater Village development requiring irrigation. The project irrigation demand for this amount of irrigated acreage as determined using the SFWMD Blaney-Criddle method are: • 1.18 MGD on an annual average basis • 1.71 MGD on a maximum monthly basis 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 28 The proposed change in land use is anticipated to result in a significant net reduction of irrigation water usage at the site. The Longwater Village project will obtain a water use permit from the SFWMD which will allow withdrawal from surface water and ground water sources onsite to meet irrigation demands. However, the developer is in discussions with the County to secure 100 percent of the project’s irrigation demands from reclaimed water. In addition, the developer is working with the County to develop additional water resources onsite to meet public water supply needs throughout the County service area. If the County provides reclaimed water to meet all the project’s irrigation water demands, the SFWMD permit will only be used for 30 -day back up supply in the event that there is a disruption in reclaimed water supply. The on site irrigation water supply system will include stormwater lakes and wells. The lake system will be used to supply irrigation water for the project and wells will be utilized to partially or fully resupply the withdrawal lakes. The proposed source aquifer for the wells is the Lower Tamiami Aquifer which is currently permitted to meet the existing agricultural water demands on the project site. The lake withdrawals will provide an efficient and low impact method for effectively harvesting available stormwater supplies. Lake volume storage in the lake system as well as re - supply by groundwater from the recharge wells will minimize potential impacts to surface and groundwater levels. The developer would be responsible for all costs associated with the permitting, construction, and maintenance of the irrigation system. Collier County will bear no responsibility for or cost associated with the Longwater Village irrigation system, therefore the fiscal impact to Collier County is neutral. Longwater Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect of Irrigation Water capital and operating impacts. Solid Waste Collier County’s contractor hauler, Waste Management Inc. of Florida (“WMIF”), will collect solid waste generated within Longwater Village. Recycled materials will be collected from curbside recycling containers through contract haulers. Residential recyclables and horticultural waste will be collected at the curb on a weekly basis. Construction debris will be collected and processed by a local business specializing in the recycling of construction products. Commercial and institutional facilities will utilize dumpster containers for the storage of garbage and rubbish. Recycling containers will be used to store recyclables in the commercial and institutional areas. Solid waste collected within Longwater Village will be hauled to the Immokalee Solid Waste Transfer Station and from there transported to WMIF’s Okeechobee Landfill. According to WMIF, the Okeechobee Landfill has adequate capacity for the next 25 years. Alternatively, the Collier County Naples landfill also has capacity according to the Collier County 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report. Revenues and expenses of the solid waste operations described above are accounted for in the County’s Solid Waste Fund, a self-supporting enterprise fund. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 29 Longwater Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect to Collier County’s Landfill. NORTH COLLIER FIRE & RESCUE DISTRICT North Collier Fire & Rescue Capital Impacts Longwater Village 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, Longwater Village is within a mile of a planned fire facility which is already owned by the North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District. Table 28: Longwater North Collier Fire & Rescue District Capital Impacts Source: North Collier Fire & Rescue District, DPFG, 2020 Capital costs are estimated in Table 29. Table 29: Longwater Fire & Rescue District Functional Population Source: North Collier Fire & Rescue District, DPFG, 2020 Projected impact fee revenues are presented in Table 3 0 and total $1.4 million. Capital Impact: Fire District Capital Revenues Impact Fee Revenue 1,432,000$ Other Capital Revenue 82,000 Total Capital Revenue 1,514,000$ Fire District Capital Cost Capital Cost per Functional Resident (Indexed)407$ Functional Population 3,721 Total Capital Cost 1,514,000$ Fire District Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs -$ Capital Impact at Buildout Land Use Functional Population Coefficient Units/ Square Feet Functional Population Single Family Detached < 4,000 sq ft 1.71 1,503 2,570 Multi-Family 0.87 1,097 954 Retail 100,000 gsf or less 2.46 80,000 197 Total Functional Population 3,721 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 30 Table 30: Longwater North Collier Fire & Rescue Impact Fee Revenues Source: North Collier Fire & Rescue District, DPFG, 2020 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, Longwater Village is currently projected to generate significant operating surpluses. Annual operating revenues and expenditures are reflected in Table 31. Table 31: Longwater Big Corkscrew Island SDA Annual Operating Impacts at Buildout Source: North Collier Fire & Rescue District, DPFG, 2020 Longwater Village 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 Longwater Village on the Collier County Public Schools (“CCPS”) 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. Units or Fire Impact Fee Category Sq Ft Impact Fee Total Total Condo, Duplex, Single-Family Attached 1,097 334.82$ 367,000$ Total SFD < 4,000 Sq Ft 1,503 658.09$ 989,000 Retail 50,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft 80,000 0.9485$ 76,000 Total Fire Impact Fees 1,432,000$ Annual Operating Impact: Longwater SRA Ad Valorem Tax Base 805,353,000$ Big Corkscrew Island SDA Millage Rate 3.75 Annual Ad Valorem Revenues 3,020,000$ 3,020,000$ Annual Expenditures: 2019-20 North Collier Fire Budget: Personnel and Operating Expenses 37,774,581$ Debt Service 565,627 Capital 2,889,975 Total Expenditures 41,230,183$ North Collier Fire District Functional Population 147,405 Operating Cost per Functional Resident 280$ Longwater SRA Functional Population 3,721 Annual Operating Cost 1,042,000$ 1,042,000$ Annual Operating Surplus 1,978,000$ Annual Operating Impact at Buildout 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 31 Table 32: Longwater Projected Public School Enrollment Source: Collier County School District, Collier Enterprises, DPFG, 2019 Projected enrollment by type of school is shown in Table 33. Table 33: Longwater Projected Enrollment by School Type Source: Collier County School District, Collier Enterprises, DPFG, 2019 According to the School District, at this time there is existing or planned capacity within the next five years at the elementary, middle and high school levels for each village individually. However, the proposed Bellmar and Longwater Villages and the approved Rivergrass Village, collectively, result in the School District exceeding its estimated capacity. A stipulation to the proposed Development Order requires the developer to convey real property for two school sites (Site A shall be used only for a public high school and/or middle school and Site B shall be used only for a public elementary school) in exchange for educational impact fee credits . The proposed stipulation states, “With respect to the conveyance of real property, by the Applicant to the District, the School Reservation of School Site A and B to the District fully mitigates for the development’s impact to the elementary, middle and high schools needed to serve Rivergrass, Longwater, and Belmar SRAs.” At the time of site plan or plat, the development will be reviewed to ensure there is capacity either within the concurrency service area the development is located within or adjacent concurrency service areas. The capital costs of the Longwater students are presented in Table 34 and are based on the 2015 School Impact Fee Update which includes a capitalized interest component. These estimates are conservative compared to the November 2019 F.S. 1013.64(b) statutory cost caps of Elementary $23,284, Middle $25,144, and High $32,661 per student station. Residential Unit Type Units SGR Projected Students Total Condo, Duplex, Single-Family Attached 1,097 0.11 121 Total SFD < 4,000 Sq Ft 1,503 0.34 511 Total Residential 2,600 632 School Type Projected Students Percent Elementary 287 45.48% Middle 139 22.06% High 205 32.46% Total 632 100.00% 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 32 Table 34: Longwater School Capital Costs Source: Collier County Schools, DPFG, 2019 School impact fee revenue is shown in Table 35. Table 35: Longwater School Impact Fee Revenue Source: Collier County Schools, DPFG, 2019 As seen in Table 36, capital revenues consist primarily of ad valorem taxes (1.5 mills) and impact fees. The capital impact of Longwater Village is favorable as 42 percent of the housing units are expected to generate only 0.11 students per household. Table 36: Longwater School Net Capital Impacts – Total Cash Flow Approach Source: Collier County Schools, DPFG, 2020 Facility Costs Students Cost per Student Total School Facility Cost: Elementary 287 36,058$ 10,365,000$ Middle 139 42,266 5,892,000 High 205 48,381 9,924,000 Cost of New School Facilities 632 41,426$ 26,181,000$ Transportation and Ancillary Costs - Initial: Transportation 632 $ 1,097 693,000 Anxillary Facility 632 $ 1,206 762,000 Total Transportation/Ancillary 632 $ 2,303 1,455,000 Total Capital Costs 43,728$ 27,636,000$ Units or School Impact Fee Category Sq Ft Impact Fee Total Total Condo, Duplex, Single-Family Attached 1,097 2,844.19$ 3,120,000$ Total SFD < 4,000 Sq Ft 1,503 8,789.54$ 13,211,000 Total School Impact Fees 16,331,000$ School Impact Fee Revenue Capital Improvement Tax*Total School Capital Revenues: School Impact Fee Revenue 16,331,000$ 16,331,000$ School District Capital Tax Revenue 25,742,000 25,742,000 Total School Capital Revenues 16,331,000$ 25,742,000$ 42,073,000$ Direct School Capital Expenditures: New Schools 26,181,000$ New School Buses K-12 693,000 Direct School Capital Expenditures:26,874,000$ Other School Capital Expenditures: School Bus Replacement Cost 693,000$ Other Direct School and/or Systemwide Capital Expenditures 14,506,000 Total School Capital Expenditures 42,073,000$ * Consistent with 25-Year Credit Period in CCPS School Impact Fee Study. Revenue/Expense 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 33 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 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 s ure 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 millage history is shown in Figure 3. Figure 3: Collier County School District Tax Roll and Millage History 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 34 Source: Collier County School District, 2019 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 37. Table 37: Longwater Local Ad Valorem School Operating Taxes at Buildout Source: Collier County Schools, DPFG, 2020 Longwater Village is deemed fiscally neutral respect to the Collier County School District. School District Operating Results At Buildout Ad Valorem Local Millage - Residential 3.583 2,951,000$ Ad Valorem Local Millage - NonResidential 3.583 54,000 Ad Valorem Local Millage Revenues 3,005,000$ Ad Valorem Local Millage Operating Expenditures 3,005,000$ Ad Valorem Local Millage Net Revenues -$ Operating Millage 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 35 APPENDIX Appendix Table 1: Collier County Base Assumptions Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 COLLIER COUNTY STUDY PERIOD FY 2019 County Budget Year COLLIER COUNTYWIDE POPULATION 376,086 2019 County Permanent Population - Collier County 2018 AUIR 1.20 Seasonal Population Coefficient - Collier County 451,303 2019 County Peak Seaonal Population - Collier County 2018 AUIR 75,217 2019 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 Employment COLLIER COUNTY PEAK TOURIST POPULATION 243,100 Collier County CVB Profile - March 2019 7,842 Peak Daily Tourists COLLIER COUNTYWIDE POPULATION AND JOBS 550,537 County Permanent Population and Jobs 625,754 County Peak Seasonal Population and Jobs 633,596 County Peak Seasonal Population, Tourists, and Jobs COLLIER UNINCORPORATED COUNTY POPULATION 333,831 2019 Unincorporated County Permanent Population - Collier County 2018 AUIR 1.21 Seasonal Unincorporated Population Coefficient - Collier County 404,945 2019 Unincorporated County Peak Seaonal Population - Collier County 2018 AUIR 71,114 2019 Unincorporated County Peak Seasonal Population COLLIER COUNTY UNINCORPORATED EMPLOYMENT 154,851 Allocation based on Collier County 2016 EMS Impact Fee Update COLLIER COUNTY UNINCORPORATED POPULATION AND JOBS 488,682 County Permanent Population and Jobs 559,796 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 - 2018 Final Tax Roll Year 66%Single Family 31%Condominium 50,000$ County Homestead Exemption 25,000$ School Homestead Exemption 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 36 Appendix Table 2: Longwater Resident Population and Seasonal Population Coefficients Source: Collier Enterprises, Collier County, DPFG, 2019 Appendix Table 3: Longwater Population and Employment Estimates Source: Collier Enterprises, Collier County, DPFG, 2020 Appendix Table 4: Longwater Population and Employment Summary Source: Collier Enterprises, Inc., Collier County, DPFG, 2020 Appendix Table 5: Longwater Public School Enrollment Source: Collier County Schools, DPFG, 2019 Land Use by Impact Fee Category Permanent Population Per Unit Seasonal Index Peak Seasonal Persons Per Unit Residential (Units) Total Condo, Dupex, Single-Family Attached 1.05 1.20 1.26 Total SFD < 4,000 Sq Ft 2.21 1.20 2.65 Land Use by Impact Fee Category Units Peak Seasonal Persons Per Unit Peak Seasonal Population Permanent Population Per Unit Permanent Population Residential Total Condo, Duplex, Single-Family Attached 1,097 1.26 1,383 1.05 1,152 Total SFD < 4,000 Sq Ft 1,503 2.65 3,990 2.21 3,325 Total Residential 2,600 5,373 4,477 Non-Residential Sq Ft Employment Coefficient Occup %Employees Retail 50,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft 80,000 2.50 95%190 Total Non-Residential 80,000 190 Neigborhood Civic 26,000 Grand Total Non-Residential (sf)106,000 190 Cumulative Population and Employment At Buildout Permanent Population 4,477 Permanent Population and Jobs 4,667 Residential Seasonal Population 5,373 Residential Seasonal Population and Tourists 5,373 Employment 190 Residential Seasonal Population and Employment 5,563 Residential Seasonal Population, Tourists, and Employment 5,563 Students Total Residential Population Units per Unit Students Total Condo, Dupex, Single-Family Attached 1,097 0.11 118 Total SFD < 4,000 Sq Ft 1,503 0.34 514 Annual Total 2,600 632 Cumulative Total 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 37 Appendix Table 6: Longwater County Tax Base Source: Collier Enterprises, Collier County, Shimberg Center for Housing Studies (Univ. of FL), DPFG, 2020 Appendix Table 7: Longwater School District Tax Base Source: Collier Enterprises, Collier County, Shimberg Center for Housing Studies (Univ. of FL), DPFG, 2020 Units or Taxable Value Land Use Sq Ft per Unit/SF At Buildout Residential Total Condo, Duplex, Single-Family Attached 1,097 245,112$ 268,888,000$ Total SFD < 4,000 Sq Ft 1,503 346,843$ 521,305,000 Total Residential 2,600 790,193,000$ Non-Residential Retail 50,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft 80,000 189.50$ 15,160,000 Total Non-Residential 80,000 15,160,000$ Total Tax Base 805,353,000$ Units or Taxable Value Land Use Sq Ft per Unit/SF At Buildout Residential Total Condo, Duplex, Single-Family Attached 1,097 252,862$ 277,390,000$ Total SFD < 4,000 Sq Ft 1,503 363,343$ 546,105,000 Total Residential 2,600 823,495,000$ Non-Residential Retail 50,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft 80,000 189.50$ 15,160,000 Total Non-Residential 80,000 15,160,000$ Total Tax Base 838,655,000$ 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 38 Appendix Table 8: FY 2019 Collier County General Funds Budget Summaries Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 Ad Valorem Taxes Licenses & Permits Inter- Governmental Revenues State Revenue Sharing State Sales Tax Fed Payment in Lieu of Taxes Charges for Services Fines & Forfeitures Miscellaneous Revenues Interest/ Miscellaneous Indirect Service Charge Carry Forward 001 General Fund 314,823,600$ 229,200$ 453,500$ 11,000,000$ 41,000,000$ 1,250,000$ 14,214,100$ 392,500$ 208,100$ 910,000$ 8,254,500$ 41,381,100$ 002 Impact Fee Deferral Program - - - - - - - - - - - 20,200 003 Emergency Relief - - - - - - - - - - 2,300 285,100 007 Economic Development - - 400,000 - - - - - - 18,600 - 1,334,200 011 Clerk of Circuit Court - - - - - - 3,214,600 - - 36,000 - - 040 Sheriff - - - - - - - - - - - - 060 Property Appraiser - - - - - - - - - - - - 070 Tax Collector - - - - - - 23,377,700 - - 233,500 - - 080 Supervisor of Elections - - - - - - - - - - - - Total General Fund Grouping Revenues 314,823,600$ 229,200$ 853,500$ 11,000,000$ 41,000,000$ 1,250,000$ 40,806,400$ 392,500$ 208,100$ 1,198,100$ 8,256,800$ 43,020,600$ GENERAL FUND GROUPING REVENUES AND SOURCES Communication Services Tax Special Assessments Transfers from General Fund (001) Transfers from Constitutional Officers Other Transfers Repay IRMA Loan Reimburse from Other Departments Total Less Restricted Total 001 General Fund - - - 6,600,000$ 1,815,000$ 11,700,000$ 863,000$ 455,094,600$ (19,191,900)$ 435,902,700$ 002 Impact Fee Deferral Program - - - - - - - 20,200 - 20,200 003 Emergency Relief - - - - - - - 287,400 (200) 287,200 007 Economic Development - - - - - - - 1,752,800 (21,000) 1,731,800 011 Clerk of Circuit Court - - 7,367,000 - - - - 10,617,600 (159,200) 10,458,400 040 Sheriff - - 187,203,400 - - - - 187,203,400 - 187,203,400 060 Property Appraiser - - 6,951,000 - 846,100 - - 7,797,100 - 7,797,100 070 Tax Collector - - - - - - - 23,611,200 - 23,611,200 080 Supervisor of Elections - - 3,893,000 - - - - 3,893,000 - 3,893,000 Total General Fund Grouping Revenues -$ -$ 205,414,400$ 6,600,000$ 2,661,100$ 11,700,000$ 863,000$ 690,277,300$ (19,372,300)$ 670,905,000$ GENERAL FUND GROUPING REVENUES AND SOURCES Fund #General Fund Description Total Budget 001 General Fund 435,902,700$ 002 Utility Impact Fee Deferral Program 20,200 003 Emergency Disaster 287,200 007 Economic Development 1,731,800 011 Clerk of Circuit Court 10,458,400 040 Sheriff 187,203,400 060 Property Appraiser 7,797,100 070 Tax Collector 23,611,200 080 Supervisor of Elections 3,893,000 Total General Fund Groupings 670,905,000$ 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 39 Appendix Table 9: FY 2019 Collier County General Funds Revenue Demand Units Source: Collier County, DFPG, 2019 Appendix Table 10: FY 2019 Collier County MSTU Revenue Demand Units Source: Collier County, DFPG, 2019 General Fund Grouping Revenue Category Budget Demand Base Multiplier Base Demand $ Per Demand Unit Ad Valorem Taxes 314,823,600$ CUMULATIVE AV 1.00 N/A N/A Licenses & Permits 229,200 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,537 0.42$ Inter- Governmental Revenues 853,500 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,537 1.55$ State Revenue Sharing - Fixed Portion 1,042,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A State Revenue Sharing - Growth Portion 9,958,000 PERMPOP 1.00 376,086 26.48$ State Sales Tax 41,000,000 PERMPOP 1.00 376,086 109.02$ Fed Payment in Lieu of Taxes 1,250,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Charges for Services 40,806,400 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,537 74.12$ Fines & Forfeitures 392,500 PEAKPOP 1.00 451,303 0.87$ Miscellaneous Revenues 208,100 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,537 0.38$ Interest/ Miscellaneous 1,198,100 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,537 2.18$ Indirect Service Charge 8,256,800 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,537 15.00$ Carry Forward 43,020,600 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfers from General Fund (001)205,414,400 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfers from Constitutional Officers 6,600,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 625,754 10.55$ Other Transfers 2,661,100 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Repay IRMA Loan 11,700,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Reimburse from Other Departments 863,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 625,754 1.38$ Total 690,277,300$ 241.95$ General Fund Grouping Revenue Category Budget Demand Base Multiplier Base Demand $ Per Demand Unit Ad Valorem Taxes 44,228,900$ CUMULATIVE AV 1.00 N/A N/A Licenses & Permits 452,300 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 488,682 0.93$ Charges for Services 3,136,200 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 488,682 6.42$ Fines & Forfeitures 237,000 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 488,682 0.48$ Miscellaneous Revenues 231,400 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559,796 0.41$ Interest/ Miscellaneous 120,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559,796 0.21$ Carry Forward 6,982,900 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Communication Services Tax 4,500,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559,796 8.04$ Special Assessments 33,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfers from General Fund (001)916,600 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfers from Constitutional Officers 200,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Other Transfers 563,700 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Reimburse from Other Departments 21,500 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559,796 0.04$ Total 61,623,500$ 16.53$ 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 40 Appendix Table 11: Longwater General Funds Revenue at Buildout Source: Collier County, DFPG, 2020 Appendix Table 12: Longwater MSTU Revenue at Buildout Source: Collier County, DFPG, 2020 GENERAL FUND GROUPING REVENUES Demand Base At Buildout Ad Valorem Taxes CUMULATIVE AV 3.5645$ 2,871,000$ Licenses & Permits PERMPOP&JOBS 0.42$ 2,000 Inter- Governmental Revenues PERMPOP&JOBS 1.55$ 7,000 State Revenue Sharing - Growth Portion PERMPOP 26.48$ 119,000 State Sales Tax PERMPOP 109.02$ 488,000 Charges for Services PERMPOP&JOBS 74.12$ 346,000 Fines & Forfeitures PEAKPOP 0.87$ 5,000 Miscellaneous Revenues PERMPOP&JOBS 0.38$ 2,000 Interest/ Miscellaneous PERMPOP&JOBS 2.18$ 10,000 Indirect Service Charge PERMPOP&JOBS 15.00$ 70,000 Transfers from Constitutional Officers PEAKPOP&JOBS 10.55$ 59,000 Reimburse from Other Departments PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.38$ 8,000 Total General Funds Annual Operating Revenues 241.95$ 3,987,000$ $ Per Demand MSTU GENERAL FUND REVENUES Demand Base At Buildout Ad Valorem Taxes CUMULATIVE AV 0.8069$ 650,000$ Licenses & Permits PERMPOP&JOBS 0.93$ 4,000 Charges for Services PERMPOP&JOBS 6.42$ 30,000 Fines & Forfeitures PERMPOP&JOBS 0.48$ 2,000 Miscellaneous Revenues PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.41$ 2,000 Interest/ Miscellaneous PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.21$ 1,000 Communication Services Tax PEAKPOP&JOBS 8.04$ 45,000 Reimburse from Other Departments PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.04$ - Total MSTU Annual Operating Revenues 16.53$ 734,000$ $ Per Demand 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 41 Appendix Table 13: FY 2019 Collier County General Funds Expenditure Budget Summaries Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 Personal Services Operating Services Capital Outlay Grants and Aid Remittances Advance/ Repay Indirect Cost Reimbursement Transfers to Constitutional Officers Transfers to General Fund (001) Other Transfers Reserves 001 General Fund 34,711,900$ $ 36,937,400 420,500$ 3,624,600$ 6,572,800$ 445,000$ -$ 221,211,500$ 87,497,800$ 44,481,200$ 002 Impact Fee Deferral Program - - - - - - - - 20,200 - - 003 Emergency Relief - 50,000 - - - - - - - - 237,200 007 Economic Development - 211,000 - - 389,000 4,100 - - - 1,127,700 011 Clerk of Circuit Court 8,607,800 1,721,100 129,500 - - - - - - - - 040 Sheriff 152,433,800 26,926,900 7,842,700 - - - - - - - - 060 Property Appraiser 6,045,100 1,727,000 25,000 - - - - - - - - 070 Tax Collector 11,783,800 2,743,200 424,300 - - - - - - - - 080 Supervisor of Elections 2,351,800 1,493,200 48,000 - - - - - - - - Total General Fund Grouping Expenditures 215,934,200$ 71,809,800$ 8,890,000$ 3,624,600$ 6,961,800$ 445,000$ 4,100$ 221,211,500$ 20,200$ 87,497,800$ 45,846,100$ GENERAL FUND GROUPING EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES Restricted for Unfunded Requests Distribution of Excess Fees to Govt Agencies Total Personal Services Operating Services Capital Outlay Grants and Aid Remittances 001 General Fund - - 435,902,700$ 82,267,200$ 002 Impact Fee Deferral Program - - 20,200 - 003 Emergency Relief - - 287,200 50,000 007 Economic Development - - 1,731,800 604,100 011 Clerk of Circuit Court - - 10,458,400 10,458,400 040 Sheriff - - 187,203,400 187,203,400 060 Property Appraiser - - 7,797,100 7,797,100 070 Tax Collector - 8,659,900 23,611,200 14,951,300 080 Supervisor of Elections - - 3,893,000 3,893,000 Total General Fund Grouping Expenditures -$ 8,659,900$ 670,905,000$ 307,224,500$ GENERAL FUND GROUPING EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 42 Appendix Table 14: FY 2019 Collier County Expenditure Budget Summaries Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 Fund #General Fund Description Total Budget 001 General Fund 435,902,700$ 002 Utility Impact Fee Deferral Program 20,200 003 Emergency Disaster 287,200 007 Economic Development 1,731,800 011 Clerk of Circuit Court 10,458,400 040 Sheriff 187,203,400 060 Property Appraiser 7,797,100 070 Tax Collector 23,611,200 080 Supervisor of Elections 3,893,000 Total General Fund Groupings 670,905,000$ Fund Type Operating Budget General Fund Groupings 307,224,500$ Special Revenue Funds 156,082,600 Capital Funds - Enterprise Funds 42,987,300 Internal Service Funds 91,365,600 Trust and Agency Funds 23,900 Transfers and Reserves 153,874,700 Total Operating Services, Excluding Public Utilities 751,558,600$ Division/Agency Operating Budget Board of County Commissioners 17,523,000$ Constitutional Officers 243,879,300 Administrative Services 196,578,300 Growth Management 114,566,200 Court Related Agencies 5,554,000 Management Offices 51,819,600 Public Services 104,222,300 Public Utilities - Facilities Management 17,415,900 Total Operating Services, Excluding Public Utilities 751,558,600$ Public Utilities 238,142,800 Total Operating Budget 989,701,400$ 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 43 Appendix Table 15: FY 2019 Collier County Appropriations by Program Budget Summaries Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 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 10,974,700$ 3,539,800$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 14,514,500$ 5,080,100$ County Attorney 2,815,500 193,000 - - - - - 3,008,500 2,815,500 Property Appraiser 7,977,000 - - - - - - 7,977,000 7,977,000 Supervisor of Elections 3,959,600 - - - - - - 3,959,600 3,959,600 Clerk of Courts 10,960,500 - - - - - - 10,960,500 10,960,500 Sheriff 190,708,300 3,053,000 - - - - 3,385,500 197,146,800 190,708,300 Tax Collector 15,175,500 - - - - - 8,659,900 23,835,400 15,175,500 Administrative Services 667,300 - - - - - - 667,300 667,300 Dori Slosberg Driver Education - 121,400 - - - - 115,000 236,400 - Fleet Management - - - - 9,308,700 - 696,600 10,005,300 - Motor Pool Capital Recovery Program - - - 2,452,300 5,485,500 - 11,562,300 19,500,100 - Human Resources 2,173,400 - - - - - - 2,173,400 2,173,400 Information Technology - 1,221,900 - - 9,509,200 - 1,380,700 12,111,800 - Procurement Services 2,016,700 - - - - - - 2,016,700 2,016,700 Risk Management - - - - 67,062,200 - 40,610,500 107,672,700 - Communications & Customer Relations Division - 1,467,800 - - - - - 1,467,800 - Administrative Services Grants - 34,500 - - - - - 34,500 - Bureau of Emergency Services 3,313,800 75,000 - - - - 237,200 3,626,000 3,291,000 Emergency Medical Services EMS - - - 31,084,400 - - 3,562,600 34,647,000 - Fire Districts - 2,101,500 - - - - 317,800 2,419,300 - Growth Management Administration - 15,329,900 - - - - - 15,329,900 - Planning 107,300 3,477,800 - - - - - 3,585,100 107,300 Regulation - 26,514,000 - - - - 1,911,400 28,425,400 - Maintenance - 21,158,800 - - - - 872,700 22,031,500 - Improvement Districts and MSTU - 2,086,700 - - - - 36,300 2,123,000 - Operations - 9,329,900 - - - - 140,700 9,470,600 - Project Management - 5,805,000 - - - - 93,800 5,898,800 - Airport - - - 3,815,900 - - 737,700 4,553,600 - Reserves and Transfers - - - - - - 23,148,300 23,148,300 - Court Administration - 2,968,700 - - - - 235,200 3,203,900 - Circuit & County Court Judges 65,900 - - - - - - 65,900 65,900 Public Defender 308,400 - - - - - - 308,400 308,400 State Attorney 407,400 - - - - - - 407,400 407,400 Guardian Ad Litem Program 4,600 - - - - - - 4,600 4,600 Court Related Technology - 1,068,500 - - - - 495,300 1,563,800 - County Manager Operations 1,392,000 - - - - - - 1,392,000 1,392,000 Corporate Compliance and Performance Impr.664,200 - - - - - - 664,200 664,200 Office of Management & Budget 1,367,900 1,310,600 - - - - 442,400 3,120,900 1,367,900 Tourist Development Council - 12,291,400 - - - - 5,588,400 17,879,800 - Amateur Sports Complex - 2,194,900 - - - - - 2,194,900 - Pelican Bay Services - 4,930,300 - - - - 2,708,600 7,638,900 - Business and Economic Development 2,063,500 - - - - - 3,164,500 5,228,000 1,019,100 Ave Maria Innovation Zone - 1,000 - - - - 204,800 205,800 - Bayshore CRA - 7,394,300 - - - - 3,534,600 10,928,900 - Immokalee CRA - 1,216,600 - - - - 1,349,600 2,566,200 - Public Services Administration 297,400 - - - - - - 297,400 297,400 Operations and Veteran Services 1,083,900 - - - - - - 1,083,900 1,083,900 Domestic Animal Services 3,441,700 90,500 - - - - 313,000 3,845,200 3,441,700 Community and Human Services 7,557,300 1,171,900 - - - - 1,409,100 10,138,300 7,557,300 Library 8,216,500 270,800 - - - - 21,200 8,508,500 8,216,500 Museum - 2,217,400 - - - - 280,500 2,497,900 - Parks & Recreation 10,050,300 17,141,500 - - - 23,900 34,585,900 61,801,600 10,050,300 University Extension Service 775,900 68,200 - - - - 22,100 866,200 775,900 Public Health 1,861,000 - - - - - - 1,861,000 1,861,000 Public Transit and Neighborhood Enhancement 359,000 - - 5,634,700 - - 480,800 6,474,500 359,000 Improvement Districts and MSTU - 6,185,300 - - - - 662,500 6,847,800 - Facilities Management 16,458,000 50,700 - - - - 907,200 17,415,900 16,458,000 Total 307,224,500$ 156,082,600$ -$ 42,987,300$ 91,365,600$ 23,900$ 153,874,700$ 751,558,600$ 300,262,700$ 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 44 Appendix Table 16: FY 2019 Collier County General Funds Expenditure Demand Units Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 Department Budget Demand Base Multiplier Base Demand Board of County Commissioners 5,080,100$ PERMPOP 0.50 376,086 6.75$ County Attorney 2,815,500 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 625,754 2.25$ Property Appraiser 7,977,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 625,754 12.75$ Supervisor of Elections 3,959,600 PERMPOP 0.50 376,086 5.26$ Clerk of Courts 10,960,500 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 625,754 8.76$ Sheriff 190,708,300 PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 1.00 633,596 300.99$ Tax Collector 15,175,500 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,537 27.56$ Administrative Services 667,300 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 625,754 0.53$ Human Resources 2,173,400 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 625,754 1.74$ Procurement Services 2,016,700 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 625,754 1.61$ Bureau of Emergency Services 3,291,000 PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 1.00 633,596 5.19$ Planning 107,300 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 625,754 0.17$ Circuit & County Court Judges 65,900 PEAKPOP 1.00 451,303 0.15$ Public Defender 308,400 PERMPOP 1.00 376,086 0.82$ State Attorney 407,400 PERMPOP 1.00 376,086 1.08$ Guardian Ad Litem Program 4,600 PERMPOP 1.00 376,086 0.01$ County Manager Operations 1,392,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 625,754 1.11$ Corporate Compliance and Performance Impr.664,200 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Office of Management & Budget 1,367,900 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 625,754 1.09$ Business and Economic Development 1,019,100 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Public Services Administration 297,400 PERMPOP 0.50 376,086 0.40$ Operations and Veteran Services 1,083,900 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Domestic Animal Services 3,441,700 PERMPOP 1.00 376,086 9.15$ Community and Human Services 7,557,300 PERMPOP 0.50 376,086 10.05$ Library 8,216,500 PEAKPOP 1.00 451,303 18.21$ Parks & Recreation 10,050,300 PEAKPOP 1.00 451,303 22.27$ University Extension Service 775,900 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Public Health 1,861,000 PERMPOP 0.20 376,086 0.99$ Public Transit and Neighborhood Enhancement 359,000 PERMPOP 0.50 376,086 0.48$ Facilities Management 16,458,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 625,754 26.30$ General Funds Grouping Totals Less Remittances 300,262,700$ Remittances 6,961,800 FIXED 1.00 - N/A General Funds Grouping Totals Plus Remittances 307,224,500$ Transfer to 101 Transp Op Fund 20,154,300 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 625,754 32.21$ Transfer to 103 Stormwater Utility 1,474,300 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfer to 111 Unincorp Gen Fd 916,600 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfer to 298 Sp Ob Bond 2,775,900 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfer to 299 Debt Service Fund 703,500 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfer to 301 Capital Projects 15,335,700 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfer to 306 Parks Ad Valorem Cap Fund 1,100,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfer to 310 Growth Mgt Transportation Cap 8,555,800 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 625,754 13.67$ Transfer to 314 Musuem Cap 200,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfer to 325 Stormwater Cap Fund 2,500,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfer to 426 CAT Mass Transit 1,952,900 PEAKPOP 1.00 451,303 4.33$ Transfer to 427 Transp Disadvantaged 2,604,700 PERMPOP 1.00 376,086 6.93$ Transfer to 490 EMS Fund 18,018,600 PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 1.00 633,596 28.44$ Transfer to 506 IT Capital 430,600 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfer to 523 Motor Pool Capital 110,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfer to 652 Legal Aid 147,700 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfer to 681 Court Services 2,012,400 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfers to General Fund (001)20,200 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Other Transfers 8,504,800 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Advance/Repayments 445,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfers to Constitutional Officers 221,211,500 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Reserves 45,846,100 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Distributions in Excess of Fees to Govt Agencies 8,659,900 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,537 15.73$ Total 670,905,000$ 1.00 566.99$ $ Per Demand 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 45 Appendix Table 17: FY 2019 Collier County MSTU Expenditure Demand Units Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 Department Budget Demand Base Multiplier Base Demand Board of County Commissioners 1,237,900 PERMPOP 0.50 333,831 3.71$ Communications & Customer Relations Division 1,467,800 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 559,796 2.62$ Growth Management Administration 556,100 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559,796 0.99$ Planning 1,804,700 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559,796 3.22$ Regulation 5,333,600 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559,796 9.53$ Maintenance 9,531,300 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559,796 17.03$ Bureau of Emergency Services 75,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559,796 0.13$ Project Management - PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559,796 -$ Pelican Bay Services 150,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Immokalee CRA 212,500 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Community and Human Services 113,100 PERMPOP 0.50 333,831 0.34$ Parks & Recreation 13,729,100 PEAKPOP 1.00 404,945 33.90$ Transfer to 306 Parks Capital Fund 2,750,000 PEAKPOP 1.00 404,945 6.79$ Transfer to 310 Growth Mgt Cap 4,250,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559,796 7.59$ Transfer to 325 Stormwater Cap Fund 3,000,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Improvement Districts and MSTU 334,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Indirect Cost Reimbursement 2,301,900 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559,796 4.11$ Remittances 500,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfers 8,383,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Advances 262,400 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Reserves 2,982,300 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Total 58,974,700$ 1.00 89.97$ $ Per Demand 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 46 Appendix Table 18: Longwater General Funds Expenditures at Buildout Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2020 GENERAL FUND GROUPING EXPENDITURES Demand Base At Buildout Board of County Commissioners PERMPOP 6.75$ 30,000$ County Attorney PEAKPOP&JOBS 2.25 13,000 Property Appraiser PEAKPOP&JOBS 12.75 71,000 Supervisor of Elections PERMPOP 5.26 24,000 Clerk of Courts PEAKPOP&JOBS 8.76 49,000 Sheriff PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 300.99 1,674,000 Tax Collector PERMPOP&JOBS 27.56 129,000 Administrative Services PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.53 3,000 Human Resources PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.74 10,000 Procurement Services PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.61 9,000 Bureau of Emergency Services PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 5.19 29,000 Planning PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.17 1,000 Circuit & County Court Judges PEAKPOP 0.15 1,000 Public Defender PERMPOP 0.82 4,000 State Attorney PERMPOP 1.08 5,000 Guardian Ad Litem Program PERMPOP 0.01 - County Manager Operations PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.11 6,000 Office of Management & Budget PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.09 6,000 Public Services Administration PERMPOP 0.40 2,000 Domestic Animal Services PERMPOP 9.15 41,000 Community and Human Services PERMPOP 10.05 45,000 Library PEAKPOP 18.21 98,000 Parks & Recreation PEAKPOP 22.27 120,000 Public Health PERMPOP 0.99 4,000 Public Transit and Neighborhood Enhancement PERMPOP 0.48 2,000 Facilities Management PEAKPOP&JOBS 26.30 146,000 Transfer to 101 Transp Op Fund PEAKPOP&JOBS 32.21 179,000 Transfer to 310 Growth Mgt Transportation Cap PEAKPOP&JOBS 13.67 76,000 Transfer to 426 CAT Mass Transit PEAKPOP 4.33 23,000 Transfer to 427 Transp Disadvantaged PERMPOP 6.93 31,000 Transfer to 490 EMS Fund PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 28.44 158,000 Distributions in Excess of Fees to Govt Agencies PERMPOP&JOBS 15.73 73,000 Total General Funds Annual Operating Expenditures 566.99$ 3,062,000$ $ Per Demand 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 47 Appendix Table 19: Longwater MSTU Expenditures at Buildout Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2020 MSTU GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES Demand Base At Buildout Board of County Commissioners PERMPOP 3.71$ 17,000$ Communications & Customer Relations Division PEAKPOP&JOBS 2.62$ 15,000 Growth Management Administration PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.99$ 6,000 Planning PEAKPOP&JOBS 3.22$ 18,000 Regulation PEAKPOP&JOBS 9.53$ 53,000 Maintenance PEAKPOP&JOBS 17.03$ 95,000 Bureau of Emergency Services PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.13$ 1,000 Project Management PEAKPOP&JOBS -$ - Community and Human Services PERMPOP 0.34$ 2,000 Parks & Recreation PEAKPOP 33.90$ 182,000 Transfer to 306 Parks Capital Fund PEAKPOP 6.79$ 36,000 Transfer to 310 Growth Mgt Cap PEAKPOP&JOBS 7.59$ 42,000 Indirect Cost Reimbursement PEAKPOP&JOBS 4.11$ 23,000 Total MSTU Annual Operating Expenditures 89.97 490,000$ $ Per Demand 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 48 Appendix Table 20: Collier County Impact Fee Schedule Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 Land Use Demand Unit Community Parks Regional Parks Roads EMS Schools Government Buildings Total Condo, Dupex, Single-Family Attached Unit 455.20$ 1,230.24$ 4,844.91$ 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$ Retail 50,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft Sq Ft -$ -$ 15.42477$ 0.19230$ -$ 1.27547$ Land Use Demand Unit Libraries Law Enforcement Jail Water Wastewater Total Total Condo, Dupex, Single-Family Attached Unit 159.78$ 296.56$ 259.25$ 2,562.00$ 2,701.00$ 15,864.57$ Single Family Detached < 4,000 Sq Ft Living Unit 336.05$ 586.95$ 499.19$ 2,562.00$ 2,701.00$ 27,623.28$ Retail 50,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft Sq Ft -$ 0.76499$ 0.67846$ -$ -$ 18.34$ 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 49 49 Appendix Table 21: Longwater Impact Fee Revenues Source: Collier County, Collier Enterprises, DPFG, 2020 Land Use Demand Units Demand Unit Libraries Law Enforcement Jail Water Residential Only Wastewater Residential Only Total Condo, Duplex, Single-Family Attached 1,097 Unit 175,000$ 325,000$ 284,000$ 2,811,000$ 2,963,000$ Total SFD < 4,000 Sq Ft 1,503 Unit 505,000 882,000 750,000 3,851,000 4,060,000 Retail 50,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft 80,000 Sq Ft - 61,000 54,000 - - Total 680,000$ 1,268,000$ 1,088,000$ 6,662,000$ 7,023,000$ Total of Buildout Schedules 680,000$ 1,268,000$ 1,088,000$ 6,662,000$ 7,023,000$ 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village LONGWATER VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 50 50 Appendix Table 22: Collier County School District Base Assumptions Source: Collier County School District, DPFG 2019 STUDENT GENERATION RATES - 2015 IMPACT FEE UPDATE 0.34 Single Family 0.11 Multi Family and Single Family Attached 0.28 Mobile Home FY 2020 SCHOOL FTE ENROLLMENT 18,948 Elementary 10,162 Middle 13,524 High 962 Alternate Schools No reference in budget Workforce Programs 3,253 Charter Schools 606 To Balance to Budgeted FTE 47,455 Total SCHOOL ENROLLMENT 2015 IMPACT FEE UDPATE 49%Elementary 23%Middle 28%High 100%Total FY 2020 MILLAGE RATES 2.835 Required Local Effort 0.748 Discretionary - Addiitional Millage 3.583 Total General Fund Millage 1.500 Capital Improvement Millage 5.083 Total Millage 2.835 Required by State Law 2.248 Total Discretionary Local 5.083 Total Millage 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) LONGWATER VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 51 51 GENERAL 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 November 2019 (except for the sections identified as being updated in March 2020, May 2020, August 6, 2020, and January 8, 2021), 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 mad e 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. 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.1.e Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Attachment D-Economic Assessment 1-8-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) JACOBS COLLIERCNTY LONGWATER VILLAGE PEER REVIEW_DRAFT4_081220J (002) 1 M E M O R A N D U M Collier County GMD – Peer Review of Longwater Village SRA Economic Assessment PREPARED FOR: Amy Patterson, Collier County Trinity Scott, Collier County James French, Collier County Kenneth Kovensky, Collier County Ian Barnwell, Collier County COPY TO: Bill Gramer, Jacobs PREPARED BY: Dave Green, Jacobs Dennis Jackson, Jacobs Darren Betts, Jacobs Bethel Gashaw, Jacobs DATE: August 14, 2020 Introduction Collier County, Florida (the County) Growth Management Division (GMD) engaged Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. (Jacobs) to conduct a peer review of the “Longwater Village SRA Economic Assessment” (Report) prepared by Development Planning & Financing Group (DPFG) on behalf of Collier Enterprises Management, Inc. (the Applicant or Developer). The initial version of this report was dated November 11, 2019. The version reviewed herein, was most recently revised August 6, 2020. The purpose of the peer review was to assess: • The reasonableness of the assumptions in the assessment. • The consistency of the assessment with the underlying assumptions. • The reasonableness of the anticipated future revenue from ad valorem taxes, impact fees, and other sources for the appropriate forecast period; and reasonableness of expenditures (capital and operating) for the appropriate forecast period. • The consistency of the recommendations and findings with generally accepted governmental accounting and finance conventions, financial forecasting, impact-fee-setting practices, balanced development concepts (growth pays for growth), and/or applicable County policies (such as the Collier County Land Development Code). Our procedures in reviewing the Report included sample verification of significant calculations, testing of consistency among underlying assumptions, data and calculation methods, and reviewing the consistency of results with the County’s current plans and forecasts. Jacobs did not replicate or develop an independent Fiscal Impact Analysis Model (FIAM), but peer-reviewed DPFG’s alternative fiscal impact model and tested significant and sensitive variables. A record of our verification of sources and assumptions is provided in Appendix A. 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Attachment E-Peer Review Draft_08-12-20j (002) (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 2 JACOBS COLLIERCNTY LONGWATER VILLAGE PEER REVIEW_DRAFT4_081220J (002) In preparing this peer review Jacobs relied, in whole or in part, on data and information provided by the County and third parties, which has not been independently verified by Jacobs and which Jacobs has assumed to be accurate, complete, reliable, and current. Therefore, while Jacobs has utilized its best efforts in preparing the peer review and providing comments and recommendations to the County, Jacobs does not warrant or guarantee the conclusions set forth herein or in the DPFG Report or its fiscal impact model, which are dependent and/or based upon data, information, or statements supplied by the County or third parties. Qualifications and Consultant Team Jacobs is one of the largest and most diverse providers of technical, professional and construction services, including all aspects of architecture, engineering and construction, operations and maintenance, as well as specialty and strategic consulting. Our 55,000+ employees in 400+ locations around the world serve a broad range of companies and organizations, including industrial, commercial, and government clients across multiple markets and geographies. Jacobs’ Business and Finance consulting group provides planning and financial consulting services for a range of public sector clients around the globe. Guided by strategic thinking and an interactive process, we help clients achieve their goals and objectives and prepare for future change. Our experience is comprehensive and diverse, with involvement in various aspects of planning – from the conceptual stages, to the technical, operational and financial elements. We rely on a relationship-based approach and value strong partnerships within the team. Relevant fiscal impact analysis work for key municipal and local government clients has included: • Collier County, Florida – Peer Reviews of Fiscal Neutrality Analyses prepared for several proposed new developments in the County. Analysis involved independent review of analyses prepared by another consultant of the projected impacts of each of the proposed developments on the County, School District, and Fire and Rescue Districts costs and revenues at the horizon year or buildout of the proposed developments. • Palm Beach County, Florida – Comprehensive planning focused on the economics and land use elements of the County's comprehensive plan. The project required analysis of trends in population, employment, and land use patterns, to project land use needs by type of use for the next 25 years. The fiscal impact analysis required modeling county government revenues and expenditures to provide projections of the effect different economic growth scenarios would have on the County's budget. Jacobs also evaluated a proposed traffic performance standard to determine the impact the proposed standard would have on the County's economy. • City of Phoenix, Arizona – Impact fees peer review for water and wastewater infrastructure improvements and development impact fee calculations following passage of Senate Bill 1525 (SB 1525) amending the impact fee section of the Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS §9-463.05), which tightened the standards for demonstrating compliance with the State’s impact fee law. • Broward County, Florida – Peer reviewer for the preparation of a fiscal impact analysis related to the construction of a new Florida Power and Light (FPL) Sunrise Energy Center. • Various Municipal and Local Government Clients – Providing peer review and preparation of fiscal impact analyses related to economic development options, impact fee studies, master planning, and infrastructure project development for utilities and general government services. 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: Attachment E-Peer Review Draft_08-12-20j (002) (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT JACOBS COLLIERCNTY LONGWATER VILLAGE PEER REVIEW_DRAFT4_081220J (002) 3 The Jacobs consultants responsible for this peer review are: • Bill Gramer, PE – Client Liaison • Dave Green – Senior Economist and Project Manager • Dennis Jackson, PE – QA/QC Reviewer • Darren Betts, MBA – Financial Analyst • Bethel Gashaw – Strategic Consulting Intern Legal Basis Collier County’s Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) program “was established under the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Its objective is the creation of an incentive- based land use overlay system based on the principles of rural land stewardship found in Florida Statutes, Section 163.3177(11), including environmental preservation, agricultural preservation and smart growth development. Through the RLSA program, Stewardship Sending Areas (SSAs) can be approved for preservation purposes, creating credits to entitle Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs), typically towns, villages, hamlets and compact rural developments (CRDs). The credit system is designed to incentivize preservation of the most important environmental lands, including large, connected wetland systems and significant habitat for listed species, by awarding higher credit values for high value preservation areas.”1 Pursuant to the GMP RLSA, Policy 4.18 states “the SRA will be planned and designed to be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County at the horizon year [emphasis added] based on a cost/benefit fiscal impact analysis model acceptable to or as may be adopted by the County. The Board of County Commissioners (BCC) may grant exceptions to this policy to accommodate affordable-workforce housing, as it deems appropriate. Techniques that may promote fiscal neutrality such as Community Development Districts, and other special districts, shall be encouraged. At a minimum, the analysis 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.” Further, the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), Section 4.08.07 defines the requirements for SRA Designation, which “is intended to encourage and facilitate uses that enable economic prosperity and diversification of the economic base of the RLSA District….]. One of several preconditions for the SRA designation is an economic assessment, per Section 4.08.07 L. of the LDC, as follows: L. SRA Economic Assessment. An Economic Assessment meeting the requirements of this Section shall be prepared and submitted as part of the SRA Designation Application Package. At a minimum, the analysis 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. Development phasing and 1 https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/your-government/divisions-a-e/comprehensive-planning/rural-land-stewardship-area-rlsa-overlay-program 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Attachment E-Peer Review Draft_08-12-20j (002) (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 4 JACOBS COLLIERCNTY LONGWATER VILLAGE PEER REVIEW_DRAFT4_081220J (002) funding mechanisms shall address any adverse impacts to adopted minimum levels of service pursuant to Chapter 6 of the LDC. 1. Demonstration of Fiscal Neutrality. Each SRA must demonstrate that its development, as a whole, [emphasis added] will be fiscally neutral or positive to the Collier County tax base. This demonstration will be made for each unit of government responsible for the services listed above, using one of the following methodologies: a. Collier County Fiscal Impact Model. The fiscal impact model officially adopted and maintained by Collier County. b. Alternative Fiscal Impact Model. If Collier County has not adopted a fiscal impact model as indicated above, the applicant may develop an alternative fiscal impact model using a methodology approved by Collier County. The BCC may grant exceptions to this policy of fiscal neutrality to accommodate affordable or workforce housing. DPFG was retained to prepare an economic assessment for Longwater Village SRA (Longwater) to demonstrate fiscal neutrality using an Alternative Fiscal Impact Model, as defined by the LDC Section 4.08.07 L.1.b. Although the fiscal impact requirements are specified in the LDC, there remains a considerable amount of flexibility in both the interpretation and application of the law. DPFG is required to measure fiscal neutrality at the project’s horizon year or buildout. The timing of when buildout is expected to occur is not identified in the DPFG report. The neutrality assessment is simply evaluated for whenever that is achieved. The overall assessment is underpinned by this fundamental assumption, and DPFG’s analysis is consistent with this assumption throughout the assessment. It is important to recognize that fiscal impact analysis is not a cash flow analysis, and therefore does not include a year-by-year examination of the County’s sources and uses of funds over the development period. New development may or may not achieve fiscal neutrality in the early stages of new development. The County must make initial investments to accommodate growth – prior to a compensatory public revenue stream from a new development to fund the necessary infrastructure and services. This lag effect is inherent in any new development plan, but its annualized impacts are beyond the scope of this peer review and are beyond the County’s requirements for fiscal neutrality. There are also inherent limitations of fiscal impact modeling. While we determined that DPFG’s analysis largely fulfills the fiscal impact analysis requirement, the following caveats and shortcomings are noted: • Fiscal impact modeling is static and not dynamic. It is a snapshot in time, and therefore known variables (e.g., the costs of construction, the state of the US economy, the pace and mix of the development plan, etc.) are assumed constant. As such, substantial changes to these variables could render the analysis obsolete. • The cost of future financing may not be included in the analysis.2 This factor can add substantially to the overall costs of infrastructure development and thereby could negatively affect any findings of positive or neutral fiscal impacts should financing be employed by the County, the Fire Rescue District, or School District. The County or Districts may employ various funding and financing mechanisms to construct such facilities, which are unknown at this time. 2 We note that the cost of financing is included in the County’s impact fees for schools and correctional facilities. 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: Attachment E-Peer Review Draft_08-12-20j (002) (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT JACOBS COLLIERCNTY LONGWATER VILLAGE PEER REVIEW_DRAFT4_081220J (002) 5 • Fiscal impact analysis assumes an average and/or marginal cost basis. Compensatory revenues whether in the form of impact fees or ad valorem, sales, or other taxes may over-recover (subject to economies of scale) or under-recover (subject to dis-economies of scale) actual costs for any given development. • While fiscal impact analysis is intended to measure project-specific revenue and cost drivers, certain obligations are subject to the analyst’s discretion. The County recognizes and has acknowledged that there is a possibility that the Longwater Village development plan will change, which introduces factors beyond the County’s control, and beyond the constraints of fiscal impact analysis, generally. DPFG’s methodology and assumptions are described in detail in the following sections. Methodology DPFG’s approach to “the fiscal impact analysis of Longwater Village uses a marginal/average cost hybrid methodology to determine the project’s impact on capital and operating costs,”3 which is customary for fiscal analyses. A marginal approach is used to estimate ad valorem tax revenues. To estimate certain marginal costs, DPFG applied the case study approach for the capital analyses of the: • Sheriff Department • Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Department • North Collier Fire & Rescue District • School District The case study approach is based on the analyst’s determination that other standard approaches have material limitations, and as such a case study approach is a more appropriate application for the particular use. DPFG’s approach also included an analysis of the fiscal impacts to the Unincorporated Area General Fund Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU). Overall, Jacobs agrees with the marginal/average cost hybrid approach taken in this analysis, and the case study approach applied to the referenced departments. Key Assumptions Jacobs was provided with DPFG’s Report and their corresponding fiscal analysis Microsoft Excel model (filename: Longwater SRA EA 2020.05.24 VIEW ONLY.xlsx). DPFG also spent a significant amount of time answering Jacobs’ questions, providing source documentation, and facilitating our understanding of their methodology and assumptions. Inflation All costs (whether historical or future) were adjusted to reflect a hybrid year 2019/2020 dollars. Inflation is typically excluded from fiscal neutrality analysis (constant dollar approach), which enables 3 DPFG Report, page 7 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: Attachment E-Peer Review Draft_08-12-20j (002) (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 6 JACOBS COLLIERCNTY LONGWATER VILLAGE PEER REVIEW_DRAFT4_081220J (002) comparisons across years and across projects. At the time that the initial version of the economic assessment report was prepared, the County’s FY 2020 budget was not available, thus the County’s FY 2019 budget was used for the analysis. However, the Collier County Schools and North Collier Fire and Rescue District budgets for FY 2020 were available, and were used for the analysis. Jacobs finds this use of Collier County’s FY 2019 budget and FY 2020 budget for the Collier County Schools and North Collier Fire and Rescue District to be reasonable given the information that was available at the time the initial report was prepared. Impact Fees Impact fee calculations utilized the County’s Residential Impact Fee Schedule, effective February 8, 2018 and Commercial Impact Fee Schedule, effective July 24, 2017. Impact fee updates are currently underway for Transportation, Correctional Facilities, Parks and Recreation, and Schools.”4 Taxable Real Estate Values To estimate potential tax revenues, DPFG based taxable values for residential (per unit) and non- residential (per sq. ft.) land uses. Taxable values for residential units were applied as provided by the Applicant. Eligible homestead exemptions were applied based on County averages. Taxable values for non-residential uses were based on R.S. Means construction cost data and/or comparable properties from the County appraiser’s database. Land and Improvement Conversion Factor To calculate the market value per square foot for retail development, the applicable 2019 square foot costs from R.S. Means were multiplied by a construction cost index of 84% to arrive at adjusted square foot costs, which was then divided by a land and improvement conversion factor of 85%. Unlike residential real estate, there is no rule-of-thumb for commercial properties. DPFG indicates this percentage has been applied in other economic assessment models they have prepared. Annual Absorption by Use Not applicable. Millage Rates DPFG utilized current fiscal year (2019) millage (mil) rates as follows to determine annual ad valorem (property) tax revenues for the forecast period for the County, MSTD, and Water Pollution Control. • 3.5645 County General Fund • 0.8069 MSTD General Fund • 0.0293 Water Pollution Control FY 2020 millage rates for Collier County Schools and the North Collier Fire and Rescue District were used to determine annual ad valorem (property) tax revenues for the forecast period for the School District and Fire and Rescue District. • 5.083 Collier County Schools (operating and capital) • 3.750 North Collier Fire and Rescue District 4 DPFG Email RE: Collier Lakes Village EA – Model, dated February 5, 2019. 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Attachment E-Peer Review Draft_08-12-20j (002) (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT JACOBS COLLIERCNTY LONGWATER VILLAGE PEER REVIEW_DRAFT4_081220J (002) 7 Millage rates were held constant (i.e., flat). Per capita estimates for various state and other local revenues sources are also based on the County’s 2019 General Fund budget. Direct Full Time Equivalent Jobs (FTEs) DPFG applied a 0.8897602 FTE Conversion Factor to Collier Countywide employment to derive countywide FTEs, based on its 2017 IMPLAN conversion assumptions. The purpose of this calculation is to convert total jobs to FTEs. Per DPFG Principal Lucy Gallo, a difference, if any, using 2019 source data would be immaterial. DPFG provided the industry detail in the Excel file “Collier County IMPLAN Conversion.xls” to support this assumption. Employment generation for commercial space factors apply per square foot of employment guidelines, realizing that actual employment density may vary by specific project details. • Retail: 400 square feet per employee The Longwater employment coefficient was based on the square foot per employee assumptions in the 2016 Collier County EMS Impact Fee study, which was the most recent study available when the DPFG Report was prepared. Home-based employment was not specifically addressed. Longwater Population Growth Forecasts DPFG used residents per housing unit data published in the Collier County Emergency Medical Services Impact Fee Update Study, dated October 10, 2016 to estimate residential seasonal population growth due to Longwater. The population per unit assumptions utilized were: • Multi-Family (Condo, Duplex, Single-Family Attached): 1.26 • Single Family Detached < 4,000 Sq Ft: 2.65 • Single Family Detached > 4,000 Sq Ft: 2.97 Vacancy Rates Vacancy rates for determining occupied housing and commercial space assume a stabilized occupancy, consistent with best practices.5 Overall, Jacobs agrees with DPFG’s key assumptions described above. Structure of Funds For the purposes of fiscal impact analysis, three taxing authorities were evaluated: Collier County (through its General Fund), the North Collier Fire & Rescue District, and the Collier County School District (“School District”). Each has separate taxing authority and the Collier County School Board levies its own taxes and receives part of its funding from the State of Florida. The DPFG Report tests the project’s fiscal neutrality for County operating impacts, County capital impacts, Fire operating impacts, Fire capital impacts, Schools operating impacts, and Schools capital impacts. 5 Planners Estimating Guide: Projecting Land Use and Facility Needs by Arthur C. Nelson, FAICP, Planners Press, American Planning Association, 2004 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: Attachment E-Peer Review Draft_08-12-20j (002) (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 8 JACOBS COLLIERCNTY LONGWATER VILLAGE PEER REVIEW_DRAFT4_081220J (002) General Fund The General Fund pays for those services benefiting residents and visitors of Collier County. These services include maintenance and operation of the various regional recreational facilities; governmental facilities; social services; animal services; libraries; transportation system and general administrative services. The largest source of revenue for the General Fund is Ad Valorem – or property tax revenue. Municipal Service Taxing Units exist in various locations and are intended to provide extra-ordinary services within a specific district funded by a separate ad valorem property tax. The water pollution control millage rate is also collected county-wide. North Collier Fire & Rescue District “Like all independent fire districts, most of the North Collier District’s revenue is generated by property taxes. We do not charge a fee for providing fire protection services. Each year, the Collier County Property Appraiser establishes the taxable value for property located within the District. The Board of Fire Commissioners establishes the millage (or taxing) rate which, according to the District’s Enabling Act, can be no higher than 1 mil, or $1.00 for every $1,000 of taxable value in the North Naples Service Delivery Area or no higher than 3.75, or $3.75 for every $1,000 of taxable value in the Big Corkscrew Island Service Delivery Area. As fire and rescue are labor intensive services, the majority of the District’s expenses are personnel related. In order to sufficiently protect and serve the District’s residents and the billions of dollars of property located within the District, it must maintain highly trained professional firefighters and paramedics and the necessary equipment to handle a myriad of emergency situations.”6 Collier County School District School districts in Florida utilize a State mandated accounting method which separates revenues and expenses into specific funds. Each fund is earmarked for a specified purpose or activity and carries specific requirements, restrictions, or limitations. Accordingly, the School District maintains and reports the following segregated major funds: general, debt service, capital projects, special revenue, and internal service. The General Fund covers the day to day operations of the School District and accounts for the majority of operational expenses that are incurred. The Florida Education Finance Program (FEFP) provides equalized per student funding for school districts. This concept guarantees that the availability of educational programs and services will be substantially equal for all students, regardless of geography and/or local economic factors. Funding for the FEFP includes required local effort property taxes that districts must levy, state taxes, and some local discretionary tax mills recommended by the State. For FY20, federal sources provided 8.45% of the School District’s total revenue, state sources provided 14.36%, and local sources provided 77.18% of the School District’s total revenue.7 Enterprise Funds Collier County maintains two different types of proprietary funds: enterprise and internal service. Enterprise funds report, with more detail, the same functions presented as business-type activities in the government-wide financial statements for water and sewer, solid waste disposal, emergency medical services, transit, and the airport authority. The Collier County Water and Sewer District Fund, the Solid Waste Disposal Fund, and the Emergency Medical Services Fund are tracked individually as 6 https://www.northcollierfire.com/finance/ 7 https://www.collierschools.com/cms/lib/FL01903251/Centricity/domain/86/budget%20dept%20main%20page/Budget%20Summary%20Propo sed%20FY20.pdf 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: Attachment E-Peer Review Draft_08-12-20j (002) (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT JACOBS COLLIERCNTY LONGWATER VILLAGE PEER REVIEW_DRAFT4_081220J (002) 9 major funds. The County also maintains two other (non-major) enterprise funds: Airport Authority Fund and the Collier Area Transit Fund. “Table 8 and Appendix Table 16 of the DPFG Longwater Village SRA Economic Assessment reflect the impact of the annual general fund contributions to Fund 426 CAT Mass Transit and Fund 427 Transportation Disadvantaged, which are enterprise funds. There are no other impacts to consider with respect to transit enterprise funds in the Economic Assessment.”8 Internal service funds are primarily maintained to allocate and accumulate costs internally for Collier County. The County uses internal service funds to account for health insurance, workers compensation insurance, property and casualty insurance, fleet operations, and information technology. Fiscal impacts on County enterprise funds were excluded from DPFG’s analysis. Enterprise funds are inherently fiscally neutral because they are created for a specific purpose and intended to be self- supporting through user rates and fees. Jacobs finds DPFG’s exclusion of enterprise funds to be an acceptable and reasonable approach. Fiscal Impacts Recall that the fiscal impact analysis, at a minimum, “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,” each of which is reviewed in the following sections. This peer review is presented in order of services listed in the LDC. County Operating Impacts Operating impacts are reflected in DPFG’s analyses of both the General Fund and MSTU General Fund groupings. These analyses cover transportation, parks, law enforcement, EMS, correctional facilities, government buildings, and libraries. Based on the analysis, at buildout, Longwater’s annual total general fund operating expenditures are projected at approximately $3,062,000 against revenues of approximately $3,987,000, resulting in a fiscal surplus of $925,000. Longwater’s annual total MSTU operating expenditures are projected at approximately $490,000 against revenues of approximately $734,000, resulting in a fiscal surplus of $244,000. Transportation (Roads) Operating Impacts Transportation Services is a special revenue fund within the County’s budget. This fund was established for the maintenance of roads and bridges countywide. The principal funding source for Transportation Services is a subsidy from the General Fund (for fiscal year 2019 the transfer from the General Fund amounted to $20.2 million out of Transportation Services’ total funding of $24.3 million). Capital Impacts The County imposes road impact fees on new development to fund the construction of growth-related improvements. Consistent with impact fee statutory requirements, these fees place a fair share of the 8 DPFG Email Rivergrass Peer Review Response, dated August 6, 2019. 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: Attachment E-Peer Review Draft_08-12-20j (002) (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 10 JACOBS COLLIERCNTY LONGWATER VILLAGE PEER REVIEW_DRAFT4_081220J (002) cost burden on new development for transportation-related expansions and improvements which are necessitated by such development. DPFG treats road impact from a perspective that the Developer will pay road impact fees according to the number of units (residential) or square footage (non-residential) in the development plan and the corresponding fee schedule established by the County. Using DPFG’s approach, Longwater Village will generate approximately $17.7 million in Road Impact Fee revenues to the County, based on the development parameters and current road impact fee rate table. In accordance with the Collier County Transportation Planning Development Guidebook, mitigation improvements are considered acceptable if capacity is added that restores or improves the delay and volume/capacity ratio to the levels provided in the base scenario. DPFG reports that “the project share of cost has been based on the proportion of the project peak hour traffic contributed to the improvement location relative to the total new peak hour 2030 traffic volumes”9. The developer will pay for the intersection improvements via an additional cash contribution of $622,000. In addition, the developer will improve 18th Ave NE from the project entrance to DeSoto Blvd at an estimated cost of $240,000. This later improvement is considered an on-site project improvement, and thus not included in the fiscal neutrality calculation. Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of fiscal neutrality for transportation (road) impacts to be reasonable. Potable Water and Wastewater The Longwater Village Developer Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) confirms that Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) will supply both potable water and sewer service to Longwater. As the CCWSD is an enterprise fund, the costs to serve the Longwater development will be recovered per the terms of the MOU between Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. and CDC Land Investments, LLC, and the Big Cypress Stewardship District. It should be noted that there may be nuances in the fiscal neutrality determination for water and wastewater. For example, if existing pipe sizes are inadequate and need to be replaced, the extent of such rework could render the development fiscally deficient. However, Jacobs’ review is not intended to analyze to that level of detail. Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of fiscal neutrality for potable water and wastewater public facilities and services to be reasonable. Irrigation Water The Longwater Village project will result in a conversion of approximately 1,000 acres from agricultural land into a residential development. The project will obtain a water use permit from the SFWMD, to allow onsite surface and ground water withdrawals. Because the “proposed change in land use is anticipated to result in a significant net reduction of irrigation water usage at the site,”10 and the developer aims to secure 100 percent of the project’s irrigation demands from reclaimed water, Collier 9 DPFG Report, page 16 10 DPFG Report, Page 28 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Attachment E-Peer Review Draft_08-12-20j (002) (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT JACOBS COLLIERCNTY LONGWATER VILLAGE PEER REVIEW_DRAFT4_081220J (002) 11 County is not expected to bear any responsibility for the cost associated with the Longwater Village irrigation system. Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of irrigation water as fiscally neutral to be reasonable. Stormwater Management “The project’s stormwater management system has received a Conceptual Approval permit from the SFWMD (#11-03949-P). The criteria used in the preparation of this plan was based on the predevelopment agricultural stormwater management system currently in place. Stormwater discharges from the lands in question are equal or less pre versus post on both a peak rate and total volume perspective. As such, the discharges mimic that of undeveloped lands. Therefore, in the event of a change to the agreement between Collier County and the Big Cypress Basin concerning the lands to the south of I-75, no impact on any downstream system above and beyond that of undeveloped land would be realized and thus there is no impact on County stormwater facilities caused by the development of this property above and beyond undeveloped land. Collier County currently bears no responsibility for or cost associated with the Longwater Village water management system; therefore the fiscal impact to Collier County is neutral.”11 The developer of Longwater will be responsible for all costs associated with the design, permitting, construction, and operation of the proposed stormwater improvements required to serve the Longwater development. Because the flowways within this project are natural wetland systems, the pre- development capacity will be the same as the post-development capacity. Considering that water quality treatment within the SRA is primarily accomplished using wet-detention (lakes) located within the SRA and overlapping into the WRA areas, the draft DCA anticipates that discharges from the SRA water management system to WRA areas will occur after water quality volumes have been achieved. The draft DCA reports that all discharges to the WRA from development will only occur after water quality volumes have been provided in the development area. Areas to be excavated of the WRA are low quality exotic impact areas, and the only fill areas will be berms associated with the surface water management system. Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of fiscal neutrality for stormwater management public facilities and services to be reasonable. Solid Waste Solid waste capital and operational costs are accounted for in the County’s Solid Waste Fund, a self- supporting enterprise fund. Enterprise funds are inherently fiscally neutral because they are created for a specific purpose and intended to be self-supporting through user rates and fees. Again, enterprise funds were excluded from DPFG’s analysis. Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of fiscal neutrality for solid waste facilities and services to be reasonable. 11 DPFG Report, Page 27 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Attachment E-Peer Review Draft_08-12-20j (002) (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 12 JACOBS COLLIERCNTY LONGWATER VILLAGE PEER REVIEW_DRAFT4_081220J (002) Parks Per the County’s 2018 AUIR, the current level of service (LOS) for all county-owned and maintained community and regional parks is a combined 3.22 acres per 1,000 residents. The County’s LOS (per 1,000 residents) by type is compared to DPFG’s assumptions, as follows: • Community parks: achieved 1.47 acres • Community Parks: adopted 1.20 acres • Regional Parks: achieved 1.68 acres • Regional Parks: adjusted achieved 1.82 acres • Regional Parks: adopted 2.70 acres It is noted that the DPFG value for Regional Parks achieved of 1.68 acres is based on application of 2019 Peak Seasonal Population to the 2015 adjusted achieved level of service. This compares to an achieved value of 1.82 acres that would be calculated assuming the 2015 Peak Seasonal Population to the 2015 adjusted achieved level of service. Adjusting the achieved level of service for regional parks to reflect 2015 Peak Seasonal Population affects the required number of acres for Regional Parks to 9.78 acres. Capital Impacts The County imposes separate impact fees for community and regional parks. Impact fee revenues of community parks were calculated to be $1,903,000 (plus other capital revenues of $31,000 for a total of $1,934,000) and regional parks were $5,400,000 (plus other capital revenues of $283,000 for a total of $5,683,000). The cost of estimated acreage ($282,573 per acre) required to achieve the County LOS for community parks forms the basis for capital impacts, which DPFG estimated at $1,822,000, leading to an estimated surplus of $112,000 for community parks. The cost of estimated acreage ($590,288 per acre) required to achieve the County LOS for regional parks forms the basis for capital impacts. While the adopted level of service for regional parks is 2.70 acres per 1,000 peak population, the adjusted achieved LOS of 1.82 acres was recommended by the County. With the recommended LOS and cost per acre, results in an estimated capital cost for regional parks of $5,772,000. The cost of the regional parks is in excess of the estimated impact fee and other capital revenues of $5,683,000 of the regional parks by $89,000. While there is a projected deficit for the regional parks, the forecast surplus for community parks offsets this, and results in the total regional and community parks capital impact to be a slightly positive $23,000. DPFG’s assumption that regional park acreage costs will reflect average costs is a conservative assumption that increases the cost of inland acreage. If inland acreage costs less, on average, than the blended County average, then capital fiscal surplus for parks would be higher than DPFG’s calculations. Based on the adjustment to the achieved LOS discussed above, Jacobs finds that parks will be fiscally neutral, as opposed to DPFG’s determination of parks as fiscally positive. Law Enforcement (Sheriff Department) Per the County’s 2018 AUIR, the County’s current achieved LOS for law enforcement is 1.77 officers per 1,000 peak population, and the adopted LOS is 1.84. The 2019 AUIR was adopted on November 12, 2019 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Attachment E-Peer Review Draft_08-12-20j (002) (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT JACOBS COLLIERCNTY LONGWATER VILLAGE PEER REVIEW_DRAFT4_081220J (002) 13 and was not available during the preparation of the Longwater Village Economic Assessment. Jacobs reviewed the 2019 AUIR and confirmed that the LOS was unchanged. Capital Impacts The capital needs for law enforcement were established using the case study approach. The law enforcement impact fee is intended to recover the cost of capital construction and expansion of law enforcement related facilities and assets. DPFG estimated impact fee revenue to be $1,268,000 and other capital revenues at $230,000. Based on discussions between DPFG and law enforcement officials, law enforcement officials indicated that there is no need for a physical station is needed to service Longwater, at this time, but may be needed in the future. The County currently has a deficiency between the adopted versus achieved LOS for law enforcement infrastructure. This deficiency is not due to the proposed Longwater Development and cannot be resolved by this development. Capital costs are included to equip the required number of officers, amounting to a total of $1,008,000. The estimated revenues exceed the forecasted direct capital costs and result in a fiscal surplus in the amount of $490,000. This surplus will likely be expended on indirect capital costs and future law enforcement infrastructure needs. Therefore, the impact is neutral. Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of law enforcement as fiscally neutral to be reasonable. Emergency Medical Services Capital Impacts The capital needs for EMS were established using the case study approach. DPFG projects capital revenues of $310,000. According to EMS management, Longwater will be served by a new EMS facility planned for the corner of Desoto Blvd/Golden Gate Blvd East scheduled to open in 2022. The cost of the new facility amounted to a total of $1,876,057, which was obtained from the 2019 AUIR. Longwater’s allocated share of the new facility is $181,000, which is less than the capital revenues the project will generate. The remainder will likely be applied to the related capital costs. Therefore, the impact is neutral. The cost of the new facility will be partially funded by the County’s One-Cent Infrastructure surtax which was authorized in 2018.12 Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of emergency medical services as fiscally neutral to be reasonable. Fire & Rescue Operating Impacts Because the current operating millage of the Big Corkscrew Island SDA is geared to much lower density development, Longwater is currently projected to generate significant operating surpluses. The current millage rate and the projected tax base of Longwater results in annual ad valorem revenues of $3,020,000. The annual operating expenses to serve Longwater’s population, based on an average of the fire district’s existing stations and population served, are $1,042,000. Thus, there is a projected operating fiscal surplus. 12 DPFG Report, page 19. 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Attachment E-Peer Review Draft_08-12-20j (002) (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 14 JACOBS COLLIERCNTY LONGWATER VILLAGE PEER REVIEW_DRAFT4_081220J (002) Capital Impacts The capital needs for fire & rescue were established using the case study approach. Longwater will generate total capital revenues of $1,154,000 for the North Collier Fire & Rescue District, with matching levels of capital costs. Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of fire & rescue as fiscally positive to be reasonable. Schools The analysis uses student generation rates (SGRs) as follows: • Condo, Duplex, Single-Family Attached: 0.11 • Single Family Detached: 0.34 The blended rate over these residential unit types is 0.225, which is comparable to similar blended or weighted SGRs used for other recent Florida developments. Operating Impacts Based on projections of school enrollment by type, as well as the operating revenue and cost impacts, the calculations estimating the fiscal impacts on the County School District indicate that Longwater is fiscally neutral. DPFG estimates ad valorem local millage revenues at buildout of $3,005,000, with matching levels of operating expenditures. Capital Impacts The capital needs for schools were established using the case study approach. The analysis uses the current impact fee structure defined in the Collier County School Impact Fee Update Study, Final Report, dated July 23, 2015 to determine the appropriate application of the fees, and the revenues derived from fees. The fees are being phased-in in stages per Section 74-307 of the school impact fee ordinance. There are no impact fees levied on non-residential units, as these units do not contribute students to the school system. DPFG uses adopted residential impact fees as of February 8, 2018 as follows: • Multi-Family and Single Family Attached: $2,844.19 • Single Family Detached: $8,789.54 Revenues to pay for growth related capital expenditures are derived not only from impact fees on residential-only units, but also a capital outlay millage of 1.50 mills on both residential and non- residential units. As a result, the mix of residential and non-residential development will have an impact on the determination of fiscal neutrality. In this case, the revenue from the Longwater development program results in a fiscal capital surplus. “According to the School District, at this time there is existing or planned capacity within the next five years at the elementary, middle and high school levels for each village individually. However, the proposed Bellmar and Longwater Villages and the approved Rivergrass Village, collectively, result in the School District exceeding its estimated capacity. Therefore, as the School District and the developer have discussed and been working towards having a Developer Contribution Agreement, whereby the developer would convey real property for future school sites (sufficient to accommodate a high school, middle school and an elementary school) in exchange for educational impact fee credits has been requested from the applicant. “13 13 DPFG Report, page 31 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Attachment E-Peer Review Draft_08-12-20j (002) (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT JACOBS COLLIERCNTY LONGWATER VILLAGE PEER REVIEW_DRAFT4_081220J (002) 15 These estimates are conservative compared to the November 2019 F.S. 1013.64(b) statutory cost caps of Elementary $23,284, Middle $25,144, and High $32,661 per student station. 14 Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of schools as fiscally neutral to be reasonable. Additional Public Services The following additional public services were evaluated by DPFG for fiscal neutrality: correctional facilities, government buildings, and libraries. Jacobs categorizes these service types as additional services because they are not required by the minimum requirements defined in the Collier County LDC. While these additional public services are not required elements of the economic assessment, DPFG did include them in their analysis. Correctional Facilities Capital Impacts The correctional facilities impact fee is intended to recover the cost of capital construction for jail facilities (both land and building) and related equipment. Impact fees are charged based on units for residential and square footage for non-residential. The County’s current LOS was used to calculate the correctional facilities capital costs. DPFG applied the impact fee study coefficients for population and 14 DPFG Report, page 31. 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Attachment E-Peer Review Draft_08-12-20j (002) (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 16 JACOBS COLLIERCNTY LONGWATER VILLAGE PEER REVIEW_DRAFT4_081220J (002) employment to calculate functional population. This methodology considers demand from commercial land uses. Combined revenues from impact fees and other capital revenues amount to $1,148,000, with comparable capital outlays, resulting in a finding of fiscal neutrality. Government Buildings Capital Impacts The government buildings impact fee is intended to recover the cost of remaining non-enterprise County land, buildings, information technology assets, and vehicles. The impact fees are charged based on units for residential and square footage for non-residential. The County’s current LOS was used to calculate the government buildings capital costs. DPFG applied the impact fee study coefficients for population and employment to calculate functional population. This methodology considers demand from commercial land uses. Based on the analysis, there is an estimated fiscal neutrality. DPFG estimates capital revenues of $2,060,000, with matching levels of indirect capital costs. Libraries Capital Impacts The libraries impact fee is intended to recover the cost of land, buildings, furnishings, and collection materials to serve the entire County. The impact fees are charged based on units for residential and square footage for non-residential. The County’s adopted LOS, per the 2018 AUIR, was used to calculate the libraries capital costs. Jacobs reviewed the 2019 AUIR and confirmed that the LOS was unchanged. Based on the analysis, there is an estimated fiscal surplus of approximately $162,000. This surplus will be used to fund other library capital needs. Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of additional public services as fiscally neutral to be reasonable. Conclusions and Recommendations Through this independent analysis and peer review, Jacobs confirms the reasonableness of DPFG’s analysis and in the project’s fiscal neutrality, as defined. It is our opinion that the Applicant fulfilled the intent of the fiscal neutrality requirement and that the proposed Longwater development is fiscally neutral, as defined, for Longwater SRA for Collier County, the North Collier Fire & Rescue District, and the Collier County School District. It is important to recognize that fiscal neutrality relies on accurate projections – often 20 years or more into the future. A significant deviation from the development plan will require an adjustment or new analysis to capture changes to this fiscal neutrality determination, which may involve, for example, adjusting the mix of uses or other mechanisms that will impact the future revenue and expense streams. In addition, fiscal impact analysis is only one step in the development program and the County- Developer relationship framework. This fiscal impact analysis will be supplemented and augmented by several MOUs and DCAs and/or interlocal agreements. Careful negotiation, execution, and administration of MOUs, DCAs and/or interlocal agreements is required to ensure that the County continues to achieve its fiscal neutrality objectives. Based upon DPFG’s analysis and this peer review of that analysis, Jacobs concurs that Longwater Village SRA qualifies as fiscally neutral, as defined, with respect to County capital and operating impacts, subject to the approval of the companion Developer Contribution Agreement that is being negotiated between the Collier County School District and the Developer. The DPFG analysis, which in Jacobs’ opinion is professionally prepared and thorough in its treatment of revenues and expenses, is accurate in its 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: Attachment E-Peer Review Draft_08-12-20j (002) (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT JACOBS COLLIERCNTY LONGWATER VILLAGE PEER REVIEW_DRAFT4_081220J (002) 17 determination that the Longwater Village development would meet the County’s requirements for fiscal neutrality. 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: Attachment E-Peer Review Draft_08-12-20j (002) (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) JACOBS COLLIERCNTY LONGWATER VILLAGE PEER REVIEW_DRAFT4_081220J (002) 18 APPENDIX A Sources and Assumptions 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: Attachment E-Peer Review Draft_08-12-20j (002) (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) JACOBS COLLIERCNTY LONGWATER VILLAGE PEER REVIEW_DRAFT4_081220J (002) 19 Assumption/Calculation Source Model Tab Comment Collier county impact fee schedule (residential) Collier Country Residential Impact Fees 2020 Impact Fee Schedule Checked Collier county impact fee schedule (commercial) Collier County Commercial Impact Fees 2020 Impact Fee Schedule Checked Comm parks impact fees Impact fee schedule Comm impact fee rev Checked Regional parks impact fees Impact fee schedule Regional parks impact fee rev Checked Road impact fees Impact fee schedule Road Impact fee rev Checked EMS impact fees Impact fee schedule EMS Impact fee rev Checked Govt blgds impact fees Impact fee schedule Govt blgs Impact fee rev Checked Library impact fees Impact fee schedule Library impact fee rev Checked Law enforcement impact fees Impact fee schedule Law Enforce Impact fee Rev Checked Jail impact fees Impact fee schedule Jail impact fee rev Checked Water impact fees Impact fee schedule Water Impact fees Checked Wastewater impact fees Impact fee schedule Wastewater Impact Fees Checked Collier county millage rates Collier County Fiscal Year 2019 Adopted Budget County Inputs Checked 2019 Collier County Permanent Population Collier County 2018 AUIR County inputs Checked 2019 Collier County Peak Tourist Population Collier County CVB Profile- March 2019 County inputs Checked FTE Conversion Factor IMPLAN County inputs Checked Countywide Employment Collier County 2016 EMS Impact fee update (table B-6)County Inputs Checked State Revenue Sharing Collier County Fiscal Year 2019 Adopted Budget General Fund Rev Demand Units Checked Ad Valorem Taxes Collier County Fiscal Year 2019 Adopted Budget General Fund Rev Demand Units Checked Trans to 325 Stormwater Capital Fund Collier County Fiscal Year 2019 Adopted Budget MSTU Exp Demand Units Checked Average Taxable Value per unit Calculation Residential Just+Taxable Value Checked Total Taxable Value Calculation Residential Just+Taxable Value Checked General Fund Grouping Revenues and Sources Collier County Fiscal Year 2019 Adopted Budget General Fund Grouping Matrix Checked Net Buildings and Land Value per Sq. Ft Law Enforcement Impact fee study LAW Impact Cost per Res Checked Total Equipment Cost Law Enforcement Impact fee study LAW inventory Checked Law enforcement level of service Collier County 2018 AUIR Prop Share Law Enforce Capital Checked Adopted LOS Collier County 2018 AUIR Prop Share CF capital Checked Correctional facility impact fee LOS Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study CF Impact cost per Res Checked Correctional facility net asset cost Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study CF Asset inventory Checked Residents per housing unit EMS impact fee study EMS Pop & Employ Checked Residential functional population coefficient Calculation EMS Pop & Employ Checked Functional resident coefficient Calculation EMS Funct Res Non-Resid Checked Proportionate allocation Collier County 2018 AUIR Revised Prop Share EMS Capital Checked Net Impact Fee per Functional Resident (per Tindale Oliver)EMS impact fee study EMS Impact Fee Schedule Checked Adopted LOS Library Impact fee study LIB Current LOS Checked Library Buildings Available Square Footage Collier County 2018 AUIR LIB Current LOS Checked Total Owned Building and Land Value per SF Library Impact fee study LIB Impact Cost Per Res Checked Total Impact Cost per Functional Resident Calculation LIB Net Impact Cost Checked Regional Park Adopted LOS Collier County 2018 AUIR Prop Share Region Parks Capital Checked Community Park Adopted LOS Collier County 2018 AUIR Prop Share Comm Parks Capital Checked Total Land & Facility cost per acre Parks Impact Fee Study Parks Impact Per Res Checked Functional Population Coefficient Government Buildings Impact study Prop Share Govt Blgs Checked Total Land Value Government Buildings Impact Study Govt Impact Cost per Res Checked LOS (Square Feet per Functional Resident)Government Buildings Impact study GOV Impact Cost Per Res Checked Big Corkscrew Island SDA Millage Rate Resolution 19-022 Fire Operating and Capital Checked Fire Impact Fee Coefficients Fire Impact Fee Study Fire Impact Fee Rev Checked Total Facility cost per student based on adopted LOS Standard School Impact Fee Update Study Cost per Station Checked Student generation rates School Impact Fee Update Study School inputs Checked FY 2020 Millage Rates CCPS FY20 Final Budget Book School inputs Checked FY 2020 School FTE Enrollment CCPS FY20 Final Budget Book School inputs Checked Peak Seasonal Population (using unincorporated for community parks)Collier County 2018 AUIR Prop Share Comm Parks Capital Checked Achieved LOS Share of Community Park Facilities Collier County 2018 AUIR Prop Share Comm Parks Capital Checked Peak Seasonal Population (using countywide for regional parks)Collier County 2018 AUIR Prop Share Region Parks Capital Checked Regional Park Acres (achieved LOS)Collier County 2018 AUIR Prop Share Region Parks Capital Checked 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Attachment E-Peer Review Draft_08-12-20j (002) (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 1 of 7 H:\2019\2019050\SRA\1-7-2021\Public Facilities Report 1-8-2021 - Longwater DPFG.docx LONGWATER SRA PUBLIC FACILITIES IMPACT ASSESSMENT March 9, 2020 Revised January 8, 2021 Solid Waste A solid waste assessment shall be prepared by the applicant as a component of an Impact Assessment Report that is submitted as part of an SRA Designation Application package. The assessment shall identify the means and methods for handling, transporting and disposal of all solid waste generated including but not limited to the collection, handling and disposal of recyclables and horticultural waste products. The applicant shall identify the location and remaining disposal capacity available at the disposal site. Collier County’s contractor hauler, Waste Management Inc. of Florida, will collect solid waste generated within Longwater. Recycled materials will be collected from curbside recycling containers through contract haulers. Residential recyclables and horticultural waste will be collected at the curb on a weekly basis. Construction debris will be collected and processed by a local business specializing in the recycling of construction products. Commercial and institutional facilities will utilize dumpster containers for the storage of garbage and rubbish. Recycling containers will be used to store recyclables in the commercial and institutional areas. Solid waste collected within Longwater will be hauled to the Immokalee Solid Waste Transfer Station and from there transported to Waste Management’s Okeechobee Landfill. According to Waste Management the Okeechobee Landfill has adequate capacity for the next 25 years. TIF for any reason it is necessary, the Collier County Naples landfill is available and according to the Collier County 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report, there is also capacity at this facility. Stormwater Management A stormwater management impact assessment shall be prepared by the applicant as a component of an Impact Assessment Report that is submitted as a part of an SRA Designation Application Package. The stormwater management impact assessment shall, at a minimum, provide the following information: a. An exhibit showing the boundary of the proposed SRA including the following information: (1) The location of any WRA delineated within the SRA; No WRA areas are included within the village SRA area. (2) A generalized representation of the existing stormwater flow patterns across the site including the location(s) of discharge from the site to the downstream receiving waters. 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: Attachment F-Public Facilities Impact Assessment 1-8-2021 - DPFG (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 2 of 7 H:\2019\2019050\SRA\1-7-2021\Public Facilities Report 1-8-2021 - Longwater DPFG.docx The project’s stormwater management system has received a Conceptual Approval permit from the SFWMD (#11-03949-P). The criteria used in the preparation of this plan was based on the predevelopment agricultural stormwater management system currently in place. Stormwater discharges from the lands in question are equal or less pre versus post on both a peak rate and total volume perspective. As such, the discharges mimic that of undeveloped lands. Therefore, in the event of a change to the agreement between Collier County and the Big Cypress Basin concerning the lands to the south of I-75, no impact on any downstream system above and beyond that of undeveloped land would be realized and thus there is no impact on County stormwater facilities caused by the development of this property above and beyond undeveloped land. Collier Co unty currently maintains no onsite stormwater infrastructure and will not in the future. (3) The land uses of adjoining properties and, if applicable, the locations of stormwater discharge into the site of the proposed SRA from the adjoining properties. No adjacent properties drain through this site. b. A narrative component to the report including the following information: (1) The name of the receiving water or, if applicable, FSA or WRA to which the stormwater discharge from the site will ultimately outfall; The receiving water of the stormwater discharges from Longwater is the existing agricultural water management system aka Water Retention Area (WRA), which ultimately discharges to the Merrit Canal via Camp Keais Strand. (2) The peak allowable discharge rate (in cfs/acre) allowed for the SRA per Collier County Ordinance 90-10 or its successor regulation; The peak allowable discharge rate in Collier County applicable to this project based on ord. 90-10 is 0.15 cfs/acre. The proposed surface water management system will be based on the permitted agricultural system currently in place and operational. The peak discharge rate of 0.03 cfs/ac will be used to match that of the agricultural system in an effort to maintain the hydrological regime that has existed for many years on this site. The evaluation of offsite discharge rate shall be made at the outfalls of the agricultural system in accordance with the Conceptual Approval permit (11- 03949-P) issued by SFWMD for this and its surrounding applicant owned property. (3) If applicable, a description of the provisions to be made to accept stormwater flows from surrounding properties into, around, or through the constructed surface water management system of the proposed development; The flowways within this project are natural wetland systems. The capacity that exists prior to development will exist after development and will not be increased nor decreased. No surrounding properties currently flow through the SRA area of this project. The same predevelopment drainage basin boundaries will be maintained by the proposed design. 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: Attachment F-Public Facilities Impact Assessment 1-8-2021 - DPFG (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 3 of 7 H:\2019\2019050\SRA\1-7-2021\Public Facilities Report 1-8-2021 - Longwater DPFG.docx (4) The types of stormwater detention areas to be constructed as part of the surface water management system of the proposed development and water quality treatment to be provided prior to discharge of the runoff from the site; and Stormwater water quality treatment within this SRA will be predominantly accomplished by wet detention (lakes) located within the SRA and overlapping into the WRA areas as permitted by SFWMD. Commercial areas will also utilize dry detention pretreatment areas in accordance with SFWMD requirements. Discharges from the SRA water management system to natural WRA areas will occur only after water quality volumes have been achieved and will be by permitted control structures and facilities. Initial phases of development may pump stormwater after treatment consistent with the pre-development drainage of the land. The provided water quality treatment volume of this SRA will be in accordance with the approved SFWMD ERP, inclusive of an additional 50% of water quality to be provided in excess of the calculated base water quality volume for compliance with the interim watershed management plan. Water quantity treatment will occur in both the SRA sited lake system and the WRA areas in concert. (5) If a WRA has been incorporated into the stormwater management system of an SRA, the report shall demonstrate compliance with provisions of Section 4.08.04A.4.b. Several alterations to the WRA areas adjacent to the Village were proposed and approved by SFWMD with the Conceptual Approval Permit. Stormwater management/buffer lakes and their associated containment berms have been permitted in select locations in the existing WRA’s. These modifications were confined to areas of the WRA that exhibited heavy exotic infestation and had little to no habitat function. All of these alterations have mitigation identified in the permit which will be made upon implementation of the impact. The water management concept for Longwater involves the use of the existing agricultural water management system. The proposed system design will use permitted control elevations, discharge rates and discharge locations. The plan as proposed has received a Conceptual Approval Permit issued by SFWMD. All discharges to the WRA (wetland) areas from development will be made only after water quality volumes have been provided in the development area. Areas of the WRA will be excavated to form parts of the internal buffer lake system. Areas to be excavated are low quality exotic impacted areas and will be mitigated for through the SFWMD process. The only fill areas within WRA’s will be berms associated with the surface water management system. which will be mitigated through the SFWMD process. No impacts are proposed to Camp Keais Strand by this project. Potable Water A potable water assessment shall be prepared by the applicant as a component of an Impact assessment Report that is submitted as part of an SRA Designation Application package. The assessment shall illustrate how the applicant will conform to either Florida Administrative Code for private and limited use water systems, or for Public Water Systems. In addition to the standard requirements of the analyses required above, the potable water assessment shall specifically consider, to the extent applicable, the disposal of waste products, if any, generated 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Attachment F-Public Facilities Impact Assessment 1-8-2021 - DPFG (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 4 of 7 H:\2019\2019050\SRA\1-7-2021\Public Facilities Report 1-8-2021 - Longwater DPFG.docx by the proposed treatment process. The applicant shall identify the sources of water proposed for potable water supply. The following table is a calculation of the Longwater potable water demands and wastewater generation with all factors and assumptions: Longwater Water and Wastewater Demands Wastewater Potable Water Wastewater to water conversion = 1.5 Residential 2,600 DU @ 200 gpd = 520,000 gpd 2,600 DU @ 300 gpd = 780,000 gpd Commercial 80,000 sf @ 0.15 gpd = 12,000 gpd 80,000 sf @ 0.23 gpd = 18,000 gpd Civic 26,000 sf @ 0.15 gpd = 3,900 gpd 26,000 sf @ 0.23 gpd = 5,850 gpd 535,900 gpd 803,850 gpd 535,900 gpd = 0.54 mgd ADF 803,850 gpd = 0.80 mgd ADF M3D Factor = 1.5 M3D Factor = 1.3 M3D Flow = 0.80 mgd M3D Flow = 1.05 mgd Potable water services for the Longwater project will be provided by the Collier County Water and Sewer District from existing and planned facilities per a Memorandum of Understanding that outlines commitments from Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. and CDC Land Investments, LLC and the Big Cypress Stewardship District. The estimated potable water demand for residential development at the project is based on 300 gpd per D.U. (residential), and 2,600 residences. Potable water demand for commercial development is based on 23 gpd per 100 feet square or 0.23 gpd/sf. Using these assumptions, potable water demand for the Longwater development at buildout is projected to be approximately 0.8 MGD average daily demand and 1.05 MGD maximum 3-day demand. Irrigation Water The Longwater project site has a long history of permitted agricultural withdrawals from the Water Table and Lower Tamiami Aquifers that has not resulted in adverse impacts to natural environments. At build-out, the Longwater project will result in converting approximately 1,000 acres of agricultural land into a residential development. The agricultural water allocations currently permitted and used within the Longwater project area total approximately 3.37 MGD on an annual average basis and approximately 8.86 MGD on a maximum monthly basis. The transition of agricultural use to residential/commercial use will result in approximately 307 acres of landscaping and turf within the Longwater development requiring irrigation. The project irrigation demand for this amount of irrigated acreage as determined using the SFWMD Blaney - Criddle method are: 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Attachment F-Public Facilities Impact Assessment 1-8-2021 - DPFG (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 5 of 7 H:\2019\2019050\SRA\1-7-2021\Public Facilities Report 1-8-2021 - Longwater DPFG.docx • 1.18 MGD on an annual average basis • 1.71 MGD on a maximum monthly basis The proposed change in land use is anticipated to result in a significant net reduction of irrigation water usage at the site. The Longwater project will obtain a water use permit from the SFWMD which will allow withdrawal from surface water and ground water sources onsite to meet irrigation demands. However, the developer is in discussions with the County to secure 100% of the project’s irrigation demands from reclaimed water. In addition, the developer is working with the County to develop additional water resources onsite to meet public water supply needs throughout the County service area. If the County provides reclaimed water to meet all the project’s irrigation water demands, the SFWMD permit will only be used for 30-day back up supply in the event that there is a disruption in reclaimed water supply. The onsite irrigation water supply system will include stormwater lakes and wells. The lake system will be used to supply irrigation water for the project and wells will be utilized to partially or fully resupply the withdrawal lakes. The proposed source aquifer for the wells is the Lower Tamiami Aquifer which is currently permitted to meet the existing agricultural water demands on the project site. The lake withdrawals will provide an efficient and low impact method for effectively harvesting available stormwater supplies. Lake volume storage in the lake system as well as re-supply by groundwater from the recharge wells will minimize potential impacts to surface and groundwater levels. The developer would be responsible for all costs associated with the permitting, construction, and maintenance of the irrigation system. Wastewater A wastewater assessment shall be prepared by the applicant as a component of an Impact Assessment Report that is submitted as part of an SRA Designation Application package. The assessment shall illustrate how the applicant will conform to either Standards for Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems, contained in Florida Administrative Code for systems having a capacity not exceeding 10,000 gallons per day or for wastewater treatment systems having a capacity greater than 10,000 gallons per day. In addition to the standard requirements of the analyses required above, the wastewater assessment shall specifically consider, to the extent applicable, the disposal of waste products generated by the proposed treatment process. Wastewater services for the Longwater project will be provided by the Collier County Water and Sewer District from existing and planned facilities per a Memorandum of Understanding that outlines commitments from Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. and CDC Land Investments, LLC and the Big Cypress Stewardship District. Anticipated wastewater generated by the development is based on a per capita daily volume of 200 gpd per D.U. for 2,600 residences. Wastewater demand for commercial development is based on 15 gpd per 100 feet square or 0.15 gpd/sf. This results in build out wastewater flows of 0.54 MGD on an average daily basis and 0.8 MGD on a maximum 3-day basis. 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: Attachment F-Public Facilities Impact Assessment 1-8-2021 - DPFG (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 6 of 7 H:\2019\2019050\SRA\1-7-2021\Public Facilities Report 1-8-2021 - Longwater DPFG.docx School Concurrency The projected enrollment of Longwater Village on the Collier County Public Schools is shown in the table below. The student generation rates in the 2015 School Impact Fee Update, the most recent data available, were used to calculate enrollment. Longwater Projected Public School Enrollment Source: Collier County School District, Collier Enterprises, DPFG, 2019 According to the School District, there is existing or planned capacity within the next five years at the elementary, middle and high school levels for each village individually. However, the proposed Bellmar and Longwater Villages and the approved Rivergrass Village, collectively, result in the School District exceeding its estimated capacity. As a result, the SRA includes a condition that addresses school sites (whereby the developer will convey real property for future school sites sufficient to accommodate a high school, middle school and an elementary school in exchange for educational impact fee credits). At the time of site plan or plat, the development will be reviewed to ensure there is capacity either within the concurrency service area the development is located within or adjacent concurrency service areas. EMS and Fire According to EMS management, Longwater Village will be primarily served by a new EMS facility planned for the corner of Desoto Blvd./Golden Gate Blvd East. The County acquired the site in January 2020. The Greater Naples Fire Rescue District will co-locate a fire facility at the site. EMS management anticipates the station will be placed in service in 2022. The cost of the new facility will be funded by the County’s One-Cent Infrastructure surtax which was authorized in 2018. If additional EMS capacity is needed to serve Rivergrass SRA Village, and potentially Hyde Park SRA Village and Longwater SRA Village, EMS management anticipates leasing space for an additional vehicle at the new NCFR station planned for 22nd Avenue/Desoto Blvd N. Because NCFR is planning to maintain an apparatus at the new EMS station, the two entities may enter into a mutual cost-sharing arrangement. Longwater Village 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, Longwater Village is within a mile of a planned fire facility which is already owned by the North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District. Additionally, please see requested maps depicting the subject site and existing North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District and Collier County EMS stations, which illustrates travel routes from 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: Attachment F-Public Facilities Impact Assessment 1-8-2021 - DPFG (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Page 7 of 7 H:\2019\2019050\SRA\1-7-2021\Public Facilities Report 1-8-2021 - Longwater DPFG.docx those locations to the subject site. Response time data, requested by staff, has been provided by North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District, and is included with this Report. Transportation Impacts See attached the attached Traffic Analysis for transportation impacts. 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: Attachment F-Public Facilities Impact Assessment 1-8-2021 - DPFG (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) G:\CDES Planning Services\Current\Gundlach\SRA (Stewardship Receiving Area)\Longwater Village SRA\NIM Stuff\Longwater Village SRA NIM Summary (6-25-2020).docx NIM Summary Longwater Village SRA (PL-20190001836) Thursday, June 25, 2020 at 5:30 PM New Hope Ministries, Lecture Hall – Room 211 7675 Davis Boulevard, Naples, Florida 34104 The NIM was held for the above referenced petition. The petition is described as follows: A petition to designate a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) within the Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay District in the form of a Village consisting of 999.78± acres of land located in eastern Collier County. The SRA is to be known as Longwater Village. Longwater Village SRA is proposed to allow up to 2,600 dwelling units of which a minimum of 10% will be multi -family, a minimum of 10% will be single-family detached, and a minimum of 10% will be single-family attached or villas. Longwater Village will include a minimum of 65,000 square feet and a maximum of 80,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses, and a minimum of 26,000 square feet, of civic, governmental and institutional uses. Note: This is a summary of the NIM. An audio recording is also provided. Attendees: On behalf of the Applicants: Pat Utter, Senior Vice President of Real Estate, Collier Enterprises Valerie Pike, Director of Real Estate, Collier Enterprises Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, President, Hole Montes Richard Yovanovich, Esq., Coleman Yovanovich Koester Norm Trebilcock, AICP, PE, Trebilcock & Associates County Staff: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, RLA, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section James Sabo, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section Two members of the public attended. Mr. Mulhere started the presentation by introducing himself, the other consultants, and County Staff. He went on to provide an overview of the project. Following the presentation there was approximately five minutes of questions from the public in attendance. Two questions were asked: (1) What is the approximate length of the proposed main spine road? (2) When will construction begin? Mr. Utter responded that the spine road is approximately three miles long, and he expects construction to begin in approximately 18 to 24 months. The meeting concluded at approximately 5:45 PM. 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: Attachment G-NIM Summary (6-25-2020) (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) August 13, 2020 Nancy Gundlach, AICP, RLA, Principal Planner Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner Matthew McLean, Director, Development Review Kirsten Wilkie, Environmental Services Manager Jamie Cook, Principal Environmental Specialist James Sabo, AICP, Principal Planner Michael Sawyer, Principal Planner Cormac Giblin, Housing Operations and Grant Development Manager Collier County Growth Management Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RE: Longwater Village SRA #PL20190001836 & SSA17 #PL20160000295 Dear Ms. Gundlach, Mr. Schmidt, Mr. McLean, Ms. Wilkie, Ms. Cook, Mr. Sabo, Mr. Sawyer, and Mr. Giblin: On behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida (Conservancy) and over 7,000 supporting families, we are writing this letter to express our strong objection to the proposed Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) for the following reasons, addressed in this order: I. Collier Enterprises’ villages must be held to town standards. II. Longwater Village would destroy panther habitat, not only within the SRA, but also within the “preserves”. III. The project is a typical suburban-style development, not innovative planning. Based on your reviews of the application, there appears to be some alignment between the concerns we are raising in our letter and those raised by County staff, in your review of the project. In addition to those concerns, there are other concerns that we would like to draw your attention to, not yet addressed in your review. We very much appreciate your consideration of the issues raised in our letter. It is our hope that you will recommend denial of the project based on these concerns. I. Collier Enterprises’ villages must be held to town standards. A. The applicant’s three villages equate to a town: 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: Attachment H-Letters of Objection 2-22-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Conservancy of Southwest Florida Comments on Longwater Village SRA Application 2 All three of the applicant’s contiguous villages (Rivergrass, Longwater, and Bellmar) have essentially the same build- out date1 and, when aggregated, the three villages fall within the acreage parameters of a town. Policy 4.7.1 states, “Towns shall not be less than 1,000 acres or more than 4,000 acres and are comprised of several villages and/or neighborhoods that have individual identity and character.” Rivergrass, Longwater, and Bellmar equate to three thousand acres and have an estimated build-out population of 13,482 permanent residents and 7,850 homes,2 which would be considered a larger town under the RLSA program. It is undeniable; the total population, traffic impacts, infrastructure, goods and service needs of the three villages are town- sized and must be treated as such. The applicant seems to acknowledge that they are planning for a town, as they provided the County with an unofficial master plan of the three villages on one unified plan, which they call “The Villages of Big Cypress Stewardship District” (Figure 1). Their unofficial new town master plan includes essentially the same designs as provided in the three village SRA applications. This consolidated plan was never formally submitted as an SRA town application, nor has it been revealed in a public hearing. Policy 4.2 affirms that “SRAs [are] to be compact, mixed-use and self-sufficient in the provision of services, facilities, and infrastructure,” which is important so that Collier County’s existing urban communities are not overwhelmed by increased traffic congestion and demands from RLSA residents who are compelled to travel west to find work and to obtain daily essential goods and services. Table 1 provides a few examples of how the applicant is short-changing Collier County taxpayers by planning for separate villages in lieu of a more self- supporting town. As an example, Collier County’s Land Development Code (LDC) requires a minimum of 65 1 SRA application documents for all three village state that anticipated build-out is 12 years from date of approval. Since Rivergrass was approved in 2020, this would place Rivergrass’ build-out at approximately 2032. Longwater’s and Bellmar’s build-out would be 2032-2033, if they are approved in 2020 or 2021). 2 Rivergrass Economic Assessment September 3, 2019 states permanent population of 4,269; Longwater Economic Assessment May 24, 2020 states permanent population of 4,477; Bellmar Economic Assessment March 12, 2020 states permanent population of 4,736. Rivergrass will provide 2,500 homes, Longwater 2,600 homes, and Bellmar 2,750 homes. Figure 1: Collier Enterprises’ unofficial town plan. 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: Attachment H-Letters of Objection 2-22-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Conservancy of Southwest Florida Comments on Longwater Village SRA Application 3 sf gross building area per dwelling unit for goods and services for a town.3 Therefore, a town with 7,850 homes, the same number of homes offered by the applicant’s contiguous villages, must provide a minimum of 510,250 square feet for goods and services. Instead, the applicant proposes a minimum 196,250 sf for goods and services for the three villages, which is far less than half of the commercial square footage required of a town. Under the same policy, a minimum of 117,500 sf of civic/governmental/institutional would be required of a town with 7,850 homes. Instead, the applicant offers a minimum of 78,500 sf for the three villages, which is 67% of what is required of a town with the same number of homes. Also, the applicant provides about 263,000 sf less space (or 6 acres less) for community parks than is required of a town, but claim they are exceeding village requirements by providing additional acreage for preserves and amenity centers within two of their village plans.4 As example, in Longwater’s Submittal 4 response letter, staff asks the applicant to depict parks within neighborhoods on the Master Plan. The applicant responds by showing segments of the master plan where parks and “park preserves” are located.5 The “park preserves” consist of 9.52 acres. However, according to LDC4.08.07.A.1.d,6 preserves with an NRI score over 1.2 must be left in a natural state, so preserve acreage cannot be counted toward active public park space. Furthermore, the SRA applications are unclear as to whether the amenity centers would be free and open to the public and, thus, the acreage should not be counted toward park space. Town Requirements for 7,850 dwelling units Rivergrass + Bellmar + Longwater Villages commit to provide the following: (7,850 combined dwelling units) Acreage 1,000 to 4,000 acres 2,997 acres Housing Diversity Full range of housing required Max 90% single family/ Min 10% multi-family (7,065 SF /785 MF)7 Context Zones 3 context zones required 2 context zones provided Goods and Services 510,250 sf min required (LDC requires min 65 sf per DU) 196,250 sf min provided8 (265,000 sf max provided) Civic, Government, Institutional 117,500 sf min required (LDC requires min 15 sf per DU) 78,500 sf min provided9 Community Parks 1,570,000 sf min required (LDC requires 200 sf per DU) 1,306,364 sf of “Parks and community green space” provided (29.99 acres)10 3 Collier County LDC 4.08.07.J.1 4 Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area Credit Agreement SSA14 & SSA17 p. 16/16 states, “Longwater Village contains approximately 39.71 acres of active and passive parks and community green space, exceeding the requirement to provide at least 1 percent of the Village gross acreage, (10 acres, rounded) in the form of Parks and Community Green Space.” Longwater’s master plan shows: 18.01 acres for amenity centers, 12.18 acres for parks, and 9.52 acres for park preserves, totaling 39.71 acres. 5 Submittal 4, Response letter dated June 1, 2020. p. 3 6 LDC 4.08.07.A.1.d states “Lands or parcels that are greater than one acre and have an Index Value greater than 1.2 shall be r etained as open space and maintained in a predominately vegetated state.” LDC 4.08.07.J.6 provides similar language. 7 Dwelling units: Rivergrass = 2,500; Longwater; = 2,600; Bellmar -=2,750) Each SRA commits to up to a max of 90% single family homes (7,065) and a minimum of 10% multi-family homes 785). (Information was derived from most recent SRA documents as of 7-12-20 and Rivergrass Resolution 2020-24) 8 Commercial provided by Rivergrass = 62,500 sf min to 100,000 sf max; Longwater = 65,000 min sf to 80,000 max sf; Bellmar = 68,750 min sf to 85,000 sf max. (Information was derived from most recent SRA documents as of 7 -12-20 and Rivergrass Resolution 2020-24) 9 Civic, Government and Institutional provided: Rivergrass = 25,000 sf; Longwater = 26,000 sf; Bellmar = 27,500 sf. (Information was derived from most recent SRA documents as of 7-12-20 and Rivergrass Resolution 2020-24) 10 Parks and Community Green Space: Rivergrass = 9.98 acres; Longwater = 12.18 acres; Bellmar = 7.83acres. Note: (In addition, Longwater and Bellmar will provide 9.52 acres and 3.44 acres respectively of “park preserves;” however, the acreage cannot count toward public parks. LDC 4.08.07.J.6 states, “Parcels of one (1) acre or more, with a Natural Resource Index rating greater than 1.2, must be preserved as open space and maintained in a Table 1: Comparison of town requirements to the total amenities provided by Rivergrass, Longwater, and Bellmar Villages. 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: Attachment H-Letters of Objection 2-22-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Conservancy of Southwest Florida Comments on Longwater Village SRA Application 4 Lastly, Table 1 shows that towns require a full range of housing types (Policy 4.7.1). If the applicant’s plans are approved, housing within all three villages could consist of 90% single-family homes, which is not only indicative of sprawl, but it is far from providing a full range of housing or even a diversity of housing types as is required of villages under Policy 4.7.2. In sum, the submission of three adjacent villages -- as well as Collier Enterprises’ recent unofficial acknowledgment that these three villages constitute a unified development plan -- raises important questions including whether the effect of segregating a town into three villages will result in fewer obligations on the developer than intended by the Growth Management Plan and whether the citizens of Collier County will be forced to fund additional infrastructure needs. The bottom line is that Longwater (as well as the other purported villages) should be withdrawn and resubmitted as a Town in order to ensure that the applicant provides the goods and services, housing, design elements, and infrastructure needed for a self-sufficient SRA. B. Steps taken toward an aggregate review: The Conservancy appreciates that certain staff have taken a bold and appropriate stance in an attempt to hold the applicant accountable for aggregate impacts from all three developments, pertaining to fiscal neutrality, concurrency management, and traffic. As example, in a February 11, 2020 Consistency Review Memorandum for Longwater Village, staff stated: “Comprehensive Planning staff also ask that the departments and agencies involved directly with the Concurrency Management give consideration to the cumulative effects or demands of these SRA, rather than considering each only individually.”11 Further down on the same page is a similar statement: “Comprehensive planning staff also ask that the County staff involved in the review of the Economic Assessment give consideration to the cumulative effects or demands of these SRAs, rather than considering each only individually.” Unfortunately, for unknown reasons, both of these statements were redacted in later versions of the Consistency Review Memo. As another example, the transportation reviewer persisted in efforts to receive a cumulative review of traffic impacts on Collier County’s road network from all the approved and pending RLSA’s villages. Previously, the applicant’s consultant evaluated Longwater’s traffic in a vacuum. In other words, the project’s Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) failed to include background traffic from the applicant’s other two villages, Rivergrass (approved) and Bellmar (pending approval). Nor did the assessment consider background traffic from Hyde Park, a recently approved village by a different applicant. In the April 15, 2020 Review Comment Letter, transportation review staff stated:12 “The TIS does not include any discussion/explanation as to how the cumulative impacts of the four proposed developments’ (Longwater Village, Bellmar Village, Rivegrass Village and Hyde Park Village) traffic on the Collier County roadway network were analyzed.” predominately naturally vegetated state.” Master Plans for all three SRAs provide acreage for Amenity Centers; however, it is unclear whether the applicant intends to offer the amenity centers to all of the public without a cost. Until then, the acreage should not be counted toward community park space. (Information was derived from most recent SRA documents as of 7-12-20 and Rivergrass Resolution 2020-24). 11 Collier County staff Longwater Consistency Review Memorandum Februay 11, 2020, p. 13/20 12 Collier County Review Comment Letter for Longwater. April 15, 2020. p. 4. 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: Attachment H-Letters of Objection 2-22-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Conservancy of Southwest Florida Comments on Longwater Village SRA Application 5 In the same paragraph, county transportation review staff explained why a cumulative analysis is important: (highlights added for emphasis) “The total am and pm peak hour peak direction trips estimated for Longwater Village, Bellmar Village, and Rivergrass Village are approximately 3,600 trips per hour and 3,750 trips per hour. This is proximately 76% of the total a.m. and p.m. peak hour peak direction trips previously estimated for the build-out year (2040) of Rural Lands West. When the a.m. and p.m. peak hour peak direction trips associated with Hyde Park Village are also included, the total a.m. and p.m. peak hour peak direction trips estimated for all four developments are approximately 4,550 and 4,800 trips per hour. Given the close proximity of these four proposed developments and the relatively limited roadway network in the surrounding area, it seems very likely that the cumulative impact of all this traffic will result in level of service deficiencies for multiple roadway segments and intersections.” Ultimately, staff succeeded in procuring a cumulative analysis from the applicant’s traffic consultant, which demonstrated that Collier County transportation reviewers were justified in their concerns. When Longwater’s traffic impacts from the March 9, 2020 TIS are compared to the “Accumulation Traffic Analysis” from May 29, 2020 it is evident that many more roads would fail when background traffic from the applicant’s other two developments is considered. Longwater’s March 9, 2020 TIS states the following:13 “As such, the following roadway segments are adversely impacted by the project’s traffic: - Randall Blvd from Everglades Blvd to Desoto Blvd” When the estimated background traffic from Bellmar and Rivergrass Village were included in Longwater’s “Accumulation Traffic Impacts Analysis,” several additional roadway segments were shown to be adversely impacted by the Longwater project. The updated TIS from May 29, 2020 states: “As such, the following roadway segments are adversely impacted by the project’s traffic:  Oil Well Rd from Immokalee Rd to Everglades Blvd  Randall Blvd from Everglades Blvd to Desoto Blvd  Golden Gate Blvd from Collier Blvd to Wilson Blvd  Immokalee Rd from Logan Blvd to Collier Blvd  Immokalee Rd from Collier Blvd to Wilson Blvd”14 Without staff’s insistence that the applicant consider background traffic from Rivergrass and Bellmar, it would appear that Longwater’s traffic would have a detrimental effect on only one roadway segment, when in reality five road segments would be adversely impacted by the project. Still, it is unclear whether the developer will be required to provide mitigation for all five roadway segments or for just one roadway segment, and if not the developer, then who will be on the hook to pay for these infrastructure upgrades? C. Pressure to approve the villages as a package deal: Although the villages are being reviewed as three separate stand-alone applications, the landowner-developer negotiated a deal with Collier County that ties approvals of all three villages together, essentially in a packaged deal. This deal places Collier County Board of County Commissioners up against a wall, where the 13 Trebilock Planning Engineering. Traffic Impact Statement Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area. Section 1 – Impacts to Roadway Network – Road Segment Analysis. March 9, 2020, p. 24/77. 14 Trebilock Planning Engineering. Traffic Impact Statement Longwater Stewardship Receiving Area. Section 2 – Intersection Analyses. May 29, 2020, p. 13/352. 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: Attachment H-Letters of Objection 2-22-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Conservancy of Southwest Florida Comments on Longwater Village SRA Application 6 Commissioners either approve the pending village applications for Longwater and Bellmar or enforce eminent domain to obtain the right of way for Big Cypress Parkway (BCP). The deal, between the county and Collier Enterprises, was made in the “Rivergrass Village Landowner Agreement,” which provides the following stipulations, among other provisions: 15 (highlights added for emphasis) “8. If the Longwater Village SRA is approved the Big Cypress Parkway right of way from Randall Blvd. to Vanderbilt Beach Road, depicted in Exhibit D, will be sold to the County under the same terms as paragraph 5 above.” “10. If the Bellmar Village SRA is approved the Big Cypress Parkway right of way from Vanderbilt Beach Road to 6th Street SE, depicted in Exhibit E, and the Big Cypress Parkway right of way north of Rivergrass to Immokalee Road, depicted in Exhibit F, will be sold to the County under the same terms as paragraph 5 above.” “12. For a period of five (5) years from the effective date of this Agreement, Landowner agrees to reserve the right of way and provide the water management system referenced in paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 11 for purchase by the County unless: (1) the Longwater Village is denied by Collier County, (2) the Bellmar Village is denied by Collier County or (3) Collier County elects not to acquire the right of way. During the 5-year reservation period, if Landowner withdraws either the Longwater or Bellmar applications, the County will have the right to purchase the reserved right of way and drainage easements.” The Executive Summary for Rivergrass’ Landowner Agreement asserts that if Collier County Commissioners vote to deny Longwater and Bellmar Villages, the county must resort to condemnation. Here is what is stated: (highlights added for emphasis) “Staff’s position has been consistent in requesting that the reservation of the complete right of way should not expire nor should it be conditioned on approval of other developments in the future. These conditions represent the limits of where the developer was willing to commit to at this time. While staff is recommending approval, it is important to note that failure to approve the future SRAs, Longwater and Bellmar, would negate the reservation and force condemnation should the County wish to proceed with the construction of Big Cypress Parkway.”16 It is no secret; the County does wish to proceed with the construction of Big Cypress Parkway project. In 2018, the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization Board (MPO) approved an amendment, which was paid for by Collier Enterprises, to add the $111 million roadway project to the Collier MPO’s taxpayer-funded Needs Plan.17 So why would the same commission members, who voted to place BCP on the Needs Plan, do anything other than approve the villages since their approvals are tied to getting the roadway that they want? Especially, since no elected official wants to be in a position where a vote for denial of Longwater or Bellmar equates to a forced condemnation of private property. 15 Landowner Agreement Rivergrass Village approved by Board of County Commissioners January 28, 2020. BCC Agenda item 11.C. 16 Board of County Commissioner Agenda January 28, 2020. Executive Summary, Landowner Agreement for Rivergrass Village. (January 28, 2020) Agenda Item 11.C, packet page 1032 17 Cost of right of way, environmental mitigation and construction of 2-Lane road within 4 land ROW is approximately $111 million. Collier MPO 240 LRTP Amendment Adoption Report (May 25, 2018). Table 5- Costs of LRTP Amendment Needs Projects, p. 10. 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: Attachment H-Letters of Objection 2-22-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Conservancy of Southwest Florida Comments on Longwater Village SRA Application 7 Regardless of ties with BCP, it is the Conservancy’s hope that staff base their recommendation for Longwater and Bellmar solely on the merits of the project. A recommendation of approval shall be granted only if the project clearly meets all policies and objectives of the GMP and the LDC. II. Longwater Village would destroy panther habitat, not only within the SRA, but also within the “preserves.” A. The applicant chose a site that would destroy over 1,000 acres of primary panther habitat. Leading panther scientists, as established in the best available science Kautz et al. 2006, consider Primary Zone panther habitat “just enough space to support a population that is barely viable demographically as long the habitat base remains stable.”18 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in their Florida Panther Recovery Plan characterizes Primary Zone lands as crucial for the panther’s continued survival and recovery.19 Considering these facts, one would think that a village, or any SRA for that matter, would be prohibited within Primary Zone habitat of the endangered Florida panther. In direct conflict of the science, the 1,000-acre site that Collier Enterprises has chosen for Longwater Village is entirely within Primary Zone panther habitat, shown in pink in Figure 2. The Primary Zone consists of several different land cover types, including agricultural lands that exist within the proposed Longwater Village site. Agricultural lands contain important natural landscape connections that support panther home ranges, panther reproduction, dispersal movements, and availability of large prey.20 Furthermore, Primary Zone habitat, including those consisting of agriculture, helps to support the only breeding population of panthers. Anyone who claims that the Longwater site is not important to panthers 18 Kautz, et al. (2006) How much is enough? Landscape–scale conservation for the Florida panther. Biological Conservation 130, p. 129 19 US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008. “Florida Panther Recovery Plan, 3rd Revision.” 20 Kautz, et al. (2006) How much is enough? Landscape–scale conservation for the Florida panther. Biological Conservation 130, p. 118-133 and Cominskey et al (2002). Panthers and Forests in South Florida an Ecological Perspective. Conservation Ecology Vol 6, No. 1 Figure 2: Longwater Village within Primary Zone panther habitat. 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: Attachment H-Letters of Objection 2-22-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Conservancy of Southwest Florida Comments on Longwater Village SRA Application 8 because the lands contain agricultural lands is in direct opposition to what best available science and the Panther Recovery Plan states. Plans by Collier Enterprises to replace 1,000-acres of Primary Zone panther habitat with development not only defies principles of environmental stewardship, but it violates the very goal of the RLSA. The RLSA goal states that “incompatible uses,” such as SRA village development, must be directed away from upland habitat. Clearly, the opposite is occurring with Longwater Village, as the applicant plans on directing development directly within listed species habitat. B. The project would destroy 110 additional acres of Primary Zone and Adult Breeding Habitat within the “preserve.” Destruction of Primary Zone and Adult Breeding habitat is not limited to just the SRA site; the project would also destroy panther habitat within the adjacent pending Stewardship Sending Area (SSA17), which would become a preserve upon approval. This proposed Stewardship Sending Area (SSA17) is a Water Retention Area (WRA) consisting of 3,113 acres of an ecologically important wetland system, called Shaggy Cypress. SSA17 (Figure 2) provides habitat for 12 listed species21, including primary habitat for the Florida panther. Longwater’s Master Plan shows that stormwater Lake Tracts (all 110.63 acres) would be excavated within SSA17 (Figure 2). Even though WRAs are identified by the RLSA program, along with FSAs and HSAs, as lands with “the highest priority for natural resource protection,”22 ironically excavation within WRAs is allowed. LDC 4.08.06.A.4.b, states: “During permitting to serve new uses within an SRA, additions and modifications to WRAs may be required, including but not limited to changes to control elevations, discharge rates, storm water pre-treatment, grading, excavation or fill. Such additions and modifications shall be allowed subject to review and approval by the SFWMD in accordance with best management practices. However, the same policy also states that there shall be no net loss of habitat function, unless the applicant provides mitigation or restoration . LDC 4.08.06.A.4.b continues: (highlights added) “Such additions and modifications to WRAs shall be designed to ensure that there is no net loss of habitat function within the WRAs unless there is compensating mitigation or restoration in other areas of the RLSA District that will provide comparable habitat function . Compensating mitigation or restoration for an impact to a WRA contiguous to the Camp Keais Strand or Okaloacoochee Slough shall be provided within or contiguous to that Strand or Slough.” Figure 2 shows that all of SSA17, including the location of the proposed lake tracts, fall within the Primary Zone, depicted in pink. Obviously, excavation of those lands for lake tracts would destroy primary panther habitat resulting in a net loss of habitat function (and loss of spatial extent of habitat) for the endangered Florida panther. In addition to a reduction in Primary Zone habitat, panther breeding habitat would also be demolished. The Conservancy hired Dr. Robert Frakes, a leading panther scientist, to assess any loss of Adult Breeding panther habitat from the construction of the applicant’s villages, including Longwater Village. The authors of the Frakes et al. (2015) study23 describe the critical nature of maintaining Adult Breeding Habitat for the panther: 21 Passarella and Associates. Stewardship Sending Area 17 NRI Assessment Listed Species Occurrence Map (July 2018). 22 Collier County Future Land Use Element, RLSA Overlay Policy 1.18 23 Frakes RA, Belden RC, Wood BE, James FE (2015). Landscape Analysis of Adult Florida Panther Habitat. PloS ONE 10(7): e0133044. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0133044 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: Attachment H-Letters of Objection 2-22-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Conservancy of Southwest Florida Comments on Longwater Village SRA Application 9 “Because there is less panther habitat remaining than previously thought, we recommend that all remaining breeding habitat in south Florida should be maintained, and the current panther range should be expanded into south-central Florida.”24 Dr. Robert Frakes, the leading author of the study, provided the Conservancy with a map showing the location of where significant loss in function of Adult Breeding Habitat is predicted if the villages were to move forward. According to Frakes et al. 2015 model, lands with a value of 0.338 or higher are considered Adult Breeding Habitat. If direct or indirect impacts occur and the value of the lands become less than 0.338, they lose their function for adult breeding panthers. Figure 3 shows the loss of Adult Breeding Habitat value from the proposals, with the shaded yellow, orange, and red areas showing the worst impacts to Adult Breeding Habitat. Not only do the SRA sites result in a significant and devastating loss of Adult Breeding Habitat, but nearly all of the lake tracts (shown in blue) within the Water Retention Areas of Longwater and Bellmar25would also result in habitat function loss. Undoubtedly, Longwater and Bellmar projects would not comply with the standard under LDC 4.08.06.A.4.b, that states, “shall be no net loss of habitat function.” What about the other stipulation that says “unless the applicant provides mitigation or restoration”? According to the application materials for SSA17, no restoration acti vities are planned.26 Also, the Conservancy is unaware of any mitigation provided by the applicant to compensate for the loss of panther habitat destruction specific to the lake tracts within SSA17. In fact, SSA17 lands are considered “preserves” under Collier Enterprises’ application for a federal incidental take permit with the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Collier Enterprises, along with 11 other landowners formed Eastern Collier Property Owner, LLC (ECPO), where they jointly applied for a federal incidental take permit to develop 45,000 acres of RLSA lands. Their development plan states that “preserves” are offered as mitigation for destruction of nearly 20,000 acres27 of Primary Zone panther habitat. Within their HCP Land Designations plan for their federal permit, the 24 Ibid. p. 1 25 Bellmar Village Master Concept Plan (June 3, 2020) shows that there would be 120.16 acres of lakes tracts within the WRA. 26 We also confirmed with county environmental staff via email May 22, 2020 that no restoration is proposed for SSA17. It appears, based on applicant’s maps of SSA17, that Bellmar’s lake tracts would be located outside of SSA17, unlike Longwater’s lake tracts. However, Bellma r’s MCP depicts that the project is located adjacent to the proposed SSA18. Because the application for SSA18 has not yet been submitted to Collier County it is not possible to determine if the lake tracts fall within SSA18 or whether restoration is proposed. 27 Stantec Consulting, Inc. (2018, August). “Eastern Collier Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, prepared for Eastern Collier Pr operty Owners.” p. 88. Figure 3: Loss of Adult Breeding Panther habitat from development. Source: Dr. Robert Frakes 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: Attachment H-Letters of Objection 2-22-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Conservancy of Southwest Florida Comments on Longwater Village SRA Application 10 Longwater Village SRA site is considered a “Covered” activity, whereas, SSA17 is depicted as a “Preserve.” Their HCP states that “under the Plan, the primary mitigation for the covered activities includes the phased perpetual preservation of 107,000 acres of diverse habitats, and the maintenance of these preservation lands in perpetuity.”28 How, then, can the project be consistent with 4.08.06.A.4.b if the applicant plans to destroy habitat within the very preserve lands they are using as mitigation? The answer is simple: the project is not consistent with LDC 4.08.06.A.4.b because there would be a loss of habitat function without restoration or mitigation for those impacts. C. Applicant proposes to destroy mammal corridor, while seeking credit for mammal corridor restoration: Figure 2 provides the location of panther telemetry points. The map demonstrates that not only do panthers traverse the proposed SRA site, but they also regularly travel within the surrounding preserves (SSA17 and SSA15). The preserves are part of the larger Camp Keais Strand wildlife corridor. Wildlife corridors, by definition, are continuous and connecting swaths of natural lands and habitat where mammals can travel unimpeded by development and roads. The RLSA program grants Restoration Potential Credit for lands within Stewardship Sending Areas that have the “potential” to restore large mammal corridors.29 Credit is also given for other restoration purposes, such as the potential to restore wading bird habitat. Figure 4 shows, in purple, an area where the applicant has applied for Restoration Potential Credit for large mammal corridor restoration, and wading bird habitat restoration, in blue.30 If SSA17 is approved by the county, the applicant would receive Restoration Potential Credit over 626 acres of lands for having the “potential” to restore a large mammal corridor and additional credit for the potential to restore 114 acres of land for wading bird habitat.31 What is surprising is that the landowner can earn Restoration Potential Credit even though zero restoration work will be performed, which is the case with SSA17. Regardless, our primary concern for this application is that Longwater’s development plan would destroy the existing wildlife corridor in two ways: 1. Mammal access to the preserves would be deterred for two reasons: First, the applicant plans to build a perimeter stormwater lake system, which would block access to the mammal corridor within the preserve. The applicant’s SRA document states (highlights added): “Within SSAs 15 and 17, along the eastern boundary of the Village there is a perimeter lake system, designed for stormwater purposes, and as a deterrent to wildlife.”32 In addition, the surrounding development of Longwater Village would deter mammals from using the preserves within SSA15 and SSA17 due to traffic, lights, and noise. 28 Ibid, p. ii. 29 Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay Stewardship Credit Worksheet. 30 Passarella and Associates. SSA17 Aerial with Restoration Potential Index Value Map, Exhibit 3-8. (posted July 16, 2020) 31 Passarella and Associates. Natural Resource Index Assessment Stewardship Sending Area 17. Revised January 2020. p. 4 of 4. 32 Submittal 4 –Longwater Village SRA Development Document, p. 3. Large mammal restoration potential shown in purple. Location of spine road crossing SSA17 Figure 4: SSA17 Restoration Potential Map. Source: Passarella and Associates 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: Attachment H-Letters of Objection 2-22-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Conservancy of Southwest Florida Comments on Longwater Village SRA Application 11 2. The applicant’s plan would fragment the wildlife corridor. Figure 5 is of the project’s Master Concept Plan (MCP), which shows where the proposed spine road would bisect the existing large mammal corridor within SSA17. Each neighborhood, or development pod, within Longwater’s master plan, must exit and enter off of the spine road to travel to the Village Center, Big Cypress Parkway, and Oil Well Road. Vehicular traffic on the village spine road would be heavy and continuous. The applicant’s current Army Corps of Engineers and South Florida Water Management District plans shows only a 4x6 wildlife crossing at this area, which is meant only to accommodate small wildlife species. The applicant does not propose a large mammal crossing at this location because their fencing plans and lake design specifically intend to keep large mammals outside of these preserve areas. The county should seek clarity from the applicant about these plans, as their submittals for their wetland permits seem to be inconsistent with their request to receive large mammal corridor restoration potential credits for an area that has specifically been designed to preclude access by these type of species. Additionally, if panthers do gain access to this area by swimming the moat or climbing the fencing, the 4x6 size of the crossing would likely be too small for panthers or other large mammals to dependably utilize to gain safe passage under the roadway. D. Other options: In this section of the letter, we explained to you how plans for Longwater Village would impact habitat of an endangered species and an existing mammal corridor. However, Collier Enterprises has other options to build in a way that is less impactful to listed species habitat. The landowner- developer could build truly sustainable communities on lands outside of the Primary Zone and Adult Breeding panther habitat, while continuing to farm their lands within the Primary Zone. If Collier Enterprises’ property outside of Primary Zone panther habitat is limited, then they could partner with other landowners who own lands outside of essential habitat areas, but are within the Overlay’s “Open” areas. They also have an option of selling Stewardship Credits from SSA14, SSA15, and SSA17 to other landowners who are in need of stewardship credits for increasing SRA acreage. Where spine road bisects mammal corridor Figure 5: Longwater Village SRA Master Concept Plan Perimeter lakes 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: Attachment H-Letters of Objection 2-22-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Conservancy of Southwest Florida Comments on Longwater Village SRA Application 12 III. The project is a typical suburban-style development, not innovative planning. A. Longwater’s Village “Center” is on the edge, not the center: RLSA Policy 4.7.2 states, “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.” Longwater’s Village Center is clearly not the focal point of the community as it is located nowhere near the center. Instead the Village “Center” is located on the extreme western edge of the property, alongside the future taxpayer-funded Big Cypress Parkway. The applicant is placing the commercial “center” along a future county road to take advantage of drive-by-traffic, instead of designing the village to provide its residents with walkable access to goods and services, as is required by the Overlay. This is not innovative planning, as the RLSA requires, this is quintessential suburban-style development. B. Where is the continuum?: LDC 4.08.07.3.a.v states that the village must be “developed in a progressive rural to urban continuum with the greatest density, intensity, and diversity occurring within the village center, to the least density, intensity, and diversity occurring within the Neighborhood Edge.” In addition, Policy 4.11 states, “The perimeter of each SRA shall be designed to provide a transition from higher density and intensity uses within the RLSA to lower density and intensity on adjoining property.” The plan is inconsistent with these two policies for two reasons: 1. Because the developer has placed the mixed-use village “center” along the far western edge of the property, along a spine road and a future county road, no development is planned on two sides of the Village Center. If no development is planned on two sides of the Village Center, then how can a transition or continuum of density and intensity be achieved? Obviously, a continuum or transition on those two sides of the village center are not possible, therefore, the plan does not reach consistency with the Overlay. 2. Up to 90% of the 2,600 homes are single-family spread throughout the Neighborhood General Context Zone. Although the applicant agrees to place 40 multi-family units within the Village Center and some within a ½ mile walk to the center, this does not constitute a progressive continuum of residential density. C. The plan provides minimal walkability: Placing the mixed-use Village’s “Center” along the edge of the community creates conditions where most residents must drive to get to the Village Center to obtain goods and services. Collier County’s Community Character Plan recommends as the optimum distance for creating a walkable neighborhood a ¼ mile radius from the mixed-use center to the neighborhoods.33 However, most neighborhoods in Longwater MCP are located over a ½ mile from the Village “Center” and many neighborhoods are located over two miles from the center. This is not acceptable, as the majority of the homes should be within walking distance to the mixed-use center. The plan is inconsistent with the following policies which require a walkable SRA: - LDC 4.08.07.J.3.a.ii: “Villages shall be designed in a compact, pedestrian-friendly form.” - LDC 4.08.07.J.3.b.i: “The transportation network shall provide for a high level of mobility for all residents through a design that respects the pedestrian and accommodates the automobile.” 33 Dover, Kohl & Partners (2001, April). “Toward Better Places: The Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida.” p. 2.8 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: Attachment H-Letters of Objection 2-22-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Conservancy of Southwest Florida Comments on Longwater Village SRA Application 13 - Smart Growth Policy 7.4: “The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities . . .” D. The project lacks connections: Instead of providing a street grid system with multiple routes to the Village Center, Longwater’s plan provides a “non-village like spine road”34 running through the middle of the elongated project. Each development pod would dump neighborhood traffic onto the 3-mile long spine road, which provides access to the Village Center to the south or Oil Well Road to the north. Because the Village “Center” is on the edge and because the plan provides a spine road instead of a street grid system, the Village Center provides only two pedestrian connections to only one of Longwater’s neighborhoods, or development pods (Figure 6). All other neighborhoods must access the spine road to get to the commercial center. As a comparison, the Town of Ave Maria provides nine or ten connections to the Town Center from the surrounding neighborhoods and the campus, which creates multiple routes for the pedestrians, bicyclists, or vehicles (Figure 7). The lack of interconnections within Longwater Village from the Village Center and to adjoining neighborhoods is inconsistent with several policies, including the following: - LDC 4.08.07.J.3.a.ii (Village Design Criteria): “Create an interconnected street system designed to disperse and reduce the length of automobile trips.” - RLSA Policy 4.7.2:“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.” - LDC 4.08.07.J.1.a (Village Characteristics Table B. Transportation. Required Uses): “Auto- interconnected system of collector and local roads;” 34 Staff commented in the July 8, 2020 Consistency Review Memorandum that “Internal accesses are provided for the proposed development, including indirect accesses in to the northerly and southerly residential areas from the non-village like spine road and indirect access into the residential area and Village Center tract.” p. 13 Figure 6: Applicant’s plan showing only two pedestrian connections to Village Center. Figure 7: Pedestrian connections to Town Center in Ave Maria. Spine Road 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: Attachment H-Letters of Objection 2-22-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Conservancy of Southwest Florida Comments on Longwater Village SRA Application 14 - LDC 4.08.07.J.3.b (Transportation Network) states, “The transportation network shall be designed in an interconnected system of streets, sidewalks, and pathways.” - Smart Growth 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. E. Longwater Village lacks housing diversity and affordability: A plan consisting 90% of single-family homes is not only a prime characteristic of sprawl, but it would be detrimental for the future of eastern Collier County. A village plan lacking in a variety of housing types, sizes, and prices ranges, would force those employed within Longwater’s Village Center to seek suitable and affordable housing elsewhere in the county. Because the Overlay requires villages to be self-sufficient, every village and town must provide housing for all ages, diverse family-types, and income brackets. This ensures that essential personnel, such as fire and EMS workers, teachers, nurses, and utility workers, are able to work and live in eastern Collier County. The Conservancy supports staff’s statement: “diversity is achieved in allowing different configurations among single-family detached and attached, and two-family dwellings, zero lot line, town home, and other multi-family dwellings.”35 We, also, fully support staff’s recommendation to require a housing needs analysis to “estimate the affordable housing demand generated by Longwater Village, as well as a plan to address the supply of those units” or staff’s recommendation to require a minimum commitment of affordable housing.36 As stated in staff’s housing review, the applicant has not reached consistency with the following policy: - LDC 4.08.07.J.3.a.iv (Village Design Criteria): “Offer a range of housing types and price levels to accommodate diverse ages and incomes.” In addition to 4.08.07.3.a.iv, Longwater Village SRA fails to conform to these other policies pertaining to housing diversity: - Policy 4.7.2: “Villages are primarily residential communities with a diversity of housing types and mixes of uses appropriate to the scale and character of the particular village.” - LDC 4.08.01.UU: “Villages are a 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.” - LDC 4.08.07.C.2: “Villages. 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 . - Attachment C: Stewardship Receiving Characteristics for a village: Requires “Diversity of single family and multi-family housing types, styles, and lots.” - Smart Growth Policy 7.4: “The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types.” 35 Collier County Longwater Village SRA Consistency Review Memorandum, February 11, 2020. p. 7. 36 Collier County. Longwater Village CHS Staff Review, April 13, 2020. Community and Human Services Division. 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: Attachment H-Letters of Objection 2-22-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Conservancy of Southwest Florida Comments on Longwater Village SRA Application 15 Conclusion The Conservancy of Southwest Florida urges you to recommend denial of the SRA Application for Longwater Village as the project contradicts the fundamental goal of the RLSA Overlay to protect listed species habitat and to prevent urban sprawl. The proposed location of the development, which is entirely within habitat for the endangered Florida panther, flies in the face of responsible environmental and rural land stewardship. Moreover, the design of the project defies basic smart growth design principles which are a fundamental element of the overlay. We urge you to require the applicant go back to the drawing board to drastically modify the development footprint outside of Primary Zone panther habitat, re-apply under town standards, and design the project to uphold the principles of the Overlay. If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss these matters further, you may reach us at (239) 262-0304. Sincerely, April Olson Senior Environmental Planning Specialist (239) 262-0304, ext. 250 AprilO@Conservancy.org 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: Attachment H-Letters of Objection 2-22-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Analysis of Longwater and Bellmar Fiscal Impact s | CONSERVANCY OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA Analysis of Longwater and Bellmar’s Water-Wastewater, Person’s Per Household, and Traffic Impacts A. WHAT WILL THE COUNTY PAY TO EXPAND POTABLE WATER AND WASTEWATER TO NE COLLIER COUNTY? (SLIDE 11)  $82.5 million for additional potable water capacity (NE facility), which will provide treatment for 5 MGD (millions gallons per day).1  $106 million for the new NE wastewater treatment facility which will add treatment capacity for 4 MGD (millions gallons per day).2  Total = $188,500,000 B. WHAT ARE THE MAX POTABLE WATER DEMANDS FROM LONGWATER AND BELLMAR? (SLIDE 12)  1.05 MGD for Longwater MGD and 1.11 MGD for Bellmar 3 (Maximum daily 3-day potable water demand)  Longwater’s demand for water is 21% of the plant’s total capacity. (1.05 MGD/ 5 MGD)  Bellmar’s demand for water is 22.2% of the plant’s total capacity (1.11 MGD/5 MGD)  Thus, the total potable water demand from Longwater and Bellmar at build-out = 2.16 MGD or 43% of the total new capacity. (2.16 MGD/5 MGD plant’s water capacity = 43%) C. WHAT ARE THE MAX WASTEWATER DEMANDS FROM LONGWATER AND BELLMAR? (SLIDE 12)  .80 MGD for Longwater and .85 MGD for Bellmar.4 (Maximum daily 3-day wastewater demand)  Longwater’s demand for wastewater is 20% of the plant’s total capacity. (.80MGD/4 MGD)  Bellmar’s demand for wastewater is 21.25% of the plant’s total capacity (.85 MGD/4 MGD)  Thus, the total wastewater demand from Longwater and Bellmar at build-out = 1.65 MGD or 41.25% of total new capacity. (1.65 MGD/4 MGD added wastewater capacity = 41.25%) D. WHAT ARE THE MAX WATER AND WASTEWATER DEMANDS FROM THE APPLICANT’S THREE VILLAGES? (SLIDE 12) 1 Costs for the new water-water water facility were found in the August 20, 2020 Longwater Consistency Review Memorandum. Staff states on p. 11 “The Capital Improvements Element of the Growth Management Plan identifies the phased construction a new regional water treatment plant ($82.5M) and a new water reclamation facility ($106M) at the Northeast Utility Facilities (NEUF) site to support this (and other) development.” 2019 Collier County Annual Update and Inventory Report/Capital Improvement Element Schedule Update on Public Facilities provides MGD capacity - p. 66 and p. 98. 2 Collier County 2019 Annual Update and Inventory Report/Capital Improvement Element Schedule Update on Public Facilities. p. 98. 3 Sources: Longwater SRA Public Facilities Impact Assessment, March 9, 2020, p. 4 and 6; Bellmar SRA Public Facilities Impact Assessment, Revised January 8, 2021, p. 4 and 6. Note: This includes the potable water demand for residential, commercial, and civic uses. 4 Sources: Longwater SRA Public Facilities Impact Assessment, March 9, 2020, p. 4 and 6; Bellmar SRA Public Facilities Impact Assessment, Revised January 8, 2021, p. 4 and 6. Note: This includes the potable water demand for residential, commercial, and civic uses. 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: Attachment H-Letters of Objection 2-22-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA)  1.05 MGD for Longwater MGD; 1.11 MGD for Bellmar; 1.19 MGD for Rivergrass 5 (Maximum daily 3-day potable water demand) = 3.35 MGD Thus, the total potable wastewater demand from Longwater and Bellmar at build-out = 3.35 MGD or 67% of the total new capacity. (3.35 MGD/5 MGD plant’s water capacity = 67%)  .80 MGD for Longwater; .85 MGD for Bellmar; .98 MGD for Rivergrass6 (Maximum daily 3-day wastewater demand) = 2.63MGD Thus, the total wastewater demand from Rivergrass, Longwater and Bellmar at build-out = 2.63 MGD or 65.75% of total new capacity. (2.63 MGD/4 MGD added wastewater capacity = 65.75%) E. WHAT ARE THE COUNTY’S COSTS TO PROVIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER TO LONGWATER AND BELLMAR? (SLIDE 13) Water  Since, Longwater’s demand for potable water is 21% of the total capacity added (1.05 MGD/5MGD = 21%); the County’s cost to provide potable water to Longwater equates to $17,325,000 ($82.5 million x 21%)  Since Bellmar’s demand for potable water is 22% of the total capacity added (1.11 MGD/5MGD = 22%), the County’s cost to provide potable water to Bellmar equates to $18,150,000 ($82.5 million x 22%)  Total costs to provide potable water to Longwater and Bellmar = $35,475,000 Wastewater  Since Longwaters’s demand for wastewater treatment is 20% of the total capacity added (.8 MGD/4MGD = 20%), the County’s cost to provide wastewater treatment to Longwater equates to $21,200,000 ($106 million x 20%)  Since Bellmar’s demand for wastewater treatment is 21% of the total capacity added (.85 MGD/4 MGD = 21.25%), the County’s cost to provide wastewater treatment to Bellmar equates to $22,260,000 ($106 million x 21%)  Total costs to provide wastewater to Longwater and Bellmar = $43,460,000 F. WHAT ARE THE COMBINED COSTS TO PROVIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER TO LONGWATER AND BELLMAR FOR WATER/SEWER? (SLIDE 14)  $35,475,000 (Costs to provide potable water to Longwater and Bellmar + $43,460,000 (Costs to provide wastewater to Longwater and Bellmar) = $78,935,000 5 Sources: Rivergrass SRA Public Facilities Impact Assessment August 22, 2019, p. 4; Longwater SRA Public Facilities Impact Assessment, March 9, 2020, p. 4 and 6; Bellmar SRA Public Facilities Impact Assessment, Revised January 8, 2021, p. 4 and 6. Note: This includes the potable water demand for residential, commercial, and civic uses. 6 Sources: Rivergrass SRA Public Facilities Impact Assessment August 22, 2019, p. 4; Longwater SRA Public Facilities Impact Assessment, March 9, 2020, p. 4 and 6; Bellmar SRA Public Facilities Impact Assessment, Revised January 8, 2021, p. 4 and 6. Note: This includes the potable water demand for residential, commercial, and civic uses. 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: Attachment H-Letters of Objection 2-22-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) G. WHAT IS THE TOTAL IMPACT FEE REVENUE FROM LONGWATER AND BELLMAR FOR WATER/SEWER?7 (SLIDE 15) Water Impact Fees: = Number of Units X $3,382 per ERC (Equivalent Residential Connection)8  WATER IMPACT FEES TO BE PAID PER VILLAGE: Longwater = $8,793,200 (2,600 x 3,382) Bellmar = $9,300,500 (2,750 x 3,382)  Thus, the total water impact fees to be paid by Longwater and Bellmar = $18,093,700 Wastewater Impact Fees = Number of units X $3,314 per ERC (Equivalent Residential Connection)9  WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES TO BE PAID PER VILLAGE: Longwater: $8,616,400 (2,600 x 3,314) Bellmar = $9,113,500 (2,750 x 3,314)  Thus, the total impact fees to be paid by Longwater and Bellmar = $17,729,900 H. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE COUNTY’S COSTS AND IMPACT FEE REVENUE? (SLIDE 15 & 16): WATER Costs to provide Potable Water to Longwater/Bellmar $ 35,475,000 - Impact Fee Revenue from Longwater/Bellmar $ 18,093,700 = $ 17,381,300 deficit WASTEWATER Costs to provide Wastewater to Longwater/Bellmar $ 43,460,000 - Impact Fee Revenue from Longwater/Bellmar $ 17,729,900 = $ 25,730,100 deficit County’s deficit to provide Longwater Village and Bellmar Village Water and Wastewater: $43,111,400 7 Note: We used the same method to calculate impact fees as provided in DPFG’s economic assessments for each village, which is the number of residential units multiplied by the impact fee for either water or sewer. Also, DPFG’S assessments only included impact fee revenues from residential, not commercial, so we follow their same method. However, we utilized the most current impact fee rates from the County’s March 30, 2020 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Schedule, while DPFG based their calculations on outdated impact fee rates, which are substantially lower. It is our understanding that when impact fees are due, the County will collect the impact fees based on the current rate. Because we utilized current impact fee rates, our calculations will show a greater total amount to be paid for by the developer than DPFG provides in their economic assessment. It is also important to note that if the builders choose to build units under 1,501 square feet, the County will collect less revenue for impact fees. Therefore, the impact fee revenue to the County could be even lower than we provided. 8 The economic assessments for Longwater and Bellmar utilize outdated impact fees. This report uses the updated impact fee data provided by Collier County here: https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/home/showpublisheddocument?id=89644 9 The economic assessments for Longwater and Bellmar utilize outdated impact fees. This report uses the updated impact fee data provided by Collier County here: https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/home/showpublisheddocument?id=89644 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: Attachment H-Letters of Objection 2-22-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) I. THE COLLIER MPO’S 2045 LRTP PROVIDES MORE RECENT DATA THAN DPFG USED IN THEIR ECONOMIC ANALYSES FOR THE VILLAGES. HOW DOES POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR LONGWATER AND BELMAR CHANGE IF WE USE THE MPO’S DATA? (SLIDES 34-35) Page 22 of the MPO’s 2045 LRTP Technical Compendium10 provides an estimate of the “average household size” for the areas where Longwater and Bellmar will be located. Average household size can be equated to DPFG’s “persons per unit.” Page 18 of the MPO’s LRTP Technical Compendium explains that their analysis of “Average Household Size” is for permanent population. Therefore, we will compare this to permanent population within DPFG’s economic assessments for Longwater and Bellmar. Since the LRTP provides only an average household size and does not differentiate between the number of people per single-family homes and the number of people per multi-family homes, like is found in DPFG’s assessments, we applied DPFG’s same assumptions of the number of multi-family11 homes and the number of single-family homes to be built within each village to the MPO’s 2045 data. This made for a more accurate comparison of permanent population estimates. LONGWATER COMPARISON: The map on page 22 of the LRTP’s Technical Compendium shows that the average household size within Longwater’s location would be between 2.01 and 2.50 persons per household (PPH) for a permanent population. When taken as an average of 2.26 PPH, this can be compared to DPFG’s12 person’s per unit of 1.05 for multi-family homes and 2.21 for single family homes for Longwater. LONGWATER CALCULATION: Average PPH of 2.26 x 1,097 Multi-family homes = 2,479.22 + Average PPH of 2.26 X 1,503 Single-family homes = 3,396.78 = 5,876.0 total permanent population for Longwater) BELLMAR COMPARISON: Although the LRTP map on p 22 of the Technical Compendium does not cover the exact location of Bellmar, the colored area on the map aligns closely with the location of Bellmar. The colored development area is shown just slightly south of Bellmar’s actual location, mostly in an area where Stewardship Receiving Areas cannot be built per the RLSA’s rules. Nevertheless, the only parcel that could be developed south of Longwater would be Bellmar’s site. Thus, we can assume that the LRTP’s estimate of 2.51 to 3 person’s per household (unit) applies to Bellmar. When taken as an average of 2.76 PPH, this can be compared to DPFG’s13 person’s per unit of 1.05 for multi-family homes and 2.21 for single family homes for Bellmar. BELLMAR CALCULATION: Average PPH of 2.76 x 1,160 Multi-family homes = 3,201.6 + Average PPH of 2.76 X 1,590 Single-family homes = 4,388.4 = 7,590 total permanent population for Bellmar).  If the 2045 LRTP’s average of 2.26 PPH for Longwater and 2.76 PPH for Bellmar is applied the same number of MF and SF homes within DPFG’s assessments we get a combined population of 13,466. 10 Collier MPO Technical Compendium https://www.colliermpo.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Collier2045LRTP_TechnicalCompendium12- 2-20.pdf p. 22 11 DPFG defines Multi-Family homes as condo, duplex and single-family attached. Collier County’s LDC does not consider single-family attached homes to be multi-family, however, for purposes of comparison we will use DPFG’s definition of multi-family. 12 DPFG (Development Planning Finance Group) Longwater Village SRA Economic Assessment. Revised August 6, 2020, Appendix Table 2 p. 36 13 DPFG (Development Planning Finance Group) Bellmar Village SRA Economic Assessment. Revised November 12, 2020, Appendix Table 2 p. 36. 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: Attachment H-Letters of Objection 2-22-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) COMPARISON OF LRTP TO DPFG’s PERMANENT POPULATION ESTIMATES:  The total permanent population for the two villages using LRTP’s data = 13,466 (5,876 Longwater +7,590 Bellmar = 13,466)  The total permanent population for the two villages from DFPG’s assessments = 9,240 (4,477 for Longwater + 4,763 for Bellmar = 9,240)  13,466 LRTP’s estimate - 9,240 DPFG’s estimate = 4,226  THUS, when compared to recent MPO data, DPFG underestimates permanent population of Longwater and Bellmar by 4,226 people J. THE 2020 AUIR USED THE AVERAGE PERSON PERHOUSEHOLD SIZE OF 2.5 TO DETERMINE WATER AND WASTEWATER LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD.14 HOW DOES POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR LONGWATER AND BELMAR CHANGE IF WE USE THAT DATA INSTEAD OF WHAT DPFG USES IN THEIR ECONOMIC ASSESSMENTS? (SLIDE 35) LONGWATER CALCULATION: Average PPH of 2.5 x 1,097 Multi-family homes = 2,742.5 + Average PPH of 2.5 X 1,503 Single- family homes = 3,757.5 = 6,500.00 total permanent population for Longwater) BELLMAR CALCULATION: Average PPH of 2.5 x 1,160 Multi-family homes = 2,900 + Average PPH of 2.5 X 1,590 Single- family homes = 3,975 = 6,875 total permanent population for Bellmar).  Thus, if the 2020 AUIR’S average PPH of 2.5 is applied the same number of MF and SF homes within DPFG’s Longwater and Bellmar assessment we get a combined permanent population of 13,375. K. CEM’s ECONOMIC ASSESSMENTS FOR LONGWATER AND BELLMAR PROJECT THEY WILL BUILD $ 1.7B WORTH OF PROPERTY, $2.5 BILLION WHEN YOU INCLUDE RIVERGRASS15. (SLIDE 47) Longwater’s Total Tax Base = 805,353,000 Bellmar’s Total Tax Base = 906,775,000 Rivergrass’ Total Tax Base = 753,560,000 + = TOTAL TAX BASE = $2,465,685,000 14 Collier County Annual Update and Inventory Report on Public Facilities Category “A”. P. 43 and Footnote (1) on page 64 shows that the county used an average of 2.5 persons per household to estimate Level of Service Standard for water and wastewater. 15 DPFG (Development Planning Finance Group) Longwater Village SRA Economic Assessment. Revised August 6, 2020, Appendix Table 4 p. 10; DPFG (Development Planning Finance Group) Bellmar Village SRA Economic Assessment. Revised November 12, 2020, Appendix Table 4 p. 10; DPFG (Development Planning Finance Group) Rivergrass Village SRA Economic Assessment. Revised September 3, 2019, Appendix Table 4 p. 11 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: Attachment H-Letters of Objection 2-22-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) Brian D. Israel +1 202.942.6546 Direct Brian.Israel@arnoldporter.com Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP 601 Massachusetts Ave, NW | Washington, DC 20001-3743 |www.arnoldporter.com February 17, 2021 VIA EMAIL Collier County Planning Commission 3299 Tamiami Trail East Naples, FL 34112 Re: Longwater & Bellmar Village SRA Applications Dear Collier County Planning Commissioners, This letter is sent on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, Inc. (Conservancy) and relates to the pending applications by Collier Enterprises Management, Inc. (CEM) related to the Longwater and Bellmar Villages. As you are aware, CEM applied to designate three areas of property in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) as Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) Villages to be called Rivergrass Village, Longwater Village, and Bellmar Village. The Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC or the Board) approved the designation of the Rivergrass Village SRA and that approval is currently being challenged in litigation. The Longwater Village and Bellmar Village SRA designations will soon come under consideration by the Planning Commission and the BCC. As set forth below and in other submissions by the Conservancy, the Planning Commission and the BCC should understand that approval of these SRA Villages will cost the citizens of Collier County tens of millions of dollars (if not more) and will further exacerbate the already dire traffic congestion throughout the County. There is no plan in place to resolve multiple massive adverse impacts the proposed CEM villages will have on the existing population of the County and, thus, approval would be illegal pursuant to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, among other applicable laws. We submit below our preliminary analysis of some of the most glaring inconsistencies with applicable requirements. Based upon these deficiencies, we urge the Commission to require CEM to meet all legal obligations related to RLSA development or, in the alternative, to recommend rejection of the Longwater and Bellmar proposals. 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: Attachment H-Letters of Objection 2-22-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) February 17, 2021 Page 2 I.COUNTY LAW REQUIRES THAT “GROWTH PAY FOR GROWTH” AND THAT COLLIER COUNTY TAXPAYERS NOT BE FORCED TO SUBSIDIZE PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT IN RURAL COLLIER COUNTY As you are aware, the RLSA is a protected area with more stringent development constraints than the rest of the County at large. For example, pursuant to the Growth Management Plan (GMP), a development in the RLSA cannot be approved unless the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed development “will be planned and designed to be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County at the horizon year.” GMP Future Land Use Element (FLUE) RLSA Overlay (RLSAO) Policy 4.18. This requirement means that an applicant must show that the tax revenues and impact fees that will be generated by the development will be greater than, or equal to, the cost to the County created by the influx of people and need for services the development will create. As another example, proposed developments in the RLSA “shall have adequate infrastructure available to serve the proposed development, or such infrastructure must be provided concurrently with the demand,” and “[t]he capacity of infrastructure necessary to serve the [proposed development] at buildout must be demonstrated during the…designation process.” FLUE RLSAO Policy 4.16. This concept—that adequate infrastructure must be available concurrent with demand, called “concurrency”—is not unique to the RLSA. What is unusual is that, in the RLSA, prospective concurrency must be demonstrated “during the SRA designation process,” not just at later stages in the permitting process. The timing of this requirement is important because it ensures that the County does not approve new growth unless and until the County has a plan to accommodate the additional strain on County infrastructure that will result from expanding development into these rural areas. Of particular importance for the CEM developments is that this proactive demonstration of concurrency must be made with respect to transportation infrastructure. Specifically, “[n]o 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.” FLUE RLSAO Policy 4.14. Thus, the County is not permitted to approve new developments that would exacerbate already congested transportation infrastructure. Rather, the County is required to first correct any transportation infrastructure deficiencies before it can allow RLSA development that would make congestion even worse. This is an important protection that ensures the County can maintain functionality of its infrastructure for existing citizens, and 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: Attachment H-Letters of Objection 2-22-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) February 17, 2021 Page 3 not force them to subsidize a new development by having to experience longer commutes, reduced productivity, and a reduced overall quality of life. As discussed below, Longwater and Bellmar will result in epic violations of both the fiscal neutrality and transportation requirements applicable to RLSA development approvals. For example: First, the County has agreed to build new water and wastewater plants to service these developments, but CEM has not agreed to pay its fair share of these new facilities. As set forth below, approval of Longwater and Bellmar will result in a deficit of over $43 million to the Collier County Water Sewer District. When Rivergrass is included, the deficit increases to over $72 million, a financial burden that will be unfairly borne by all District rate payers throughout Collier County. Second, there are critical traffic congestion problems in the eastern part of Collier County that these developments will significantly exacerbate. The County has no plan to fix these problems, and County staff has taken the position, inexplicably, that CEM should be allowed to exacerbate these significant traffic impacts with no constraints. Finally, CEM’s analyses of all traffic impacts resulting from these developments are significantly understated. CEM’s analysis of traffic from each of the three developments ignores that there will be additional traffic created by the other two CEM SRA developments. This approach masks the real magnitude of congestion created by these proposed projects. II.COUNTY RESIDENTS WILL SUBSIDIZE TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS (OR MORE) IN UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDED TO SUPPORT CEM’S DEVELOPMENTS In order to understand the enormity of the impacts created by CEM’s proposed projects (and the enormity of the responsibility the County has in getting this right), it is important to understand just how massive these developments will be. CEM’s Economic Assessments for the three Villages forecasts that they will constitute nearly $2.5 billion worth of property and consume almost 3,000 acres of currently undeveloped land (roughly one-third the size of the entire City of Naples). In order to support such massive growth, new infrastructure must be built from scratch to provide utility service to this area. 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: Attachment H-Letters of Objection 2-22-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) February 17, 2021 Page 4 For reasons that remain unclear, the County has agreed to finance the cost of a brand new potable water plant, a brand new wastewater treatment plant, and an interim wastewater treatment plant to service these developments. The total cost of the County investment in just the new plant facilities, not including the interim plant, is estimated at $216.5 million. In return, the County has required no special compensation from CEM. Rather, CEM will only pay impact fees at the exact same rates as any other development in the County. The result is that the rest of the County—specifically, tens of thousands of taxpayers who reside in the Collier County Water Sewer District—are subsidizing the investment needed to service Rivergrass, Longwater, and Bellmar. This is not fiscal neutrality and is not legally permissible under the GMP. A.The Necessary Infrastructure Investment According to the Public Facilities Impact Assessments, Longwater will have a maximum 3-day demand of 0.80 million gallons per day (MGD) for wastewater and 1.05 MGD for potable water.1 Bellmar will have a maximum 3-day demand of 0.85 MGD for wastewater and 1.11 MGD for potable water. Rivergrass will have a maximum 3-day demand of 0.98 MGD for wastewater and 1.19 MGD for potable water.2 The combined peak demand for these developments, which must be available in order for the Board to approve, is 2.63 MGD for wastewater and 3.35 MGD for potable water. This service could have been provided through a new CEM-financed facility similar to that the developer of Ave Maria built to satisfy the demand created there. Indeed, the Big Cypress Stewardship District, which encompasses Longwater, Bellmar, and Rivergrass, was specifically created in 2004 to allow issuance of bonds so developments therein could self-finance the necessary infrastructure. 2004 Fla. Laws Ch. 2004-423, HB 923. Instead, in 2018 (after CEM development applications were already pending), the County approved expansion of the Collier County Water Sewer District to encompass the Big Cypress Stewardship District and in 2019, authorized the building of new potable water and wastewater plants to support these developments. Memorandum of Understanding By and Among the Collier County Water-Sewer District, the Big Cypress Stewardship 1 The appropriate metric for determining the required infrastructure is peak demand, not average demand. See GMP Wastewater Treatment Sub-Element Policy 2.2: “In order to ensure these [level of service] standards are maintained, methodologies for determining available capacity and demand shall incorporate appropriate peak demand coefficients for each facility and for the type of development proposed.” 2 Since the Rivergrass demand was calculated, the County level of service for water and wastewater has decreased. See Collier Cnty., Fiscal Year 2019 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study for Collier County Water-Sewer District at 10 (Sept. 12, 2019) (recommending a downward adjustment in the level of service from 225 MGD to 200 MGD per equivalent residential unit for wastewater and from 325 MGD to 300 MGD per equivalent residential unit for potable water). 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: Attachment H-Letters of Objection 2-22-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) February 17, 2021 Page 5 District, Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. and CDC Land Investments, LLC (2019); Collier Cnty., 2019 Annual Update & Inventory Report/Capital Improvement Element Schedule Update on Public Facilities (Nov. 12, 2019) (“2019 AUIR”). As a result of this arrangement, CEM is no longer required to build (and finance) its own plants to support the developments. B.These Water and Wastewater Costs Far Outweigh Revenues to Be Generated From the Developments The cost of these new water and wastewater facilities are as follows: Wastewater: The new Northeast Water Reclamation Facility (NEWRF) will be “online” by 2026 and will provide a treatment capacity of 4 MGD. Collier Cnty., Annual Update and Inventory Report on Public Facilities 2020: Category “A” Facilities at 76 (“2020 AUIR”). The estimated cost of this facility is $106 million. Longwater Consistency Review Memo at 11 (Aug. 20, 2020). These costs will be entirely debt financed with $157 million in new wastewater project-related bonds anticipated to be issued by 2030. 2020 AUIR at 84‒85. Notably, the wastewater treatment systems budget already shows that the County is paying between $6 million and $11 million a year to service pre-existing debt unrelated to the NEWRF. Id. This project will significantly increase the County’s debt obligations in this category. In addition, “to facilitate [earlier] development in the northeast region of the county,” the interim wastewater treatment plant was anticipated to be built between 2019 and 2021, will provide a treatment capacity of 1.5 MGD, and was estimated to cost $28 million. Id. at 76. Potable Water: The new potable water plant, called the “Northeast Regional Water Treatment Plant” or “NERWTP” will be constructed between 2024 and 2027 and will provide a new treatment capacity of 5 MGD. 2019 AUIR at 66. The estimated cost of this facility is $82.5 million. Longwater Consistency Review Memo at 11 (Aug. 20, 2020). It appears these costs will be or have been entirely debt financed. $76 million in new bonds were issued in 2019 related to this project. Collier Cnty, Fla. Bd. of Cnty., Fiscal Year 2020-21 Adopted Budget at pdf p. 745. In addition, $103 million in new water-related bonds are anticipated to be issued by 2030. 2020 AUIR at 60‒61. Notably, the potable water systems budget already shows that the County is paying $6 million to $11 million a year to service pre-existing debt unrelated to the NERWTP. Id. This project 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: Attachment H-Letters of Objection 2-22-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) February 17, 2021 Page 6 has and/or will significantly increase the County’s debt obligations in this category. Longwater and Belmar will consume more than 40% of the capacity of these new facilities, and the three CEM-proposed developments (Rivergrass, Longwater, and Bellmar) will consume approximately two-thirds: If these developments had been planned to be fiscally neutral, as required in the GMP, then because they will consume 66% of the new capacity created, they would compensate for approximately 66% of the cost of building this new capacity. This means that the County should be collecting at least $70 million from CEM to compensate for the wastewater demand created (this would cover just the cost of the new plant and does not include the cost of the interim plant or the cost of new transmission lines) and at least $55 million from CEM to compensate for the potable water demand created (again, this does not include transmission costs). This is a total of more than $125 million. Yet, the County has required CEM to pay nothing more than the impact fees required of every development in unincorporated Collier County. Those impact fees are calculated at a standard rate, based on the number of “equivalent residential units” or Wastewater Demand 4 MGD New Plant Potable Water Demand 5 MGD New Plant 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: Attachment H-Letters of Objection 2-22-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) February 17, 2021 Page 7 “ERCs” in the development. Collier Cnty., Water & Wastewater Impact Fee Rate Schedule (Mar. 30, 2020).3 For these CEM developments, each housing unit is 1 ERC, and the impact fee calculations are as follows: Number of Units Total Wastewater Impact Fee Total Water Impact Fee Total Longwater 2,600 $8,616,400 $8,793,200 $17,409,600 Bellmar 2,750 $9,113,500 $9,300,500 $18,414,000 Rivergrass 2,500 $8,285,000 $8,455,000 $16,737,000 Total 7,850 $26,014,900 $26,548,700 $52,563,600 In sum, CEM will pay approximately $26 million in wastewater impact fees, despite creating at least $70 million in wastewater costs to the County. CEM will pay approximately $26 million in water impact fees, despite creating at least $55 million in water costs to the County. This is not fiscal neutrality.Rather, in these categories alone, CEM’s three developments will create a fiscal deficit of more than $72 million dollars. Moreover, the County’s own Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study explicitly acknowledges that the cost of providing service to residents in the area serviced by the new plants is significantly higher than the cost of providing service to residents in the area 3 Available at https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/home/showpublisheddocument?id=89644. 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: Attachment H-Letters of Objection 2-22-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) February 17, 2021 Page 8 serviced by existing plants. The study calculated that for wastewater, the “Rate per ERCs Unit Associated with Existing Facilities” is $1,868.73, and the “Rate per ERCs Units Associated with Additional Facilities” is $6,834.98. Collier Cnty., Fiscal Year 2019 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study for Collier County Water-Sewer District at pdf p. 47 (Sept. 12, 2019).4 In other words, providing new wastewater service to CEM’s developments is 3.65 times more expensive than providing new wastewater service to a development within the existing service area of the Collier County Water Sewer District. Despite this fact, the impact fee study, which forms the basis for the impact fee rates CEM will pay, takes a weighted average of these rates, adds a transmission cost, and arrives at the final wastewater impact fee value of $3,314 per ERC unit. Thus, other developments in Collier County will be subsidizing the cost of infrastructure provided to support the CEM developments. If the County cannot collect sufficient impact fees to cover the cost of the debt it is issuing to build the new plants, it will have to find another way to pay to service the debt⸺likely by increasing rates for all users, lowering (again) the existing level of service, and/or seeking a bail out from other Collier County government funds. According to the Collier County Public Utilities Department: “Regular rate adjustments are necessary to ensure the rates generate the right amount of revenue and cash flow to provide reliable and sustainable services. Rates must keep up with the increasing cost of operations, including increases in the costs of electricity, raw materials like fuel and chemicals, insurance and labor, and changing regulatory requirements. Rates must also maintain bond covenants, including debt service coverage, and provide funds for emergencies.” Collier Cnty. Pub. Utils. Dep’t, Water/Wastewater Rates Effective October 1, 2020 (Oct. 2020) (emphasis added).5 For fiscal year 2021, rates in the Collier County Water Sewer District were increased by 2.9% for all users. Presumably, rates will need to be increased even more once the debt incurred to service CEM’s developments becomes due. Id. Rates are the same for all users within the Collier County Water Sewer District. Id. Thus, any necessary rate increases will be borne not just by Longwater, Bellmar, and Rivergrass, but by all users in the Collier County Water Sewer District. 4 Available at https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/home/showpublisheddocument?id=91124. 5 Available at https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/home/showpublisheddocument?id=95171. 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: Attachment H-Letters of Objection 2-22-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) February 17, 2021 Page 9 III.THE CEM DEVELOPMENTS WILL ILLEGALLY EXACERBATE TRANSPORTATION INADEQUACIES Collier County has adopted transportation concurrency into its GMP. See FLUE RLSAO Policy 4.14; GMP Capital Improvement Element. Therefore, Collier County must ensure that its transportation facilities (i.e., roadways) continue to meet their adopted level of service standards with new development. For RLSA developments, the GMP takes this even a step further and explicitly requires that “[n]o SRA shall be approved unless the capacity of County collector or arterial roads(s) serving the SRA is demonstrated to be adequate in accordance with the Collier County Concurrency Management System.” FLUE RLSAO Policy 4.14; see also 4.16 (“The capacity of [transportation] infrastructure necessary to serve the SRA at buildout must be demonstrated during the SRA designation process.”).6 Therefore, an RLSA development application cannot be approved unless it is demonstrated that the Collier County transportation network will meet its adopted level of service standards at the project’s buildout year. Despite this very clear rule, County staff appear to have entirely overlooked the fact that Longwater and Bellmar (and Rivergrass before them) are predicted to significantly impact roadways that are already projected to be deficient. The Longwater traffic impact statement (TIS) even admits that Longwater will add significant traffic to three road segments that will already be deficient (meaning there are more cars than the County level of service allows) by the buildout year: On Randall Boulevard from Everglades Boulevard to 8th Street NE, the roadway will have the capacity to accommodate 900 peak direction, peak hour trips. In 2030, even before any Longwater trips are added, the County predicts there will be 1,008 peak direction, peak hour trips on the roadway (108 more than its capacity allows). Longwater will add an additional 174 peak direction, peak hour trips (19.3% of the roadway’s total capacity). See Longwater TIS, Sec. 1 at 21 (Aug. 4, 2020). On Immokalee Road from Oil Well Road to Randall Boulevard, the roadway will have capacity to accommodate 3,300 peak direction, peak hour trips. In 2030, even before any Longwater trips are added, the County predicts there will 6 See also Land Development Code (LDC) 6.02.01(D)(12) (“Transportation Concurrency Management System means a ‘real time’ concurrency system that tracks and allocates the available roadway capacity on a continuous basis with quarterly status reports to the Board. Trips generated from proposed developments will be added to the trips approved to date and the existing background traffic counts to determine if there is available capacity for each new development to be approved, in whole or part, as proposed development plans are submitted.”) (emphasis added). 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: Attachment H-Letters of Objection 2-22-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) February 17, 2021 Page 10 be 3,788 peak direction, peak hour trips on the roadway (488 more than its capacity allows). Longwater will add an additional 174 peak direction, peak hour trips (5.3% of the roadway’s total capacity). See id. at 22. On Immokalee Road from Randall Boulevard to Wilson Boulevard, the roadway will have capacity to accommodate 3,300 peak direction, peak hour trips. In 2030, even before any Longwater trips are added, the County predicts there will be 3,788 peak direction, peak hour trips on the roadway (488 more than its capacity allows). Longwater will add an additional 285 peak direction, peak hour trips (8.6% of the roadway’s total capacity). See id. at 22. In addition to these significant impacts to already deficient road segments, Longwater is predicted to cause Randall Boulevard from DeSoto Boulevard to Everglades Boulevard to become deficient. Because Longwater is causing this projected deficiency, the County required CEM to provide some mitigation of traffic impacts on Randall Boulevard from DeSoto Boulevard to Everglades Boulevard. But the County is entirely ignoring the Longwater impacts to the already deficient roadways listed above. The County has articulated no plan to correct the predicted deficiencies, and CEM is not paying any mitigation for its impact to these road segments, despite significantly exacerbating the existing inadequacies. This is not what is intended by traffic concurrency and is prohibited by the GMP provisions applicable within the RLSA. The same is true of Bellmar⸺while the County is requiring CEM to mitigate where the development is causing a roadway to become deficient, there are multiple roadway segments that are predicted to be deficient in 2034 (Bellmar’s buildout year) where Bellmar will add significant additional traffic to the road segment, further exacerbating the problem. Again, the County has seemingly ignored these impacts. The County appears to believe that the Florida Concurrency Statute prohibits it from enforcing traffic concurrency in this scenario⸺that is, where there is a background deficiency. But that is a misreading of the statute and contrary to applicable case law on the topic. An existing deficiency does not excuse a developer from paying fully for the demand it will place on public facilities. Pursuant to the statute, “[w]hen an applicant contributes or constructs its proportionate share pursuant to this paragraph, a local government may not require payment or construction of transportation facilities whose costs would be greater than a development’s proportionate share of the improvements necessary to mitigate the development’s impacts.” §163.3180(5)(h)(2), Fla. Stat. This has apparently been read by Collier County to mean that it should ignore any exacerbation of existing deficiencies caused by new developments. But this strained reading ignores that, as a precondition to the prohibition on charging developers to correct background 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: Attachment H-Letters of Objection 2-22-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) February 17, 2021 Page 11 deficiencies, the developer must first contribute its “proportionate share of the improvements necessary to mitigate the development’s impacts.” In other words, the County can require a developer to mitigate the new trips it is adding to the deficient road segment; it just cannot require the developer to mitigate trips for which its development is not responsible. Furthermore, nothing in the Florida Concurrency Statute prohibits the County from denying a development application (like those for Longwater and Bellmar) that would impact deficient roadways. See, e.g., D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Peyton, No. 16-2005-CA- 001569, 2005 WL 6320241 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Oct. 25, 2005) (affirming mayor’s veto of development order because it failed to comply with the transportation concurrency requirement that the transportation facilities be adequate to serve the proposed development); Mann v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 830 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), review denied, 844 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 2003) (finding that county had statutory authority to deny development requests based on the timing/adequate facility requirements of its Comprehensive Plan). Thus, the GMP’s requirement that an SRA development cannot be approved unless there is adequate transportation infrastructure to support the development is fully enforceable and, in this case, requires a denial of the development applications. IV.CEM’S ANALYSIS OF TRAFFIC IMPACTS SIGNIFICANTLY UNDERSTATES THE PROBLEM Finally, the CEM traffic impact statements for these developments materially understate the traffic impacts resulting from these developments. The traffic impacts from all three CEM developments (Rivergrass, Longwater, and Bellmar) should be analyzed collectively because they will be accessing many of the same roadways, and their cumulative impacts may be greater than the combination of each individual development’s impacts.7 At the very least, because Rivergrass has already been approved by the Board (in violation of Collier County law), the Longwater and Bellmar traffic impact statements must include Rivergrass traffic in the background traffic assumptions.8 They fail to meet this 7 County Staff did request that CEM perform a cumulative analysis of traffic impacts. However, CEM has only committed to mitigate traffic impacts identified in the individual traffic impact statements. 8 See, e.g., Collier County TIS Guidelines at 10 (“The TIS will consider all vested development on the significantly impacted links and intersections.”), https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/home/showpublisheddocument?id=93575; Fla. Dep’t of Cmty. Affs., Transportation Concurrency Best Practices Guide at 62 (Sept. 2007) (“For concurrency purposes, the existing volume typically means the peak hour volume during peak season. The background traffic volume includes previously approved development trips and any additional growth in traffic volume typically 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: Attachment H-Letters of Objection 2-22-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) February 17, 2021 Page 12 bare minimum requirement. They fail to reflect the reality of what will happen to the affected roads if they are approved. For example, the capacity on Golden Gate Boulevard from Collier Boulevard to Wilson Boulevard is 2,300 peak direction, peak hour trips. The Rivergrass TIS predicts that Rivergrass traffic will result in 2,275 peak hour, peak direction trips (106 Rivergrass trips + 2,169 background trips). Rivergrass TIS, Sec. 1 at 21 (Aug. 9, 2019). The Longwater TIS predicts Longwater will contribute an additional 111 peak hour, peak direction trips to this roadway. Longwater TIS, Sec. 1 at 22 (Aug. 4, 2020). Thus, if the Rivergrass trips had been included in background for purposes of the Longwater TIS, it would have resulted in a conclusion that the 111 Longwater trips on this segment result in the roadway becoming deficient (2,275 + 111 = 2,386 > 2,300). Instead, because the Longwater TIS improperly ignored Rivergrass traffic, it concluded Longwater does not result in a deficiency on Golden Gate Boulevard from Collier Boulevard to Wilson Boulevard and thus, no mitigation was proposed for this road segment. So what will happen on Golden Gate Boulevard from Collier Boulevard to Wilson Boulevard if these developments are approved as is? The roadway will become deficient. Because CEM will not be paying to correct the deficiency, and the Florida Concurrency Statute prevents the County from charging new developments with the cost of correcting background deficiencies (deficiencies caused by prior developments), the County itself will have to finance improvements to increase capacity and correct the deficiency on this roadway. Furthermore, if the County continues to incorrectly read the law as discussed above, new developments will be allowed to exacerbate the deficiency on the roadway without consequence. This is not traffic concurrency and is not fiscal neutrality. experienced in the area beyond the approved trips.”) (emphasis added), https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Pei_Sung_Lin/publication/282652008_Transportation_Concurrency_ Best_Practices_Guide/links/5615f2bd08ae4ce3cc65749d/Transportation-Concurrency-Best-Practices- Guide.pdf?origin=publication_detail. See also, LDC 6.02.02(A)(1) (“If the County Manager or designee determines that a site development plan or plat application when reviewed cumulatively with projects submitted within the last 6 months from the same master project or development does not meet the transportation concurrency requirements or is contrary to the purpose and intent of this section, as stated above, he may withhold approval of said development order application until adequate capacity is available or require the application submittals to be reviewed cumulatively and subsequent impacts to be distributed and accounted for within the same impact boundary of the master project or development.”). 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: Attachment H-Letters of Objection 2-22-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) February 17, 2021 Page 13 V.CONCLUSION The County should require CEM to fully comply with Collier County law related to its proposed developments. As stated by the United States Supreme Court in an important Florida case, Koontz v. St. Johns River Management District, 570 U.S. 595, 605 (2013), “[i]nsisting that landowners internalize the negative externalities of their conduct is a hallmark of responsible land-use policy.” In light of the extraordinary failures identified above, the Planning Commission should require the County planning staff to explainwith precision and objectivityhow Longwater and Bellmar meet the legal obligations for RLSA development, including fiscal neutrality and traffic mitigation. If necessary, the County should retain additional third- party experts to further audit the project proponent’s representations. Second, the Planning Commission should require CEM to resubmit their development proposals in a legally-compliant manner. At bottom, the task is not that complicated. CEM simply needs to ensure that the costs of their proposed $2.5 billion dollar project will not be borne by the taxpayers of Collier County. CEM should be required to pay for the necessary infrastructure associated with its developments (including water, wastewater, road maintenance, traffic mitigation and other public services), and their refusal to do so should not be acceptable to the Planning Commission or the County. Finally, if neither the County staff nor the property owner are willing to comply with County law, the Planning Commission should (a) recommend denial of Longwater and Bellmar as SRA Villages, and (b) create a clear record of its rationale for purposes of informing the citizens of Collier County as well as any future legal proceedings. Sincerely, Brian D. Israel Lauren Daniel cc: Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: Attachment H-Letters of Objection 2-22-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.iPacket Pg. 369Attachment: Attachment H-Letters of Objection 2-22-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.iPacket Pg. 370Attachment: Attachment H-Letters of Objection 2-22-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.iPacket Pg. 371Attachment: Attachment H-Letters of Objection 2-22-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.iPacket Pg. 372Attachment: Attachment H-Letters of Objection 2-22-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.iPacket Pg. 373Attachment: Attachment H-Letters of Objection 2-22-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.iPacket Pg. 374Attachment: Attachment H-Letters of Objection 2-22-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.iPacket Pg. 375Attachment: Attachment H-Letters of Objection 2-22-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.iPacket Pg. 376Attachment: Attachment H-Letters of Objection 2-22-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.iPacket Pg. 377Attachment: Attachment H-Letters of Objection 2-22-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.iPacket Pg. 378Attachment: Attachment H-Letters of Objection 2-22-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.iPacket Pg. 379Attachment: Attachment H-Letters of Objection 2-22-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.iPacket Pg. 380Attachment: Attachment H-Letters of Objection 2-22-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.iPacket Pg. 381Attachment: Attachment H-Letters of Objection 2-22-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.iPacket Pg. 382Attachment: Attachment H-Letters of Objection 2-22-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.iPacket Pg. 383Attachment: Attachment H-Letters of Objection 2-22-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.iPacket Pg. 384Attachment: Attachment H-Letters of Objection 2-22-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.iPacket Pg. 385Attachment: Attachment H-Letters of Objection 2-22-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.iPacket Pg. 386Attachment: Attachment H-Letters of Objection 2-22-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.iPacket Pg. 387Attachment: Attachment H-Letters of Objection 2-22-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.iPacket Pg. 388Attachment: Attachment H-Letters of Objection 2-22-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.iPacket Pg. 389Attachment: Attachment H-Letters of Objection 2-22-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.iPacket Pg. 390Attachment: Attachment H-Letters of Objection 2-22-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.iPacket Pg. 391Attachment: Attachment H-Letters of Objection 2-22-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.iPacket Pg. 392Attachment: Attachment H-Letters of Objection 2-22-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 393Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 394Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 395Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 396Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 397Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 398Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 399Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 400Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 401Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 402Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 403Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 404Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 405Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 406Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 407Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 408Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 409Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 410Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 411Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 412Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 413Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 414Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 415Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 416Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 417Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 418Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 419Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 420Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 421Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 422Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 423Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 424Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 425Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 426Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 427Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 428Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 429Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 430Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 431Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 432Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 433Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 434Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 435Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 436Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 437Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 438Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 439Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 440Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 441Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 442Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 443Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 444Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 445Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 446Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 447Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 448Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 449Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 450Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 451Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 452Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 453Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 454Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 455Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 456Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 457Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 458Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 459Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 460Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 461Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 462Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 463Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 464Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 465Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 466Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 467Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 468Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 469Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 470Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 471Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 472Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 473Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 474Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 475Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 476Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 477Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 478Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 479Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 480Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 481Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 482Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 483Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 484Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 485Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 486Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 487Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 488Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 489Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 490Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 491Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 492Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 493Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 494Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 495Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 496Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 497Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 498Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 499Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 500Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 501Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 502Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 503Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 504Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 505Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 506Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 507Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 508Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 509Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 510Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 511Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 512Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 513Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 514Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 515Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 516Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 517Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 518Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 519Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 520Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 521Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 522Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 523Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 524Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 525Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 526Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 527Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 528Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 529Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 530Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 531Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 532Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 533 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 534 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 535Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 536Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 537Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 538Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 539Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 540Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 541Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 542Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 543Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 544Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 545Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 546Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 547Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 548Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 549Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 550Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 551Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 552Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 553Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 554Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 555Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 556Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 557 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 558Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 559Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 560Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 561Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 562Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 563Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 564Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 565Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 566Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 567Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 568Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 569Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 570Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 571Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 572Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 573Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 574Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 575Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 576Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 577Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 578Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 579 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 580 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 581 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 582 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 583Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 584 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 585Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 586 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 587 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 588 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 589 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 590Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 591Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 592Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 593Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 594Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 595Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 596Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 597Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 598Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 599 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 600Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 601Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 602Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 603Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 604Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 605Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 606Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 607Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 608Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 609Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 610Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 611Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 612Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 613Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 614Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 615Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 616Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 617Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 618Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 619Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 620Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 621Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 622Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 623Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 624Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 625Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 626Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 627Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 628Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 629Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 630Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 631Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 632Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 633Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 634Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 635Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 636Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 637Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 638Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 639Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 640Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 641Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 642Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 643Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 644Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 645Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 646Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 647Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 648Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 649Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 650Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 651Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 652Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 653Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 654Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 655Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 656Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 657Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 658Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 659Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 660Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 661Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 662Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 663Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 664Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 665Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 666Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 667Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 668Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 669Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 670Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 671Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 672Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 673Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 674Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 675Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 676Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 677Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 678Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 679Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 680Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 681Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 682Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 683Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 684Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 685Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 686Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 687Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 688Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 689Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 690Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 691Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 692Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 693Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 694Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 695Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 696Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 697Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 698Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 699Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 700Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 701Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 702Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 703Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 704Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 705Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 706Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 707Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 708Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 709Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 710Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 711Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 712Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 713Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 714Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 715Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 716Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 717Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 718Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 719Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 720Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 721Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 722Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 723Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 724Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 725Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 726Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 727Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 728Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 729Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 730Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 731Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 732Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 733Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 734Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 735Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 736Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 737Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 738Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 739Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 740Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 741Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 742Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 743Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 744Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 745Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 746Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 747Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 748Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 749Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 750Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 751Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 752Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 753Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 754Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 755Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 756Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 757Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 758Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 759Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 760Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 761Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 762Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 763Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 764Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 765Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 766Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 767Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 768Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 769Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 770Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 771Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 772Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 773Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 774Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 775Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 776Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 777Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 778Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 779 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 780Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 781Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 782Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 783Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 784Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 785Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 786Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 787Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 788Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 789Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 790Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 791Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 792Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 793Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 794Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 795Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 796Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 797Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 798Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 799Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 800Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 801Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 802Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 803Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 804Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 805Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 806Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 807Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 808Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 809Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 810Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 811Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 812Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 813Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 814Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 815Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 816Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 817Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 818Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 819Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 820Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 821Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 822Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 823Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 824Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 825Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 826Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 827Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 828Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 829Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 830Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 831Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 832Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 833Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 834Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 835Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 836Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 837Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 838Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 839Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 840Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 841Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 842Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 843Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 844Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 845Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 846Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 847Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 848Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 849Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 850Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 851Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 852Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 853Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 854Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 855Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 856Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 857Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 858Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 859Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 860Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 861Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 862Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 863Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 864Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 865Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 866Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 867Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 868Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 869Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 870Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 871Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 872Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 873Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 874Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 875 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 876 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 877 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 878 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 879Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 880 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 881 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 882Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 883Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 884Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 885Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 886Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 887Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 888Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 889Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 890Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 891Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 892Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 893Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 894Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 895 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 896 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 897Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 898Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 899Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 900Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 901Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 902Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 903Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 904 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 905 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 906Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 907Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 908Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 909Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 910Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 911Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 912Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 913 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 914 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 915Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 916Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 917Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 918Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 919Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 920Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 921Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 922 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 923 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 924Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 925Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 926Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 927Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 928Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 929Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 930Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 931 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 932 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 933Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 934Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 935Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 936Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 937Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 938Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 939Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 940Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 941Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 942Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 943Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 944Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 945Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 946Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 947Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 948Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 949 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 950 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 951Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 952Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 953Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 954Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 955Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 956Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 957Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 958Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 959Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 960Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 961Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 962Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 963Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 964Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 965Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 966Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 967Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 968Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 969Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 970Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 971Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 972Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 973Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 974Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 975Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 976Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 977Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 978Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 979Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 980Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 981Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 982Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 983Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 984Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 985Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 986Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 987Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 988Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 989Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 990Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 991Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 992Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 993Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 994Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 995Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 996Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 997Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 998Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 999Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1000Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1001Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1002Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1003Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1004Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1005Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1006Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1007Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1008Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1009Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1010Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1011Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1012Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1013Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1014Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1015Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1016Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1017Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1018Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1019Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1020Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1021Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1022Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1023Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1024Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1025Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1026Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1027Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1028Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1029Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1030Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1031Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1032Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1033Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1034Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1035Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1036Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1037Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1038Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1039Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1040Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1041Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1042Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1043Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1044Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1045Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1046Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1047Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1048Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1049Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1050Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1051Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1052Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1053Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1054Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1055Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1056Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1057Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1058Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1059Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1060Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1061Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1062Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1063Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1064Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1065Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1066Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1067Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1068Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1069Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1070Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1071Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1072Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1073Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1074Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1075Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1076Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1077Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1078Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1079Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1080Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1081Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1082Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 1083 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 1084 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 1085 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 1086 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 1087 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 1088 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 1089 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 1090 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 1091 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 1092 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 1093 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 1094 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 1095 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1096Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1097Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1098Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1099Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1100Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1101Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1102Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1103Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1104Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1105Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1106Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1107Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1108Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1109Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1110Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1111Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1112Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1113Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1114Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1115Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1116Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1117Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1118Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1119Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1120Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1121Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1122Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1123Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1124Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1125Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1126Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1127Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1128Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1129Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1130Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1131Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1132Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1133Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1134Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1135Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1136Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1137Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1138Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1139Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1140Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1141Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1142Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1143Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1144Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1145Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1146Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1147Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1148Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1149Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1150Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1151Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1152Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1153Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1154Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1155Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1156Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1157Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1158Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1159Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1160Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1161Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1162Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1163Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1164Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1165Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1166Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 1167 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1168Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1169Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1170Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1171Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1172Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1173Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 1174 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 1175 Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1176Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1177Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1178Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1179Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1180Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1181Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1182Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1183Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.jPacket Pg. 1184Attachment: Attachment I-Application 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.kPacket Pg. 1185Attachment: Longwater - Hybrid Virtual Quasi-Judicial Public Hearing Waivers 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 9.A.1.kPacket Pg. 1186Attachment: Longwater - Hybrid Virtual Quasi-Judicial Public Hearing Waivers 1-28-21 (15115 : PL20190001836, Longwater Village SRA) 03/04/2021 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.2 Item Summary: ***NOTE: This item has been continued from the February 18, 2021 CCPC Meeting ***PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA - A Resolution of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners designating 999.74 acres within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Zoning Overlay District as a Stewardship Receiving Area, to be known as the Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area, which will allow development of a maximum of 2,750 residentia l dwelling units, of which a minimum of 10% will be multi-family dwelling units, 10% will be single family detached and 10% will be single family attached or villa; a minimum of 68,750 and maximum of 85,000 square feet of commercial development in the village center context zone; a minimum of 27,500 square feet of civic, governmental and institutional uses in the village center context zone; senior housing including adult living facilities and continuing care retirement communities limited to 300 units and no commercial uses in the neighborhood general context zone; and 14.86 acres of amenity center site; all subject to a maximum pm peak hour trip cap; and approving the Stewardship Receiving Area credit agreement for Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area and establishing that 6742 Stewardship Credits are being utilized by the designation of the Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area. The subject property is located approximately 4 miles south of Oil Well Road, east of Desoto Boulevard between 4th Avenue NE and 8th Avenue SE in Sections 2, 3, 10 and 11, Township 49 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: James Sabo, Principal Planner] Meeting Date: 03/04/2021 Prepared by: Title: – Zoning Name: James Sabo 02/01/2021 5:52 PM Submitted by: Title: Manager - Planning – Zoning Name: Ray Bellows 02/01/2021 5:52 PM Approved By: Review: Planning Commission Diane Lynch Review item Completed 02/04/2021 8:59 AM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 02/19/2021 8:51 AM Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 02/22/2021 4:53 PM Zoning Jeremy Frantz Additional Reviewer Completed 02/24/2021 5:13 PM Planning Commission Edwin Fryer Meeting Pending 03/04/2021 9:00 AM Zoning Anita Jenkins Additional Reviewer Skipped 02/04/2021 11:42 AM 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 1187 BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 1 of 32 STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION – ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: FEBRUARY 18, 2021 SUBJECT: SRA-PL20190001837, BELLMAR VILLAGE STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA (SRA), COMPANION TO SRA-PL20190001836, LONGWATER VILLAGE STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA (SRA), AND THE TOWN PLAN. _______________________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNERS/AGENTS: Applicant: Mr. Patrick L. Utter, Vice President Collier Enterprises Management, Inc. 2550 Goodlette Road North, Suite 100 Naples, FL 34103 Property Owners: Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. and CDC Land Investments, LLC 2550 Goodlette Road North, Suite 100 Naples, FL 34103 Agents: Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire Hole Montes, Inc. Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. 950 Encore Way 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34110 Naples, FL 34103 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 1188 Attachment: Final 1 Staff Report Belmar Village 2-24-2021 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 2 of 32 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 1189 Attachment: Final 1 Staff Report Belmar Village 2-24-2021 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 3 of 32 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider a Resolution of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners designating a total of 999.78± acres within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Zoning Overlay District (RLSA Overlay) as a Stewardship Receiving Area, to be known as Bellmar Village. And, the applicant is seeking approval for a stewardship receiving area credit agreement for the Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) and establishing that 6,742.0 stewardship credits are provided in the agreement. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property, consisting of 999.74 acres, is located east of DeSoto Boulevard, about four miles south of Oil Well Road and east of the intersection of Golden Gate Blvd E. and DeSoto Blvd, in Sections 2, 3, 10, and 11, Township 48 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. (See the Location Map on page 2 of this Staff Report.) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: In accordance with the RLSA Overlay definition, the Village is primarily a residential community, which includes a diversity of housing types and a maximum of 2,750 dwelling units. The Village includes a 23.63± acre mixed-use Village Center providing for the required neighborhood-scaled 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 1190 Attachment: Final 1 Staff Report Belmar Village 2-24-2021 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 4 of 32 retail, office, civic, and community uses. The SRA is designed to encourage pedestrian/bicycle circulation via 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. Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area includes development of a maximum of 2,750 dwelling units, of which a minimum of 10% will be multi-family dwelling units, 10% will be single family detached and 10% will be single family attached or villa; a minimum of 68,750 square feet and a maximum of 85,000 square feet commercial space, a minimum of 27,500 square feet of civic, government, and institutional uses. The SRA Master Plan for Bellmar Village lays out the design and development intent for the proposed project. The Village contains two Context Zones: Neighborhood General (which is 976.11± acres in size) and mixed-use Village Center (which is 23.63± acres in size). The SRA Document and Master plan also provide for the following perimeter buffers: • 25-foot wide Type D buffer adjacent to Oil Well Road; • 25-foot wide Type D buffer adjacent to future Big Cypress Parkway ROW; • 10-foot wide buffer adjacent to A–Agricultural Zoned lands perimeter, except adjacent to an SSA or designated preserve, where no landscape buffer is required; and • No landscape buffer required adjacent to Preserve or SSA. • The SRA contains 999.74 ± acres. • The SRA does not include any lands with a Natural Resource Index (NRI) greater than 1.2. • The Village SRA does not include, nor is it adjacent to, any lands designated Flowway Stewardship Area (FSA) or Habitat Stewardship Area (HSA). The Village does not include any lands designated Water Retention Area (WRA). • The SRA does not include any lands within the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) Overlay. • The required minimum Open Space (35%) is 349.91± acres. The SRA master plan provides for 506.9± acres of Open Space (35% ±), 156.99± acres above the RLSA 35% requirement. • The SRA contains two Context Zones (as required for the Village form of SRA): Neighborhood General and mixed-use Village Center. • Within the Village Center Context Zone, the SRA includes neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, consistent with the ratios set forth in LDC Section 4.08.07 J.1. within the mixed-use Village Center, which is a minimum of 68,750 square feet and a maximum of 85,000 square feet. A minimum of 27,500 square feet of civic, government, and institutional uses is required. • The SRA allows for up to 2,750 dwelling units (2.6 dwelling units per gross acre), of which a minimum of 275 units will be multi-family units, based upon the Land Development Code (LDC) definition of Multifamily Dwelling (a group of 3 or more dwelling units within a single building). • A minimum of 1% of the SRA gross acreage (10 acres) will be provided in the form of Parks & Community Green Space. • The SRA will have direct access to future Big Cypress Parkway, which will be designed as an arterial road. The SRA will also connect to Golden Gate Blvd. and 6th Ave. SE. • The SRA is consistent with the standards set forth in the RLSA Overlay Attachment C, applicable to Villages. • The total acreage requiring stewardship credits is 842.75 acres (total SRA acreage excluding open space exceeding 35%). At the required eight Stewardship Credits per acre, 6,742.0 Stewardship Credits are required to entitle the SRA. • Stewardship credits will be taken from Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) 15 (approved). 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 1191 Attachment: Final 1 Staff Report Belmar Village 2-24-2021 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 5 of 32 • The Village will be served by the Collier County Water and Sewer District. The Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay District (RLSA) was developed to protect natural resource areas and agricultural lands in Collier County. 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 a Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) in exchange for Stewardship Credits, which are used to entitle the SRA. Bellmar Village SRA requires 6,742.0 credits to entitle 842.75 acres of development. (Note: no credits are required for the 156.99 acres exceeding 35% of the open space required within the Bellmar Village SRA.) The Natural Resource In dex Assessment (NRI) documents the existing conditions and NRI scores within the proposed SRA for Bellmar Village SRA. It should be noted that the NRI scores demonstrate that Bellmar Village SRA meets the Suitability Criteria contained in the LDC. Please see the Environmental Review Section covered later in the Staff Report for additional information. The Bellmar Village SRA is one of four SRAs that have either been submitted to Collier County or have received an SRA designation. The other three SRA Villages located within the vicinity of Bellmar Village SRA along the future Big Cypress Parkway are Hyde Park Village (PL20180000622) and Rivergrass Village SRA (PL20190000044) which have received SRA designation, and Longwater Village (PL20190001836). For further information, please see Attachment A – Proposed SRA Resolution. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Undeveloped land and farmland with a zoning designation of Agriculture-Mobile Home Overlay-Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay, CLH, and CDC Stewardship Sending Area-17 and 18, (A-MHO-RLSAO-CLH, CDC-SSA-17 and 18) and a zoning designation of Estates (E) then to the far north is Oil Well Road, Minor Arterial Roadway. East: Undeveloped land and farmland with a zoning designation of Agriculture-Mobile Home Overlay-Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay-Barron Collier Investments/Barron Collier Partners-Stewardship Sending Area-18 (A-MHO-RLSAO-BCI/BCP-SSA-18). South: Undeveloped land with a zoning designation of A-MHO-RLSAO. Proposed as SSA 18. West: Undeveloped land and developed land with a zoning designation of Estates (E), and some undeveloped land. 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 1192 Attachment: Final 1 Staff Report Belmar Village 2-24-2021 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 6 of 32 AERIAL PHOTO BELLMAR VILLAGE 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 1193 Attachment: Final 1 Staff Report Belmar Village 2-24-2021 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 7 of 32 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: 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 GMP. The size and base density indicated in the Bellmar Village SRA Development Document (dated 8/31/2020) are consistent with those set forth in Attachment C of the FLUE (requirements of the RLSAO). The Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review Memorandum is included as Attachment B. Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition and recommends the following: 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: In evaluating the Bellmar Village SRA, staff reviewed the applicant’s Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) dated November 11, 2020 for consistency using the applicable 2019 and 2020 Annual Update and Inventory Reports (AUIR). According to the SRA document and noted above, the applicant is requesting a maximum of 2,750 residential dwelling units, up to 85,000 square feet of retail/office uses, and 27,500 square feet of civic, governmental, and institutional uses. The TIS provided with the petition outlines a potential development scenario for 1,590 single-family residential dwelling units, 1,160 multi-family dwelling units, up to 27,500 square feet of governmental and institutional uses, 85,000 square feet of retail/office uses. 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 1194 Attachment: Final 1 Staff Report Belmar Village 2-24-2021 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 8 of 32 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 in Section VIII Developer Commitments, 8.3.A. Transportation, of a maximum of 2,189 two-way, unadjusted, average weekday PM peak hour trips. According to the TIS, the project impacts the following County roadways: Existing Roadway Conditions: Roadway/ Link # Link Location 2019 AUIR LOS P.M. Peak Hour Peak Direction Service Volume/Peak Direction 2019 AUIR Remaining Capacity Projected P.M. Peak Hour/Peak Direction Project Traffic (1) 2020 AUIR LOS 2020 AUIR Remaining Capacity Oil Well Road/ 121.2 Oil Well Grade to Ave Maria Blvd B 2,000/West 1,458 265/WB B 1,456 Oil Well Road/ 121.1 Desoto Blvd to Oil Well Grade (2) B 1,100/West 558 265/WB B 556 Oil Well Road/ 120.0 Everglades Blvd to Desoto Blvd (2) B 1,100/West 526 87/WB B 518 Oil Well Road/ 119.0 Immokalee Road to Everglades Blvd C 2,000/East 808 67/EB C 633 Desoto Boulevard/ 138.0 Golden Gate Blvd to Oil Well Road B 800/South 662 479/SB B 652 Desoto Boulevard/ 137.0 I-75 to Golden Gate Blvd B 800/South 660 469/SB B 640 Everglades Blvd/ 136.0 Oil Well Road to Immokalee Road C 800/North 308 43/NB C 240 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 1195 Attachment: Final 1 Staff Report Belmar Village 2-24-2021 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 9 of 32 Everglades Blvd/ 135.0 Golden Gate Blvd to Oil Well Road C 800/North 339 173/NB C 324 Wilson Blvd/ 118.0 Immokalee Road to Golden Gate Blvd B 900/South 549 125/SB B 550 Randall Blvd/ 133.0 Everglades Blvd to Desoto Blvd C 900/East 248 74/EB C 235 Randall Blvd/ 132.0 Immokalee Road to Everglades Blvd (3&5) D 900/East 64 132/EB D 7 Golden Gate Blvd/ 17.0 Collier Blvd to Wilson Blvd D 2,300/East 570 360/EB D 390 Golden Gate Blvd/ 123.0 Wilson Blvd to 18th Street NE/SE C 2,300/East 1,016 499/EB C 845 Golden Gate Blvd/ 123.1 18th Street NE/SE to Everglades Blvd C 2,300/East 1,025 574/EB C 855 Golden Gate Blvd/ 124.0 Everglades to Desoto Blvd (4) B 1,010/East 778 846/EB B 773 Immokalee Road/ 44.0 Collier Blvd to Wilson Blvd (5) D 3,300/East 362 117/EB E 95 Immokalee Road/ 43.2 Logan Blvd to Collier Blvd D 3,200/East 284 117/EB D 435 Collier Blvd/ 30.2 Vanderbilt Beach Road to Golden B 3,000/South 1,638 117/SB B 1,547 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 1196 Attachment: Final 1 Staff Report Belmar Village 2-24-2021 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 10 of 32 Gate Blvd Collier Blvd/ 31.1 Golden Gate Blvd to Pine Ridge Road C 3,000/North 1,071 176/NB C 925 Pine Ridge Road/ 125.0 Logan Blvd to Collier Blvd C 2,400/East 853 117/EB C 782 1. Source for P.M. Peak Hour/Peak Direction Project Traffic is Section 1, November 11, 2020, Traffic Impact Statement provided by the petitioner. 2. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Direction Service Volume does not consider a committed improvement (Ave Maria developer agreement). The committed project will increase the service volume to 2,000. 3. A portion of this link is committed for widening; Immokalee Road to 8th Street; P.M. Peak Hour Peak Direction service volume will increase to 2,000. The remainder of the link’s service volume will remain unchanged. 4. This link is included in the impact mitigation link analysis. The Fair Share portion of these impacts are included in the Impact Fee analysis for capacity on impacted adjacent roadway links. 5. This link has a committed parallel roadway improvement with Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension. This improvement is not reflected in the current or projected capacities and LOS. For consistency purposes, the Capital Improvement Element of the Growth Management Plan – Projects identified in years 3, 4, & 5 of the Schedule of Capital Improvements are considered for consistency when reviewing land use applications for compliance with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element. The following improvements are considered for consistency purposes: • Vanderbilt Beach Road – Collier Boulevard to 16th Street • Vanderbilt Beach Road – 16th Street to Everglades Boulevard • 16th Street Bridge connecting Golden Gate Boulevard to Randall Boulevard • Randall Boulevard – Immokalee Road to 8th Street NE • Wilson Boulevard – Golden Gate Boulevard to Immokalee Road Section 163.3180 of the Florida Statutes requires a local government to satisfy transportation concurrency requirements if the applicant enters into a binding agreement to pay or construct their proportionate share. The Statutes further state that any facility determined to be transportation deficient with existing, committed, and vested trips, plus additional projected background trips from any source other than the development project under review, and trips that are forecast by established traffic standards, including traffic modeling, consistent with the University of Florida’s Bureau of Economic and Business Research medium population projections, without the project traffic under review, the costs of correcting that deficiency shall be removed from the project’s proportionate-share calculation and the necessary transportation improvements to correct that deficiency shall be considered to be in place for purposes of the proportionate-share calculation. The improvement necessary to correct the transportation deficiency is the funding responsibility of the entity that has maintenance responsibility for the facility. The development’s proportionate share shall be calculated only for the needed transportation improvements that are greater than the 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 1197 Attachment: Final 1 Staff Report Belmar Village 2-24-2021 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 11 of 32 identified deficiency. In addition, per the Statute the applicant is eligible for a dollar for dollar credit for the road impact fees anticipated for the development. The applicants proportionate share of eligible project impacts are included in the backup materials. It is anticipated that these impacts will be less than the road impact fees collected with the development. Based on this information, staff finds the application consistent. 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.” Staff finding: The Bellmar Village SRA is proposing access points on both Golden Gate Boulevard and 6th Avenue NE. Both Golden Gate and 6th will be extended east of DeSoto by the developer to provide access to the Village. The roadways extension will be constructed to county standards. Staff recommends approval of the proposed access points shown on the master plan for this petition, however nothing in this development order will vest the developer to anything more than the access shown. Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states: “The County shall require, wherever feasible, the interconnection of local streets between developments to facilitate convenient movement throughout the road network. 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 of such 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 (LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.a.iii). The proposed Bellmar Village SRA’s Master Plan shows two internal interconnections that serve to balance trips between the two access points as well as the internal commercial center. Staff Recommendation: Transportation Planning staff finds this petition consistent with the GMP. Conditions of Approval: • Within 90 days of the approval of the first develo pment order (SDP or PPL), the applicant must pay $2,221,800.00 to fulfill the fair share mitigation for operation impacts as supported by the January 8, 2021 Traffic Impact Statement. • The Developer shall be required to improve both Golden Gate Boulevard and 6th Avenue South East from Desoto Boulevard to the project entrances to minimum 2-lane undivided rural roadway consistent with FDOT Green Book construction standards. These improvements are not eligible for road impact fee credits. • The applicant acknowledges the following are outside of the review for this petition. School sites A and B (56th Avenue N.E. and 2nd Avenue N.E.) have not been evaluated for transportation impacts as part of this request. Evaluation of both sites will require standard 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 1198 Attachment: Final 1 Staff Report Belmar Village 2-24-2021 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 12 of 32 TIS and operational review at time of permitting. Operational review will require a determination of 56th and 2nd Avenue’s ability to accommodate school operations and activities. However, it is noted in the commitment as stated acknowledges that the Collier County Public Schools (CCPS) shall be responsible for the roadway improvements necessary for both school sites; not the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (CCBCC). Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) and FLUE related 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 15 has been approved for the petitioner to obtain credits for the development of the SRA. STAFF ANALYSIS: Environmental Review: LDC Section 4.08.07.A.1.d requires that Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRA) with lands greater than one acre and a Natural Resource Index (NRI) 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 Stewardship Area is addressed by the creation of the required Stewardship Sending Areas (SSA). SSA 15 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: • 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 services and government essential services, 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 (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 governmental 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 shall be retained as open space and maintained in a predominantly natural vegetated state (LDC Section 4.08.07.A.1.d). There are no areas having an NRI value greater than 1.2. 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 1199 Attachment: Final 1 Staff Report Belmar Village 2-24-2021 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 13 of 32 • 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 (LDC Section 4.08.07.A.1.g). The 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 Designation: 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 Bellmar Village SRA are generated from SSA 15 located on properties within and adjoining the Camp Keais Strand, a major flow way system connecting Corkscrew Marsh at its northern end and adjoining the Okaloacoochee Slough. The credit calculation is based on the total acreage of Bellmar, which is 999.74 acres. The minimum open space requirement is 349.91 acres; the applicant has proposed 506.9 acres of open space. The total acreage that consumes credits is 842.75 acres. Therefore, Bellmar Village requires 6,742.0 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 occurred as a result of detailed onsite FLUCFCS mapping conducted in 2019. 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. Bellmar Village SRA credits are generated from Stewardship Sending Area 15, which has 25,161.60 available credits. Site Description: The subject property consists of 999.74 acres of disturbed lands. The property is currently being used for agricultural activities, including row crops and improved pasture. The property includes widely scattered lands comprised of exotic vegetation, non-forested uplands, forested uplands, and forested wetlands. A FLUCFCS map detailing land use is contained in Exhibit 4 of the Natural Resource Index Assessment. The vegetated area in the northeastern portion of the SRA boundary will be retained as a “park preserve.” Wetland mitigation for impacts to the vegetated areas will be addressed through the South Florida Water Management District Environmental Resource Permitting Process. Listed Species: The Bellmar Village SRA is located within the boundary of the Big Cypress Stewardship District. Listed species surveys were conducted throughout the area in various years between 2007 and 2009. The surveys were conducted for wildlife species listed by the FWCC and the USFWS as endangered, threatened or species of special concern and plants listed by FDACS and USFWS as endangered, threatened or commercially exploited. Eagles and their nests were also included as part of the wildlife surveys. Surveys conducted between 2007 and 2009 the following species have been present within the Bellmar Village SRA boundary: American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), little blue heron (Egretta caerulea), roseate spoonbill (Platalea ajaja), wood 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 1200 Attachment: Final 1 Staff Report Belmar Village 2-24-2021 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 14 of 32 stork (Mycteria americana), Florida sandhill crane (Grus canadensis pratensis), crested caracara (Caracara cheriway) and Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi). The current wildlife survey, conducted between 2019 and 2020, revealed the following species were observed onsite: American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), Florida sandhill crane (Grus canadensis pratensis), wood stork (Mycteria americana), tri-colored heron (Egretta tricolor), crested caracara (Caracara cheriway), Everglades snail kite (Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus), Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus) and Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi; see Appendix I of the Listed Species Survey). There are four protected plants listed in the LDC as “Less Rare Plants” that were identified within the project boundary: butterfly orchid (Encyclia tampensis), giant wild pine (Tillandisa utriculata), inflated wild pine (Tillandsia balbisiana) and stiff-leafed wild pine (Tillandsia fasciculata) as well as the state-listed endangered plant rigid epidendrum (Epidendrum rigidum). Environmental Review 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. Public 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 irrigation quality (I.Q.) water services will be extended to the project through the neighboring Rivergrass Village and Longwater Village SRAs from the Northeast Utility Facilities (NEUF) site at 825 39th Avenue NE (adjacent to the Collier County fairgrounds), as illustrated in the attached “Collier Enterprises Villages – Public Utilities Transmission Main Connectivity Plan.” As previously agreed, the CCWSD will extend transmission mains to a point of connection (POC) at the western boundary of the Rivergrass Village SRA, which coincides with the northeast corner of adjacent Hyde Park Village SRA. The pipelines were designed to provide a minimum service pressure of 60 PSI at the POC. The CCWSD will also construct an interim 1.5 MGD wastewater treatment facility at the NEUF site to serve the project and other developments in the northeast service area. Furthermore, the CCWSD will construct necessary utility facilities at the site reserved within the Longwater Village SRA and will extend transmission mains to the Bellmar POC to establish potable water and wastewater services by September 30, 2024. The Bellmar POC is at the northwest corner of the project, as identified in Schedule B of the Agreement to Provide Potable Water, Wastewater, and Irrigation Water Utility Services, The developer will be responsible for design, permitting, construction, and conveyance of utility system infrastructure internal to the three SRAs pursuant to the Collier County Utilities Standards and Procedures Ordinance (Ord. No. 2004-31, as amended). The developer will construct a separate I.Q. water supply and distribution system to serve residential areas and the Village Center. Deviation 3 in subsection 7.6 of the SRA document, contrary to LDC Section 4.03.08 C, allows for the I.Q. water distribution system to be conveyed to 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 1201 Attachment: Final 1 Staff Report Belmar Village 2-24-2021 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 15 of 32 and maintained by Collier County once County I.Q. water becomes available. This same deviation was previously approved for the Rivergrass Village and Hyde Park Village SRAs and is included in the SRA document for Longwater Village as well. The Interlocal Agreement for Water-Sewer is included as Attachment E. The Public Utilities Department supports this petition subject to the following condition of approval: 1. The Agreement to provide Potable Water, Wastewater, and Irrigation Water Utility Services shall be adopted concurrently with or prior to the SRA ordinance. Collier County Public Schools (CCPS) District Review: CCPS staff has reviewed the petition and has determined there is existing or planned capacity within the next five years at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. However, when the Bellmar Village SRA is considered along with Rivergrass Village SRA and Bellmar Village SRA, they collectively result in the School District exceeding its estimated capacity. SRA Document Commitment 8.5 addresses this issue by requiring the developer to convey real property for a high school, a middle school, and an elementary school in exchange for impact fee credits. Please note at the time of Site Development Plan or Plat, the development will be reviewed to ensure there is capacity either within the concurrency service area the development is located in or in adjacent concurrency service areas. Architectural Review: Architectural Review staff has reviewed this petition and found it consistent with LDC standards and recommends approval. Landscape Review: The applicant is requesting one (1) landscape deviation as part of this application. See deviation discussion of this report. The proposed Master Plan demonstrates buffering consistent with LDC Section 4.06.02 and transition to adjoining land use per LDC Section 4.08.07 J.2.a.ix. Fire Review: Fire staff has reviewed this petition and recommends approval. Community and Human Services Review (Housing) Review: As submitted, the Bellmar Village proposes to comply with FLUE Policy 4.7.2 that a village 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, “In compliance with the requirement to provide a diversity of hou sing types within a Village, a minimum of 10% of the units shall be multi -family units based upon the Land Development Code (LDC) definition of Multifamily Dwelling (a group of 3 or more dwelling units within a single building), a minimum of 10% of the units shall be single family detached, and a minimum of 10% of the units shall be single family attached or villas.” Thus, according to the SRA document, Bellmar Village will contain 2,750 residential units, of which at least 10% (275 units) will be multifamily, at least 10% (275 units) will be single family attached or villas, and at least 10% (275 units) will be single family detached homes. The SRA Document does not 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 1202 Attachment: Final 1 Staff Report Belmar Village 2-24-2021 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 16 of 32 identify how Bellmar Village proposes to comply with the SRA Village Designation Design Cri teria found in LDC Section 4.08.07-J.3.a.iv. which states that villages shall, “Offer a range of housing types and price levels to accommodate diverse ages and incomes.” The Economic Assessment provided with the submission offers some details as to the t ypes and proposed sales pricing of the proposed housing units. Staff Analysis- The Bellmar 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 de tail 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 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 Belmar Village SRA Document offers 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 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 1203 Attachment: Final 1 Staff Report Belmar Village 2-24-2021 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 17 of 32 at the Very-Low income require products priced less than that. The Economic Assessment indicates that 1,060 multifamily residential units in Bellmar Village may be priced near levels as to be affordable to some Moderate and Gap income households. The proposal does not seem to include any units that might be affordable for households at the Low or Very-Low income levels. Staff is unable to determine the SRA’s compliance with 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.” Bellmar Village Staff recommended condition of approval: It is recommended that: At least 10% of the residential units (275 units) be sold at purchase prices in the Moderate and Gap affordability ranges (product types: Town Home, Villa 1, Coach, & Villa 2); or as an alternative, Land or units in (or proximal to) the SRA be reserved for the development of housing that is affordable. Economic Assessment Review: Section 4.08.07 (L) of the 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 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 999.74 acres within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Zoning Overlay District as an SRA, to be known as the Bellmar Village SRA (Bellmar), allowing for the development of residential, commercial and civic/governmental/institutional land use components. Bellmar 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 10/2033 buildout) using a “marginal/average 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. 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 1204 Attachment: Final 1 Staff Report Belmar Village 2-24-2021 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 18 of 32 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 further stated that “the analysis is professionally prepared and thorough in its treatment of revenues and expenses, is accurate in its determination that the Bellmar Village development would meet the County’s requirements for Fiscal Neutrality.” 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 adopted rates at the time of application, and as previously stated, does not include any projections for impact fee increases or decreases. Any staff comments that affect the anticipated impact fee revenue are 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 analysis concludes that adequate revenue will be generated by the proposed project, through millage, fees, and other applicable funding sources to fund the attributable increase in operating costs, to the various facilities, generated by the development. The same approach used for the capital revenue, to note any comments or observations that may affect the anticipated revenue, is 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 Attachment E – Public Facilities Impact Assessment, to be read in combination with the following: Based on staff’s review of the Traffic Impact Statement, intersection analysis, and fair share mitigation reports, a majority of the projected deficiencies at build-out exist both without and with the project. At build-out, the adopted level of service standard for roadway capacity would be exceeded by the existing, committed, and vested trips, plus additional projected background trips from sources other than the development project under review, with the exception of one roadway. For the roadways that would be deficient both without and with the project, per Florida Statute 163.3180, since the project is not causing the deficiency, the projected deficiency cannot be cured by the development. For the one roadway segment identified in the TIS that is anticipated to exceed its level of service standard with the project traffic, Florida Statute 163.3180 provides the basis for a capacity proportionate share calculation and also requires a credit for impact fees anticipated to be paid by the applicant. Therefore, if the capacity proportionate share estimate exceeded the amount of impact fees anticipated, the Developer would be required to remit the difference. However, in this instance, the Developer’s anticipated impact fees will exceed the capacity proportionate share for the adversely impacted roadway segment. Therefore, no additional capacity proportionate share payment can be required. The applicant will be paying impact fees for 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 1205 Attachment: Final 1 Staff Report Belmar Village 2-24-2021 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 19 of 32 the proposed land uses to off-set their growth-related demand for infrastructure. Based on a previously approved landowner contribution agreement, the applicant will also provide right-of- way and stormwater management area at pre-SRA values. They have also committed to the perpetual maintenance of the shared stormwater management system at their sole cost. The applicant has analyzed multiple intersections within the area of significant impact and will be paying a proportionate share toward operational improvements necessary to accommodate the development. This operational proportionate share is included as a condition of approval for the SRA. 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 Bellmar 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. In order to clarify questions that arose from staff’s review of this category, an alternate analysis was utilized to validate the finding of fiscal neutrality. DPFG, Jacobs, and staff all conclude that this category is fiscally neutral. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) – Fiscally Neutral. See Attachment E - Public Facilities Impact Assessment, 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, including the acquisition of a new site for a co-located EMS station at DeSoto Blvd. and Golden Gate Boulevard. This site is one of up to three that will utilize the One-Cent Infrastructure Surtax to provide certain EMS capital construction needs. Use of these funds will allow impact fees generated by Bellmar and other surrounding communities and development to be utilized for capital equipment needs and other EMS capital priorities and projects. Therefore, currently, there is not a need for a specific land site within this proposed development. 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. 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 1206 Attachment: Final 1 Staff Report Belmar Village 2-24-2021 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 20 of 32 In order to clarify questions that arose from staff’s review of this category, an alternate analysis was utilized to validate the finding of fiscal neutrality. DPFG, Jacobs, and staff all conclude that this category is fiscally neutral. 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 (Naples 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. A minor funding shortfall was identified through the staff analysis; however, the amount is de minimis, totaling approximately the value of 0.19 acres, therefore, it does not change the finding of fiscal neutrality for this category. 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. This category showed a slight surplus in funding generated by the analysis, which was confirmed by staff. Public Utilities (Water, Wastewater, Irrigation Water and Solid Waste) – Fiscally Neutral. See Public Utilities Review Section of this Staff Rep ort and Attachment E - Public Facilities Impact Assessment, to be read in combination with the following: DPFG collected information prepared for and directed by the Collier County Collier County Public Utilities Department 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, as applicable, attributable to the project. Pending Board approval, utility services will be provided in accordance with the Interlocal Agreement that accompanies this petition, which must be adopted concurrently with or prior to the SRA ordinance. This Agreement also includes provisions related to the pre-payment of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees for the capacity equivalent of 650 ERCs for Water and 350 ERCs for Wastewater. The developer will be responsible for the 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). As provided in the review comments and the Agreement, water and wastewater services will be extended, as outlined, 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 1207 Attachment: Final 1 Staff Report Belmar Village 2-24-2021 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 21 of 32 to the Point of Connection (POC) for the Project to serve Bellmar’s demand. The Landowner has agreed to provide the I.Q. water distribution system and supply System for Belmar. Stormwater Management – Fiscally Neutral. See Attachment E - Public Facilities Impact Assessment, to be read in combination with 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 Bellmar water management system serving the development. Staff will continue to work with the Developer in areas where the private and public stormwater management systems interact and the ongoing management of the flow way systems as they transition between private and public lands. To the extent that Bellmar 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. Based on the above, the determination of fiscal neutrality is reasonable. North Collier Fire & Rescue District – Fiscally Neutral. See Fire Review Section of this Staff Report and Attachment E -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 within the service boundary of a planned, co-located facility which is owned by the District. Therefore, there is not a need for a specific land site within this proposed development. The applicant will be paying impact fees for the proposed land uses to off-set 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 Attachment E – Public Facilities Impact Assessment, 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. Currently there is existing or planned capacity, over a five-year period to serve the proposed development. However, when Bellmar is considered along with other neighboring development, “they collectively result in the School District exceeding its estimated capacity.” Therefore, the SRA document provides a commitment that the Developer will convey real property for a high school, middle school, and elementary school in exchange for impact fee credits. 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 1208 Attachment: Final 1 Staff Report Belmar Village 2-24-2021 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 22 of 32 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, also considering any Developer Agreements/Interlocal Agreements related to impact fees, 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 fiscal neutrality. Other Facilities – Fiscally Neutral. 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 affect 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. The future use of any type of debt as a funding mechanism is evaluated on a facility by facility basis, including the business case for such borrowing and will also be reviewed for the appropriateness of such costs, as applicable, for inclusion into applicable impact fee studies. Finally, 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: The Bellmar Village SRA Development Document sets forth the design standards for the Village. In accordance with Section 4.08.07.C.2 of the LDC, “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 interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods…” The Bellmar Village SRA consists of two context zones, Neighborhood General and Village Center. The Neighborhood General context zone is approximately 976.11 acres and allows for residential development consisting of single-family and multiple-family residential dwelling units. Senior/group housing, including but not limited to, Assisted Living Facilities (ALF), Independent Living Facilities (ILF), and Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRC) are permitted uses. The Village Center context zone is approximately 23.63 acres and is mixed-use, allowing for multi-family development, commercial, office, civic, governmental, and institutional uses. As previously stated, a minimum of 68,750 square feet and a maximum of 85,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses, and a minimum of 27,500 square feet of civic, governmental, and 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 1209 Attachment: Final 1 Staff Report Belmar Village 2-24-2021 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 23 of 32 institutional uses will be provided. The maximum zoned and actual building heights are 50 feet and 60 feet. The Bellmar Village Center is located on the northwest side of the SRA along the future Big Cypress Parkway. Additionally, Bellmar Village does not include a Neighborhood General Commercial Area like the Longwater Village proposal. DEVIATION DISCUSSION: The petitioner is seeking 12 deviations from the requirements of the LDC. The deviations are directly extracted from SRA Document Section VII. Deviations. The petitioner’s rationale and staff analysis/recommendation are outlined below. SRA Document Section 7.1. Village Center Standards: Deviation #1 seeks relief 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 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. Justification: The Village Center fronts on future Big Cypress Parkway and is separated from future Big Cypress Parkway by a 25-foot wide Type D Buffer. To be viable in the market place the Village center commercial uses need to be both accessible and convenient to motorists from future Big Cypress Parkway. This may warrant parking in what may be determined to be a front yard: however, with a 25-foot wide Type D buffer along future Big Cypress Parkway, such parking will be adequately screened from view. Without direct access (and exposure) to and from future Big Cypress Parkway, 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. 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 # 2 seeks relief 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. Note: This LDC Provision (and thus this deviation request) is unique to the RLSA Overlay. 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 1210 Attachment: Final 1 Staff Report Belmar Village 2-24-2021 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 24 of 32 Justification: This deviation is requested to allow parking in front, side, or rear yards in the Village Center in order provide for maximum design flexibility for what wil l be a relatively small amount of commercial uses providing neighborhood goods and services. Also see Justification for #2, above. Convenience and easy access are critical for achieving market viability for the nonresidential uses in the Village center, particularly for the pass by traffic which is absolutely necessary for the viability of the commercial elements. Design flexibility 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 (11), F.S.” SRA Document Section 7.2. Neighborhood General Standards: 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 LDC 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 # 3 seeks relief 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 Amenity Center sites and related uses to be a maximum of 30,000 square feet each. Justification: Community Centers, both within the north and south portions of the Village, will provide multiple amenities and uses for Village residents (and guests). This effectively reduces external trips. This also requires flexibility in size, in order to be sufficient to meet market demands. Note: This LDC Provision (and thus this deviation request) is unique to the RLSA Overlay. 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 # 4 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.08.7.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 zero or five feet and a rear yard setback of 15 feet for zero lot line and townhome development, as set forth in Table 1: Neighborhood General – Required Minimum Yards and Maximum Building Height, excluding County owned roadways. Justification: 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 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 1211 Attachment: Final 1 Staff Report Belmar Village 2-24-2021 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 25 of 32 build such units effectively a nd efficiently they must be consistent with the design used in other similar developments where the market has responded favorably. There are many approved PUDs that allow for such setbacks 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. 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 #5 seeks relief 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 four acres, to instead allow lot sizes for multi-family to exceed four acres, when located within one-half (½) mile of the Village Center boundary and limited to sites 25 acres or less. Justification: Limiting a multi-family lot size in the Neighborhood General is not based on any recognizable beneficial outcome. Presumably it is applied to maintain a “Village” scale. However, a larger lot can also maintain the “Village” scale 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 four acres or less. For that matter, more traditional multi-family buildings may also be feasible on parcels greater than four acres in Neighborhood General adjacent to or near the Village Center. The entire Neighborhood General Context Zone is 26.1 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 four acres, as all these types of housing styles are consistent with the Village definition which is as follows: Villages are a form of SRA and are primarily residential communities with a diversity of housing types and mix of uses appropriate to the s cale 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. Note: This LDC Provision (and thus this deviation request) is unique to the RLSA Overlay. 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.” SRA Document Section 7.3. Transportation Standards: 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 1212 Attachment: Final 1 Staff Report Belmar Village 2-24-2021 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 26 of 32 Deviation # 6 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.1.b(6), “Figures 5, 6, and 7, Local Street Neighborhood General,” which requires a 6-foot-wide planting area between the travel lane and the sidewalk, to instead allow for a 5-foot-wide planting area in the same location 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 two c.f. of structural soil per square feet of mature tree crown projection shall be provided. Justification: This is a minimal reduction and is required to ensure the necessary (LDC required) 23 feet, measured from the back of the sidewalk to the garage, to allow room to park a vehicle on the driveway without parking over the sidewalk. See Local Street Cross Section below. The substantive deviations from the LDC cross-section for a local road in a Village are (1) the planting area between the sidewalk and travel lane is five feet verses six feet and the width of the travel lane is (11 verses 10 feet). Note: This local street cross section is unique to the RLSA - SRA Village. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that the RLSA cross sections show a 6-foot wide planting strip. However, LDC section 4.08.07.J.3.d.ii.r. allows for a minimum of a 5-foot wide planting area between the sidewalk and curb in the Village center provided there is root barrier or structural soil used. Two c.f. of structural soil per square feet of mature tree crown projection is the industry standard for the recommended quantity of structural soil. In accordance with 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.” 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 1213 Attachment: Final 1 Staff Report Belmar Village 2-24-2021 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 27 of 32 Deviation # 7 seeks relief 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 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 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. Justification: 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 (11), F.S.” SRA Document Section 7.4. Sign Standards: Deviation # 8 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.5.a, “On-premises directional signs within residential districts,” 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 setback of five feet from the edge of the roadway, paved surface or back of the curb, limited to signs internal to the SRA only. This excludes signage along County owned roadways. Justification: This deviation will allow more flexibility for directional signage internal to the project. A unified design theme will be utilized for 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. Note: This deviation is from a requirement that applies throughout the County (per the LDC Section 5.06.00 (Signs Regulations). Note that the deviation does not apply to such signs located along County Roads. 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.” SRA Document Section 7.5. Landscape Standards: 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 1214 Attachment: Final 1 Staff Report Belmar Village 2-24-2021 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 28 of 32 Deviation # 9 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02.C., Buffer Requirements, “Types of buffers,” Table 2.4 Information, Footnote (3) which requires “Buffer areas between commercial 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. Justification: The combined 10-foot shared buffer will provide for sufficient separation and “breaking up” of parking areas within the Village center. Note: This deviation is from a requirement that applies throughout the County and similar deviations have been granted. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in accordance with 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.” SRA Document Section 7.6. Other Deviations: Deviation # 10 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05.04.G, “Parking Space Requirements,” which requires one parking space per 100 square feet for recreation facilities (indoor) sports, exercise, fitness, aerobics, or health clubs to instead allow for parking for the Amenity Center sites to be calculated at one space per 200 square feet of indoor square footage, excluding kitchen or storage space. Justification: The project will have a complete system of interconnected sidewalks, pathways, and bike lanes throughout, allowing residents to travel to the Amenity Center without using a car. Additionally, the centrally located Amenity Centers (both north and south) are restricted for use by only Village residents and guests and are not open to the general public. The one space per 100 square feet for these “community” amenity centers is excessive. Note: This deviation is from a requirement that applies throughout the County and similar deviations have been granted. 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 # 11 seeks relief from LDC Section 3.05.10.A.2. – “Location Criteria,” which requires that “LSPA [littoral shelf planting areas] shall be concentrated in one location of the lake(s), preferably adjacent to a preserve area,” to instead allow for required littoral shelf planting areas to be aggregated in certain specific development lakes, including the development lakes that runs along the eastern perimeter of the SRA. Justification: These areas will be designed to create, enhance, or restore wading bird/waterfowl habitat and foraging areas. They will be desig ned to recreate wetland function, maximize its 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 1215 Attachment: Final 1 Staff Report Belmar Village 2-24-2021 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 29 of 32 habitat value, and minimize maintenance efforts. They will enhance survivability of the littoral area plant species, as there is a lower survivability rate in littoral planting areas along larger lakes subject to more variable water levels and wind and wave action, which negatively affects these littoral planting areas. Note: This deviation is from a requirement that applies throughout the 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 §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S.” The concentration of littoral plantings in lakes and waters of the 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. Deviation # 12 seeks relief 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. Justification: 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). The Deviation is support by Utilities staff. 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.” NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The agent/applicant duly noticed and held the required NIM on August 4, 2020, at 5:30 p.m. at New Hope Ministries Conference Center, 7675 Davis Boulevard, Naples, Florida. Approximately two residents attended the NIM. For further information, please see in the backup material. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney’s office reviewed the staff report for Petition Number PL20190001837, Bellmar Village SRA on February 5, 2021. The following criteria applies to the creation of an SRA: 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 1216 Attachment: Final 1 Staff Report Belmar Village 2-24-2021 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 30 of 32 1. Consider: Compatibility with adjacent land uses. 2. Consider: An SRA must contain sufficient suitable land to accommodate the planned development. 3. Consider: Residential, commercial, manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, and 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. 4. Consider: 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 land that receives a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2, regardless of the size of the land or parcel. 5. Consider: 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. 6. Consider: 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. 7. Consider: 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. 8. Consider: 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. 9. Consider: 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. 10. Consider: Conformity of the proposed SRA with the goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP. 11. Consider: Suitability criteria described in Items 2 through 9 above [LDC Section 4.08.07 A.1.] and other standards of LDC Section 4.08.07. 12. Consider: 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. 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 1217 Attachment: Final 1 Staff Report Belmar Village 2-24-2021 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) Ann P. Jennejohn From: LynchDiane <Diane.Lynch@colliercountyfl.gov> Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2021 12:54 PM To: ashton_h; bellows_r; CohenThaddeus; FrenchJames; GuitardDonna; IsonSara; JenkinsAnita; MarcellaJeanne; McLeanMatthew; (jessica@davidsonengineering.com); AhmadJay;AICP Patrick Vanasse (pvanasse@consult-rwa.com); CasanovaAlexandra; arnold_m; AnthonyDavid;April Olson;AshkarSally; Blair Foley(Fols000@aol.com); Bob Duane (robertrosalba.duane@yahoo.com); MaryJoBrock; BrownCraig; BrownleeMichael; BurkeRose; Clay Brooker(ccbrooker@napleslaw.com); CookJaime; CrotteauKathynell; KinaszczukDanette; DarcoChristopher; deane_c; Dianna Quintanilla; Doug Fee; erb_c; Erica Martin; FaulknerSue; FeyEric; FinnTimothy; FrantzJeremy; GiblinCormac; GosselinLiz; GrantKimberley; GundlachNancy; HenderlongRichard; HodgsonKari; Hole Montes; JacobsSusan;James Boughton (jboughton@REVnaples.com);Jeanne Frankln; KlatzkowJeff;Jeff Wright;Jeffrey A. Carter(Jeffrey.A.Carter@dep.state.fl.us);JohnsonEric; Joseph Schmitt;Josh Fruth (josh@davidsonengineering.com); Keith Laakkonen (Keith.Laakkonen@dep.state.fl.us); Ken Gallander (kgallander@consult-rwa.com); kurtz_g; LantzLorraine; Laura Spurgeon DeJohn (Idejohn@johnsoneng.com); Leonard Roosevelt; lkoehler@sfwmd.gov; Majorie Student-Stirling (Stirlinglawfirm@gmail.com); McKennaJack; MillPatricia; Minutes and Records; MoscaMichele; mott_t; NaplesReporter; Nicole Ryan-Conservancy; Patrick Neale (pneale@patrickneale.com); Pritt, Robert; Rich Yovanovich (ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com); Robert Mulhere (BobMulhere@HMEng.com); rodriguezdan; RodriguezWanda; SaboJames; nader_s; SantabarbaraGino; SawyerMichael; SchmidtCorby; ScottTrinity; Sharon Umpenhour; SonntagKristi; SSpector@ralaw.com; stephaniekarol@hmeng.com;ZimmermanSue; SummersEllen; Tara Bishop (tbishop@gnfire.org); Teresa L. Cannon; Theresa Pagan (tppagan@napleslaw.com); Thomas Eastman (eastmath@collierschools.com);Tom Barber (tom.barber@abbinc.com);Tony Pires—Attorney; Tony Pires—Attorney 1; TrochessettAimee; Wayne Arnold (warnold@gradyminor.com); Wilkie Kirsten; YilmazGeorge Subject: RE: 3/4/2021 CCPC Meeting Link Attachments: Final 1 Staff Report Belmar Village 2-24-2021.pdf Good afternoon, There has been update to the Staff Report for PL20190001837 Bellmar Village — Item 9A2 on the 3/4/2021 CCPC Meeting. Please change the current page 31 with the updated page 31 attached here. Recommendation Condition#3 has revised text The packet has been updated on the meeting webpage, the link remains the same. However, if you have saved the meeting packet from the webpage onto your computer as a file please make sure you use the attached Staff Report for the Bellmar Village Item. If you have any question concerning the update please contact either Anita Jenkins or Ray Bellows. 1 13. Consider: Assurance that applicant has acquired or will acquire sufficient Stewardship Credits to implement SRA uses. 14. Consider: Impacts, including environmental and public infrastructure impacts. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission, acting as the local planning agency and the Environmental Advisory Council, forward Petition SRA-PL20190001837, Bellmar Village SRA, to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval subject to the conditions detailed here: 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. 2. The Agreement to provide Potable Water, Wastewater, and Irrigation Water Utility Services shall be adopted concurrently with the SRA ordinance. 3. At least 10% of the residential units (275 units) be sold at purchase prices in the Moderate and Gap affordability ranges (product types: Town Home, Villa 1, Coach, & Villa 2); or as an alternative, Land or units in (or proximal to) the SRA be reserved for the development of housing that is affordable. 4. Within 90 days of the approval of the first development order (SDP or PPL), the applicant must pay $2,221,800.00 to fulfill the fair share mitigation for operation impacts as supported by the January 8, 2021 Traffic Impact Statement. 5. The Developer shall be required to improve both Golden Gate Boulevard and 6th Avenue South East from Desoto Boulevard to the project entrances to minimum 2-lane undivided rural roadway consistent with FDOT Green Book construction standards. These improvements are not eligible for road impact fee credits. 6. The applicant acknowledges the following are outside of the review for this petition. School sites A and B (56th Avenue N.E. and 2nd Avenue N.E.) have not been evaluated for transportation impacts as part of this request. Evaluation of both sites will require standard TIS and operational review at time of permitting. Operational review will require a determination of 56th and 2nd Avenue's ability to accommodate school operations and activities. However, it is noted in the commitment as stated acknowledges that the Collier County Public Schools (CCPS) shall be responsible for the roadway improvements necessary for both school sites; not the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (CCBCC) Attachments: Attachment A: Proposed SRA Resolution Belmar BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA,SRA-PL20190001837 February 24,2021 Page 31 of 32 BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 31 of 32 13. Consider: Assurance that applicant has acquired or will acquire sufficient Stewardship Credits to implement SRA uses. 14. Consider: Impacts, including environmental and public infrastructure impacts. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission, acting as the local planning agency and the Environmental Advisory Council, forward Petition SRA-PL20190001837, Bellmar Village SRA, to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval subject to the conditions detailed here: 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. 2. The Agreement to provide Potable Water, Wastewater, and Irrigation Water Utility Services shall be adopted concurrently with the SRA ordinance. 3. Bellmar Village SRA shall commit that at least 24% of the units proposed be sold at purchase prices near the Moderate, and Gap affordability ranges (product types: Town Home, Villa 1, Coach, & Villa 2) 260 units total, will actually be set aside and sold at the price levels included in the application. 4. Within 90 days of the approval of the first development order (SDP or PPL), the applicant must pay $2,221,800.00 to fulfill the fair share mitigation for operation impacts as supported by the January 8, 2021 Traffic Impact Statement. 5. The Developer shall be required to improve both Golden Gate Boulevard and 6th Avenue South East from Desoto Boulevard to the project entrances to minimum 2-lane undivided rural roadway consistent with FDOT Green Book construction standards. These improvements are not eligible for road impact fee credits. 6. The applicant acknowledges the following are outside of the review for this petition. School sites A and B (56th Avenue N.E. and 2nd Avenue N.E.) have not been evaluated for transportation impacts as part of this request. Evaluation of both sites will require standard TIS and operational review at time of permitting. Operational review will require a determination of 56th and 2nd Avenue’s ability to accommodate school operations and activities. However, it is noted in the commitment as stated acknowledges that the Collier County Public Schools (CCPS) shall be responsible for the roadway improvements necessary for both school sites; not the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (CCBCC) Attachments: Attachment A: Proposed SRA Resolution Belmar 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 1218 Attachment: Final 1 Staff Report Belmar Village 2-24-2021 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190001837 February 24, 2021 Page 32 of 32 Attachment B: Comprehensive Planning Consistency Memo Attachment C: Public Utility Connectivity Memo Attachment C-1: Collier Villages Connectivity Plan Attachment D: Bellmar SRA Economic Assessment Attachment E: Bellmar Interlocal Agreement Water Sewer Attachment F: Application Backup 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 1219 Attachment: Final 1 Staff Report Belmar Village 2-24-2021 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 1220 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 1221 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 1222 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1223Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 1224 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 1225 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 1226 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 1227 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 1228 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 1229 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 1230 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 1231 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 1232 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT Collier Enterprises Management, Inc. 2550 North Goodlette Road, Suite 100 Naples, FL 34103 The Bellmar Professional Consulting Team includes: Agnoli, Barber & Brundage (ABB) – Engineering Coleman Yovanovich & Koester – Legal Counsel Development Planning & Financing Group (DPFG) – Fiscal Analysis Hole Montes, Inc. – Planning and Permitting Passarella & Assoc., Inc. (PAI) – Environmental Permitting Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, Inc. – Transportation Water Science Associates – Water Permitting CCPC DATE______________ BCC DATE _______________ EXHIBIT B 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 1233 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) Bellmar Village SRA Document [SRA- PL-20190001837] (1-25-2021) Page 2 of 15 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. OVERVIEW/VILLAGE DESIGN 3 II. SRA STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE/SUITABLITY CRITERIA 3 III. REQUIRED PERIMETER BUFFERS 4 IV. MINIMUM REQUIRED & MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE 4 DENSITY AND INTENSITY V. CONTEXT ZONES 5 5.1 Neighborhood General 5 5.2 Village Center 7 VI. EXCAVATIONS 10 VII. DEVIATIONS 10 7.1 Deviations from Village Center Standards 10 7.2 Deviations from Neighborhood General Standards 10 7.3 Transportation Standards 11 7.4 Signs Standards 11 7.5 Landscape Standards 11 7.6 Other Deviations 11 VIII DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS 12 8.1 Planning 12 8.2 Environmental 13 8.3 Transportation 13 8.4 Parks and Recreation 13 8.5 School 13 8.6 Other 15 EXHIBITS Exhibit A – Sheet 1: SRA Master Plan (Color) Exhibit A – Sheet 2: SRA Master Plan (Black & White) Exhibit A – Sheet 3: SRA Mobility Plan Exhibit A – Sheet 4: SRA Master Plan with Deviations Exhibit A – Sheet 5: SRA Master Plan with Deviation Description Exhibit A – Sheet 6: Typical Local Street Cross Section Exhibit A – Sheet 7: Loop & Connector Road Sections Exhibit B – Sheet 1-10: Sketch and Legal Description Tracts 1 & 2 Exhibit C – Sheet 1: Legal Descriptions for School Sites A & B Exhibit D – Sheet 1: Location Map Exhibit E – Sheets 1-10: Property Ownership/Statement of Unified Ownership Exhibit F – Sheets 1-42: Natural Resource Index Assessment 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 1234 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) Bellmar Village SRA Document [SRA- PL-20190001837] (1-25-2021) Page 3 of 15 I. OVERVIEW/VILLAGE DESIGN AND PROJECT DEVELOPMENT Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) is located in eastern Collier County in Sections 2, 3, 10, and 11, Township 49 South, and Range 28 East. Bellmar Village SRA (“Village”) contains a total of 999.74± acres. Lands to the north are zoned A-Agriculture and are designated Water Retention Area (WRA) or SSA under the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) Overlay. Lands to the south are zoned A-Agricultural and designated WRA or SSA under the RLSA Overlay. Lands to the east are zoned A-Agricultural with portions designated HSA. Lands to the west are zoned A-Agricultural or E- Estates. To the west, the Village abuts the proposed future Big Cypress Parkway right -of-way (ROW) and lands zoned A-Agricultural or E-Estates. The lands within the Village SRA have been in active agricultural production for many years. In accordance with the RLSA Overlay definition, the Village is primarily a residential community which includes a diversity of housing types and a maximum of 2,750 dwelling units. The Village includes a 23.63± acre mixed-use Village Center providing for the required neighborhood-scaled retail, office, civic, and community uses. The SRA is designed to encourage pedestrian/bicycle circulation via 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. II. SRA STATEMENT OF SUITABILITY CRITERIA PER LDC SECTION 4.08.07, PARAGRAPHS A, B, and C AND RLSA OVERLAY ATTACHMENT C. 1. The SRA contains 999.74± acres. 2. The SRA does not include any lands with a Natural Resource Index (NRI) greater than 1.2. 3. The Village SRA does not include any lands designated Flowway Stewardship Area (FSA), Habitat Stewardship Area (HSA), or Water Retention Area (WRA). However, in certain locations along the boundary of the Village, there is a perimeter lake system, designed for stormwater management purposes and as a deterrent to wildlife. Portions of that lake system, outside of the Village SRA boundary, are designated WRA. Portions of the SRA along the east boundary are also adjacent to an HSA. 4. The SRA does not include any lands within the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) Overlay. 5. The required minimum Open Space (35%) is 349.91± acres. The SRA master plan provides for 506.90± acres of Open Space (50.70± percent), 156.99± acres above the RLSA 35% requirement. 6. The SRA is designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods. 7. The SRA provides parks within and accessible by neighborhoods. 8. The SRA contains two Context Zones (as required for the Village form of SRA): Neighborhood General and mixed-use Village Center. 9. Within the Village Center Context Zone, the SRA shall provide of the following: a minimum of 68,750 square feet and a maximum of 85,000 square feet of neighborhood scaled retail and office uses; a minimum of 27,500 square feet of civic, government, and institutional uses; and a minimum of 40 multifamily dwelling units. 10. The SRA allows for up to 2,750 dwelling units (2.75 dwelling units per gross acre, and 3.28 units per acres based upon the 842.75 acres requiring Stewardship Credits and excluding open space acreage above 35%). 11. In compliance with the requirement to provide a diversity of housing types within a Village, a minimum of 10% of the units shall be multi-family units, based upon the Land Development Code (LDC) definition of Multifamily Dwelling (a group of 3 or more dwelling units within a single 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 1235 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) Bellmar Village SRA Document [SRA- PL-20190001837] (1-25-2021) Page 4 of 15 building), a minimum of 10% of the units shall be single family detached, and a minimum of 10% of the units shall be single family attached or villas. 12. Approximately 28.31 acres of active and passive parks and community green space is provided, including approximately 14.86 acres of amenity center sites and approximately 13.45 acres of parks and park preserves, exceeding the required minimum of 1 percent of the SRA gross acreage, which is 10 acres, rounded. 13. The SRA will have direct access to future Big Cypress Parkway, which will be designed as an arterial road. The SRA will also connect to Golden Gate Blvd. and 6th Ave. SE. 14. The SRA is consistent with the standards set forth in the RLSA Overlay Attachment C, applicable to Villages. 15. The total acreage requiring stewardship credits is 842.75 acres (total SRA acreage excluding open space exceeding 35%) acres. At the required 8 Stewardship Credits per acre, 6,742 Stewardship Credits are required to entitle the SRA. 16. The Village will be served by the Collier County Water and Sewer District. 17. The proposed schedule of development within the Village SRA, is as follows: a. Anticipated timeframe for receipt of required jurisdictional agency permits (or permit modifications) 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: twelve (12) years from date of approval of this SRA. III. REQUIRED PERIMETER BUFFERS1 Adjacent to future Big Cypress Parkway Minimum 25’ wide Type D Buffer All other Perimeter Buffers Adjacent to Preserve or SSA No Buffer Required (except as required by the South Florida Water Management District) Adjacent to A - RLSA– (Agriculture) Minimum 10’ wide Type “A” Buffer per LDC Section 4.06.02.C.1. Table 1: Village Perimeter Buffer Requirements 1At the developer’s discretion, a 10-foot wide pathway may be located within required perimeter landscape buffers 25’ or greater in width, provided the required plantings are located between the property line and the pathway. However, in such cases, the buffer width shall be increased by 5 feet above the minimum required width. A 10-foot wide pathway may also be located within perimeter buffers that are less than 25’ in width, however, in such cases, the buffer width shall be increased in width by 10 feet above the minimum required width. IV. MINIMUM REQUIRED AND MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DENSITY AND INTENSITY The maximum total number of dwelling units in the Village shall not exceed 2,750 dwelling units. Multi-family dwelling units may be located within both the mixed-use Village Center and the Neighborhood General Context Zones. The minimum required amount of neighborhood commercial development within the Village Center is 68,750 square feet and the maximum shall not exceed 85,000 square feet. A minimum of 27,500 square feet of civic, governmental and institutional uses is required. 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 1236 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) Bellmar Village SRA Document [SRA- PL-20190001837] (1-25-2021) Page 5 of 15 V. CONTEXT ZONES The village contains two distinct Context Zones: Neighborhood General and mixed use Village Center. 5.1 Neighborhood General Context Zone The Neighborhood General Context Zone includes approximately 976.11± acres of land. 5.1.1 Allowable Uses and Structures 5.1.1. A. Permitted Uses and Structures2: 1) Single-Family dwelling units. 2) Multi-family dwelling units located within ½ mile of the Village Center. 3) Senior/Group Housing, including but not limited to Assisted Living Facility (ALF), Independent Living Facility (ILF), and Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRC), not to exceed 300 units, subject to Florida statutes and the applicable provisions of LDC Section 5.05.04 - Group Housing, located within ½ mile of the Village Center. 4) Utility facilities for water/wastewater, subject to the applicable standards set forth in Section 5.05.12 of the LDC. 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 (subject to the applicable standards set forth in Section 5.05.12 of the LDC), chickee huts, air conditioning units, satellite antennas, and similar uses and structures. 2) Model homes, sales centers, and temporary uses are permitted throughout Neighborhood General in provided for LDC Section 5.04.00 and in this SRA Document. 3) Clubhouses and amenity centers for residents and guests, which may include clubhouses, fitness facilities, and typical recreational uses, including swimming pools, tennis courts, pickle ball courts, dog parks, and similar facilities. 4) Neighborhood recreation areas limited to a maximum of 2.0 acres and a maximum of 10,000 square feet of building area. Neighborhood recreation areas may include swimming pools, tennis courts, pickle ball courts, and similar neighborhood recreation facilities. 5) 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. 2 Note: Existing agricultural operations may continue on an interim basis until a Site Development Plan or Subdivision Plat, as the case may be, is approved for a particular parcel. 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 1237 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) Bellmar Village SRA Document [SRA- PL-20190001837] (1-25-2021) Page 6 of 15 5.1.2. Neighborhood General Development and Design Standards 5.1.2.A. Required Minimum Yards1 & Maximum Building Heights: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SINGLE AND TWO FAMILY MULTI-FAMILY CLUBHOUSES/RECREATION AND FITNESS FACILTIES PER 5.1.1. B.(3); NEIGHBORHOOD RECREATION AREAS PER 5.1.1.B.(4) SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED & TWO- FAMILY ZERO LOT LINE & TOWNHOME4 ALF, ILF, CCRC & OTHER MULTI-FAMILY6 PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES MIN. LOT AREA 5,000 S.F. / UNIT 3,000 S.F. / UNIT 2,500 S.F./UNIT 20,000 S.F./LOT N/A MIN. LOT WIDTH 40’ 30’ 20’/UNIT 100’ N/A MIN. FLOOR AREA 1,200 S.F. 1,200 S.F./ UNIT 1,200 S.F./UNIT 700 S.F./UNIT6 N/A FLOOR AREA RATIO N/A N/A N/A 0.45 (only applies to ALF/CCRC) N/A MIN. FRONT YARD2 22’ 22’ 22’ 20’ 20’ MIN. SIDE YARD3 5’ 0 OR 5’ 0 or 5’ 10’ 10’ MIN. REAR YARD7 10’ 10’ 15’ 20’ 10’ MIN. LAKE SETBACK4 20’ 20’ 20’ 20’ 20’ MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES 10’ 10’ 10’ 15’ OR ½ SUM of BH for Structures Exceeding 35’ BH 10’ MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT - ZONED 35’ 35’ 35’ 3.5 Stories NTE 50’ 3.5 Stories NTE 50’ MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT - ACTUAL 42’ 42’ 42’ 62’ 62’ ACCESSORY STRUCTURES MIN. FRONT YARD SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS MIN. SIDE YARD SPS SPS SPS SPS 10’ MIN. REAR YARD7 5’ 5’ 5’ 5’ 5’ MIN. LAKE SETBACK4 10’ 10’ 5’ 5’ 5’ MAX. HEIGHT ZONED & ACTUAL SPS SPS SPS 42’ 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. Setbacks from Park Preserves shall be as set forth in LDC Section 3.05.07.H.3. 2. Front yards shall be measured as follows: − 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 setback along the other frontage shall be a minimum of 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. 3. 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. 4. The required 20’ lake maintenance easement shall be provided in a separate platted tract and the setback for both principal and accessory structures may be reduced to 0’. 5. Zero Lot Line and Townhome Development means 3 or more attached units, typically one or 2 stories in height. 6. Other Multi-family means 3 or more units other than Zero Lot Line or Townhome Development, typically more than 2 stories in height. 7. Minimum floor area is not applicable to ALF, ILF, or CCRC units. Minimum floor area per unit for rental apartments shall be 550 square feet. 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 1238 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) Bellmar Village SRA Document [SRA- PL-20190001837] (1-25-2021) Page 7 of 15 5.2 Village Center Context Zone The Village Center Context Zone includes 23.63± acres of land. 5.2.1. Allowable Uses and Structures The Village Center is mixed use in nature, requiring a minimum of 40 multi-family dwelling units, a minimum of 68,750 square feet and maximum of 85,000 square feet of neighborhood-scale commercial and office uses, and a minimum of 27,500 square feet of civic, governmental and institutional uses. A minimum of eight (8) retail or office establishments providing neighborhood-scale commercial and office uses shall be provided. 5.2.1.A. Permitted Uses • Multi-Family Dwelling Units subject to the applicable development standards set forth in Paragraph 5.1.2.A, Table 1.; and, • The following neighborhood-scale commercial and office uses, and civic, governmental, and institutional 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. 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 section 5.05.01. 15) Engineering, Architectural and Surveying Services (8711-8713) 16) Essential services, subject to Section 2.01.03. 17) Federal and federally-sponsored credit agencies (6111). 18) Food stores (groups 5411 - 5499). 19) Garment pressing, and agents for laundries and drycleaners (7212). 20) Gasoline service stations (5541, subject to LDC Section 5.05.05). 21) General merchandise stores (5331 - 5399). 22) Group care facilities (category I and II, except for homeless shelters); care units, except for homeless shelters; nursing homes; assisted living facilities pursuant to F.S. §400.402 and ch.58A-5 F.A.C.; and continuing care retirement communities pursuant to F.S. §651 and ch. 4-193 F.A.C.; all subject to Section 5.05.04 of the LDC. 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 1239 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) Bellmar Village SRA Document [SRA- PL-20190001837] (1-25-2021) Page 8 of 15 23) Hardware stores (5251). 24) Health services, offices and clinics (8011 - 8049, 8071, 8082, 8092, and 8099). 25 Household appliance stores (5722). 26) Insurance carriers, agents and brokers (6311 - 6399, 6411). 27) Legal services (8111). 28) Libraries (8231). 29) Mortgage bankers and loan correspondents (6162). 30) Paint stores (5231). 31) Passenger Car Rental (7514) 32) Physical fitness facilities (7991; 7911, except discotheques). 33) Public Safety Facilities and other governmental services including, but not limited to, fire, emergency management and law enforcement facilities, and public libraries (8231, 9221, 9222, 9224, 9229, 9111, 9121, 9131, 9199). 34) Real Estate (6531 - 6552). 35) Retail Nurseries, Lawn and Garden Supply Stores (5261). 36) 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). 37) Elementary and Secondary Schools, Colleges, Universities, Professional Schools and Technical Institutes, public or private (8211, 8221-8222) 38) Tax return preparation services (7291). 39) Travel agencies (4724, no other transportation services). 40) United State Postal Service (4311, except major distribution center). 41) Veterinary services (0742, excluding outdoor kenneling). 42) Any other use which is comparable and compatible in nature with foregoing list of permitted uses, is considered to be a neighborhood scale commercial, office, or civic, governmental, or institutional uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Hearing Examiner, pursuant to the applicable procedures set forth in LDC S ection 10.08.00. 5.2.1.B. Accessory Uses 1) Accessory uses to residential multi-family development subject to the applicable development standards set forth in Paragraph 5.1.2.A, Table 1. 2) Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to the permitted neighborhood-scale commercial and office uses, and civic, governmental, and institutional uses above. 3) Parking structures detached or attached, not to exceed 35 feet in Actual height. 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 1240 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) Bellmar Village SRA Document [SRA- PL-20190001837] (1-25-2021) Page 9 of 15 5.2.2. Village Center Development and Design Standards 5.2.2.A. Required Minimum Yards (Setbacks) and Maximum Building Heights: Table 2: Village Center - Required Minimum Yards Maximum Building Height Footnotes: 1. Retail and office uses are subject to a maximum FAR of 0.5. Civic, governmental, and institutional uses are subject to a maximum FAR of 0.6. 2. Tracts abutting the minimum required 25’wide landscape buffer (located in a separate platted tract adjacent to Big Cypress Parkway) shall provide a front yard setback, measured from the abutting landscape buffer tract. Tracts abutting the project entrance road shall provide a front yard setback measured from the 10-foot landscape buffer tract adjacent to the entry road. 3. The required 20’ lake maintenance easement shall be provided in a separate platted tract and the setback for both principal and accessory structures may be reduced to 0’. 4. The minimum floor area is not applicable to ALF, ILF, or CCRC units. 5. The front setback may be increased in order to accommodate public spaces such as plazas, outdoor dining areas, and courtyards. S.P.S. = same as for principal structure; NTE = not to exceed; S.F. = square feet; BH = building height; N/A = not applicable DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ALF, ILF, CCRC & MULTI-FAMILY ONLY BUILDINGS 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 Unit4 800 S.F. for Commercial Units 700 S.F. for Residential Units MIN. SETBACK FROM FUTURE BIG CYPRESS PARKWAY AND ENTRANCE ROAD2 20’ 20’ FRONT YARDS 20’ 0’or 10’5 MINIMUM SETBACK FROM A RESIDENTIAL TRACT 0’ 20’ MINIMUM SETBACK FROM A NONRESIDENTIAL TRACT 15’ 5’ MIN. LAKE SETBACK3 20’ 20’ 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 0.45 (only applies to ALF, ILF, and CCRC) See Footnote 1. 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 SETBACK4 20’ 20’ MIN. PRESERVE SETBACK 10’ 10’ MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES 10’ 10’ MAX. HEIGHT - ZONED & ACTUAL 35’ 35’ 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 1241 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) Bellmar Village SRA Document [SRA- PL-20190001837] (1-25-2021) Page 10 of 15 VI. EXCAVATIONS The following criteria shall apply to excavations within the Bellmar SRA: All excavation permit applications within the Bellmar SRA and related Stewardship Sending Areas (SSAs) shall be reviewed as Development Excavation Permit applications. Within the bou ndary of the Bellmar SRA and related SSA(s), fill material may be hauled from one construction site to another. Fill may be placed up to, but not within, the edge of all conservation easements, preserves , and Water Retention Area (WRA’s). VII. DEVIATIONS 7.1. 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 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 building s 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. 7.2. Neighborhood General Standards (which apply per LDC Section4.08.07.J.3.d.iii) 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 Amenity Center sites and related uses to be a maximum of 30,000 square feet each. 2) A Deviation from LDC Section 4.08.7.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 1 5 feet for zero lot line and townhome development, as set forth in Table 1: Neighborhood General - Required Minimum Yards and Maximum Building Height, excluding County owned roadways. 3) 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 to exceed 4 acres, when located within one-half (½) mile of the Village Center Boundary and limited to sites 25 acres or less. 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 1242 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) Bellmar Village SRA Document [SRA- PL-20190001837] (1-25-2021) Page 11 of 15 7.3 Transportation Standards 1) A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.1.b, “Figures 5, 6, and 7, Local Street Neighborhood General,” which requires a 6-foot-wide planting area between the travel lane and the sidewalk, to instead allow for a 5-foot-wide planting area in the same location 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. 2) 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 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) for commercial development within the Village Center 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. 7.4 Sign Standards 1) A deviation from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.5.a, “On-premises directional signs within residential districts,” 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 setback of 5 feet from the edge of the roadway, paved surface or back of the curb, limited to signs internal to the SRA only. This excludes signage along County owned roadways. 7.5 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 outparcels located within a shopping center, Business Park, or similar commercial developm ent 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. 7.6 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 Amenity Center sites 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 that “LSPA [littoral shelf planting areas] shall be concentrated in one location of the lake(s), preferably adjacent to a preserve area,” to instead allow for required littoral shelf planting areas to be aggregated in certain specific development lakes, including the development lake system that runs along the perimeter of the SRA. 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 1243 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) Bellmar Village SRA Document [SRA- PL-20190001837] (1-25-2021) Page 12 of 15 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. VIII. DEVELOPER/OWNER COMMITMENTS 8.1. Planning A. One entity (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 procedure s 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 the Developer Agreement. At the time of this SRA approval, the Managing Entity is Collier Enterprises Management, Inc. 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 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 provide an annual SRA monitoring report, in a form similar to a PUD monitoring report, identifying the number of residential units constructed by type within the SRA, and amount of retail, office, civic, government, and institution square footage constructed within the SRA. The report shall also address whether or not or to what degree the Developer Commitments contained herein and in the Developer Agreement have been satisfied. 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 1244 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) Bellmar Village SRA Document [SRA- PL-20190001837] (1-25-2021) Page 13 of 15 8.2. 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 Pl an (SDP) approval. 8.3. Transportation A. Intensity of uses under any development scenario for the SRA is limited to a maximum of 2,189 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 application for SDP/SDPA or subdivision plat approval. B. The Owner shall provide an easement in a form acceptable to Collier County, at no cost to County and free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, to accommodate a transit stop and shelter within the SRA at a location agreed to by the Collier County Public Transit Division Director. As part of the site improvements authorized by the initial Site Development Plan within the SRA, the Owner shall, at its sole expense, install the 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. C. No more than 1,925 dwelling units will be issued certificates of occupancy until a minimum of 30,000 sq. ft. of the neighborhood retail and office uses and a minimum of 20 multi- family dwelling units have been developed in the Village Center and issued certificate(s) of occupancy. 8.4 Parks and Recreation A. The SRA shall include a minimum of one (1) children’s playground that conforms to appropriate ASTM standards, which shall be a minimum of 2,500 square feet in size. The location of this playground shall be identified at the time of subdivision plat or SDP, as the case may be, for the development phase or area within which the playground is to be included. 8.5 School A. The Applicant shall reserve School Site A and School Site B (School Reservation), defined on Exhibit C, for the District School Board of Collier County, Florida (District). Upon Approval and non-appealable SRAs for Longwater and Bellmar Villages, and all required and non-appealable permits from the South Florida Water Management District or any federal or state regulatory authorities, the District shall have u p to two years to provide written Notice to Applicant of its intent to purchase either or both of the parcels. After 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 1245 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) Bellmar Village SRA Document [SRA- PL-20190001837] (1-25-2021) Page 14 of 15 providing Notice, the District shall close on the parcel or parcels within 6 months of providing Notice to the Applicant. In accordance with Florida Statutes Section 1013.14(1)(b), the District will obtain two (2) appraisals for the School Site A and B from independent state certified appraisers, to establish the value of the School Sites. The appraisal date shall be the day prior to the Approval of the SRAs. The average appraised value of the two appraisals, not to exceed $23,000/acre, shall constitute the amount of credit available to the Applicant as a prepayment of Educational Impact Fees upon conveyance of the School sites to the District. With respect to the conveyance of real property, by the Applicant to the District, the School Reservation of School Site A and B to the District fully mitigates for the development’s impact to the elementary, middle and high schools needed to serve Rivergrass, Longwater, and Belmar SRAs. The Applicant will use commercially reasonable efforts to include School Site B within Owners’ conceptual ERP permits for Bellmar Village from the South Florida Water Management District and the Army Corp of Engineers. If Owners are successful in including School Site B within its conceptual permits for Bellmar Village, the District shall reimburse the Owners’ for any Panther (or other species) mitigation required by such permits, upon actual payment and completion of the mitigation and Owners’ written request to District, which reimbursement shall be calculated by Owners’ on a proportionate share basis of the acreage of School Site B to the total acreage of the Bellmar Village project. The reimbursement amount shall be added to the value of the real property conveyed to the District and shall become part of the Educational Impact Fee credit issued to the Applicant/Owner. School Site A shall be used only for a public high school and/or middle school and School Site B shall be used only for a public elementary school, and not for any other purpose, which restrictions shall be deed restrictions attached to and incorporated in the conveyance deed. School Site A shall have direct and permanent access (in accordance with County Standards) to 56th Avenue NE, utilizing a non-exclusive access easement. School Site B shall have direct and permanent access (in accordance with County Standards) to 2nd Avenue NE, utilizing a non-exclusive access easement. The District shall be responsible for the construction of all access improvements from the edge of the public right -of-way into the School Sites. The District shall cause the School Sites’ storm water management systems to be designed and permitted to provide the necessary onsite water management system including the quality and quantity of water storage required for the development of the School Sites. The discharge rates of the School Sites water management systems shall be consistent with the agricultural permitted rate of discharge at the time each water management system is constructed, in accordance with SFWMD Permit Number 11-00112- S for School Site A, and SFWMD Permit Number 11-01178-S or the subsequent SFWMD development permit for School Site B. The offsite discharges of water from the School Sites to the agricultural water management area within the Shaggy Cypress Water Management District, as provided in the South Florida Water Management District Permit System Area shall be designed to provide for pump discharges and/or elevated discharge conditions within the Shaggy Cypress Water Management District. Applicant will convey a 10 -foot wide underground utility easement over and across School Site B adjacent to the future Big Cypress Parkway to the Lee County Electric Cooperative. 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 1246 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) Bellmar Village SRA Document [SRA- PL-20190001837] (1-25-2021) Page 15 of 15 8.6 Other A. Street trees will be provided throughout the Village. Within the Village Center Context Zone, street trees shall be spaced forty feet (40’) on center and within the Neighborhood General Context Zone, street trees shall be spaces 60 feet on center. Street trees 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. 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 1247 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 1248 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 1249 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 1250 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 1251 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 1252 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 1253 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 1254 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 1255 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1256Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1257Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1258Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1259Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1260Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1261Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1262Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1263Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1264Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1265Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1266Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1267Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1268Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1269Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1270Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1271Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1272Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1273Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1274Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1275Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1276Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1277Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1278Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1279Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1280Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1281Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1282Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1283Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1284Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1285Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1286Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1287Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1288Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1289Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1290Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1291Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1292Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1293Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1294Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1295Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1296Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1297Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1298Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1299Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1300Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1301Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1302Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1303Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1304Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1305Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1306Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1307Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1308Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1309Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1310Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1311Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1312Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1313Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1314Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1315Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1316Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1317Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1318Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) Page 1 of 16 H:\2019\2019051\SRA\1-25-2021\Bellmar SRA Credit Agreement (1-25-2021).docx STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA CREDIT AGREEMENT SSA 15 THIS STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA CREDIT AGREEMENT (hereinafter referred to as the (“Agreement”) is made and entered into this ____ day of ___________, 2020, by and between COLLIER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereinafter referred to as “County” whose mailing address is the Harmon Turner Building, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida 34112, Collier Enterprises Management, Inc. hereinafter referred to as “Applicant” whose mailing address is 2550 Goodlette Road North, Suite 100, Naples, Florida 34103, and Collier Land Holdings, Ltd., a Florida limited Partnership and CDC Land Investments, LLC., a Florida limited liability company, hereinafter collectively referred to as “Owner”, whose mailing addresses are 2550 Goodlette Road North, Suite 100, Naples, Florida 34103, for the purpose of designating the number of “Stewardship Sending Area” (SSA) Credits consumed in the designation of Bellmar Village as a Stewardship Receiving Area and the source of those SSA credits pursuant to Section 4.08.07.C.11 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). RECITALS 1. Applicant has applied for SRA designation for Bellmar Village and said SRA is approximately 999.74 acres in size. 2. The County has reviewed the SRA Designation Application, along with all support documentation and information required by Section 4.08.07 of the LDC and determined that SRA designation for the Bellmar Village is appropriate. 3. The County, Applicant and Owner have reached agreement on the number of Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) Credits required to be utilized for such designation. 4. The County, Applicant and Owner agree that this SRA Credit Agreement is in compliance with and fully meets the requirements of the Collier County Growth Management Plan and LDC. EXHIBIT C 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 1319 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) Page 2 of 16 H:\2019\2019051\SRA\1-25-2021\Bellmar SRA Credit Agreement (1-25-2021).docx NOW THEREFORE in consideration of the above premises and the expenditure of credits and authorizations granted hereby and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 1. Applicant and Owner are hereby utilizing and transferring 6,742 Stewardship Credits (Credits) which shall be applied to the SRA land described in Exhibit “A” in order to carry out the plan of development on the 999.74 acres proposed in the Bellmar Village Development Document and summarized hereinafter. 2. Exhibit “A” is the legal description of the 999.74 acres that constitute the Bellmar Village SRA. 3. Attached hereto is Exhibit “B” the Bellmar Village Master Plan which depicts the land uses within the SRA. Also attached as Exhibit “C” is the Bellmar Village Land Use Summary which identifies the number of residential dwelling units, gross leasable square footage of retail and office uses, and the other land uses depicted on the Bellmar Village Master Plan. 4. Pursuant to Section 4.08.07.B.2 of the LDC, the designation of a SRA requires eight Stewardship Credits to be transferred to an SRA in exchange for the development of one acre of land within Bellmar Village. Applicant and Owner are transferring enough credits to allow development on 842.75 acres, since 156.99 acres of excess open space does not consume Credits. Once credits are transferred, they may not be recaptured by Applicant and Owner. 5. Applicant and Owner will be utilizing credits generated from Stewardship Sending Area 15 in the amount of 6,742 Credits 6. Pursuant to Resolution No. (pending), the County has approved Bellmar Village as an SRA consisting of 999.74 acres and has approved the Bellmar Village Master Plan and Development Document. 7. Applicant and Owner acknowledge that development of SRA land may not commence until a SRA Credit Agreement Memorandum is recorded with the Collier County Clerk of Courts. 8. This Agreement may only be amended by written agreement of all the parties hereto. 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 1320 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) Page 3 of 16 H:\2019\2019051\SRA\1-25-2021\Bellmar SRA Credit Agreement (1-25-2021).docx IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized officers or representatives and their official seals hereto affixed the day and year first written above. Attest: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, Clerk COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ____________________________ By: _________________________________ , Deputy Clerk Penny Taylor, Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: By:______________________________ Assistant County Attorney WITNESS: COLLIER ENTERPRISES MANAGEMENT, INC. (Signature) ________________________________ By:_______________________________ (Print full name) Printed Name:________________________ Title: _____________________________ (Signature) (Print full name) STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing Stewardship Receiving Area Credit Agreement was executed before me this ____day of ___________, 2021, by means of _____ physical presence or _____ online notarization, by _______________, as _____________ of Collier Enterprises Management, Inc. ___________________________________ Notary Public Print Name__________________________ (SEAL) Certificate No._______________________ My Commissioner Expires__________ 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 1321 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) Page 4 of 16 H:\2019\2019051\SRA\1-25-2021\Bellmar SRA Credit Agreement (1-25-2021).docx WITNESS: COLLIER LAND HOLDINGS, LTD, A Florida limited liability limited partnership By: Collier Enterprises, Inc. a (Signature) Florida Corporation, it’s General Partner ________________________________ By:_______________________________ (Print full name) Printed Name:________________________ Title: _____________________________ (Signature) (Print full name) WITNESS: CDC LAND INVESTMENTS, LLC, A Florida limited liability company (Signature) ________________________________ By:_______________________________ (Print full name) Printed Name:________________________ Title: _____________________________ (Signature) (Print full name) STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing Stewardship Receiving Area Credit Agreement was executed before me this ____day of ___________, 2021, by means of _____ physical presence or _____ online notarization, by _______________, as _____________ of Collier Enterprises, Inc., General Partner of Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. ___________________________________ Notary Public Print Name__________________________ (SEAL) Certificate No._______________________ My Commissioner Expires__________ 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 1322 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) Page 5 of 16 H:\2019\2019051\SRA\1-25-2021\Bellmar SRA Credit Agreement (1-25-2021).docx STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing Stewardship Receiving Area Credit Agreement was executed before me this ____day of ___________, 2021, by means of _____ physical presence or _____ online notarization, by _______________, as _____________ of CDC Land Investments, LLC. ___________________________________ Notary Public Print Name__________________________ (SEAL) Certificate No._______________________ My Commissioner Expires__________ 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 1323 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) Page 6 of 16 H:\2019\2019051\SRA\1-25-2021\Bellmar SRA Credit Agreement (1-25-2021).docx EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF BELLMAR SRA TRACT 1 ALL THAT PART OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF AFORESAID SECTION 3; THENCE N 13°54'05" W ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 3 A DISTANCE OF 1850.80 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY LINE N 76°05'55" E A DISTANCE OF 221.22 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN BEING DESCRIBED; THENCE S 85°59'40" E A DISTANCE OF 167.52 FEET; THENCE S 54°47'00" E A DISTANCE OF 106.93 FEET; THENCE S 35°16'22" E A DISTANCE OF 158.78 FEET; THENCE S 34°01'14" E A DISTANCE OF 140.68 FEET; THENCE S 54°56'59" W A DISTANCE OF 260.23 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON- TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS N 60°25'21" E AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2800.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10°32'46" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 515.39 FEET. CONTAINING A TOTAL AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 2.29 ACRES. REFERENCE ABB DRAWING #12349-SD 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 1324 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) Page 7 of 16 H:\2019\2019051\SRA\1-25-2021\Bellmar SRA Credit Agreement (1-25-2021).docx LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF BELLMAR SRA TRACT 2 ALL THAT PART OF SECTIONS 2, 3, 10 AND 11, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF AFORESAID SECTION 10; THENCE N 82°33'02" E A DISTANCE OF 322.19 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN BEING DESCRIBED; THENCE N 00°21'13" E A DISTANCE OF 169.45 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2800.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 19°16'54" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 942.28 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 3000.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 30°10'40" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 1580.10 FEET; THENCE S 89°19'34" E A DISTANCE OF 172.73 FEET; THENCE N 89°43'37" E A DISTANCE OF 154.09 FEET; THENCE S 89°19'11" E A DISTANCE OF 140.65 FEET; THENCE N 89°25'04" E A DISTANCE OF 144.18 FEET; THENCE S 89°30'11" E A DISTANCE OF 189.08 FEET; THENCE N 88°52'03" E A DISTANCE OF 252.46 FEET; THENCE N 89°30'58" E A DISTANCE OF 226.20 FEET; THENCE S 89°46'36" E A DISTANCE OF 167.61 FEET; THENCE N 86°11'10" E A DISTANCE OF 202.98 FEET; THENCE S 89°18'32" E A DISTANCE OF 184.50 FEET; THENCE N 84°55'17" E A DISTANCE OF 152.81 FEET; THENCE S 79°42'09" E A DISTANCE OF 192.26 FEET; THENCE S 34°12'12" E A DISTANCE OF 110.57 FEET; THENCE S 40°41'18" E A DISTANCE OF 164.41 FEET; THENCE S 58°01'04" E A DISTANCE OF 141.23 FEET; THENCE S 84°38'53" E A DISTANCE OF 208.75 FEET; THENCE N 72°29'42" E A DISTANCE OF 142.93 FEET; THENCE N 62°58'40" E A DISTANCE OF 174.43 FEET; THENCE N 42°06'20" E A DISTANCE OF 124.27 FEET; THENCE N 42°51'18" E A DISTANCE OF 137.02 FEET; THENCE N 81°54'20" E A DISTANCE OF 68.38 FEET; THENCE N 89°20'54" E A DISTANCE OF 253.03 FEET; THENCE S 89°43'14" E A DISTANCE OF 159.63 FEET; THENCE S 87°44'09" E A DISTANCE OF 214.85 FEET; THENCE S 79°46'04" E A DISTANCE OF 131.30 FEET; THENCE S 86°41'26" E A DISTANCE OF 139.13 FEET; THENCE N 87°57'17" E A DISTANCE OF 178.53 FEET; 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 1325 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) Page 8 of 16 H:\2019\2019051\SRA\1-25-2021\Bellmar SRA Credit Agreement (1-25-2021).docx THENCE S 84°24'04" E A DISTANCE OF 111.98 FEET; THENCE N 88°12'24" E A DISTANCE OF 123.18 FEET; THENCE S 76°48'56" E A DISTANCE OF 102.97 FEET; THENCE S 83°28'19" E A DISTANCE OF 160.65 FEET; THENCE N 83°40'14" E A DISTANCE OF 166.34 FEET; THENCE S 85°46'00" E A DISTANCE OF 161.03 FEET; THENCE S 86°47'32" E A DISTANCE OF 166.35 FEET; THENCE S 86°27'23" E A DISTANCE OF 171.83 FEET; THENCE S 84°55'04" E A DISTANCE OF 147.39 FEET; THENCE S 89°06'30" E A DISTANCE OF 203.14 FEET; THENCE N 77°59'16" E A DISTANCE OF 122.56 FEET; THENCE N 07°44'41" E A DISTANCE OF 112.21 FEET; THENCE N 62°41'50" E A DISTANCE OF 68.17 FEET; THENCE S 86°52'38" E A DISTANCE OF 114.46 FEET; THENCE S 84°42'21" E A DISTANCE OF 220.39 FEET; THENCE S 30°01'03" E A DISTANCE OF 76.84 FEET; THENCE S 11°30'06" E A DISTANCE OF 99.31 FEET; THENCE S 13°05'23" E A DISTANCE OF 86.14 FEET; THENCE N 89°14'45" E A DISTANCE OF 147.05 FEET; THENCE N 88°10'06" E A DISTANCE OF 141.00 FEET; THENCE N 88°32'42" E A DISTANCE OF 201.14 FEET; THENCE N 84°46'51" E A DISTANCE OF 177.14 FEET; THENCE N 84°15'16" E A DISTANCE OF 63.07 FEET; THENCE N 83°33'12" E A DISTANCE OF 151.81 FEET; THENCE N 83°19'06" E A DISTANCE OF 129.94 FEET; THENCE N 83°06'44" E A DISTANCE OF 150.95 FEET; THENCE N 77°39'02" E A DISTANCE OF 107.38 FEET; THENCE N 67°59'19" E A DISTANCE OF 121.22 FEET; THENCE N 31°02'49" E A DISTANCE OF 97.77 FEET; THENCE N 01°25'31" E A DISTANCE OF 90.48 FEET; THENCE N 00°33'58" E A DISTANCE OF 60.97 FEET; THENCE N 59°13'49" W A DISTANCE OF 66.55 FEET; THENCE N 71°53'15" W A DISTANCE OF 177.60 FEET; THENCE N 70°31'29" W A DISTANCE OF 158.64 FEET; THENCE N 71°25'24" W A DISTANCE OF 251.25 FEET; THENCE N 72°31'57" W A DISTANCE OF 214.19 FEET; THENCE N 70°45'51" W A DISTANCE OF 199.98 FEET; THENCE N 72°13'00" W A DISTANCE OF 162.93 FEET; THENCE N 72°17'12" W A DISTANCE OF 198.23 FEET; THENCE N 53°05'35" W A DISTANCE OF 39.90 FEET; THENCE N 34°47'10" W A DISTANCE OF 143.37 FEET; THENCE N 83°48'47" W A DISTANCE OF 153.76 FEET; THENCE N 86°08'27" W A DISTANCE OF 139.69 FEET; THENCE N 85°54'58" W A DISTANCE OF 130.89 FEET; THENCE S 89°38'06" W A DISTANCE OF 160.08 FEET; 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 1326 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) Page 9 of 16 H:\2019\2019051\SRA\1-25-2021\Bellmar SRA Credit Agreement (1-25-2021).docx THENCE S 10°46'32" W A DISTANCE OF 201.47 FEET; THENCE S 11°08'56" W A DISTANCE OF 181.72 FEET; THENCE S 10°52'50" W A DISTANCE OF 163.41 FEET; THENCE N 86°07'31" W A DISTANCE OF 193.40 FEET; THENCE N 87°13'41" W A DISTANCE OF 152.57 FEET; THENCE N 85°10'55" W A DISTANCE OF 158.03 FEET; THENCE N 86°18'39" W A DISTANCE OF 210.18 FEET; THENCE N 84°50'09" W A DISTANCE OF 198.86 FEET; THENCE N 03°33'34" W A DISTANCE OF 135.10 FEET; THENCE N 86°46'12" W A DISTANCE OF 160.53 FEET; THENCE N 89°28'44" W A DISTANCE OF 131.94 FEET; THENCE N 89°28'17" W A DISTANCE OF 150.09 FEET; THENCE N 89°41'12" W A DISTANCE OF 204.86 FEET; THENCE N 89°09'31" W A DISTANCE OF 188.75 FEET; THENCE S 89°51'22" W A DISTANCE OF 183.13 FEET; THENCE N 88°54'05" W A DISTANCE OF 156.52 FEET; THENCE N 89°27'01" W A DISTANCE OF 155.84 FEET; THENCE S 60°22'50" W A DISTANCE OF 93.40 FEET; THENCE S 79°53'40" W A DISTANCE OF 51.15 FEET; THENCE N 89°34'18" W A DISTANCE OF 174.79 FEET; THENCE S 89°13'48" W A DISTANCE OF 174.48 FEET; THENCE N 89°36'26" W A DISTANCE OF 274.98 FEET; THENCE S 88°23'06" W A DISTANCE OF 230.81 FEET; THENCE N 89°07'16" W A DISTANCE OF 197.92 FEET; THENCE S 89°59'43" W A DISTANCE OF 179.15 FEET; THENCE S 89°45'52" W A DISTANCE OF 228.41 FEET; THENCE S 89°48'26" W A DISTANCE OF 196.96 FEET; THENCE S 89°32'53" W A DISTANCE OF 202.81 FEET; THENCE S 89°45'41" W A DISTANCE OF 199.57 FEET; THENCE S 88°34'32" W A DISTANCE OF 186.13 FEET; THENCE N 31°19'14" W A DISTANCE OF 85.45 FEET; THENCE N 03°04'23" W A DISTANCE OF 121.05 FEET; THENCE N 00°46'59" W A DISTANCE OF 145.69 FEET; THENCE N 05°49'37" E A DISTANCE OF 91.89 FEET; THENCE N 00°18'49" W A DISTANCE OF 167.92 FEET; THENCE N 04°53'30" W A DISTANCE OF 196.81 FEET; THENCE N 26°07'01" W A DISTANCE OF 113.13 FEET; THENCE N 61°14'43" W A DISTANCE OF 89.70 FEET; THENCE N 73°52'09" W A DISTANCE OF 127.59 FEET; THENCE S 72°48'00" W A DISTANCE OF 152.64 FEET; THENCE S 41°02'30" W A DISTANCE OF 126.40 FEET; THENCE S 19°40'22" W A DISTANCE OF 147.98 FEET; THENCE S 16°45'24" W A DISTANCE OF 105.52 FEET; THENCE S 22°34'50" W A DISTANCE OF 76.94 FEET; THENCE S 49°04'49" W A DISTANCE OF 72.36 FEET; 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 1327 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) Page 10 of 16 H:\2019\2019051\SRA\1-25-2021\Bellmar SRA Credit Agreement (1-25-2021).docx THENCE S 76°45'08" W A DISTANCE OF 99.81 FEET; THENCE S 74°59'41" W A DISTANCE OF 149.27 FEET; THENCE S 77°23'34" W A DISTANCE OF 181.96 FEET; THENCE S 62°42'20" W A DISTANCE OF 176.55 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON- TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS S 64°48'51" W AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 3000.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09°24'00" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 492.19 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2800.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02°57'21" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 144.45 FEET; THENCE N 54°56'59" E A DISTANCE OF 262.18 FEET; THENCE N 61°37'00" E A DISTANCE OF 153.45 FEET; THENCE N 67°43'30" E A DISTANCE OF 109.12 FEET; THENCE N 06°12'36" W A DISTANCE OF 104.06 FEET; THENCE N 67°43'30" E A DISTANCE OF 26.02 FEET; THENCE N 53°45'03" E A DISTANCE OF 28.88 FEET; THENCE S 06°12'36" E A DISTANCE OF 111.32 FEET; THENCE N 67°43'30" E A DISTANCE OF 15.04 FEET; THENCE N 53°45'03" E A DISTANCE OF 228.37 FEET; THENCE N 47°59'02" E A DISTANCE OF 168.56 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON- TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS S 03°01'58" W AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 350.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 06°02'44" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 36.93 FEET; THENCE S 86°59'14" W A DISTANCE OF 119.63 FEET; THENCE N 47°59'02" E A DISTANCE OF 165.50 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON- TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS N 10°03'42" W AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 550.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 19°14'36" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 184.72 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 975.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02°36'30" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 44.39 FEET; THENCE N 41°59'10" E A DISTANCE OF 2.10 FEET; THENCE N 34°21'56" E A DISTANCE OF 292.40 FEET; THENCE N 31°18'43" E A DISTANCE OF 219.90 FEET; THENCE N 33°26'21" E A DISTANCE OF 155.64 FEET; THENCE N 28°29'33" E A DISTANCE OF 167.91 FEET; THENCE N 27°37'30" E A DISTANCE OF 141.19 FEET; THENCE N 21°36'13" E A DISTANCE OF 132.89 FEET; THENCE N 06°57'21" W A DISTANCE OF 110.95 FEET; THENCE N 11°56'43" W A DISTANCE OF 98.96 FEET; THENCE N 00°54'13" W A DISTANCE OF 17.00 FEET; THENCE N 18°32'23" E A DISTANCE OF 31.25 FEET; 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 1328 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) Page 11 of 16 H:\2019\2019051\SRA\1-25-2021\Bellmar SRA Credit Agreement (1-25-2021).docx THENCE N 21°05'05" E A DISTANCE OF 53.52 FEET; THENCE N 22°13'59" E A DISTANCE OF 172.55 FEET; THENCE S 87°41'29" E A DISTANCE OF 97.80 FEET; THENCE N 88°25'28" E A DISTANCE OF 221.06 FEET; THENCE S 80°33'54" E A DISTANCE OF 84.21 FEET; THENCE N 81°09'20" E A DISTANCE OF 251.18 FEET; THENCE N 84°37'12" E A DISTANCE OF 116.76 FEET; THENCE S 79°31'39" E A DISTANCE OF 92.73 FEET; THENCE S 76°13'32" E A DISTANCE OF 44.55 FEET; THENCE S 82°39'06" E A DISTANCE OF 44.01 FEET; THENCE N 80°11'40" E A DISTANCE OF 251.15 FEET; THENCE S 84°03'03" E A DISTANCE OF 502.15 FEET; THENCE S 49°52'58" E A DISTANCE OF 50.53 FEET; THENCE S 19°39'38" E A DISTANCE OF 89.51 FEET; THENCE S 15°29'38" E A DISTANCE OF 80.89 FEET; THENCE S 13°07'03" E A DISTANCE OF 94.09 FEET; THENCE S 09°36'32" E A DISTANCE OF 101.22 FEET; THENCE S 15°16'41" E A DISTANCE OF 84.62 FEET; THENCE S 15°19'24" E A DISTANCE OF 106.87 FEET; THENCE S 20°05'54" E A DISTANCE OF 112.59 FEET; THENCE S 15°18'28" E A DISTANCE OF 158.31 FEET; THENCE S 60°52'00" E A DISTANCE OF 38.92 FEET; THENCE N 85°34'32" E A DISTANCE OF 48.31 FEET; THENCE N 88°43'45" E A DISTANCE OF 69.25 FEET; THENCE N 86°28'05" E A DISTANCE OF 161.06 FEET; THENCE N 89°49'54" E A DISTANCE OF 117.91 FEET; THENCE N 88°27'15" E A DISTANCE OF 65.99 FEET; THENCE N 80°16'39" E A DISTANCE OF 86.44 FEET; THENCE S 89°49'01" E A DISTANCE OF 100.11 FEET; THENCE N 23°20'43" E A DISTANCE OF 51.15 FEET; THENCE N 00°54'15" E A DISTANCE OF 64.40 FEET; THENCE N 02°23'40" E A DISTANCE OF 71.97 FEET; THENCE N 00°17'52" E A DISTANCE OF 106.74 FEET; THENCE N 03°13'18" E A DISTANCE OF 88.35 FEET; THENCE N 05°54'02" E A DISTANCE OF 73.81 FEET; THENCE N 12°20'29" E A DISTANCE OF 41.62 FEET; THENCE N 87°50'05" E A DISTANCE OF 74.00 FEET; THENCE S 89°33'00" E A DISTANCE OF 128.56 FEET; THENCE S 89°46'09" E A DISTANCE OF 156.86 FEET; THENCE S 89°58'44" E A DISTANCE OF 94.37 FEET; THENCE S 88°25'15" E A DISTANCE OF 70.54 FEET; THENCE N 87°53'23" E A DISTANCE OF 90.98 FEET; THENCE S 87°18'08" E A DISTANCE OF 99.58 FEET; THENCE S 87°01'27" E A DISTANCE OF 117.85 FEET; THENCE N 88°12'02" E A DISTANCE OF 74.92 FEET; 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 1329 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) Page 12 of 16 H:\2019\2019051\SRA\1-25-2021\Bellmar SRA Credit Agreement (1-25-2021).docx THENCE S 89°06'49" E A DISTANCE OF 107.45 FEET; THENCE N 88°02'36" E A DISTANCE OF 73.99 FEET; THENCE N 89°30'11" E A DISTANCE OF 78.24 FEET; THENCE S 87°46'14" E A DISTANCE OF 88.31 FEET; THENCE S 88°27'45" E A DISTANCE OF 119.80 FEET; THENCE N 89°52'48" E A DISTANCE OF 87.64 FEET; THENCE S 87°00'19" E A DISTANCE OF 136.22 FEET; THENCE S 89°17'43" E A DISTANCE OF 114.17 FEET; THENCE N 86°38'43" E A DISTANCE OF 74.24 FEET; THENCE S 85°39'56" E A DISTANCE OF 101.82 FEET; THENCE N 88°23'40" E A DISTANCE OF 108.51 FEET; THENCE S 86°13'28" E A DISTANCE OF 113.86 FEET; THENCE N 03°26'05" E A DISTANCE OF 117.49 FEET; THENCE N 07°11'23" E A DISTANCE OF 131.68 FEET; THENCE N 00°27'24" E A DISTANCE OF 90.39 FEET; THENCE N 06°47'11" E A DISTANCE OF 134.47 FEET; THENCE N 06°48'32" E A DISTANCE OF 127.67 FEET; THENCE N 01°30'42" E A DISTANCE OF 132.45 FEET; THENCE N 04°31'31" E A DISTANCE OF 249.35 FEET; THENCE N 05°49'46" E A DISTANCE OF 101.94 FEET; THENCE N 00°07'14" W A DISTANCE OF 96.31 FEET; THENCE N 04°42'00" E A DISTANCE OF 72.04 FEET; THENCE N 04°08'35" E A DISTANCE OF 56.72 FEET; THENCE S 85°27'49" E A DISTANCE OF 1526.33 FEET; THENCE S 02°59'04" W A DISTANCE OF 277.87 FEET; THENCE S 34°37'41" E A DISTANCE OF 518.47 FEET; THENCE S 02°59'04" W A DISTANCE OF 403.17 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 460.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 34°34'55" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 277.64 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 665.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 67°32'13" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 783.86 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 260.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 49°58'25" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 226.77 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 340.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 36°14'50" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 215.10 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 190.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 108°26'10" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 359.59 FEET; THENCE S 86°13'22" E A DISTANCE OF 167.80 FEET; THENCE S 06°20'53" E A DISTANCE OF 137.20 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 500.00 FEET; 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 1330 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) Page 13 of 16 H:\2019\2019051\SRA\1-25-2021\Bellmar SRA Credit Agreement (1-25-2021).docx THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 31°16'32" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 272.93 FEET; THENCE S 37°37'25" E A DISTANCE OF 579.77 FEET; THENCE S 01°44'53" E A DISTANCE OF 577.31 FEET; THENCE S 88°15'07" W A DISTANCE OF 48.28 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON- TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS S 64°09'06" W AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 516.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 81°07'38" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 730.62 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 60.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 68°06'15" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 71.32 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 700.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 22°30'17" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 274.95 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 760.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 24°32'39" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 325.56 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 540.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 31°55'44" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 300.92 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 60.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 45°02'02" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 47.16 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 230.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 56°07'22" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 225.29 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 260.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 35°57'30" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 163.17 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 211.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 33°46'05" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 124.36 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 80.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 52°23'49" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 73.16 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 123.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 118°50'16" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 255.12 FEET; THENCE N 87°35'47" W A DISTANCE OF 381.80 FEET; THENCE S 00°11'17" W A DISTANCE OF 874.65 FEET; THENCE N 68°18'43" W A DISTANCE OF 692.71 FEET; THENCE S 00°51'34" E A DISTANCE OF 9.00 FEET; THENCE N 64°41'55" W A DISTANCE OF 131.83 FEET; THENCE N 59°29'55" W A DISTANCE OF 86.06 FEET; 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 1331 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) Page 14 of 16 H:\2019\2019051\SRA\1-25-2021\Bellmar SRA Credit Agreement (1-25-2021).docx THENCE N 40°21'24" W A DISTANCE OF 44.68 FEET; THENCE N 25°53'08" W A DISTANCE OF 47.93 FEET; THENCE N 14°57'50" W A DISTANCE OF 56.29 FEET; THENCE N 09°48'35" W A DISTANCE OF 60.83 FEET; THENCE N 15°08'34" W A DISTANCE OF 60.04 FEET; THENCE N 66°52'10" W A DISTANCE OF 36.81 FEET; THENCE N 73°02'21" W A DISTANCE OF 78.55 FEET; THENCE N 73°34'45" W A DISTANCE OF 113.59 FEET; THENCE N 72°12'13" W A DISTANCE OF 91.38 FEET; THENCE N 70°38'37" W A DISTANCE OF 89.13 FEET; THENCE N 72°06'41" W A DISTANCE OF 470.03 FEET; THENCE N 71°32'50" W A DISTANCE OF 260.97 FEET; THENCE N 71°55'00" W A DISTANCE OF 166.77 FEET; THENCE N 71°18'03" W A DISTANCE OF 117.15 FEET; THENCE N 72°17'23" W A DISTANCE OF 97.34 FEET; THENCE N 71°15'41" W A DISTANCE OF 119.33 FEET; THENCE N 72°29'30" W A DISTANCE OF 79.23 FEET; THENCE N 71°22'03" W A DISTANCE OF 90.70 FEET; THENCE N 71°25'45" W A DISTANCE OF 102.31 FEET; THENCE N 72°51'34" W A DISTANCE OF 92.34 FEET; THENCE N 74°21'09" W A DISTANCE OF 124.36 FEET; THENCE N 59°48'05" W A DISTANCE OF 85.42 FEET; THENCE N 36°20'36" W A DISTANCE OF 34.69 FEET; THENCE S 78°01'36" W A DISTANCE OF 63.16 FEET; THENCE S 00°13'07" W A DISTANCE OF 84.04 FEET; THENCE S 00°25'18" E A DISTANCE OF 51.71 FEET; THENCE S 00°18'38" W A DISTANCE OF 90.67 FEET; THENCE S 01°31'06" W A DISTANCE OF 65.76 FEET; THENCE S 00°19'38" W A DISTANCE OF 103.03 FEET; THENCE S 00°06'14" W A DISTANCE OF 92.33 FEET; THENCE S 00°30'33" W A DISTANCE OF 213.24 FEET; THENCE S 39°39'17" W A DISTANCE OF 14.24 FEET; THENCE S 89°33'11" W A DISTANCE OF 2490.10 FEET; THENCE N 01°21'28" E A DISTANCE OF 28.73 FEET; THENCE S 89°28'16" W A DISTANCE OF 2438.92 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED. CONTAINING A TOTAL AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 997.45 ACRES. REFERENCE ABB DRAWING #12349-SD 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 1332 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) Page 15 of 16 H:\2019\2019051\SRA\1-25-2021\Bellmar SRA Credit Agreement (1-25-2021).docx SRA CREDIT AGREEMENT EXHIBIT “B” 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 1333Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village Page 16 of 16 H:\2019\2019051\SRA\1-25-2021\Bellmar SRA Credit Agreement (1-25-2021).docx SRA CREDIT AGREEMENT EXHIBIT “C” Land Use Summary Use Density or Intensity Residential Up to 2,750 Dwelling Units Neighborhood Commercial Min. 68,750 and Max. 85,000 square feet Civic, Governmental, Institutional Min. 27,500 square feet • Bellmar Village SRA contains 999.74± acres. • Bellmar Village contains a minimum of 28.31 acres of active and passive parks and community green space, including 14.86 acres of amenity center sites and 13.45 acres of parks and park preserves, exceeding the required minimum of 1 percent of the SRA gross acreage, (10 acres). Bellmar Village includes 0 acres of lands with a natural Resource Index greater than 1.2. • Bellmar Village provides 506.90± acres of open spaces (50.70± percent) of Open Space, 156.99 acres above the RLSA 35% requirement for Open Space. • Total acreage requiring stewardship credits is 842.75 acres (total Village acreage excluding open space exceeding 35%). • At required 8 Stewardship Credits per acre, 6,742 Stewardship Credits are required. • Bellmar Village SRA does not include lands within ACSC Overlay. • Bellmar Village SRA does not include, lands designated Flowway Stewardship Area (FSA), or Habitat Stewardship Area (HSA). A portion of the SRA eastern perimeter boundary is adjacent to lands designated HAS. • Bellmar Village does not include any lands designated Water Retention Area (WRA). 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 1334 Attachment: Attachment A Resolution-bellmar proposed 1-26-21 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) ‒ 1 ‒ PL20190001837 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: James Sabo, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section From: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section Date: December 4, 2020 Subject: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review of Proposed Stewardship Receiving Area PETITION NUMBER: SRA PL20190001837 Review of Submittal 6 PETITION NAME: Bellmar Village SRA NOTE: This Consistency Review is based on a number of submitted documents including: SRA document, narrative, deviations, and Master Plans that were submitted on 11-13-20. REQUEST: This petition seeks to establish a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) known as Bellmar Village on a ±999.74-acre site in accordance with provisions of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSAO), as contained in the Collier County Growth Management Plan’s Future Land Use Element and the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). The SRA Development Document states the Village contains two distinct Context Zones: Neighborhood General and mixed use Village Center. The SRA Development Document Overview states that the Village includes primarily a residential community (of ±976.11 acres) and a ±23.63- acre mixed-use Village Center which will provide neighborhood-scaled retail, office, civic and community uses. The residential portion will include a maximum of 2,750 dwelling units, with no fewer than 275 multi- family dwelling units (required 10%), up to 85,000 Square Feet (sq. ft.) of retail/office uses [the minimum sq. ft. proposed is 68,750 sq. ft. within the village center]. The Economic Assessment used the following development assumptions: • total condo, duplex, single-family attached = 1,160 units • total single family < 4,000 sq. ft. = 1,590 units • non-residential 50,001 – 100,000 sq. ft. = 85,000 sq. ft. of retail/office uses • neighborhood civic = 27,500 sq. ft. of civic, government and institutional uses The Project Narrative & Statement of Compliance states that the 35% Open Space requirement for an SRA (which is ±349.91 acres) will be met and exceeded. The Master Plan shows a total of ±507.66 acres of Open Space (including a % of road ROW, % of Amenity Centers, % of Village center, % of lakes, % of lake maintenance easement, % of neighborhood general, % of perimeter buffers, and % of utility easement) which totals approximately 157.75 acres over the requirement. The Open Space totals listed on the Master Plan include 4.64 acres of the 15.4 acres for amenity centers will be open space. The Project Narrative & Statement of Compliance states there is to be a minimum of 10 acres for Parks & Community Green Space (1%). There is a Developer Commitment for only one children’s playground with a minimum of 2,500 sq. ft. The location of this playground is to be identified at the time of subdivision platting or SDP. LOCATION: The ±999.74-acre property is located approximately 4 miles south of Oil Well Road, and approximately 1/3 mile east of DeSoto Blvd. (lying between 4th Ave. NE and 6th Ave. SE); and lies within Sections 2, 3, 10, and 11, Township 49 South, Range 28 East. 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 1335 Attachment: Attachment B Bellmar Consistency Review Mem (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) ‒ 2 ‒ PL20190001837 SRA COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: 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). The proposed Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) site is zoned A-MHO-RLSAO, Rural Agricultural within the Mobile Home Overlay and Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay. Lands to the north are zoned A-MHO-RLSAO and contain Water Retention Area (WRA) and Open, and the SSA 17 and the SSA 15 to the north; lands to the east are zoned A- MHO-RLSAO and contain Habitat Stewardship Area (HAS), WRA, and Open, and SSA 6; lands to the south is zoned A-MHO-RLSAO and contain WRA and HSA and Flowway Stewardship Area (FSA) on the RLSAO’s Stewardship Overlay Map in the FLUE; lands to the west are zoned A-MHO-RLSAO and contain Open and abut the proposed future Big Cypress Parkway right-of-way and a channel relocation; and, further to the west, lands are zoned Estates and designated Estates on the Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. Owners of property within the RLSAO may develop their property under the baseline conditions - agriculture and related uses, essential services, residential at a maximum density of 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres, parks and open space, earth mining, etc. – or 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 and the RLSA zoning Overlay in the LDC. 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 - also referred to as the LDC Stewardship District. RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA POLICIES AND PROVISIONS AND GENERAL OBSERVATIONS: The GMP together with the LDC are used in determining the consistency of the request. To determine consistency with the more-general Policies and provisions of the FLUE’s RLSAO, the specific policies and provisions of the RLSA zoning overlay found in the LDC are taken into consideration. Within the RLSAO, the conversion of rural and agricultural lands to urban villages, new towns and satellite communities is based on area-based allocations, clustering and open space provisions, mixed-use development, and other planning strategies and techniques, 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 RLSAO 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 Bellmar Village SRA development using the Rural Land Stewardship Credit System, as provided for under RLSAO Policy 1.4 in the FLUE. 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 approved SSAs). The SRA procedures and standards are outlined in Section 4.08.07 of the LDC. Specifically, the SSAs to be used to enable the project to proceed as an SRA are subject to County review and approval at the SRA submittal stage. The SSA documents submitted for review include the Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) Credit Use and Reconciliation Application (draft uploaded 11/14/2019) for SSA no.18 and are under review from the Office of the Collier 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 1336 Attachment: Attachment B Bellmar Consistency Review Mem (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) ‒ 3 ‒ PL20190001837 SRA County Attorney to determine whether they have been reconciled, updated and may be found internally consistent with other proposed SRA materials. All SSAs must be approved and Stewardship Credits submitted before or concurrent with this SRA. This SRA must meet the Collier County RSLA Overlay Stewardship Receiving Area Characteristics as identified for Villages 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 bold italics]. Underlined uses in the table are not required uses. Typical Characteristics Village Size (Gross Acres) 100 ‒ 1,000 acres; [The SRA is ±999.74 acres total.] Residential Units (DUs) per gross acre base density 1 ‒ 4 DUs per gross acre; [2,750 DU/ ±999.74 acres = ±2.75 DU/A proposed in the SRA. The acreage that are receiving credits is 841.99ac and that density calculates to 3.266 DU/A] Residential Housing Styles Diversity of single-family and multi-family housing types, styles, lot sizes; [According to the SRA Development Document, the SRA includes a maximum of 2,750 DUs, with no fewer than 275 multi- family dwelling units (10% of DUs). According to the Neighborhood General Development and Design Standards, the other 2475 SF DUs can vary in DU types allowed, e.g. zero lot line, SF detached and attached, villas, townhomes, etc. Lot sizes vary also.] Staff hopes to see a mix of housing types more reflective of the housing types mentioned in the Economic Assessment including condo, duplex, single-family attached and single family detached. The Economic Assessment’s Development Assumptions proposed a mix between single family and multi-family housing with 58% single family and 42% multi-family, which is similar to the countywide ratio and very different from the proposed SRA ratio.] Maximum Floor Area Ratio or Intensity Retail and Office ‒ 0.5; [The Village Center Development and Design Standards Table states a minimum of 800 sq. ft. for commercial units.] Civic/Governmental/Institution ‒ 0.6; [These uses are provided for in the mixed-use Village Center.] Group Housing ‒ 0.45; [not required – ALFs (Adult Living Facility) and CCRCs (Continuing Care Retirement Community) proposed (with residential equivalency ratio).] 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; [2,750 DUs x 25 sq. ft./DU = 68,750 sq. ft. required. The SRA allows 68,750 to 85,000 sq. ft. of all commercial uses. No provisions are in place to ensure the minimum neighborhood scale goods and services in village center are provided however.] Water and Wastewater Centralized or decentralized community treatment system; [Served by centralized County facilities.] Interim Well and Septic; [not required – not proposed.] Recreation and Open Spaces Parks and Public Green Spaces within Neighborhoods (minimum 1% of gross acres); [10.0 acres are required (999.74 acres x 1%), and 11.32 acres are to be provided as stated on page 3 of the Project Narrative and Statement of Compliance. However, in the Development Commitments of the SRA Document there is no 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 1337 Attachment: Attachment B Bellmar Consistency Review Mem (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) ‒ 4 ‒ PL20190001837 SRA commitment to provide the 11.32 acres for parks only a commitment to provide a 2,500 sq. ft. children’s playground. Locations are shown on the Master Plan, Exhibit A. Approximately 26.79 ac of active and passive parks and community green space is provided.] Active Recreation/Golf Courses; [not required – not provided.] Lakes; [provided, covering more than ±283 acres.] Open Space – minimum 35% of SRA; [±350 acres of Recreation and Open Spaces required, ±511 acres provided.] Civic, Governmental and Institutional Services Moderate Range of Services ‒ minimum 10 sq. ft./DU; [27,500 sq. ft. required (2,750 DUs x 10 sq. ft./DU); 27,500 sq. ft. proposed. No provisions are in place to ensure the minimum services are provided however.] Full Range of Schools; [not required – not proposed. School sites not set aside, improved, and/or dedicated for public use in the Village.] Transportation Auto-interconnected system of collector and local roads; required connection to collector or arterial; [a central roadway will loop through the entire residential village acting as the main connecting thoroughfare; loop will connect in two places to the future north- south thoroughfare of Big Cypress Parkway. A mostly-grid system of local streets is provided.] Interconnected sidewalk and pathway system; [will be provided.] Equestrian Trails; [not required – not proposed.] County Transit Access; [not required – not proposed.] The relevant RLSAO Policies (Group 4 Policies) are listed below, followed by staff comments/analysis [in italics]. 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. Policy 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 the establishment of a Stewardship Receiving Area (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 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 1338 Attachment: Attachment B Bellmar Consistency Review Mem (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) ‒ 5 ‒ PL20190001837 SRA 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 many of the other standards described in RLSA Overlay Group 4 Policies. The subject site is designated on the RLSA Overlay Map as eligible for SRA designation (“Open”). The site is not within the ACSC.] Policy 4.3: Land becomes designated as a SRA upon petition by a property owner to Colli er 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, and assurance that the applicant has acquired or will acquire sufficient Stewardship Credits to implement the SRA uses. The County has adopted LDC amendments to establish the procedures and submittal requirements for designation as a SRA, providing for consideration of impacts, including environmental and public infrastructure impacts, and for public notice of and the opportunity for public participation in any consideration by the BCC of such a designation. [The petitioner has submitted the required SRA application along with an SRA Master Plan as described in Policy 4.5.] 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 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 intended to demonstrate the SRA complies with the applicable policies of the Overlay and the LDC Stewardship District. Matters of compliance and 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 Zoning Services Section, Comprehensive Planning Section, and other sections and divisions of the Growth Management Department. Matters of noncompliance with the LDC Stewardship District may also be 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 [FLUE] 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 [FLUE] Attachment C. The maximum base residential density as set forth in [FLUE] Attachment C may only be exceeded through the density blendin g 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 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 1339 Attachment: Attachment B Bellmar Consistency Review Mem (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) ‒ 6 ‒ PL20190001837 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 size, density, and uses are consistent with those set forth on [FLUE] Attachment C, Stewardship Receiving Area Characteristics, for a Village.] Policy 4.7.1 does not apply to this application. Policy 4.7.2: 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 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 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. [This SRA is primarily a residential development and allows multiple DU types. A mix of uses are allowed – residential, recreational, civic/institutional, and commercial. The site comprises ±999.74 acres. Open space is provided throughout the SRA. The Village Center allows a mix of uses – multi-family dwelling units; a variety of commercial uses (minimum of 68,750 sq. ft. required); and, civic, institutional and governmental uses (minimum of 27,5000 sq. ft. required). Policy 4.7.2 refers to directions in Policy 4.15.1 provides, where one would expect smaller Villages (nearer 100 acres) to represent the lower end of the scale for diversity of housing types styles, [and] lot sizes, and mix of uses; while larger Villages (nearer 1,000 acres) would be expected to provide the greatest diversity of housing types styles, [and] lot sizes, and fullest range of uses – much in the same way the store with more floor area would provide a bigger variety of merchandise. Although the Economic Assessment, Development Assumption, Table 1, indicates a mix of housing of 1,590 single family with 1,160 DUs of Condo, Duplex, and Single Family attached creating a single family to multifamily ratio of 58%/42%. However, the proposed ratio committed to in the SRA Document is 90%/10% as compared to the countywide ratio of 50%/45% (remaining DUs are mobile homes, etc.) – thus there is a disconnect between the DU mix assumed vs. that which is required/committed to; staff would prefer to see a more meaningful mix, more like the ratio shown in the Economic Assessment assumptions.] 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 contiguous to lands designated HSA and WRA. The project abuts WRA land uses (lakes and road rights-of-way) that are “Preserve/Reservoir WRA (not within SRA)” according to Exhibit A Master Plan or calculated as project open space. The Master Plan does note HSA setbacks. FSA designated land is not contiguous to the SRA.] 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 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 1340 Attachment: Attachment B Bellmar Consistency Review Mem (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) ‒ 7 ‒ PL20190001837 SRA wetlands and critical habitat, residential, commercial, manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, and 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. 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 SRA does not include any lands designated FSA, HSA or WRA, and there are no lands in SRA with an NRI score of >1.2.] 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 [open space] 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 by over 157.75 acres. Approximately 349 acres are required (±999.74 acres x 35%), and additional acres are provided. All 999.74 acres have an NRI Value of less than 1.2 in the Bellmar SRA Natural Resource Index Values.] 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 us ed 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. [All perimeter lands not abutting the future Big Cypress Parkway are planned to contain road rights-of-way, lakes or perimeter buffers. Comprehensive Planning staff 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 an 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 is contiguous to lands designated HSA and WRA. The SRA is not contiguous to existing public or private conservation lands delineated on the Overlay Map. The project abuts WRA land uses (lakes and road rights-of-way) that are “Preserve/Reservoir WRA (not within SRA)” according to Exhibit A Master Plan or calculated as project open space. The Master Plan does note HSA setbacks. FSA designated land is not contiguous to the SRA. Staff defers review and comment pertaining to these aspects of the SRA to specialists of the Environmental Planning Section of the County’s Development Review Division regarding impacts upon groundwater, and the water detention and control elevations.] 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 1341 Attachment: Attachment B Bellmar Consistency Review Mem (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) ‒ 8 ‒ PL20190001837 SRA Policy 4.13: Open space within or contiguous to an 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 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 is contiguous to lands designated HSA. The Master Plan notes 300 feet HSA setbacks. FSA designated land is not contiguous to the SRA but is contiguous to abutting HSA designated land. The SRA is not contiguous to existing public or private conservation lands delineated on the Overlay Map.] 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. [Access is via the future Big Cypress Parkway, a future collector roadway. Capacity analysis is deferred to Transportation Planning Section staff. Concurrency is determined at the time of subsequent development orders. This SRA project is just one of several similar proposals, with its application materials templated upon, other SRA or SRA applications. Comprehensive Planning staff also asks that Transportation Planning Section give consideration to the cumulative effects or demands of these SRAs, rather than considering each one individually.] 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 [FLUE] 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 minimum amount of non-residential uses in each category are set forth in [FLUE] Attachment C and shall be also included in the Stewardship LDC District. [This SRA includes mixed uses – residential, civic/institutional, recreational, and commercial uses similar to those in the LDC’s C-3, Commercial Intermediate, zoning district.] 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. [No acreage exceeding the minimum acreage is proposed for “public benefit use.” In the Developer Commitments a single 2,500 sq. ft. children’s playground is to be provided. Open space is provided in excess 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 1342 Attachment: Attachment B Bellmar Consistency Review Mem (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) ‒ 9 ‒ PL20190001837 SRA of that required by 161 acres. Collier County Public Schools is working on a Developer Contribution Agreement, according to the Economic Assessment.] Policy 4.15.3: Applicants for SRA designation shall coordinate with Collier County School Board 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. School sites are not set aside, improved, and/or dedicated for public use in the development. The Public Facilities Report projects 670 new students to be generated from the 2,750 residences [4,175 permanent / 5,683 seasonal residents]. This overall student figure is allocated to the number of school -aged children for each type of school impacted (elementary - 305, middle - 148, high school - 217.) Staff defers review and comment on the adequacy and accuracy of data submitted with this application to School District personnel – which did not identify a need for a school site in this SRA.] 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 form of SRA development, accepted civil engineering practices, and LDC requirements. The capacity of infrastructure necessary to serve the SRA at build-out must be demonstrated during the SRA designation process. Infrastructure to be analyzed includes transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrig ation 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 Towns, Villages, and those CRDs exceeding one hundred (100) acres in size and may be required in CRDs that are one hundred (100) acres or less in size, depending upon the permitted uses approved within the CRD. 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 Town, 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. [According to the Public Services Report, the demand for potable water will be approximately 1.14 million gallons per day (average) and 1.66 million gallons per day (on a maximum monthly basis). Sanitary sewers must be designed to accommodate approximately 0.727 million gallons per day (average) and 1.091 million gallons per day (3-day maximum). Adequate infrastructure to develop the project is planned with centralized water supply facilities and wastewater collection and treatment services provided by Collier County. The application included a discussion of potential for reclaimed water for irrigation in the Public Services Report.] 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 1343 Attachment: Attachment B Bellmar Consistency Review Mem (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) ‒ 10 ‒ PL20190001837 SRA 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 an 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 of the CIE. Staff defers to the departments and agencies involved directly with Concurrency Management – for which review occurs at time of subsequent development order. The necessary information to evaluate the impacts on Category A is provided with the Public Facilities Report. This SRA project is just one of several similar proposals, with its application materials templated upon, other SRA or SRA applications. Comprehensive Planning staff also ask that the departments and agencies involved directly with Concurrency Management give consideration to the cumulative effects or demands of these SRAs, rather than considering each only individually.] 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. The BCC may grant exceptions to this Policy to accommodate affordable housing, as it deems appropriate. 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 development will be fiscally neutral to Collier County in the analysis provided in the Economic Assessment Report. Staff defers to the other County staff involved in the review of the Economic Assessment Report. However, staff notes there appears to be a disconnect between the DU mix assumptions in the EA Report vs. that which is required/committed to in the SRA document.] Policy 4.19: Eight (8) 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 a nd are supportive to the residential population of a SRA, as provided for in [FLUE] Policies 4.7, 4.15 and [FLUE] Attachment C. Such uses shall be identified, located and quantified in the SRA master plan. [The proposed SRA comprises ±999.74 acres; of those, ±841.99 acres require ±6,735.92 credits – 157.75 acres are for open space and do not require credits, and this 1:8 ratio is met. (see Policy 4.3 comments).] 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 [FLUE] 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, 163.3177 F.S. and in a manner consistent with 235.193 F.S. Schools and related ancillary uses shall be encouraged to locate in or proximate to Towns, Villages, and Hamlets subject to applicable zoning and permitting requirements. 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 1344 Attachment: Attachment B Bellmar Consistency Review Mem (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) ‒ 11 ‒ PL20190001837 SRA [The Master Plan does not show any acreage set aside for public benefit. However, in the SRA’s Developer Commitments it lists the 2500 sq. ft. for a playground, which is for public benefit.] Policy 4.21 does not apply, as this site is not within the ACSC, Area of Critical State Concern. Review of select FLUE Policies (followed by staff analysis in [italics]): 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 leaves this determination to the Zoning Services staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety, giving special consideration to the specific policies and provisions of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay District in the LDC. The compatibility analysis is encouraged to be comprehensive and include reviews 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. Like the subject property, surrounding or nearby properties are under review for SRAs or eligible for future SRAs; these may be viewed as an interrelated set of projects, each of which affects the others.] The County recognizes Smart Growth policies and practices in its consideration of future land use arrangements and choice-making options. FLUE Objective 7 and Policies 7.1 through 7.4 promote Smart Growth policies for new development and redevelopment projects pertaining to access, interconnections, open space, and walkable communities. Objective 7: Promote smart growth policies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and adhere to the existing development character of the Collier County, where applicable, and as follows: Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. [This property will front on the future N‒S Big Cypress Parkway, classified as a future collector road in the Transportation Element. The SRA is designed to have two access points where the village east-west loop road intersects with the future Big Cypress Parkway along the western edge of the project.] Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. [The Master Plan indicates a three-sided loop road that runs through the residential area and the village center tract. The project is proposed as a Village. The loop road acts as a connector road through the entire village. There is currently no connection between the proposed village and existing county roads.] 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 in terconnection of local streets between developments is also addressed in Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element. [This property fronts the future N‒S Big Cypress Parkway, classified as a future collector road in the Transportation Element, along the western edge of Bellmar. The proposed SRA is located south of the proposed Longwater Village. No interconnection is proposed between the two projects. Staff recommends interconnection be provided to the proposed Longwater Village to the northeast via the Open area to the N-NW and abutting the NE corner of this Bellmar Village SRA.] 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 1345 Attachment: Attachment B Bellmar Consistency Review Mem (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) ‒ 12 ‒ PL20190001837 SRA Policy 7.4: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. [This SRA provides for different dwelling unit types and sizes, open space, and civic/institutional/government facilities. A deviation is being requested to allow a 10’ sidewalk or multi-use pathway on one-side of the street only wherever there are houses on one side of the street only; as with other previous petitions, staff has no objection.] CONCLUSIONS: 1. The size and base density indicated in the Bellmar Village SRA Development Document (dated 8/31/2020) are consistent with those set forth on [FLUE] Attachment C of the FLUE (requirements of the RLSAO). 2. In the SRA document VIII Developer/Owner Commitments, Section 8.3 Transportation C., the applicant states “No more than 1,925 dwelling units will be issued certificates of occupancy until a minimum of 30,000 sq. ft. of the neighborhood retail and office uses have been developed and issued certificate (s) of occupancy.” cc: Anita Jenkins, Director, Zoning Division Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager, Zoning Services 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 1346 Attachment: Attachment B Bellmar Consistency Review Mem (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 1347 Attachment: Attachment C Bellmar Interlocal Agreement Water Sewer - CAO stamped (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 1348 Attachment: Attachment C Bellmar Interlocal Agreement Water Sewer - CAO stamped (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 1349 Attachment: Attachment C Bellmar Interlocal Agreement Water Sewer - CAO stamped (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 1350 Attachment: Attachment C Bellmar Interlocal Agreement Water Sewer - CAO stamped (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 1351 Attachment: Attachment C Bellmar Interlocal Agreement Water Sewer - CAO stamped (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.dPacket Pg. 1352Attachment: Attachment C Bellmar Interlocal Agreement Water Sewer - CAO stamped (14883 : 9.A.2.dPacket Pg. 1353Attachment: Attachment C Bellmar Interlocal Agreement Water Sewer - CAO stamped (14883 : Collier Enterprises Villages – Public Utilities Transmission Main Connectivity Plan 3/10/2020 Rivergrass POC 1/1 Future Randall Blvd. Mains 41st Ave. Mains Under Construction Longwater Connector Mains Longwater Connector Mains Bellmar Connector Mains Future Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension Longwater POC 1/2 Longwater POC 2/2 Booster Pump Station Site for Bellmar RLW South Extent Bellmar POC 1/1 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 1354 Attachment: Attachment C-1 - Collier Villages connectivity plan (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) Bellmar Village SRA Economic Assessment Collier County Collier County Schools North Collier Fire & Rescue District Initial Submission: November 11, 2019 Revised: March 11, 2020 Roads Emergency Medical Services Water and Wastewater North Collier Fire & Rescue Revised: June 3, 2020 Revised: August 19, 2020 Revised: November 12, 2020 Roads Revised: January 8, 2021 Roads Water and Wastewater – Narrative Only Schools – Narrative Only Prepared By: 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 1355 Attachment: Attachment D Bellmar SRA Econ Assess 2020.01.08 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 2 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 4 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 6 METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................................. 6 MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS .................................................................................................................... 8 Development Assumptions ......................................................................................................... 8 Revenue Assumptions ................................................................................................................. 9 Sales, Just, and Taxable Values ................................................................................................ 9 Property Taxes ....................................................................................................................... 10 Expenditure Assumptions ......................................................................................................... 10 COLLIER COUNTY FISCAL IMPACTS ............................................................................................... 10 Collier County Operating Impacts ............................................................................................. 10 Collier County Operating Revenue Projections ......................................................................... 11 Collier County Operating Expenditure Projections ................................................................... 11 Collier County Capital Impacts .................................................................................................. 13 Collier County Capital Impacts by Department ..................................................................... 13 NORTH COLLIER FIRE & RESCUE DISTRICT .................................................................................... 29 North Collier Fire & Rescue District Capital Impacts ................................................................. 29 North Collier Fire & Rescue District Annual Operating Impacts ............................................... 29 COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOLS FISCAL IMPACT ................................................................................. 30 Collier County Schools Capital Impacts ..................................................................................... 30 Collier County Schools Operating Impacts ................................................................................ 32 APPENDIX ...................................................................................................................................... 35 GENERAL LIMITING CONDITIONS.................................................................................................. 51 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 1356 Attachment: Attachment D Bellmar SRA Econ Assess 2020.01.08 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 3 Table 1: Bellmar Development Program ........................................................................................ 8 Table 2: Bellmar Residential Sales, Just, and Taxable Values ........................................................ 9 Table 3: Bellmar Nonresidential Sales, Just, and Taxable Values .................................................. 9 Table 4: Bellmar County Tax Base at Buildout ............................................................................. 10 Table 5: Collier County Millage Rates .......................................................................................... 10 Table 6: Bellmar Operating Annual Net Impact at Buildout ........................................................ 11 Table 7: Bellmar Annual Operating Revenue Projections ............................................................ 11 Table 8: Bellmar Annual Operating Expenditure Projections ...................................................... 12 Table 9: Bellmar Impact Fee Revenue for Collier County ............................................................ 14 Table 10: Bellmar Law Enforcement Capital Impacts .................................................................. 17 Table 11: Bellmar Law Enforcement Level of Service .................................................................. 17 Table 12: Bellmar Law Enforcement Equipment Cost per Certified Police Officer ..................... 18 Table 13: Bellmar Correctional Facilities ..................................................................................... 18 Table 14: Bellmar Correctional Facilities Capital Cost ................................................................. 19 Table 15: Bellmar Correctional Facilities Indexed Cost per Resident .......................................... 19 Table 16: Bellmar Allocation of New EMS Station Cost ............................................................... 20 Table 17: Bellmar EMS Capital Cost ............................................................................................. 20 Table 18: Bellmar Regional Parks Capital Impacts ....................................................................... 21 Table 19: Bellmar Regional Parks Level of Service ....................................................................... 21 Table 20: Bellmar Regional Parks Indexed Capital Cost per Acre ................................................ 21 Table 21: Bellmar Community Parks Capital Impacts .................................................................. 22 Table 22: Bellmar Community Parks Level of Service .................................................................. 22 Table 23: Bellmar Community Parks Indexed Capital Cost per Acre ........................................... 22 Table 24: Bellmar Libraries Capital Impacts ................................................................................. 23 Table 25: Bellmar Library Facilities Level of Service .................................................................... 23 Table 26: Bellmar General Government Capital Impacts ............................................................ 24 Table 27: Bellmar General Government Capital Cost .................................................................. 24 Table 28: Bellmar North Collier Fire & Rescue District Capital Impacts ...................................... 29 Table 29: Bellmar North Collier Fire & Rescue District Impact Fee Revenues ............................ 29 Table 30: Bellmar North Collier Fire & Rescue District Annual Operating Impacts at Buildout .. 30 Table 31: Bellmar Projected Public School Enrollmen t ............................................................... 30 Table 32: Bellmar Projected Enrollment by School Type ............................................................. 30 Table 33: Bellmar School Capital Costs ........................................................................................ 31 Table 34: Bellmar School Impact Fee Revenue ............................................................................ 31 Table 35: Bellmar School Net Capital Impacts – Total Cash Flow Approach ............................... 32 Table 36: Bellmar Local Ad Valorem School Operating Taxes at Buildout .................................. 34 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 1357 Attachment: Attachment D Bellmar SRA Econ Assess 2020.01.08 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Collier Enterprises Management, Inc. is proposing the establishment of a Stewardship Receiving Area (“SRA”) on a site less than 1,000 acres in site in eastern Collier County. The proposed SRA, Bellmar Village (“Bellmar” or “Village”), is located east of Desoto Boulevard and south of Golden Gate Boulevard. In accordance with the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (“RLSA”) Overlay definition of a Village, Bellmar is primarily a residential community which includes a diversity of housing types and a maximum of 2,750 dwelling units. The Village concept plan includes 85,000 square feet of commercial uses and 27,500 square feet of neighborhood civic space. The proposed Village is within the service area of a new County EMS facility planned for the corner of DeSoto Boulevard South and Golden Gate Boulevard East. The site for the new facility was recently purchased by Collier County. As reflected in the table below, Bellmar 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, as required by LDC. Summary Table 1: Bellmar Village Fiscal Highlights Bellmar SRA Fiscal Highlights At Buildout At Buildout Collier County:Countywide MSTU Bellmar SRA Ad Valorem Tax Base 906,775,000$ 906,775,000$ Bellmar SRA Net Annual Fiscal Benefit Countywide MSTU Bellmar SRA Total Annual Operating Revenues 4,411,000$ 821,000$ Bellmar SRA Total Annual Operating Expenditures 3,239,000 518,000 Bellmar SRA Total Annual Net Operating Surplus 1,172,000$ 303,000$ North Collier Fire Rescue District:Fire District Bellmar SRA Annual Ad Valorem Tax Revenues*3,400,000$ Bellmar SRA Total Annual Operating Expenditures 1,500,000 Bellmar SRA Total Annual Net Operating Surplus 1,900,000$ Collier County Schools:School District Bellmar SRA Ad Valorem Tax Base 942,000,000$ Bellmar SRA Net Fiscal Benefit:Annual Operating**Total Capital Annual Ad Valorem Operating/Total Capital Revenues 3,375,000$ 46,197,000$ Annual Ad Valorem Operating/Total Capital Expenditures 3,375,000 46,197,000 Annual Ad Valorem Operating/Total Capital Surplus -$ -$ Bellmar SRA Annual Ad Valorem Tax Revenues: At Buildout Collier County 3,232,000$ Collier County MSTU 732,000 North Collier Fire Rescue District 3,400,000 Collier County Schools - Ad Valorem Operating*3,375,000 Collier County Schools - Capital Improvement*1,413,000 Total Bellmar SRA Annual Ad Valorem Tax Revenues 12,152,000$ 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 1358 Attachment: Attachment D Bellmar SRA Econ Assess 2020.01.08 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 5 *Based on FY 2020 operating millage for the North Collier Fire & Rescue District and the FY 2020 millage rates for the Collier School District. ** The Florida Legislature sets the majority of school district operating revenues through statewide equalization formulas. Source: DPFG, 2021 As demonstrated in this report, DPFG concludes that the proposed Bellmar Village is fiscally positive for the North Collier Fire & Rescue District, and fiscally neutral, as defined, for Collier County and the Collier County School District. Summary Table 2: Bellmar Village Net Fiscal Impact Conclusions per Taxing Authority Source: DPFG, 2020 Impact Fee and Fair Share Mitigation Revenue: Impact Fee Revenue Fair Share Mitigation Impact Fee Revenue, Fair Share Mitigation and Contribution Community Parks 2,013,000$ -$ 2,013,000$ Regional Parks 5,711,000 - 5,711,000 Roads 18,767,000 2,221,800 20,988,800 EMS 320,000 - 320,000 Government Buildings 2,109,000 - 2,109,000 Libraries 719,000 - 719,000 Law Enforcement 1,342,000 - 1,342,000 Jail 1,153,000 - 1,153,000 Water - Residential Only 7,046,000 - 7,046,000 Wastewater - Residential Only 7,428,000 - 7,428,000 Total Collier County Impact Fees 46,608,000$ 2,221,800$ 48,829,800$ Collier County Schools 17,274,000$ -$ 17,274,000$ North Collier Fire & Rescue 1,515,000 - 1,515,000 Total Impact Fee Revenue 65,397,000$ 2,221,800$ 67,618,800$ Jurisdiction Net Fiscal Jurisdiction Net Fiscal Collier County Collier County Annual Operations:Annual Operations and Capital: General Funds Grouping Positive Water Neutral MSTU Positive Wastewater Neutral Capital:Capital and Operations: Regional and Community Parks Positive Solid Waste Neutral Roads Neutral Stormwater Neutral EMS Neutral North Collier Fire & Rescue Government Buildings Neutral Annual Operations Positive Libraries Positive Capital Positive Law Enforcement Neutral Collier County Schools Jail Neutral Annual Operations*Neutral Capital Neutral * The Florida Legislature sets the majority of school district operating revenues through statewide equalization formulas. 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 1359 Attachment: Attachment D Bellmar SRA Econ Assess 2020.01.08 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 6 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 buildout. 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. In accordance with the RLSA Overlay definition of a Village, Bellmar is primarily a residential community and includes a diversity of housing types and a maximum of 2,750 dwelling units. The proposed Village Center provides for the required neighborhood-scaled retail, office, civic, and community uses. The SRA is designed to encourage pedestrian/bicycle circulation via 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. Development Planning & Financing Group, Inc. (“DPFG”) was retained to prepare an Economic Assessment for the Bellmar Village SRA. This report provides complete and transparent support for the methodology, assumptions, and calculations applied to demonstrate fiscal neutrality for the Bellmar Village SRA for Collier County (“County”), the North Collier Fire & Rescue District, and the Collier County School District (“School District”). 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 gather detailed information about the existing capacity within public services and infrastructure to accommodate 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.2.f Packet Pg. 1360 Attachment: Attachment D Bellmar SRA Econ Assess 2020.01.08 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 7 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 com munity such as a utility plant or an entertainment center. The fiscal impact analysis of Bellmar Village 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 housing unit by product type and square feet per employee for the nonresidential land uses were obtained from the County’s 2016 Emergency Medical Services Impact Fee Update, the most recently published source (see Appendix).2 The analysis includes the following general funds:3 (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 & Rescue District, and the Collier County School District. The FY 2019 budget4 of the County and the FY 2020 budgets for the North Collier Fire & Rescue District 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 2 Impact fee updates for Parks and Recreation, Correctional Facilities, Transportation, and Schools are currently underway. 3 Collier County considers this listing of general funds as the “General Fund Grouping.” 4 The County’s FY 2020 full budget document was not available when this report was prepared. The document is typically published in January. The FY 2020 millage rate did not change from the rate adopted for FY 2019. 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 1361 Attachment: Attachment D Bellmar SRA Econ Assess 2020.01.08 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 8 independent studies. Public utilities generally benefit from economies of scale (i.e. more customers) since rate structures are dependent upon recovering fixed infrastructure costs. Based on pre-Application discussions with County staff, the County accepts the methodology described in this report and applied in previous Economic Assessment reports prepared by DPFG. In particular, the County accepts the preparation of the analysis at the year of buildout (or horizon year) under a snapshot approach which reflects the intended land uses of the project as a whole. In addition, there are no monitoring requirements with respect to the fiscal impact of an SRA Village. MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS Major assumptions supporting the Bellmar Village 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 classification s in the model were carefully reviewed. Revenue and costs are projected in constant 2019 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 Bellmar Village development program which was used to estimate the operating and capital impacts of the project. Table 1: Bellmar Development Program Source: Collier Enterprises, DPFG, 2019 Land Use by Impact Fee Category Units Residential Total Condo, Duplex, Single-Family Attached 1,160 Total SFD < 4,000 Sq Ft 1,590 Total Residential 2,750 Non-Residential Sq Ft Retail 50,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft 85,000 Total Non-Residential 85,000 Neigborhood Civic 27,500 Grand Total Non-Residential (sf)112,500 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 1362 Attachment: Attachment D Bellmar SRA Econ Assess 2020.01.08 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 9 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 Collier County (unincorporated) averages published by the Shimberg Center for Housing Studies at the University of Florida. Table 2: Bellmar Residential Sales, Just, and Taxable Values Source: Collier Enterprises, Shimberg Center for Housing Studies (Univ. of FL), DPFG, 2019 Table 3 reflects the estimates of sales, just5, 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,” 40th Edition, 2019 and also considered values from the County Property Appraiser’s database. Table 3: Bellmar Nonresidential Sales, Just, and Taxable Values Source: RS Means, Collier County Property Appraiser, DPFG, 2019 At buildout, the real property tax base generated for the County is estimated to exceed $906.8 million as reflected in Table 4. 5 In determining just value, reasonable fees and costs of purchase (for example, commissions) are excluded. Product Type Units Sales Value per Unit Just Value per Unit Taxable Value per Unit Town Home 216 265,000$ 249,100$ 233,600$ Villa 1 337 276,000$ 259,440$ 243,940$ Coach 273 297,000$ 279,180$ 263,680$ Villa 2 334 329,000$ 309,260$ 293,760$ Total Condo, Duplex, Single-Family Attached 1,160 294,154$ 276,505$ 261,005$ SFD Product A < 4,000 sq ft 522 387,000$ 363,780$ 330,780$ SFD Product B < 4,000 sq ft 425 424,000$ 398,560$ 365,560$ SFD Product C < 4,000 sq ft 461 456,000$ 428,640$ 395,640$ SFD Product C < 4,000 sq ft 182 488,000$ 458,720$ 425,720$ Total SFD < 4,000 Sq Ft 1,590 428,457$ 402,749$ 369,749$ Total Single-Family Detached 1,590 428,457$ 402,749$ 369,749$ Total Residential 2,750 Non-Residential Sq Ft Sales Value per Sq Ft Just Value per Sq Ft Average Taxable Value per Sq Ft Retail 50,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft 85,000 189.50$ 189.50$ 189.50$ 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 1363 Attachment: Attachment D Bellmar SRA Econ Assess 2020.01.08 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 10 Table 4: Bellmar County Tax Base at Buildout Source: Collier Enterprises, DPFG, 2019 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, 2019 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 r evenues 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. COLLIER COUNTY FISCAL IMPACTS Collier County Operating Impacts Table 6 presents the annual net operating fiscal impact of Bellmar Village at buildout. Bellmar Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect to County’s Operating Impacts. Units or Taxable Value Land Use Sq Ft per Unit/SF At Buildout Residential Total Condo, Duplex, Single-Family Attached 1,160 261,005$ 302,766,000$ Total SFD < 4,000 Sq Ft 1,590 369,749$ 587,901,000 Total Residential 2,750 890,667,000$ Non-Residential Retail 50,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft 85,000 189.50$ 16,108,000 Total Non-Residential 85,000 16,108,000$ Total Tax Base 906,775,000$ 3.5645 County General Fund 0.8069 MSTD General Fund 0.0293 Water Pollution Control 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 1364 Attachment: Attachment D Bellmar SRA Econ Assess 2020.01.08 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 11 Table 6: Bellmar Operating Annual Net Impact at Buildout Source: DPFG, 2019 Collier County Operating Revenue Projections Projected County annual operating revenues at buildout are summarized in Table 7. Bellmar Village is projected to generate annual operating revenues of $4.4 million for the County’s General Funds and $821,000 for the MSTU General Fund. Table 7: Bellmar Annual Operating Revenue Projections Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 Collier County Operating Expenditure Projections Projected County annual operating expenditures at buildout are presented in Table 8. Bellmar Village is expected to generate annual General Funds service demand of $3.2 million and $518,000 of MSTU General Fund service demand. The Appendix contains a detailed breakdown of operating costs by line item category. Net Operating Impact Countywide MSTU Bellmar SRA Total Annual Operating Revenues 4,411,000$ 821,000$ Bellmar SRA Total Annual Operating Expenditures 3,239,000 518,000 Bellmar SRA Total Annual Operating Surplus 1,172,000$ 303,000$ At Buildout GENERAL FUND GROUPING REVENUES At Buildout Ad Valorem Taxes 3,232,000$ Licenses & Permits 2,000 Inter- Governmental Revenues 8,000 State Revenue Sharing - Growth Portion 125,000 State Sales Tax 516,000 Charges for Services 366,000 Fines & Forfeitures 5,000 Miscellaneous Revenues 2,000 Interest/ Miscellaneous 11,000 Indirect Service Charge 74,000 Transfers from Constitutional Officers 62,000 Reimburse from Other Departments 8,000 Total General Funds Annual Operating Revenues 4,411,000$ MSTU GENERAL FUND REVENUES At Buildout Ad Valorem Taxes 732,000$ Licenses & Permits 5,000 Charges for Services 32,000 Fines & Forfeitures 2,000 Miscellaneous Revenues 2,000 Interest/ Miscellaneous 1,000 Communication Services Tax 47,000 Reimburse from Other Departments - Total MSTU Annual Operating Revenues 821,000$ 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 1365 Attachment: Attachment D Bellmar SRA Econ Assess 2020.01.08 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 12 Table 8: Bellmar Annual Operating Expenditure Projections GENERAL FUND GROUPING EXPENDITURES At Buildout Board of County Commissioners 32,000$ County Attorney 13,000 Property Appraiser 75,000 Supervisor of Elections 25,000 Clerk of Courts 52,000 Sheriff 1,771,000 Tax Collector 136,000 Administrative Services 3,000 Human Resources 10,000 Procurement Services 9,000 Bureau of Emergency Services 31,000 Planning 1,000 Circuit & County Court Judges 1,000 Public Defender 4,000 State Attorney 5,000 Guardian Ad Litem Program - County Manager Operations 7,000 Office of Management & Budget 6,000 Public Services Administration 2,000 Domestic Animal Services 43,000 Community and Human Services 48,000 Library 103,000 Parks & Recreation 127,000 Public Health 5,000 Public Transit and Neighborhood Enhancement 2,000 Facilities Management 155,000 Transfer to 101 Transp Op Fund 190,000 Transfer to 310 Growth Mgt Transportation Cap 80,000 Transfer to 426 CAT Mass Transit 25,000 Transfer to 427 Transp Disadvantaged 33,000 Transfer to 490 EMS Fund 167,000 Distributions in Excess of Fees to Govt Agencies 78,000 Total General Funds Annual Operating Expenditures 3,239,000$ 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 1366 Attachment: Attachment D Bellmar SRA Econ Assess 2020.01.08 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 13 Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 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. EMS, Government Buildings, Libraries, and Law Enforcement impact fee studies were updated in 2016, and the associated rates were adopted in 2017. Impact fee updates for Parks and Recreation, Correctional MSTU GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES At Buildout Board of County Commissioners 18,000$ Communications & Customer Relations Division 15,000 Growth Management Administration 6,000 Planning 19,000 Regulation 56,000 Maintenance 100,000 Bureau of Emergency Services 1,000 Project Management - Community and Human Services 2,000 Parks & Recreation 193,000 Transfer to 306 Parks Capital Fund 39,000 Transfer to 310 Growth Mgt Cap 45,000 Indirect Cost Reimbursement 24,000 Total MSTU Annual Operating Expenditures 518,000$ 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 1367 Attachment: Attachment D Bellmar SRA Econ Assess 2020.01.08 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 14 Facilities, Transportation, and Schools are currently underway. Over buildout, new development will be charged impact fees at rates enacted by the County at that time. The capital needs of Bellmar Village were discussed with the Sheriff, EMS, the North Collier Fire & Rescue District, and the School District. The capital analysis for these services was prepared in accordance with their input. 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 2018 Audit Update and Inventory Report on Public Facilities (“AUIR”), the most recent source available, was generally used to calculate the achieved LOS.6 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: Bellmar Impact Fee Revenue for Collier County Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 6 DPFG reviewed the draft 2019 AUIR and noted overall consistency with the 2018 AUIR level of service standards and available inventory except for Regional Parks. A corresponding adjustment was made in the Regional Parks analysis based on County Staff recommendations. Impact Fee Type Total Fees Community Parks 2,013,000$ Regional Parks 5,711,000 Roads 18,767,000 EMS 320,000 Government Buildings 2,109,000 Libraries 719,000 Law Enforcement 1,342,000 Jail 1,153,000 Water - residential only 7,046,000 Wastewater - residential only 7,428,000 Total Collier County Impact Fees 46,608,000$ Collier County Schools 17,274,000 North Collier Fire & Rescue 1,515,000 Total Impact Fees 65,397,000$ 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 1368 Attachment: Attachment D Bellmar SRA Econ Assess 2020.01.08 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 15 Collier County Road Capital Impacts The Bellmar Village SRA is a proposed mixed-use development in eastern Collier County located east of Desoto Boulevard and south of Golden Gate Boulevard. The landowner is responsible to pay an appropriate fee required by the County’s Road Impact Fee Ordinance as building perm its are issued for the proposed project. Road impact fees are estimated at $18.8 million and significantly exceed the Concurrency Fair-Share estimate of $4.0 million as shown in the “Preliminary Concurrency Fair-Share – November 2020” document prepared by Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA. Proposed internal roads, driveways, internal alleys, internal sidewalks/pathways and interconnections to adjacent developments are site related improvements and are not subject to impact fee credits. In addition, the landowner is required to provide appropriate turn lanes at project entrances as required at the time of site development approval. These improvements are considered site related. It is noted that if turn lane improvements require the use of County’s Right -of-Way (“ROW”) or easements, compensating ROW along the development frontage may need to be provided without cost to Collier County as a consequence of such improvement. Operational impacts of the development project traffic are mitigated for those intersections failing to achieve acceptable performance characteristics. Consistent with the information illustrated in the adopted Collier County Traffic Impact Study guidelines, mitigation improvements are considered acceptable if capacity is added that restores or improves the delay and v/c (volume/capacity) ratio to the levels provided in the base scenario. Base scenario is defined as the analysis of existing traffic plus background traffic for the estimated build-out year on the E + C (existing plus committed) significantly impacted roadway network. As illustrated in the Traffic Impact Statement associated with the zoning application for the subject development, Synchro 10 software was used to perform intersection Level of Service (“LOS”) analysis at specific locations. Based on the results of the Synchro intersection analyses, the following geometric improvements may be necessary to address project related level of service deficiencies: • Oil Well Rd and DeSoto Blvd intersection - signalization • Randall Blvd and DeSoto Blvd intersection – add eastbound right-turn lane on Randall Blvd • Randall Blvd and Everglades Blvd intersection – signalization • Golden Gate Blvd and DeSoto Blvd intersection – signalization; intersection geometry as follows: on Golden Gate Blvd add eastbound shared right-turn/through lane and an eastbound left-turn lane, and provide a westbound shared left-turn/through lane and a 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 1369 Attachment: Attachment D Bellmar SRA Econ Assess 2020.01.08 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 16 westbound shared right-turn/through lane; on DeSoto Blvd add dual northbound left-turn lanes and a southbound left-turn lane. Fair share percentage determination illustrates traffic impacts in the AM and PM peak periods. The project share of cost has been based on the proportion of the project peak hour traffic contributed to the improvement location relative to the total new peak hour 2034 traffic volumes. Contribution requirements for transportation related impacts are summarized in the Cost Allocation Table reflected in the “Fair-Share Mitigation Operational Impacts” report prepared by Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA. The fair share operational contribution of $2.2 million shall be paid within 90 days of the approval of the first Development Order construction approval (plat, or site development plan, as applicable) for the SRA. In addition, as a site related expense (100 percent contribution), the developer is agreeing to provide roadway improvements for Golden Gate Blvd, segment from project entrance to Desoto Blvd and for 6th Ave SE, segment from project entrance to Desoto Blvd. Proposed site related improvements on Golden Gate Blvd and 6th Ave SE consist of travel pavement widening (to provide a minimum width of 22 ft.) and shoulder improvements (10 ft. wide on both sides of the roadway) and are estimated to cost $700,000 (Golden Gate Blvd and 6th Ave SE). Figure 1: Bellmar Fair-Share Mitigation for Operational Impacts Source: Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA, 2021 Bellmar Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect of Road capital impacts. Collier County Law Enforcement Capital Impacts The Law Enforcement impact fee includes the capital construction and expansion of police service related to land facilities, and capital equipment required to support police service demand created by new growth. Facilities and equipment consist primarily of centralized and support buildings, patrol cars and other equipment. Fees are assessed at the recommended level. 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 1370 Attachment: Attachment D Bellmar SRA Econ Assess 2020.01.08 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 17 Revenues and costs associated with maintaining and operating the Law Enforcement facilities and equipment are provided in the General Funds Operating Impacts section. Direct capital impacts on Law Enforcement are presented in Table 10. Based on discussions with the Sheriff’s Office, capital demands from Bellmar Village include the cost to equip certified officers. At this time, there is not the need for a specific land site within Bellmar Village for a substation; however, there may be need in the future for a work station to serve development in the area. As shown below, impact fees are adequate to fund Bellmar Village’s proportionate share. Table 10: Bellmar Law Enforcement Capital Impacts Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 The County’s achieved LOS for Law Enforcement is 1.77 officers per 1,000 peak population; whereas, the adopted LOS is 1.84. As such, the achieved LOS was used to estimate the number of certified police officers needed to serve Bellmar Village. Table 11: Bellmar Law Enforcement Level of Service Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 Law Enforcement Capital Revenues: Impact Fee Revenue 1,342,000$ Other Capital Revenues*243,000 Total Capital Revenues 1,585,000$ Direct Capital Costs: Law Enforcement Equipment Cost Equipment Value per Certified Police Officer 106,000$ Certified Police Officers at Achieved LOS 10.1 Law Enforcement Equipment Cost 1,066,000$ Total Law Enforcement Direct Capital Costs 1,066,000$ Law Enforcement Capital Revenues in Excess of Direct Capital Costs 519,000$ Law Enforcement Indirect Capital Costs: Law Enforcement Direct Capital Surplus 519,000$ Land and Building Cost per Sq Ft 219$ Additional Law Enforcement Facility Sq Ft Funded 2,370 Law Enforcement Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs -$ *Included in the Collier County General Funds expenditures analysis. Bellmar SRA Funded Law Enforcement Facilities Peak Seasonal Population 5,683 Achieved LOS (Officers per 1,000 Peak Residents)1.77 Funded Facilities and Equipment for Certified Police Officers 10.1 LOS Share Law Enforcement Facilities 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 1371 Attachment: Attachment D Bellmar SRA Econ Assess 2020.01.08 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 18 The $219 per square foot value of the satellite office in Table 10 was obtained from the 2016 Law Enforcement Impact Fee Update. The equipment value per certified police officer is calculated in Table 12. Table 12: Bellmar Law Enforcement Equipment Cost per Certified Police Officer Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 Collier County Correctional Facilities Capital Impacts The Correctional Facilities impact fee includes jail facilities (land and building) and equipment. Fees are assessed at the recommended level. Revenues and costs associated with maintaining and operating correctional facilities and equipment are provided in the General Funds Operating Impacts section. Correctional Facilities capital impacts are presented in Table 13. Table 13: Bellmar Correctional Facilities Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 The capital cost for correctional facilities is calculated below. Item Amount Equipment Inventory Value 70,020,524$ Number of Certified Police Officers 660 Equipment Value per Officer 106,000$ Correctional Facilities Capital Revenues: Impact Fee Revenue 1,153,000$ Other Capital Revenues*63,000 Total Capital Revenues 1,216,000$ Capital Cost (Land, Building, Vehicles, and Equipment) - Indexed 1,216,000$ Correctional Facilities Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs -$ *Included in the Collier County General Funds expenditures analysis. Bellmar SRA Funded Share Jail Facilities 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 1372 Attachment: Attachment D Bellmar SRA Econ Assess 2020.01.08 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 19 Table 14: Bellmar Correctional Facilities Capital Cost Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 The indexed capital cost per bed is calculated in Table 15. Table 15: Bellmar Correctional Facilities Indexed Cost per Resident Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 Collier County Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Capital Impacts According to EMS management, Bellmar Village will be primarily served by a new EMS facility planned for the corner of Desoto Blvd./Golden Gate Blvd East. The County acquired the site in January 2020. The Greater Naples Fire Rescue District will co-locate a fire facility at the site. EMS management anticipates the station will be placed in service in 2022. The cost of the new facility will be funded by the County’s One-Cent Infrastructure surtax which was authorized in 2018. EMS Management has indicated that the capital impact from Bellmar Village will be limited to EMS vehicles. The EMS level of service in the County’s AUIR is approximately 1 unit (vehicle, equipment, station space) per 16,400 population; however, in addition to this metric, EMS also relies on demand factors such as response time and call volume to site new facilities. Call volume is af fected by demographics in the service area. For example, nearly 70 percent of the County’s ambulance fee collections are from Medicare and Medicaid patients. Table 16 compares calculates the net allocable cost of the new EMS station to Bellmar Village using a peak seasonal resident population approach. Land Use Functional Population Coefficient Units/ Square Feet Functional Population Single Family Detached Less than 4,000 sq ft 1.81 1,590 2,876 Total Condo, Dupex, Single-Family Attached 0.94 1,160 1,090 Retail 50,001 to 100,000 sfgla 2.46 85,000 209 Total Functional Population 4,175 Indexed Capital Cost per Functional Population 290.98$ Total Capital Cost 1,216,000$ Residential Seasonal Population and Employment 5,885 2018 Indexed Capital Cost per Peak Population 206.63$ 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.2.f Packet Pg. 1373 Attachment: Attachment D Bellmar SRA Econ Assess 2020.01.08 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 20 Table 16: Bellmar Allocation of New EMS Station Cost Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2020 Table 17 compares the allocable cost of the new station to projected EMS impact fees for Bellmar Village. Table 17: Bellmar EMS Capital Cost *Included in the Collier County General Funds net fiscal impact buildout analysis. Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2020 Bellmar Regional Parks Capital Impacts The County imposes separate impact fees for community and regional 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. Allocation of New EMS Station Proportionate Allocation 2019 AUIR Cost of Shared Station: Facility $ 1,325,000 Equipment 551,057 Total Capital Cost of Shared Station 1,876,057$ Less One-Cent Infrastructure Surtax Funding (1,325,000) Net Allocable Cost 551,057$ Demand Base 16,400 Per Capita Cost 33.60$ Bellmar Village Peak Resident Population 5,683 EMS New Station Cost Allocable to Bellmar Village 191,000$ EMS Capital Revenues: Impact Fee Revenue 320,000$ Other Capital Revenues*8,000 Total Capital Revenues 328,000$ EMS New Station Cost Allocable to Bellmar Village 191,000$ Net Capital Revenues Available for EMS Growth- Related Capital Needs 137,000 EMS Total Capital Cost 328,000$ Bellmar Village EMS Capital 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 1374 Attachment: Attachment D Bellmar SRA Econ Assess 2020.01.08 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 21 Table 18: Bellmar Regional Parks Capital Impacts Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 The County’s adopted LOS for Regional Parks is 2.70 acres per 1,000 peak population. County Staff recommended the application of an adjusted achieved LOS of 1.82 acres per 1,000 peak population for purposes of this analysis. Table 19: Bellmar Regional Parks Level of Service Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 The indexed capital cost per Regional Park acre is calculated in Table 20. Table 20: Bellmar Regional Parks Indexed Capital Cost per Acre Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 Bellmar Community Parks Capital Impacts Community Parks capital impacts are presented in Table 21. Regional Park Capital Revenues Impact Fee Revenue 5,711,000$ Other Capital Revenues*300,000 Total Capital Revenues 6,011,000$ Regional Park Indirect Capital Costs Indexed Land & Facility Cost per Acre 590,288$ Regional Park Acres at Achieved LOS 10.34 Bellmar SRA Funded Regional Park Acres 6,105,000$ Regional Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs (94,000)$ Community Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs 119,000 Total Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs 25,000$ *Included in the Collier County General Funds and MSTU expenditures analysis. Bellmar SRA Funded Regional Park Facilities Regional Park Achieved LOS per County Staff 1.82 Bellmar SRA Peak Seasonal Population 5,683 Bellmar SRA Community Park Acreage 10.34 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$ 2018 Index 1.106 2018 Indexed Cost per Acre 590,288$ 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 1375 Attachment: Attachment D Bellmar SRA Econ Assess 2020.01.08 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 22 Table 21: Bellmar Community Parks Capital Impacts Source: Collier County, Collier Enterprises, DPFG, 2019 The County’s adopted LOS for Community Parks is 1.20 acres per 1,000 peak population , and the achieved LOS is 1.47 acres. As such, the adopted LOS was used to estimate the number of Community Park acres needed to serve Bellmar Village. Table 22: Bellmar Community Parks Level of Service Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 The indexed capital cost per Community Park acre is calculated in Table 23. Table 23: Bellmar Community Parks Indexed Capital Cost per Acre Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 Bellmar 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 2,013,000$ Other Capital Revenues*33,000 Total Capital Revenues 2,046,000$ Community Park Indirect Capital Costs Indexed Land & Facility Cost per Acre 282,573$ Community Park Acres at Adopted LOS 6.82 Bellmar SRA Funded Community Park Acres 1,927,000$ Community Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs 119,000$ Regional Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs (94,000) Total Park Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs 25,000$ Bellmar SRA Funded Community Park Facilities Community Park Adopted LOS 1.20 Bellmar SRA Peak Seasonal Population 5,683 Bellmar SRA Community Park Acreage 6.82 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$ 2018 Index 1.065 2018 Indexed Cost per Acre 282,573$ 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 1376 Attachment: Attachment D Bellmar SRA Econ Assess 2020.01.08 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA 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: Bellmar Libraries Capital Impacts Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 The County’s adopted LOS for Library facilities is 0.33 square feet per 1,000 peak population; whereas, the achieved LOS is 0.31 square feet for owned facilities. As such, the achieved LOS was used to estimate the library square footage needed to serve Bellmar Village. Table 25: Bellmar Library Facilities Level of Service Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 The library square foot value of $243, and the unit cost per capita value of $39 were obtained from the 2016 Library Impact Fee Update. Government Buildings Capital Impacts Government buildings impact fees include remaining non-enterprise County land, buildings, information technology and vehicles. Fees are assessed at the recommended level. Revenues and costs associated with maintaining and operating the County’s General Government facilities are provided in the General Funds Operating Impacts section. General Government capital impacts are presented in Table 26. Library Capital Revenues: Impact Fee Revenue 719,000$ Other Capital Revenues*106,000 Total Capital Revenue 825,000$ Library Capital Costs: Library Facility Cost Library Sq Ft at Achieved LOS 1,785 Library Facility Cost per Sq Ft 243.20$ Library Facility Cost 434,000$ Library Materials/Collections Unit Cost per Capita 38.62$ Peak Seasonal Population 5,683 Total Items 219,000$ Total Library Capital Costs 653,000$ Library Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs 172,000$ *Included in the Collier County General Funds expenditures analysis. Bellmar SRA Funded Library Facilities Peak Seasonal Population 5,683 Sq Ft per Peak Seasonal Resident at Achieved LOS 0.31 Library Sq Ft (Achieved LOS)1,785 LOS Share of Library Facilities 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 1377 Attachment: Attachment D Bellmar SRA Econ Assess 2020.01.08 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 24 Table 26: Bellmar General Government Capital Impacts Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 General government capital costs are calculated in Table 27. Table 27: Bellmar General Government Capital Cost Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 Bellmar Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect to County Capital impacts. Water and Wastewater The following table is a calculation of the Bellmar Village potable water demands and wastewater generation with all factors and assumptions: Government Building Capital Revenues: Impact Fee Revenue 2,109,000$ Revenue Credits*71,000 Total Capital Revenue 2,180,000$ Government Building Capital Costs: Government Building Indirect Capital Costs :2,180,000$ Government Building Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs -$ *Included in the Collier County General Funds expenditures analysis. Bellmar SRA Funded Government Buildings Land Use Functional Population Coefficient Units/ Square Feet Functional Population Single Family Detached Less than 4,000 sq ft 1.81 1,590 2,879 Total Condo, Dupex, Single-Family Attached 0.86 1,160 999 Retail 50,001 to 100,000 sfgla 2.46 85,000 209 Total Functional Population 4,087 Capital Cost per Functional Population 533.72$ Total Proportionate Capital Cost 2,180,000$ Residential Seasonal Population and Employment 5,885 Capital Cost per Peak Population 370.43$ 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 1378 Attachment: Attachment D Bellmar SRA Econ Assess 2020.01.08 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 25 Figure 2: Bellmar Water and Wastewater Demands Bellmar Water and Wastewater Demands Wastewater Potable Water Wastewater to water conversion = 1.5 Residential 2,750 DU @ 200 gpd = 550,000 gpd 2,750 DU @ 300 gpd = 825,000 gpd Commercial 85,000 sf @ 0.15 gpd = 12,750 gpd 85,000 sf @ 0.23 gpd = 19,125 gpd Civic 27,500 sf @ 0.15 gpd = 4,125 gpd 27,500 sf @ 0.23 gpd = 6,188 gpd 566,875 gpd 850,313 gpd 566,875 gpd = 0.57 mgd ADF 850,313 gpd = 0.85 mgd ADF M3D Factor = 1.5 M3D Factor = 1.3 M3D Flow = 0.85 mgd M3D Flow = 1.11 mgd Source: Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc., Hole Montes, 2020 Potable water services for the Bellmar Village project will be provided by the Collier County Water and Sewer District from existing and planned facilities per a proposed Interlocal Agreement that outlines commitments from Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. and CDC Land Investments, LLC and the Big Cypress Stewardship District. The estimated potable water demand for residential development at the project is based on 300 gpd per D.U. (residential), and 2,750 residences. Potable water demand for commercial development is based on 23 gpd per 100 feet square or 0.23 gpd/sf. Using these assumptions, potable water demand for the Bellmar Village development at buildout is projected to be approximately 0.85 MGD average daily demand and 1.11 MGD maximum 3-day demand. Wastewater services for the Bellmar Village project will be provided by the Collier County Water and Sewer District from existing and planned facilities per a proposed Interlocal Agreement that outlines commitments from Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. and CDC Land Investments, LLC and the Big Cypress Stewardship District. Anticipated wastewater generated by the development is based on a per capita daily volume of 200 gpd per D.U. for 2,750 residences. Wastewater demand for commercial development is based on 15 gpd per 100 feet square or 0.15 gpd/sf. This results in build out wastewater flows of 0.57 MGD on an average daily basis and 0.85 MGD on a maximum 3-day basis. Refer to the proposed Interlocal Agreement for a description of the commitments, including the prepayment of a portion of water and wastewater impact fees. Bellmar Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect to Collier County’s Water and Wastewater capital and operating impacts. 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 1379 Attachment: Attachment D Bellmar SRA Econ Assess 2020.01.08 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 26 Stormwater Management The criteria used in the preparation of the stormwater management plan were based on the predevelopment agricultural stormwater management system currently in place. Stormwater discharges from the lands in question are equal or less pre versus post on both a peak rate and total volume perspective. As such, the discharges mimic that of undeveloped lands. Therefore, in the event of a change to the agreement between Collier County and the Big Cypress Basin concerning the lands to the south of I-75, no impact on any downstream system above and beyond that of undeveloped land would be realized and thus there is no impact on County stormwater facilities caused by the development of this property above and beyond undeveloped land. Collier County currently maintains no onsite stormwater infrastructure and will not in the future. The receiving water of the stormwater discharges from Bellmar Village is the existing agricultural water management system aka Water Retention Area (“WRA”), which ultimately discharges to the Merrit Canal via an unnamed wetland. The peak allowable discharge rate in Collier County applicable to this project based on ord. 90- 10 is 0.15 cfs/acre. The proposed surface water management system will be based on the permitted agricultural system currently in place and operational. The peak discharge rate of 0.03 cfs/ac will be used to match that of the agricultural system in an effort to maintain the hydrological regime that has existed for many years on this site. The flowways within this project are natural wetland systems. The capacity that exists prior to development will exist after development and will not be increased nor decreased. No surrounding properties currently flow through the SRA area of this project. The same predevelopment drainage basin boundaries will be maintained by the proposed design. Stormwater water quality treatment within this SRA will be predominantly accomplished by wet detention (lakes) located within the SRA and overlapping into the WRA areas as permitted by SFWMD. Commercial areas will also utilize dry detention pretreatment areas in accordance with SFWMD requirements. Discharges from the SRA water management system to natural WRA areas will occur only after water quality volumes have been achieved and will be by permitted control structures and facilities. Initial phases of development may pump stormwater after treatment consistent with the pre-development drainage of the land. The provided water quality treatment volume of this SRA will be in accordance with the approved SFWMD ERP, inclusive of an additional 50 percent of water quality to be provided in excess of the calculated base water quality volume for compliance with the interim watershed management plan. Water quantity treatment will occur in both the SRA sited lake system and the WRA areas in concert. Stormwater management/buffer lakes and their associated containment berms have been permitted in select locations in the existing WRA’s. These modifications were confined to areas of the WRA that exhibited heavy exotic infestation and had little to no habitat function. All of 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 1380 Attachment: Attachment D Bellmar SRA Econ Assess 2020.01.08 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 27 these alterations have mitigation identified in the permit which will be made upon implementation of the impact. The water management concept for Bellmar Village involves the use of the existing agricultural water management system. The proposed system design will use permitted control elevations, discharge rates and discharge locations. All discharges to the WRA (wetland) areas from development will be made only after water quality volumes have been provided in the development area. Areas of the WRA will be excavated to form parts of the internal buffer lake system. Areas to be excavated are low quality exotic impacted areas and will be mitigated for through the SFWMD process. The only fill areas within WRA’s will be berms associated with the surface water management system. which will be mitigated through the SFWMD process. No impacts are proposed to Camp Keais Strand by this project. Collier County will bear no responsibility for or cost associated with the Bellmar Village water management system; therefore, the fiscal impact to Collier County is neutral. Bellmar Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect of Stormwater Management capital and operating impacts. Irrigation Water The Bellmar Village project site has a long history of permitted agricultural withdrawals from the Water Table and Lower Tamiami Aquifers that has not resulted in adverse impacts to natural environments. At build-out, the Bellmar Village project will result in converting approximately 1,000 acres of agricultural land into a residential development. The agricultural water allocations currently permitted and used within the Bellmar Village project area total approximately 3.37 MGD on an annual average basis and approximately 8 .86 MGD on a maximum monthly basis. The transition of agricultural use to residential/commercial use will result in approximately 298 acres of landscaping and turf within the Bellmar Village development requiring irrigation. The project irrigation demand for this amount of irrigated acreage as determined using the SFWMD Blaney-Criddle method are: • 1.14 MGD on an annual average basis • 1.66 MGD on a maximum monthly basis The proposed change in land use is anticipated to result in a significant net reduction of irrigation water usage at the site. The Bellmar project will obtain a water use permit from the SFWMD which will allow withdrawal from surface water and ground water sources onsite to meet irrigation demands. However, the developer is in discussions with the County to secure 100 percent of the project’s irrigation demands from reclaimed water. In addition, the developer is working with the County to develop additional water resources onsite to meet public water 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 1381 Attachment: Attachment D Bellmar SRA Econ Assess 2020.01.08 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 28 supply needs throughout the County service area. If the County provides reclaimed water to meet all the project’s irrigation water demands, the SFWMD permit will only be used for 30 -day back up supply in the event that there is a disruption in reclaimed water supply. The onsite irrigation water supply system will include stormwater lakes and wells. The lake system will be used to supply irrigation water for the project and wells will be utilized to partially or fully resupply the withdrawal lakes. The proposed source aquifer for the wells is the Lower Tamiami Aquifer which is currently permitted to meet the existing agricultural water demands on the project site. The lake withdrawals will provide an efficient and low impact method for effectively harvesting available stormwater supplies. Lake volume storage in the lake system as well as re- supply by groundwater from the recharge wells will minimize potential impacts to surface and groundwater levels. The developer would be responsible for all costs associated with the permitting, construction, and maintenance of the irrigation system. Collier County will bear no responsibility for or cost associated with the Bellmar Village irrigation system, therefore the fiscal impact to Collier County is neutral. Bellmar Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect of Irrigation Water capital and operating impacts. Solid Waste Collier County’s contractor hauler, Waste Management Inc. of Florida (“WMIF”), will collect solid waste generated within Bellmar Village. Recycled materials will be collected from curbside recycling containers through contract haulers. Residential recyclables and horticultural waste will be collected at the curb on a weekly basis. Construction debris will be collected and processed by a local business specializing in the recycling of construction products. Commercial and institutional facilities will utilize dumpster containers for the storage of garbage and rubbish. Recycling containers will be used to store recyclables in the commercial and institutional areas. Solid waste collected within Bellmar Village will be hauled to the Immokalee Solid Waste Transfer Station and from there transported to WMIF’s Okeechobee Landfill. According to WMIF, the Okeechobee Landfill has adequate capacity for the next 25 years. Alternatively, the Collier County Naples landfill also has capacity according to the Collier County 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report. Revenues and expenses of the solid waste operations describe d above are accounted for in the County’s Solid Waste Fund, a self-supporting enterprise fund. Bellmar Village is deemed fiscally neutral with respect to Collier County’s Landfill. 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 1382 Attachment: Attachment D Bellmar SRA Econ Assess 2020.01.08 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 29 NORTH COLLIER FIRE & RESCUE DISTRICT North Collier Fire & Rescue District Capital Impacts The proposed Bellmar Village is within the service area of a new County EMS facility planned for the corner of DeSoto Boulevard South and Golden Gate Boulevard East. The site for the new facility was recently purchased by Collier County. North Collier Fire & Rescue District will co- locate at the new facility. The incremental capital cost of the new fire facility, as provided by District management, is shown in Table 28. Fire impact fee revenues generated by Bellmar Village are expected to exceed proportionate capital costs. Table 28: Bellmar North Collier Fire & Rescue District Capital Impacts Source: North Collier Fire & Rescue District, DPFG, 2020 Projected impact fee revenues are presented in Table 29 and total $1.5 million. Table 29: Bellmar North Collier Fire & Rescue District Impact Fee Revenues Source: North Collier Fire & Rescue District, DPFG, 2020 North Collier Fire & Rescue District Annual Operating Impacts Because the current operating millage of the Big Corkscrew Island SDA is geared to much lower density development, Bellmar Village is currently projected to generate an operating surplus for the North Collier Fire & Rescue District. Annual operating revenues and expenditures are reflected in Table 30. Capital Impact: Fire District Capital Revenues Impact Fee Revenue 1,515,000$ Other Capital Revenue 87,000 Total Capital Revenue 1,602,000$ Desosto Blvd/Golden Gate Blvd Station Cost Shared Station Construction Cost 1,000,000$ Apparatus 400,000 Total Desosto Blvd/Golden Gate Blvd Station Cost 1,400,000$ Fire District Capital Revenues in Excess of Capital Costs 202,000$ Capital Impact at Buildout Units or Fire Impact Fee Category Sq Ft Impact Fee Total Total Condo, Duplex, Single-Family Attached 1,160 334.82$ 388,000$ Total SFD < 4,000 Sq Ft 1,590 658.09$ 1,046,000 Retail 50,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft 85,000 0.9485$ 81,000 Total Fire Impact Fees 1,515,000$ 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 1383 Attachment: Attachment D Bellmar SRA Econ Assess 2020.01.08 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 30 Table 30: Bellmar North Collier Fire & Rescue District Annual Operating Impacts at Buildout Note: Annual operating costs of the new co-located station provided by North Collier Fire & Rescue management. Source: North Collier Fire & Rescue District, DPFG, 2020 Bellmar Village is deemed fiscally positive with respect to the North Collier Fire & Rescue District. COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOLS FISCAL IMPACT Collier County Schools Capital Impacts The projected enrollment of Bellmar Village on the Collier County Public Schools (“CCPS”) is shown in Table 31. The student generation rates in the 2015 School Impact Fee Update, the most recent data available, were used to calculate enrollment. Table 31: Bellmar Projected Public School Enrollment Source: Collier County School District, Collier Enterprises, DPFG, 2019 Projected enrollment by type of school is shown in Table 32. Table 32: Bellmar Projected Enrollment by School Type Source: Collier County School District, Collier Enterprises, DPFG, 2019 Annual Operating Impact: Bellmar SRA Ad Valorem Tax Base 906,775,000$ Big Corkscrew Island SDA Millage Rate 3.75 Annual Ad Valorem Revenues 3,400,000$ 3,400,000$ Desoto Blvd/Golden Gate Blvd Station Annual Expenditures Personnel and Operating Expenses 1,500,000 Annual Operating Surplus 1,900,000$ Annual Operating Impact at Buildout Residential Unit Type Units SGR Projected Students Total Condo, Duplex, Single-Family Attached 1,160 0.11 128 Total SFD < 4,000 Sq Ft 1,590 0.34 541 Total Residential 2,750 669 School Type Projected Students Percent Elementary 304 45.48% Middle 148 22.06% High 217 32.46% Total 669 100.00% 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 1384 Attachment: Attachment D Bellmar SRA Econ Assess 2020.01.08 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 31 According to the School District, at this time there is existing or planned capacity within the next five years at the elementary, middle and high school levels for each village individually. However, the proposed Bellmar and Longwater Villages and the approved Rivergrass Village, collectively, result in the School District exceeding its estimated capacity. A stipulation to the proposed Development Order requires the developer to convey real property for two school sites (Site A shall be used only for a public high school and/or middle school and Site B shall be used only for a public elementary school) in exchange for educational impact fee credits. The proposed stipulation states, “With respect to the conveyance of real property, by the Applicant to the District, the School Reservation of School Site A and B to the District fully mitigates for the development’s impact to the elementary, middle and high schools needed to serve Rivergrass, Longwater, and Belmar SRAs.” At the time of site plan or plat, the development will be reviewed to ensure there is capacity either within the concurrency service area the development is located within or adjacent concurrency service areas. The capital costs of the Bellmar Village students are presented in Table 33 and are based on the 2015 School Impact Fee Update which includes a capitalized interest component. These estimates are conservative compared to the November 2019 F.S. 1013.64(b) statutory cost caps of Elementary $23,284, Middle $25,144, and High $32,661 per student station. Table 33: Bellmar School Capital Costs Source: Collier County Schools, DPFG, 2019 School impact fee revenue is shown in Table 34. Table 34: Bellmar School Impact Fee Revenue Source: Collier County Schools, DPFG, 2019 Facility Costs Students Cost per Student Total School Facility Cost: Elementary 304 36,058$ 10,972,000$ Middle 148 42,266 6,237,000 High 217 48,381 10,505,000 Cost of New School Facilities 669 41,426$ 27,714,000$ Transportation and Ancillary Costs - Initial: Transportation 669 $ 1,097 734,000 Anxillary Facility 669 $ 1,206 807,000 Total Transportation/Ancillary 669 $ 2,303 1,541,000 Total Capital Costs 43,729$ 29,255,000$ Units or School Impact Fee Category Sq Ft Impact Fee Total Total Condo, Duplex, Single-Family Attached 1,160 2,844.19$ 3,298,000$ Total SFD < 4,000 Sq Ft 1,590 8,789.54$ 13,976,000 Total School Impact Fees 17,274,000$ 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 1385 Attachment: Attachment D Bellmar SRA Econ Assess 2020.01.08 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 32 As seen in Table 35, capital revenues consist primarily of ad valorem taxes (1.5 mills) and impact fees. The capital impact of Bellmar Village is favorable as 42 percent of the housing units are expected to generate only 0.11 students per household. Table 35: Bellmar School Net Capital Impacts – Total Cash Flow Approach Source: Collier County Schools, DPFG, 2019 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 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 millage history is shown in Figure 3. School Impact Fee Revenue Capital Improvement Tax*Total School Capital Revenues: School Impact Fee Revenue 17,274,000$ 17,274,000$ School District Capital Tax Revenue 28,923,000 28,923,000 Total School Capital Revenues 17,274,000$ 28,923,000$ 46,197,000$ Direct School Capital Expenditures: New Schools 27,714,000$ New School Buses K-12 734,000 Direct School Capital Expenditures:28,448,000$ Other School Capital Expenditures: School Bus Replacement Cost 734,000$ Other Direct School and/or Systemwide Capital Expenditures 17,015,000 Total School Capital Expenditures 46,197,000$ * Consistent with 25-Year Credit Period in CCPS School Impact Fee Study. Revenue/Expense 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 1386 Attachment: Attachment D Bellmar SRA Econ Assess 2020.01.08 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 33 Figure 3: Collier County School District Tax Roll and Millage History Source: Collier County School District, 2019 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 36. 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 1387 Attachment: Attachment D Bellmar SRA Econ Assess 2020.01.08 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 34 Table 36: Bellmar Local Ad Valorem School Operating Taxes at Buildout Source: Collier County Schools, DPFG, 2019 Bellmar Village is deemed fiscally neutral respect to the Collier County School District. School District Operating Results At Buildout Ad Valorem Local Millage - Residential 3.583 3,317,000$ Ad Valorem Local Millage - NonResidential 3.583 58,000 Ad Valorem Local Millage Revenues 3,375,000$ Ad Valorem Local Millage Operating Expenditures 3,375,000$ Ad Valorem Local Millage Net Revenues -$ Operating Millage 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 1388 Attachment: Attachment D Bellmar SRA Econ Assess 2020.01.08 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 35 APPENDIX Appendix Table 1: Collier County Base Assumptions Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 COLLIER COUNTY STUDY PERIOD FY 2019 County Budget Year COLLIER COUNTYWIDE POPULATION 376,086 2019 County Permanent Population - Collier County 2018 AUIR 1.20 Seasonal Population Coefficient - Collier County 451,303 2019 County Peak Seaonal Population - Collier County 2018 AUIR 75,217 2019 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 Employment COLLIER COUNTY PEAK TOURIST POPULATION 243,100 Collier County CVB Profile - March 2019 7,842 Peak Daily Tourists COLLIER COUNTYWIDE POPULATION AND JOBS 550,537 County Permanent Population and Jobs 625,754 County Peak Seasonal Population and Jobs 633,596 County Peak Seasonal Population, Tourists, and Jobs COLLIER UNINCORPORATED COUNTY POPULATION 333,831 2019 Unincorporated County Permanent Population - Collier County 2018 AUIR 1.21 Seasonal Unincorporated Population Coefficient - Collier County 404,945 2019 Unincorporated County Peak Seaonal Population - Collier County 2018 AUIR 71,114 2019 Unincorporated County Peak Seasonal Population COLLIER COUNTY UNINCORPORATED EMPLOYMENT 154,851 Allocation based on Collier County 2016 EMS Impact Fee Update COLLIER COUNTY UNINCORPORATED POPULATION AND JOBS 488,682 County Permanent Population and Jobs 559,796 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 - 2018 Final Tax Roll Year 66%Single Family 31%Condominium 50,000$ County Homestead Exemption 25,000$ School Homestead Exemption 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 1389 Attachment: Attachment D Bellmar SRA Econ Assess 2020.01.08 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 36 Appendix Table 2: Bellmar Resident Population and Seasonal Population Coefficients Source: Collier Enterprises, Collier County, DPFG, 2019 Appendix Table 3: Bellmar Population and Employment Estimates Source: Collier Enterprises, Collier County, DPFG, 2019 Appendix Table 4: Bellmar Population and Employment Summary Source: Collier Enterprises, Inc., Collier County, DPFG, 2019 Appendix Table 5: Bellmar Public School Enrollment Source: Collier County Schools, DPFG, 2019 Land Use by Impact Fee Category Permanent Population Per Unit Seasonal Index Peak Seasonal Persons Per Unit Residential (Units) Total Condo, Dupex, Single-Family Attached 1.05 1.20 1.26 Total SFD < 4,000 Sq Ft 2.21 1.20 2.65 Land Use by Impact Fee Category Units Peak Seasonal Persons Per Unit Peak Seasonal Population Permanent Population Per Unit Permanent Population Residential Total Condo, Duplex, Single-Family Attached 1,160 1.26 1,462 1.05 1,218 Total SFD < 4,000 Sq Ft 1,590 2.65 4,221 2.21 3,518 Total Residential 2,750 5,683 4,736 Non-Residential Sq Ft Employment Occup %Employees Retail 50,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft 85,000 2.50 95%202 Total Non-Residential 85,000 202 Neigborhood Civic 27,500 Grand Total Non-Residential (sf)112,500 202 Cumulative Population and Employment At Buildout Permanent Population 4,736 Permanent Population and Jobs 4,938 Residential Seasonal Population 5,683 Residential Seasonal Population and Tourists 5,683 Employment 202 Residential Seasonal Population and Employment 5,885 Residential Seasonal Population, Tourists, and Employment 5,885 Students Total Residential Population Units per Unit Students Total Condo, Dupex, Single-Family Attached 1,160 0.11 128 Total SFD < 4,000 Sq Ft 1,590 0.34 541 Annual Total 2,750 669 Cumulative Total 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 1390 Attachment: Attachment D Bellmar SRA Econ Assess 2020.01.08 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 37 Appendix Table 6: Bellmar County Tax Base Source: Collier Enterprises, Collier County, Shimberg Center for Housing Studies (Univ. of FL), DPFG, 2019 Appendix Table 7: Bellmar School District Tax Base Source: Collier Enterprises, Collier County, Shimberg Center for Housing Studies (Univ. of FL), DPFG, 2019 Units or Taxable Value Land Use Sq Ft per Unit/SF At Buildout Residential Total Condo, Dupex, Single-Family Attached 1,160 261,005$ 302,766,000$ Total SFD < 4,000 Sq Ft 1,590 369,749$ 587,901,000 Total Single-Family 2,750 890,667,000$ Total Residential 2,750 890,667,000$ Non-Residential Retail 50,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft 85,000 189.50$ 16,108,000 Total Non-Residential 85,000 16,108,000$ Total Tax Base 906,775,000$ Units or Taxable Value Land Use Sq Ft per Unit/SF At Buildout Residential Total Condo, Dupex, Single-Family Attached 1,160 268,755$ 311,756,000$ Total SFD < 4,000 Sq Ft 1,590 386,249$ 614,136,000 Total Single-Family 2,750 925,892,000$ Total Residential 2,750 925,892,000$ Non-Residential Retail 50,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft 85,000 189.50$ 16,108,000 Total Non-Residential 85,000 16,108,000$ Total Tax Base 942,000,000$ 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 1391 Attachment: Attachment D Bellmar SRA Econ Assess 2020.01.08 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 38 Appendix Table 8: FY 2019 Collier County General Funds Budget Summaries Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 Ad Valorem Taxes Licenses & Permits Inter- Governmental Revenues State Revenue Sharing State Sales Tax Fed Payment in Lieu of Taxes Charges for Services Fines & Forfeitures Miscellaneous Revenues Interest/ Miscellaneous Indirect Service Charge Carry Forward 001 General Fund 314,823,600$ 229,200$ 453,500$ 11,000,000$ 41,000,000$ 1,250,000$ 14,214,100$ 392,500$ 208,100$ 910,000$ 8,254,500$ 41,381,100$ 002 Impact Fee Deferral Program - - - - - - - - - - - 20,200 003 Emergency Relief - - - - - - - - - - 2,300 285,100 007 Economic Development - - 400,000 - - - - - - 18,600 - 1,334,200 011 Clerk of Circuit Court - - - - - - 3,214,600 - - 36,000 - - 040 Sheriff - - - - - - - - - - - - 060 Property Appraiser - - - - - - - - - - - - 070 Tax Collector - - - - - - 23,377,700 - - 233,500 - - 080 Supervisor of Elections - - - - - - - - - - - - Total General Fund Grouping Revenues 314,823,600$ 229,200$ 853,500$ 11,000,000$ 41,000,000$ 1,250,000$ 40,806,400$ 392,500$ 208,100$ 1,198,100$ 8,256,800$ 43,020,600$ GENERAL FUND GROUPING REVENUES AND SOURCES Communication Services Tax Special Assessments Transfers from General Fund (001) Transfers from Constitutional Officers Other Transfers Repay IRMA Loan Reimburse from Other Departments Total Less Restricted Total 001 General Fund - - - 6,600,000$ 1,815,000$ 11,700,000$ 863,000$ 455,094,600$ (19,191,900)$ 435,902,700$ 002 Impact Fee Deferral Program - - - - - - - 20,200 - 20,200 003 Emergency Relief - - - - - - - 287,400 (200) 287,200 007 Economic Development - - - - - - - 1,752,800 (21,000) 1,731,800 011 Clerk of Circuit Court - - 7,367,000 - - - - 10,617,600 (159,200) 10,458,400 040 Sheriff - - 187,203,400 - - - - 187,203,400 - 187,203,400 060 Property Appraiser - - 6,951,000 - 846,100 - - 7,797,100 - 7,797,100 070 Tax Collector - - - - - - - 23,611,200 - 23,611,200 080 Supervisor of Elections - - 3,893,000 - - - - 3,893,000 - 3,893,000 Total General Fund Grouping Revenues -$ -$ 205,414,400$ 6,600,000$ 2,661,100$ 11,700,000$ 863,000$ 690,277,300$ (19,372,300)$ 670,905,000$ GENERAL FUND GROUPING REVENUES AND SOURCES Fund #General Fund Description Total Budget 001 General Fund 435,902,700$ 002 Utility Impact Fee Deferral Program 20,200 003 Emergency Disaster 287,200 007 Economic Development 1,731,800 011 Clerk of Circuit Court 10,458,400 040 Sheriff 187,203,400 060 Property Appraiser 7,797,100 070 Tax Collector 23,611,200 080 Supervisor of Elections 3,893,000 Total General Fund Groupings 670,905,000$ 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 1392 Attachment: Attachment D Bellmar SRA Econ Assess 2020.01.08 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 39 Appendix Table 9: FY 2019 Collier County General Funds Revenue Demand Units Source: Collier County, DFPG, 2019 Appendix Table 10: FY 2019 Collier County MSTU Revenue Demand Units Source: Collier County, DFPG, 2019 General Fund Grouping Revenue Category Budget Demand Base Multiplier Base Demand $ Per Demand Unit Ad Valorem Taxes 314,823,600$ CUMULATIVE AV 1.00 N/A N/A Licenses & Permits 229,200 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,537 0.42$ Inter- Governmental Revenues 853,500 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,537 1.55$ State Revenue Sharing - Fixed Portion 1,042,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A State Revenue Sharing - Growth Portion 9,958,000 PERMPOP 1.00 376,086 26.48$ State Sales Tax 41,000,000 PERMPOP 1.00 376,086 109.02$ Fed Payment in Lieu of Taxes 1,250,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Charges for Services 40,806,400 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,537 74.12$ Fines & Forfeitures 392,500 PEAKPOP 1.00 451,303 0.87$ Miscellaneous Revenues 208,100 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,537 0.38$ Interest/ Miscellaneous 1,198,100 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,537 2.18$ Indirect Service Charge 8,256,800 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,537 15.00$ Carry Forward 43,020,600 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfers from General Fund (001)205,414,400 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfers from Constitutional Officers 6,600,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 625,754 10.55$ Other Transfers 2,661,100 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Repay IRMA Loan 11,700,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Reimburse from Other Departments 863,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 625,754 1.38$ Total 690,277,300$ 241.95$ General Fund Grouping Revenue Category Budget Demand Base Multiplier Base Demand $ Per Demand Unit Ad Valorem Taxes 44,228,900$ CUMULATIVE AV 1.00 N/A N/A Licenses & Permits 452,300 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 488,682 0.93$ Charges for Services 3,136,200 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 488,682 6.42$ Fines & Forfeitures 237,000 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 488,682 0.48$ Miscellaneous Revenues 231,400 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559,796 0.41$ Interest/ Miscellaneous 120,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559,796 0.21$ Carry Forward 6,982,900 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Communication Services Tax 4,500,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559,796 8.04$ Special Assessments 33,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfers from General Fund (001)916,600 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfers from Constitutional Officers 200,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Other Transfers 563,700 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Reimburse from Other Departments 21,500 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559,796 0.04$ Total 61,623,500$ 16.53$ 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 1393 Attachment: Attachment D Bellmar SRA Econ Assess 2020.01.08 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 40 Appendix Table 11: Bellmar General Funds Revenue at Buildout Source: Collier County, DFPG, 2019 Appendix Table 12: Bellmar MSTU Revenue at Buildout Source: Collier County, DFPG, 2019 GENERAL FUND GROUPING REVENUES Demand Base At Buildout Ad Valorem Taxes CUMULATIVE AV 3.5645$ 3,232,000$ Licenses & Permits PERMPOP&JOBS 0.42$ 2,000 Inter- Governmental Revenues PERMPOP&JOBS 1.55$ 8,000 State Revenue Sharing - Growth Portion PERMPOP 26.48$ 125,000 State Sales Tax PERMPOP 109.02$ 516,000 Charges for Services PERMPOP&JOBS 74.12$ 366,000 Fines & Forfeitures PEAKPOP 0.87$ 5,000 Miscellaneous Revenues PERMPOP&JOBS 0.38$ 2,000 Interest/ Miscellaneous PERMPOP&JOBS 2.18$ 11,000 Indirect Service Charge PERMPOP&JOBS 15.00$ 74,000 Transfers from Constitutional Officers PEAKPOP&JOBS 10.55$ 62,000 Reimburse from Other Departments PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.38$ 8,000 Total General Funds Annual Operating Revenues 241.95$ 4,411,000$ $ Per Demand MSTU GENERAL FUND REVENUES Demand Base At Buildout Ad Valorem Taxes CUMULATIVE AV 0.8069$ 732,000$ Licenses & Permits PERMPOP&JOBS 0.93$ 5,000 Charges for Services PERMPOP&JOBS 6.42$ 32,000 Fines & Forfeitures PERMPOP&JOBS 0.48$ 2,000 Miscellaneous Revenues PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.41$ 2,000 Interest/ Miscellaneous PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.21$ 1,000 Communication Services Tax PEAKPOP&JOBS 8.04$ 47,000 Reimburse from Other Departments PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.04$ - Total MSTU Annual Operating Revenues 16.53$ 821,000$ $ Per Demand 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 1394 Attachment: Attachment D Bellmar SRA Econ Assess 2020.01.08 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 41 Appendix Table 13: FY 2019 Collier County General Funds Expenditure Budget Summaries Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 Personal Services Operating Services Capital Outlay Grants and Aid Remittances Advance/ Repay Indirect Cost Reimbursement Transfers to Constitutional Officers Transfers to General Fund (001) Other Transfers Reserves 001 General Fund 34,711,900$ $ 36,937,400 420,500$ 3,624,600$ 6,572,800$ 445,000$ -$ 221,211,500$ 87,497,800$ 44,481,200$ 002 Impact Fee Deferral Program - - - - - - - - 20,200 - - 003 Emergency Relief - 50,000 - - - - - - - - 237,200 007 Economic Development - 211,000 - - 389,000 4,100 - - - 1,127,700 011 Clerk of Circuit Court 8,607,800 1,721,100 129,500 - - - - - - - - 040 Sheriff 152,433,800 26,926,900 7,842,700 - - - - - - - - 060 Property Appraiser 6,045,100 1,727,000 25,000 - - - - - - - - 070 Tax Collector 11,783,800 2,743,200 424,300 - - - - - - - - 080 Supervisor of Elections 2,351,800 1,493,200 48,000 - - - - - - - - Total General Fund Grouping Expenditures 215,934,200$ 71,809,800$ 8,890,000$ 3,624,600$ 6,961,800$ 445,000$ 4,100$ 221,211,500$ 20,200$ 87,497,800$ 45,846,100$ GENERAL FUND GROUPING EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES Restricted for Unfunded Requests Distribution of Excess Fees to Govt Agencies Total Personal Services Operating Services Capital Outlay Grants and Aid Remittances 001 General Fund - - 435,902,700$ 82,267,200$ 002 Impact Fee Deferral Program - - 20,200 - 003 Emergency Relief - - 287,200 50,000 007 Economic Development - - 1,731,800 604,100 011 Clerk of Circuit Court - - 10,458,400 10,458,400 040 Sheriff - - 187,203,400 187,203,400 060 Property Appraiser - - 7,797,100 7,797,100 070 Tax Collector - 8,659,900 23,611,200 14,951,300 080 Supervisor of Elections - - 3,893,000 3,893,000 Total General Fund Grouping Expenditures -$ 8,659,900$ 670,905,000$ 307,224,500$ GENERAL FUND GROUPING EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 1395 Attachment: Attachment D Bellmar SRA Econ Assess 2020.01.08 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 42 Appendix Table 14: FY 2019 Collier County Expenditure Budget Summaries Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 Fund #General Fund Description Total Budget 001 General Fund 435,902,700$ 002 Utility Impact Fee Deferral Program 20,200 003 Emergency Disaster 287,200 007 Economic Development 1,731,800 011 Clerk of Circuit Court 10,458,400 040 Sheriff 187,203,400 060 Property Appraiser 7,797,100 070 Tax Collector 23,611,200 080 Supervisor of Elections 3,893,000 Total General Fund Groupings 670,905,000$ Fund Type Operating Budget General Fund Groupings 307,224,500$ Special Revenue Funds 156,082,600 Capital Funds - Enterprise Funds 42,987,300 Internal Service Funds 91,365,600 Trust and Agency Funds 23,900 Transfers and Reserves 153,874,700 Total Operating Services, Excluding Public Utilities 751,558,600$ Division/Agency Operating Budget Board of County Commissioners 17,523,000$ Constitutional Officers 243,879,300 Administrative Services 196,578,300 Growth Management 114,566,200 Court Related Agencies 5,554,000 Management Offices 51,819,600 Public Services 104,222,300 Public Utilities - Facilities Management 17,415,900 Total Operating Services, Excluding Public Utilities 751,558,600$ Public Utilities 238,142,800 Total Operating Budget 989,701,400$ 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 1396 Attachment: Attachment D Bellmar SRA Econ Assess 2020.01.08 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 43 Appendix Table 15: FY 2019 Collier County Appropriations by Program Budget Summaries Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 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 10,974,700$ 3,539,800$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 14,514,500$ 5,080,100$ County Attorney 2,815,500 193,000 - - - - - 3,008,500 2,815,500 Property Appraiser 7,977,000 - - - - - - 7,977,000 7,977,000 Supervisor of Elections 3,959,600 - - - - - - 3,959,600 3,959,600 Clerk of Courts 10,960,500 - - - - - - 10,960,500 10,960,500 Sheriff 190,708,300 3,053,000 - - - - 3,385,500 197,146,800 190,708,300 Tax Collector 15,175,500 - - - - - 8,659,900 23,835,400 15,175,500 Administrative Services 667,300 - - - - - - 667,300 667,300 Dori Slosberg Driver Education - 121,400 - - - - 115,000 236,400 - Fleet Management - - - - 9,308,700 - 696,600 10,005,300 - Motor Pool Capital Recovery Program - - - 2,452,300 5,485,500 - 11,562,300 19,500,100 - Human Resources 2,173,400 - - - - - - 2,173,400 2,173,400 Information Technology - 1,221,900 - - 9,509,200 - 1,380,700 12,111,800 - Procurement Services 2,016,700 - - - - - - 2,016,700 2,016,700 Risk Management - - - - 67,062,200 - 40,610,500 107,672,700 - Communications & Customer Relations Division - 1,467,800 - - - - - 1,467,800 - Administrative Services Grants - 34,500 - - - - - 34,500 - Bureau of Emergency Services 3,313,800 75,000 - - - - 237,200 3,626,000 3,291,000 Emergency Medical Services EMS - - - 31,084,400 - - 3,562,600 34,647,000 - Fire Districts - 2,101,500 - - - - 317,800 2,419,300 - Growth Management Administration - 15,329,900 - - - - - 15,329,900 - Planning 107,300 3,477,800 - - - - - 3,585,100 107,300 Regulation - 26,514,000 - - - - 1,911,400 28,425,400 - Maintenance - 21,158,800 - - - - 872,700 22,031,500 - Improvement Districts and MSTU - 2,086,700 - - - - 36,300 2,123,000 - Operations - 9,329,900 - - - - 140,700 9,470,600 - Project Management - 5,805,000 - - - - 93,800 5,898,800 - Airport - - - 3,815,900 - - 737,700 4,553,600 - Reserves and Transfers - - - - - - 23,148,300 23,148,300 - Court Administration - 2,968,700 - - - - 235,200 3,203,900 - Circuit & County Court Judges 65,900 - - - - - - 65,900 65,900 Public Defender 308,400 - - - - - - 308,400 308,400 State Attorney 407,400 - - - - - - 407,400 407,400 Guardian Ad Litem Program 4,600 - - - - - - 4,600 4,600 Court Related Technology - 1,068,500 - - - - 495,300 1,563,800 - County Manager Operations 1,392,000 - - - - - - 1,392,000 1,392,000 Corporate Compliance and Performance Impr.664,200 - - - - - - 664,200 664,200 Office of Management & Budget 1,367,900 1,310,600 - - - - 442,400 3,120,900 1,367,900 Tourist Development Council - 12,291,400 - - - - 5,588,400 17,879,800 - Amateur Sports Complex - 2,194,900 - - - - - 2,194,900 - Pelican Bay Services - 4,930,300 - - - - 2,708,600 7,638,900 - Business and Economic Development 2,063,500 - - - - - 3,164,500 5,228,000 1,019,100 Ave Maria Innovation Zone - 1,000 - - - - 204,800 205,800 - Bayshore CRA - 7,394,300 - - - - 3,534,600 10,928,900 - Immokalee CRA - 1,216,600 - - - - 1,349,600 2,566,200 - Public Services Administration 297,400 - - - - - - 297,400 297,400 Operations and Veteran Services 1,083,900 - - - - - - 1,083,900 1,083,900 Domestic Animal Services 3,441,700 90,500 - - - - 313,000 3,845,200 3,441,700 Community and Human Services 7,557,300 1,171,900 - - - - 1,409,100 10,138,300 7,557,300 Library 8,216,500 270,800 - - - - 21,200 8,508,500 8,216,500 Museum - 2,217,400 - - - - 280,500 2,497,900 - Parks & Recreation 10,050,300 17,141,500 - - - 23,900 34,585,900 61,801,600 10,050,300 University Extension Service 775,900 68,200 - - - - 22,100 866,200 775,900 Public Health 1,861,000 - - - - - - 1,861,000 1,861,000 Public Transit and Neighborhood Enhancement 359,000 - - 5,634,700 - - 480,800 6,474,500 359,000 Improvement Districts and MSTU - 6,185,300 - - - - 662,500 6,847,800 - Facilities Management 16,458,000 50,700 - - - - 907,200 17,415,900 16,458,000 Total 307,224,500$ 156,082,600$ -$ 42,987,300$ 91,365,600$ 23,900$ 153,874,700$ 751,558,600$ 300,262,700$ 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 1397 Attachment: Attachment D Bellmar SRA Econ Assess 2020.01.08 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 44 Appendix Table 16: FY 2019 Collier County General Funds Expenditure Demand Units Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 Department Budget Demand Base Multiplier Base Demand Board of County Commissioners 5,080,100$ PERMPOP 0.50 376,086 6.75$ County Attorney 2,815,500 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 625,754 2.25$ Property Appraiser 7,977,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 625,754 12.75$ Supervisor of Elections 3,959,600 PERMPOP 0.50 376,086 5.26$ Clerk of Courts 10,960,500 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 625,754 8.76$ Sheriff 190,708,300 PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 1.00 633,596 300.99$ Tax Collector 15,175,500 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,537 27.56$ Administrative Services 667,300 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 625,754 0.53$ Human Resources 2,173,400 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 625,754 1.74$ Procurement Services 2,016,700 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 625,754 1.61$ Bureau of Emergency Services 3,291,000 PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 1.00 633,596 5.19$ Planning 107,300 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 625,754 0.17$ Circuit & County Court Judges 65,900 PEAKPOP 1.00 451,303 0.15$ Public Defender 308,400 PERMPOP 1.00 376,086 0.82$ State Attorney 407,400 PERMPOP 1.00 376,086 1.08$ Guardian Ad Litem Program 4,600 PERMPOP 1.00 376,086 0.01$ County Manager Operations 1,392,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 625,754 1.11$ Corporate Compliance and Performance Impr.664,200 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Office of Management & Budget 1,367,900 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 625,754 1.09$ Business and Economic Development 1,019,100 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Public Services Administration 297,400 PERMPOP 0.50 376,086 0.40$ Operations and Veteran Services 1,083,900 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Domestic Animal Services 3,441,700 PERMPOP 1.00 376,086 9.15$ Community and Human Services 7,557,300 PERMPOP 0.50 376,086 10.05$ Library 8,216,500 PEAKPOP 1.00 451,303 18.21$ Parks & Recreation 10,050,300 PEAKPOP 1.00 451,303 22.27$ University Extension Service 775,900 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Public Health 1,861,000 PERMPOP 0.20 376,086 0.99$ Public Transit and Neighborhood Enhancement 359,000 PERMPOP 0.50 376,086 0.48$ Facilities Management 16,458,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 625,754 26.30$ General Funds Grouping Totals Less Remittances 300,262,700$ Remittances 6,961,800 FIXED 1.00 - N/A General Funds Grouping Totals Plus Remittances 307,224,500$ Transfer to 101 Transp Op Fund 20,154,300 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 625,754 32.21$ Transfer to 103 Stormwater Utility 1,474,300 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfer to 111 Unincorp Gen Fd 916,600 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfer to 298 Sp Ob Bond 2,775,900 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfer to 299 Debt Service Fund 703,500 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfer to 301 Capital Projects 15,335,700 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfer to 306 Parks Ad Valorem Cap Fund 1,100,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfer to 310 Growth Mgt Transportation Cap 8,555,800 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 625,754 13.67$ Transfer to 314 Musuem Cap 200,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfer to 325 Stormwater Cap Fund 2,500,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfer to 426 CAT Mass Transit 1,952,900 PEAKPOP 1.00 451,303 4.33$ Transfer to 427 Transp Disadvantaged 2,604,700 PERMPOP 1.00 376,086 6.93$ Transfer to 490 EMS Fund 18,018,600 PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 1.00 633,596 28.44$ Transfer to 506 IT Capital 430,600 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfer to 523 Motor Pool Capital 110,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfer to 652 Legal Aid 147,700 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfer to 681 Court Services 2,012,400 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfers to General Fund (001)20,200 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Other Transfers 8,504,800 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Advance/Repayments 445,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfers to Constitutional Officers 221,211,500 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Reserves 45,846,100 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Distributions in Excess of Fees to Govt Agencies 8,659,900 PERMPOP&JOBS 1.00 550,537 15.73$ Total 670,905,000$ 1.00 566.99$ $ Per Demand 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 1398 Attachment: Attachment D Bellmar SRA Econ Assess 2020.01.08 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 45 Appendix Table 17: FY 2019 Collier County MSTU Expenditure Demand Units Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 Department Budget Demand Base Multiplier Base Demand Board of County Commissioners 1,237,900 PERMPOP 0.50 333,831 3.71$ Communications & Customer Relations Division 1,467,800 PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.50 559,796 2.62$ Growth Management Administration 556,100 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559,796 0.99$ Planning 1,804,700 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559,796 3.22$ Regulation 5,333,600 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559,796 9.53$ Maintenance 9,531,300 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559,796 17.03$ Bureau of Emergency Services 75,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559,796 0.13$ Project Management - PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559,796 -$ Pelican Bay Services 150,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Immokalee CRA 212,500 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Community and Human Services 113,100 PERMPOP 0.50 333,831 0.34$ Parks & Recreation 13,729,100 PEAKPOP 1.00 404,945 33.90$ Transfer to 306 Parks Capital Fund 2,750,000 PEAKPOP 1.00 404,945 6.79$ Transfer to 310 Growth Mgt Cap 4,250,000 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559,796 7.59$ Transfer to 325 Stormwater Cap Fund 3,000,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Improvement Districts and MSTU 334,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Indirect Cost Reimbursement 2,301,900 PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.00 559,796 4.11$ Remittances 500,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Transfers 8,383,000 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Advances 262,400 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Reserves 2,982,300 FIXED 1.00 - N/A Total 58,974,700$ 1.00 89.97$ $ Per Demand 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 1399 Attachment: Attachment D Bellmar SRA Econ Assess 2020.01.08 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 46 Appendix Table 18: Bellmar General Funds Expenditures at Buildout Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 GENERAL FUND GROUPING EXPENDITURES Demand Base At Buildout Board of County Commissioners PERMPOP 6.75$ 32,000$ County Attorney PEAKPOP&JOBS 2.25 13,000 Property Appraiser PEAKPOP&JOBS 12.75 75,000 Supervisor of Elections PERMPOP 5.26 25,000 Clerk of Courts PEAKPOP&JOBS 8.76 52,000 Sheriff PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 300.99 1,771,000 Tax Collector PERMPOP&JOBS 27.56 136,000 Administrative Services PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.53 3,000 Human Resources PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.74 10,000 Procurement Services PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.61 9,000 Bureau of Emergency Services PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 5.19 31,000 Planning PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.17 1,000 Circuit & County Court Judges PEAKPOP 0.15 1,000 Public Defender PERMPOP 0.82 4,000 State Attorney PERMPOP 1.08 5,000 Guardian Ad Litem Program PERMPOP 0.01 - County Manager Operations PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.11 7,000 Office of Management & Budget PEAKPOP&JOBS 1.09 6,000 Public Services Administration PERMPOP 0.40 2,000 Domestic Animal Services PERMPOP 9.15 43,000 Community and Human Services PERMPOP 10.05 48,000 Library PEAKPOP 18.21 103,000 Parks & Recreation PEAKPOP 22.27 127,000 Public Health PERMPOP 0.99 5,000 Public Transit and Neighborhood Enhancement PERMPOP 0.48 2,000 Facilities Management PEAKPOP&JOBS 26.30 155,000 Transfer to 101 Transp Op Fund PEAKPOP&JOBS 32.21 190,000 Transfer to 310 Growth Mgt Transportation Cap PEAKPOP&JOBS 13.67 80,000 Transfer to 426 CAT Mass Transit PEAKPOP 4.33 25,000 Transfer to 427 Transp Disadvantaged PERMPOP 6.93 33,000 Transfer to 490 EMS Fund PEAKPOPTOUR&JOBS 28.44 167,000 Distributions in Excess of Fees to Govt Agencies PERMPOP&JOBS 15.73 78,000 Total General Funds Annual Operating Expenditures 566.99$ 3,239,000$ $ Per Demand 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 1400 Attachment: Attachment D Bellmar SRA Econ Assess 2020.01.08 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 47 Appendix Table 19: Bellmar MSTU Expenditures at Buildout Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 MSTU GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES Demand Base At Buildout Board of County Commissioners PERMPOP 3.71$ 18,000$ Communications & Customer Relations Division PEAKPOP&JOBS 2.62$ 15,000 Growth Management Administration PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.99$ 6,000 Planning PEAKPOP&JOBS 3.22$ 19,000 Regulation PEAKPOP&JOBS 9.53$ 56,000 Maintenance PEAKPOP&JOBS 17.03$ 100,000 Bureau of Emergency Services PEAKPOP&JOBS 0.13$ 1,000 Project Management PEAKPOP&JOBS -$ - Community and Human Services PERMPOP 0.34$ 2,000 Parks & Recreation PEAKPOP 33.90$ 193,000 Transfer to 306 Parks Capital Fund PEAKPOP 6.79$ 39,000 Transfer to 310 Growth Mgt Cap PEAKPOP&JOBS 7.59$ 45,000 Indirect Cost Reimbursement PEAKPOP&JOBS 4.11$ 24,000 Total MSTU Annual Operating Expenditures 89.97 518,000$ $ Per Demand 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 1401 Attachment: Attachment D Bellmar SRA Econ Assess 2020.01.08 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 48 Appendix Table 20: Collier County Impact Fee Schedule Source: Collier County, DPFG, 2019 Land Use Demand Unit Community Parks Regional Parks Roads EMS Schools Government Buildings Total Condo, Dupex, Single-Family Attached Unit 455.20$ 1,230.24$ 4,844.91$ 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$ Retail 50,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft Sq Ft -$ -$ 15.42477$ 0.19230$ -$ 1.27547$ Land Use Demand Unit Libraries Law Enforcement Jail Water Wastewater Total Total Condo, Dupex, Single-Family Attached Unit 159.78$ 296.56$ 259.25$ 2,562.00$ 2,701.00$ 15,864.57$ Single Family Detached < 4,000 Sq Ft Living Unit 336.05$ 586.95$ 499.19$ 2,562.00$ 2,701.00$ 27,623.28$ Retail 50,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft Sq Ft -$ 0.76499$ 0.67846$ -$ -$ 18.34$ 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 1402 Attachment: Attachment D Bellmar SRA Econ Assess 2020.01.08 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 49 49 Appendix Table 21: Bellmar Impact Fee Revenues Source: Collier County, Collier Enterprises, DPFG, 2019 Land Use Demand Units Demand Unit Community Parks Regional Parks Roads EMS Schools Total Condo, Dupex, Single-Family Attached 1,160 Unit 528,000$ 1,427,000$ 5,620,000$ 78,000$ 3,299,000$ Total SFD < 4,000 Sq Ft 1,590 Unit 1,485,000 4,284,000 11,836,000 226,000 13,975,000 Retail 50,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft 85,000 Sq Ft - - 1,311,000 16,000 - Total 2,013,000$ 5,711,000$ 18,767,000$ 320,000$ 17,274,000$ Total of Buildout Schedules 2,013,000$ 5,711,000$ 18,767,000$ 320,000$ 17,274,000$ Land Use Demand Units Government Buildings Libraries Law Enforcement Jail Water Residential Only Wastewater Residential Only Total Condo, Dupex, Single-Family Attached 1,160 515,000$ 185,000$ 344,000$ 301,000$ 2,972,000$ 3,133,000$ Total SFD < 4,000 Sq Ft 1,590 1,486,000 534,000 933,000 794,000 4,074,000 4,295,000 Retail 50,001 - 100,000 Sq Ft 85,000 108,000 - 65,000 58,000 - - Total 2,109,000$ 719,000$ 1,342,000$ 1,153,000$ 7,046,000$ 7,428,000$ Total of Buildout Schedules 2,109,000$ 719,000$ 1,342,000$ 1,153,000$ 7,046,000$ 7,428,000$ 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 1403 Attachment: Attachment D Bellmar SRA Econ Assess 2020.01.08 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village BELLMAR VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 50 50 Appendix Table 22: Collier County School District Base Assumptions Source: Collier County School District, DPFG 2019 STUDENT GENERATION RATES - 2015 IMPACT FEE UPDATE 0.34 Single Family 0.11 Multi Family and Single Family Attached 0.28 Mobile Home FY 2020 SCHOOL FTE ENROLLMENT 18,948 Elementary 10,162 Middle 13,524 High 962 Alternate Schools No reference in budget Workforce Programs 3,253 Charter Schools 606 To Balance to Budgeted FTE 47,455 Total SCHOOL ENROLLMENT 2015 IMPACT FEE UDPATE 49%Elementary 23%Middle 28%High 100%Total FY 2020 MILLAGE RATES 2.835 Required Local Effort 0.748 Discretionary - Addiitional Millage 3.583 Total General Fund Millage 1.500 Capital Improvement Millage 5.083 Total Millage 2.835 Required by State Law 2.248 Total Discretionary Local 5.083 Total Millage 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 1404 Attachment: Attachment D Bellmar SRA Econ Assess 2020.01.08 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) BELLMAR VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 51 51 GENERAL 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 November 2019 (except for the sections identified as being updated in January 2020, March 2020, June 2020, August 19, 2020, November 12, 2020, and January 8, 2021), 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 mad e 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. 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.2.f Packet Pg. 1405 Attachment: Attachment D Bellmar SRA Econ Assess 2020.01.08 (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 1406 Attachment: Attachment E Belmar Village Interlocal Agreement Water Sewer - CAO stamped (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 1407 Attachment: Attachment E Belmar Village Interlocal Agreement Water Sewer - CAO stamped (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 1408 Attachment: Attachment E Belmar Village Interlocal Agreement Water Sewer - CAO stamped (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 1409 Attachment: Attachment E Belmar Village Interlocal Agreement Water Sewer - CAO stamped (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 1410 Attachment: Attachment E Belmar Village Interlocal Agreement Water Sewer - CAO stamped (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 1411Attachment: Attachment E Belmar Village Interlocal Agreement Water Sewer - CAO stamped (14883 : 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 1412Attachment: Attachment E Belmar Village Interlocal Agreement Water Sewer - CAO stamped (14883 : JACOBS_COLLIERCNTY_BELLMARVILLAGE_PEERREVIEW_DRAFT6_081720 (002)JACOBS_COLLIER COUNTY_BELLMAR VILLAGE_PEER REVIEW_DRAFT6_0817201 M E M O R A N D U M Collier County GMD – Peer Review of Bellmar Village SRA Economic Assessment PREPARED FOR: Amy Patterson, Collier County Trinity Scott, Collier County James French, Collier County Kenneth Kovensky, Collier County Ian Barnwell, Collier County COPY TO: Bill Gramer, Jacobs PREPARED BY: Dave Green, Jacobs Dennis Jackson, Jacobs Darren Betts, Jacobs Bethel Gashaw, Jacobs DATE: August 17, 2020 Introduction Collier County, Florida (the County) Growth Management Division (GMD) engaged Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. (Jacobs) to conduct a peer review of the “Bellmar Village SRA Economic Assessment” (Report) prepared by Development Planning & Financing Group (DPFG) on behalf of Collier Enterprises Management, Inc. (the Applicant). The initial version of this report was dated November 11, 2019. The version reviewed herein, was most recently revised on June 3, 2020. The purpose of the peer review was to assess: • The reasonableness of the assumptions in the assessment. • The consistency of the assessment with the underlying assumptions. • The reasonableness of the anticipated future revenue from ad valorem taxes, impact fees, and other sources for the appropriate forecast period; and reasonableness of expenditures (capital and operating) for the appropriate forecast period. • The consistency of the recommendations and findings with generally accepted governmental accounting and finance conventions, financial forecasting, impact-fee-setting practices, balanced development concepts (growth pays for growth), and/or applicable County policies (such as the Collier County Land Development Code). Our procedures in reviewing the Report included sample verification of significant calculations, testing of consistency among underlying assumptions, data and calculation methods, and reviewing the consistency of results with the County’s current plans and forecasts. Jacobs did not replicate or develop an independent Fiscal Impact Analysis Model (FIAM), but peer-reviewed DPFG’s alternative fiscal impact model and tested significant and sensitive variables. A record of our verification of sources and assumptions is provided in Appendix A. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 1413 Attachment: Attachment F Peer Review Draft Jacobs 081720 (002) (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 2 JACOBS_COLLIERCNTY_BELLMARVILLAGE_PEERREVIEW_DRAFT6_081720 (002)JACOBS_COLLIER COUNTY_BELLMAR VILLAGE_PEER REVIEW_DRAFT6_081720 In preparing this peer review Jacobs relied, in whole or in part, on data and information provided by the County and third parties, which has not been independently verified by Jacobs and which Jacobs has assumed to be accurate, complete, reliable, and current. Therefore, while Jacobs has utilized its best efforts in preparing the peer review and providing comments and recommendations to the County, Jacobs does not warrant or guarantee the conclusions set forth herein or in the DPFG Report or its fiscal impact model, which are dependent and/or based upon data, information, or statements supplied by the County or third parties. Qualifications and Consultant Team Jacobs is one of the largest and most diverse providers of technical, professional and construction services, including all aspects of architecture, engineering and construction, operations and maintenance, as well as specialty and strategic consulting. Our 55,000+ employees in 400+ locations around the world serve a broad range of companies and organizations, including industrial, commercial, and government clients across multiple markets and geographies. Jacobs’ Business and Finance consulting group provides planning and financial consulting services for a range of public sector clients around the globe. Guided by strategic thinking and an interactive process, we help clients achieve their goals and objectives and prepare for future change. Our experience is comprehensive and diverse, with involvement in various aspects of planning – from the conceptual stages, to the technical, operational and financial elements. We rely on a relationship-based approach and value strong partnerships within the team. Relevant fiscal impact analysis work for key municipal and local government clients has included: • Collier County, Florida – Peer Reviews of Fiscal Neutrality Analyses prepared for several proposed new developments in the County. Analysis involved independent review of analyses prepared by another consultant of the projected impacts of each of the proposed developments on the County, School District, and Fire and Rescue District’s costs and revenues at the horizon year or buildout of the proposed developments. • Palm Beach County, Florida – Comprehensive planning focused on the economics and land use elements of the County's comprehensive plan. The project required analysis of trends in population, employment, and land use patterns, to project land use needs by type of use for the next 25 years. The fiscal impact analysis required modeling county government revenues and expenditures to provide projections of the effect different economic growth scenarios would have on the County's budget. Jacobs also evaluated a proposed traffic performance standard to determine the impact the proposed standard would have on the County's economy. • City of Phoenix, Arizona – Impact fees peer review for water and wastewater infrastructure improvements and development impact fee calculations following passage of Senate Bill 1525 (SB 1525) amending the impact fee section of the Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS §9-463.05), which tightened the standards for demonstrating compliance with the State’s impact fee law. • Broward County, Florida – Peer reviewer for the preparation of a fiscal impact analysis related to the construction of a new Florida Power and Light (FPL) Sunrise Energy Center. • Various Municipal and Local Government Clients – Providing peer review and preparation of fiscal impact analyses related to economic development options, impact fee studies, master planning, and infrastructure project development for utilities and general government services. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 1414 Attachment: Attachment F Peer Review Draft Jacobs 081720 (002) (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT JACOBS_COLLIERCNTY_BELLMARVILLAGE_PEERREVIEW_DRAFT6_081720 (002)JACOBS_COLLIER COUNTY_BELLMAR VILLAGE_PEER REVIEW_DRAFT6_081720 3 The Jacobs consultants responsible for this peer review are: • Bill Gramer, PE – Client Liaison • Dave Green – Senior Economist, and Project Manager • Dennis Jackson, PE – QA/QC Reviewer • Darren Betts, MBA – Financial Analyst • Bethel Gashaw – Strategic Consulting Intern Legal Basis Collier County’s Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) program “was established under the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Its objective is the creation of an incentive- based land use overlay system based on the principles of rural land stewardship found in Florida Statutes, Section 163.3177(11), including environmental preservation, agricultural preservation and smart growth development. Through the RLSA program, Stewardship Sending Areas (SSAs) can be approved for preservation purposes, creating credits to entitle Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs), typically towns, villages, hamlets and compact rural developments (CRDs). The credit system is designed to incentivize preservation of the most important environmental lands, including large, connected wetland systems and significant habitat for listed species, by awarding higher credit values for high value preservation areas.”1 Pursuant to the GMP RLSA, Policy 4.18 states “the SRA will be planned and designed to be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County at the horizon year [emphasis added] based on a cost/benefit fiscal impact analysis model acceptable to or as may be adopted by the County. The Board of County Commissioners (BCC) may grant exceptions to this policy to accommodate affordable-workforce housing, as it deems appropriate. Techniques that may promote fiscal neutrality such as Community Development Districts, and other special districts, shall be encouraged. At a minimum, the analysis 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.” Further, the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), Section 4.08.07 defines the requirements for SRA Designation, which “is intended to encourage and facilitate uses that enable economic prosperity and diversification of the economic base of the RLSA District….]. One of several preconditions for the SRA designation is an economic assessment, per Section 4.08.07 L. of the LDC, as follows: L. SRA Economic Assessment. An Economic Assessment meeting the requirements of this Section shall be prepared and submitted as part of the SRA Designation Application Package. At a minimum, the analysis 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. Development phasing and 1 https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/your-government/divisions-a-e/comprehensive-planning/rural-land-stewardship-area-rlsa-overlay-program 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 1415 Attachment: Attachment F Peer Review Draft Jacobs 081720 (002) (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 4 JACOBS_COLLIERCNTY_BELLMARVILLAGE_PEERREVIEW_DRAFT6_081720 (002)JACOBS_COLLIER COUNTY_BELLMAR VILLAGE_PEER REVIEW_DRAFT6_081720 funding mechanisms shall address any adverse impacts to adopted minimum levels of service pursuant to Chapter 6 of the LDC. 1. Demonstration of Fiscal Neutrality. Each SRA must demonstrate that its development, as a whole, [emphasis added] will be fiscally neutral or positive to the Collier County tax base. This demonstration will be made for each unit of government responsible for the services listed above, using one of the following methodologies: a. Collier County Fiscal Impact Model. The fiscal impact model officially adopted and maintained by Collier County. b. Alternative Fiscal Impact Model. If Collier County has not adopted a fiscal impact model as indicated above, the applicant may develop an alternative fiscal impact model using a methodology approved by Collier County. The BCC may grant exceptions to this policy of fiscal neutrality to accommodate affordable or workforce housing. DPFG was retained to prepare an economic assessment for Bellmar Village SRA (Bellmar) to demonstrate fiscal neutrality using an Alternative Fiscal Impact Model, as defined by the LDC Section 4.08.07 L.1.b. Although the fiscal impact requirements are specified in the LDC, there remains a considerable amount of flexibility in both the interpretation and application of the law. DPFG is required to measure fiscal neutrality at the project’s horizon year or buildout. The timing of when buildout is expected to occur is not identified in the DPFG report. The neutrality assessment is simply evaluated for whenever that is achieved. The overall assessment is underpinned by this fundamental assumption, and DPFG’s analysis is consistent with this assumption throughout the assessment. It is important to recognize that fiscal impact analysis is not a cash flow analysis, and therefore does not include a year-by-year examination of the County’s sources and uses of funds over the development period. New development may or may not achieve fiscal neutrality in the early stages of new development. The County must make initial investments to accommodate growth – prior to a compensatory public revenue stream from a new development to fund the necessary infrastructure and services. This lag effect is inherent in any new development plan, but its annualized impacts are beyond the scope of this peer review and are beyond the County’s requirements for fiscal neutrality. There are also inherent limitations of fiscal impact modeling. While we determined that DPFG’s analysis largely fulfills the fiscal impact analysis requirement, the following caveats and shortcomings are noted: • Fiscal impact modeling is static and not dynamic. It is a snapshot in time, and therefore known variables (e.g., the costs of construction, the state of the US economy, the pace and mix of the development plan, etc.) are assumed constant. As such, substantial changes to these variables could render the analysis obsolete. • The cost of future financing may not be included in the analysis.2 This factor can add substantially to the overall costs of infrastructure development and thereby could negatively affect any findings of positive or neutral fiscal impacts should financing be employed by the County, the Fire Rescue District, or School District. The County or Districts may employ various funding and financing options to construct such facilities, which are unknown at this time. 2 We note that the cost of financing is included in the County’s impact fees for schools and correctional facilities. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 1416 Attachment: Attachment F Peer Review Draft Jacobs 081720 (002) (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT JACOBS_COLLIERCNTY_BELLMARVILLAGE_PEERREVIEW_DRAFT6_081720 (002)JACOBS_COLLIER COUNTY_BELLMAR VILLAGE_PEER REVIEW_DRAFT6_081720 5 • Fiscal impact analysis assumes an average and/or marginal cost basis. Compensatory revenues whether in the form of impact fees or ad valorem, sales, or other taxes may over-recover (subject to economies of scale) or under-recover (subject to dis-economies of scale) actual costs for any given development. • While fiscal impact analysis is intended to measure project-specific revenue and cost drivers, certain obligations are subject to the analyst’s discretion. The County recognizes and has acknowledged that there is a possibility that the Bellmar Village development plan will change, which introduces factors beyond the County’s control, and beyond the constraints of fiscal impact analysis, generally. DPFG’s methodology and assumptions are described in detail in the following sections. Methodology DPFG’s approach to “the fiscal impact analysis of Bellmar Village uses a marginal/average cost hybrid methodology to determine the project’s impact on capital and operating costs,”3 which is customary for fiscal analyses. A marginal approach is used to estimate ad valorem tax revenues. To estimate certain marginal costs, DPFG applied the case study approach for the capital analyses of the: • Sheriff Department • Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Department • North Collier Fire & Rescue District • School District The case study approach is based on the analyst’s determination that other standard approaches have material limitations, and as such a case study approach is a more appropriate application for the particular use. DPFG’s approach also included an analysis of the fiscal impacts to the Unincorporated Area General Fund Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU). Overall, Jacobs agrees with the marginal/average cost hybrid approach taken in this analysis, and the case study approach applied to the referenced departments. Key Assumptions Jacobs was provided with DPFG’s Report and their corresponding fiscal analysis Microsoft Excel model (filename: Bellmar SRA EA 2020.06.03 VIEW ONLY.xlsx). DPFG also spent a significant amount of time answering Jacobs’ questions, providing source documentation, and facilitating our understanding of their methodology and assumptions. Inflation All costs (whether historical or future) were adjusted to reflect a hybrid year 2019/2020 dollars. Inflation is typically excluded from fiscal neutrality analysis (constant dollar approach), which enables 3 DPFG Report, page 7 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 1417 Attachment: Attachment F Peer Review Draft Jacobs 081720 (002) (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 6 JACOBS_COLLIERCNTY_BELLMARVILLAGE_PEERREVIEW_DRAFT6_081720 (002)JACOBS_COLLIER COUNTY_BELLMAR VILLAGE_PEER REVIEW_DRAFT6_081720 comparisons across years and across projects. At the time that the initial version of the economic assessment report was prepared, the County’s FY 2020 budget was not available, thus the County’s FY 2019 budget was used for the analysis. However, the Collier County Schools and North Collier Fire and Rescue District budgets for FY 2020 were available and were used for the analysis. Jacobs finds this use of Collier County’s FY 2019 budget and FY 2020 budget for the Collier County Schools and North Collier Fire and Rescue District to be reasonable given the information that was available at the time the initial report was prepared. Impact Fees Impact fee calculations utilized the County’s Residential Impact Fee Schedule, effective February 8, 2018 and Commercial Impact Fee Schedule, effective July 24, 2017. Impact fee updates are currently underway for Transportation, Correctional Facilities, Parks and Recreation, and Schools.4 Taxable Real Estate Values To estimate potential tax revenues, DPFG based taxable values for residential (per unit) and non- residential (per sq. ft.) land uses. Taxable values for residential units were applied as provided by the Applicant. Eligible homestead exemptions were applied based on County averages. Taxable values for non-residential uses were based on R.S. Means construction cost data and/or comparable properties from the County appraiser’s database. Land and Improvement Conversion Factor To calculate the market value per square foot for retail development, the applicable 2019 square foot costs from R.S. Means were multiplied by a construction cost index of 84% to arrive at adjusted square foot costs, which was then divided by a land and improvement conversion factor of 85%. Jacobs inquired on the basis for the use of this construction cost index and land and improvement conversion factor, and DPFG confirmed that the indexes are based on the indexes from RS Means, with a slight adjustment as Sarasota is more representative of the Collier County economy than Fort Myers. As such, the index applied is conservative.5 Unlike residential real estate, there is no rule-of-thumb for commercial properties. DPFG indicates this percentage has been applied in other economic assessment models they have prepared. Annual Absorption by Use Not applicable. Millage Rates DPFG utilized current fiscal year (2019) millage (mil) rates as follows to determine annual ad valorem (property) tax revenues for the forecast period for the County, MSTD, and Water Pollution Control. • 3.5645 County General Fund • 0.8069 MSTD General Fund • 0.0293 Water Pollution Control 4 DPFG Email RE: Collier Lakes Village EA – Model, dated February 5, 2019. 5 DPFG Email RE: Bellmar Village DFPG Report, dated August 10, 2020. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 1418 Attachment: Attachment F Peer Review Draft Jacobs 081720 (002) (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT JACOBS_COLLIERCNTY_BELLMARVILLAGE_PEERREVIEW_DRAFT6_081720 (002)JACOBS_COLLIER COUNTY_BELLMAR VILLAGE_PEER REVIEW_DRAFT6_081720 7 FY 2020 millage rates for Collier County Schools and the North Collier Fire and Rescue District were used to determine annual ad valorem (property) tax revenues for the forecast period for the School District and Fire and Rescue District, respectively. • 5.083 Collier County Schools (operating and capital) • 3.750 North Collier Fire and Rescue District Millage rates were held constant (i.e., flat). Per capita estimates for various state and other local revenues sources are also based on the County’s 2019 General Fund budget. Direct Full Time Equivalent Jobs (FTEs) DPFG applied a 0.8897602 FTE Conversion Factor to Collier Countywide employment to derive countywide FTEs, based on its 2017 IMPLAN conversion assumptions. The purpose of this calculation is to convert total jobs to FTEs. Per DPFG Principal Lucy Gallo, a difference, if any, using 2019 source data would be immaterial. DPFG provided the industry detail in the Excel file “Collier County IMPLAN Conversion.xls” to support this assumption. Employment generation for commercial space factors apply per square foot of employment guidelines, realizing that actual employment density may vary by specific project details. • Retail: 400 square feet per employee • Retail 50,001-100,000 Sq Ft Employment Coefficient: 2.50 The Bellmar employment coefficient was based on the square foot per employee assumptions in the 2016 Collier County EMS Impact Fee study, which was the most recent study available when the DPFG Report was prepared. Home-based employment was not specifically addressed. Bellmar Population Growth Forecasts DPFG used residents per housing unit data published in the Collier County Emergency Medical Services Impact Fee Update Study, dated October 10, 2016 to estimate residential seasonal population growth due to Bellmar. The seasonal population per unit assumptions utilized were: • Multi-Family (Condo, Duplex, Single-Family Attached): 1.26 • Single Family Detached < 4,000 Sq Ft: 2.65 Vacancy Rates Vacancy rates for determining occupied housing and commercial space assume a stabilized occupancy, consistent with best practices.6 Overall, Jacobs agrees with DPFG’s key assumptions described above. Structure of Funds For the purposes of fiscal impact analysis, three taxing authorities were evaluated: Collier County (through its General Fund), the North Collier Fire & Rescue District, and the Collier County School District 6 Planners Estimating Guide: Projecting Land Use and Facility Needs by Arthur C. Nelson, FAICP, Planners Press, American Planning Association, 2004 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 1419 Attachment: Attachment F Peer Review Draft Jacobs 081720 (002) (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 8 JACOBS_COLLIERCNTY_BELLMARVILLAGE_PEERREVIEW_DRAFT6_081720 (002)JACOBS_COLLIER COUNTY_BELLMAR VILLAGE_PEER REVIEW_DRAFT6_081720 (“School District”). Each has separate taxing authority and the Collier County School Board levies its own taxes and receives part of its funding from the State of Florida. The DPFG Report tests the project’s fiscal neutrality for County operating impacts, County capital impacts, Fire operating impacts, Fire capital impacts, Schools operating impacts, and Schools capital impacts. General Fund The General Fund pays for those services benefiting residents and visitors of Collier County. These services include maintenance and operation of the various regional recreational facilities; governmental facilities; social services; animal services; libraries; transportation system and general administrative services. The largest source of revenue for the General Fund is Ad Valorem – or property tax revenue. Municipal Service Taxing Units exist in various locations and are intended to provide extra-ordinary services within a specific district funded by a separate ad valorem property tax. In addition, a water pollution control tax is collected county-wide. North Collier Fire & Rescue District “Like all independent fire districts, most of the North Collier District’s revenue is generated by property taxes. We do not charge a fee for providing fire protection services. Each year, the Collier County Property Appraiser establishes the taxable value for property located within the District. The Board of Fire Commissioners establishes the millage (or taxing) rate which, according to the District’s Enabling Act, can be no higher than 1 mil, or $1.00 for every $1,000 of taxable value in the North Naples Service Delivery Area or no higher than 3.75, or $3.75 for every $1,000 of taxable value in the Big Corkscrew Island Service Delivery Area. As fire and rescue are labor intensive services, the majority of the District’s expenses are personnel related. In order to sufficiently protect and serve the District’s residents and the billions of dollars of property located within the District, it must maintain highly trained professional firefighters and paramedics and the necessary equipment to handle a myriad of emergency situations.”7 Collier County School District School districts in Florida utilize a State mandated accounting method which separates revenues and expenses into specific funds. Each fund is earmarked for a specified purpose or activity and carries specific requirements, restrictions, or limitations. Accordingly, the School District maintains and reports the following segregated major funds: general, debt service, capital projects, special revenue, and internal service. The General Fund covers the day to day operations of the School District and accounts for most operational expenses that are incurred. The Florida Education Finance Program (FEFP) provides equalized per student funding for school districts. This concept guarantees that the availability of educational programs and services will be substantially equal for all students, regardless of geography and/or local economic factors. Funding for the FEFP includes required local effort property taxes that districts must levy, state taxes, and some local discretionary tax mills recommended by the State. For FY20, federal sources provided 8.45% of the School District’s total revenue, state sources provided 14.36%, and local sources provided 77.18% of the School District’s total revenue.8 Enterprise Funds Collier County maintains two different types of proprietary funds: enterprise and internal service. 7 https://www.northcollierfire.com/finance/ 8 https://www.collierschools.com/cms/lib/FL01903251/Centricity/domain/86/budget%20dept%20main%20page/Budget%20Summary%20Propo sed%20FY20.pdf 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 1420 Attachment: Attachment F Peer Review Draft Jacobs 081720 (002) (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT JACOBS_COLLIERCNTY_BELLMARVILLAGE_PEERREVIEW_DRAFT6_081720 (002)JACOBS_COLLIER COUNTY_BELLMAR VILLAGE_PEER REVIEW_DRAFT6_081720 9 Enterprise funds report, with more detail, the same functions presented as business-type activities in the government-wide financial statements for water and sewer, solid waste disposal, emergency medical services, transit, and the airport authority. The Collier County Water and Sewer District Fund, the Solid Waste Disposal Fund, and the Emergency Medical Services Fund are tracked individually as major funds. The County also maintains two other (non-major) enterprise funds: Airport Authority Fund and the Collier Area Transit Fund. “Table 8 and Appendix Table 16 of the DPFG Bellmar Village SRA Economic Assessment reflect the impact of the annual general fund contributions to Fund 426 CAT Mass Transit and Fund 427 Transportation Disadvantaged, which are enterprise funds. There are no other impacts to consider with respect to transit enterprise funds in the Economic Assessment.”9 Internal service funds are primarily maintained to allocate and accumulate costs internally for Collier County. The County uses internal service funds to account for health insurance, workers compensation insurance, property and casualty insurance, fleet operations, and information technology. While the RSLA program requires that the fiscal impacts on the County’s potable water, wastewater, stormwater, irrigation water, and solid waste enterprise funds be examined, enterprise funds are inherently fiscally neutral because they are created for a specific purpose and intended to be self- supporting through user rates and fees. As such the fiscal impact of the proposed development is expected to be fiscally neutral to the County. Jacobs finds DPFG’s exclusion of enterprise funds to be an acceptable and reasonable approach. Fiscal Impacts Recall that the fiscal impact analysis, at a minimum, “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,” each of which is reviewed in the following sections. This peer review is presented in order of services listed in the LDC. County Operating Impacts Operating impacts are reflected in DPFG’s analyses of both the General Fund and MSTU General Fund groupings. These analyses cover transportation, parks, law enforcement, EMS, correctional facilities, government buildings, and libraries. Based on the analysis, at buildout, Bellmar’s annual total general fund operating expenditures are projected at approximately $3,239,000 against revenues of approximately $4,411,000, resulting in a fiscal surplus of $1,172,000. Bellmar’s annual total MSTU operating expenditures are projected at approximately $518,000 against revenues of approximately $821,000, resulting in a fiscal surplus of $303,000. Transportation (Roads) Operating Impacts Transportation Services is a special revenue fund within the County’s budget. This fund was established for the maintenance of roads and bridges countywide. The principal funding source for Transportation 9 DPFG Email Rivergrass Peer Review Response, dated August 6, 2019. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 1421 Attachment: Attachment F Peer Review Draft Jacobs 081720 (002) (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 10 JACOBS_COLLIERCNTY_BELLMARVILLAGE_PEERREVIEW_DRAFT6_081720 (002)JACOBS_COLLIER COUNTY_BELLMAR VILLAGE_PEER REVIEW_DRAFT6_081720 Services is a subsidy from the General Fund (for fiscal year 2019 the transfer from the General Fund amounted to $20.2 million out of Transportation Services’ total funding of $24.3 million). Capital Impacts The County imposes road impact fees on new development occurring to fund the construction of growth-related improvements. Consistent with impact fee statutory requirements, these fees place a fair share of the cost burden on new development for transportation-related expansions and improvements which are necessitated by such development. DPFG treats road impact from a perspective that the Developer will pay road impact fees according to the number of units (residential) or square footage (non-residential) in the development plan and the corresponding fee schedule established by the County. Using DPFG’s approach, Bellmar Village will generate approximately $18.8 million in Road Impact Fee revenues to the County, based on the development parameters and current road impact fee rate table. This estimate significantly exceeds the Concurrency Fair-Share estimate referenced in DPFG’s report of $3.9 million. In accordance with the Collier County Transportation Planning Development Guidebook, mitigation improvements are considered acceptable if capacity is added that restores or improves the delay and volume/capacity ratio to the levels provided in the base scenario. DPFG reports that “the project share of cost has been based on the proportion of the project peak hour traffic contributed to the improvement location relative to the total new peak hour 2034 traffic volumes”10. The landowner has also agreed to pay 100 percent as a supplemental alternative, which includes travel pavement widening, shoulder improvements for Golden Gate Blvd and 6th Ave SE, and an alternative landowner contribution of $700,000. Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of fiscal neutrality for transportation (road) impacts to be reasonable, subject to the approval of the companion Developer Agreement. Potable Water and Wastewater A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that outlines commitments from Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. and CDC Land Investments, LLC and the Big Cypress Stewardship District, confirms that Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) will supply both potable water and sewer service to Bellmar. As the CCWSD is an enterprise fund, the costs to serve the Bellmar development will be recovered per the terms of the MOU between Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. and CDC Land Investments, LLC, and the Big Cypress Stewardship District. It should be noted that there are nuances in the fiscal neutrality determination for water and wastewater. For example, if existing pipe sizes are inadequate and need to be replaced, the extent of such rework could render the development fiscally deficient. However, Jacobs’ review is not intended to analyze to that level of detail. Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of fiscal neutrality for potable water and wastewater public facilities and services to be reasonable. 10 DPFG Report, page 16 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 1422 Attachment: Attachment F Peer Review Draft Jacobs 081720 (002) (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT JACOBS_COLLIERCNTY_BELLMARVILLAGE_PEERREVIEW_DRAFT6_081720 (002)JACOBS_COLLIER COUNTY_BELLMAR VILLAGE_PEER REVIEW_DRAFT6_081720 11 Irrigation Water The Bellmar Village project will result in a conversion of approximately 1,000 acres from agricultural land into a residential development. The project will obtain a water use permit from the SFWMD, to allow onsite surface and ground water withdrawals. Because the “proposed change in land use is anticipated to result in a significant net reduction of irrigation water usage at the site,”11 and the developer aims to secure 100 percent of the project’s irrigation demands from reclaimed water, Collier County is not expected to bear any responsibility for the cost associated with the Bellmar Village irrigation system. Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of irrigation water as fiscally neutral to be reasonable. Stormwater Management “The criteria used in the preparation of the stormwater management plan were based on the predevelopment agricultural stormwater management system currently in place. Stormwater discharges from the lands in question are equal or less pre versus post on both a peak rate and total volume perspective. As such, the discharges mimic that of undeveloped lands. Therefore, in the event of a change to the agreement between Collier County and the Big Cypress Basin concerning the lands to the south of I-75, no impact on any downstream system above and beyond that of undeveloped land would be realized and thus there is no impact on County stormwater facilities caused by the development of this property above and beyond undeveloped land. Collier County currently maintains no onsite stormwater infrastructure and will not in the future.”12 The developer of Bellmar will be responsible for all costs associated with the design, permitting, construction, and operation of the proposed stormwater improvements required to serve the Bellmar development. Because the flowways within this project are natural wetland systems, the capacity existing before this development will be the same as the capacity after. Considering that water quality treatment is primarily accomplished using wet-detention (lakes) located within the SRA and overlapping into the WRA areas, discharges from the SRA water management system to WRA areas will occur after water quality volumes have been achieved. All discharges to the WRA from development will only occur after water quality volumes have been provided in the development area. Buffer lakes and associated contaminant berms are permitted in select locations in the existing WRAs, with modifications confined to areas that exhibited heavy exotic infestation and had little to no habitat function. Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of fiscal neutrality for stormwater management public facilities and services to be reasonable. Solid Waste Solid waste capital and operational costs are accounted for in the County’s Solid Waste Fund, a self- supporting enterprise fund. Enterprise funds are inherently fiscally neutral because they are created for a specific purpose and intended to be self-supporting through user rates and fees. Again, enterprise funds were excluded from DPFG’s analysis. Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of fiscal neutrality for solid waste facilities and services to be reasonable. 11 DPFG Report, Page 28 12 DPFG Report, Page 26 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 1423 Attachment: Attachment F Peer Review Draft Jacobs 081720 (002) (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 12 JACOBS_COLLIERCNTY_BELLMARVILLAGE_PEERREVIEW_DRAFT6_081720 (002)JACOBS_COLLIER COUNTY_BELLMAR VILLAGE_PEER REVIEW_DRAFT6_081720 Parks Per the County’s 2018 AUIR, the current level of service (LOS) for all county-owned and maintained community and regional parks is a combined 3.22 acres per 1,000 residents. The County’s LOS (per 1,000 residents) by type is compared to DPFG’s assumptions, as follows: • Community parks: achieved 1.47 acres • Community Parks: adopted 1.20 acres • Regional Parks: achieved 1.68 acres • Regional Parks: adjusted achieved 1.82 acres • Regional Parks: adopted 2.70 acres It is noted that the DPFG value for Regional Parks achieved of 1.68 acres is based on application of 2019 Peak Seasonal Population to the 2015 adjusted achieved level of service. This compares to an achieved value of 1.82 acres that would be calculated assuming the 2015 Peak Seasonal Population to the 2015 adjusted achieved level of service. Adjusting the achieved level of service for regional parks to reflect 2015 Peak Seasonal Population affects the required number of acres for Regional Parks to 10.34 acres. Capital Impacts The County imposes separate impact fees for community and regional parks. Impact fee revenues of community parks were calculated to be $2,013,000 (plus other capital revenues of $33,000 for a total of $2,046,000) and regional parks were $5,711,000 (plus other capital revenues of $300,000 for a total of $6,011,000). The cost of estimated acreage ($282,573 per acre) required to achieve the County LOS for community parks forms the basis for capital impacts, which DPFG estimated at $1,927,000, leading to an estimated surplus of $119,000 for community parks. The cost of estimated acreage ($590,288 per acre) required to achieve the County LOS for regional parks forms the basis for capital impacts. While the adopted level of service for regional parks is 2.70 acres per 1,000 peak population, the adjusted achieved LOS of 1.82 acres was recommended by the County. With the recommended LOS and cost per acre, results in an estimated capital cost for regional parks of $6,105,000. The cost of the regional parks is in excess of the estimated impact fee and other capital revenues of $6,011,000 of the regional parks by $94,000. While there is a projected deficit for the regional parks, the forecast surplus for community parks offsets this, and results in the total regional and community parks capital impact to be a slightly positive $25,000.i 13 DPFG’s assumption that regional park acreage costs will reflect average costs is a conservative assumption compared to the relative cost of inland acreage. If inland acreage costs less, on average, than the blended County average, then capital fiscal surplus for parks would be higher than DPFG’s calculations. 13 Note: DPFG’s report shows a Community Parks Facility and Equipment Cost per acre of $148,328, while the Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study (Tindal) shows a value of $149,328, a difference of $1,000 per acre. Correcting this difference would reduce the combined regional and community parks capital surplus from $25,000 to $18,000. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 1424 Attachment: Attachment F Peer Review Draft Jacobs 081720 (002) (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT JACOBS_COLLIERCNTY_BELLMARVILLAGE_PEERREVIEW_DRAFT6_081720 (002)JACOBS_COLLIER COUNTY_BELLMAR VILLAGE_PEER REVIEW_DRAFT6_081720 13 Based on the adjustment to the achieved LOS discussed above, Jacobs finds that parks will be fiscally neutral, as opposed to DPFG’s determination of parks as fiscally positive. Law Enforcement (Sheriff Department) Per the County’s 2018 AUIR, the County’s current achieved LOS for law enforcement is 1.77 officers per 1,000 peak population, and the adopted LOS is 1.84. The 2019 AUIR was adopted on November 12, 2019 and was not available during the preparation of the Bellmar Village Economic Assessment. Jacobs reviewed the 2019 AUIR and confirmed that the LOS was unchanged. Capital Impacts The capital needs for law enforcement were established using the case study approach. The law enforcement impact fee is intended to recover the cost of capital construction and expansion of law enforcement related facilities and assets. DPFG estimated impact fee revenue to be $1,342,000 and other capital revenues at $243,000. Based on discussions between DPFG and law enforcement officials, law enforcement officials indicated that there is no need for a physical substation is needed to service Bellmar, at this time, but may be needed in the future. The County currently has a deficiency between the adopted versus achieved LOS for law enforcement infrastructure. This deficiency is not due to the proposed Bellmar Development and cannot be resolved by this development. Capital costs are included to equip the required number of officers, amounting to a total of $1,066,000. The estimated revenues exceed the forecasted direct capital costs and result in a fiscal surplus in the amount of $519,000. This surplus will likely be expended on indirect capital costs and future law enforcement infrastructure needs. Therefore, the impact is neutral. Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of law enforcement as fiscally neutral to be reasonable. Emergency Medical Services Capital Impacts The capital needs for EMS were established using the case study approach. DPFG projects capital revenues of $328,000. According to EMS management, Bellmar will be served by a new EMS facility planned for the corner of Desoto Blvd/Golden Gate Blvd East scheduled to open in 2022. The cost of the new facility amounted to a total of $1,876,057, which was obtained from the 2019 AUIR. Bellmar’s allocated share of the new facility is $191,000, which is less than the capital revenues the project will generate. The remainder will likely be applied to the related capital costs. Therefore, the impact is neutral. The cost of the new facility will be partially funded by the County’s One-Cent Infrastructure surtax which was authorized in 2018.14 Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of emergency medical services as fiscally neutral to be reasonable. 14 DPFG report, page 19. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 1425 Attachment: Attachment F Peer Review Draft Jacobs 081720 (002) (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 14 JACOBS_COLLIERCNTY_BELLMARVILLAGE_PEERREVIEW_DRAFT6_081720 (002)JACOBS_COLLIER COUNTY_BELLMAR VILLAGE_PEER REVIEW_DRAFT6_081720 Fire & Rescue Operating Impacts Because the current operating millage of the Big Corkscrew Island SDA is geared to much lower density development, Bellmar is currently projected to generate significant operating surpluses. The current millage rate and the projected tax base of Bellmar results in annual ad valorem revenues of $3,400,000. The annual operating expenses to serve Bellmar population, based on an average of the fire district’s existing stations and population served, are $1,500,000. Thus, there is a projected operating fiscal surplus. Capital Impacts The capital needs for fire & rescue were established using the case study approach. Bellmar will generate total capital revenues of $1,602,000 for the North Collier Fire & Rescue District, with matching levels of capital costs. Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of fire & rescue as fiscally positive to be reasonable. Schools The analysis uses student generation rates (SGRs) as follows: • Condo, Duplex, Single-Family Attached: 0.11 • Single Family Detached < 4,000 Sq Ft: 0.34 The blended rate over these residential unit types is 0.225, which is comparable to similar blended or weighted SGRs used for other recent Florida developments. Operating Impacts Based on projections of school enrollment by type, as well as the operating revenue and costs impacts, the calculations estimating the fiscal impacts on the County School District indicate that Bellmar is fiscally neutral. DPFG estimates ad valorem local millage revenues at buildout of $3,375,000, with matching levels of operating expenditures. Capital Impacts The capital needs for schools were established using the case study approach. The analysis uses the current impact fee structure defined in the Collier County School Impact Fee Update Study, Final Report, dated July 23, 2015 to determine the appropriate application of the fees, and the revenues derived from fees. The fees are being phased-in in stages per Section 74-307 of the school impact fee ordinance. There are no impact fees levied on non-residential units, as these units do not contribute students to the school system. DPFG uses adopted residential impact fees as of February 8, 2018 as follows: • Multi-Family and Single Family Attached: $2,844.19 • Single Family Detached: $8,789.54 Revenues to pay for growth related capital expenditures are derived not only from impact fees on residential-only units, but also a capital outlay millage of 1.50 mills on both residential and non- residential units. As a result, the mix of residential and non-residential development will have an impact on the determination of fiscal neutrality. In this case, the revenue from the Bellmar development program results in a fiscal capital surplus. “According to the School District, at this time there is existing or planned capacity within the next five years at the elementary, middle and high school levels for each village individually. However, the proposed Bellmar and Longwater Villages and the approved Rivergrass 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 1426 Attachment: Attachment F Peer Review Draft Jacobs 081720 (002) (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT JACOBS_COLLIERCNTY_BELLMARVILLAGE_PEERREVIEW_DRAFT6_081720 (002)JACOBS_COLLIER COUNTY_BELLMAR VILLAGE_PEER REVIEW_DRAFT6_081720 15 Village, collectively, result in the School District exceeding its estimated capacity. Therefore, as the School District and the developer have discussed and been working towards having a Developer Contribution Agreement, whereby the developer would convey real property for future school sites (sufficient to accommodate a high school, middle school and an elementary school) in exchange for educational impact fee credits has been requested from the applicant.”15 These estimates are conservative compared to the November 2019 F.S. 1013.64(b) statutory cost caps of Elementary $23,284, Middle $25,144, and High $32,661 per student station.”16 Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of schools as fiscally neutral to be reasonable. Additional Public Services The following additional public services were evaluated by DPFG for fiscal neutrality: correctional facilities, government buildings, and libraries. Jacobs categorizes these service types as additional services because they are not required by the minimum requirements defined in the Collier County LDC. 15 DPFG Report, page 31 16 DPFG Report pg 31. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 1427 Attachment: Attachment F Peer Review Draft Jacobs 081720 (002) (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 16 JACOBS_COLLIERCNTY_BELLMARVILLAGE_PEERREVIEW_DRAFT6_081720 (002)JACOBS_COLLIER COUNTY_BELLMAR VILLAGE_PEER REVIEW_DRAFT6_081720 While these additional public services are not required elements of the economic assessment, DPFG did include them in their analysis. Correctional Facilities Capital Impacts The correctional facilities impact fee is intended to recover the cost of capital construction for jail facilities (both land and building) and related equipment. Impact fees are charged based on units for residential and square footage for non-residential. The County’s current LOS was used to calculate the correctional facilities capital costs. DPFG applied the impact fee study coefficients for population and employment to calculate functional population. This methodology considers demand from commercial land uses. Combined revenues from impact fees and other capital revenues amount to $1,216,000, with comparable capital outlays, resulting in a finding of fiscal neutrality. Government Buildings Capital Impacts The government buildings impact fee is intended to recover the cost of remaining non-enterprise County land, buildings, information technology assets, and vehicles. The impact fees are charged based on units for residential and square footage for non-residential. The County’s current LOS was used to calculate the government buildings capital costs. DPFG applied the impact fee study coefficients for population and employment to calculate functional population. This methodology considers demand from commercial land uses. Based on the analysis, there is an estimated fiscal neutrality. DPFG estimates capital revenues of $2,180,000, with matching levels of indirect capital costs. Libraries Capital Impacts The libraries impact fee is intended to recover the cost of land, buildings, furnishings, and collection materials to serve the entire County. The impact fees are charged based on units for residential and square footage for non-residential. The County’s adopted LOS, per the 2018 AUIR, was used to calculate the libraries capital costs. The 2019 AUIR was adopted on November 13, 2018 and was not available during the preparation of the Bellmar Economic Assessment. Jacobs reviewed the 2019 AUIR and confirmed that the LOS was unchanged. Based on the analysis, there is an estimated fiscal surplus of approximately $172,000. Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of additional public services as fiscally neutral to be reasonable. Conclusions and Recommendations Through this independent analysis and peer review, Jacobs confirms the reasonableness of DPFG’s analysis and in the project’s fiscal neutrality, as defined. It is our opinion that the Applicant fulfilled the intent of the fiscal neutrality requirement and that the proposed Bellmar development is fiscally neutral, as defined, for Bellmar SRA for Collier County, the North Collier Fire & Rescue District, and the Collier County School District. It is important to recognize that fiscal neutrality relies on accurate projections – often 20 years or more into the future. A significant deviation from the development plan will require an adjustment or new analysis to capture changes to this fiscal neutrality determination, which may involve, for example, adjusting the mix of uses or other mechanisms that will impact the future revenue and expense streams. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 1428 Attachment: Attachment F Peer Review Draft Jacobs 081720 (002) (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT JACOBS_COLLIERCNTY_BELLMARVILLAGE_PEERREVIEW_DRAFT6_081720 (002)JACOBS_COLLIER COUNTY_BELLMAR VILLAGE_PEER REVIEW_DRAFT6_081720 17 In addition, fiscal impact analysis is only one step in the development program and the County- Developer relationship framework. This fiscal impact analysis will be supplemented and augmented by several DCAs, MOUs, and/or interlocal agreements. Careful negotiation, execution, and administration of DCAs, MOUs, and/or interlocal agreements is required to ensure that the County continues to achieve its fiscal neutrality objectives. Based upon DPFG’s analysis and this peer review of that analysis, Jacobs concurs that Bellmar Village SRA qualifies as fiscally neutral, as defined, with respect to County capital and operating impacts, subject to the approval of the companion Developer Contribution Agreement that is being negotiated between the Collier County School District and the Developer. The DPFG analysis, which in Jacobs’ opinion is professionally prepared and thorough in its treatment of revenues and expenses, is accurate in its determination that the Bellmar Village development would meet the County’s requirements for fiscal neutrality. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 1429 Attachment: Attachment F Peer Review Draft Jacobs 081720 (002) (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) JACOBS_COLLIERCNTY_BELLMARVILLAGE_PEERREVIEW_DRAFT6_081720 (002)JACOBS_COLLIERCNTY_BELLMARVILLAGE_PEERREVIEW_DRAFT5_081220_DB_DEJ 18 APPENDIX A Sources and Assumptions 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 1430 Attachment: Attachment F Peer Review Draft Jacobs 081720 (002) (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) JACOBS_COLLIERCNTY_BELLMARVILLAGE_PEERREVIEW_DRAFT6_081720 (002)JACOBS_COLLIERCNTY_BELLMARVILLAGE_PEERREVIEW_DRAFT5_081220_DB_DEJ 19 Source Model Tab/Report Chart Comment Collier Country Residential Impact Fees 2018 Impact Fee Schedule Checked Collier County Commercial Impact Fees 2018 Impact Fee Schedule Checked Collier County Commercial Impact Fees 2018 Impact Fee Schedule Checked Impact fee schedule Comm impact fee rev Checked Impact fee schedule Regional parks impact fee rev Checked Impact fee schedule Road Impact fee rev Checked Impact fee schedule EMS Impact fee rev Checked Impact fee schedule Govt blgs Impact fee rev Checked Impact fee schedule Library impact fee rev Checked Impact fee schedule Law enforce impact fee rev Checked Impact fee schedule Jail impact fee rev Checked Impact fee schedule Water Impact fees Checked Impact fee schedule Wastewater impact fees Checked Collier County Fiscal Year 2019 Adopted Budget County Inputs Checked Collier County 2018 AUIR County Inputs Checked Collier County 2018 AUIR County Inputs Checked Collier County CVB Profile- March 2019 County Inputs Checked IMPLAN County Inputs Checked Collier County 2016 EMS Impact fee update (Table B-6)County Inputs Checked Collier County Property Appraiser County Inputs Checked Collier County Fiscal Year 2019 Adopted Budget General Fund Rev Demand Units Checked Collier County Fiscal Year 2019 Adopted Budget General Fund Rev Demand Units Checked Collier County Fiscal Year 2019 Adopted Budget MSTU Exp Demand Units Checked Calculation Residential Just+Taxable Value Checked Calculation Residential Just+Taxable Value Checked Collier County Fiscal Year 2019 Adopted Budget General Fund Grouping Matrix Checked Law Enforcement Impact fee study LAW Impact Cost per Res Checked Law Enforcement Impact fee study LAW inventory Checked Collier County 2018 AUIR Prop Share Law Enforce Capital Checked Collier County 2018 AUIR Prop Share CF capital Checked Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study CF Impact cost per Res Checked Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study CF Asset inventory Checked EMS impact fee study EMS Pop & Employ Checked Calculation EMS Pop & Employ Checked Calculation EMS Funct Res Non-Resid Checked Collier County 2018 AUIR Revised Prop Share EMS Capital Checked EMS impact fee study EMS Impact Fee Schedule Checked Library Impact fee study LIB Current LOS Checked Collier County 2018 AUIR LIB Current LOS Checked Library Impact fee study LIB Impact Cost Per Res Checked Calculation LIB Net Impact Cost Checked Collier County 2018 AUIR Prop Share Region Parks Capital Checked Collier County 2018 AUIR Prop Share Comm Parks Capital Checked Parks Impact Fee Study Parks Impact Per Res Checked Government Buildings Impact study Prop Share Govt Blgs Checked Government Buildings Impact Study GOV Impact Cost per Res Checked Government Buildings Impact Study GOV Impact Cost Per Res Checked Resolution 19-022 Fire Operating and Capital Checked EMS impact fee study Fire Impact Fee Rev Checked School Impact Fee Update Study Cost per Station Checked School Impact Fee Update Study School inputs Checked CCPS FY20 Final Budget Book School inputs Checked CCPS FY20 Final Budget Book School inputs Checked Collier County 2018 AUIR Prop Share Region Parks Capital Checked (cell G31) should be "Bellmar SRA Regional Park Acreage 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 1431 Attachment: Attachment F Peer Review Draft Jacobs 081720 (002) (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 20 JACOBS_COLLIERCNTY_BELLMARVILLAGE_PEERREVIEW_DRAFT6_081720 (002)JACOBS_COLLIER COUNTY_BELLMAR VILLAGE_PEER REVIEW_DRAFT6_081720 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 1432 Attachment: Attachment F Peer Review Draft Jacobs 081720 (002) (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.iPacket Pg. 1433Attachment: Bellmar - Hybrid Virtual Quasi-Judicial Public Hearing Waiver (1-25-2021) (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.jPacket Pg. 1434Attachment: Affidavit of Sign Posting and Photos of Signs (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.j Packet Pg. 1435 Attachment: Affidavit of Sign Posting and Photos of Signs (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 9.A.2.j Packet Pg. 1436 Attachment: Affidavit of Sign Posting and Photos of Signs (14883 : PL20190001837 Bellmar Village SRA) 03/04/2021 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 11.A Item Summary: ***NOTE: This item has been continued from the February 18, 2021 CCPC Meeting ***Town Plan-This is information related to the creation of an SRA Town by amending the Longwater Village SRA to add 515.1 acres to form a town SRA, which Town will also address impacts from the Rivergrass Village SRA, and the Bellmar Village SRA. No action is required other than being informed. The Board of Collier County Commissioners (BCC) will be asked to approve a Town Agreement at the April 27, 2021, BCC hearing when the Longwater Village SRA and Bellmar Village SRA petitions are also heard. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner] Meeting Date: 03/04/2021 Prepared by: Title: Planner, Principal – Zoning Name: Nancy Gundlach 02/24/2021 3:10 PM Submitted by: Title: Manager - Planning – Zoning Name: Ray Bellows 02/24/2021 3:10 PM Approved By: Review: Planning Commission Nancy Gundlach Review item Skipped 02/22/2021 9:15 AM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Nancy Gundlach Review Item Skipped 02/22/2021 9:15 AM Zoning Nancy Gundlach Review Item Skipped 02/22/2021 9:15 AM Zoning Nancy Gundlach Additional Reviewer Skipped 02/22/2021 9:17 AM Planning Commission Edwin Fryer Meeting Pending 03/04/2021 9:00 AM Zoning Nancy Gundlach Additional Reviewer Skipped 02/22/2021 9:17 AM 11.A Packet Pg. 1437 Page 1 of 3 February 10, 2021 *INFORMATIONAL MEMO* TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION – ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT - PLANNING & REGULATION HEARING DATE: FEBRUARY 18, 2021 SUBJECT: TOWN PLAN FOR RIVERGRASS VILLAGE STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA (SRA), LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA, AND BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA. COMPANION TO SRA- PL20190001836, LONGWATER VILLAGE SRA AND SRA- PL20190001837, BELLMAR VILLAGE SRA ____________________________________________________________________________________________ *INFORMATIONAL ONLY – NO ACTION REQUIRED BY CCPC: The creation of a Town Agreement has been proposed by Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. and CDC Land Investments, LLC to address the combined impacts of the Rivergrass Village SRA, the Longwater Village SRA, and the Bellmar Village SRA. (Please see Attachment A-Town Agreement.) The Town Agreement includes a commitment that within 12 months of the approval of the Longwater Village SRA and the Bellmar Village SRA, an SRA Town Application will be submitted to amend the Longwater Village SRA to add 515.1 acres and form a new Town. The Town Agreement further stipulates several characteristics of the proposed new town which are summarized in this Memorandum. The BCC will be asked to approve the Town Agreement as a companion item to the approval of the Longwater Village SRA and the Bellmar Village SRA. CURRENT REQUIREMENTS AND APPROVALS: Per the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), SRA Villages such as these are less than 1,000 acres. An SRA Town is 1,000 acres or more. Towns are required to provide more goods and services, and more civic, government and institutional land uses than a Village. The LDC requirements of a Village are: • 25 square feet of goods and services per dwelling unit 11.A.a Packet Pg. 1438 Attachment: Town Plan-Memo 2-10-21 (15121 : Town Plan) Page 2 of 3 February 10, 2021 • 10 square feet of civic, government and institutional land uses per dwelling unit The previously approved Rivergrass Village SRA and proposed Longwater Village SRA and proposed Bellmar Village SRA meet the above Village requirements. A Town has greater requirements. The increased LDC requirements of a Town are: • 65 square feet of goods and services per dwelling unit • 15 square feet of civic, government and institutional land uses per dwelling unit RLSA Policy 4.15.1 of the Future Land Use Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan recognizes that it may take several Villages to support community retail and office uses in a Town. Policy 4.15.1 states “SRAs are intended to be mixed-use and shall be allowed the full range of uses permitted by the Urban Designation of the FLUE… 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 an SRA, such uses may be provided either within the specific SRA, within other SRAs in the RLSA…” The designation of the Rivergrass Village SRA, and the pending petitions for the Longwater Village SRA, and the Bellmar Village SRA will result in a combined approval of 7,850 dwelling units, 265,000 square feet of commercial land area, 78,500 square feet of civic and institutional land uses. DESCRIPTION OF THE AGREEMENT: The property owner has an additional 515.1 acres in the general vicinity of the three Villages that are proposed to be combined with the Longwater Village SRA to form a Town by amending the Longwater SRA to add 515.1 acres and also address the impacts of Rivergrass Village SRA and Bellmar Village SRA. Affordable housing requirements and a school site are proposed. Additional employment opportunities will be provided through additional commercial, industrial and institutional uses. The following land uses and acreages are proposed on the additional 515.1 acres: 420,000 SF office/retail/employment, 20,000 SF Civic - 85.7 acres Community Park Site - 43.1 acres (based on current RLSA) Utility Site - 5.3 acres 497 units – affordable Parcel 1 - 49.7 acres 240,000 SF Town Core (retail/office), 10,000 SF Civic - 36.1 acres 650,000 SF light industrial, 30,000 SF Civic - 87.1 acres 385 units – affordable Parcel 2 - 38.5 acres 500 single family units - 141.7 acres Elementary School - 27.9 acres Total 515.1 acres 11.A.a Packet Pg. 1439 Attachment: Town Plan-Memo 2-10-21 (15121 : Town Plan) Page 3 of 3 February 10, 2021 Please see Attachment B-Conceptual Master Plan for the proposed Longwater Town SRA and the Rivergrass Village SRA and the Bellmar Village SRA. The proposed Longwater Town SRA will be 1514.91 acres, the Rivergrass Village SRA is 997.53 acres and the Bellmar Village SRA is 999.74 acres for a total of 3512.18 acres. The proposed Town Agreement (please see Attachment A-Town Agreement) also contains provisions to support the proposed Town related to the timing of the development of the Town Core. The non-residential areas are set aside (by not allowing conversion to residential areas). There will be an analysis of the fiscal impacts of the entire Town including uses that would have been previously approved within the three Villages. Options are also provided within the Town Agreement to incentivize job creation/economic development, internal capture, and mixed-use development. Within the Town Agreement, there are incentives proposed that will be addressed at the time of the Town Application. These include incentives such as the design and funding of an Innovation Zone, reduced impact fees related to reduced demand, internal capture, mixed-use development, and affordable housing. Economic Development Incentives for targeted businesses, business expansion, job creation, and capital investment are also included. The Town Agreement also confirms the locations of the affordable housing parcels as shown on the Conceptual Master Plan while offering the ability to provide an equal, alternate location. A commitment to providing a 497-unit and a 385-unit affordable housing project has been made. This commitment will satisfy the affordable housing requirements of Collier County Community and Human Services. A commitment to provide a Community Park has also been made. The Town Agreement also outlines the submittals the developer is to provide related to fiscal analysis, transportation analysis, impact fee credits. Attachments: Attachment A-Town Agreement Attachment B-Conceptual Master Plan 11.A.a Packet Pg. 1440 Attachment: Town Plan-Memo 2-10-21 (15121 : Town Plan) TOWN AGREEMENT THIS TOWN AGREEMENT (hereinafter referred to as the “Agreement”) is made and entered into this ______ of _________, 2021, by and among COLLIER LAND HOLDINGS, LTD and CDC LAND INVESTMENTS, LLC (collectively referred to as the “Landowner”), whose address is 2550 Goodlette Road North, Naples, Florida 34103, and THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA (hereinafter referred to as the “County”). RECITALS: WHEREAS, on January 28, 2020, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution 20-24 approving and designating the Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area (“Rivergrass Village”) within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA); and WHEREAS, Landowner has submitted Petition SRA-PL20190001836 to designate the Longwater Village Stewardship Receiving Area (“Longwater Village”); and WHEREAS, Collier Land holdings, Ltd. has submitted a Petition SRA-PL20190001837 to designate the Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area (“Bellmar Village”); and WHEREAS, RLSA Policy 4.15.1 of the Future land Use Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan recognizes that it may take several Villages to support community scaled retail and office uses in a town; and WHERAS, the designation of Rivergrass Village, Longwater Village and Bellmar Village results in the approval of 7850 dwelling units, 265,000 commercial square feet and 78,500 square feet of civic and institutional uses; and WHEREAS, Landowner has an additional 515.1 acres in the general vicinity of the three villages that when combined with the three villages will allow for a town to be designated pursuant the applicable RLSA policies of the Collier County Growth Management Plan; and WHEREAS, County wants to encourage Landowner to submit a petition to designate a town that serves the three villages and the additional lands; and WHEREAS, Landowner is willing to submit a petition to designate a town that serves the three villages and the additional lands; and 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: 11.A.b Packet Pg. 1441 Attachment: Attachment A-DRAFT Town Agreement 2-9-21A (15121 : Town Plan) 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. This Agreement shall become effective upon approval of the Longwater Village and Bellmar Village and expiration of all appeal periods related to same. 3. Landowner will file an amendment to the Longwater Village (hereinafter referred to as the Town Application), creating the Town Stewardship Receiving Area by adding the land uses and approximate land acreage listed below (Town Core), within 12 months of the County’s approval of the pending Longwater and Bellmar Villages applications. Bellmar Village will not be eligible for any certificates of occupancy until the Town Stewardship Receiving Area is scheduled for public hearing. The land uses and land acreage are as follows: 420,000 SF office/retail/employment, 20,000 SF Civic - 85.7 acres Community Park Site - 43.1 acres (based on current RLSA) Utility Site - 5.3 acres 497 units – affordable Parcel 1 - 49.7 acres 240,000 SF Town Core (retail/office), 10,000 SF Civic - 36.1 acres 650,000 SF light industrial, 30,000 SF Civic - 87.1 acres 385 units – affordable Parcel 2 - 38.5 acres 500 single family units - 141.7 acres Elementary School - 27.9 acres Total 515.1 acres 4. The proposed conceptual Master Plan for the Town Application is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”. 5. There shall be no timing conditions placed on the timing of the development of the Town Core which will be developed based on market conditions. However, areas identified for non-residential uses shall be set aside and not eligible for conversion to residential uses. 6. The Town Application will analyze the fiscal impacts of the entire Town inclusive of uses that would have previously been approved with the Rivergrass Village, Longwater Village, and Bellmar Village. The Landowner must use the same methodology utilized for the individual villages, which incorporates the adopted levels of services, adopted impact fee rates, and millage rate as well as other funding provided to support capital infrastructure. 7. The following are options that may be utilized to address/offset costs associated with the development of a cohesive town concept and provide incentives for job creation/economic development, internal capture, mixed-use development, etc. The use of these incentives should help with the economic viability of the town concept while supporting the economic diversification goals of Collier County. The incentives are as follows and will be addressed at the time the Town Application is considered by the County: 11.A.b Packet Pg. 1442 Attachment: Attachment A-DRAFT Town Agreement 2-9-21A (15121 : Town Plan) a. Innovation Zone – designed to incentivize job creation and economic development. Innovation Zone funds can be utilized in a variety of ways, including infrastructure costs, inducements for business development, payment of development fees, etc. based on an approved Innovation Zone plan; b. Reduced impact fees for reduced demand (based on infrastructure/services provided by the town), internal capture, mixed-use development, affordable housing, etc.; c. Economic Development Incentives for targeted businesses, business expansion, job creation, and capital investment; and d. Further discussion with the applicant may provide additional layers of incentives that are beneficial to the town concept as well as the taxpayers of Collier County. 8. The locations of the affordable housing parcels on the proposed Master Plan are approved; however, if the site plan is materially changed the Landowner will provide for a location depicted on the Master Plan that is near a school and/or business uses. The site(s) shall not be so situated as to be less desirable than the market rate sites/parcels and shall be no less accessible to common open spaces, public facilities, public transportation, and commercial good and services than the market rate sites. The developer has agreed to provide the following: a. A 497-unit, 49.7-acre, Parcel 1 and a 385-unit, 38.5-acre, Parcel 2: affordable housing sites will be conveyed to the County based upon the appraisal value of $22,500/acre. The Affordable Housing parcel will be considered as a Public Benefit Use and does not require Stewardship Credits but shall be included in the calculation of total SRA acreage. The Affordable Housing units shall be excluded from the Traffic Impact Statement or trip cap for the SRA in which they are located and excluded from the fiscal neutrality analysis. b. Owners will use commercially reasonable efforts to include the Affordable Housing and Community Park sites within Owners’ conceptual ERP permits for Bellmar Village from the South Florida Water Management District and the Army Corp of Engineers. If Owners are successful in including the Affordable Housing and Community Park sites within its conceptual permits for Bellmar Village, County shall reimburse the Owners’ average permitting cost and mitigation cost, for mitigation required by such permits, upon completion of the mitigation and Owners’ written request to County, which reimbursement shall be calculated by Owners’ average per acre permitting and mitigation cost multiplied times the acreage of the Affordable Housing and Community Park sites. 11.A.b Packet Pg. 1443 Attachment: Attachment A-DRAFT Town Agreement 2-9-21A (15121 : Town Plan) 9. As part of the Town application, the Developer will provide for a Community Park parcel, with a minimum size determined by using the current RLSA standard of 200 square feet per dwelling unit. The Community Park parcel shall be reserved by the developer until a conveyance is requested by Collier County Parks Department. It is understood that the Community Park will perpetually be open to the public. Upon conveyance, the County shall pay developer $22,500/acre for the parcel in the form of park impact fee credits. Collier County Parks Department shall have full discretion as to the park design, phasing, and schedule. All park improvement costs will be borne by Collier County; however, the developer shall pay the current impact fees. 10. As part of the Town Application, the Developer is to provide a fiscal analysis addressing the Towns impact on County Infrastructure at the Horizon Year per the RLSA rules. The Developer and County shall cooperate for timing and location of needed interim facilities. For all first responders, interconnections between the development areas internal to the site are required, this may be accomplished by providing first responder access through gated areas. 11. The transportation analysis required in the Town Application will minimally meet the following requirements: a. Must complete as a “Major Study” as defined by the County’s TIS Guidelines. b. For all analysis, any towns approved prior to the Town application will not be deemed background/existing traffic. c. The with and without project should consist of the following: 1. With Project – The entire town inclusive of Rivergrass, Longwater, Bellmar, and new Town area. 2. Without Project – Only the villages within the Big Cypress Stewardship District approved prior to the Town application and Hyde Park d. Internal capture must be agreed upon between the County and the Applicant. e. Future year traffic projections for the Collier County roadway network will be derived using the adopted Collier MPO Cost-Feasible LRTP travel demand model. Landowner must develop future year traffic projections in five-year increments both with and without the project. This will require the development of future year land use data in five-year increments. This will also require the development of future year cost-feasible roadway networks in five-year increments. This will also require the development of separate Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ’s) and TAZ centroid connectors for Rivergrass Village, Longwater Village, Bellmar Village, Hyde Park Village, and the proposed “additional land” 11.A.b Packet Pg. 1444 Attachment: Attachment A-DRAFT Town Agreement 2-9-21A (15121 : Town Plan) area. The land-use data sets and roadway networks will need to be provided to Collier County staff and approved by Collier County staff prior to their use in the travel demand modeling. f. Intersections will be agreed upon after the internal capture agreement and initial model runs. g. The application will not be found complete until network and intersections analysis are received and accepted by the County. 12. The SRA Villages of Rivergrass, Longwater, and Bellmar are exempt from downzoning, intensity reduction, or unit density reduction unless the County can demonstrate that substantial changes in the conditions underlying the approval of the SRA development order(s) have occurred or the SRA development order(s) was based on substantially inaccurate information provided by the Developer or that the change is clearly established by local government to be essential to the public health, safety or welfare. 13. The approval granted by this development agreement is limited. Such approvals shall not be construed to relieve the Developer of the duty to comply with all applicable local, state, or federal permitting regulations. 14. The Developer and County shall work together in a cooperative manner to ensure that the necessary applications to the County, the corresponding reviews, issuance of permits, and the conduct of inspections occur expeditiously and that development is not impeded by unnecessary delays associated with such applications, issuance of permits, corresponding reviews, and inspections. 15. It is understood that any reference herein to any governmental agency shall be construed to mean any future entity which may be created or be designated or succeed in interest to or which otherwise possess any of the powers and duties of, any referenced governmental agency in existence on the effective date of this agreement. 16. Appropriate conditions and commitments contained herein may be assigned to or assumed by the Big Cypress Stewardship District. Legal Matters 17. This Agreement shall not be constructed or characterized as a development agreement under the Florida Local Government Development Agreement Act. 18. 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 11.A.b Packet Pg. 1445 Attachment: Attachment A-DRAFT Town Agreement 2-9-21A (15121 : Town Plan) term “Landowner” shall include all of Landowner’s assigns and successors in interest, including homeowner associations and commercial tenants. 19. 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. 20. The Landowner shall execute this Agreement prior to it being submitted for approval by the Board of County Commissioners. 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 Landowner shall pay all costs of recording this Agreement. The County shall provide a copy of the recorded document to the Landowner upon request. 21. 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. 22. 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 Landowner: Collier Land Holdings Ltd. CDC Land Investments, LLC C/O Pat Utter 999 Vanderbilt Beach Road Suite 507 Naples, FL 34108 23. 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. 11.A.b Packet Pg. 1446 Attachment: Attachment A-DRAFT Town Agreement 2-9-21A (15121 : Town Plan) 24. 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 11.A.b Packet Pg. 1447 Attachment: Attachment A-DRAFT Town Agreement 2-9-21A (15121 : Town Plan) 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: ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, Clerk COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: ___________________________ By: _____________________________ , Deputy Clerk Penny Taylor, Chairperson AS TO LANDOWNER: WITNESS: COLLIER LAND HOLDINGS, LTD. A Florida Limited Partnership By: Collier Enterprises, Inc. a (Signature) Florida Corporation, It’s General Partner (Print full name) By: ___________________________ Printed Name: __________________ Title: _________________________ (Signature) (Print full name) STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by means of ☐ physical presence or ☐ online notarization, this ____ day of _____________, 2021, by ________________________ of Collier Enterprise, Inc., its general partner of Collier Land Holdings, Ltd., a Florida corporation, on behalf of the corporation. He is personally known to me or has produced _________________________ as identification. 11.A.b Packet Pg. 1448 Attachment: Attachment A-DRAFT Town Agreement 2-9-21A (15121 : Town Plan) __________________________________ [Notary Seal] Notary Public __________________________________ Name typed, printed or stamped My Commission Expires: ____________ CDC Land Investments, LLC a Florida Limited Liability Company ______________________________ (Signature) By: CDC Land Investments, Inc., its manager ______________________________ (Print full name) By: ___________________________ Printed Name: __________________ ______________________________ Title: _________________________ (Signature) ______________________________ (Print full name) STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by means of ☐ physical presence or ☐ online notarization, this ___ day of __________, 2021, by ______________________________, of CDC Land Investments, Inc., manager of CDC Land Investments, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, on behalf of the company, who is personally known to me or has produced ___________________________ as identification. ___________________________________ [Notary Seal] Notary Public ___________________________________ Name typed, printed or stamped My Commission Expires: ____________ Approved as to form and legality: _______________________________ Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney 11.A.b Packet Pg. 1449 Attachment: Attachment A-DRAFT Town Agreement 2-9-21A (15121 : Town Plan) FSAFUTUREVANDERBILTEXTENSIONSSA 17SSA 17SSA 17SSA 15BSSA 17SSA 15ASSA 17SSA 15BSSA 15ASSA 17SSA 17SSA 17SSA 17SSA 17SSA 17SSA 18RANDALLBLVD.GOLDENGATE BLVD.EASTES27.9The Villages of Big CypressStewardship DistrictAGNOLIBARBER&BRUNDAG E ,I N C.N,12088SRA028.DWG - ROP -10/19/20COUNTY858COLLIERRivergrass VillageLongwater VillageBellmar VillageDenotesBCSD BoundaryRETAIL/OFFICE/EMPLOYMENT77.9 Ac. GROSS50.7 Ac. NETCOMMUNITY PARK43.1 Ac. GROSS34.6 Ac. NETAFFORDABLEPARCEL 149.7 Ac. GROSS38.7 Ac. NETG & S36.1 Ac. GROSS30.5 Ac NETUTILITYSITE5.3 Ac.LIGHTINDUSTRIAL87.1 Ac. GROSS72.6 Ac. NETNG141.7 Ac. GROSS74.5 Ac. NET (LOTS)AFFORDABLE PARCEL 238.5 Ac. GROSS34.3 Ac. NETPANTHER FENCEPANTHER FENCEPANTHER FENCERivergrass VillagePROPOSED LCEC SUB STATION SITE7.8 Ac. GROSS7.08 Ac. NET11.A.bPacket Pg. 1450Attachment: Attachment A-DRAFT Town Agreement 2-9-21A (15121 : Town Plan) FSAFUTUREVANDERBILTEXTENSIONSSA 17SSA 17SSA 17SSA 15BSSA 17SSA 15ASSA 17SSA 15BSSA 15ASSA 17SSA 17SSA 17SSA 17SSA 17SSA 17SSA 18RANDALLBLVD.GOLDENGATE BLVD.EASTES27.9The Villages of Big CypressStewardship DistrictAGNOLIBARBER&BRUNDAG E ,I N C.N,12088SRA028.DWG - ROP -10/19/20COUNTY858COLLIERRivergrass VillageLongwater VillageBellmar VillageDenotesBCSD BoundaryRETAIL/OFFICE/EMPLOYMENT77.9 Ac. GROSS50.7 Ac. NETCOMMUNITY PARK43.1 Ac. GROSS34.6 Ac. NETAFFORDABLEPARCEL 149.7 Ac. GROSS38.7 Ac. NETG & S36.1 Ac. GROSS30.5 Ac NETUTILITYSITE5.3 Ac.LIGHTINDUSTRIAL87.1 Ac. GROSS72.6 Ac. NETNG141.7 Ac. GROSS74.5 Ac. NET (LOTS)AFFORDABLE PARCEL 238.5 Ac. GROSS34.3 Ac. NETPANTHER FENCEPANTHER FENCEPANTHER FENCERivergrass VillagePROPOSED LCEC SUB STATION SITE7.8 Ac. GROSS7.08 Ac. NET11.A.cPacket Pg. 1451Attachment: Attachment B-Conceptual Master Plan (15121 : Town Plan)