Loading...
Agenda 01/11/2000 R COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA Tuesday, January 11, 2000 9:00 a.m. NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 99-22 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS". ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD 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. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS PERMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (941) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. 1 January 11, 2000 LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M. 1. INVOCATION - Father Tim Navin, St. Peter the Apostle Catholic Church 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDAS A. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA. B. APPROVAL OF SUMMARY AGENDA. C. APPROVAL OF REGULAR AGENDA. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. December 14, 1999 - Regular Meeting B. December 15, 1999 - Special Meeting 5. PROCLAMATIONS AND SERVICE AWARDS A. PROCLAMATIONS 1) Proclamation congratulating Ronald L. Scott on being named "1999 Veteran of the Year." To be accepted by Ronald L. Scott 2) Proclamation proclaiming the week of January 16-22, 2000 as Purple Martin Week. To be accepted by Mr. Carter Smith, President/Purple Martin Society of Collier County 3) Proclamation proclaiming week of January 17, 2000 as Collier County Safe Boating Week. To be accepted by Mr. Randy Ward, President/Marine Industries Association of Collier County, Inc. 4) Proclamation honorably recognizing the late David Chronister. To be accepted by Mrs. David Chronister $) Proclamation proclaiming week of January 16 - 22, 2000 be designated as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Week. To be accepted by Mr. James Whittaker, Chairperson, Martin Luther King Day Committee, NAACP and Ms. Kim Long, Education Chairperson, NAACP 2 January 1 !, 2000 B. SERVICE AWARDS 1) Peter Kraley, Veteran Services - 5 Years 2) Deborah Preston, Comprehensive Planning - 5 Years 3) Karen Kocses, Human Resources - 10 Years 4) Robert Stringer, Inspections - 10 Years 5) Eric $chramm, Inspections - 10 Years G. PRESENTATIONS 1) Recommendation to recognize Elida Valdez, Traffic Technician I, Transportation/Traffic Operations Department, as Employee of the Month for January 2000. SELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE-CHAIRMAN 6. APPROVAL OF CLERK'S REPORT A. ANALYSIS OF CHANGES TO RESERVES FOR CONTINGENCIES. 7. PUBLIC PETITIONS 8. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 3 January 11, 2000 A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 1) Presentation of results of a survey of property and busine~s owners adjacent to C.R. and S.R. 951 with respect to a street name change and consideration to direct staff to draft a resolution to adopt a street name change from both the State and County owned segments of Route 951. 2) Request by Richard J. Nogaj, representing Harvest for Humanity for a waiver of all fees associated with that development. 3) Proposal to prepare regulations to ensure that properties in North Naples (Sections 18 and 19, Township 49 South, Range 26 East) are developed in a coordinated manner with regard to public roads, storm drainage, water, and sewer utilities. 4) To provide report on departmental requirements for increased proactive sign enforcement and to amend the budget to implement outlined needs. 5) Consideration of a draft response to the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) final report. 6) Endorse the Wilson Miller scope of work for the Immokalee area and direct staff to negotiate additional consulting services with Dover, Kohl and Partners to fulfill the Final Order requirements for the Collier County Rural and Agricultural Assessment. 7) Recommendation to approve the work plan and budget for implementing the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Plan and to consider including the Immokalee Urban Area as one of the component areas of the Community Redevelopment Agency. s) lnterlocal Agreement with the City of Naples to fund a consultant study . challenging the Federal Emergency Management Agency's revised flood insurance rate maps. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1) CONTINUED FROM 12/14/99 AND FURTHER CONTINUED UNTIL 1/25/00: Present the results of staff and consultant investigations into the extension of Piper Boulevard Easterly to Strand Boulevard. 4 January 11, 2000 2) Approval of the Median Landscape Beautification Agreement with 951 Land Holdings Joint Venture. 3) Approve a Resolution authorizing the County Administrator to execute a Landscape Construction and Maintenance Memorandum of Agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation for State Road 951 landscape improvements. 4) To conduct a Review Hearing to determine whether Sewer Impact Fees are applicable to real property located at 1500 East Tamiami Trail. C. PUBLIC SERVICES 1) Assist the Collier County Fair and Exposition, Inc. with the completion of the north and south wings of the Agricultural Pavilion by guarantying a tax- exempt commercial paper loan. D. SUPPORT SERVICES 1) County Administrator Recruitment. E. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR F. AIRPORT AUTHORITY G. EMERGENCY SERVICES 5 January 1 I, 2000 9. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT 10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS A. Appointment of member to the Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee. B. Appointment of member to the Southwest Florida Workforce Development Board, Region 24. 11. OTHER ITEMS A. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS B. PUBLIC COMMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS PUBLIC HEARINGS WILL BE HEARD IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING STAFF ITEMS 12. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS - BCC A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS B. ZONING AMENDMENTS Petition PUD-82-26(3) D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., representing REVCO/GE Joint Venture, requesting a rezone from "PUD" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development known as Village Place PUD for the purpose of amending the PUD document having the effect of clarifying that the front yard building setback is measured from the back of curb or sidewalk, and reducing the side yard setback for a portion of the remaining lots in Phase 1, Glen Eden and all of Phase 2, Glen Eden, from 6 feet to five feet, for property located on the west side of Tamiami Trail North (U.S. 41) and east side of Vanderbilt Drive, in Section 9, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 72.5_+ acres. 2) THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE DECEMBER 14, 1999 MEETING. Petition PUD-90-17(I), Karen Bishop of Project Management 6 January 11, 2000 Services, Inc., representing Bishop John Nevins, Diocese of Venice, requesting an amendment to a "PUD" Planned Unit Development, to provide additional facilities complimentary to the existing religious development known as the St. John the Evangelist Catholic Church PUD, on property located on the north side of lllth Avenue North approximately 3/4 mile west of U.S. 41 in Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 14.9 + acres. 3) THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE NOVEMBER 23, 1999 MEETING. Petition PUD-98-20, William L. Hoover, AICP, representing Gulf Sun Corporation, requesting a rezone from "A" to "PUD" to be known as Whippoorwill Lakes PUD, a residential development not to exceed 518 dwelling units, on property located approximately ¼ mile south of Pine Ridge Road (C.R. 896) on Whippoorwill Lane, in Section 18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 76.85_+ acres. 4) THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE NOVEMBER 23, 1999 5) MEETING AND HAS BEEN FURTHER CONTINUED TO THE FEBRUARY 8, 2000 MEETING. Petition PUD 99-14, Michael R. Fernandez, AICP, of Planning Development, Inc., representing Marian H. Gerace and Wallace L. Lewis, Jr., requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agriculture to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Livingston Village for a maximum of 540 residential dwelling units for property located east of the proposed Livingston Road, north of Wyndemere PUD, in Section 19, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 148.98+/- acres. THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE NOVEMBER 23, 1999 MEETING AND HAS BEEN FURTHER CONTINUED TO THE FEBRUARY 8, 2000 MEETING. Petition PUD 99-15, Michael Fernandez, AICP, of Planning Development, Inc., representing Dean Huff, Trustee, requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agriculture to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Alexandria PUD for a maximum of 72 single family dwelling units for property located on the east side of the future Livingston Road Extension, south of Pine Ridge Road (C.R. 896) and north of Golden Gate Parkway (C.R.886) in Section 18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 19.58 +/- acres. 6) THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE NOVEMBER 23, 1999 MEETING AND HAS BEEN FURTHER CONTINUED TO THE FEBRUARY 8, 2000 MEETING. Petition PUD 99-13, Michael R. Fernandez, AICP, of Planning Development, Inc., representing Relleum, Inc., requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agriculture to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Balmoral PUD for a maximum of 154 residential dwelling units for property located on the east side of the future Livingston Road, north of Golden Gate Parkway (C.R. 886) and south of 7 January 11, 2000 Pine Ridge Road (C.R. 896), in Section 18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 39.58 +/- acres. Co OTHER 1) CONTINUED FROM 12/14/99 BOARD MEETING: Adopt an Ordinance revising the Road Impact Fee Rate Schedule. 13. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS A. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS 1) Petition A-99-02 Jeffrey S. Kannensohn, Esq. of Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur LLP, representing Eugene C. Thrushman, requesting an appeal of the Collier County Planning Services Director's interpretation (I-99-03) concerning the installation of fencing within a conservation easement for property located in Northshore Lake Villas PUD, Tracts E and F and Lot 55. 2) THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE DECEMBER 14, 1999 3) MEETING. Petition V-99-21, David E. Bryant representing Alfred Luckerbauer, requesting a 7.5 foot variance to the required 15-foot side setback for docking facilities to 7.5 feet for property located at 9 Pelican Street East, further described as Lot 40, Isles of Capri No.1, in Section 32, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. Petition V-99-24, Jackie Ritter of Penbros Precision Courts, Inc., representing Leslie O'Sullivan, requesting a 39-foot, after-the-fact, variance from the required 50-foot front yard setback to 11 feet for property located at 111 Caribbean Road, further described as Lot 9, Block A, Pine Ridge, in Section 10, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. 8 January 11, 2000 4) THIS ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO THE JANUARY 25, 2000 MEETING. Petition V-99-25, Joseph Sabatino requesting a variance of 7.5 feet from the required 7.5 feet to 0 feet along the west side yard of Lots 13 & 14 and along the east side yard of Lots 36 and 37; a variance of 1 foot from the required 6 foot maximum to a 7 foot maximum for height of the courtyard walls; a variance of 7.5 feet from the required 7.5 feet to 0 feet for accessory structures along the side lot lines and within the courtyard walls; and a variance of 10 feet from the required 1Ofeet to 0 feet for accessory structures along the rear lot lines and within the courtyard walls for properties described as Lots 13, 14, 15, 36, 37 and 38, Block 17, Naples Park, Unit 2, Collier County, Florida. B. OTHER 14. STAFF'S COMMUNICATIONS 15. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COMMUNICATIONS 9 January 11, 2000 16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately. A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 1) A resolution to participate in funding the Collier County Metropolitan Planning Organization. 2) Authorization of a 75% deferral of impact fees for one house to be built by Henrietta Eimers at 3418 Westclox Street in Immokalee, Collier County. 3) Authorization of a 50% waiver/50% deferral of impact fees for one house to be built by Carlos M. Lopez at 3047 54* Street, S.W., Golden Gate City, Collier County, Florida. 4) Authorization of a 100% waiver of impact fees for one house to be built by Enock Jarbath at 5224 Martin Street in Naples Manor Addition, Collier County, Florida. 5) Authorization of a 100% waiver of impact fees for one house to be built by Marcia L. Bichard at 2721 Linda Drive, Collier County, Florida. 6). Budget amendment for Planning Services computer upgrade purchase. 7) Authorize a budget amendment for the purpose of opening a purchase order for the Naples Area Chamber of Commerce/Collier County Film Office to pay the remaining invoices for FY99. 8) Recommendation to approve Excavation Permit No. 59.725 Power Enterprises Commercial Excavation located in Section 30, Township 47 South, Range 28 East: bounded on the north by 72"d Avenue N.E. R/W, on the east by vacant tract, on the south by 70* Avenue N.E. R/W and on the west by rural agricultural. 9) Request to approve for recording the final plat of"Villa Florenza", and approval of the Standard Form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security. 10 January 11, 2000 10) Petition VAC 98-025 to disclaim, renounce and vacate the public's interest in a 12' wide parcel of land conveyed to Collier County as a drainage easement as recorded in Official Record Book 1052, pages 1628 through 1638 and to accept a 15' wide drainage easement as a replacement easement, located in Section 22, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1) Approve the purchase of seating benches from the Norix Group, Inc. on Florida State Contract and approve a Budget Amendment. 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) Award Bid No. 99-3015 "Generator Repair, Maintenance and Installation" to AAA Generator. Designate the Public Works Operations Director as an additional authorized representative of the Solid Waste Department to sign all grant applications and quarterly grant reports for the Recycling & Education Grant, Waste Tire Grant, and Litter Control and Prevention Grant. Approve an Agreement for sale and purchase of a parcel to provide for expansion of areas where future stormwater and roadway projects are proposed. Execute and approve Work Order No. PB-99-4 for Professional Building Systems to clear and grub the south rights-of-way of Golden Gate Boulevard from CR 951 to 25* Street (Part of the Golden Gate Boulevard Four Lane Improvement, from CR 951 to Wilson Boulevard). Collier County Project #63041. Approve Work Order for Water and Wastewater Telemetry Consulting Services, Projects 70124, 73922 and 74033. This item has been deleted. This item has been deleted. Request approval to use funds from the Solid Waste Tire Grant to provide safety play surfaces at various locations in Collier County. 11 January 11, 2000 10) Obtain approval to add E.B. Simmonds as a secondary contractor for contractual services for traffic signal installation on Bid #98-2821. I I) Award Bid #99-3004 for the purchase of one (1) crew cab flat bed dump truck. 12) Award Bid #99-3012 for the purchase of one (1) single drum vibratory roller. 13) Award Bid #99-3003 for the purchase of one (1), 5-cubic yard dump truck. 14) Approve a Resolution authorizing the County Administrator to execute a Highway Beautification Grant Application and Attendant Agreements with thc Florida Department of Transportation for U.S. 41 North Landscape Improvements. 15) Approve settlement of construction contract dispute with Preservation Services, Inc., for the South County Regional Water Treatment Plant Process Tank Repairs, Contract 96-2524, and related Work Order Amendment with Agnoli Barber & Brundagc, Project 70023. 16) Approve the purchase of one (1) tractor/mower combination on Madison County, Florida bid. 17) Award a Contract to Native Creations Inc., to remove exotic vegetation at South County Water Reclamation Facility, Bid 99-2985, Project 73916. 18) Approve Professional Services Agreement with Law Gibb Group, Inc., Ardaman and Associates, ASC Geosciences, and Forge Engineering for the Fixed Term Material Testing Services (RFP #99-2962). 19) Approve a Lease Agreement between Collier County and NTC Development, LTD. for use of county-owned property. PUBLIC SERVICES 1) Approval of Resolution authorizing the Library Director to negotiate and execute written agreements to purchase internet on-line database subscriptions. 12 January 11, 2000 2) Approve the final ranking of landscape architect firms for the implementation of Master Plan for North Naples Regional Park request for proposal 99-2947. D. SUPPORT SERVICES 1) Approval of an Affidavit Concerning an Approved Lease Agreement with BellSouth Mobility, Inc. 2) 3) 4) 5) Approval of an Assignment of Lease Between Alagold Corporation D/B/A Landmark Estates and Hometown Landmark LLC. Approve Contract Amendment for RFP 98-2856, Consultant Services for Development of Regional Impact Process. Report to the Board of County Commissioners Concerning the Sale and Transfer of Items Associated with the County Surplus Auction of November 20, 1999. Approval to Award RFP #99-2975 Digital Copiers for the Central Copier System to J.M. Todd, Inc. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR I) Approval of Budget Amendment Report- Budget Amendments #00-082; #00-084; #00-095; #00-096. 13 January 11, 2000 F. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS G. EMERGENCY SERVICES 1) Request Board approval to award Bid Number 99-2993, EC-135 Helicopter, to Metro Aviation, Inc. and to approve a Resolution authorizing Commercial Paper Loan Financing. H. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE 1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS COUNTY ATTORNEY 1) Request to accept a 15' wide permanent drainage easement in the Pelican Marsh Community Development District. K. AIRPORT AUTHORITY 17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY 14 January 11, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, "'HE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. Ae Petition ¥-99-23, Robert W. Herrmann, representing Joseph E. D'Jamoos, requesting a 7.5 foot variance from the required 7.5-foot side yard setback to 0 feet and a 10-foot variance from the required 25-foot rear yard setback to 15 feet for property located at 325 Sedgwick Court, further described as Lot 57, Pelican Bay Unit 10, in Section 33, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. Be Petition CU 99-28, Mr. Jeff L. Davidson, representing TTT, Inc., requesting Conditional Use "1' of the agriculture zoning district to allow for an earthmining operation for property located on the north side of Red Deer Road and approximately 2,000 feet north of Immokalee Road (CR-846), in Section 24, Township 47 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. Petition SNR-99-05, Robert T. Stroot, representing Crosspointe Development, Inc., requesting a street name change from Commons Place West and Commons Place East to Crosspointe Drive, located in the Riverchase Commons Subdivision, in Section 22, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. De Petition VAC 99-016 to vacate a 5' wide portion of the existing 20' wide drainage easement along the west and south sides of"Pebblebrook Lakes" located in Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 26 East. ge Petition VAC 99-020 to vacate the drainage easement on the south portion of Parcel D, "Pelican Marsh Unit Six", as recorded in Plat Book 24, Pages 50 through 51, Public Records of Collier County, Florida, and to accept a drainage easement as a replacement easement on said Parcel D, located in Section 35, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. 18. ADJOURN INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE AT 774-8383. 15 January 11, 2000 AGENDA CHANGES BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING JANUARY 11, 2000 ADD: ITEM 8(F)(1) - APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT THAT WILL RECOGNIZE AN ADDITIONAL GRANT OF $6,334, TRANSFER $1,583.50 FROM AIRPORT AUTHORITY CAPITAL RESERVES, INCREASE THE IMMOKALEE RUNWAY LIGHTING CONSTRUCTION BUDGET BY $3,716.25 AND INCREASE THE IMMOKALEE AIRFIELD SIGNAGE CONSTRUCTION BUDGET BY $4,201.25, (STAFF'S REQUEST). ADD: ITEM 8(F)(2) - APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT THAT WILL RECOGNIZE AN ADDITIONAL GRANT OF $41,000, TRANSFER $41,000 FROM AIRPORT AUTHORITY CAPITAL RESERVES AND INCREASE THE IMMOKALEE T-HANGER CONSTRUCTION BUDGET BY $82,000. (STAFF'S REQUEST). ADD: ITEM 12(C)(2)- CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING OF LDC AMENDMENTS FOR DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED SIGN CODE REVISIONS. (BCC DIRECTIVE). CONTINUE TO 1/25 MEETING: ITEM 8(B)(2) - APPROVAL LANDSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION AGREEMENT WITH 951 LAND VENTURE (PETITIONER'S REQUEST). OF THE MEDIAN HOLDINGS JOINT CONTINUE TO 1/25 MEETING: ITEM 8(B)(3) - COMPANION TO 8(B)(2) - APPROVE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECUTE A LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH THE FDOT FOR SR 951 LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS (PETITIONER'S REQUEST). CONTINUE TO 1/25 MEETING: ITEM 8(B)(4) - TO CONDUCT A REVIEW HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER SEWER IMPACT FEES ARE APPLICABLE TO REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1500 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL. (PETITIONER'S REQUEST). CONTINUE TO 2/8 MEETING: ITEM 12(B)(3) - PUD 98-20 REZONE FROM "A' TO "PUD" TO BE KNOWN AS WHIPPOORWILL LAKES PUD ON PROPERTY LOCATED APPROXIMATELY ~A MILE SOUTH OF PINE RIDGE ROAD ON WHIPPOORWILL LANE. (PETITIONER'S REQUEST). CONTINUE TO 1/25 MEETING: ITEM 13(A)(2) - PETITION V-99-21 ALFRED LUCKERBAUER REQUESTING A 7.5 FT. VARIANCE TO THE REQUIRED 15 FT. SIDE SETBACK FOR DOCKING FACILITIES TO 7.5 FT. FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9 PELICAN STREET EAST, ISLES OF CAPRI. (PETITIONER'S REQUEST). STAFF COMMUNICATIONS FEBRUARY 29TM DCA MEETING IN FT. MYERS. WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHERe& PR 0 CLA M~4 TION the Board of Collier County Commissioners takes pleasure in recognizing the accomplishment~ of its citizens who have made outstanding contributions to our community; and, RonaM L. Scott (Scotty) is currently ~erving his second term as the President of the Collier County Veteran's Council; and, Ronald L. Scott, as an officer and member of Vietnam Veterans of America, Chapter 706, has been Chairman of the Speakers Bureau which goes into public schools to speak about veterans and Vietnam, and has been instrumental over the last three years in organizing and participating in the annual food drive for needy veterans and families in Collier County; and, Ronald L Scott has been a leader in organizing Veteran's Day activities and POW~MIA ceremonies held annually in Collier County; and, WHEREHS, RonaM L. Scott Veteraw. WHEREAS, NOW volunteer in the Collier County Vdterah of tl~e ?ea~ fOr ~h'e State of Florida. Scott on ~f Collier ATTEST: COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA '~.':.. PAMELA S. MAC'KIE, CHAIRWOMAN DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK AGENDA ITEM JAN 1 1 2000 pg. /' ,. PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, in a very short time, thousands of our very beautiful feathered friends, the Purple Martins, will return from their winter home in Brazil; and, WHEREAS, these birds will be searching for suitable housing to enable them to nest and rear their young; and, WHEREAS, the Florida Legislature has designated Collier County the PURPLE MARTIN CAPITAL OF FLORIDA; and, WHEREAS, the Purple Martin Society of Collier County is desirous of urging the public to erect proper housing for these very valuable winged creatures by placing said houses on their property; and, WHEREAS, during the period of January 16-22, 2000, the Purple Martin Society of Collier County will endeavor to alert the public as to how valuable these birds are in helping to diminish the insect and mosquito Population. NOIV THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the Week of January 16-22, 2000, be designated as PURPLE MARTIN WEEK in Collier County and urge all citizens to join with the Purple Martin society of Collier County to show their concern .for these valuable and friendly winded creatures and learn to protect and preserve them. DONE AND ORDERED THIS llth Day of January, 2000.: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ATTEST: PAMELA S. MAC'KIE, CHAIRWOMAN DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK AGENDA ITEM No. JAN 1 1 2000 pg. / _ PR 0 CLA MA TION WHEREAS, boating is a major recreational activity of Collier County; and, WHEREAS, boating is enjoyed by citizens of all ages; and, WHEREAS, boating is participated in by residents and visitors alike; and, WHEREAS, boating is deserving the attention of safety on the water; and, WHEREAS, boating is enhanced by the practice of safety on the water; and, WHEREAS, boating in a safe manner benefits everyone; and, designating NOW THEREFO~,be ff Proclaimed bY tht Bbard of Coun~ Co~ionen of Collier ..:.:; ~ .: ::.: ~ ~ ./ ~:': :. :,. /' /, ... ..... ~.~ '?:~:~:.:: :.. COUnt, Florida, th~ tht Wee~ of Janu~ 17, 2000 be d~tgnated as ~;'::~;::.~" ":',~:::: :COLLIE~ COUNTY ~ FE ~0~ ~ ~ '~::~ b~Hng procedures and to practlce'safe boating ~ ~e'w~en of Collier ' :'. -' .-'. ~: W ~ ~: :~ ~. ~:(~:5:?::~: %:.:. ~ .... ' :f.:.: 4T':.~' ~: ~:':q. :?:~:.. ~.?;2':~:~? ' :...".~: .' ~OA~'O~COU~rr COMMtSS;O~ ' COLLIER COUNTr, FLORIDA A TTES T: PAMELA $. MAC'KIE, CHAIRWOMAN D WIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK AGENDA ITEM JAN 11 2000 Pg. .... t __ ............. ILL PR 0 CL,4 M.d TIO~N WHEREAS, DavM Chronister was a dedicated County employee from 1988 to 1999; and, WHEREAS, Dave moved through the ranks starting as a mechanic and ending his career s the IVastewater Collections Supervisor; and, WHEREAS, Dave was a man of few words, a good and decent person with a honest straight-forward personallty, a man who would do anything for customers and fellow employees; and, WHEREAS, his initiative improved employee relations, morale, work efficiency and employee safety; and, WHEREAS, Dave was instrumental tn procuring and renovating the Wastewater Collection Facility, saving taXpayer dollars while improving the professionalism and efficiency of the Wastewater Department; and, WHEREAS, staff ~voUld Hke to recognize David Chronist~r's Contributions by memorializing thi~ facility in his' nam~ NOW THEREFORE, be # proklaimed by the Board of C°unty commissioners of Comer COunty, Florida, that the lVastewater Collection Facility located within the Pine Ridge Industrial Park be therefore honorablY rekognized in David Chronister's name. " : . . :i::' .. ~i: ::- ' ~ ' "" :; '::' DONE AND ORDERED THIS llth Day of JanuarY, 2000...:. -=:.:. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ATTEST: PAMELA S. MAC'KIE, CHAIRWOMAN DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, the Congress of the United States of America has designated the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. as a national holiday; and, WHEREAS, the President of the United States signed legislation authorizing Dr. King's birthday as a national holiday with observances to commence on January 16 of 2000; and, WHEREAS, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. received national and international recognition for his stirring struggle against injustice and his leadership in espousing brotherhood, self-discipline, and non-violence; and, WHEREAS, the Collier County Branch of the National Association for the ~4dvancement of Colored People (NAACP) will hold'it ~'r~memorative celebration of Dr. King's birthdaf: by~ -- - ..-'s~on~Oring ~i ~i~o~dom March on Monday, Janua~ his lifelong ~fforts to achieve freedom for alL NOW THEREFORE, be It proclatmed by the Boa~d ~J~C6unty Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that January 16'~ 22;!2000 bg de~t~s ~ ~ ~ ...~ DR. M~RTIN LUTHER KING; JR. ~EEK::~:.~'~.~ tn Colller count~, Florida andyt~'e'ttll citizens tO"~metnber Dr. King's oU~anding accomplishments by participating i~':~norative celebrations to be held durlng Dr; Martin Luth'e~ BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ATTEST: PAMELA S. MAC'KIE, CI-L4IRWOMAN DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK JAN 1 1 2000 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION TO RECOGNIZE ELIDA VALDEZ, TRANSPORATION/TRAFFIC OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT, MONTH FOR JANUARY 2000. TRAFFIC TECHNICIAN I, AS EMPLOYEE OF THE OBJECTIVE: performance County. The "Employee of the Month" Program is designed to recognize exceptional plus uniquely identifiable contributions which produce significant results for the CONSIDERATIONS: Elida Valdez of the Collier County Transportation Services Department has been selected Collier County government's first Employee of the Month in the year 2000. Employed with the county for 25 years, Elida was named the January recipient for her consistently positive attitude and outstanding job performance. Nominated by her co-workers, she's the sole employee in the Traffic Operations Section who's responsible for making all the signage on Collier County roads. On the average, Elida makes about 25 signs a day for three county sign crews. She's also in charge of ordering supplies and maintaining the inventory. In addition, Elida serves as the interpreter for the Hispanic employees of the Road and Bridge Section. Elida's entire county career has been with the Collier County Transportation Services Department. After five years in Immokalee Road and Bridge Department, Elida was transferred to Naples where she worked for Road and Bridge as a timekeeper on the roads. VVhen she's not busy working, Elida enjoys spending time with her six married children as well as her seventh adopted 10 year old daughter who's also named Elida. FISCAL IMPACT: "Employee of the Month" selectees receive a $50.00 cash award. Funds for this award are available in the Department Budget Cost Center. RECOMMENDATION: That Elida Valdez, be recognized as the "Employee of the Month" for January 2000. Mary-~k Administrative Secretary APPROVED BY: DATE: Michael A. McNees, Interim County Administrator EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PRESENTATION OF RESULTS OF A SURVEY OF PROPERTY AND BUSINESS OWNERS ADJACENT TO C. R. AND S. R. 951 WITH RESPECT TO A STREET NAME CHANGE AND CONSIDERATION TO DIRECT STAFF TO DRAFT A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT A STREET NAME CHANGE FOR BOTH THE STATE AND COUNTY OWNED SEGMENTS OF ROUTE 951. OBJECTIVE: In August of this year the Board directed staff to poll the property and business owners along C. R. and S. R. 951 (from Immokalee road south to the Jolley Bridge) to determine whether or not there was support for changing the name of this street. Further, the survey was intended to determine which street name was favored by the majority of those businesses and property owners in the event the Board determines to change the street name. CONSIDERATIONS: Street name changes may be requested by petition of a majority of property owners along a street or may be authorized by the Board of County Commissioners. The roadway at hand is somewhat unique. It includes a 14.5 mile segment (from U.S. 41 to Immokalee Road) owned and maintained by the County and designated C. R. 951; a 7 mile segment from U.S. 41 south to the Jolley Bridge, owned and maintained by the State and designated S. R. 951; and a +7 mile segment south of the Jolley Bridge extending to the southerly terminus of the road which falls within the city limits of the City of Marco Island, and is designated Collier Boulevard (North and South). The Board has the authority to change the name of that segment that is under the ownership of the County. The Board can petition the State legislature to either change the name of State owned segment, or to adopt an honorary street name for that segment. According to FDOT Legislative Programs Administrative staff, the later process is preferred. If an honorary name is approved, street signs may be erected by the County using the honorary name, but the road will still carry its numeric designation and will be marked with route signs. An example is Davis Boulevard, which is officially SR 84. Nevertheless, with the adoption of an honorary street name, it will be necessary for staff to re-address all parcels along the road segment, amend all applicable land plats, and provide notification to all service providers will be required. On November 1, 1999, a survey was sent to a total of 753 business and property owners along County and State Route 951. The survey (attached) first asked the respondent to indicate whether or not he or she supported the renaming of 951. Next, regardless of whether the respondent favored the renaming, he or she was asked to indicate whether they supported the name Collier Blvd., Gene Sarazen Parkway, or Martin Luther King Blvd. The survey also allowed the respondent to suggest a name. Fifty-four surveys were retumed to sender unopened. Of the 699 surveys that are presumed to have been received, a total of 416 responses, or 60%, were returned. This is an excellent return rate. Of those returned, 82 respondents or 20% did not favor renaming 951. Conversely, 80% of respondents favored the renaming of 951. The survey offered three possible names or allowed the respondent to suggest a name different from those three. Of those who returned the survey, regardless of whether or not they favored a name change, 52% percent favored the name Collier Blvd. Gene Sarazen Parkway was favored by 15 °A of respondents, and Martin Luther King Blvd. was favored by less than 1% of respondents. Fewer i AC,~A respohdents had no preference. The following additional names were suggested (the number of respondents suggesting the name is provided in parentheses): Country Club Blvd. (11); Ken Venturi Blvd. (4); Payne Stewart Blvd. (3); Rookery Road (3); Collier Parkway (2); Swamp Buggy Road (2); C.M. Bukowski Blvd. (1); Golf Course Alley (1); George O. Risher Highway (1); Gator Blvd. (1); Kelly Blvd. (1); Easthem Parkway (1); David C. Brown Highway (1); Holiday Lane (1); Double Eagle Highway (1); The Marco Parkway (1); Caloosa Parkway (1); Palmetto Blvd. (1); Capri Blvd., (1); Immarco Road (1); and Hedrikx Parkway (1). Additionally, after the survey was mailed, several letters (attached) were received from various groups and individuals requesting consideration of specific names. The Crystal Lake Property Owners Association supported the name "Collier Blvd." Rosemary E. Messemore requested that the road be named after her father, L. L. "Doc" Roach, the developer of Isles of Capri. Kjell W. Pettersen, Chairman of the Marco Island City Council, submitted a letter indicating that the City Council had discussed this matter and agreed to submit a recommendation for "Collier Parkway" given the fact that the roadway, south of the Jolley Bridge, is already named Collier Blvd. Mike Ward, owner of Erin's Isle Restaurant recommended changing the name to Ken Venturi Blvd. in recognition of Mr. Venturi's international recognition and charitable works. Finally, a letter was received from Jerome Van Hook, President of the local Chapter of the NAACP, requested that the road be named in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King. Since this letter was received by staff prior to mailing out the survey, Martin Luther King Blvd. was listed on the survey as a specific choice. FISCAL IMPACT: Any time a platted existing street name is changed there are associated fiscal impacts. Potential fiscal impacts are as follows: Fiscal Impact Projected Cost Fiscal Impacts to the County Administrator's agency in the form of the costs to erect new street signs and stafftime spend revising plats and addressing records. $100.00 per sign (+ 25 signs) Fire, police (Sheriff), Post Office, EMS and Emergency 911 services Costs to update their records, and maps Property & business owners Costs to update Checks, stationary etc. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Renaming this street will have no impact on the County's Growth Management Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The decision to rename CR and SR 951, as well determining which name is appropriate, is a policy determination to be made by the Board. Given the survey preference for Collier Blvd., and considering the fact that south of the Jolley Bridge, the roadway is already named Collier Blvd., staff supports the name Collier Parkway. This will retain continuity but will minimize the need to re-address existing properties south of the Jolley Bridge 2000 (in the City of Marco Island) and will provide a level of differentiation necessary for emergency 911 purposes. PREPARED BY:///~/~ Date~t~ - '2 ~ -~ :~ ~ l~be~l,J. Mulhere, AICP ' ~1/~n.g Service~artment Director APPROVED BY: ~~/'ff' /"~ Date'/2 -4J? ~ q Vincent A. Cautero, AICP Community Development & Environmental Services Administrator P~,.~ __ SR/CR 951 Street Renaming Survey Collier County is considering renaming County Road/State Road 951 from the Jolley Bridge north to the current terminus of 951 at Immokalee Road. 951 is a County maintained road from U. S. 41 North to Immokalee Road, and a State maintained road from U. S. 41 south to the Jolley Bridge. (South of the Jolley Bridge, the extension of 951 is within the City Limits of the City of Marco Island and is name Collier Boulevard.) Prior to consideration of this street name change, the Board of County Commissioners directed the Planning staff to conduct a poll of owners of property and/or businesses adjacent to 951, to determine if there is support for renaming 951 and to determine whether there is a Please Complete the Following: 1. ~ I support the renaming of CR/SR 951 2. [--] I do not support the renaming of CR/SR 951 Regardless of you response above, please indicate below your preference for a street name for CR/SR 951: If the name of CR/SR 951 is to be changed, I prefer: Collier Boulevard (Gene) Sarezen Parkway Martin Luther King Boulevard Other (Fill in Proposed Streetname) Optional Information: Name: Address: Check all that apply: Business Owner [~ Residential Prop. Owner ['~ Commercial Prop. Owner JEB BUSH GOVERNOR Florida Department of Transportation THOMAS E BARRY, JR. SECRETARY December 15, 1999 Mr. Robert J. Mulhere, AICP Director of Planmng Collier County 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 Re: Renaming of State Road 951 Dear Mr. Mulhere: As per our conversation, this letter is to inform you that the Florida Department of Transportation has no involvement m the naming or renaming of a state road. The Department is only responsible for the numbering of roadways. For the purpose of updating our maps and database, we do request that the Department in notified of the new name and the date that the naming of the road occurred. If I may be of any further assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely; Deborah L. Hunt Director of Planning and Public Transportation DH/BS/tr DLH-182-99 Kim Warren-Planning Manager Byron Swartsel-Statistics Administration District One, Planning and Public Transportation Office 801 North Broadway Avenue * Post Office Box 1249 * Barrow, FL 33831-1249 (941) 519-2395 * (941) 534-7172 (Fax) * MS 1-36 www.dot.state.fl.us COUNTY BRANCH (#511 ~x NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT ,.\ P.O. BOX 10695 · NAPLES, FLORIDA 34101-0695 i} / ..... ~ DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY i ?~/ <~ ~ ~/~t RECEiVED CCU',,!?",~MIN1STRATORS OFFICE Ms. Pamela S. Mac'Kie Chairman of the Collier County Commissioners Collier County Courthouse 3301 Tamiami Trail East Naples, Florida 34112 Dear Chairman Mac'Kie: On behalf of the local chapter of the NAACP we'd like to submit our request for the renaming of County Road 951. We would appreciate your consideration in renaming this road after the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and call it Martin Luther King Boulevard. At the present time there is nothing named in this man's honor -no school or road - anything, in all of Collier County. This great man of color had an impact on not just the United States but the entire world He fought for civil and human rights for all mankind and his leadership provided role models for so many downtrodden people. Doctor King was a preacher who lived by his own words and deeds and was an inspiration to the entire nation. He was in the forefront of integrating schools and universities across the south and died for his beliefs that he described in his "I Have A Dream" speech that he gave in 1963. We would like the opportunity of honoring this man who fought for all the people across the globe by naming this road after him in light of all his many accomplishments. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact us at 455-2886. Thank you for allowing our request to be heard. Sincerely, President / cc.'County Administrator Robert Fernandez County Commissioners JAN I1 2 00 ERIN'S ISLE RESTAURANT 7110 ISLE OF CAPRI RD. NAPLES, FLORIDA 34114 MICHAEL F. WARD Telephone (941) 774- 1880 Fax (941) 77,4-6085 Mr. Ronald F. Nino Planning Manager Community Development Services 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 Dear Ronald I have been living in Collier County, for the past 25 years in the east Naples, Marco Island area and have enjoyed the progress the County has experienc~ Being in business at Erin's Isle Restaurant, on SR 951, for the past 16 years, l'm familiar with some of the problems that exist SR 951 otherwise known as "Isle of Capri Road "as had a problem with recognition. Business such has mine, have had to fabricate our own address do to the fact the Isles of Capri is so clos~ It has made it difficult for deliveries, as well patrons to find individual establishments or businesses along this highway. I would like to propose a name change that I feel would add prestige and recognition to the East Naples area. I would appreciate it, if you would take of moment of your valuable time, to read my enclosed proposal. If at all possible we would like to meet with you at your earliest convenience to discuss this matter in more detail You can telephone me at (941) 774-1880. $inc~erely, . ../. Michael F. Wttrd JAN 11 200[ P~,. 7 PETITION FOR NAME CHANGE FOR SR 951 COMMONLY KNOWN AS ISLE OF CAPRI ROAD BY Michael F. Ward 7110 Isle o_fCa.oK Road Naples. Florida $4114 I request the name of SR 951, otherwise known as Isle of Capri Road changed for the following reason. J/,N 11 2000 RESO£ UTION Rename SR 951. My recommendation is to name the highway after someone with international recognition, and a Collier County resident, that will add prestige and attraction to this up and coming locale. I suggest calling SR 951 the "Ken Venturi Blvd". Ken Venturi, currently the CBS Golf Analyst, has been a resident of Marco Island, Collier County, Florida for the past 23 years. He is recently was' named the World's Ambassador of Golf and the Captain of the President's Cup for the new millennium. JA~ 11 2000 pg. ~' IDENTIF1CA TION State Road 951 otherwise known as "Isle of Capri Road" has had a continuing problem with identification of address, being as much as the Isles of Capri is located between U.S. 41 and Marco Island, Florida. ~4s progress continues in Collier County and new developments such as Fiddlers Creek becomes more prominent on "Isle of Capri Road",the problem will become a greater issue. People now drive to Isles of Capri looking for friena~ and businesses located on SR 951. This creates confusion and unnecessary trafjTc. Developers such as Eagle Creek and Fiddlers' Creek, have created their own street names to avoid such confusion, however for other businesses located on Isle of Capri Road the problem still exist. KEN VENTURI ~4 former t~o-time U.S. Open golf champion and currently the CBS Golf ~4nalyst, known to many as the ~lmbassador of Golf has been actively involved in many charities around the globe as well as in Collier County. He was a important factor in the development of the Eagle Creek Country Club Community~ancl a tribute to the City of Marco Island. He has been actively involved in Southwest Florick~ Golf Charities, Inc. a local charity that raises funds for yearly scholarships for our seven (7) Collier County High Schools, support to Hospice of Naples, the unpriviledge students of Immokalee and the golf equipment and supplies of our local h/gh school golf teams. ~Vlore recently he masterminded the fund raiser in honor of his late wife, Beau, for the Beau Venturi Collier County Home for battered women, raising over one (1) million dollars by bringing big names of the golf world to Naples. Tom Kite, £rnie Els, Greg Norman, Dc~is Love III, Dc~id Dural, Nolan Hen~ and many other greats offered their time and money in the local pro-am that was considered one of the best pro-am tournaments ever put on. His presence is of great importance to Collier County and will continue to be for many years to come. [! would be a honor to hc~e his name on SR 951. · Crystal Lake Preperty Owners Association Twe, Inc. 160 CR 95 ! Naples, FL 34119 November 12, 1999 8oard of County Timothy Constantine Collier Couinty Commissioner 3301 E. Tamiami Trail Naples, F1 34112-4977 Dear Mr. Constantine: The Crystal Lake POA Two Inc. has recently received the November 1 st Planning Services letter directed to poll property owners and businesses on a suggested re-naming of CR 951. Crystal Lake is a community of 489 property owners. The facility is operated as a non-profit business with common ground, club house, and recreation facilities which brings the community number to 490. A general poll of current residents indicates that Collier Boulevard seems a better fit for a number of reasons: A. The road extends fi.om a southern point to a northern point of the county dividing it east/west. B. Webster defines boulevard as: a broad often landscaped thoroughfare. For the most part it is divided and it is a thoroughfare. C. CR951 is divided in many areas by a median strip ( boulevard description) D. "Collier Boulevard" would be an easier identified name compared to the constant confusion of CR 951. People and business simply do not understand what one refers to when they ask for an address and the reply is - CR 951. We have received a number of soled reasons to make the name "Collier Blvd." while there has been no support for the other suggested two. Crystal Lake is currently at 66% or approximately 233 two person residents. That equates to 466 votes. December through April the number will swell to 980. At any given time during the year, Crystal Lake population is never below 120 or 240 votes. k JAN 1 1 2000 Page #2 November 12, 1999 As indicated earlier, the poll at Crystal Lake confirms a support for a r~e change and the approval of Collier Boulevard. We would thank you for including Crystal Lake in the survey. It does assure the property owners that we are not forgotten or overlooked. Yours very truly, Edwin L. Ott, President Crystal Lake POA Two Inc. elo:jo JAN 11 ---ach comm. Rec'd Copy November 18, 1999 Honorable Pamela S. Mac'Kie, Chairwoman Collier County Commission 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112-4977 Re: Renaming of State Road 951 Dear Chairwoman Mac'Kie: The Marco Island City Council learned that the Board of County Commissioners has directed the Planning Services Department to survey property owners along County Road/State Road 951 to determine whether there is support for renaming 951, and to determine what street name is preferred. VVhile the City of Marco Island did not receive a letter inquiring as to their opinion, City Council did discuss this matter dudng their meeting of November 15, and agreed to submit a recommendation for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners. Because State Road 951 from Jolley Bddge to San Marco Road on Marco Island is named Collier Boulevard, City Council suggests that a suitable name for County Road/State Road 951 from Jolley Bridge to Immokalee Road is "Collier Parkway." The name "Collier Parkway" appropriately embraces the historic significance of the name "Collier" for which our fine County is named. A parkway symbolizes both the well-landscaped developments and the natural and pristine environment along County Road/State Road 951. "Collier Parkway" would then become Collier Boulevard at the extension of 951 within the City of Marco Island. On behalf of the Marco Island City Council, I ask that you give favorable consideration to the name of "Collier Parkway" for County Road/State Road 951. i inca rely, . ..' '~~. :je'JJ/~. Pe~ersen, Chairman M~fdo Island City Council KVVP/bal cc: City Council 950 North Collier Boulevard, Suite 308,' Marco Island, FL 34145 (941) 389-5000 FAX (941) 389-4359 AG~A ri'EM / _ Copy November 20, 1999 ECEIVED Mrs. Pamela S. Mac'Kie Board-of-County .Commission,ers 3301 E. Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 [40V 2 9 1999 3oarO'of Count;, Commissioners Dear Mrs. Mac~ie, I am asking that you consider the name-of L, L. Loachor as.hewas better_kno~vn, "Doc", when renaming State Road 951. Doc was a fine man and not only helped South East Florida to grow but he.~y built StateRoad_"951 ". It. seems tome that everyone wants to name this road after people who had nothing to do with the road's development. Doc Loach bought-theproperty, built a-road, paid for the road, then gaveit.to the state of Florida. Neither Martin Luther King nor Gene Sarazen or even Barron Collier' had anything to do with the road., l. ask-youtoconskter "L L L Parkway,!, "TEmeL. Causeway", or just "Isle of Capri Road" which it had been called for years. He worked so hard and gave. so much to have something he dreamed-of come.true..He didthis-not o~ly for himself, but so that his family and others would enjoy the beauty of what he envisione&~ God made the-beauty,. Doc~Ix)ackjust-made it-easier to find-that beaut~nd to have a place others could call home. Enclosed you will find many_articles on-the_Isle~ of Capri, theroad leading.ml~th Marco and the Isles of Capri and information on Doc Loach. My home in now on the East Coast. of Florida in Delray Beach with my ~cL However, if you would like_me~ to present further information on this request, I would be happy to do so. Doc Loach was my 4ad. ~m~o~eEmaM~ sS~jaech 1035 South Federal Hwy -~t406 Delray Beach, Florida 33483 phone. 561 276-8222 JAN S~bj: Your letter was in the paper today! · 11122/1999 6:49:14 PM Eastern Standard-T~ne .n: CONDAN409 To: Rel3129 Honor Doc, my dad Editor, Naples Daily News: Re: new name for State Road 951 Collier Parkway? What a joker There might not have been a mad that ser,.,~ the ~___.p,Jlat!on of M_~rco if Doc Loach had not pe.m.e,,~red and-built-his own mad beside an old railmed track that Henry Flagler had built so that he could develop mangroves now called the Isles of Capd. Doc Loach built and ga~ the citizens of Marco a f~ry-.~ He bu!~-armther landing on the Isles-of-Capri .and~ bougl~t a ferry. Ferries are quite expensive. Marco didn't shell out one penny. After it was all b,_,;.'. and-paid for,- the people that- sat-__..n Marco~s-c!~! counciHn-the~m!d-1950sdeci~they-did~ want a f~rry landing. Doc tore it out. No one was ever transported on the ferry. Then Doc.Loach built-the mad.and paid for the road-tothelsles-of Ca~L Hegamit-tothe state. Now you want to put Martin Luther King's name on Doc Loach's road? Why not? He had just as much to do with it as Barron ~r or Gene. Sarazen-~id. Doc had Parkinson's disease for the last 25 yearn of his life, partly because of stress. Why not gi~e him the respect he desenes? He near asked anything from anyone. His wife, Rnsanna, fought for the mad to be named after him for years. There is information on my dad in both the Collier County l~stodcal Society along with the Library of Congress. immortalize Doc Loach, He was worth it. Rosemary Loach Messmore/De!ray Beach Isles of Capri may name r6ad after area pioneer Doc Loach helped out for at least 30 years By MAUREEN GILMER Staff Writer o~ polio...The Christmas trees will go on sale from noon until 10 p.m. today and Sunday...The local Rotarians will be assisted by members of its Interact Club of Estero High School, Maury said...- Club members will be manning ISLES OF CAPRI -- Ask almost anyone here who Doc Loach was and they can tell you. He "dlscov. ered" the quiet, residential community more than 30 .years ago, only then it was a wilderness of man- groves. Loach, who died last year, is credited with develop- ing the Isles of Capri t building its roads, supplying water, negotiating for telephone and electrical ser- vice, even transporting school children to a bus stop on U.S. 41 t all with his own money. He and his wife, Rosarma, became the first people to call the Isles of Capri home. Four islands connected by a causeway make up the Isles of Capri, located just off State Road 951 north of the Marco .b_ridge. The community is now 80 percent developed, with 400 houses on its 700 acres. Payment approved FORT MYERS BEACH -- To cover a $147,000 budget overrun on renovations to Lynn Hall Me- morial Park on Fort Myers Beach, the Board of Lee County Gommis- sioners have voted to move money from Phase 2 of the project, budg- eted for the 1989-90 fiscal year, to ' this year's budget. Commissioners took the action because they must issue an order to proceed on the project by Dec. I or lose $100,000 in federal funds. Boat ramp work BONITA SPRINGS -- The Board of Lee County Commission. ers this week approved the pur- chase of 6.75 acres here for the construction of public boat ramps. The Darcel is iust east of U.S. 41 Many Capri residents belieVe it's time Loach was duly recognized for his contributions to the com- munity, particularly his completion'of the original SR 951, otherwise known as Isles of Capri Road. That original shell road, up to and including Capri Boulevard, was completed in the late 1950s and paid for by Loach. It was dedicated to the county, then turned over to the state. Now the people of Capri want it back, if just in name only. The Isles of Capri Civic Association approved a resolution last spring asking the Board of Collier County Commissioners *o rename SR 951 in honor of Loach. According to Bill Hanley, president of the Civic As- sociation, the commission has not yet responded, but the association would be "pursuing the matter calm- ly.'' "We did not specify what section of the road should be renamed," Hanley said, noting that it could be Capri Boulevard itself. Capri Boulevard is the main street that runs the length of the Isles of Capri. Rosanna Loach, who still lives on Isles of Capri, said her husband lived "one beck of a life," and she · Please see LOACH, Page 2B THE ART LEAGUE of Bonita Springs will be at C&S Bank on U.S.41 at 12:30 p.m. Tuesday to set up/ts new display of members' Club Inc. if permits to build the ramps haven't been obtained within six months. Hearing examiner FORT MYERS -- Commission- ers voted 4-1 this week to spend an additional $36,972 on the new- est county innovation, the hearing examiner. The hearing examiner will lis- ten to requests for rezonings, spe- cial exceptions and variances to county regulations, replacing two volunteer boards. With the additional expend- brary also has received a reference copy of 1989 Gas Mileage Guide EPA Fuel Economy Estimates, October 1988...This guide is pub- lished by the U.S. Department of Energy as an aid to consumers considering the purchase of a new Loach would like to see him remem- bered for his contributions to the community and the surrounding area. She wrote in a recent publica. tJon of the Collier County Histor. ical Society: "Just as Doc was about to breathe a sigh of relief at having surmounted all his problems, and having reached the point in a development where a man can begin to look back at his accomplishments, fate's hand dealt the cruelest Free Market A& iture, the cost of starting up the hearing examiner's office is $180,693. The added expenditure is necessary because space for the examiner is not ready in the'l courthouse that is being re.o- vated and has to be rented else- where. DEVELOPMENT: L. L "Doc" Lo3ch, vthose Isles of Ciipri are carved from miin- grove swiimp, chose to pioneer ii remote frontier. Oasis in the 'Glades Because a Fort Laud,'rdale builder decided to take a sight-seeing detour ,m his way home from the dog rac~, a new community has taken shape in the Ten Thous]md Islands region of Southwest Florida. Thc Mghtstx'~'s rout,' i~ i.. 1~. -better km~wn as "l)m." l.oa~.h hundreds o[ pcrstms in thc N'alfles and Fort Lauderdah, areas. A rcm l';m of iht' galloping grt'yh{mnds. hild ])Cell Oll a Sllllllll(~l' visit ti, kennel clubs. In all th/s, there was nut}ting unusual, since Doc has gtmc to the dog tracks in Pevsacola and l);tvtona Beach for IDiII1V a ~he unusual feature was that when he got to Boyal Pahn Hammock on thc Tamiami Trail s,)uth of N;tplt~s. an impulse made him turn off and drive down the mad to picturesque, ~ICCl)~ When he got there, hc touk one look across Big Marco Pass at a clus- ter of mangrove islands and haunted: ~i want to buy that." Surprised Onlookers The bystanders gasped. For one thing, Loach had never seen this area before. For another, it was generally thought that not much of the land thereabouts was for sale, and further- more, that nobody in his right mind wanted to buy 'it. But Loach wanted to buy it. And buy it he did, just a few days later. That ~vas in August, 1955. "I guess people thought I was crazy," says Loach. "And, maybe I was, a little. But when I sag, it, i could see a resort community grow- lng out of that mangrove, and that's exactly what I've been trying to ac- complish ever since." At the time, Loach was a more than moderately successful develop- I")or I.n~ch Had to. I::~r,',, [y.o, rgh,!~, er and }l.q,ilda,,~lll~ Fart Lauder- '"" ';.~, .... "dale ah-ea.' V~llore, he knew by Boat for His~i.;I;';"0f Capri '"""".,',th.a.t..Broward Cl~ll had a great si. zrg-~"i~m,v~h~i~. - a surge that could hhve' ke~'~lYn busy and pros- ROSANNA LOACH, REALTOI~ 379 Capri Boulevard Isle~ of Capri Naples, Florida 3394(I FL.ORIOA TREND i Oecember 1960 pering without the .ga~nMe of pion- eering in a remote trontser. He chose to pioneer. Loach moved his family to Naples, went right to work transforming mangrove islands into high, dry land. The first fill began on January 4, 1956. Four Islands Four years later, the mangrove e ' Sm,r i,tla n et~: was gon. -- replaced by ranging from five to eigl kfeet 4~bi:ilt~'3, i~i ~4 sea level. The islands ~vere~ljnked by a series of roads, a ~d the ~'r~~ munity had electric ar te~e/~?~ ]e 2 00 la~l-, J.'x ,'1, ,pm~ l.'JoJ ida. dcv,.l, qm,'nt --- wh/dl hc called Isles ot (;apr/--- l.om'h faced prnb]cms l.aq Frontier (),rot ~h,' charms of Islus nf Capri is its rcnmtencss. Thc pi;mc in thc heart of what Dr. Charlton 'l'el)eau. Iw;td of the history depart- im'nt at tJw I'nivcrsity of Miami, has ialmh'd "Fl,)rMa's I.ast Frouticr." It's a wontJcrluJ pla(t- Itl "get away from it all." l:im' for a vacatiom'r or set- tler - lint pl,'z~ty of troubh: m a dc- ltl thc early st;tgrs o[ development, l.mtc, h had to fL'rry everything for Istcs of (ktpri by boat across Big M;trco Pass fr.m ~l:trc.. And Marco was ab.ut 30 miles by road from Naples. thc nearest city of any con- So Loach crow/need the Collier County Commission that he was buildis~g a community, and that it had the r/ght to a road from the Tamiami Tra/l. Then he bid the road-build/ng job at almut h/s cost, and got the j.b throe fast. To do it, he had to cut through jungle and back country for more than seven m/les from [he Trail t. his Isles. On thc heels of thc road building came electric service. Loach lavish in his praise of the Florida Power & Light Company, wh/ch, hc says. "took a chancd on me in spend- in~ tJ.:usands o[ dollars to hnok us into their system." Still later came service by Inter-county Telephone and Telcgralfli Company'. This tw no m .dd indicate For om' lh/ng, dredge fcrcd frmn a variety-[ amictions. Just ;is hi' was getting rt.;tdy to pm~r the flu in on ;t l)art/cularlv important part of his /slands, i~variably it would conk out - especially in those early days. In a rcnmte and charm- m~ 'hideaway along thc South Gulf Coast you can't pick up spare parts -dora drc(tge in five minutes. Often lhe serv/c('s of machinery experts wrc rcquire(l-and they had to mc from M/ami or Tampa or other ~;tnt lminls. · mJ'tim¢t~ the help (lidWt show p. Thai me;mt getting new workers -,gain, from distant points. "he -ol(l-t/mers" armmd Marco si,,n ,,I I.,,..'l,-~:sh' iu"':',:''''. I.lI;It'}l ;,lllll)llll(" I1 lJitl ti(' ;~,,l,l,J i,, Nlarct~. N- matt.'~ th;st l},. it.rix would halve thc (Irivin~ [rom Nl;lrco to ~,i,=)I(.N, tJld[ it (.'rt';tit' a ]()v(:]y St'unit Jo(q) (Jriv(: -- ~VJ.'n ].oath Jn'(mKJd il~ his fcrzv [rom Tamp;t, thc M;trc{)i)(~Ol)i(: wcn~ into action. TJipy rt.surrt.ct(xl mi corporatod city that /lad l;~ill dol'. mant for dccadcs, sci ,p legal hlocks to a ferrv-l.mdin~ ,,~, Marco side. As a r~sult, I,.ac}, ged his shouldcrs..poinlcd ,,,~ simp in Naples instead of Nlarc,). ami put the ferry up [or sale. $2 Million W~rth Sold With all this furl-us activ/ty, aml a patient approach tca million pr.h- Ictus. Loach manag, d to sell S2 million worth of lots in Ids all- ishmd community in the first few v(xtrs of its existence, lhmdrcds ~hcsc lots were sold to buyers had nothing to go by but the man- grove islands they skirted tw boat. a sp(~t on a plat-map and Doc Loach's invincihlc enthusiasn,. Here a~ain. I.oaeh'; meth-ds wen. almost heretical in high-pressure Florida. Of thc Imndreds of l.ts sold..nh' one was s.;d si.ght-un~t'cn. In other wnrds, thc interested Jmv- er either had t. dsive sevcn mill's frunl Tamiami Trail or. in the early days takr ;t ImM to look over w~uld in time bec, mw his h~t. platt' of hu~c Jmdgtqi. big full-coh'r s~)rcads and the olJi,n' trappin,~s Flor/da land s;tJt's, la.acll to.k a few small ads in Flor/da pulflicatMns anti radio stations, sent ont a few modest releases telling almut Iris Exception to Rule Thc tuffy exception to his rub' th.d thc bm'ct' had to see what he was buying was ill the c.:me of an Army cohmcl. Unabk' t. h,ave his Gcm'gia base. the colonel telcphoncd I.oach. said his brother h;td Imught property and was "raving" about it. Could too. Imv? Loach deliberated, finally made an exception. Today. t} coloncl and his famih' live in a rage they have bnilt .n one lot, on ;snottier island of Isles of Cam'i. thc colonel, now rclired, is building a magnificent sh-wldace of more than 3.~ squ;u'e feel looking off w;ird the Gulf of Xh'.xico a few Imm areal feet to thp west Today, there arc m-re than a en homes o. Isles ,ff Capri. anti I .,.,cl~ ..,x, ti,, i, i':' ~ i...,,;: · i"'L , Il, :h, ,..,~h tl'o~, IsJt'n 'l';,mi:,:,fi Trail. in' Jlit(J I.~ilt iHto Water-treatn~ent Plmd AItci howlin~ ~,vcr a .,'ri g,'l ;I w;th'r-lrtxttm('llt j~J;it,l }nzlJl ti.: I.Sb'S .'Xt first, th~ x~.rc~ h..i b,' IJ'uc'kcd fitlccn miles t'rolll Naples thcu trc:ttctt and (listriJmtcd h) -, thc Isles. Nmv. it's bc/ng trucked iS s()()l; t,) lnilk(' {ill' i)r(~t'c'*s ()ZH' I~j {}1,' llall m.u'ks ()[ N~)I L(:.t,'h /to built thc },n~sc on the Isles - w/th a superb view of thc Pass and the Gulf - and hc mm'cd his family from Naples soon as thc h.use was built. hc tclls x'()[~ h(' w.[dcln't live wlwrc else, }.' ..,mncls as though he J.I);IC}l il;IS IttSl .~})(qlt finished fill- lands of Jt/s (~mm~[,nitv - three res/- AJth~nL~h tll(' Jli.~}l winds of Jlur- ricam, I)onn,i xx'}lipl)ed iii mid hit tmarJ)v Nal)h's with all its fm'v ;t few verx' litt}c W}lat l.o;l('h will do m'xt is not ;t m()tt'J mJ th(' 1.Jsim'ss ixl.md, g()[Ic inh) })usi[}('~s. ~V]l~'n }lc (Jr)es l(mrists was goo(J m'otmd Marco dur- ing the cold winter of 1958, when most of Florida was a ~host-tmvn so f:,r as Inurist husint'ss was con- May Sw/Ich to llomc Building {}r. In' may ,,_,',~ ahead with for ~tqwr.]nxm'y s,m,' olln,r m;m~nwc islands ct. I}w prest'nl Ish's. 'J'ht'rt"s tn;tv switch from hu/Id/ng Imi'hlin~ h(mscs-f(:r-salc on pr(,scnt Isles. hiS, laM 1 1 200 Friday, .M-arch 29, 1957 TH_E .~!!A_~!I I~EHA_LD !$-C ew Dyna Found, 's Ghost si3'h ts Bu ilde 1' And 1927 Mayor Has r J. H. Dox~,.c · . . stitl in L. 1.. l.,,ach · . . I¢lrbq,l o] Iou'tt 51.-\I',t'C~ ISi..\NI') -- ~gild days o~ 79. who suddenly resur~'eeled Coihev C'ity~to block propc~sed fem'v connections wilh a ne~gh- boring island subdixismn, head~ over h'g;tlily of the revival there apl,arently uon't Im any conleat~because veloper L, L. Loach laid Thtlr~da~ that he fight, the actium Instead he rushing eonstrtwtton of land. 'D,c City Commissio~ ex m, ~21t, e[ tlllJess catlecl, and I),~.xspe said he knew o[ no bus- mess nocessitating a call ct'p~ ,lelense o[ {lie 8clim~ m,:sm~ a street planned as the~ Ira;,, I t.;inmus. Ail other l(,t~a~ lerl')' Ja~ldlllgs are pti-} ~a~eiy owlled abe[ unax. aiJahJe,, I.o. ch said, and Doxee a~reed. City is still alive cause never dissoNod; Doxsee sa~d. He is still rearm', he [flamed, because Ol'i~i~l~l c~art. ev dwects continuance m office ~ t::~, ;} a successor is elected~ ) Promised Land For l~orkmen ,Community Effort Provides Homes For 90 Families At Chula Vista By G/l, .qAVWARD [tr,cR or back of ~he~n~electrician or plumber durin~ that ~eraM Stair Writer ~th* dairy bar. phase of Hie construction of his FORT I.AL'DERDALE--F~r Hie: Doc is telling them shoat theTheme and would make payment mechanic. H~e mason, the plumh-~newest lamir, just arrived iff a~the form of a written promise to ~r anti Ibc electrician who join trailer and ~etting up a oicnic~work an equal number of hours ~dally m lhe cnn~]'ucUon of tem-tlunch under a palm tree on theirt~ thmr h~jaes. - pies Of ~ncrete ~JloL i: La~r, it ~'as foolld th~t.,Jt, wasY }and s~eel '¢ ~ I . }simpler' td excha~se [house thd tour- ~iGOOD PbUMBER 'ist, South Flor:. ~~1 'They're from Geor ia" ~ thews, The plan has now ~v~ved. i-hera ~[%k/m3~ }" "'i ' V -' F _. ~ .... tricia~ have become g~d ~lock- e · ~'..' '~/~ ' a~ll es nero ~ But . some et ~~;Jt. Of course they are tired now ta.~ers .aaa · hem are findin~ ~~and all this is atrauge to with lhe 'most pre/sing building .Gold Coast where ;1 sing a swell home." lothing La ,;tlr- . : ,sn~' ' ' : { 'You see,' he goes on. "that's ,IPrii';a cai,ed ,t - 'a c~lt its '~ LOACH S460 arid are 60 by 142 feet. No ; ' ' · onp family can own ~ore than 'g~on would be work. l~s doxology{ '" -- - il T~eItw° And ~o one can buy a lot nos not gong to use If 5ou lake 'high priest would be a tail ~and-i · ~iome chiropractor from Tennei-[us and we think you'll fit in, you ,see. the pt'o~ised land 75 acres otican have a loL We'll help you get ,started with your. house, Joan you {sand. palmettos and scrub pine Ijust outside of the city limRs of iFort Lauderdale. Chula I'~sta grew on the rnlns the great Florida' boom of the ~,rly 1920's when land specu~. ~ors sent en~ueers and crews el sweating negroes to build roads and sidewalks and p~ce lamp po~ts and street · signs. There were fish fries and band con- certs, auctions and lotteries and millions of doU~s of prope~y changed han~. But the ~eat hurricane of Sep- tender, 1926 blew into ribDons ~e bright auctioneers' harmers an~ !a' transit to lay out~ the founds. floss, a digging rig to drill your well, plumbing tools and most anything else you need. The truck over there more or less belongs to the community. "If you decide to move in, you'll find that you can swap time ~'lth /he neighbors and you'H have a home of your own before you know it. It's no place for a lazy person, though. We ali like to work and those who don't feel left out of things." Joe wants to put down a. deposit right then and there but Doc tells him to wait a week or two and problem receives all the assistants he can use to get him .over the hump. 'During ils first year, Chula Vista has become h~me for some interesting folks. ~ L,arrv Arnold and his, pretty wife !were a~ong the first settlers. With their little bo5', Lawrence, .ir., set up housekeeping in a tinyi · shack while earning'enough money~ for their new home. A stove ex-] r~loded. Little ~r~ di~ of and both his mother and father{ were seriously burned. They lost1 the~ few personal p~sessions. But with the community soli~y- behind them, ~e Arnolds s~ed all over agMn. Tod~y, one et the pMm.l~ed s~ee~ ~ named '~ence and the Arno~ ~e moving Into a ~ree.be~obm. tw~ba~ CBS home which'~ ~e p~e of .nelgh~rh~d. Ddt ~ach makes no attempt to regulate the more2 or conduct of Chula Vlstlans: That's ~ job; he :the paper options of the land gamblers. The lamp posts rusted. Tropical growth covered the crack- ing sidewalks and thinly-rocked streets. In May, 1946, Dr. L. L. Loach left his home in Oak Ridge, Tenn. and came to Fort Lauderdale with dollar or two in his pocket and an idea In his active mind. That idea, in 12 months, flow- ered into a community of some 90 families, all .linked by. a common goeli To own taheli' ox~;n'.homes. To purchase property in Chula Vls~, .You must have a good deal m6re than money, ,As s matter of fact. you don't need money at al' lit works something like this: 'think it over. If he's sure then,[says. He has, howeve/', offered tho"deal is made. lfree lots for a c°mmtmity house · The share, the-work arrangenlent{and Doc is ,not politlCally;mlndc~L has developed Into an' efficient, l But a fi~.e?q~,an cobh'ell ~'as 'been well-like, il system. [elected and such unified 'efforts .as During the early~ days, a block]communitY grass-plal~Ung, a n~. layer would ask. assistance of an beau]Jflcatlon.are. In EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REQUEST BY RICHARD J. NOGAJ, REPRESENTING HARVEST FOR HUMANITY FOR A WAIVER OF ALL FEES ASSOCIATED WITH THAT DEVELOPMENT. OBJECTIVE: For the Board of County Commissioners to make a determination to either waive or not waive all fees associated with the development of Harvest for Humanity. The request includes all future review, impact and permit fees associated with the PUD, until the time of buildout. Since there are no criteria for the waiving of fees, the Board of County Commissioners must evaluate each fee waiver application on a case by case basis. CONSIDERATIONS: The Harvest for Humanity PUD includes single family houses, multi-family dwellings and a community/activity center. This waiver request includes, but is not limited to Preliminary Subdivision Plat application fees ($425), Plat/Construction Plan fees (approximately $5,600), Site Development Plan application fees (approximately $600), and building permit fees, including impact fees (this amount is difficult to estimate, but would run into the tens of thousands of dollars). The petitioner seeks the waiver since Harvest for Humanity is a not-for-profit, ecumenical, inter-denominational, faith-based organization providing affordable home- ownership for both Iow and middle-income families in Immokalee. FISCAL IMPACT: The subject fees vary with the application. If the fee waiver is granted, it will be necessary to reduce General Fund (00t) Reserves in order to transfer funds to the Community Development Fund (113) to defray the review and processing costs of the various petitions and permits. The Planning Services DePartment will submit a budget amendment request at the end of the fiscal year to cover all fee waivers approved by the Board. AGEND~ 1TM JAN 11 2000 GROVVTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATION: Only the Collier County Board of County Commissioners may approve fee waiver applications. Since fee waivers are requested by a wide variety of individuals and organizations, for various reasons, it is necessary for the Board to evaluate the conditions and reasons which underlie the fee waiver application on a case by case basis. PREPARED BY: FR~/RI~SCHL, SEN~-OR PLANNER ?~R~ PLANNING tf[~WED BY: ~() ~AdD"'~.-"N I N O, AICP I~NT PLANNING MANAGER 15,~OBERT J/I~IULHERE, AICP PLANNING SERVICES DIRECTOR DATE DATE DATE VINCENT A. CAUTERO, AICP DA~E / ' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR EXECUTIVE SUMMARYNARIANCE FEE WAIVER 2 AGENO~ LTEM JAN 11 2000 213 S. Wheaton Avenue Wheaton, IL 60187 December 16, 1999 630-510-2381 Fax/630-682-4881 dhfla~ix.netcom.com Mr. Fred Reischl Senior Planner Community Development Collier County Government 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Dear Fred, As you know Harvest for Humanity has obtained approval f~om the Collier County Board of Commi.qsioners to build a very unique and special PUD in lmmokal~e patterned after the Traditional Neighborhood Development concept. Harvest for Humanity has not only come to Immokalee to build this new neighborhood but has also come to lmmokalee to implement a new paradigm of farm ownership by farmworker families. This will be done a few miles f~om the affordable housing neighborhood with a new blueberry farm using concepts similar to those used by Habitat for Humanity for homeownership. Harvest for Humanity was founded by Richard and Florence Nogaj in 1998. Both also founded the DuPage Habitat for Humanity and The RJN Foundation in the Chicago area in 1994. Harvest for Humanity is a not-for-profit ecumenical, inter-denominational, faith based organi:,ation. Neither Florence nor Richard draw any salary or income and provide their full time efforts on a pro bono basis. Some of our partners, such as the engineer and the architect, have also contributed part of their services to date on a pro bono basis. As you know, there have been and continue to be concentrated efforts to help improve lmmokalee. The need for decent affordable home ownership housing for both low and middle income families is crucial ff lmmokalee is to be a safe, secure, and stable community. Harvest for Humanity can provide a new model to accomplish these objectives, but we desperately need your help. One very important way to assist this not-for-profit undertaking is to help us with all the fees that would normally be required of a for-profit developer. We therefore request that all fees - review, impact, and permit fees - be waived for this project as Collier County's Government way of partnering with Harvest for Humanity to bring about the implementation and construction of this important project. We would be pleased to meet with you and your colleagues to discuss thi.q request further and to provide you with any documentation that you may need to help you with your decision. Please do not hesitate to call us. With kindest personal re ards, HAR~S~ FOR HUMANITY, INC. President ~,/ / RJN/fan AGENDA. ITeM JAN 11 2000 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROPOSAL TO PREPARE REGULATIONS TO INSURE THAT PROPERTIES IN NORTH NAPLES (SECTIONS 18 AND 19, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST) ARE DEVELOPED IN A COORDINATED MANNER WITH REGARD TO PUBLIC ROADS, STORM DRAINAGE, WATER, AND SEWER UTILITIES. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this request is to require the property owners to initiate a collaborative effort tO address and resolve the matter of proportionately sharing the cost of infrastructural improvements. This is required to insure that the development of these properties proceeds in a coordinated and integrated manner which takes into account the requirement for a local collector public street, from which all development approvals will interface, and to insure that adequate provision is made for other supporting infrastructure based on the cumulative impact and needs of all of the properties in the defined area. The plan should provide an area-wide, integrated transportation network having the effect of integrating neighborhoods, and providing residents of the area direct access to commercial services located at the intersection of Whippoorwill Lane and Pine Ridge Road, and nearby activity centers. The plan should address needed improvements to Whippoorwill Lane and provide for the dedication of land to create an east-west road link between Livingston Road and Whippoorwill Lane, necessary to facilitate traffic movements between Pine Ridge Road and Livingston Road and to reduce impacts at nearby major intersections. The plan should provide for an overall stormwater management system which identifies and provides for necessary stormwater management facilities. The plan should also provide for an overall utility extension plan to evaluate the feasibility of accessing nearby County facilities in order to provide utility service to the area as a whole. CONSIDERATIONS: Following the Board's approval in principal to a plan that would establish Whippoorwill Lane from Pine Ridge Road to Livingston Road through an east west connector, staff was directed to return with a recommendation as to the most beneficial east west route that in its opinion will most benefit this emerging neighborhood and other populations in this general area. Three alternative routes were considered. Staff and the petitioner's representatives of the proposed Livingston Village PUD, Alexandria PUD and Balmoral PUD have met several times to discuss the proposed location(s) of the east/west route. Issues considered included cost associated with construction of the road, traffic circulation, roadway capacity and function, and aesthetics. The petitioner's preference for the location of the east-west road appears to coincide with Alternative #3 (see attached map), while staff supports Alternative #1. Their argument for this location appears to center around their supposition of a cost difference to construct Alternative #1 versus Alternative #3. Citing additional cost associated with constructing Alternative #1, specifically the need to construct an additional 1/2 mile of Whippoorwill' Lane and bridging the Kensington Canal at its terminus, the petitioner feels the same public benefit could be gained by JAN 1 1 2000 constructing Alternative #3 for less cost, while maintaining th~ integrity of the Livingston Village property. While staff agrees that there could be additional cost associated with the construction of Alternative #1, it is staff's opinion that the public benefit outweighs any increased cost, as further described in the analysis below. It is also important to consider that once a road is placed on the County's trafficways map, costs associated with construction of a public road, could be offset by roadway impact fees for which it becomes eligible to receive. Therefore, the construction of this road should not be an ad-valorem cost to the public. The petitioner also argues that costs associated to acquire the necessary land to construct the road would be less for Alternative #3 than Alternative #1. Staff disagrees with their speculation, given the fact that the needed land area at both locations is currently zoned Rural Agriculture, is located within the same general area, and is roughly equal in size. Staff is not aware of any outstanding environmental issues associated with either property which may increase the cost of development or acquisition. It is staff's opinion that Alternative #1 will provide east/west access to the greatest number of population, while maintaining acceptable traffic volumes and lowering the traffic impact along the northerly section of Livingston Road, approaching the intersection of Pine Ridge Road. This will reduce the traffic volume impacts at this intersection, and allow proper spacing of any signalized intersections along this segment of Livingston Road, allowing traffic to flow smoothly and roadway capacity to be maintained. The petitioners argue that adequate traffic circulation along this section of Livingston Road could be maintained through the PUD zoning process, by merely restricting turning movements into the entrances for the various projects and driveways along the Livingston Road corridor north of Wyndemere PUD, regardless of the volume of traffic along this segment and the impacts to the intersection. After due deliberation and consideration of the above, staff (Messrs, Kant and Nino) are of the opinion that the east/west leg of Whippoorwill Lane should be at or near the section line (i.e. plus one mile) between Section 18 and 19, Township 49 South, Range 26 East. This alignment is the priority one alignment iljustrated on the map included in this executive summary. This alignment encourages the most southerly extension of Whippoorwill Road to an area of land (i.e. Livingston Village) and will thus make possible access between Whippoorwill Lane and Livingston Road available to the greatest number of population which will serve to reduce automobile trips through the Pine Ridge Livingston Road intersection, and along segments of Livingston Road and whippoorwill Lane. It will also assist in encouraging the use of Whippoorwill Lane for shopping and personal need trips to commercial activities planned for the Pine Ridge/whippoorwill Lane intersection. Any portion of the required right-of-way not voluntary dedicated should be acquired by eminent, domain and public necessity. The entire whippoorwill Lane route should be added to the GMP traffic ways map thus qualifying its acquisition and construction thru the use of impact fee credits. Should this course of action be adopted, it is our opinion that proposed developments along Whippoorwill Lane need not be encumbered by a restriction on the number of building permits that should be issued pending the construction of Livingston Road, because the GMP provides a window within which levels of service may be degraded when construction activities are comml ~cd d 1 1 2000 would otherwise correct the level of degradation. Under this scenario it is anticipated that the east/west leg of Whippoorwill Lane will be constructed concurrently with that of Livingston Road at its interface with Whippoorwill Lane, however, both the east/west road and Livingston Road shall be deemed as independent projects. FISCAL IMPACT: A general overview of the fiscal impact would indicate that developer-funded improvements will have a minimal fiscal impact to the County. Properly accounting at this time for infrastructural improvements based on the entire area and having these cost borne by the property owners will avoid future costs to homeowners that may have otherwise resulted from the typical project by project development process. Any cost to the County would occur mostly in term of staff review time associated with the submission of such a plan. The cost of the review is typically recovered in required fees at the time of rezoning application, for which such a plans will be utilized. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The approval of this request will not affect or change the requirements of the Growth Management Plan. The request is consistent with the applicable elements of the Growth Management Plan and will have the effect of identifying cumulative impacts of a development on a specific region which has the objective of minimizing negative impacts on adopted level of service standards for County facilities. HISTORIC/ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT: Staffs analysis indicates that the petitiOner's property is located outside an area of historical and archaeological probability as referenced on the official Collier County Probability Map. Therefore, no Historical/Archaeological Survey and Assessment is required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners direct appropriate staff as follows: Acquire by eminent domain and public necessity eighty (80) feet of right-of-way if necessary along the existing north/south alignment of Whippoorwill Lane and an east/west alignment that would extend Whippoorwill Lane to Livingston Road at or near Section Line between Sections 18 and 19, Township 49 South, Range 26 East. Direct staff to amend the Traffic Element to the GMP to recognize Whippoorwill Lane as an urban collector. All rezoning applications interfacing with Whippoorwill Lane as proposed shall provide the required right-of-way to Collier County pursuant to the provisions of Section 2.2.20.3.7 (i.e. 90 days following approval). JAN 1 1 2000 Any short fall between impact fees and actual cost of establishing Whippoorwill Lane as a public road as described above shall be borne proportionately by all benefiting property owners having frontage on Whippoorwill Road or its east/west extension including the most southerly parcel of land. Area wide drainage facilities and appurtenances including land requirements shall be under the control of Collier County. Prorated improvement costs to benefiting property owners shall have been determined and approved by said property owners. A sanitary sewer collection system and potable water supply distribution system shall be designed having areawide design standard specifications as determined acceptable to the Collier County Public Works Engineering Division. Design specifications resulting in incurred costs to a project having areawide benefits will be prorated against all benefiting property owners. Both of these actions will take place prior to approval of any subdivision plat or site development plan. pREPAREI~ ]~Y 'I~ONALD F. NINO, AICP CURRENT PLANNING MANAGER DATE ROBERT J. MULHERE, AICP PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR APPROVED BY: COMMUNITY DEV. AND ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS. DAT~ DATE EX SUMMARY/RN/ts AG E N.D.~/IT~EdVI ,~ No. ~ JAN 1 1 2000 Pg' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO PROVIDE REPORT ON DEPARTMENTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR INCREASED PROACTIVE SIGN ENFORCEMENT AND TO AMEND THE BUDGET TO IMPLEMENT OUTLINED NEEDS. OBJECTIVE: To respond'to the Board of County Commissioner's request for more proactive sign enforcement by identifying staffing and budget needs. CONSIDERATION: At the December 15, 1999 Land Development Code Public Hearing the Board of County Commissioners heard several public speakers who expressed a need for proactive sign enforcement to bring all the illegal signs into compliance with the current Codes. In response the Board directed Code Enforcement Staff to prepare a report on the departmental staff needs in order to take proactive measures for sign code violations in the County. The following information has been prepared for the Board's consideration. The County's Sign Code was extensively revised in 1991. As a result approximately 70% of existing signs were rendered non-conforming. Annually the sign code has been revised and consequently rendered other signs non-conforming. Approximately 60% of existing signs are non-conforming with current codes. Another 20% are estimated to be illegal (existing without permits). Because of the increased focus of signage in Collier County, the Code Enforcement Department hired an Investigator in 1996 whose main responsibility is the enforcement of the Sign Code. In Fiscal Year 1999 an additional Investigator was added to the budget for sign enforcement. Although the Department has two Investigators dedicated to sign enforcement, the majority of the enforcement is reactive rather than proactive. Since 1991, the Building Review and Permitting Department has issued approximately 4,300 sign permits. Within the last two years there have been approximately 1,300 sign permits issued. Considering all the sign amendments occurring over the past 10 years, as well as the changes proposed for the current Land Development Code, most of these signs would become non- conforming. Because the LDC changes annually, enforcement of the Code is quite complex. An Investigator must first determine the year in which a sign was permitted, then determine the parameters of the code at the time the sign was permitted to determine if a violation exists. This research can be very time intensive. The amortization schedule being proposed will immensely simplify the enforcement process. Based on the estimated volume of non-conforming signs that will require enforcement action if an amortization schedule is adopted, as well as the multitude of illegal (non-permitted) signs that exist, it is estimated that two additional Investigators will be needed to meet the Board's desire for full enforcement. The increase caseload will also impact the work for support staff. A Customer Service Agent will be needed to maintain the efficiency of the Department. FISCAL IMPACT: The added positions will require a budget increase. The costs are as follows: one Customer Service Representative II - $48,000; two Investigators - $150,800. The total estimated budget increase would be $198,800. This includes salaries, benefits, equipment and supplies. Funds would have to be appropriated from the Unincorporated Area General Fund (111) reserves. AGENDA ITEM No. ,¢/:JLF~ ) JAN 11 2000 GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None RECOMMENDATION: Approve staffing increase and attached budget amendment for one Customer Service Agent and two Investigators. PREPARED BY: APPROVED BY: · - -~ -- '- ,~ Date: Michelle Edwards Arnold Co~rcement Director//~ ' ~ Date: Vincent A. Cautero, AICP, Division Administrator Community Development & Environmental Service JAN I 1 2000 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CONSIDERATION OF A DRAFT RESPONSE TO THE UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (CORPS) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (ELS) FINAL REPORT. Objective: To provide input to the Corps on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on improving the regulatory process in Collier and Lee Counties and to provide direction to staff regarding the draft response. CONSIDERATIONS: The Draft EIS was prepared by the Jacksonville Office of the Corps in order to allow the Corps to better respond to issues affecting their mission. Of concern to the Corps is the current incremental permit review process not enabling them to adequately address the cumulative and secondary impacts of land development and land use authorized by individual permits. County staffhas evaluated the full text ElS with back up data. The ElS contains several sets of new information based upon data, GIS maps, the work of the Altematives Development Group (ADG), water quality monitoring, and other sources. From this information, the EIS contains predictions on the cumulative and secondary effects of 20 years of applications and other actions. This is intended to set a benchmark by which, through a series of specific questions, the Corps can compare the effects of individual applications to the predicted total effect. Attached, for reference, is a copy of the summary draft EIS. FISCAL IMPACT: The recommendations of the Draft EIS, if adopted by the Corps, will require additional data collection and site analysis by property owners in the permit review process. This may have an increased fiscal impact on those property owners, though a specific amount is difficult to predict since it will be a case by case determination. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board review the attached correspondence, direct staff to make any necessary revisions, and to forward the comments to the Jacksonville District Office of the Corps. PREPARED BY:~~here, AIC-----~P Date: ~ 2- ?,~ -~, Planning Services Department Director REVIEWED BY: ~ (.~) Date: r V~lli~ D. Lorenz, I~.E. D 7tur~ Resource~/e,1~artment Director ~incent A. Cautero, AICP Community Development & Environmental Services Administrator cc: George Yilmaz, Ph.D., Director, Pollution Control Department JAN 1 1 2000 January 11, 1999 Mr. Ken Dugger Department of the Army, Regulatory Division, Jacksonville District Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 4970 Jacksonville, FL 32232-0019 Re: Collier County Comments of EIS Dear Mr. Dugger: Collier County joins with Lee County in expressing concern that, given the volume of information, complexity of issues, and potential impacts, a single comment period is inadequate. Collier County recommends that the Corps address the concerns and comments expressed in the initial public comment period, and where appropriate, incorporate these comments into a second draft EIS. This second draft EIS should then be redistributed and the public comment period reopened. The County recognizes that this will extend the time period within which a final document may be developed, however, given the significance and complexity of the issues, this is time well spent. It must be reiterated that the preferred alternative should be the existing Collier and Lee County Comprehensive Plans. During the Alternatives Development Group process (ADG), various Corps officials repeatedly stated that the existing comprehensive plans are the preferred alternatives. The final document should have no conflicts with the respective counties' comprehensive plans. Additionally, Collier County offers the following specific comments: The Draft EIS does not adequately address the appropriateness and development of regional or localized general permits. It had been stated during the ADG process that in some areas the permitting process might be facilitated via general permit(s). Not only does the draft EIS not adequately address the development of such general permits, but most references to general permits in the document focus on further limitations to existing nationwide or general permits, or recommend a prohibition on their use. The Draf~ EIS should be revised to specifically provide for regional general permits in areas where the EIS establishes relatively low concern and where the property has been substantially broken up into numerous platted single-family developmenl NO. ~ JAN 1 1 2000 Pti. parcels. For example, within Golden Gate Estates, two levels of impact thresholds are identified, 10% and 50 %. Will property owners who submit plans, which remain below these thresholds, be able to obtain an expedited permit review? Is there the possibility of a collaborative permit review through a general permit for single-family homes in North Golden Gate Estates that remain below these thresholds? Resources should be focused in areas where there is the greatest potential to avoid impacts and for conservation and restoration. The document needs to be structured more concisely and clearly so that it is more user friendly. Tables may help in this regard, especially in Appendix H. Appropriateness and availability of off-site mitigation is not clear. The Project Review Maps (PRM) are confusing. The map depicting the Overlay of Alternatives appears to be easier to understand as it more clearly depicts the conflicts between development areas and preservation/conservation areas. The PRM does not recognize some existing vested development. For example, some approved development along the east side of SR 951 (Fiddlers Creek) is shown as preservation. The Draft EIS provides for maximum quantities (in terms of impacts on preservation lands, impacts on water quality, etc.). It is assumed that through the permitting process the Corps will keep a running tally. Once the maximum impact levels in any area have been reached, will no further permits be issued? Is this a first come first serve process? That is, will early permit applicants or permit applicants effecting a larger area or more of a resource be able to use up the prescribed amount of the respective resource? Will this not cause a rush of permit applications in order to attempt to ensure some "vesting" status? Collier County has serious concerns regarding the current water quality conditions depicted in the EIS. Collier County concurs with Lee County in requesting that the water quality model be made available for public review. Collier County concurs that the process of delineating flow-ways, identifying significant hydrological natural resources and ranking water quality issues by group consensus (ADG) is subjective and lacks scientific objectivity. Such decisions should be based on sound scientific data. Finally, Collier County concurs with Lee County's recommendation that water quality be evaluated locally using a standardized methodology and considering all of the local information available. Collier County appreciates the opportunity to participate in the EIS process, both on the ADG and during the public comment period. These comments are intended to be constructive in nature and incorporation of the County's concerns will result in a more efficient, comprehensive, and balanced regulatory process. JAN 1 1 ZOO0 Please do not hesitate to contact William Lorenz, P.E., Natural Resource Department Director, George Yilmaz, Ph.D., Pollution Control Department Director, or Bob Mulhere, AICP, Planning Services Director, if you have specific questions or comments regarding these issues. Sincerely, Chairman, Collier County Board of Commissioners CC: John R. Hall, Chief Corps Jacksonville District Regulatory Division Robert B. Barron Corps Jacksonville District Regulatory Division Mike McNees Assistant County Administrator Vincent A. Cautero, AICP, Administrator Community Development & Environmental Services William Lorenz, P.E., Director Natural Resources Department Bob Mulhere, AICP, and Director Planning Services Department GeoargeYilmaz, Ph.D., Director Pollution Control Department No. ~ JAN 1 1 RO00 Regulatory Division I OV 10 Dear Interested Party: You have expressed interest in our Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Improving the Regulatory Process in Southwest Florida, Lee and Collier Counties, Florida. The purpose of this letter is to advise that the comment period on the draft document is extended to January 15, 2000. Please submit comments to Mr. Ken Dugger at the letterhead address or by electronic mail to robert.b.barron@usace.army.mil. Your comments will be used to determine what revisions will be made to the document. We will advise you when the revised document has been prepared. You will have an additional opportunity to comment on the revised document. If you have any questions on this project or need a copy of the document, feel free to write Mr. Bob Barron at the letterhead address, by electronic mail at robert.b.barron@usace.army.mil, or call 904-232-2203. Copies of this and related documents are also available at http://www.usace.army.mil/permit/swfeis/contents.htm Sincerely, ~oghn R. Hall Chief, Regulatory Division JAN 1! Z030 SUMMARY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ON IMPROVING THE REGULATORY PROCESS IN SOUTHWEST FLORIDA LEE and COLLIER COUNTIES, FLORIDA JULY 1999 PREPARED BY U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT LEAD AGENCY U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY COOPERATING AGENCIES The study area consists of nearly one million acres comprising much of Lee and Collier Counties. This area is experiencing rapid growth and developmenL A number of valuable resources occur in the area including protected species, other fish and wildlife, wetlands, preserves, refuges, water supply, flood plain, shoreline, and other natural resources. Pressure for development has resulted in requests for permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to fill a substantial amount of wetlands in the study area. Based on data and maps from a Geographic Information System (GIS), the work of an AJtemafives Develolxnent Group (ADG), water quality modeling, and other sources; we evaluated a number of predicted futures for the study area. The ADG consisted of a diverse group of stakeholders including proponents of development, agriculture, and conservation. Also represented were governmental officials at l~e Federal, state, and local level. The ADG met a number of times over a five-month period under the guidance of a professional and neutral facilitator. The ADG focused their efforts on developing altemativee and evaluating their effect. While the predicted futures were realistic poesib~lifies, they varied from the rrx:~ environmental friendly to pro develofxnsnt with minimum consideration of many environmental resources. This Environmental Impact Statement (ELS) examines five possible futures derived from the efforte of the ADG. This ElS discloses the criteria that if ~pplled, would result in the different futures. In addilton, it discusses the authorities of various regulaton/agencies to affect lhe future. This ElS does not evaklato any specific permit action. This ElS does not change any regulation or policy. However, the information developed will enable the Coq:~ (and other ageftcies) to better evaluate the cumulative irnpac~ of future permit decisions in the study area. The ElS discloses several sets of queslions which would be asked dudng the evaluation of a permit application to help evaluate cumulative impacts. Our goal is to make mom efficient, timely, and appropriate permit decis~ns while balancing the demands'of growth and development with protection of the environmenL For more informa~n, contact Kenneth R. Dugger, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Planning Division, P.O. Box 4970, Jacksonville, Florida 32232-0019, phone (904) 232-1686 or facsimile 232-3442. You can also be received in writing by AugUSt~,.Igg~.. ,Jacksonville Dbtdct 11 2000 Pg..~_~_~ SUMMARY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT On Improving the Regulatory Process in Southwest Florida Lee and Collier Counties, Florida Need or Opportunity The study area consists of a large portion of Lee and Collier Counties Ioca[~ in the southwestern portion of Florida. This area has experienced a rapid rote of growth. The are~ also contains a number of !mportant resources including protected species, wetlands, madne and estuarine resources, habitat preserves, sanctuaries, other public and private conservation lands, and other important ecological resources. The rapid development of the area has an impact on these ecological resources as well as water quality, air quality, housing, agriculture, toudsm, industry, and the local economy in general. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville-District (Corps), has received or expects to receive. applications for permits to fill wetlands and to impact other waters of the United States in the study area. The number of acres of wetlands that would be impacted would be a substantial portion of ~ natJorual total resulting from permit actions by the Corps of Engineers. The Corps must consider a number of public interest factors and comply with a number of Federal and State requirements in association ~ any permit action. Independent of the Corps' permit process, there are a number of Federal and State environmental requirements which also affect water quality, air quare/, land use, protected specie~ el= These are largely beyond the control of the Corps .... The ElS is being drafted to support future Corps' decisions on whether or not to issue Department of the Army Permits (Permit). As provided by the Clean Water ~ of 1972, a person must apply for and be issued a Permit p.rior to placing fill in wetlands or other Waters of the United States. The out of concern that the Corps' incremental (permit-by-permit) review may not be adequately the cumulativ..e (total) effects. To identify the total effects, the Corps must predict the ~ of aPl~K~ations that ~11 be submitted. Major Findin~ and Conclusions This ElS discloses a set of peedicted futures based on assumptions (or criteria) about future land use in the s0Jdy ama. The impacts of these futures on various environmental and socioeconomic factors are explored (see diagram iljustrating the process~,for alternative selection and evaluation). The foundation of this effort was accomplished by a diverse group of stakeholders (the Alternatives 'Development Group). The Alternatives ~Development Group~(.ADG) consists of representatives from local, State, and Federal governments; ef~vironmental groupe;' an cl. the general public. Substantial input on protected'Species and ~ fish.and wildlife reseum~wa~: provided by the U.S. I~sh and Wildrrfe Service. Substantial input on water quality was provide~:!b~; the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The interacCXm Of futura land use ~d~ em~mmlent~. requirements (especially the requiremerffs of the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Wale~ are~. heavily considered in postulating the altematNe futures. ' JAN Identifying cumulative effects (Evaluation Factors). mi of the and use/cover futures (~e;c-rred to as Ensem~) pred~t that differ in how much more. the study area is suburban .development (included in Ibis 20% are "vacant" 'lots and lands with roads). The ~ve Ensembles predict that devebrment range from 31% to 41% of the increase in area of development will occur as a result of a combination of.. (1) filling wetlands (which requires a Corps permit); (2) cleming of non-wetland native vegetation; 'and (3) conversion of farmland. The Ensembles' pred~ that from 5.5% k)6.6% of all the weltands in the study area will be filled. The Ensembles report the predicted eff~'ts on a number of other factors as well (see Table 3 in the ELS). Using available information. (Best Professional Judgement) The level of detail of the analysis corresponds to the size of the study area. The maps cover ap~ 1,500 square miles and areas of urban, agriculture, and preservatior~ were drawn literally using felt lips. The purpose of the maps is t~ describe broad concepts, for example, wildlife habitat corridors. The maps are not detailed delineation of parcel boundaries but are general locations of different land cover types. The group was asked to identify issues, the factors that influence those issues, and to create and evaluate how different configumlions of land cover types would affect those issues. The participants used their expertise to identify which of the differences between the maps had ~ greatest influence on a particular set of issues. The Corps, in its permit appl'K~l~:m reviews, relies on this same,use of "best professional judgement" and does not require applicants to develop elaborate economic or other logistics modeis. Taking Stock (New Informalion) Currently, the Corps' evaluation of cumulative effects of an individual application is based on the issues identified by the ~' project manager and concerns raised by the public or other agencies. This ElS provides new-infom'talJon. First, it provides a prediction of the total effect for twenty yea~of applications and ob'~er aclions. Therefore, the effect of the individual application Therefore, the Corps' project manager can ensure all appropriate issues are addressed in the 'evaluation of an individual appr~ation. Third, it provides a list of factors to evaluate the cumulative effect. Therefore, the Corps project manager can ensure the evaluabons are consistent between individual applications. Alternatives Rather than looking at altematives for any particular permit action by the Corps, this ElS looks at various alternative futures for the study area. Based on how a particular permit action fits into the predicted future, this ElS provides information that will be useful in making decisions and determining cumulative impacts of individual permit action alternatives (including permit issuance, denial, project modification, or other mitigation). ACk. IDA ITEM JAN Predicting Impacts (Alternatives) A group of local citizens and agency representatives (the ADG), at the Corps request, created and evaluated several predictions ("alternatives"). One of 1:he altematives represents the status quo (not considering the information provided by this ELS). Other alternatives include ideas that the ADG collectively or individually felt might occur or would like to see occur. Since the Corps cannot control the type of applications that are submitted, the ElS will present these alternatives and the evaluations. This information will be used in the review future applications. Relating to Local Planning (Comprehensive. Plans) The Corps; authority is independent of Florida's Comprehensive Planning process; however, existing Comprehensive Plans make reference and defer to State and Federal wetland permitting. The Lee County Comprehensive Plan states '...the county will not undertake an independent review of the impacts to wetlands resulting from development of wetlands that is specifically authorized by a DEP or SFWMD dredge and fill permit or exemption." The Collier County' Future Land Use Map includes an "Areas of Environmental Concern Overlay' and states 'This overlay contains general representations for information purposes only; it does not constitute new development standards and has no regulatory effect." Collier County Land Development Code requires '...permits must be secured from State or Federal agencies prior to commencement of construction..." Comprehensive Plans designate land use. The Corps does no._~t designate land use. Landowners are free to submit applications requesting authorization for any use. Landowners have submitted, and the Corps must accept, applications for permits that would flit wetlands for uses contrary to County comprehensive Plans. Presenting Futures (Ensembles) The ElS presents five predictions of what the Study area will look like in approximately 20 years. Each prediction is called an "Ensemble" (assembled from predictions for ~ four sub-areas or "zooms"). The Ensembles are labeled "Q", "R", "S", "T", and "U". Each Ensernb~e cor-,=ists of a map (showing location of development, preservation, agriculture, and other land cover types~ 'and a variety of criteria that apply to ~ within those_ land cover types. The ADG subo"wided lhe study area into four pieces (called 'Zoom A", "Zoom B" or "The Hub", "Zoom C", and "Zoom D') and created several alternatives for each. The ADG created a total of twenty-nine alternatives. Each Ensemble selects one alternative from Zoom A, one from Zoom B, one from Zoom C, and one from Zoom D so that the Ensemble covers the entire study area. Alternatives with similar characteristics were placed in the same Ensemble. For example, Ensemble R consists of the altemafive in Zooms A that represents the Lee county Comprehensive Plan, the alternatives each from Zoom B, C, and D that represent the Lee County and Collier County Comprehensive Plans. The other Ensembles were assembled using alternatives that were similar to each other. Comparing Visions (Overlay of Alternatives) ,The maps were overlaid to observe the similarities and differences in land cover/use among the different predicted futures (Ensembles). The various Ensembles propose the same future land cover type for 67% of the study area. In other words, the different Ensembles essentially share the same vision of the future landscape for 67% of the study' area~ Land cover/use types include items such as "urban" or 'industrial" to indicate that the land cover wilt be. commercial, retail, residential and other types of urban, or suburban development. These areas, of "development" iden0fied in common for all the ensembles constitute 14% of the study are~;:For the remaining land cover/uses that were common to ali the ensembles, it was found that ~ehlgl~AcreS', "Golden Gate E4~a~s" and "Rural" land cover types are similar for all futures on 8.8% of the stud~ area, "agricultural" on 5.4%, and 'prese~ation" on 38.8%, For 25% of ~ study area, one or m0r~of the Ensembles map a location as 'presewation" while other Ensembles map ~ sam~ ~~as; "development', "agriculture', et~. For the remaining 8% of the study area, each Ensemble mal~dlfllerent- land cover types. While there is agreement among, the various futures for 67% of the sludy ama,'dlffemm land cover/use is envisioned for 33% of the study area (25%+8%) by lhe various Ensembles..' "-:~-':" Preferred Alternative(s) This F_IS provides in~'~:~ cu~~ future permit clecisk)n~ This ElS pa:~ information that will help. the Corps (a~l., uJ JAN 11 2000 Pg..~ Reviewing Futura Permit Applications (Permit Review Criteria) From the list of evaluation fac~3rs and the extent o~ the mportad effects, the Corps has d~-;'~ed a Permit Review Map (Map) and Permit Review criteria (Criteria). The Map'ts' based on the Overlay of Alternatives discussed above; some locations were designated "development', others 'preservation", etc. The Criteria provides several lists of questions: if the proposed projeot~ within a.'pmservafion' 'kxmtion on the Map, the applicant wig be asked.~ ~~' list of questions; if the proposed project is in "development" the applicant will be asked a dif~'mtt se~ of q~; and so forth. The questJons am designed to ~ the project's ~ ~ the. total peed~ cumulative effect. The evaluation of the cumulative effect:of an decisi~...The Map does not designate the Corps permit decision. For example, if an application- sulxnil~! Proposes constn~on of a residential development and Jf the project site is shown as "~tJon",,on ,the Map. the Corps will ~a'll consider all the circumstances and design of the individual projec{ prior to deciding whether to issue or deny a permit. The difference is that additional attention will be given .to :~e application in order to answer the questions listed by the Criteria for "presewafion." A dra~is enclosed as Appendix G. Issues R~ised by the public and Agencies A number of issues were identified by the Alternatives Development Group and Mhms. These include th~ following: property rights;, water management; water quality; ecosystem function; wildlife habitat; listed species; regulatory efficiency and effectivenes~ economic:.sustainability; local ~and use policy; avoidance of wetland impacts; mitigation; cumulative/secondary impacts; restoration/mtroffc and public lands management/use.. Areas of Controversy .Decisions on permit applications and implementation of various other laws to protect environmen~l resources may be in conflict with certain plans for development and other land use changes. In addition, the question has been raised as to how much restriction on use of private property is justified by the public benefit of environmental protection. As long as them am strong and diverse viewpoints on these issues there will be a degree of controversy. Listening to Community Input (Comments) The Corps' decisions on applications to flU wetlands have impacts on.other issues important to the community. The Corps .hosted the Alternatives Development Group and is using the Environmental Impact Statement (ELS) process to obtain public input in order to improve its unde~sbanding of these issues and to "fit into" the Comprehensive Plans, particularly where the Counties have deferred to or ~eferenced the Corps on wetlands. Comments on the content of this Draft of the ElS will be used to revise the Draft and prepare a Final ElS. The Corps will then prepare a Record of Decision describing and decisions ~esulting from the ElS. Unresolved Issues This ElS does not result in a decision on any particular permit application. It does explore the cumulative impact of the Corps regulatory decisions and decisions by others for the study area and provide informalJon useful in determining the cumulative impacts of individual permit decisions. Each permit application will continue to be addressed on a case-by-case basis in accordance with laws and regulations. Similarly, the areas of controversy will be addressed on a case-by-case basis in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. The Corps recognizes that this ElS mpresente just one step in the development of an appropriate analysis, that can appropriately describe the many interrelatiOnships of wildrEe and other issues across the landscape. The Corps is commiffed to, after the publication of this Draft ElS, working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife ~ to develop more detailed analysis tools to be ultimately incorporated into the Corps' decision processes. For example, there are fairly specific guidelines for protection of bald eagle nests from consb'uction and other activitle~in the vicinity of the nest. Them is no similar document (with such specificity) for many of the other evaluation · factors. Once the detailed analysis tools are available to be used in project development and design, then these can be applied not only to review .of applications but also to a re-evaluation of tt~ predicted l~at- change in the landscape to the e~tent that adverse impacts to listed species cannot be avoided and if adverse effects as defined by the Endangered Species Act remain, formal consu~a~on n~ ~..._,~ A~A ITF. M """"ry' .o.: iv JAN 1 I 2000 //) Permit Review Criteria DRAFT Suggestions for changes to this draft and the use of these evaluation factors are welcomed. Table of Contents Preamble .......................................................................................................................... 2 Immokalee Reservation, Seminole Tdbe of Flodda .......................................................... 4 Legend: Preservation ....................................................................................................... 6 Goal ............................................................................................................................ 6 Cdtena ........................................................................................................................ 6 I. Wetlands .......................................................................................................... 6 I1. Water quality and quantity .............................................................................. 8 II1. Habitat and listed species ............................................................................ 10 IV. Other public interest factors ......................................................................... 15 Legend: Development ............................ :; ....................................................................... 17 Goal ................................................................................... .'.'. ..................................... 17 Cdtena ....................................................................................................................... 17 I. Wetlands ........................................................................................................ 17 I1. Water quality and quantity ............................................................................. 18 111. Habitat and listed species ............................................................................. 20 IV. Other public interest factors ......................................................................... 24 Legend: Agricultural ............... : ......................................................................................... 25 Goal ............................................................................................................................ 25 Cdteria ........................................................................................................................ 26 III. Habitat and listed species ............................................................................. 26 Legend: Rural ................................................................................................... '.' ............... 26 Goal ............................................................................................................................ 26 Cdteda ........................................................................................................................ 27 Legend: Golden Gate Estates Zones 1 and 2 .................................................................. 27 Goal ............................................................................................................................ 27 Cdtena ........................................................................................................................ 27 I. Wetlands ......................... i ............................................................................... 27 I1. Water quality and quantity ............................................................................. 28 Legend: Lehigh Acres Urban or Lehigh Acres Greenway... .............................................. 28 Goal ........................................................................................................................... 28 Cdteda ......................................................................................................................... 28 I1. Water quality and quantity .............................................................................. 28 IV. Other public interest factors ................. : ........................................................ 28 Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figures. Study Area ............................................................................................................... 2 Project Review Map.:: .............................................................................................. 3 Overlay of Alternatives ......................................................................................... ..5,,,~~ -.. Page I of 28 pages JAN 11 2000 P~,.~_~ Permit Review Criteria DRAFT Suggestions for changes to this draft and the use of these evaluation factors are welcome(]. Preamble. This document will be used by Corps Project Managers to evaluate the direct and indirect (cumulative and secondary) effects related applications for Department of the Army Permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. This document applies to the study area of the Environmental Impact Statement for Improving the Regulatory Process in Southwest Flodda (ELS). The study area measures 1,556 square miles. The Corps' decision whether to issue or deny a Permit is based on an evaluation and weighing of the effects (both impacts and benefits) of the proposed project on many factors, including wildlife, endangered species, and water quality. The decision will consider both the direct and immediate effects and the indirect (cumulative and secondary) effects of the proposal. The decision will considei' all the circumstances and design of each individual project. The Corp's Project Manger will use this document to prepare the EnVironmental Assessment/Statement of Findings (EA/SOF) memorandum that supports each Corps decision to issue or deny a permit. This document provides several lists, of questions. Each list is keyed to the land cover types of the Permit Review Map (Map), figure 2. If the proposed project is located within a "preservation" location on the Map; the applicant will be asked the "preservation" list of questions; if the proposed project is in "development" the applicant will be asked a different set of questions; and so forth. The Map is based on the alternatives developed dudng the preparation of the ElS. Each alternative presented a map and assodated criteda that represents a prediction of the what the study area will look like in approximately 20 years...The alternatives were then overlaid to find .which geographic locations were mapped with similar land cover types, f~3ure 3. For example, the alternatives variously use legends such as "urban" or "industrial" to indicate which areas of the study area will be occupied by commercial, retail, residential and other types of urban or ~. suburban development and, for 14% of the study area, the alternatives all mapped some form of "development". For 25% of the study area, one or more of the alternatives map a location as "preservation" and the remainder at "development", "agriculture", etc., shown grey in Figure 3. For the remaining 8% of the study area, each Ensemble maps different land cover types, white areas in Figure 3. The Map (Figure 2) "fills in" the grey and white areas. Page,2 of 28 page~ AGF_h~A I1 E.M-. JAN 11 2000 Permit Review Criteria DRAFT Suggestions for changes to this ~lratt an~ the use of these evaluation factors are welcomed. Figure 2. Development Lehigh Acres Greenway -or- Golden C-.-.-.-~e Estates Zone 2 Lehigh Acres Urban -or- C-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-~n Gate Estates Zone I Rural Agricultural (with limited int~) Flowway improvements PROJECT REVIEW MAP Page-3 of 28 pages AGENDA I1 E~M JAN 11 2000 Permit Review Criteria DRAFT Suggestions for changes to this draft and the. use'.of these evaluation factors are welcomed. The Map does not predetermine the Corps permit decision. For example, if an application proposes construction of a residential development and if the project site is shown as "preservation" on the Map, the Corps will still consider all the circumstances and design of the individual project prior to deciding whether to issue or deny a permit. However, the nature of the questions demonstrates that the Corps intends to devote more attention to applications within the "preservation" area than. to elsewhere. Neither this document nor the Map applies to projects holding unexpired Department of the Army permits. This document only applies to applicants seeking authorization for placement of fill in Waters of the United States under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. ' The Map shows generalized land cover types. The information used to generate the Map reflects a synopsis of best available information. Boundaries between land cover types are not precise and no attempt was made to match parcel boundaries. The document is subdivided by the land cover types (legend~l on the Map. First, a general goal is stated for each legend. Then, questions are presented under four headings: I. Wetlands; I1. Water quality and quantity; III. Habitat and lis.ted species; and, IV. Other public interest factors. For most questions, suggestions are made for the statement(s) that would be placed in the EA/SOF. Parenthetical comments are provided that synopsize information found in .the ElS. The Map provides one predi .ction (of many possible predictions) of the total effect of twenty years of activities. Some of ~e activities, but not all, require Corps permits. The questions and suggested statements are designed to: (1) compare the effect of the individual application to. the total predicted cumulative effect; and (2) provide notice if the individual project will change the prediction. The evaluation factors used t(5 analyze the effects are not elaborate. Their purpose is to present the relationship of an individual permit to the whole. As these are used, He Corps will periodically evaluate, in cooperation with other agencies, the accumulation of permit decisions to evaluate trends. The Corps recognizes that the evaluation factors presented herein are just one step in the development of a more elabor:~:te analysis to describe the many interrelationships of wildlife and other issues across the landscape. The Corps is committed to working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Agency and others to develop more detailed analysis tools to be ultimately incorporated into the Corps' decision processes. lmmokalee Reservation, Seminole Tribe of Florida. The Immokalee Reservation is not assigned a legend. Therefore, there is no prepared fist of questions or evaluation factors for reviewing the cumulative effects of projects proposed within the Immokalee- ' Reservation. Corps Project Managers will continue to recognize the status, governmental authority, and powers of the Seminole Tribe of Florida and the dghts u..nder any tdbal agreement with any agency U.S. Government. Page 4, of 28 pages - - ' DRAFT AGENDA ITEM JAN 11 2000 ..... Permit'Review Crltefta ,'. '.~DRAFT Suggestions for'changes'to'thgs draft arid the use of these-evaluation factors are welcomed. a ~~ cove,'type (~ Covers 67% of the study area. Deveiopm~ (~4%) (5.4%) Rural (1.3~) Presenra~ 'Grey' ~ am ~~e ~ ~ ~ c-.-,my (2s% o~ ~'~e study area) m lelt blanlc (m) am ~se m where Ihe m cmated b~l~ ,aaema~es Development ~ (ADG) predicted ~v~al ~ future land owm' types. Covers 8% ~ Ihe study are~ Figure 3. OVERLAY OF ALTERNATIVES Page 5 of 28 pages. DRAFT ~ J.,~N Il 2000 Permit Review Criteri a DRAFT Suggestions for changes to this draft aqd~tt)e uSe~qf~these evaluation factors are welcomed. Legend: Preservation. Goal. The Preservation land cover legend shows lands that are set aside strictly for conservation purposes. These areas are primarily existing and proposed public lands to be managed for wetlands and wildlife protection, but include pdvate lands that have been identified as having significant resource value. Many of these lands have been, or are desirable for, fee title purchase by government or private entities (such as mitigation banks) to protect critical wildlife and aquatic/wetland resources. In other cases, such entities have or may purchase conservation easements ensuring that such lands will be managed consistent with conservation goals. Criteria. I. Wetlands. A. If the proposed Project is for a non-preservation purpose, can the proposed project be located within the areas mapped as development? The answer must be supported by an extensive geographic and site alternatives analysis. (Co~s regulations, including the Section 404{b)(1 ) Guidelines, require an analysis that shows the proposed project ~s the least damaging pract~.able altemative. The analysis is performed in sequence: (1) demonstration that no o{her sites are available to avoid the wetland impact, or if available, have greater impact; (;2) demonstration that the ·elected site and selected site plan has the minimum impact compared to other alternatives; and (3) compensation for the resulting unavoidable impacts is pro,haled. Presumptions are: (1) wate~ dependency; (2) upland impact is less damaging to the aquatic environment. The U.S. EPA may formally raise concerns with the alternative analysis by writing corrm~ent letters as provided by the 404q MOU. The Map shows a large area of vacant/natural land for non-preserve land cover types. The Co~ps will presume, unless rebutted/justified as intpracticable, that sites for non-presage activities are available outside of the area· mapped as preserve.) Evaluation factors to be used. Avoidance of Wetland Impact. State whether the acres of proposed'fill would contribute to a cumulative fill greater than 5.6% of the wetlands in the study area. (Section 4.2 estimates that, for the rwe Ensem~as. from 5.5% to 7.0~ of the wetlands in the study area will be filled. The lower pem, efltage better satisfies the requirement for avoid·hOe. The es·mate for the Map is 5.6%. However, in the calculation of this estimate, · small amoun~ of wetland fill (1%) was estimated to o¢¢t~ within areas shown as preservation, if a project propom~ Iny fill. and c..e~inly any fill greater than 1% of the wetlands on the site, consideration must be given that this may result in cumulative impact greater than 5.6%.) Loss of buffers adjacent to wetlar~ds. State whether the area of the project footprint will reduce the quantity of native vegetation in contiguous preserves to some number less than 42% of the study area. (Sectio~ 4.2 estimates that existing 13reserves total 27% of the study area. Native vegetation __nc~__,pies For the five Ensen~les. areas radiX>ed as preserve range from 38~ to 43% of the study area. The estimate for the Map is 42%. Natural resoume benefits result ~rom a matrix of upland and wetland. matrtx i~ ideally pn::n~led in contiguou~ i~eserve~. Buffers outside of contiguous preserves have a higher probablBly to be impacted. Presentation of of a wetland andbuffer provi,~e greater beneres to the aquatic ecosystem than presentation of wetlands alone.) B. For an application that proposes effects that are a large percentage of the cumulative numbers for any of the evaluation factors, should a project specific ElS be prepared to support the permit decision? C. Does the proposed project preclude use, for compensatory mitigation, of a portion area mapped as preserve? A~A ITF. J~ J. ,N I 1 20 0 Page 6 of 28 pages DRAF'[.. P rm lReview Criteria, SugT~'fldnsTor changes~o s.glraft and the use of these evaluation factors are welcomed. (All Ensembles pre~'~, expansion of existing public contiguous preserves, in part, this pmvidas ·n oppoflunity for reatordtion or creation activities that would compensate for unavoidable impacts from projects located outside of bhe preserve mapping. Impacts are expressed in terms of ac~es ·nd ·lag in tm'ms of Die fu~ lost ~on is provided by orasti~ new ·cres or fastodng the fu~ of ac,~recled ·teas and i often provided.within the 13oundarie~ of the project. However, creation or restoration .same w~k on · 'postage stamp" wetlancl surrounded by urban development. The Map shows these contiguous ar.Pa· as presenmtk~ Therefore, within areas mapped as preservation, projects that orpateirastom natural boneflls ·re prefm'red compared to non-preserve projects. A ~cond preference is that compensation include the acquisition ·nd preservation of 'new preserves' so Umt the ·rea of actual i:gaservas is expanded, rather ttmn simply performing restoration on existing public praserve~, ) Evaluation factors to be used. Availability of compensatory mitigation. State that the wetlands within the project footprint are part of a set of wetlands particulaHy preferred for restoration and - therefore the project may preclude the wetlands' availability as compensatory mitigation for projects elsewhere in the study area, (Section 4.2 astif~'.,tas, for each Enserr~le, the percent of the total w~lands within the study area that are located in areas of 'new preserves'. 'New preserves' are areas mapped as preserves t~A ·re not currently in pubiic m' other management for the pm]x~ses of natural resource benefits. For ~e five Ensembles, ~e peccarY·ge ranges from 17~ to 24%. The Percentage for the Map is 22~. These are the wetlands that would be targeted for acquisition ·nd restoration to p~ovide compensatory mitigation based on the prefefenca~ ~ated in the bec~ paragraph above. Adjacent uplands would be available for creation of wetlands, if appropriate. Not ·Il of these wetlands need restoration. NOt all of th·se weUands would be available for restoration. However, · lar0er percentage provides a greater selection of compensatory mitigation ~ites for projec(s in 'development' areas.) Reduction in aVailable acreage raUo. State whether filling wetlands within the project footprint reduces the choice of mitigation sites for other projects in "development" areas. (Section 4.2 calculates, for each Ensemble, a ratio of the aores of weUands in "new Faservas' (factor #3) divided by the acres of wetlands that will be filled (factor #1). For the five Enseml~las, the ratio ranges from 2.6:1 to 4.4:1. The Map has a ratio of 4.0:1. Acreage ratios ·re a convenient su~Togate for the detailed analysis of weUand functions and values in calcut·ting mitigation. The ratio calculated here would occur if (1) all of the estimated wetland imr-~2'~--- were compensated within 'new presto'yes' (unlikely that 'all' since some compensation will be performed at It~ project site) and (:2) all of the 'new preserves' were used for compensation (unlikety that "·1~ since some of lhe mapped 'new preserves' will no~ be suitable for this). However, · higher the ratio indicates greater choice in iocation of compensatory mitigation.) Do Availability of replacement wetland function: State whether filling the wetlands within the project footprint reduces the assurance that ecosystem functions lost from other projects in "development' areas can be replaced. (Section 4.2 describes that, for each Ensemble. the presence of funcben was scored either high, medium, or Iow for wetlands that will be f'died and those that are in the 'new pmservas'. An acre of wetland filled that has · high sc~e would represent · large number of lost "units' of function. An acre of wetland wimin 'new pres~l'~l'~" ~t -~*~--~-'~'.ed ~W '~OMld. ~'tfOU~h r~o~-4~ofl provide · large number of replacement "units'. The ratio of units of mstombon divided by units of impact vary, for the t'we Ensembles, from 1.8:1 to 3.:3:1. The Map has · ratio of 2.8:1. A high~ ratio indicates greater assurance, that the ecoa~stem functions can be replaced.) oo Has the alternative analysis demonstrated that the applicant has satisfied avoidance? (The MOA between the Corps and EPA Co--ne me Detem~ination of Miti~a'tion tJnde~ the Clean Water Act Sec~ 404~b~1 ) ~;uidelines requires b~e review to IX"ogress through · sequence demonstrating avoidance of impacts, second, minimization of impacts, and thi~, c~npensa'don for functions and values ~) Has appropriate compensation bccn provided for functional replacement? State/Federal Mitk:mtion Bank Review l'asm _~ O~al Draft. Octqber 19o,8. Ex~m?l ,.,,N 11 2000 page7 of 28 pa~' DRAFT Permit Review Criteria DRAFT Suggestions for changes to this draft and the use of these evaluation factors are welcomed. consk:leration will be given to the wetlands' location on a lam:ts~ape scale, for example, cumulative losses of seasonal wetlands.) F. Are buffer zones (e.g., uplands, open space) provided around wetlands and other waters, particularly stream and river corridors and flowways? ('rhere is very little topographic relief within the study area, .therel'ore the surface area of marshes, streams, and other waters greatly expands into adjacent lands during the wet season. NaUve vegetation surrounding the wet-season expanse provides habitat for wetland dependent wildlife and visual, noise, and other buffering between the weUand and adjacent human activities. The purpose of Question #A above is to evaluate how the project footprint disrup[s the ideal situation: a large contiguous matrix of weUand and upland. If the proposed project adclresses that. then the current question is an additional evaluation whether impacts are minimized within the project footprint.) Evaluation Factors to be used. Connectivity between major habitat areas. State whether the buffer width and arrangement maintains connectivity across the project footprint to surrounding contiguous areas of native vegetation. ,, (Section 4.4 reports the evaluation of the connections proposed within areas mapped as development. That evaluation did not include connections within areas mapped es presewes since the presumption was that contiguous areas of native vegetafio~ would remain. The evaluations concluded that Vader and more numerous connections are more immune to distu~ance from adjoining land .uses.) Fdnge. State whether the buffer width and arrangement affects the estuarine fringe. (Section 4.4 reports the evaluation of different configurations of the development mapping along the estuanne fringe. None of the Ensembles directly affected mangrove or salt marsh, ~ those Ensemides that proposed, as preservation, the pinelsnd and hardwood hammock plant commun~ies behind the fringe were considered to protect the fdnge's ability to provide aquatic nursery and foraging habitat. The Map shows these areas as preservation.) Water quality and quantity. A. Is the increase in pollutant loading minimized? (Corps must evaluate compliance with water quality standards but considers Flerida's certification of compliance as conclusive unless EPA advises the Corp~ to consider other aspects. However. changes to the proposed project must be evaluated to conf'~Tn that the proposal is the least damaging practicable alternative.) Evaluation factor to be used.., Pollution loading. State whether impervious surfaces have been minimized and if all practicable opportunities have been included to provide BMPs. (Al the Ensembles predict conversion o~ native vegetation to develo~L Section 4.10 notes that development had higher pollutant runoff compared to natural vegetation but that can be minimized by treating the runoff through detention poncls, vegetated swales, and similar 'Best Management Practices* (aMPs). Ensembles that mapped less ares of development and/or suggested installing/retrofiring regional aMPs were considered to be less likely to adversely affect wate~ quality. The Map sttows, es prese~ratio~, lose of the areas where BMPs are not practi~a~e or are not currently requi~ed urtder Flonds's rules that B. Have wetlands been prese'rved in locations and quantities to minimize freshwater pulses and assimilate pollutants? (Pulses of freshwater have detrimental effect on estuaries by rapidly changing the salinity.) Evaluation factors to be used. Page 8 of 28 pages DRAFT JAN 1 1 2000 Permit Review Criteria DRAFT Suggestions for changes tothis draft and the use of these evaluation factors are welcomed. Freshwater pulses. State whether the project, by -educing wetlands and buffers, will increase the likelihood of freshwater pulses. (All the Ensembles t~'e(B=t conversion of native vegetation to development. Section 4.10 notes that the impervious surfaces within clevelopment would have a more rapid runoff of rainfall compared to natural vegetation. Ensembles that mapped less area of development and preserved greater area of wetland were cortsidered less likely to affect water quality. The Map stkov~, as preservation, weflands along flowways and in cont~uous preserves to maintain sa3rage of peak flows.) Contaminant Reduction. State whether the project, by reducing the contiguous areas of wetland and buffer, will increase the likelihood of degradation of water quality downstream. (All the Ensembles predict conversion of native vegetation to development. S~tion 4.10 reports Ensembles that mapped less area of development and preserved greater area of wetla~l were considered less likely to affect water quality. The Map shows, as Ixeservati0n, weUands along flowways and in contiguous preserves that, among other things, 13~ovldes capability to assimilate pollutants.) C. Are historic water flows maintained or restored? (The study area has many man-made changes to the h~oric flow patterns, incJuding drainage canals, roads that bloc~ historic sheet-flow, an¢~ berrna. Many i~ess have been developed in the past to retrofit structures ~ to restore areas. ~ome of-those preserved clurmg the preparation of this document include: (1) restore southern Golden Gate Estates; (2} improve and add culverts under US 41; (3) fix canal plugs on canal south of 1-75; (4) change existing drainage works in Water Management District VI and Belle Meade that place pulse discharges to Rookery Bay; (5) add weirs in Cocohatchee Canal; (6) restore Clam Bay and Vanderbilt Lagoon; (6) detain additional water in northern Golden Gate Estates to reduce fresh water pulses to Naples Bay; and (7) restore flows from t~e Ester0 Bay Watershed to Hal~ray Creak and the Estero River;' Due to the complexity of the issue, compt~'~,msive watershed modeling is usually needed, such as the South Lee Study and the Low~' West Coast Water Sup~ Plan by the South Florida Water Management District and the District VI improvements by Collier County.) Evaluation factors to be used. Water Management. State whether the fill, by reducing the area of contiguous wetland, will degrade historic flow patterns. (Section 4.15 reports the assessment whether the five Ensembles addressed seven factors, existence of infrastructure; potential fo~ home damage; requirements fo~ home construction meeting the one-hundred- year storm event; change in floud depth; maimenance or improvement toward historic flow patterns; water storage; and aquifer zoning. Existing local rules provide criteria either preventing or providing resthctions on Oesign of homes within flooclplains to prevent damage. Existing rules provide for the maintenance and upgrades of infrastructure from new development. Section 4.15 reports Ensembles that suggested wider flowways or preservation of wetlands reduced the p(Xential for changes in flood depth and maintained historic flow patterns. The Map proposes preservation of large areas of wetlands and w~de flowways to reduce the reliance on structural water management solutions.) Groundwater impact. State whether the project, by reducing the contiguous area of wetlands, directly or indirectly degrades wetlands surrounding wellfields. (Section 4.10 reports that much of the drinking water comes from the Surfa3al Aquifer System, closely linked to com3itions in the wetlands on the surface. Existing local rules protect the wetlands in the vicinity of the weafields. Ensembles that placed additional weflam3s in preservation were considered to further reduce the likelihood of impact. The Map maps a larg~ area as preservation based on recognition that the aquifer is influenced by activities overa large portion of the study area and that indirect effects (such as change in hydropattem) of wetlands in the vicinity of wellfields are less likely to occur if surrounded by contiguous preserves.) III. Habitat and listed species. Note. The Corps reviews applications requesting authorization to work in wetlands and other Waters of the United States. However, the Corps evaluation can inctude evaluating the effects that related upland work may have on the aquatic environment or other Federal interests as appropriate a provided by law, for example, the Endangered Species Act and National Histodc Preservation Act. Page 9 of 28 pages DRAFT 11 2000 Permit Review Criteria DRAFT Suggestions for changes to this draft and the use of these evaluation factors are welcomed. Does the proposed project fragment habitat? (The study area still has a wide vanety and large population of wildlife. The "fronts' of suburban clevelopment have been expanding intand from the urt)an centers C~ Fort Myers, Bonita Springs, aM Naples. As these fronts meet with each other and with the suburban development in Lehigh Acres and Golden Gate Estates, the once large expanses of habitat are becoming more fragmented. Many species forage over large areas and require a mixture of vegetative communities for their life histories. Many efforts I~ave been taken to identify the large 'islands' shared by many species and their links so a fabric of habitat is maintained to retain a sustainable sample of what was once present.) Evaluation factors to be used. Strategic Habitat Conservation Area (SHCA). State whether the project will preclude the opportunity to place, within contiguous preserves, areas identified as SHCA to some number less than 5.4% of the total SHCA in the State. (The Florida Game and Frashwate~ Fish Commission report Ciosir~3 the Gaas in Flqridp'~ Wil~llif9 Habitat Conservation SYstem identified the minimum quantity of land that would maintain Florida's animal and plaint populations at levels sustainable into the future. The report maps 33~ of the area of the State. The SHCAs are the mapped areas not currently under public ow~ef'ship. Section 4.4 reports that 82% of the SHCAs are found in the study area. The areas mapped as preservation in the five Ensembles encom~rje~__~_ from 4.6% to 5.7%. The Map encompasses 5.4%.) Connectivity between major habitat areas. State whether the footprint of the project either blocks or narrows a connection between two major habitat areas. (Section 4.4 reports the evaluation of the connections proposed w~thin areas mapped as development. That evaluation did not incJude connections within areas mapped as preserves since the presumptio~ was that contiguous areas of ~ative vegetation would remain. The evaluations concluded that wider and more numerous connections are more immune to disturbance from acrioif~ land uses.) Regionally significant natural resources. State whether the project preserves regionally significant natural resources. ' (The Southwest Flodda Regional Planning Council has inventoried regionally signirmant natural resources and has drafted a Strategic Land Acquisition/Conservation/Preservation Plan for Southwest FIc~da. The Estero Agency on Bay Management (ABM) hss prepared an Este~o Bay Watershed Land Conservation/Preservation Strategy Map' and has adopted guiding Ixincipals. For the latter. Secti4xt 4.4 reports the assessment of how the Twa Ensembles enhanced if~ion of the ABMs wolfe.) Multi-Species Recovery Plan (MSRP). State whether the project footprint precludes the opportunity to place 52% of the study area into contiguous areas managed for natural resource purposes. (Section 4.3 reports the assessment of how the alternative enhances implementati(xt of the U.S. Fish and W'ddlife Service's MSRP. The Map. and the criteria proper, explicitly support MSRP recommendations. For all sI3ecies, the MSRP recommands preservation of contiguous areea of native vegetation. The area mil:Sped as i~e~ervstio~ by the rwe Enseml31e~ range from 45% to 53% of the total study area. The Map provides 52%.) B. Is Xeric oak scrub, rosemary scrub, and scrubby pine flatwoods, and other rare resources associated with ancient dune systems preserve~d? (Not many examples of these plant communities remain in the study area.) Evaluation factor to be used. Fringe. State whether the buffer width and arrangement affects the estuarine fringe. (~_~:~_Jon 4.4 reports the evaltJlKkxl of crrlTel'ent ¢onflgur'atiofls of the ~pmefst mapping alcxlg ~ estuarine fringe. None of the Ensem134es dtreotly affected mangrove o~ sar marsh, IxJt those Ens that proposed, as'preservation, the pineland and hardwood hammock plant communities behi~ t Page:lO of 28 page~ - - · DRAFT_ perm Review C4'itefla .DRAFT. Suggestions for changes ~o ~ds*.~l,=;~-and the use'of'~hese evaluation factors are welcomed. were considered to protect the fringe's ability to provide aquatic nursery and foraging habitat. T;~e Map sJ~ows these areas as preservation.) C. Are coastal forests (especially mangroves), coastal hammocks, sub-tropical hammocks, coastal pine flatwoods, and riparian.forests-(associated with streams or creeks) preserved? Factor to be used. Fiowways. State whether the project will increased the vulnerability of these forests to impacts by removing the surrounding areas of vegetation. (Section 4.4 notes that most of the major habitat connections follow natural watercourses. Ensembles that mapped flowways lta'ough large conbguou~ areas bette~ provided for a mix of upland and weUand habitat and for attenuation of peak aows. The Map shows large areas of contiguous preserya, tion. A coastal and riparian forest that is part of a narrow ttow~ay through a development is mom vulnerable to impact from the development than if ~at forest was part of a contiguous presewe.) D. Are isolated and seasonal wetlarids, including small wetlands, preserved or restored with functional buffers and water budgets Utat support natural ~ydroperiods? Where isolated wetlands are associated with larger sheetflow systems, is the system preserved? (Seasonal wetlands are found in shallow ~ that rely heavily on direct rainfall and runoff from adjacent uplands, with sheetllow between ~epressions during the wet season. The depressions are not evenly distributed across the Evaluation factor to be used. Seasonal wetlands. State whether the project will reduce the area of seasonal wetlands in contiguous preserves to some number less than 76% of the total area of seasonal wetlands in the study area. (Sec/ion 4.4 es§IThlIes that. for the five Ensembles, from 70% to 86% of the total area of seasonal wetlands are located within areas mapped as preservation. ,The higher the percentage, thC'more likely that natural hydropattems w~ be maintained. The Map provides 7616.) E. Are high marsh systems and sea grasses preserved? F. Is Florida panther habitat preserved? (This wide ranging species requires a mixture of upland and wetland habitat. The FIodda Panther Habitat Preservation Plan (HPP) .identit'~,d as either Priority 1 ¢x Pnority 2 those lands not in public ownership but essential for maintaining the population.) Evaluation factors to be used. Florida panther priority lands. State whether the project will reduce the quantity of Priority 1 and 2 habitat within contiguous preserves to some number less than 70% of the total priority habitat in the study area. (Section 4.3 estimates that, for the five Ensembles. from 56% to 72% of the total Priority 1 and 2 lands within me study area will be encoml~ by'the lands mapped as presentation. The Map provide~ 70%. The highe~ percentage within conaguous preserves provides greater assurance of pr~ the popuiation.) Florida panther on agricultural lands. State whether the project blocks connection to or affects the agricultural lands that have suitable habitat. (Section 4.3 estimates that, for the five Ensembles. from 18% to 2~% of the total Priority I and 2 lands within the study ar~a will be ertcompe__~d__ by the lands mapped as agriculture. These areas are typically aejacent to puUic or propose~ contiguous preserves and are important components of the total habitat DRAFT Page'11 of 28 pages JAN 11 Permit Review Criteria DRAFT Suggestions for changes to this draft and the USe of these evaluation factors ar? welcomed. agriculture were considered to increase the _=$__~-_.rance of the preservation of the species. The agricultural area shown on the Map encom0asses 18% of the Prior~y 1 and Pdority 2 lands in the s;udy area.) G. Are Bald eagle nests protected? (The Hal3itat Manaoement Guidelines [or the Bald Eaale in the Southern Reoion provides for minimum buffer distances for construction and permanent acth'it7 near a nest site. it does not ixotect foraging area.) Evaluation factor to be used. Bald eagle. State whether the project, by removing native vegetation outside of the nest buffer zones, will reduce the number of nests within contiguous preserves below 20. (Section 4.3 estimates that. fo~ the five Ensembles, from 18 to 20 of the total 27 known nests within the study area will be located within areas mapped as preservation. The Map maps 20 nests. Location within contiguous preserves provides higher assurance of i:xeservation of the species since these sites also incJude adjacent lands used fo; foraging.) H. IS nesting and foraging habitat of the American crocodile protected and buffered from adverse impacts? (The American alligator ~s not endangered but is listed under the Endangerecl Species Act due to its similarity of appearance to the c~.odile.) Evaluation factors to be used. American crocodile. State whether all practicable opportunities have been included to preserve wetlands to provide attenuation of flows. (S~ction 4.3 notes that changes in the timing and quantity of freshwater flows affect plant and animal communities in estuaries, where the crocodile is found. AS measured under Question #B in part II maintenance of wide flowways reduce the potential changes in hydropatterns, increasing the potential for preservati6n of this species.) Amedcan alligator. State whether the project will reduce the areas of seasonal wetlands available for this species. (Section 4.3 notes that this species is found throughout the area in large wetland areas, including the seasonal ones measured in Question #O above.) I. Is shorebird nesting, foraging and resting areas protected and buffered from adverse impacts? ('l'his question applies to shorebi~s in general, although one in particular is listed ~ the Endangered Species ACt.) Evaluation factor to be used. Piping plover. Note that potential changes in water quality, as measured by the questions in part !1 above, may affect the beaches. (Section 4.3 notes that none of the Ensemt4es ~ direct impact (fi) on the barrier beaches ~ as J. Are wading bird rookeries protected? ' (Set Back Distances to Protect Nestir~ Bird Colonies fr~m Human Disturbances in Flori~{~ (F Page.12 of 28 pages ; DRAFt. jAN 11 2000 Pei'mit, Review Criteria' ,.' ._ d:iRAFT Sugge~ions for changes to this ~lraft anti the use of these evaluation factors are .welcomed. It does not protect f~-aging area. Foraging range for wading bin:is is up to 15 kilometem. :30 kilometem for Woocl storks.) Evaluation factors to be used. Wading bird rookeries. State whether the project, by removing native vegetation outside of the rookery buffer distances but within foraging range, will reduce the number of rookeries within contiguous preserves below 17. (s___~c~it~_ 4.4 estimates that, for the five Ensembles, from 13 to 18 of the total 27 known rookeries within the study area will be located within areas mapped as preservation. The Map ~ 17 rooice~as. Location within conlJguo~s preserves provides higher a~4~lnce of preservation of the species ~nce ~ sites also include adjacent lands used for foraging.) Woodstork rookeries. State whether the project, by removing native vegetation outside of the rookery buffer distances but within foraging range, will reduce the number of rookeries within..contiguous preserves below 12. (Section 4.4 estimates that, for the five Ensembles, from 9 t~'l 4 of the total 14 known rookeries within the study area will be Iccated within areas mapped as preservation. The Map mal~S 12 rookeries. Location within contiguous preserves provides higher assurance of preservation of the species s~nce these sites also include adjacent lands used for foragir~.) K. Are sea turtle nesting areas protected from adverse impacts and construction impacts proposed during the nesting season? (This question applies to the Loggerhead, Green, Hawksbill, and Kemp's Ridley sea turtles.) Evaluation factor to be used. Sea turtles. Note that potential changes in water quality, as measured by the questions in part II above, may affect the beaches. (Section 4.3 notes that none of the Ensembles propose direct impact (fill, artificial lighting, human presence. and exotic vegetation) on the nesting beaches. However. there could be an effect if there is a change in water quar~ty.) L. Are red-cockaded woodpecker cjuster sites and associated foraging habitat protected on- site (or mitigated off-site when consistent with regional recovery plans and developed in eonjunction with fish and wildlife agency recommendations)? (Since the habitat of t~is species is in old growth pine, it is very diff¥..ult to ident~y new s~tes beyond those presently occupied.) Evaluation factor to be used. Red cockaded woodpecker. State whetl~r the project, by removing native vegetation outside of the cjuster site buffers and within foraging range, will reduce the number of cjuster sites within contiguous preserves below 13. (Section 4.4 esMmates that, for the five Ensembles, from 2 to 18 of the total 40 known c~uster sites within the study area will be located within areas mapped as preservation. The Map shows 13 cjuster sites. Location within contiguous, preserves provides higher __~___u-ance of preservation of the species since these sites also include adjacent lands used f~' fox'aging.) Mo regional recovery plans or fish and wildlife agency recommendations? Are Audubon caracara nesting territories protected from adverse impacts consiste Page 13 of 28 pages DRAFT t wit~A ITEM" 11 2000 Permit Review Criteria DRAFT Suggestions for changes to this draft and the use of these evaluation factors are welcomed. (The study area is on the fringe of the ten county area where the population is found.) Evaluation factor to be used. Audubon's crested caracara. State whether the project footprint affects adjacent agricultural or prairie areas, directly or indirectly, thereby reducing the availability of habitat on agriculture lands below 10% of the study area. (Section 4.3 estimates that, for the I'we Ensembles, from 10% to 18% of the study area is mapped as agriCUlture, This species prefers native range and unimproved pasture for foraging Those agricultural areas remaining in Iow intensity use provide more assurance that appropriate habitat, with intempefsed seasonal weUands, will be maintained. The Map provide 10% of the study area but also provides for non- intensification of agricultural use.) N. Is Florida scrub jay' habitat protected from adverse impacts consistent with regional recovery plans developed in conjunction with fish and wildlife agency recommendations? (since tl~e habitat of this species is in scrub, it is very difficult to identify new sites beyond those p~esently occupied.) Evaluation factor to be used. Scrub jay. State whether the project, by removing native vegetation outside of the colony site and within potential areas for expansion, will reduce the number of colony sites within contiguous preserves below 11. (Section 4.4 estimates that, for the five Ensembles, from 6 to 11 of the total 26 known colonies within the study area will be located within areas mapped as preservation. The Map maps 11 colony sites. Location within contiguous preserves provides higher assurance of preservation of the species since these sites also include adjacent lands for foraging and expansion of the families.) O. IS snail kite foraging and nesting habitat protected or compensated coasistent with regional recovery plans or'fish and wildlife agency recommendations? (Feeds only on apple snails that are in turn found only in seasonal wetlands.) Evaluation factor to be used. Seasonal wetlands. State whether the project will reduce the area of seasonal wetlands in contiguous preserves to some number less than 76% of the total area of seasonal wetlands in th'e study area. (Same as Question ~D above.) (Section 4.4 estimates that, for the f'rve Ensembles. from 70% to 86% of the total area of seasonal wetlands are located within areas mapped as preservation. The higher the percentage, the more likely that natural hydropattems will be maintained. The Map provides 76%.) P. Are projects with adverse impacts to eastern indigo snake habitat developed consistent with the provisions of the Eastern Indigo Snake Protection Guidelines (FWS, 1998)? Q. Are federally listed plant species protected and buffered from adverse impacts? R. Is construction within designated critical habitat of the West Indian manatee conducted consistent with the Standard Manatee Protection Construction Guidelines to minimize impacts associated with water craft-related mortality? IV. Other public interest factors. Page 14 of 28 pages DRAFT AGE.~A ITEJ~ JAN 1 1 2000 Permit eview Criteria ?,. DRAFT Suggestions for changes to ~ draft and the use of these evaluation factors are welcomed. A. Is the project of a nature that would support additional development pressu~ within the preservation area? For example: new public/private utilities; new or expanded roa~ls; new well fields or well field expansions. B. Does the project affect hurricane preparedness? ('rite South Flodda Regional Planning Councirs Hurricane Storm Tide Atlas and Hu~ca~ ~ Study estimate the p~ to be evacuated, the shelters available, end evacuation times ~ on road capacities. The Corps does not have direct authority over preparedness. The Corpe can consider taaTiCane preparedness concerns as part of its put31ic interest reviews, for example, safety and flooding.) Evaluation factor to be used. Hurricane preparedness. State whether the site itself or the evacuation route is particularly subject to flooding or wind damage and identify the actions by the applicant or local government that are mitigating the concern (for example, improvement of roads or id.entification of shelters). (Section 4.15 reports that none of the Ensembles were considered Io have c~anged preparedness. However, most of the areas mapped preservation on tl~e Map have a high percentage of wetlands or are along the coastal or rivedne fringe. These areas are natural locations for flooding. Some of these areas are also typically distant from major road networks or existing sheltem, increasing the vuJnemb~T~y during evacuation within or outside of the region.) Are reasonable expectations of the landowner affected? (A wide vedety of actions by the Federal, State. and local governments over time provide the background for the landowneCs understanding of the extent of any limitations to the exercise of rights from property Evaluation factor to be used. Property dghts. State the influences on the rights associated witl~wnership of the project site. These would include: (1) designations in the Comprehensive Plans, (2) history of the landowner's preparation of the project proposal prior to submission of the application, (3) development orders or other actions issued by local, State, or Federal governments, and (4) surrounding land use and activities that have affected or are expected to affect the value of the property. (Section 4.6 reports the' assessment whether the r~e Ensembles addressed three factors: fair market value of property; reasonable expectations for use 04' land and return on investment; and, vested rights. Ensembles with additional restrictions beyond those in the Comprehensive Plans or that designated areas as preservation beyond those in the Future Land Use Maps would not meet the expectations of the landowners affected. These permit review criteria and the --~'c-_-'~n. partying map do not establish a particular restriction or land use, but identify evaluation questions to assess compliance with e)USting limitations established by Federal law.) Difference from Comprehensive Plans. State the degree of difference from the local Comprehensive Plan (and accompanying goals and policies). (Section 4.6 reports the assessment that dec'.~.'ons that departed from the current Comprehensive Plans would be detrimental not only to landowners' rights but also to other socio-econom~C concerns of the community. All five Ensem~es represent potential futures. The Comprehensive Plans have bee~ modified in the past and may be modif~..~cl in the future. The Ensemble that represents the ComprehenSive Plan is not exactly representative of the current Plan, for example, in so.Ahem Golden Gate Estates.) D. Does the project affect sustainability of local economy? (This .'_~__,e is very complex. For a project subrnated by a private enterprise, the Corps genetatly a~ that AGEI',~A ITEM Page 15of28 pages' DRAFT JAN 11 2000 Permit Review Criteria DRAFT Suggestions for changes to this draft and the use of these evaluation factors are welcomed. Evaluation factors to be used. Economic Sustainability. State whether the project will make a substantial difference to whether the local economy continues to be "sustainable", This will (1) note the project located within the preservation mapping will be an incremental increase over the 38% of the stucly area already mapped for development, (2) recognize that there is a contribution to the local economy, but (3) consider that the increase is a very small portion of the total economy. (Section 4.6 reports the assessment of how the f'rve Ensembles affected six factors describing economic impact: job c~eation; home affordabillt~, cost of lying; property tax __he~__; cost to implement; and increased taxe& increasing or decreasing the area of development mapped In the Ensembles ir~-eased or decreased the c~eation of jobe and the size of the k3cal government's prope~ tax base. Increasing or decreasing the . restricticms on use increased or decreesecl the costs o~ prnducing the mxluct, whic~ affects home affon:labll~y and cost of lying. Increasing the area of preservation ortbe ama of'restoration efforts imp~s an Inoreased cnst to local government to iml~ement, which when combined with a smaller tax base results in higher taxes. All the Ensembles predict that subur0an development will continue, but they differ in how muc~ mom. Appm~e~ 20~ of the study area is currently urban or suburban developme~ ('mcludecl in this 20% are %-acent' ~ and lands with roads, carol:raSing greater than 3% of the study area). The f'~e Ensembles range (in their predictions of the future extent of developm&nt) from 31% to 41%. The Ma~p. shows 38%. Once the 38% of the area is cleveloped with the resulting economic activity, eac~ inorement~l increase in area of' development will be a smaller propc~l~on of the total economy.) E. ts management of public lands affected? (Public lands provide the opportunity for the general public to access the unique natural characteristics of the region.) Evaluation factor to be used. Management of public lands. State whether the project affects management of public lands in the vicinity. (Section 4.8 notes that public lands are affected by the compatibility of adjacent lands and by actions that directly degrade or improve the public lands proper. Ensembles that had the least effect on public lands provided non-intensive agriculture or expanded contiguous preserves to separate public lands from suburban development.) Legend: Development. Goal. The areas mapped Development inclucle areas within the study area that are: (1) presently in urban and suburban use, and (2) adjacent areas that are considered most suitable for urban and suburban development in the future. The areas'mapped Development are recognized to be the focal point for present and future urban development. Land and water use decisions should direct development into this area in lieu of promoting urban expansion elsewhere, while maintaining watershed integrity and coastal resources within the urban boundary. Permit decisions for new roads, utilities, and other infrastructure should also support these goals. Criteria. I. Wetlands. A. Have impacts been minimized? The answer must be supported by an analysis of altemaUve site plans. . (Coq~s regulations, including the Section 404(bX1) Guidelines, raquim an analysis that shows the proposed projec~ is the least damaging practicable alternative. The analysis is peffonne~ in sequence: (1) im~_m~c~_4 (2) demonstrefion that the sele~tecl Mte angl selected ~ plan. ha~ the minimum impact compared to ol~er alternatives; and (3) compensation for the resulting mm'voidable impacts is provided. Presumptions are: (1) water dependency; (2) Ul~an¢l impact is le~ damaging to the aquatic eavirc Pacje-16 of 28 page , ,:; DRAb-l;: JAN 11 211 0 permit Review Criteria DRAFT Suggestions for changes to this.~lmft and the use of these evaluation factors are welcomed. The U.S. EPA may fon'n;lly raise concerns with the alternative analy~s by writing comment lattes as provided by the 404q MOU. The Map shows a large area of vacant/natural land for development. The C4xps wilt presume that proposed development within the area mapped as development is appropriate.) Evaluation factors to be used. Avoidance of wetland impact. State whether the acres of proposed fill would contn'bute to a cumulative fill greater than 5,6% of the wetlands in the study area. (Section 4.2 estimates that, for the five Ensembles, from 5.5% to 7.0~ of the wetlands in the study area will be r~iiod. The lower pementage befter sstis~s the requirement for avoidance. The estimate for the Map is 5.6~. The b4dk of the estimated impact was from projects within areas mapped as development. However, in the calculation of this estimate, only a portion of wetlands on the site would be filled. Some projects will impact more than others by the nature of the projects and the conf~urafion of the wetlarx]s: the amount proposed must be justified by an analysis comporing alternative site plans.) LOSS of buffers adjacent to wetlands. State whether the site plan preserves contiguous areas of wetlands and buffets vegetation, even if not adjoining public preserves, so that greater than 42% of the study area is preserved. · (section 4.2 estimates that existing preserves total 27% of the study area. Native vegetation (upland and wetland, incJuding exotics) occupies 58% For the five Ensembles, areas mapped as preserve range from 38% to 43% of the study area. The esta'nate for the Map is 42%. Natural resource benefits reset from a mal~ of upland and wetland. This matrix is ideally provided in contiguous preserves. Buffers outside of contiguous preserves have a higher probability to be impacted. Preservation of a wetland and I~ffer provides greater benefits than preserving weUands alone.) B. For applications for projects that propose, individually, impacts that are a large percentage of the cumulative num. bers for any of the evaluation factors, should a project specific ElS be prepared to support the permit decision? C. Has the alternative .analysis demonstrated that the applicant has satisfied avoidance? ~he MOA between the Corps and EPA ~ Ihs 0etermination of ~ under the Clean Water Act Section 404[b')(1 ) .~uidelines requires the review to progress through a sequence demonstrating first, avoidance of impacts, second, minimization of impacts, and third, compensation for functions and values D. Has appropriate compensation been provided for functional replacement? (The analysis will use available numeric or other _=~____~e~m_. ent tools, such as, the one published in the ~oint State/Federa! I[~litioatiqr~ B~nk Review Team Pr~c~ss, Ooerational ~)mfl, .(~)ct¢~.ber 1998. Exce~ional consideration will be given to the wetlands' location on a landscape scale, for example, cumulative losses of seasonal wetlands.) E. Has the project design optimized for habitat the design of retention lake shorelines? (Retention lake shorelines are often narrow strips of vegetation subject to disturbance from adjacent activities. Designs that create wider 'shelves' and planted buffers reduce disturbance. Designs that include shallow depression 'potholes' to concentrate f~h and amphibians are concentrated dunng Iow water levels chance their value to'wading birds' and other species.) F. Are buffer zones (e.g., uplands, open space) provided around wetlands and other waters, particularly stream and river corridors and flowways? Factors to be used. (There is very little topographic relief within the study area, l~-refore the surface area of marshes, streams, and other watem greatly expands ir~o adjacent lands during the wet seasort. Native vegetatio~ surrounding the wel-seas~ expanse provides habitat for wetland ¢~:,~lent wildlife and vis,al, noise, and ol~er buffering befweert the wetland end acl~__~mt__ human activities.) AGENDA ITEM DRAFT Page'17 of 28 pages JAN 11 2000 Permit Review Criteria DRAFT Suggestions for changes to this draft and the use of these evaluation factors are welcomed. Connectivity between major habitat areas. State whether the buffer width and arrangement maintains connectivity across the project footprint to major habitat preserves. (Though not formally listed, inspection of the Ensembles show connections proposed between majo~ habitat preserves such as Codcscrew Marsh, Este~o Bay, Six Mile Cypress Strana, Bel~e Meade, Rookery Bay, and Fakahatchee Strand. The evaluations concluded that w~cle~ and more numerous connections are more immune to disturbance from adjoining land uses.) Fdnge. State whether the buffer width and arrangement affects the estuarine fringe. (Section 4.4 reports the evaluation of different configurations of the development mapping along the estuarine fringe. No~e of the Ensef~ directly affected mangrove or salt marsh, IxJt those Ertsemt31es that proposed, es prese~ation, the pineland and hardwood hammock plant communities behind the fringe were considered to protect the fringe's ability to provide aquatic nurse~ and foraging habitat. The Map showsthese areas as preservation.) II. Water quality and quantity. A. Is the increase in pollutant loading minimized? (coq3s must evaluate compaance with ~vater quality standards but considers Florida's ceftir~on of compliance as conclUSrVe unless EPA advises the Corps to consider other aspects. However, changes to the proposed project must be evaluated to confirm that the proposal is the least damaging practicable alternative.) Evaluation factor to be:used. Pollution loading. State whether impervious surfaces have been minimized and if all practicable opportunities have been included to provide BMPs. (Section 4.1 0 notes that development had higher po#utant runoff compared to natural vegetation but that can be minimized by treating the run~)ff through detention ponds, vegetated swales, and similar "Best Management Practices' (BMPs). Ensembles that mapped less area of development and/or suggested ir~aUing/retror~tmg regional BMPs were considered to be less likely to adversely affect water quality.) B. Have wetlands been preserved in locations and quantities to minimize freshwater pulses and assimilate pollutants? (putses of freshwater have detrimental effect on estuaries by rapidly changing the salinity.) Evaluation factom to be u.~:l. Freshwater pulses. State whether all practicable opportunities have been included to preserve wetlands along flowways to provide attenuation of flows. (All the Ensembles predict convemion of native vegetatio~ to clevelopment_ Section 4.10 notes that the impervious sudaces within development would have a more rapid runoff of rainfall compared to natural vegetatmn- Ensembles tl~t' mapped less ama of development and preserved graster area of we~and were considered less likely to adversely affect wat~ quality. The Map shows, as preservation, wetlands flowways and in coatiguous preserves to maintain storage of peak Contaminant Reduction. State whether all practicable opportunities have been included to preserve wetlar~ls within flowways to provide treatment downstream of the project. less likely to atfec~ wate~ qu-dlly.· The I~p sh4~s, ~s txeserk, l~ w~m~ds ~ ~ys ant in AG~A ITEM JAN 11 PermitReview Criteria .,DRAFT- Suggestions for changes to this draft and the use of these evaluation ~actors are welcomed. C. Are historic water flows maintain ,d or restored? (The study area has many man-made changes to the historic flow patterns, including drainage canals, roads that block historic sheet-flow, and berms. Due to the complexity of the issue, comprehensive watershed modeling is usually needed, such as the South Lee Study and the Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan by the South Florida Water Management District and the Diatdct VI improvements by Collier County.) ~ Evaluation factor to be used. Water Management. State whether all practicable oppo.rtunities have been included for non-structural maintenance of historic flow patterns. (~ 4.15 reports the asseseme~ whettter the l'we Ensembles addressed seven factors, existence of infrastructure; I~enlJai for home damage; requirements for home consthJction meeting the one-hundred- year storm event; change in flood depth; maintenance or improvement toward historic flow patterns; water storage; and aquifer zoning. Existing local rules provide oriteria either preventing or providing restrictions on design of homes within fl .oo~olamS to prevent damage. Existing rules provide for the maintenance and upgrades of infrastructure from new development. Section 4.15 reports Ensembles that suggested wider flowways or preservation of wetlands reduced the poiential for changes in flood delXh and maintained historic flow patterns. The Map proposes wide flowways to provide storage of surface waters and to reduce the reliance on structural water management solutions.) D. Have alternatives to installation of individual septic systems been considered? (One of the sources of existing and increased load in pollutants is from septic systems. Older systems may be located too close to the water table or to open water. Newer systems add more load than would be seen if waste was treated in package plants or regional systems. The evaluation of the cumulative effect of the project will identify if all practicable opportunities have been taken to avoid use of on-s~te-disposai-systems (OSDSs) or to retrofit package or regional treatment to existing OSDSs.} Habitat and listed species. Note.. The Corps reviews applications requesting authorization to work in wetlands and other Waters of the United States. However, the Corps evaluation can include evaluating the effects that related upland work may have on the aquatic environment or other Federal interests as appropriate and as provided by law, for example, the Endangered Species Act and National Histodc Preservation Act. A. Does the proposed project provide compensation for wide ranging species? (Wide-ranging species that may require off-site compensation for habitat impacts under a landscape-scale analysis include the Florida panther, Florida black bear, wood stork, snail kite, eastern indigo snake, red- cockaded woodpecker, big cypress fox Scluirrel. state-listecl wading birds, and migratory birds. For some spec. Jes. some geographic locations, or source p~oject types, avoidance of the impact will be preferred. Off- s~te compensation for impacts to individuals for I~abltat may not be adequate. In determining off-site habitat compensation requirements, the impacts to ind'rviduals of a species or species habitat will be assessed, including the potential for incidental take, the habitat quality, and the function of the habitat on a landscape scale. The Map labels certain areas as 'Compensate for Wide-Ranging Species' for locations expected to be developed but that provides par~cularly important habitat.) Evaluation factors to be used. Strategic Habitat Conservation Area (SHCA). State whether any of the 2.8% of the total area of SHCA in the State is preserved as habitat within the proposed footprint of the project. (The Florida Game and Freshwate~ Fistt Commission repo~ C~o~rm the Ga~s tO Florida's Wildlif.~ Habitat C. xxtservation Sv~em identified the minintum quantity of land that would maintain Flork~'s animal and plant populations at levels sustainable ~'~o the future. The report maps 33% of the area of the State. The SHCAs are the mapped areas not ~Jrrently under public ownership. Section 4.4 repo~s that 8.216 SHCAs are found in the study area. For the Map, 2.8% is tocated outside of the preservation area~ Page 19 of 28 pages DRAFT j~'{'h~ AGF_N~A ITF_~ JAN 11 2000 Permit Review Criteria DRAFT Suggestions for changes to this draft and the use of these evaluation factors are welcomed. Connectivity between major habitat areas. State whether the footprint of the project either blocks or narrows a connection between two major habitat areas. (Section 4.4 reports the evaluation of t~te connections proposed within areas mapped ~s development. The evaluations concluded that ~der and mo~e numerous connections are more immune to disturbance from adjoining land uses.) Regionally significant natural resources. State whether the project maintains or connects regionally significant natural resources, or, through compensatory mitigation, acquires and restores areas mapped as preservation. (The Southwest Flodda Regional Planning Council has inventoried regionally ~signirmant natural resoumes and has ¢lrafted a Strategic Land Acqu~tion/Conservation/Pre~ervation Plan for Soutt~est Florida. The Estero Agency on Bay Management (ABM) has prepared an Estero Bay Watershed Land Conservation/Preservation Strategy Map" and has adopted guiding principals. For the latter, Section 4.4 reports the assessment of how the five Ensembles enhanced implementation of the ABM'S wort(.) Multi-Species Recovery Plan (MSRP). State whether ali practical measures have been taken to maintain habitat for listed species on site or, as compensatory mitigation, acquires and restores areas mapped as preservation. (Section 4.3 rel:,3fts the assessment of'how the alternative enhances implementation of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service'$ MSRP. The Map, and the criteria proper, explicitly support MSRP r__,,cc, m_. mendations. For all species, the MSRP recommends encouraging management of privately owned lan~s.) B. Is Xeric oak scrub, rosemary scrub, and scrubby pine flatwoods, and other rare resources associated with ancient dune systems preserved? (Not many examples of these plant communities remain in the study area.) Evaluation factor to be used. Fdnge. State whether the buffer width and arrangement affects the estuarine fringe. (Section 4.4 repo~ the evaluation of different ¢~nflgumtion~ of the development mapping along the astuanne fringe. None of the Ensembles directly affected mangrove or salt mamh. but the pineland and hardwood hammock ptant communities b~hind the fringe ~ considered to protect the fringe's ability to provide aquatic nursery and iomging habitat.) C. Are coastal forests (especially mangroves), coastal hammocks, sub-tropical hammOcks, coastal pine flatwoods, and riparian forests (associated with streams or creeks) preserved? Factor to be used. Flowways. State whether all practical measures have been taken to provide a wide flowway. (Section 4.4 notes that most of the major habitat connections follow natural watercourses. Ensembles that mapped flowways throu~ large contiguou~ area~ petter provided for · mix of wetJand and buffer habitat and for attenuation of peal( lle,~. A ¢~3astal a~l riparian forest within · development is less vuinerol~ie to impact from adjacent activities if buffered by vegetati~.). D. Am isolated and seasonal wetlands, including small wetlands, preserved or restored with functional buffers and water budgets that support natural hydroperiods? Where isolated wetlands am associated with larger sheetflow systems, is the system preserved? (Seasonal wetlands ere found in shalow ~ that rely heavily on direct rainfall a~d runoff from adjacent uplands, With sheet:flow between depr___~-~s during fl3e wst season.) A~A ITEM Evaluation factor to be used. Page 20 of 28 DRAFT JAN 1 1 2000 Permit Review CriterJa, . DRAFT Suggestions for changes to this ;Iraft and the u~e of these eValuation .factors are welcomed. Seasonal wetlands. State whether appropriate buffers an ' water management will maintain the natural hydropattems. (For the Map, 2496 of the total area of seasonal wetlands are Iocatecl outside of areas mapped as preservation.) E. Are high marsh systems and sea grasses preserved? Is Florida panther habitat preserved? (This wide ranging species requires a mixture of upland and weaand habitat. The Florida Panther Habitat Preservation Plan (HPP) idenUfied las Priority 1 or Priority 2 lands not in public ownership but essential for maintaining the population.) Evaluation factors to be used. Florida panther pdority lands. ,State whether the project design will maintain habitat within its footprint, and thereby reduce the quantity of "developed" Priority 1 and 2 to some number less than 30% of the total priority land in the study area. (Section 4.3 estimates that, for the five Ensembles. from 56% to 72% of the total Priority 1 and 2 lands within the study area HI be encompassed by the lands mapped as preservation. For the Map, 30% of the total Priority 1 and 2 lands within the study area will be within lands mapped as development or agricultural. The 30~ number is after existing public preserves are expanded to the extents shown on the accompanying map as preservation.) G. Are Bald eagle nests p~otected and buffered consistent with the recommendations of the Habitat Manaqement Guidelines for the Bald Eaqle in the Southern Reqion? (The referenced document provides for minimum buffer distances for construction and permanent activity near a nest site. It does not protect foraging area.) Evaluation factor to be used. Bald eagle. State whether minimum buffer distances are provided and if, in addition, adjacent land for foraging is preserved. (For the Map, the 7 of the total 27 known nests va'thin the study area will be SU~TOunded by development or agriculture.) H. Is nesting and foraging habitat of the American crocodile protected and buffered from adverse impacts? (The American alligator is not endangered but is listed under the Enc~angerecl Species Act due to its similarity of appearance to ~e c~ocodile.) Evaluation factors to be used. American crocodile. State whether all .practicable opportunities have been included to preserve wetlands to provide attenuation of flows. (Section 4.3 no~es that changes in the timing and quantity of freshwater flows affect plant and animal communities in estuaries, where the or~le is found. As measured uncler Question #B in pm't II atmve. maintenance of w~cle IIow~ays reduce the potential changes in hyciropatte~ns, increasing It~ potential for Amedcan alligator. State whether the project will reduce the area of seasonal wetlands availabl~ for this species. Page 21 of 28 pages DRAFT A~A ITF...~ 2000 Permit Review Criteria DRAFT Suggestions for changes to this draft and the use of these evaluation factors are welcomed. (Section 4.3 notes that this species is foun¢l throughoul the area in large wetland areas, including the seasonal ones measured in Question #C above.) I. IS shorebird nesting, foraging and resting areas protected and buffered from adverse impacts? (This question .applies to shorebirds in general, although one in particular is listed uno, er tl~e Endangered Spa=es Act.) Evaluation factor to be used. Piping plover. Note that potential changes in water qUality, as measured by the questions in part II above, may affect the beaches. (Section 4.3 notes that none of the Ensembles propose direct impact (ffil) on the barrier beaches.used as wintering sites.) J. Are wading bird rookeries preserved and buffered consistent with the "Set Back Distances to Protect Nesting Bird Colonies from Human Disturbance.~; in Florida" (Rodgers and Smith, 1995)? (The referenced document provides for minimum buffe~ distances for cor~truction and permanent activity near a rookery. It does not protect foraging area. Foraging range for wading birc~s is up to 15 kilometers. 30 kilometers for Woocl storks.) Evaluation factors to be used. Wading bird rookeries. State whether the project protects the rookery, if present. (For ttte Map, 8 of the total 25 known rookeries within the study area will be surrounded by development or agriculture.) Woocistork rookeries. State whether the project protects the rooked,, if present. (For the Map, 2 of the total 14 known rookeries within the study area will be located within areas rnappe~ as development or agriculture.) K. Are sea turtle nesting areas protected from adverse impacts and construction impacts proposed during the nesting season? (This question al~)lies to the Loggerhead, 'Green, Hawkst)ill, and Kemp's R~ley sea turtles,) Evaluation factor to be used. Sea turtles. Note that. potential changes in water quality, as measured by the questions in part II above, may affect the beaches. (Sect~m 4.3 notes that none of the Ensembles IxOpese direct irnl3act (fitl. artificial lighting, human lxesence. and exotic vegetation) on the nesting beaches. However, the~e could be In effect if there is a ci~ange irt wat~' quaUty.) L. Are red.cockaded woodpecker cjuster sites and associated foraging habitat protected on- site (or mitigated off-site when consistent with regional recovery plans and developed in conjunction with fish an(I wildlife agency recommendations)?' (Since the habitat of this species is in old grow~ pine, it is very difficult to identify new sites beyond Evaluation factor to be used. Page 22 of 28 pages DRAFT AC..~..N~A ITF. J~ p6rmit Review Criteria DRAFT * SuggeWdon$ forchanges to Ittis draft and the use.of:these mmlu~don factor~are welcomed. Red cockaded woodpecker. State whether the foraging area is maintained. (For the Map. 27 of the total 40 known cjuster sites within the study area will be located within areas mapped as development or agriculture. Protection ol' the cjuster itself and a large area surrounding it for foraging provides higher _-~__~_,rance of preservation of the species.) M. Are Audubon caracara nesting territories protected from adverse impacts consistent with regional recovery plans or fish and wildlife agency recommendations? (The study area is on the fringe of the ten county area where the population is found.) Evaluation factor to be Used. Audubon's crested caracara. State whether the project footprint affects adjacent agricultural or prairie areas, directly or indirectly, thereby reducing the availability of habitat on agriculture lands below 10% of the study area. (Section 4.3 estimates that. for*the five Ensemt~tas, from 10% to 18% of this study area is mapped as agriculture. This species prefem native range an~ u~improvecl pasture for foraging. Those agricultural areas remaining in Iow intensity use provide more assurance that appropriate habitat, with interspersed seasonal wetJands, will be maintained. The Map prOWdes 1096 of the study area but also provides for non- intensification of agricultural use.) IV. N. Is Florida scrub jay habitat protected from adverse impacts consistent with regional recovery plans developed.in conjunction with fish and wildlife 'agency recommendations? (Since the habitat of this species is in scrub, it is very difficult to identify new sites beyond those presently occupied. ) Evaluation factor to be used. Scrub jay. State whether the project protects the colonies, if present. (For the Map, 15 of the total 26 known colonies within the study area will be located within areas mappecl as clevelopmem or agriculture.) O. IS snail kite foraging and nesting habitat protected or compensated consistent with regional recovery plans or fish and wildlife agency recommendations? (Fee~s only on apple snails that are in turn found only in seasonal wetlands.) Evaluation factor to be used. Seasonal wetlands. State whether the project provides appropriate buffers and water management to maintain the natural hydropattems. (Same as Question *q:) above.) (For the Map, 24% of the total area of seasonal wettands are located outside of areas mapped as preservation.) P. Are projects with adverse impacts to eastern~ndigo snake habitat developed consistent with the provisions of the Eastem Indiqo Snake Protection Guidelines (FWS, 1998)? Q. Are federally listed plant species protected and buffered from adverse impacts? R. Is construction within designated critical habitat of the West Indian manatee conducted consistent with the Standard_ Manatee Protection Construction Guidelines to minimize impacts associated with water craft-related mortality? Other public interest factors. Page 23 of 28 pages DRAFT AGEI'~DA JAN I1 200 Pg. Permit Review Criteria DRAFT Suggestions for changes to this draft and the use of these evaluation factors are welcomed. A. Does the project affect hurricane preparedness? (The South Florida Regional Planning Councirs Hurricane Storm Tidq Atlas and H.prricane vc~ Study estimates the population to be evacuated, the sheltem available, and evacuation time based on road capacities. The Corps does not have direct authority over preparedness. The Corps can consider hurricane preparedness concerns as part of its public interest reviews, for example, safety and flooding.) Evaluation factor to be used. Hurricane preparedness. If the project site itself or evacuation route is particularly subject to flooding or wind damage, identify the actions by the applicant or local government that mitigate the concern, for example, improvement of roads or identification of shelters. (Section 4.15 reports that none of the Ensembles were considered to have changed preparedness. The areas mapped as cleveloprnent have ongoing local preparedness planning.) B. Are reasonable expectations of the landowner affected? (A wide variety of actions by the Federal. State, and local governments over time provide the background for the lanclowner's understanciing of the extent of any limitations to the exercise of fights from property owners~p.) Evaluation factor to be used. Property dghts. State the influences on the rights associated with ownership of the project site. These would include: (1) designations in the Comprehensive Plans, (2) history of the landowner's preparation of the project proposal prior to submission of the application, (3) development orders or other actions issued by local, State, or Federal governments, and (4) surrounding land use and activities that have affected or are expected to affect the value of the property. (The areas of development and agriculture shown by the Map are also mapped as development and agr~uiture by the Comprehensive Plans. Section 4.6 reports the assessment wttether the f'we Ensembles addressed three factors: fak market value of property; reasonable expectations for use of land and ret~m on investment; and, vested dghts. Enseml~les with additional restrictions beyond those in the Comprehensive Plans would not meet ne expeg~ti~ of tt~ landownem affected. Tl~,=,e permit review criteria cio not establish a particular rest~ic~on or land use. but ident~ evaluation que~-~ to asse~ compliance with existing limitations estabashed by Federal law.) Difference from Comprehensive Plans. State the degree of difference from the local Comprehensive Plan (and accompanying goals and policies). (Section 4.6 reports the assessment that decisions that departeci from ~e current Comprehensive Plans would be detrimental not only to landmmem* rights but also to other socio-ec___~'~,omic cc.-,cerns of the community. All five Ensembles represent potential futures. The Comprehensive Plans have been modified in the past anci may be rnodifleci in the future. The Ensemble ttmt represents the Comprehensive Plan is no{ exactly representative of the current Plan, fo~ example, in southem Golden Gate Estates.) D. Affects sustainability of local economy? (This issue is very complex. For a project submitted by a prhrate enterlxiSe, the Ccxps gensmlly assumes Evaluatio~ factors to be used. Economic Sustainability. State whether restrictions applied to the development affect t~e.~,.~__ sustainability of the local economy. This will note that the increased costs frc restrictions may be a small portion of the total economy. Page24of28pages DRAF'F JAN 11 2000 permit Review Criteria :DRAFT Suggestions' forchanges to ~l~is ¢lraft and tl~e use of these evaluation factors.are welcome(t. i,-.aeas~ng or Oeoressing the area of development mapped in lt~ Ensembles incm___=~ed__ or deoreased l~e creation of jca~ and the size of the k~ govemmerl's property tax base. Incraas~g or clecreasing tbe comprising greater than 3% of the study area). Projecls proposing clevstopment ~ the areas mapped as development (or agticuaum within agriculture mapping, etc.) will be presumed to be supportive of enhancing the Legend: Agricultural. · Goal: The Agricultural mapping consists of lands that are pdmadly used for large scale agricultural activities. These areas contain a mosaic of land and water types that support critically important wildlife ,~-and water resources and, therefore, warrant, protection for conservation purposes. Lands that contain very high quality resources or rare natural r&sources should be con~iderecl for acquisition or conservation easements to preserve their condition. Proposed nonagricultural development activities should be discouraged to ~e maximum extent possible, for example, golf courses or ranchettes. Cdteda. The Cdteda are the same as for the Development legend with the following additions. III. Habitat and listed species..- S. Does the proposed project intensify the agricultural activity? (in developing the Map. a rebuttal~e assuml~ion was made that, within agricultural areas, that limited intenstfication of use will occur and that there will be no ct~anges that require aciditional loss of native habitat or that would alter hydrology (suc~ as new large scale c~trus operations): range and improved range land will stay the same; vegetable c~ops may change or the fields will be allowed to go to fallow and back again.) Evaluation factors to be used. Strategic Habitat Conservation Area (SHCA). State whether any of the 1.3% of the total area of SHCA in the State is preserved as habitat within the proposed footprint of the project. (The Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission report Closin~ the Gaos in Florida'~ Wildlife Habitat Conservation System identified the minimum quantily of land treat would maintain Florida's animal and plant populations at levels sustainalole into the future. This document notes, for the panther, that '...habitat quality on private lands is higher than habitat quality o~ public lands clue to sol productivity and drainage ctraracteristics.' The SHCAs included areas of Iow-intensity agriculture. For the Map, 1.3% of the total area of SHCA in the state is encompassed ~ the area mapped agricultural.) Connectivity between major habitat areas. State whether the change from Iow to high intensity activity either blocks or narrows a connection between two major habitat areas. .. (Section '4.4 reports the .evaluation of the connections proposed within areas mapped as development. The evaluations concluded that wider and more numerous connections are more immune to disturbance from adjoining land uses. Low-intensity agricultural activities are c,<xtsidered to be Iow distut'bance and can be utilized by wildlife as connections.) Multi-Species Recovery Plan (MSRP). State whether all practical measures have been taken to maintain habitat for listed species on site or, as compensatory miff! ation,. ........ acquires and restores areas mapped as preservation. DRAFT Page 25 of 28 pages AGENDA ITEM JAN tl 2.000 Permit. Review Criteria DRAFT Suggestions for changes to this draft and the use of these evaluation factors are welcomed. (Section 4.3 reports the assessment of how the alternative m-d~mm~s implemef~tion of the U.S. F'~h and Wildlife Service'a MSRP. The Map, and the criteria proper, explicitly support MSRP recommendations. For many species, the MSRP recommends encouraging management of privately owned lands.) Flodda panther on agricultural lands. If the project proposes an intensification of agriculture or intensification to other development, state whether subsequent management will maintain habitat within its footprint, and, if habitat is not maintained, reduce the quantity of "agricultural" Priority I and 2 to some number less than 18% of the total priority land in the study ama. (Fo~ the Map, 18% of the Priority 1 and Ptiodty 2 lands are encompassed by agdcultura. These area~ typically adjacent to public or proposed contiguous preserves and are irnp<xtant components of the tc~al habitat availal~e to the panther. In addition, those Ensembles that proposed c.~teda to restrict tt~e intens~,ation of agriculture were cm~siclered to in. ease the assurance of the preser~atio~ Legend: Rural. Goal. The Rural land cover legend includes, lands that are used for Iow density residential development (e.g., ranchettes and nurseries). The area contains a mosaic of lan8 and water types that support critically important wildlife and water resources and, therefore, warrant protection for conservation purposes, or if very high quality, for preservation status. Lands that contain very high quality resources or rare natural resources should be considered acquisition or conservation easement to preserve their condition. This area needs a mapping effort that identifies existing flow ways and forested habitats, as well as seasonal wetlands that-are large or contiguous to each other, so that a strategy can be devised to protect these resources as a connected system at the landscape scale as the greater area develops. Cdteda. The Criteda are the same as for the Development legend except, as stated in the goal statement, is lower density and preserves resources in a connected system. Legend: Golden Gate Estates Zones 1 and 2. Goal. Golden Gate Estates is a forested subdivision that has been drained and disturbed by canals and a road network'for Iow density residential development (1 to 5 acre lots). Residential development is ongoing. Although the area retains wetland and wildlife resource value, Zone I (to the west) is more developed and drained than Zone 2. Zone 2 to the east is still relatively intact and has greater potential for restoration. Criteria. The Criteda are the same as for the Development legend except with the following additions recognizing that the typical application is for fill to build single family residences on single lots. I. Wetlands. F. For project within Golden Gate Zone 1, does the project propose greater than 50% fill in wetlands? -- (This supplemenls Question ~ (regarding avoidance of weUand impacl~) Evaluation factors to be used. Avoidance of WeUands Impact. State whether the acres of proposed fill is greater than 50% of the weUands on site and, if so, state if this would contribute to a cu~A F.M/.~LU~IJ3/~~~ fill greater than 5.6% of the wetlands in the study area. No..~(~ JAN 11 ?.000 Pag~ 2~ of 28 P,m, llm~, ,- ORAF~ Permit Review C 'Jteria *DRAFT Suggestions for changes to this draft and the use of these evalimlJofl factors ere welcomed. (S, ec6on 4.2 estJnmtes thaL for It~ ~ve Ermembles, from 5.51~ to 7.0~ of the weUanc~ in ttte stu~ area will be filled. The ~ percentage tmtte~ ~mUsfie~ the requirement for avoidance. T~ estimate for the Map is 5.616. For the reside~ei lots in Zone 1, preference is that ea=h individual app#caFdon not exceed 50% of the weUands within the parcel. Some projects will impact more than others because alr the configuration of the weUands. It is expected that rnos~will impact less than 5096. If a project proposes any fill, and certainly any ~ greater than 50% of the weUands On the site, consideraUofl must be given that this may result in cumulative impact greater than $.6%.) G. For project within Golden Gate Zone 2, does the project propose greater than 10% fill in wetlands? (Ti-is supplements Question #A regar~,,,~ avoidance of weUands impacts.) Evaluation factors to be used. Avoidance of Wetland Impact. State whether the acres of proposed fill is greater than 10% of the wetlands on site and, if so, state if this would will cause a particular remnant that crosses multiple parcels to be lost and contribute to a cumulative fill greater than 5.6% of the wetlands in the study area. (S~tJon 4.2 estimates that. for the five Ensembles, from 5.5~ to 7.016 of the wetlands in the study area will be rdled. The lower percentage better satisfies the requirement for avoidance. The estimate fro' the Map is 5.6%. For the residenaal tots in Zone 2,' preference is It'~t each individual application not exceed 1096 of the wstlands within the parcel, Some projects w~l impact more than others because of the coflf~juraUon of the wstlar~ls. It is expected that most win impact less than 10~. If a project proposes any fill, ancl certainly any fill greater than 1096 of the wetlands on the site. consideration mus~ be given that this may result in cumulative impact g~eater than 5.6%. It is expected that this limit, when applied to adjoining parceis, will provide the preservation of the remnant wetland systems.) II. H. Has compensatory mitigation been located in Golden Gate Zone 2? (Preservation and restoration of weUands in Picayune Strand is the prefen'ed mitigation receiving area. Compensatory mitigation shall be directed to this area or areas o! Golden Gate Estates adjacent to Cod(screw Marsh it mitigation bani< or in-lieu fee arrangement is established.) Water quality and quantity: E. Are entrance roads culverted? F. Is fill placed to not impede sheet flow across the site? Legend: Lehigh Acres Urban or Lehigh Acres Greenway. Goal: Lehigh Acres is a planned community with small lots and road and canal networks. Drainage has reduced but not eliminated the wetlands. Being elevated 'tableland", the zone contains pdmadly isolated seasonal wetlands. Criteria. The Criteria are the same as for the Development legend except with the following additions. II. Water quality and quantity. G. Does the project propose regional stormwater management for Lehigh Acres? (Since implementation of BMPs is diffmutt on the size of the k~s typical in Lehigh Acres, treatment ~f sut:Mivision total flow ~ considered one method to address c,c,-~erns of added pollution load. If an application is received, favorable cons~era~on will be given to regional storm water management facilities to Caloosahatct~-e/Omnge Rivers, water quality restoration and protect Hic~ey and Bedman Creek watershects. This quesaon recognizes that the infrastructure and lot ownemhip patterns have aireacty been _,~_ ablished.) Page 27 of 28 pages DRAFT AG~..~A ITEM~. JAN 1 1 2000 Permit Review Criteria DRAFT Suggestions for changes to this draft and the use of these evaluation factors are welcomed. H. Does the project propose regional water storage in Lehigh Acres? (If an application is received, favorable consideration vail be given to, if appropriate, I.:-:~._ng a regional water storage facility ac!;_~__nt to bhe existing Hames Marsh. This question recognizes that current drainage infrastructure results in fresttwater pulse flows into the downstream waterboclies.) IV. Other public interest factors.. E. Does the proposed project restore wetlands within the area mapped as Lehigh Acres Greenway? (if an applicaJon is received, favoralde consideration vail be g~ven to projects that remove roads and restore hydropattems and connecting sheetflow to seasonal weUands. This question recognizes that muctt of the original weUand and upland vegetation remain in areas of Lehigh Acres that is c~ss~-c,~d with road~ and canals.) Page 28 of 28 pages DRAFT .o'-.__.I es ~* O, 0 c~ ITEM JAN I 1 2000 ,,~. ,~7 _ &~A ITEM JAN I1 2~ · JA I1 2000 ii 11 2000 0 ~m JAN ! I 2000 · JAN 11 2000 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ENDORSE THE WILSON MILLER SCOPE OF WORK FOR THE IMMOKALEE AREA AND DIRECT STAFF TO NEGOTIATE ADDITIONAL CONSULTING SERVICES WITH DOVER, KOHL AND PARTNERS TO FULFILL THE FINAL ORDER REQUIREMENTS FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY RURAL AND AGRICULTURAL ASSESSMENT. OBJECTIVE: To have the County Commission endorse the Wilson Miller Scope of Work for the lmmokalee Area Study to partially fulfill the Final Order requirements for the Collier County Rural and Agricultural Assessment and to direct staffto negotiate additional consulting services with Dover, Kohl and Partners to supplement the staff's effort to complete the required Assessment. CONSIDERATION: Pursuant to the State Administration Commission's Final Order ACC-99-02, Collier County shall conduct a Rural and Agricultural Assessment (Assessment).' The geographic scope of the Assessment shall be (1) all lands designated Agricultural/Rural, (2) Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern (3) conservation lands outside the urban boundary and (4) South Golden Gate Estates. The area excludes all urban designated areas, North Golden Gate Estates and the Settlement District. The Final Order specifies that at a minimum, the Assessment must identify means to accomplish the following: I. Identify and propose measures to protect prime agricultural areas. Such measures should prevent the premature conversion of agricultural lands to other uses. 2. Direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat in order to protect water quality and quantity and maintain the natural water regime as well as to protect listed animal and plant species and their habitats. 3. Assess the growth potential of the Area by assessing the potential conversion of rural lands to other uses, in appropriate locations, while discouraging urban sprawl, directing ir/compatible land uses away from critical habitat and encouraging development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques including, but not limited to, public and private schools, urban villages, new towns, satellite communities, area-based allocations, cjustering and open space provisions and mixed use development. The Assessment shall recognize the substantial advantages of innovative approaches to development which may better serve to protect environmentally sensitive areas, maintain the economic viability of agricultural and other predominantly rural land uses, and provide for the cost-efficient delivery of public facilities and services. County staff have outlined a Uniform Assessment Process (Figure 1). This process provides a general framework to accomplish the requirements of the Final Order for all the required geographic areas. County staffhave the responsibility to ensure that all the requirements of the Final Order are addressed for these areas. Both staff and the Rural Lands Committee will be involved in the Study as outlined in the Uniform Assessment Process. Indeed, this process will be followed for the Rural Fringe area, as well. As the JAN 1 1 000 Study unfolds, County staff, with input from the Advisory Committee, will address any geographical or technical areas not addressed by the Study Wilson Miller has prepared the attached Immokalee Area Study (Study) Scope of Work for the Eastern Collier Property Owners who have agreed to pay for the Study as outlined in the scope. This scope substantially addresses the Final Order for this referenced area (see map of the Immokalee Study Area). On December 6, 1999, the Rural Lands Committee discussed the Scope of Work and voted 11 to 3 to recommend that the County Commission endorse the attached Immokalee Area Study Scope of Services. Staff recommends that additional consulting services be supplied by the Dover, Kohl and Partners. On December 14, 1999, the BCC approved staffto begin negotiations with this firm subject to RFP //99-2976, "Consultant Services for Assistance with Preparation of Collier County Community Character and Design Master Plan." This RFP was written broad enough to incorporate these additional services. Staff intends to bring the proposed contract back to the BCC on February 22, 2000. FISCAL IMPACT: None at this time. The Eastern Property Owners will pay for the work contained in the attached Scope. The fiscal impact associated with the proposed Dover, Kohl contract will be identified at the time this contract is presented to the BCC for approval. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: This action contributes to the completion of the Final Order requirements. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners endorse the attached Scope of Work for the Immokalee Study Area and direct staffto negotiate additional consulting services with Dover, Kohl and Parmers. ~illiam D. Lo~nz, Jr., 1~., Director Natural Resources Department REVIEWED BY: APPROVED BY: Rob6rfJ/AVIulhere, AICP, Director ~yg Services Departm//~ Vincent 3,. Cautero, AICP, Administrator Community Development and Environmental Services DATE: JAN 1 1 2OOO Pg.. Figure I c- O A uJ NOlidl~OSlO ,3SOd~nd A ~G.~DA JAN 11 2000 Pg.. THE IMMOKALEE AREA STUDY OVERVIEW OF GOALS, PROCESS AND SCOPE OF WORK (Revised 11124/99 per comments from Collier County and DCA) 1. OVERVIEW 1.1. The Eastem Collier Property Owners (ECPO), as the owners of approximately 168,000d: acres of rural agricultural land surrounding Immokalee that together with approximately 27,000 privately owned acres not owned by ECPO compdse the Study Area, have agreed to prepare 'The Immokalee Area Study" (Study). The Study will fulfill the requirements described in Final Order No. AC-99-002 of the State of Flodda Administration Commission as q'he Collier County Rural and Agricultural Area Assessment" for the geographic area described and shown on the attached Map A (Study Area). 1.2, The geographical boundary of the Study Area is limited to rural lands in northeastern Collier County surrounding the Immokalee Urban Area and does not include the areas referred to as the Rural Fdnge, South Golden Gate Estates, or North Belle Meade. The Study Area is designated Agricultural/Rural on the Collier County Future Land Use Map. Although publicly owned conservation lands are not part of the Study Area, and no new data collection or analysis is contemplated for these areas, the impacts of potential uses of pdvate land which may have a direct impact on public conservation lands will be considered in the analysis. 2. GOALS AND PROCESS 2.1. i 1~2'~9.~*'/It 24 Vet: ~J I-AJ~aeld The goals for the Study are as follows: 2.1.1. To prepare a comprehensive long range plan for the future of the Study Area through a collaborative and community based effort of the residents, property owners, and other stakeholders in the study area with the support and participation of appropriate local, regional, state, and federal agencies and non-governmental organizations. The Department of Community Affairs shall be responsible for coordinating and assuring .heightened cooperation and assistance from State and Regional Agencies: 2.1.2. To accurately inventory important environmental resources and develop long term strategies to protect critical habitat in the study area. Policies will be designed to direct incompatible uses away from critical habitat in order to protect water quality and quantity and to protect listed animal and plant species and their occupied habitats. 2.1.3. To identify prime agricultural lands and propose measures to protect agricultural uses and prevent the premature conversion of agricultural land to other uses. 2.1.4. To assess the potential conversion of rural lands to other uses, in appropriate locations, while discouraging urban sprawl, directing 2.2. 2.3. 2.4, 2.5. 2.1.5. 2.1.6. 2.1.7. incompatible land uses away from cdtical habitat and encouraging development that utilizes innovative land use planning techniques. To maintain the economic viability of agricultural and rural land uses, create strategies to diversify the rural economic base, and provide for the cost-efficient delivery of needed pUblic facilities and services for rural residents. To ensure that the residents, property owners, and stakeholders within the study area take a leadership role in creating a long term, sustainable, and economically viable strategic plan for the future of the study area. To obtain appropriate Comprehensive Plan policy and map amendments to ensure the protection of cdtical habitat, protection of pdvate property dghts, and properly direct the future growth of eastem Collier County The scope of work generally includes the collection and analysis of data on natural and manmade features, preparation of futura land use scenarios, evaluation of selected alternatives, and the preparation of amendments to the Collier County Comprahensive Plan. The Study process will be supervised by a citizens committee (Oversight Committee) established by the Collier County Board of Commissioners (BCC). In order to confirm the scope of work and process for the Study, WilsonMiller and the ECPO will present the proposed scope of work to the Oversight Committee and BCC to obtain their approval prior to commencing the Study process. The anticipated time frame for the Study is approximately two years for stages 1,2 and 3 collectively, and one year for stage 4. The actual time to complete the Study will be governed in part by the actions of the Oversight Committee and other govemmental agencies. A schedule will be prapared following approval of the scope of work for each stage that identifies time frames for completion of tasks and proposed presentation dates to the Oversight Committee. Collier County staff will serve as process facilitators and provide technical support. This role will include scheduling and public notice for Oversight Committee meetings. County staff will also review and evaluate proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendmeots prepared by ECPO and provide recommendations to the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) and BCC as a part of the amendment process, as set forth in Chapter 163.3187, FS. 3. SCOPE OF WORK Stage I - Data collection and analysis of existing conditions 3.1. Purpose: The purpose of this stage is to collect accurate information on the existing conditions of the study area. Most of the data collection effort will be focused on the location, type and quality of existing natural resourc ,~.~J~ AC-,EN~A ~TF_~. JAN 1 1 2000 P~._ L'~ -- I U'~M99-47 IZ4 Vc~. 03l-A{~'ynok{ uses. Existing information will be used to the maximum extent possible, and supplemented when necessary. Available historical data will be analyzed. A preliminary GIS data map sedes will be presented to the Oversight Committee for review and comment. The data maps will be refined and finalized. A description of existing conditions will be used as a baseline for the Study and comparison of land use options. An inventory of existing permits and permitted uses will be prepared with the assistance of property owners. The Oversight Committee will review and approve a scope of work and methodology for the Study prior to its commencement. The level of data to be collected and studied will be appropriate for comprehensive planning purposes as described in 9J-5, FAC, and not to a permitting level of detail. Govemmental agencies will serve as informational resources and technical advisors to the consulting team and Committee, and their timely cooperation will be facilitated by the Department of Community Affairs. 3.1.1. WilsonMiller will obtain with the assistance of the ECPO, DCA, County, and cooperating agencies existing/available surveys, topographic information, and aedal photography of the Study area, and any other available data that could be beneficial to the Study. Data sources provided to WilsonMiller will, if possible, be in the proper map projection, resolution and scale suitable for preparing necessary maps and analysis. Data sources may include, but are not limited to: · · · · · · · · Collier County Growth Management Plan. Area of Critical State Concem enabling report. SFWMD Land Use Mapping. FFWCC Listed Species Points. Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNA!). SFWMD Southern Lee County Study. USFWS Multi-Species Recovery Plan. Water Quality data and modeling generated by the Corps in conjunction with the Draft ElS for SW Florida. Historic Aerials from Clients. Soils Map from the NRCS Soil Survey. FFWCC Panther Telemetry data and updates. FFWCC Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas Mapping and updates. DOQQ Aerials. Existing stereo images for stereoscopic mapping/analysis of vegetation communities and areas of exotic infestations. Any empirical data provided by Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary and/or Big Cypress National Preserve staff. Existing utility service area and capacity information, including water, sewer, and solid waste. Existing agricultural permits to identify permitted water management areas and to identify discharge 3oints and discharge rates. JAN 1 1 2000 3.1.6. Rainfall data for regions within study area. SFWMD and USGS monitoring well data and locations. FDEP Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Network data. SFWMD Groundwater Recharge Rates per SFWMD publication WRE #327. Transportation data from FDOT and Collier County MPO. 3.1.2. WilsonMiller will coordinate with Flodda Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFVVCC) regarding scheduled FFWCC re-analysis/update of the Strategic Habitat Conservation Plan (SHCP) oveday for the Study Area. 3.1.3. WilsonMiller will conduct field verification of SFWMD land use mapping using generally accepted scientific methods in areas where existing data may be contradictory or insufficient for purposes of the Study. 3.1.4. WilsonMiller will request wdtten comments conceming data collection and analysis from FFWCC, Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), SFWMD, and Southwest Flodda Regional Planning Council (RPC). Responses will be included as a part of the summary report for Stage 1. 3.1.5. WilsonMiller will prepare new GIS base maps or refine existing maps of the study area. Collier County staff and cooperating public agencies will provide electronic copies of mapping and other suitable databases to be used for the Study. Mapping will include the following types of information: · USGS Digital Ortho Quarter Quads (DOQQ aerial maps) · USDG quadrangle Topo maps · Roads and Trails · Section Lines and easements provided by owners · Wetlands · Listed species and Strategic panther habitat · Soils · Major land owners and public lands · Permit boundaries · Utility service boundaries · Drainage pattems · Support infrastructure (schools, hospitals, airports, parks, etc.) · Existing land uses WilsonMiller will refine the delineation of natural areas that comprise the Okaloacoochee Slough and Camp Keais Strand through use of digital aerials, FLUCCS maps, and selected field verification as previously described. The criteria for delineating natural areas will follow the FLUCCS methodology at level 3 and FAC 9J-5.013. JAN 1 1 2000 3.2. 3.1.7. 3.1.8. Stage 3.2.1. WilsonMiller will collect and compile relevant traffic data, and will prepare existing dwelling unit inventory by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ). Traffic data will be used to evaluate the performance of the travel demand model and to perform existing conditions and future conditions analyses (e.g. LOS). Existing available data will be used to the maximum extent possible. Additional data, including 24-hour counts and turning movement data at major intersections will be identified and collected as needed. WilsonMiller will prepare a wdtten report and maps summarizing existing conditions for presentation to the Oversight Committee. 2 - Land use research and optional scenarios Purpose: This stage will involve the preparation of future land use scenarios for a sustainable future that meet the criteda of the Final Order. Three scenarios are anticipated. The Final Order requires the following: 1) Identify and propose measures to protect prime agricultural areas. Such measures should prevent the premature conversion of agricultural lands to other uses. 2) Direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat in order to protect water quality and quantity and maintain the natural water regime as well as to protect listed animal and plant species and their habitats. 3) Assess the growth potential of the Area by assessing the potential conversion of rural lands to other uses, in appropriate locations, while discouraging urban sprawl, directing incompatible land uses away from cdtical habitat and encouraging development that utilities creative land use planning techniques including, but not limited to, public and pdvate schools, urban villages, new towns, satellite communities, area-based allocations, cjustering and open space provisions and mixed use development. The Assessment shall recognize the substantial advantages of innovative approaches to development which may better serve to protect environmentally sensitive areas, maintain the economic viability of agricultural and other predominantly rural land uses, and provide for the cost-efficient delivery of public facilities and services.. All scenarios will address wetland and wildlife protectio~n issues. Community input will occur in workshops conducted by the Oversight committee. Collier County staff may be directed by the Oversight Committee to prepare and evaluate additional scenarios, at the sole expense of the County. Should this occur, WilsonMiller will make available to the County staff a copy of the methodology and models used to evaluate the three scenarios described above, to allow for a direct compadson. WilsonMiller will review County demographic, population and land use projections provided by Collier County staff and other identified sources. AGE.~ .,[DA ITEM JAN 1 I 2000 3.2.2. WilsonMiller will research Florida Statutory planning process altematives and collect examples of similar large scale planning studies/reports/plans in Florida. 3.2.3. As part of the evaluation of different land use scenarios, WilsonMiller will quantify the land use options in terms that are consistent with the requirements and conventions of the travel demand model (dwelling unit/population and employment). Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) datasets will be prepared for each scenario, with the assistance of the Collier County MPO. 3.2.4. WilsonMiller will prepare a roadway network analysis including an evaluation of existing and future available capacity. The network analysis will include an evaluation of committed and planned road improvements, including the identification of planned new corridors. A background traffic growth forecast will be developed to estimate the traffic passing through the study area that is not related to growth within the study area. The County/MPO travel demand model will be used by WilsonMiller to develop estimates of system traffic for a base condition and for evaluation of proposed land use. 3.2.5. Fishkind and Associates will prepare a fiscal impact model to evaluate economic aspects of the optional scenarios. 3.2.6. WilsonMiller will prepare a utility service needs Study model to evaluate each optional scenario. 3.2.7. Missimer Intemational will prepare an evaluation of water supply, aquifer recharge potential and groundwater availability. 3.2.8. 3.2.9. Agricultural experts will evaluate agricultural production by type and assist sub-consultant in analysis of economic viability, expansion potential and long-term agricultural production acreage. The Immokalee Area Master Plan Element of the Collier-County Comprehensive Plan will be used as the basis for any analysis that involves the existing conditions in or interrelationship of the Immokalee Urban Area with the Study Area. 3.2.10. WilsonMiller will prepare a comparison matdx of the three land use scenarios, maps and supporting tables. Specific cdteda for comparative analysis will be developed with the input of the Oversight Committee. Should the Oversight Committee or Collier County require analyses of additional scenarios, this will be considered additional services. 3.2.11. WilsonMiller will prepare map of land use constraints and opportunities, and will prepare wdtten report summarizing each land use AGENDA ITEM JAN ll 2000 Pg. ~ - 3.3. supporting data for presentation to the Oversight Committee, to assist with the analysis of available options. Stage 3 - Impact Analysis of Land Use Options. Purpose: This stage involves a technical analysis of the positive and negative economic, environmental, transportation, public service, utility and water resource impacts of optional scenarios. The process will be designed to encourage broad community input which will result in the selection of options that maximize the potential benefits and minimize adverse impacts. Options will stdve to balance the protection of important environmental resources, protection of prime agricultural lands and still allow uses that will enable appropriate economic diversification of the area, and provide for the cost-efficient delivery of public facilities and services to its residents. 3.3.1. WilsonMiller will prepare, with the assistance of the team, generalized impact analyses of the three optional land use scenarios for economic, environmental, water resource, utility and public infrastructure impacts. 3.3.2. Environmental impact analyses will generally follow the guidelines of Division 3.8 of the Collier County Land Development Code, including an estimate of increased pollutant loading for each scenario compared to ambient conditions, with the understanding that due to the large geographic area involved, the level of detail will be appropriately limited to a level of detail appropriate for comprehensive planning purposes. 3.3.3. WilsonMiller will conduct a transportation analysis of three optional land use scenarios. The analysis will include model (network) editing and travel assignments for each alternative scenario, plus an evaluation of the results. Appropriate performance measures/indicators of transportation system response to the various land use alternatives will be developed to assist in the evaluation of altematives. Recommended transportation system improvements (those improvements needed to ensure minimum acceptable levels of service) will be identified for each land use scenario, including, but not limited to, additional lanes and new roadway corridors. Order Of magnitude opinions of cost will be developed for all recommended improvements to further assist in the evaluation of alternatives. 3.3.4. The refinement of Collier County Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) boundaries and criteria or the creation of alternative techniques that accomplish resource protection measure best suited to meet the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan will be finalized during this stage, with the assistance of the Oversight Committee following public review and input. JAN 11 2000 pg. /z/ 3.4. 3.5. Stage 4 - Comprehensive Plan Amendment preparation Purpose: Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies, and Future Land Use Map amendments will be prepared to allow the implementation of selected options, while maintaining flexibility for property owners to respond to changing economic and market conditions. Public input, review and participation will occur in accordance with applicable state law, and a public information campaign will be implemented by Collier County staff. 3.4.1. Based on input from the ECPO, Oversight Committee, and cooperating public agencies provided during the process, WilsonMiller will prepare a proposed text and map amendment to the Collier County Comprehensive Plan for review by the Oversight Committee and submittal to Collier County. 3.4.2. Collier County staff will review the Comprehensive Plan amendment prepared by ECPO and provide recommendations to the CCPC an BCC as required by Chapter 163.3187, FS. Presentations and Meetings with the Oversight Committee 3.5.1. The Study Team will meet with the Oversight Committee dudng each stage of the Study. ECPO anticipates meeting at the beginning, middle and conclusion of each stage of the process. The Oversight Committee will be the pdmary venue for the presentation of information about the Study and for public input. The Oversight Committee meetings will be advertised and held at appropriate times and locations to foster broad public input. 3.5.2. Presentation materials such as reports and maps will be provided to County staff for duplication and distribution to the Oversight Committee. When feasible, materials will be provided in advance of meetings to facilitate review. Materials will be provided in a suitable format for reproduction, and where possible in electronic format subject to agreement on the protection of content and intellectual property rights. 3.5.3. Should 'Collier County request or require presentations by the ECPO consulting team at public meetings other than those identified above, such as additional "Town Hall Meetings", the cost of preparation for and attendance at such meetings will be the responsibility of Collier County. AGENDA ITF. M \ JAN 11 2000 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE WORK PLAN AND BUDGET FOR IMPLEMENTING THE BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND TO CONSIDER INCLUDING THE IMMOKALEE URBAN AREA AS ONE OF THE COMPONENT AREAS OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY. OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners approve the work plan and budget to begin the process of establishing a Community Redevelopment Agency to implement the Bayshore/Gateway Redevelopment Plan; and to consider including the Immokalee urban area as a component area of the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency. CONSIDERATIONS: On November 9, 1999 the Board of County Commissioners accepted the Bayshore/Gateway Redevelopment Plan and authorized the Planning staff to coordinate with other Departments to prepare a work plan and budget for implementation of the following: 1. Prepare a Finding of Necessity Study as defined in Chapter 163.335 of the Florida Statutes to define the redevelopment area. 2. Prepare and adopt appropriate Ordinances to establish a Community Redevelopment Agency. 3. Prepare and adopt a Redevelopment Plan pursuant to Chapter 163.335, F.S. 4. Prepare and adopt Amendments to the Future Land Use Element. 5. Prepare and adopt zoning overlays. 6. Revise the Gateway Triangle stormwater management master plan to reflect improvements proposed in the redevelopment plan and identify funding options. 7. Prepare a design plan for traffic calming on Linwood Avenue. 8. Design Gateway Features and Streetscape Plans. 9. Interconnection of streets within the Gateway Triangle to service the Flex Warehouse/Office Space area. 10. Develop the Neighborhood Focus Initiative for the Bayshore and Shadowlawn Neighborhoods. 11. Proceed with dredging Haldeman Creek and identify funding mechanism. The Planning Staff has discussed the items identified above with the appropriate departments and has prepared a work plan and budget (see attachment A). During the preparation of the work plan it was brought to staff's attention that the Collier County Airport Authority was investigating a CRA for the Immokalee Airport as a mechanism to fund further improvements to the development of the Immokalee Regional Airport and industrial park. Chapter 163 of the Florida Statute allows the establishment of one Community Redevelopment Agency per local unit of government. However, several component redevelopment areas can be established under the CRA. Each component area would have a component redevelopment plan specific to that area's needs and tax increment revenues that are collected can be segregated into sub-accounts for each area. For the past several years, the community of Immokalee has been working together to revitalize the area. The approach has been to look at the community as a whole to build on its strengths and to leverage limited resources. USDA recognized this approach by awarding Immokalee the Federal Enterprise Community designation in 1999. Establishing the urban area of Immokalee, which includes the airport and industrial park, as a component area of the Community Redevelopment Agency will maintain the same holistic approach to revitalization and would provide that community with another funding source to implement the Immokalee Master Plan. The Comprehensive Planning Staff met with the Airport Authority to discuss possible structure of the CRA. The Collier County Airport Authority at their December 13,1999 meeting unanimously adopted a resolution supporting the creation of the Immokalee urban area as a component redevelopment area (see attachment B). FISCAL IMPACT: Funding sources are outlined on the work plan. The majority of tasks can be completed within this year's budget allocations. The remaining tasks will be initiated after the adoption of the CRA Plan, which will include a budget for implementation. Potential funding sources have been identified for currently non- budgeted tasks. Once the CRA is established and tax increment revenues are collected there will be an impact on the General Revenue fund. A portion of the property taxes collected from the component areas will be designated for projects within the component area in which they were collected instead of going to the general revenue fund. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Policy 4.7 of the Future Land Use Element states that the Board of County Commissioners may consider redevelopment plans for several areas including the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle area and Policy II.2.2 of the Immokalee Area Master Plan supports investigating alternative funding sources. The establishment of a Community Redevelopment Agency for these two component areas would meet the policies set forth in the Growth Management Plan. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners accepts the work plan and budget as prepared by staff to establish the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency and to include the Immokalee Community as a component area under the CRA. PREPARED BY: -D~EBRAH PRESTON, AICP PRINCIPAL PLANEER COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION December 14.1999 DATE COMPREHENSIVE ~LANNING MANAGER BOB MULHERE, AICP, ~IRECTOtI.~ ' - PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT DATE DATE JO}~ BOLI~T,¥.E. & P.S.~., DI~:~TOR STOVRM~TER MANA~T DEPT. EDWARD J.'T~, P.E., DIRECTOR TRANSPORT ,~)N SERVICES DEPT. JEFF BIBBY, P.E., DIRECTOR ED ILS R, ADMINISTRATOR PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION AP~ ~:. & VINCENT A. CAUTERO, AICP, ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE AGEi~DA i T Fr..~ JAN 11 2000 Pa. ~' UJ JAN !1 2DO0 ATTACHMENT B RESOLUTION NO. 99-62- THAT THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY SUPPORT THE D~rELOPMENT OF COMMUNITY RE-DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AREA (CRA) WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners has directed County staff to develop a CRA h~ the Bayshore area of Collier County; and WHEREAS, the Authority staff has requested that County staff plans include the Irnmokalee area (including thc airport) as a component area; and WHEREAS, since only one (1) CRA can ~.- established in Collier County, staff recommends that the Airport Authority staff work with the County's staff to have the lmmokalee Regional Airport included in the larger lmmokalee component CRA area; and WHEREAS, this will benefit the Airport Authority in many ways that include a larger "tax increment £inancing" area to generate by including the entire lmmokalee area. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY, to support the development of Community Re-Development Authority Area in lmmokalee. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by affirmative majority w)te of the Collier County Airport Authority this 13th day of December, 1999. DATED: A'I-rEST: Witness COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHOFdTY COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Herb 1~lorer~, C~h~irman GAlL D, HAMBRli~HT Nollry Public, $1ale of Florid~ My comm. expires Aug, Ill, ~o02 Comm. No. ¢CT6856~ AC, EJNk~ A ITEM JAN 11 2000 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPROVAL OF THE MEDIAN LANDSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION AGREEMENT WITH 951 LAND HOLDINGS JOINT VENTURE OBJECTIVE: Obtain Board of County Commissioners approval of the State Road 951 Median Beautification Agreement with 951 Land Holdings Joint Venture for the median landscaping of State Road 951 near the Fiddler's Creek development. CONSIDERATIONS: The Collier County Streetscape Master Plan identifies the State Road 951 segment between Manatee Road and Mainsail Drive for roadway beatification improvements. The original Master Plan schedule calls for this segment to be completed in the FY 07 time frame. 951 Land Holdings Joint Venture ("Fiddler's Creek") has proposed to beautify' approximately .71 miles of median in front of the Fiddler's Creek development (see Attachment 1). This proposed project falls within the Manatee Road to Mainsail Drive segment. The Board discussed the Streetscape Master Plan at their June 19, 1999 budget workshop. During the discussion staff explained that the Fiddler's Creek project was requested but not recommended for County funding but recommended that if 100% private construction funding becomes available the County could consider participating by funding Maintenance of the beautified median. The State Road 951 Median Beautification Agreement is consisteJ~t v, ith irc Juno discussion. i]e proposed State Road 95! Mcdia~ Beatttification Agrecmcnt spccifies that F~ddler's Creek will provide and pay for all costs of landscape design, permitting, utility extension and impact fees, project construction and one year of maintenance following project completion. The project's design does not yet fully incorporate the County's design review comments. As time is of the essence, the parties to the agreement have incorporated the County's design review comments into the agreement for inclusion in the final project construction drawings. Thc County xvill assume responsibility for maintenance one year after project 4. Construction will be substantially complete within 180 days of receipt of the Florida Department of Transportation right-of-way permit. 5. The Agrcetnent is attachcd Ibr review (sec Attachment 2). FISCAl 151PACT: Maintenance costs for this project are not budgeted. Per the AgreemenL the County will be responsible for maintenance of the project commencing one (1) year after project completion. Funds for maintenance will be provided through Road JAN ,PG., , I ,, , Maintenance District 3 and will be incorporated into the FY 01 budget. Annual maintenance for the project is estimated to be between $35,000 and $50,000. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: N/A. RECOMMENDATIONS: That the Board of County Commissioners approve the State Road 951 Median Beautification Agreement and authorize the Chairman to execute the agreement and direct staff to recoici the a~greement in'tl~Pablic Records of Collier County. SUBMMITTED BY' ' DATE: -Edward N. Finn, Operations Director REVIEWED BY[ -, _~~- )~_g_~ DATE: Edward J. Kant, P.E., Transportation Services Director APPROVED BY: Ed Ilschner, Public Works Division Administrator JAN 11 2000 Attachment 1 SR 951 at Fiddler's Creek Landscape Beautification Project. ?ROJ'ECT LOCATION PROJECT LOCATION END PROJECF STA_. M.P. 7.C,65 BEGLN PRO.CT STA_ 26~+45 JAN 1 1 2000 Attachment 2 STATE ROAD 951 MEDIAN BEAUTIFICATION AGREEMENT This State Road 951 Median Beautification Agreement entered into this day of .......... .2000, by and between the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, (herei,~ai\c~' ~ct:e:-red :o as tim "COUNTY"), and Gulf' Bas 100 I,td., a Florida Limited Parmership, by Gulf Bay 1007 Inc. a Florida corporation and its general partner, doing business as 951 Land Holdings Joint Venture, a Florida joint venture, (hereinafter referred to as "OWNER"). Witnesseth: \¥~IEREAS, the OWNER desires to improve certain roadway medians on State Road 951 in order to benefit his development; and WHEKEAS, the COUNTY has a policy of supporting median beautification when it benefits the COUNTY; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY agrees to accept OWNER'S proposal to improve 1.13 square acres of medians within the State of Florida Department of Transportation, State Road 951 road right-of-way; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY has a history of sapporting public-private partnerships sharing the costs of cor,?,ruct!on and maintenance of median improvements with private sector proponents of right- .", OW. Ttt[: a EFORE, the COL~TY and the OWNER, for the consideration and promises herein set forth, agree as follows: TIlE O*¥'NER agree~ to perfom~ all construction work (the "Work" unless specifically limited to "Construction Work") in connection with the Median Beautification Program for State Road 951 (the "Project"), as said Construction Work is set forth in the plans and specifications prepared by Botner Land Design and other contract documents hereinafter specified. ~r'_ t'"T* t%'x ' ] .(7.ON?_R/XCT_I).QC U_~___E_NT_S_ The contract documents consist of the Agreement and the Exhibits described in Section 5 hereof (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Contract Documents"). All of the foregoing Contract Documents are incorporated by reference and made a part of this Agreement. SECTION 2. SCOPE OF WORK g. OWNER :~g:'ees to provide and pay for all costs of landscape design and permitting services, provided in furtherance of this Agreement and will obtain a Florida Department of Transportation Right-of-Way Permit. JAN I I 2000 B. O'¢,~'ER agrees to furnish and pay for all management, supervision, financing, labor, materials, tools, fuel, supplies, utilities, equipment and services of every kind and type necessary to diligently, timely and fully perform and complete in a good and workmanlike manner the Work required by the Contract Documents. C. O~,~ER agrees to furnish and pay for all management, supervision, financing, labor, materials, tools, fuel, supplies, utilities, equipment and services of every kind and type necessary to diligently, timely and fully perform and complete in a good and workmanlike manner one year's Maintenance Service to the Work required by the Contract Documents as noted in Article 3A, 3B, and 3C. D. COU~NTY will allow irrigation connections to the County's water main located on SR 951 with said connections made at no cost to the County and impact fees paid by OWNER in accordance with Ordinance No. 97-48 as amended. E. COL~'NTY agrees to furnish and pay for all management, supervision, financing, labor, materials, tools, fuel, supplies, utilities, equipment and services of every kind and type necessary to diligently, timely and fully perform and complete in a good and workmanlike manner, Maintenance Service to the Work required by the Contract Documents, in perpetuity and commencing one year after completion of installation by Owner as noted in Article 3A, 3B, and 3C. SEC~i'ION 3. CONTRACT TIME A. l'b~:- Cc;n.:truction Work shall l~o z~,bstantially complete within one hundred and cigi:ty (180) calendar days from the date that the Florida Department of Transportation Right-of-Way Permit is received by COUNTY and provided to OWNER. The date of completed and final acceptance of the Construction Work will be cstablished by the COUNTY's project manager ,xhen construction is fitlly completed in accordance with the Contract Documents for the use for which it is intended. Within ten (10) d,vs of OV~.~ER's notitication to COUNTY's p~'oject manager that the improvements are substantially complete, the project manager shall grm~t final acceptance or notify OWNER of any deficiencies. B. The Maintenance Services shall begin upon final acceptance of the Construction Work by tl~z (-,°4 ~.5 .r\~'$' ;,~c.:..:c' ~a,~:~.:r :~.d shall be pr:.,, ided by the OWNER for a period of one year from lh~ da~e of lh~al acccptm;ce. C. When any period of time is referenced by days herein, it shall be computed to exclude the first dav and include the last day of such period. If the last day of any such period falls on a Saturday or Stmd~b ..~r o.~ :: ~:,' made a lega! holiday hv the !aw o~' thc applicabl~ jurisdiction such day shall be omitted form the computation, and the last day shall become the next succeeding day which is not a Saturdav. Sunday or legal holiday or Sunday or on a day made a legal holiday by the law of the apphcabic jurisdiction, such da3 ~hall be ormttcd from thc computation m~d thc last da3' shall bcco~ne the next succeeding day which is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. SECTION 4. EXHIBITS INCORPORATED The following documents are expressly agreed to be incorporated by reference and made a part of this Agreement: Exhibit A: E dfibit B: Exhibit C: Exhibit D: Insurance Requirements Genmal Maintenance Schedule Construction Work Plans and Specifications County Design Review Requirements SECTION 5. NOTICES A. All notices required or made pursuant to this Agreement by the OWNER to the COUNTY shall be made in writing and delivered by hand or by United States Postal Service Department first class mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the following: Transportation Services Director Collier County Government Center 3301 Tamiami Trail East Naples, Florida 34112 B. All notices required or made pursuant to this Agreement by the COUNTY to OWNER shall be made in writing and shall be delivered by hand or by United States Postal Service Department, first class mail, postage rwepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the following: 951 Land Holdings Joint Venture Attn: Aubrey J. Fen'ao and John Hayes 4001 Tamiami Trail North Suite 350 Naples, Florida 34103 With a copy to: Joseph Livio Parisi, Esq. 4001 Tamiami Trail North ,q ?it~ 350 N:tp,,.~, F~olida '~4103 C. Either party may change its above-noted address by giving written notice to the other party in accordance with the requirements of this section. SECTION 6. MODIFICATION No n:odifi,:ation or change ~o this Agreement shall be 'valid or binding upon the parties unie~,s in writing and executed by the party or parties intended to be bound by it. JAN 11 2000 SECTION 7. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS Subject to other provisions hereof, the Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the parties to the Agreement. SECTION 8. INDEMNIFICATION. In consideration of ten dollars ($10.00), the receipt and sufficiency of which is accepted through the execution of this Agreement by its authorized signatory below, the OWNER shall protect, defend, indemnify and hold the COUNTY and its employees and agents harmless from and against any and all losses, penalties, damages, professional fees, including attorney fees and all costs of litigation and judgments arising out of any willful misconduct or negligent act, or error or omission of the OWNER, its agents or employees arising out of or incidental to its performance under this Agreement. SECTION 9. GOVERNING LAW The Agreement shall be interpreted under, and its performance govemed by, the laws of the State of Florida. SECTION 10. NO WAIVER The failure of either party to enforce at any time or for any period of time any one or more of the provisioa-', of t~¢ .S~recn~ent shall ~ot be construed to be and sha]! not be a waiver of any such provision or provisions or of its right thereafter to enforce each and every such provision. SE(.'!'ION 11 · ENTIRE AGREEMENT Each of the parties hereto agrees and represents that this Agreement comprises the full and entire agreement betwcen the parties affecting the Work contemplated, and no other agreement or understanding or any nature concerning the same has been entered into or will be recognized, and that all negotiations, acts, work performed, or payments made prior to the execution hereof shall be deemed merged in, integrated and superseded by this Agreement. Should any provision of the Agreement be determined by a court to be unenforceable, such a determination shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any other section or part thereof. 4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the date(s) indicated below. ~E AS TO OWN _R: ~gn,.~, Scaled ,m,; , ~¢.livcred In the Presence of: 951 LAND HOLDINGS JOINT VENTURE B3: Gu!f Bay 100, LTD.; By: Gulf Bay 100, Inc., its general partner WITNESSES: (Printed Name): By: Aubrey J. Ferrao Its: as President and not individually (Printed Name): AS TO COU.~TY: ATTEST: Dwight E. Brock, Clerk B,.': ................................. Approved :~s :o tb~n~' and Legal sufficiency; BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: Thomas C. Palmer, Assistant County Attorney 1 2000 Exhibit A Collier County Florida Insurance Reouirernents INSURANCE TYPE REQUIRED LIMITS Workers' Compensation Statutory Limits of Florida Statutes Chapter 440 & alt Federal Government Statutory Limits and Requirements. Policy must include Employers Liability with a limit of $1,000,000 each accident. X 2. Commercial General Liability (Occurrence Form) patterned after the 1985 I.S.O. form with no limiting endorsements. Bodily Iniurv & Property Damaae $1,000.000 Single Limit Per Occurrence Watercraft Liability coverage shall be carried at the limits shown above if applicable to the completion of the work under this Agreement. _X__ AppIicable __ Not Applicable X indemnifit;a:ion' The Con:ractorA,'eador, in considei'ation of One r-lundrea ©oilazs t$~,00.00), the receipt and sufficiency of which is accepted through the signing of ti.;s ~ccument, shall hold harmiess and defend Cofiier Ccunty and its agents and employees from all suits and actions, including attorney's fees and all costs of litigation and judgments of any name and description arising out of or incidental to ;he perfo,"rnance of this contract or work pedormed thereunder. This provision shall aisc per-tain to any claims brought against the County by an employee of the named Contractor,%'endor. any Subccnfractor, or anyone directly or indirectly employed by any of them. The Contractor/vendor's obligation under this provision shall not be limited in any way by the agreed upon contract price as shown in this Contract or the Contractor/Vendor's limit of, or lack of, sufficient insurance protection. The first One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) or money received on the contract price is -''? "" 0~ ;--;~¢--~,j ~,:...- :,,-¢ . th;s obligation bv +.he Count'.., 4. Automobile Liabiiity $ 500.000 Owned/Non-owned/Hired Automobile Included 5. Other Insurance as indicated below: 2' Professiona! Liability $ N/A o) B~iider's Risk $ N/A Each Occurrence JAN 11 Z000 Collier County Florida Insurance Requirements (Continued) Contractor shall insure that all subcontractors comply with the same insurance requirements that he is required to meet. The same contractor shall provide the County with certificates of insurance meeting the required insurance provisions. ~..-,,,',' United States Longshoreman's and Harborworker's Act coverage shall be maintained v,,'nere ap31icabte to the completion of the work. X Applicable ~ Not Applicable (B) Maritime Coverage (Jones Act) shall be maintained where applicable to the completion of the 'work. X Applicable ~ Not Applicable X X X X Collier county must be named as "ADDITIONAL INSURED" on the Insurance Certificate for Commercial General Liability. Coltier County Board of County Commissioners shall be named as the Certificate Hoider. NOTE: The "Certificate Holder" should read as follows: Collier Co~Jnt¥ Boa~d of County Commissioners 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 9. Thirty (30) Days Cancellation Notice is required. 13. The Certificate must state the Bid Number and Title. BIDDER'S AND INStlRANCE AGENT STATEMENT: We understand the insurance requirements contained in these specifications, and that the evidence of said insurance may be required within five (5) business days of the award of bid. Bidder Insurance Agency Signature of Bidder Signature of Bidder's Agent JAN t 1 2u09 i ..... -- J 1 2000 VClll:IO"hI S.qllINI3.IAI~OD XVlt ATClD O0+~'LZ: 'V£S HNI~ HDI.V~ 00+08Z: 'VJ.$ aN].'] HDJ. V~ JAN II 2000 ~. O0+_<'8g 'V.LS :~[I."l HD£V]~I 00+06~ 'VJ.S ~u'qI"I Ho£vr~ ' I O0+gSE 'V.I.S ~Ni'! HD£V¢/ 00+00£ 'VJ~S RNIIq HD. LVIaI 004 cgr 'Vi? ~qN/q H~DJ.V-fg JAN 11 2000 ~. 0~ ~.cC4 '¥.LS KNI~ HD.LVIN O0+OI ~ 'V&S KNIq HDiVIN t 00+50~ 'Viis ~u~]q HD.LVIN JAN 11 2000 [ ~._ lA 0[_ $:~LON '$'IIV£3(I 'JLSFI J24V"I4 AG" JAN 1 ! 2000 ~OtlZNO~ NOISO~R $~tIilNfB4I~OD X¥fl ~I'LflO I5611S - >I2IR-~ID $,~I5FI(I(II2I JAN 1 1 2000 V(I:PSO'I:I 'STI'ISVN $~II&INDIa~OD J~V[t :IWID 00+g£~5 0~+69~; 'VJ.$ ~.NI'-I HDZVISI 00+08~5 'VIS ~N. FI HDJ .! SNV'-I8 NOI. IF.VDPS'8I VOI'8.01~ 'SHISVN SRLL~O3 XV~ 'VAS RNI~I HDJ. VI~ O0+Ogg 'VIS HNYI HDJ. VI41 00+06~ 'VAS HNI'I HDiVI~ SNV'IcI NOLLVDI"4~ VtlIk[O"I4' '$7I'I,tVN $~alJ. INI314INOD XVft :ITClD I~6~$ - 2q~WfD S,~WI(I(IId 00+56~: 'V£S tNI"I HD£VIAI 00+06~5 'V£S 5NIq HD£VI~ 00+00£ 'VIIS ~Iq HDZVIN ~.~pJc, AN..?i? ~ 7.000 SNVqd NOILVDPg'dI O0+gOg 'V~L$ BIKFI H31.VIAt 00'+00£ 'VI! KN]'I HD£V~I 00+01 g 'v£~ O0+gO£ 'V J2 HNIq HDI~I $~t,LON ~' $"IIV£E(I N. OI,LVDD{"~ ¥Cl~IO"kl '$~I"I~¢N $~{LL~OD X¥~t JAN 1 1 21]ao V(II~tO"L:I '$~"IdWN - ~ , - l~ii! t~6~s-3xa~ s,ua~ttm~t i ,,i:h: lilili, d, ,,~ ,i ; ill I'~ i, ,' ':i .l ' ,II r,','' l~i~!, il ~ ~'.~ / '; pm,ali il~i l II , I - I .mm.l~..,d f ~, ,',- ~ '"; i''~ ,: ~'~.. ~i ~ I I1'. I .,Il __~Z' _ ' · lil ':i" ~ '~ ~,1 : ':ii i 1:1 ;'l I ii:| I I:l'I I - ~[1 : I : ~ lil,:,l, Il 4ill! ::,i,~,4: · I ' ,]I' .. II L ~ l:i, :l!:,,::li:, l ll~l ~l 'ih i .....l'' ' II I = !i',il i:i. I: Il I /1: / III;I i ii[[ Ii ,1 , l ?: : I'[I II ti :lI ' I-I:l ,I.:i,, ~ ,.1 '.l ' II: I ~ ,,,, ,: :,::, ,: ::::, ,I tl I ~ lllll t', I ill ii il :i il I I, "[ ' .t,lt II '1 '[ .i ~ / .... ll~'. II Illhl i: I- I; I i ' ~ I:i /I il ul~ .!g,.: 'i ,. i:| t I II 't' ~' ~ ,,~. ~,1 I I I: ~ /:,~~] ]hh:, l I ill '"4111 ,. I I1 litI ~1 n l ~ i:[}1111 ~I '1:1t .T I I I I ~ ,,a',.r I,,,1,~,1~/,,,1,~,1 /1111 ~t1111 JAN 1 1 2089 [.CCtIS - >I~[~[D S,H~FI(IGIJ 1 --.Pl Ii · i :i :l~ :l:l Il ~]Ii t-, ': i: ill ,;: lJi]l/!I : ..ii i {-I .iii{il Jill JAN 1! .2- ;6- Division LI-1 L[-2 L[-3 LI-4 LI-5 LI-6 LI-7 LI-$ L[-9 LI-10 LI-II LI-12 LI-13 L[-14 LI-15 LI-16 LI-17 Ll-18 Ll-19 SPECI3-i CATIO NS LANDSCA.PE A.ND [R.R/GATION WOi:LK TABLE OF CONTENTS Part I - General Scope Quality Asva.rance Job Conditiona Submit~ls Delivery, Storage and Clean-up Ivf. ainte v,a ace Completion and Accetxance Warra. n~' Part 2 l',lateHals Topsoil Backfill Soil Mix'lu. re Fertilizer Mulch Plant Materials Guying and Staldng Materifls Ant/-Desiccant Herbicides Tr~ Wound Dressing Ed,~ing SR 9.51 FIDDLER'S CREEK LANDSCAPE BOTNER LANq2) DESIGN 6-1 6-1 6-! - 6-2 6-2 6-2 - 6-3 6-3 - 64 64' 64 - 6-5 6-5 6-5 6-5 - 6-6 6-6 6-6 - 64 6-$ 6-8 6-$ SECTION 6 SPECflqCATIONS LA.NDSC~E AND DLRIGATION WOPd< TABLE OF CONTENTS - CONTEl-tiED Division LI-20 LI-21 L[-22 LI-23 L[-24 L[-25 LI Super Absorbent Polymer Part a - Exeeutlo,:, Coordination of Work C~ n:ral Prq:~-ation Soil Preparation E:dsting Vegetation Tree, Shrub and Ground Cover Planting Basiz of' Pa~Tncnt ~ Numb~ r 6-9 6~9 6-9 6-I0 6-I0 -6-12 6-12 SR 951 FIDDLER'S CREEK LANDSCAPE BOTNER LAND DESIGN SECTION 6 PART I LI-1 Li-l.1 LI-2 LI-2. I LI-2.2 LI-2.3 L[-2.4 L[-3 LI-3.1 LI-3.2 L1-3.3 L1-3.4 GENE R_,~L DD,'I'SION LI - L&,NDSCkPE kN'D EI:LPUGATION WORK SCOPE the Ia:'. -al_scape work a~'xd rela:cd work as indicated on the &-awi~,gs dr, d Spool. fi=dons. QUALITY A_S S U R.a~N C E Instal!er OualLqcadon. s: lnx',aller s..h_~?[ be a firm specia!izing in lands,~ work u-i~ not less than five (5))'ears of ex'periea~ it,.smiling land. scape work on proj~Ls similar in scale to ti'ds proj~t. G:neraI: Sh/p landscaFx: ma:e,'-ials v,-i~ certLSca:cs oCi:4.~-%tion r%uir-~.d b;.' £ovc,x:!r:g aud:orides Comp!?' ',',ilk re~malatior3 appIimble to landscape mat:rials. Grades and Standards: All plant material Cam[shed by the (;.O,N"tC~{CTOA other'.else specified sb. at[ be Florida NO. I or better in accordance ,Mth "GP,.A.DES A_N~D STA.N'DA.P,D$ FOR. N'LFR.SEP, Y PLANTS", parts 1 and 2, published by Flor/d.a Department or' A..m-tc-cIrure, Db.[stoa or'Plant Industry. Gaiae~ille, Florida. health.',', ,,-igorous stock., ~ro',vn in r~:o~'dzed nursery' standards in accordance ,,,,'[th gocd horticultural pra:'dce and t"r~ ot"d/s.~a.se, in_~..~.ts, eggs, lar,'ae and der~ts such as k~ou, sun sca!~ injuries, abra~[on& or d2s-'figurement. Anab'sis and Standards: Package rtandard products ,Mth rnanu.,racmrer's certi.fi, ed analysis. For other materials, pro','id¢ a-L~lysis by r~og:rd, zed laboratory made in azcordance with me~c,d.s er,.ablish~,.~, by L-he ~[a:ion of Official Agric-ul~,'e Cherrdst& v,'her~'er applicable. JOB CONDITIONS Exam[haL[on ors[tee Thc bidder must acknov.'lcdge that he las examined the she, plans and sFccLqc, atior,...q and the submission ora quotation s~l[ be considered evidence that cxamina:ions have b~-~a made. bidder shaIl ver-fiy a,,'ailabili~' o," materials prior to sub~ttaI oFb[a_ Field Cond./dons: 'I-h,e CONTRACTOR s,h2.II veri~' d.,-a~,'ing dimen, siorz v, iL,h acmz/ fieId condJtiov, s and ir,.sF'ecx reined--x/work and adjarent surfa=s. T"r',: CO.%"F?~-*.CTO., shall reb-oa to the Lan~-caTe A. rci'dt-~ all con~tioas ~'bJch p'~'er, proT. er ex,utica of 6-{ SR 951 FIDDLER'S CREEK LANDSCAPE BOTNER LAND DESIGN LI-3.5 LI-3.6 L[-4 LI4.1 LI--4.2 LI-5 LI-5. l LI-5.2 LI-5.3 LI-5.4 LI-5.$ Utilities: Underground structures shown on the Plans are according to the best available irff'ormatiort, but it shall be the responsibility of the CONTRACTOR to acquaint themselves ',,5th the exa,t kxsz, tier, and !o avoid cor,.flict ,~-i,~ all ex/st:n/; Hand excavate, as required. The CONTRACTOR shall protect existing structures and utility services and be responsible for their replacement il'damaged by him. The CONTRACTOR shall verify, the accuracy of all finish grades v, ithn the ~'ork area. Maintain grade stakes set by others until removal is mutually a~eo:t upon by parties concerned SUBMITTALS Certification: Submit certificates of inspection as required t~' goverrm~ental author/ties. Submit manufacturer's or vendors certified analysis for soil amendments and fertilizer mater/als. Subnfit other data substantiating that materials comply Mth s~-cified requirements, when applicable. The successful bidder shall submit a representative sample of each .~ of plant material to be supplied to the job. The representative ,sample may be either a photo or an actual plant. Photos must be provided for each inct/vidual specimen tree, including any tree over 15' in height. The photos m~t I:~ taken from t~'ee :dsffererd angles t~ ~!:o, 'thc appearance of the tree from tl'u'ee sides. DELI~'ERY~ STORAGE AND CLEAN-UP PacLa~ Materials: Deliver packaged materials in containers sho~mg weigh, ana!Z, si5 and name of manufacturer. Protect materials from deterioration during deriveD', and ~vhile stored at site. Protection During Transportation: Ail plant material shall be protected from foliage and ~rk injury or breakage ofbranches. All plants transported by open trucks shall be adequately covered to prevent wine[bum, drying or damage to plants. All palm trunks shall be adequately supported so as not to damage their root balls or buds. Use of Anti<tesiccant: When at an)' time between the operations of dig~ng and completion of planting a plant is to be ex-posed to ,,,,'in& sun. or doing conditions --- or specifically when the time ofplanting is unseasonal --- it shall be treated Mth the anti- desiccant specified, in accordance vdth the manufacturer's directions. Wilting. drying or sun scald shall be considered reason for plant rejection. Do not drop balled and burlapped stock during delivery. If balled plants are dropped or othcmis¢ nfishandles, or if the root I>alls are broken pr/or to planting, thc plant may be rejected by the Landscape Architect. Deliver field grown trees and shrubs after preparations for planting have been completed and plant immediately. If planting is delayed more than four(4) hours after deliveD', set trees and shrubs in shade, protect from weather and mechanical damage, and keep roots moist by covering with mulch, burlap or other acceptable means of'protection from do-ing ~'ind and sun. All plants shall be watered as necessary until planted. Storage per/od shall not exceed 72 hours. The CONWRACTOR will assume res~nsibili~ for unplantcd materials on site at all times and under an.',' circumst2nccs 6-2 (LI) SR 951 FIDDLER'S CREEK LANDSCAPE BOTNER LAND DESIGN LI-5.6 LI-5.7 LI-6 LI-6.1 LI4.2 LI-7 LI-7.1 LI-7.2 L1-7.3 LI-7.4 Do not prune trees or shrubs prior to delivery unless otherv,'ise approved by Landscape Architect. Do not bend or bind-tie trees or shrubs in suc?~ a n:an:,'..r a., to damage break branches or destroy natural shape. Clean-up: The CONTRACTOR shall keep the prendses free from accumulation of waste material, soil, and/or rubbish caused ID' Ns employees or work. CO~WFRACTOR shall arrange his material storage so as to not interfere with the operation of the project. CONTRACTOR shall clean behind Ns work immediately and shall take necessary precautions to keep concrete, brick and other pawing material cla'm of soil. This shall ~ :c!ude the t,~e immediately and all debris and excess soii removed from the site. eohould the CONTRACTOR fail to keep the premises in a clean satisfactory condition, the O~&qNER resen'es the fight to hire appropriate personnel to perform clean-up v,'ork and back charge the CON'I-R.ACTOR for all cost~ incurred. 5L4INTENANCE Begin maintenance of plants upon delivery to the site. Ail plants shall be maintained ID' CON'TRACTOR until final acceptance Maintain trees, paints, shrubs and other plants by watefing, pruning, cuhivating and 'aeed. ing :as req:,dre~ for h~khv D'o',v~h. Al! planting ar~s must be ,,veed-fr~ at thc time of final acceptance. Restore planting saucers. Tighten and repair stake and guy supports and reset trees and sh/ubs to proper grades or vertical position as required. Spray as required to keep trees and skmbs free of insects and disease. COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE Completion of thc work shall mean the full and exact compliance and conformity with the pro,Asions expressed or implied in the drawin~ and specifications, and associated change orders. The acceptability of all material, workmanship, labor and compliance ~-ith the specifications, grades and standards shall be solely determined by the Landscape Architect. Right to Reject: Thc Landscape Archit<t shall have the fight, at an)' stage of thc work. to reject an)' and all work and materials which, in his opinion, does not meet thc requirements of thc plans and specifications. Rejected matefia[ shall be immecLiatch' removed from the site and acceptable material substituted in its place. Substantial Completion: Upon notLfication by the CONTRACTOR that the installation is complete, the Landscape Architect ;alii perform a substantial completion si:e obsep.'ation to determine if the CONTRACTOR has completed the work in accordance with the plans and specifications. Ir'final acceptance is not given, the Landscape Architect ,,,,'ill prepare a "punch list". The notification by the CONq"t:LACTOR must be made at least three (3) working days before the anticipated substantial completion site observation. 6-3 (LI) SR 951 FIDDLER'S CREEK LANDSCAPE BOTNER LAND DESIGN LI-7.5 LI-8 LI-8.1 LI-8.2 Ll-8.3 Ll-8.4 Ll-8.5 L1-$.6 Final Acceptance: Upon notification by the CONTRACTOR that all defects have been corrected the Landscape Arch. itect will ix:from a final site observation. Final acceptance will be gb, en upon satisfactory co~npletion of'ail ~rk, ir~c',u&ng "~.:..nch list" items, The notification by CO,WTR_&CTOR must Ix: made at least thr~ (3) xvork~ng days before the anticipated final site obser~'ation. WARRANTY All plant material (trees, palms, shrubs, ground covers, etc.) and planting supplies (edgin~ etc.) skall be.warranted for a period of not less-than one ),ear from the date of cumpletion orthe land.s~w insta',lation, ',d~h :he e,zcpt,~n o~'t!:'~ h~rgc ~-, ,-,:';men L%~25, which shall be v,'arranted for 2 years from the date of completion. The specimen t,'ees will be noted on the plans. Landscape wkich was installed ih accordance with the drawings and specLfi~tior~s and is damaged or destroyed th. rough vandalism, theft or traffic, shall be replaced by the CONTRACTOR at the CONTI:L&CTOR'S expense thsou~ the construction peric<l and until final acceptance. Subsequent to final acceptance by the Landscape Architect, the OW2xrER shall be responsible for the maintenance of the landscaping It .~hali be undcrs:o,~:~ tb..~t ir:. accordance with the terms of the warranty the CONTRACTOR must promptly infonm the OV,~R i.f prop:r maintenance is not being £Y,'e~ to the in.,'~',!a'io,,. lns~'ctions by COND.u&CTOR of the job shall be made during the warrant' pc',!oct to determine ff proper maintenance is being given. The CONTRACTOR shall provide a written report on the condition of the plant material each month for the first 3 months following final acceptance. After the 3 month period, the CONTRACTOR shall provide a report on a quarterly basis thsough the remaining warranty period. The report shall be ~b~tted to the C~.vner, with a cop3' to the Landscape Architect. At the end of'the v,'artanty period, inspections shall be made jointly by the OWNER, Landscape Architect and CONTRACTOR. All plants not in a healthy growing condition shall be removed and replaced with plants ora like kind and size, except for defects resulting from neglect ~' OWN'ER, abuse or damage by others, or unusual phenomena or incidents which are beyond CONTRACWOR'S control. All replacement stock shall be subject to the same warranty requirements as the original stock An)' damage due to replacement operations shall be repaired by the CONTRACTOR. PART 2 LI-9 LI-9.1 MATERIALS QUANTITIES All quantities indicated on thc plans are intend'cd as a guide for the BIDDERS and docs not reiieve thc BIDDER of his responsibility to do a comprehensive plant take-off. 64 (LI) SR 951 FIDDLER'S CREEK LANDSCAPE BOTNER LAND DESIGN ~"'" rT£ Lb9.2 LI-IO LI-IO.I LI-i0.2 LI-10.3: L[-IO.4 LI-11 LI-I !. i LI-11.2 Ll-12 LI-12.1 LI-12.2 After receipt of bids, prices for any' quantities added to or deleted from the bid schedule by the Landscape Architect will be negotiat~ bet~een the CO,'~ ,'2T,_&CTOR and OWlq'ER. TO~O~ For all landscape areas, the CONTRACTOR shall pro',4& and install topsoil as defined on .the drawings or within the contract bid forms. drained site. It shall be without admixtm'e of subsoil or clay and sluall be free of stones, lumps, sticks, plants or their roots, tox. ic substances or other extraneous matter that may be harmful to plant gro~vth or would interfere with future maintenance. Topsoil shall contain at just t~vo percent (2%) oforgarfic matter and shall have a pH range of 7.0 - 8.2. Soil testing: The CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for has4ng topsoil tested. Representative samples are to be tested for acidi .ty, fertiliD' and general composition by a recognized corru-nercial or go~,crmncnt agen%'. The CONqR.~.Cq'OR shall furn~sl'~ one, (1) coD' of' the soil analysis and recommended amendments (to meet the desired pH, nutritional and organic levels d,:ter-mined to be adequate for the a:ea) crep,qrc.~Z ~. tl~e testing agency, to the Landscape A.rcNtect prior to application of any amendments or fertilizer. BACKFILL SOIL MEKTURE CO~'¢rRACTOR shall provide back:fill soil mixture for all trees, shrubs and ground covers. Backfill mixture: 80% - Topsoil (existing soil, il'acceptable, or topsoil pro~'ided by' CONTRA. CTOR). 20% - Planting Soil amendments, which shall consist of 50% peat and 50% composted pine bark fines. FERTILIZER For trees, palms, shrubs and ground covers the CONTRACTOR shall provide and install fertilizer. All fertilizers shall be uniform in composition, free flo~ving and suitabie, for %:.pli~tion ID' mechanical spreader equipment. Fertilizers shall be delivered to the site fully labeled according to applicable State Fertilizer Laws. The follovdng iru"ormation shall be shown on the fertilizer bag or pack,age or on a tag: Name and address of manufacturer. 6-5 (LI) SR 951 FIDDLER'S CREEK LANDSCAPE BOTNER LAND DESIGN LI-12.3 L[-13 LI-13. I LI-14 LI-14.1 L[-14-2 LI-14-3 LI-14.4 Name, brand or trademark. ret pounds of ready ~xed material in the package, 4. ' Chemical composition or analysis. 5. Guarantee of analysis. Ifa brand or grade of fertilkzer is delivered in the Ntlk, a written statement ha~4ng the above listed information must accompany each load. Fertilizer FonnulaGon: Trees, shrubs, and ground covers shall have a 844 analysis fertilizer containing a minimum of 2% magnesium, 2% ~=ter soluble magnesium, 2% mangenese, 2% iron, and quantities of other secondaries. A m/n/mum of 4.85 units shall be slow release nitrogen and 2.45 urdts slow release potash. Palms shall have 13-3-13 analysis fertilizer containing a minimum of 5% maom'tesium, 5% water soluble magnesium, 1.5% manganese, 1.5% iron, and other secondaries. A minimum of 4.85 units shall be slow release nJtrogen and 2.45 units slow release potash. No substitutic~ shall be made without noti2':~:ior, to and ~ccepc~n:.e b.v ,he Landscape Architect. The COBF[-RACTOR shall submit, fertilize, iabelg to the Landxcape Architect, defitting the guaranteed analysis of the proposed substitution. MULCH Mulch material shall be the type and grade as indicated on the drawings. Mu/ch shall be ora relative un. ff'orm particle size, and shall be flee of sticks, ston~, leaves, weed seed and any other debris. PLANT MATERIALS Summary of'Materials Lists: An itemized list of plats is shown on the drawings and complete requirements for these plants are part of these specifications. Slx~cies and variety as specified on the drawin~ and delivered to the site shall be certified true to their genus, species and variety and as defined witNn the current edition of International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants issued by the International Union of Biological Sciences. Plants shall be nursery grown unless otherwise approved by Landscape Arc,h. itect and snail be of varieties specified in the plant list bearing botanical names. Planting stock snail be well-branched and well-formed, sound, vigorous, health)', flee from disease, sun-sca[e, windburn, abrasion, weeds, and harraful ins~.ts or and shall have healthy, normal, unbroken root systems. Trees shah be s-?'rc='-ne~.ricaity 6-6 (LD SR 931 FIDDLER'S CREEK LANDSCAPE BOTNER LANT) DESIGN LI-14.5 L[-14.6 LI-14.7 LI-14.8 LI-14.9 devclo[:cxt, of uniform habit of growth, v, ith straig.ht trunks or sterns, and free from objectionable disfi~Jrements or scars. Cofitainer-grown trees, shrubs and ground covers shall have sufficient root growth to hold earth intact ,,,,'hen removed from the container and shall not be root-bound. Railed and burlapped plants OB&B) shall be dug with firm natural balls of earth of sufficient diameter and depth to encompass the fibrous an feeding root system necessary for full recovery ofthe plan.ts. Balls stroll be firmly wrapped with burlap or similar rrtate~i~!s ~nd ¥~un4 with ~'ine, cord or w/re mesh. ,~11 collected planls shall be balled and bdr I ap.c~.zd Palms: Only a minimum of fronds shall be removed from the crov, an of the palm to facilitate moving and handling, with the exception of s,abal palms, which st-mil be cigar cut. Clear trunk (c.t.) measurement shall be to the base of the bud. Sabal palm boob and burns shall be removed except as otherwise directed. Sabal palms shall be taken from moist soils. All moving of palms shall be in accordance with the provisioms for HeaD, Trunk Palms a~ described in "Florida Grades and Standards for NurseD' Plants", Part II. All palms shall be tied and/or braced to protect the bud(s). Plants shall have been gro~m under climatic cop,&ttions similar ~o those :.- t:,:: lc,. ::,et) the project. Plants budding into leaf or ha',ing soft growth shall be sprayed ~,,ith an anti- desiccant at the nurseo' before ~jalitv and Size Habit and growth shall be normal for the species and shall meet or exceed the measurements specified in the plant list. which are the minimum acceptable sizes. Measurement shall be performed before pruning vdth branches in normal position. Any necessary pruning shall be done at the time of plardng with the approval of the Landscape Architect. 6 7. Where measurements are called out as a range in the plant list (e.g., I0-12') the average height of the total of'all such specified trees shall fall at the middle of the range (e.g., 11'). The number of plants that are smaller than the average shall not exceed the number that are larger that the average. Plants larger that specified may Ix: used if approved by the Landsca~ Architect, but the use of such plants shall not increase the Contract price. The size of container or root ball for larger plants shall be increased in proportion to the size of the plant. Clear trunk height as specified shall be measured from finished grade to the first major branch or fork in the trunk. All trees are to be single trunk, unless specified as multi-trunk in the p[ar~t list. Trees must have structurally sound branching habits, with or conflicting branches. SR 951 FIDDLER'S CREEK LANDSCAPE BOTNER LANqD DESIGN LI-14.10 LI-14.11 LI-!5 LI-15,1 LI-16 LI-16.1 LI-16.2 LI-17 LI-17.1 LI-17.2 LI-18 LI-18.1 S ubs t i tyt i,a_~q: Plant substitution requests by the CONTRACTOR will be considered ~' tb.e Landscape Architect only upon submission of proof that any plant is not an obtainable size and varie .ry. The Landscape Architect shall determine the nearest equivalent replacement in an obtainable size and variety. ffcontract ts based on unit costs, the unit prim of the subst,::_.tc itc':, s.*'.at! :~ot exceed the bid item replaced, unless authorized ~' Landscape Architect. Insl:xx:tion: The Land. scape Architect may inspect trees and shrubs either at place of growth or at site before planting, for compliance with requirements for genus, species, variety, size and quality. Landscape Architect retains right to further inspect tr~s and shrubs for size and condition of balls or root ~,stems, insects, injuries and latent defects, and to reject unsatisfactory or defective material at any time during progress of work. GUYING AND STAKING MATERL,kLS and staldng materials sh:dl be as in,Sicated on the planting det~;~s. ANTI-DESICCANT Anti-desiccant shall be "Wilt-Pruf" or approved equal, delivered in manufacturer's unopened containers and used in accordance with manufacturer's instructions. Anti-desiccant shall be an emulsion that ,,viii pro,,ide a film over plant surfaces permeable enough to permit transpiration, and not damage the plant. HERBICIDES Herbicides used must comply v,ith ali applicable State and Federal laws and Ix: registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.. Herbicide control shall be: Pre-emergence application of "Trcflan 5% Granules" or equivalcnt, applied according to manm'acturer's recommendations and incorporat~ into soil as specified. Pos-t-emergence application of"Roundup" or equ. ivalent, applied as :,~< k~< by manufacturer. Spray 'Mth ex'treme care to avoid contact with lan~cape plantings. TREE WOUND DRESSING Tree wound dressing shall be a black asphalt-base antiseptic paint. 64 (LI) SR 951 FIDDLER'S CREEK LANDSCAPE BOTNER LAND DESIGN JAN I 1 2 01] LI-19 LI-19.1 LI-20 LI-20.1 LI-20.2: EDGENG Edo~nc,. ~ ~ shall 1:~ a spec/.Fied on the pl~s and shall ~ one of~e fo/lo~ffng: 1. Rye~n 4" x 1/8" ~1 ~ag ~ Rye~% C~go, IlHnois (312) 762-2121. 2. ~-~te ~n~ ~ag G~d ~pi~, ~c~ (616) 878-3845. 3. I" x 4" Ben~r Bo~d of ~d new Sou~em ~ne. S~ER ~SO~ENT ~L~ER ~d~ s~l ~ ~ ~ on ~e pla~ ~d s~l ~ one of~e follo~ing: I. A~ Mend 2. Te~ ~ Material to ~ appli~ a~r~ng to ~n~acmrer's r~en~tio~. PART 3 LI-21 LI-21. I L[-22 LI-22. I LI-22.2 LI-22.3 LI-23 LI-23.1 LI-23.2 EXECUTION Coordination of Work The CON'TRACTOR shall be responsible for complete coordination ofplanting operations with the other Contractors on the.job. Repair of damage to plants, grades, lay, vas, etc., during installation shall not be considered as an extra, and not be :harged to the OWNER_ Damage caused by other Contractors will be the responsibility of said CONTRACTOR_ General Preparation Prior to beginning the work of tkis section, verify that rough grading and site preparation have been properly completed. CONTRACTOR shall remove minor residual debris from the site and provide a fin/shed grade that is in conformance with the plans. Eradicate any weed growth in all landscape planting areas prior to planting operations. Soll Preparation CONTRACTOR shall excavate all limerock, compacted subgrade or any other deleterious material from all land. scape are. as, and replace excavated material with acc~4.able topsoil. Any compacted fill or subgrade must be pierced th. rough ccmpIetely to allow for percolation and drainage. Additional soil amendments shall be added in the amounts and areas as indicated on the plans. Soil amendments shall be thorough'fly tilled in with the existing soil to a minimum depth of'm'elve inches (12") from existing grade. 6-9 (LI) SR 951 FIDDLER'S CREEK LANDSCAPE BOTNER LAND DESIGN JAN 12000 LI-24 LI-24. l L[-24.2 LI~24.3 LI Ll-25.1 LI-25,2 LI-25.3 LI-25.4 L[-25.5 .Existing Veg. etation Relocated E.,dsting Plant_s; E.~isting planks sho~ a on the. ck~awings to b.= reloca,-~--'d s:.al!' be root-pruned sufficiently in advance of pl.anting time to assure safe moving and shall be protected and treated a.s new material in all respects. Planting shall be in accordance with these specifications. Ex.isling plant material shown on the plans to remain shall not be disturbed. New plant material to be installed will be field adjusted to accommodate existing plant material such as overhead canopy trees, unders'tory trees and shrubs or ground cover. ThereFor< no existing plant nmte:ial ,,vii! be a.hcreg by remt,viag, ct:.ting, tdr.'prtdng or d::stzo:dr, g in order to install new plant material. If laY, TlS have been established prior to planting operations, CONTI:L&CTOR shall make ail efforts to protect tuffareas during planting operations, fflawn is damaged by the CONTRACTOR, it shall be restored to its original condition by him. Tree, Shrub and Gro~Jnd Cover Planting Ail planting shall b: performed by personnel familiar with the accepted procedure of planting and under the constant supervision ora qualified planting fo:eman. All p!anting shall be done z:.~ si:own c,~ drav,'ia~ ar'~d as si~:::ficci ~ ~,:~ accordance with standard horticultural practices. Co,ordination with Lawns: Plant trees and shrubs after final grades are establish~ and prior to planting of lawn.s, unless othem'ise acceptable to Landscape Architect. If planting of trees and shrubs occurs after lawn work, protect lawn areas and promptly repair damage to lawns resulting fi.om planting operations. t~vout2 Plant material locations and bed outlines shall be staked out on site according to the plans by CONTRACTOR and approved by' Landscape Architect. Plant material locations may be adjusted by Landscape Architect to meet field conditions. Installation of Trees and Shrubs: Plant pits shall be circular in outline with sides approximately vertical and shall extend to the required sub-grades as determined by the plant's root bali or container size. The minimum depth of plant pits shall be measured from the finish grade. Mirdmum pit sizes shall be as shov,'n on the planting details. All excavated soils fi.om plant pits or beds shall be used on site, if needed, or removed from the site at not additional cost to the OWNER. Excavat~ soils, if acceptable topsoil qualit).' maybe mixed with soil amendments to compose the backfill soil mixture. SR 951 FIDDLER'S CREEK LANT)SCAPE I ' t 1 Z[J00 BOTNER LAND DESIGN ~ ~ 10. Mass annual~,.,,,.,,,o,-~',",;,,o beds as specified on the cLea;*Sn.~'s~ shatt be excavated, to a mirdmum depth of 6 inches. Only pIanting mixture as specifi~ on the. planting details shall be used to back.~II annual beds ar~s Bailed and BurIa~cl Plants: After final setting, loosen bm'Dp wrappings ex-~sing the top of the r~t ball, leaving the ball unbroken. Remove excessive amounts of burlap and string ,,vrappktg materials to ¢lirrdnate voids wk/ch may ConLainer Grow'ri. Plants: Plant pits for contMner materials shah be formed fiat. on the bottom. Containers shall be removed carefutty to prevent damage to plant or root system (see planting details). Settina Trees. PaIms. and Shrubs: Urdess othersdse specified, ail tr~s and shrubs shall be planted in pits. centered, and set on compazted soils to such depths that th: finished level of the plant after settlement shall be the so. ate as that at wkich 'the plant was grown. The.,,' shall be planted updg. ht and faced to gi;e the best a?p,zarance cc relationsi'dF to s'i~;d~g star oas, aT?rcaz?,es, er adjacent struztures. No burlap shah be pulled out fi.om und~:r th: balls. Plat:'orms ,,,'irc and surfaze binding from top and sides of'the balls sh?:! be. rcmc. ved. Ali broken cr frayed roots shall be cut offcl~r'Jy. Back.~ll so;Is shall be placed to one-half the depth of the planting pit and settled by watering. No filling around trur'bks will bc pen'nit/ed. After the back.Sill settles, ad,.Sitiorml soils shall be filled in to the level of'the finished grade, allowing for two inches (2") of mulch. Form a shallow saucer around each tr~ to a size n~ded for adequate water retention (see planting details). Back Fill Soils: Plant pits shall be back.ff'illed with bacld'i[l soil mixture as specified on the plans. AJI backi'ill soils shall be fi.~ of'ail clods, sticks, roots. stones or other extraneous matter. Fertilizer shall be placM during back.qfilling, at the ratio r~ommend~ by the man~acturer. Protection Durin_o Planlin~: Trees moved by ,,,,inch or crane shall be thoroughly protected from chain marks, girdling or bark slippage by rn~ns of burlap, v,'ooden battens or other approved methods No nails or spLkes s?,aIl be driven into paIm or tr~ trunks. LI-25.6 Pruning' Prune. thin out and shape tr~s and shrubs in accordanze with staado, rd horticultural practice. Dead and broken branches skMI be remove& Ba!i~ and burlapped trees and shru~ shall be pruned to redu~ total amount of anticipated foliage by 1/5. T)piaal growth habit ofindMduaI p',ar,:_s ;ha:: be retained ,.dth as much height and spread as is practic.ablz Cuu sha[: :c with sharp instruments, and shaII be flush sdth trunk or a{)aeent bran::". :o insure elimination ors:ubs "He. ad:conk" cuts a: right an~es to lin: o~o_,esh 6-I1 (LI) J JAN 11 SR 951 FIDDLER'S CREEK LANDSCAPE BOTNERLAND DESIGN j PG- ~'ff L[.25.7 LI-25.8 L1-25.9 LI-26 LI-26. l shall not be permitted. Trees shall not be poled or the leader remove& nor shat/the leader be pruned or "topped off". Trimmings shah be removed from the site· Cuts 1" in diameter and larger shall be painted with the s~ifieci tree s~ound dressing. Remove and replace excessively pruned or misformed stock resulting from improper pruning. AntiMesiccant: if deciduous trees or shrubs are moved in full-lea_r, out of sea,son, spray v,5.th anti-desiccant at nursery before moving and again two weeks after plantin~ using power spray to provide and adequate film over trunk% branches, stems, twigs, and foliage. StakSng and Gu~'in~: Plants shah be staked and guyed as indicated on plans v-itkin 24, hours of planting. Stakes shall be driven vertically into the ground to a depth specified in details and in such a manner as not to damage the bail or roots. Ground stakes for tree guying shall be driven into the Erin ground oat. z,!d- of the plant pit, and the top of'the stake shall be flush with the ground. Mulch: All trees, stu-ubs and planting beds shall be mul,:hev-I i~ru'nediat;:b. after planting, with a two inch (2") compacted layer of the mulch specified on the dra~-ings. Free-standing sI'u'ub beds shall be mulched to a line twenty-four inches (24") away from the outer edge of bedding plant stem or to edge of curb or pavement. Mulch shall be thoroughly vmered-in to pre~'ent wind displacement. Prior to the installation of either bark or stone mulch and weed barrier (it' required) all areas to be covered shall be weed free and shall be treat~ with a preemergent herbicide. Mulch shall be kept out of the crowns of shrubs and off builctin~, sidcwalks. light standards, and other structures. BASIS OF PAY~IENT CONTRACTOR ~a-ill submit a lump sum bid and shall receive full compensation for conforming to the provisions of tkis Section and related drawings. The lump sum paid will be for the complete installation as shown and speci.fiecL including an?' adc/'r.Z or change orders. No additional compensation viii be allowed. 6-12 (LI) SR 951 FIDDLER'S CREEK LANDSCAPE BOTNER LAND DESIGN t 1 2000 .D_ i.~_si o___a LS-1 LS-2 LS-3 LS4 LS-5 LS-6 LS-7 LS-8 LS-9 LS~I0 LS-11 LS-12 LS-13 LS-14 LS-15 LS-16 LS-17 LS-18 LS-19 SECTION 7 SPECIFICATIONS GENERA_L LA2NDSCAPE SODDING TABLE OF CONTENTS Part 1 - General Related Documents Scope Related Work Submittals Delivery., Storage and Handling Job Conditions Completion and Acceptance ToPSOil Fertilizer Sod Site Preparation Soil Preparation Fertilization Sodding Water and Rolling Maintenance Warranty Basis of Payment Part 2 - Products Part 3 - Execution SR 951 FIDDLER'S CREEK LANDSCAPE BOTNER LAND DESIGN Paee Number 7-i 7-I 7-1 7-I - 7-2 7-2 7-2 7-2 7-2 - 7-3 7-3 74 74 - 7-5 7-5 - 7-6 7-6 7-6 7-6 - 7-7 7-7 7-7 7-7 7-8 ,.,AN 11 2000 SECTION 7 PART 1 LS-I LS-I.1 LS-2 LS-2.1 LS-2.2 LS-3 LS-3.1 LS-3.2 LS4 LS-4.1 LS-4.2 LS-4.3 LS4.4 LS4.5 LS4.6 LS4.7 LS4.8 GENERAL DMSION LS - GENERAL LANDSCAPE SODDING RELATED DOCUMENTS Drawings and provisions of Contract apply ~o work of this Section. SCOPE The work specified in ti'tis Section consists of the establisking of a consistent, dense, healthy stand &grass u, ith/n the areas specified on the drawings. The work snail consist of grading, preparing the soil, fumigating (fi.specified on plans), and furnishing and placing or' grass sod, fertilizing, ~tering, and maintaining the sodded areas thsough construction ahd until final acceptance by the landscape Architect. Grade Ele,,-ations: Excavation, filling, rough and finish grading shall be a st:ecl.fled on the drawings and other related documents. RELATED WORK Landscape Work (Section 6) Irrigation System (Section 6) ~QUALITY ASSURANCE Subcontract sodding work to a single firm specializing in sod work. Perform tests in accordance ~ith standards hereinafter specified. Package standard products with manufacturer's certified analysis. For other materials, Provide analysis by recognized laboratory made in accordance with methods established ~' the Association of Officia! Agriculture Chemists, wherever applicable. The [olloMng publications of the issues listed below, but referred to thereafter by basic designation only. form a part o£this specification to the ex-tent indicated by the reference thereto: Florida State Plant Board Standards for Nurser)' Plants (1973). Florida Nurserymen and Growers Association, Approved Planting Practice. Bailey's Hortus Second. State Department of Agriculture Regulations. 7-I (LS) FIDDLER'S Ct:LEEK LANDSCAPE BOTNER LAND DESIGN LS-5 LS-5.1 LS-5.2 LS-5.3 LS-5.4 LS-5.5 LS-5.6 LS-6 LS--6.1 LS-6.2 LS-6.3 LS-6.4 LS-7 LS-7.1 LS-7.2 LS-7.3 SUBMITTALS All submittals shall be subrmtted to the Lands~l:x. A, cl-atect ir:. triplkmle. Submit certificates of inspection as req~dred by governmental authorities. Submit mm'mfacturer's or vendors certified analysis for soil amendments and fertilizer materiMs. Submit other data s'abstanfiatJng thai rrmteriaN comply '~5th specified requirements, when Submit soil analysis results. A letter of certification from the sodding contractor as to when the sod was cut, and what type shah be prowided to the Landscape Architect, at Ns request, upon deliver).' of sod to the job site. DELIVERY, STORAGE AND HANDLING Deliver packaged materials in containe~ s showing weight, a~ai)'sis a:'.d name ce: manufacturer. Protect materials from deterioration during delivery, and while stored at site. No sod which has been cut for more than 48 hours may be used unless specifically authorized by the Landscape .&'chitect 'after Ids careful inspection thereof. Tramsr~rtafion: Sod shall be in a moist condition at the time of cutting and shall be kept in a most condition until it is placed. Sod shall be transported in either a closed ,,'an or in open truck properly covered to prevent windburn, drying, or damage to sod. Disposal of Surplus Material: Surplus and w-axte rrmteri',ds resulting from sodding operations shall be disposed of by the CONTRACTOR off-site. JOB CONDITIONS Exam/nation of Site: The bidder mus-t acknowledge that he has examined the site, plans and slx~cifications and the submission ora quotation shall be considered evidence that exam/nations have been made. The Sodd/ng CONTRACTOR si'roll be fully responsible to acquaint themselves with the exact location ofall utilities and to avoid conflict with all existing facilities. Hand excavate, as requJred. Maintain swtkes set by others until removal is mutually agreed upon by parties concerned. If the quantity of the e.,dsting or excavated topsoil is inadequate to establish firdsh grades as specified on the draxvings, it shall be the sodding CONTRACTOR'S responsibility to prov/cle topsoil in accordance with these specifications. 7-2 (LI) SR 95 ! FIDDLER'S CREEK LANDSCAPE BOTNER LAND DESIGN LS-7.4 LS-8 LS-8.1 LS-8.2 LS-8.3 LS-8.4 LS-$. 5 LS-8.6 PART 2 LS-9 LS-9. I LS-9.2 The sodding CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for complete coordirtat/on of sodding operations with the other CONTRACTORS on the job. Repair of damage to plants, grad,es, lawn_s, etc., during installation s.kaH not be co r~s i de red as an ertl, and not be charged to the OWNER. Damage mused by other CONT~.CTORS v'itl ce th:, reslSonsibility of said CO~WI'R.ACTOR. COMPLETION AND ACCEl:ri'AN'CE Completion of the work shall mean the full and exact compUance and conformity with the provisions expressed or implied in the drawings and specificafio, ns, and associated ckange orders. The acceptability of all material, work.munship, labor and compliance ~ith the specifications, grades and standards shall be solely determined by the Land..qmpe A.rckitect. Ri.Bt to Reject: The Landscape Architect shall have the fight, at any stage of the work, to reject any and all wot:k and materials which, in kis opinion, does not meet the requirements of the plans and specifications. Rejected material shall be immediately removed from the site and acceptable material substituted in its place. The CONTRACTOR shall provide a smooth, even lawn surface, with not obvto,~ d;fferences in grade or gaps betw~n patches o£sod~ If the fir~ished surface is ,mcven, CONq"T-q~.CTOR shall provide stand as rteeded to e'ven out tee cliffercnms. Svbstantial Completion: Upon notification by the CONTRACTOR that :he instqllafion is complete, the Landscape Architect, ,,,,'ill perform a substantial completion sit;: observation to determine ii'the CONTRACTOR has completed the work in accordance ~¼th the plans and specifications. If final acceptance is not given, the Landscape Architect will prepare a "punch list". The notification by the CONTRACTOR must be made at least three (3) working days before the anticipated substantial completion site observation. Final Acceptance: Upon noti. fication by the CONTRACWOR that all defects have been corrected, the Landscape Architect will perform a fin,al site observation. Final acceptance w/Il be given upon satisfactory completion of all work, including "punch list" item. The notification by CONTRACTOR must be made at least three (3) working days before the anticipated final site observation. PRODUCTS TOPSOIL For all lan~pe areas, the CONTRACTOR shall provizle and install rove, oil as defined on the drawings or within the contract bid forms. Topsoil shall be fertile, natural topsoil, t),pical of the loc:alit)', obtained from a well- drained site. Lf shall be without admix-ture of subsoil or clay and shall be fr~ o{'stones, lumps, sticks, plants or their roots, toxic substances or other extraneous matter that ,,,'an)' be harmful to plant growth or would interfere s~'ith future maintenance. 7-3 (LS) SR 951 FIDDLER'S CREEK LANDSCAPE BOTNER LAND DESIGN i Z OO J LS-9.3 LS-9.4 Topsoil shall contain at least pa'o percent (2%) of orgardc matter and snail have a pH range of 6.5 - 8.0. Top~oil shall be ff~ fro< I ~ .... £:ass (Sorghum H2!pen~), nut g~ss Ro!undus) and all other objectionable herbaceous weo:L% grac, ses and to.~:c subsLances. LS~9.5 LS-10 LS-10. I: LS-10.2 LS-II LS-I 1.1 LS-I 1.2 Soil Testing: The CONTIL&CTOR shale be respo~ible for having topsoil tested. Representative samples are to be tested for acidity, fertiliD' and general composition by a recognized commercial or government agency. The CO~WFRACTOR shall furnish one (1) copy of the soil analysis and recommended amendments (to meet the desired pl-t, n~,t~i,i,:,n3~ and :rganic l~eL determined to be ~.dequate for the ar~a) prel~red by the testing agent', to the Landscape Arcbat~=t prior to application o~. aa:,' ;, ~ilcs':c~..,~n:q o: fertil/zer. FERTILIZER All fertilizers shall be uniform in composition, free flowing and suitable for application by mechanical spreader equipment. Fertilizers shall be delivered to the site fully labeled according to applicable State Fertilizer Laws. The following information shall be shovrn on the fertili, zer bag or package or on a tag: Name and address of manufacturer. 2. Name, brand or trademark. 3. Number of net pounds of ready, mixed material in the package. 4. Chemical composition or analysis. 5. Guarantee of analysis. Ifa brand or grade of fertilizer is delivered in the bulk, a wrinen statement having the above listed information must accompany each load. Sod shall have a 164-8 analysis fertilizer containing a min. imLLm 2% magnesium, 2% water soluble magnesim'n, 2% Manganese, 1.5% iron, 3% sulfur and other tra~ secondaries. A minimum o1'6.0 units shall be stow release nitrogen. At least 50 percent of the phosphoric acid shall be form normal super phosphate or an equivalent source which ,,,.'ill provide a nfinimum of two units of sulfur. Unless otkenvise a?proved by' the Landscape Architect, Type I fertilizer shall be used. so , Sod shall be as specified on the Land_scape Drawings. Pad Size: Individual pieces of sod shall be cut to the supplier's stan~rd ~5dLh and length. Maximum allowable deviation from standard widths and len~hs shall be 5%. Extensively broken pads and torn or uneven ends will not be acceptable 7-4 (LS) SR 951 FIDDLER'S CREEK LANDSCAPE BOTNER LAND DESIGN LS-I 1.3 LS-11.4 LS-I 1.5 I.S-I 1.6 LS-II.7 LS-II $ LS-I 1.9 PART 3 LS-12 LS-12.1 LS-12.2 LS-12.3 LS~12.4 Strenmh of SOd Sections: Standard size sections of scx:l shall be strong enough to support their oxvn weight and retain their size and shape when suspended vertically from a finn grasp on the upper 10% of the section. Moisture Content: Sod snail not be l'm~'exted or transplanted when moisture content (excessively do' or wet) may adversely affect its survival. Time Limitations: Sod shall be hah'ester, delivered and installed v, itl'fin a period of 72 hours. Class of Sed and Composition.: The sod uT, ed shall be as specified on the plan~q. It shall be nurser) grown and well root'M. E,ach skipme,~t shall be a~on,, ?.:~ 5y,' n certification verifying the sod as specified. Sod shall be subject to review b,:' thc Lan~pe A. rchitem prior to being cut and again before it is laid_ The consistency of adherent soil shall be tach that it will not break, crumble, or tear during handling and placing of the socL Each piece of sod shall be well covered with turf'grass, shall be free from no,:ious weeds and other objectionable plants and shall not contain thatch quantities and substances injurious to growth. The grass si'tall be mow'n to a long'th of no less than one and one- half'inch (1-1/2") nor more than four (4") inches before the sod is cat. Coral:fy with State and Federal laws ~5.th respect to inspection for plant d/seases and insect tn/es~ation, an ir~sp~tion certificate to this effect ts r~uired by 1:.~,. ar.d shalt accompany each shipment and on arrival shall be filed with the Landsc2pe ~chitect Thickm~ess of Cut: Sod shall be machine cut at a uaiform soil thicl,mess of 3/4 inch, plus or minus 1/4 inch, at the time of cutting. Measurement for thickness shall exclude top growth and thatch. EXECUTION SITE PREPARATION The CONWR. ACTOR snail be responsible for remo~Sng minor residual &bds from the site, establishing the required rough grades in areas indicated on the plans, and shaping a finished grade that provides positive drainage and is in conformance v, ith the drax~in~. Veri~' grades established during final site preparation as being true to fimsh contours shown, and maintain such areas until the effective date to begin sodd/ng operations, in such instances where a split responsibiliD' e.'dsts bet>/een grading and sodding Contractors, it shall be the resportsibilit5~ of the sodding CONTRACTOR to maintain a suitable grade for sodding once he has accepted the grade pro,,Sded to l~Jm. Remove all debris, brush, large roots, weeds and any other deleterious rrmtenals from the top six inches of.soil. No sod shall be placed on soil wh/ch has been treated with soil sterilants umil su~cient time has elapsed to permit dissipation of toxic materials The CONTILKCTO¢. 7-5 (LS) SR 951 FIDDLER'S CREEK LANDSCAPE BOTNER LAND DESIGN LS-13 LS-13.1 LS-13.2 LS-14 LS-14.1 LS-14.2 LS-15 LS-15.1 LS-15.2 LS-15.3 LS-15.4 LS-15.5 assume full responsibiliD' for an)' loss or damage to sod or seed arising front improper use of sterilants or due to his failure to allow sufficient time to permit dissipation of toxic materials, whether or not such sterilants are specLfied herein. SOIL PREPARATION Soil samples shall be token and a a. nalysis shall be performed by an approved agricultural laboratory. The sodding CONTRACTOR shall obtain a representative soil sample of each are by collecting a minimum often samples of soil from the top 6 inches of soil. Soil saraples shall be submitted by the sodding CONTRACTOR for determination ofpH, calcium oxide (cao), magnesium oxide (Mgo), phosphoric acid (P205, and p:,~:~ssb.~:,~ o~ids (K2t)). The testing laboratmy sM',! ~bmit cer2fied roil anaI3sis and recommendations for amending the soil to o~tili~ a soil [ to obtain Cao, Mgo, P20 and K2o at 2500, 200, 50 and 150 pounds per acre respectively. Sulfur in a water degradable form shall be used for decreasing soil pH and 12~lomite used to increase soil pH. Applications shall be based on soil analysis recorm'nead.ations. FERTILIZATION A?pl) fertilizer ak a mimmurn rate of l0 pounds per 1,000 ~uare feet and recu:re~ additional soil amendaneats in accordance with the soil sim?lc resulcc. Fertil/zer and soil amendments shall be incorporated into the top 2-3 inches ofso/I and raked to provide a final smooth even grade. SODDING Sodding Time: Sod shall be placed when the ground is in a workable condition and temperatures are less than 90 degrees Fahrenheit (when pessible). Sod shall not be placed during extended droug, ht, unJess irrigation is available. Sod cut for more than 48 hours shall not be used without the concurrence of the Land.scape Architect. All sod shall be kept moist and protected from exT~osure to sun, wind and freezing prior to placing. Moistening the Soil: During periods of high temperature and after all unevenness in the soil surface has been corrected, the soil shall be lightly irrigated immediately prior to laying the sod. Starter Strip: The first row of sod shall be laid in a straight line with subsequent rows placed parallel to and tig. htly against each other. Lateral joints shall be staggered to promote more uniform growth and stren~h. Care shall be exercised to instate that the sod is not stretched or overlapped and that all joints are butted fight in order to prevent voids which would cause air do'lng of the roots. Sloping Surfaces: In ditches, the sod shall be placed with the longer dimension perpendicular to the flow of water in the ditch. On slopes, start/ng at the bottom of the slope, the sod shall be placed w/th the longer dimension paralleled to the contom-s of the 7-6 (LS) SR 951 FIDDLER'S CREEK LANT)SCAPE BOTNER LANrD DESIGN LS-15.6 I..<;-15.7 LS-16 LS-16.1 LS-16.2 LS-16.3 LS-16.4 LS-17 LS-17.1 LS-17.2 LS-18 LS-18.1 LS-18.2 ground. The ex'posed edge oft.he sod shall be buried flush with the adjacent sod. On slopes where the sod may be displaced during sodding operations, the workmen snail work from ladders or treadc-d plarflcs. Staldng Sod: The sod s~-~dl be staked on alt slopes of 2: I or steeper. Sod shall be staked with not less than 4 stakes per square y'ard with at least one stake for each piece of sod. Stakes sl:mdl be of lath or similar material, pointed, and driven Mth the fiat side against the slope, inches into the ground, leavi ag appro.,cimately (1/2") of the top above the ground. Watering of sod shall oocur immeciiate¥ aaer irkq-tallat;on to pr.went e,'ce~sive do-lag during progress cf the wodc WATER AND ROLLENG Rolling of the sod with a meckanical roller of no less than 2 tons must occur as sodding is completed in any one section. Alt sod areas must be rolled to provide an even sodded appearance ~ith no kigh and low points. Immediately following rolling operations the sod shall be thorough'dy irri~ted to a depth s"~cient that thc underside of the new sod pad and soil immed, iatety ~!ow ~e sc~ are thorougNy w:t. No equipment or vehicles shall be allowed to travel over d'~e sodded by CONTRACTORS on the job site. Supplemental Water/ng: During periods of intense heat or abnormal mir, fail, supplemental watering may be required prior to acceptance of' the work. M.A.[NTENAN CE Maintenance shall begin immed/ately following completion or'sodding and continue until final acceptance by Landscape Architect. Routine maintenance shall include ~-atering, mowing, replanting, and the application of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides if deemed necessary ID' the Landsrmpe Arckitect. WARRA2~TY The CONTRACTOR as part of his contract, shah furnish three (3) written guarantys warranting all materials, wor-kmanship, and products for a per/od of not less than sixW (60) days from the time of Final Acceptance. The CONTRACTOR ~ill repair all washouts that occur ~itl,.in the v,-axwant0' gcriod at no additional cost to the OWNER. Damage assrx:iated with or mused I:5' ortner CONWRACTORS stroll be subject to review and negotiation betw~n the O~,kSN'ER and CONTRACTOR. 7-7 (LS) SR 951 FIDDLER'S CREEK LANDSCAPE BOTNER LAND DESIGN JAN 11 tUuO LS-19 LS-19.1 BASIS OF PAYM"~h'T CONTRACTOR 'MJ.t s-ubm~t a lump ~ bid and sb2JJ r-~c~ive full comFensafion for c~mrormlng to thc prcrv'i.sio~ ofthi~ Se:c~oa and retat~ dra~a~s. Thc lump ~ ~4.11 be for thc cr:>mpI~ i. rL~llati0n as ShOW~ and si:~'ified-[, including arrff' ad~ncLa or cl~mge orders. No additiorwd c~rat~a_~ation *dll be allowed. 7-8 FLS). SR 951 FIDDLER'S CREEK LANDSCAPE BOTNER LAND DESIGN ! zaa0 I Exhibit D County Design Review Requirements To be provided. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF NAPLES TO FUND A CONSULTANT STUDY CHALLENGING THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY'S REVISED FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAPS. OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners approve an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Naples to partially fund a consultant's study analyzing the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) methodology regarding revisions to the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS). CONSIDERATIONS: In December, 1998, FEMA's consultant, Dewberry and Davis, submitted preliminary FIRM's to Collier County, the Cities of Naples, Marco Island, and Everglades City. Over the past year, representatives from each of these governmental agencies have met to analyze the proposed FEMA map changes. A FEMA Map Review Committee was selected to review the findings of the Agency. In addition, a subcommittee of' the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee reviewed these proposed changes. There are three major areas of concern: 1) A change from "D' to "A' Zone for Golden Gate Estates and surrounding areas will cause a significant impact in that lenders will require property owners to obtain flood insurance; 2) An increase in the VE Zone and decrease of the X Zones in the City of Naples which will cause an increase in construction costs, an increase in insurance premiums, and a diminishing in the ambiance in relation to existing homes that were built at current or previous required elevations; and a 3) Change in the Vertical Datam which would necessitate surveyors and government to create backup filing systems; increase cost for county and city contractors for capital projects; and cause additional administrative costs for changing land development codes. It was the recommendation of the entire County's Development Services Advisory Committee that a consultant be hired to review the models used by FEMA to determine the new flood zones. On August 31, 1999, a contingent of representatives from Collier County and the City of Naples traveled to Atlanta and met with FEMA representatives to discuss the three main areas of concern. FEMA representatives agreed to the following: 1) Redelineation of the previous Zone D area to Zone A - FEMA staff has agreed t~) work with South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) staff to determine if SFWMD's Florida event study data is acceptable. If so, FEMA will incorporate it into the Firm's. , JAN 1 1 2000 2) Coastal modeling - FEMA welcomes new data 3) NAVD 88 v. NGVD 29 - FEMA agreed to show data in NGVD 29, if possible, and also the NAVD on the Firm's. The County wishes to maintain the use of NGVD due to the extensive amount of data already maintained. On September 15, 1999 a joint meeting was conducted by officials of Collier County and the City of Naples and the City of Marco Island. At that meeting the Board of County Commissioners agreed to expend up to $15,000 for a joint study by a consultant who would analyze the methodology utilized by FEMA. Subsequent to this meeting the City of Marco Island agreed to reimburse the City of Naples $5,000 for the study, thus lowering the County's allotment to $12,500. FISCAL IMPACT: The County's allotment for the consultant's fee is $12,500. The Development Services Advisory Committee recommended that this amount be paid by Fund' 113, the Community Development Fund, or, in the alternative, that it be paid from the Ad Valorem Tax Fund. Funds are available in the Community Development Fund to cover the costs incurred. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The adoption of these maps, as proposed, could potentially affect growth in certain areas because of the increased costs of construction as well as the increase in flood insurance premiums. RECOMMENDATION: That the Collier County Commissioners approve this Interlocal Agreement to reimburse the City of Naples $12,S00 for the consultant's study. PREPARED BY × I/.J Lc,-~-~,-~--~ DATE: ,~ - '-/- c~ ~ Vincent A. Cautero, AICP, Administrator Community Development and Environmental Services Division JAN 1 1 2000 AGREEMENT THIS Agreement, made and entered into this day of ., 2000 by and between the Board of Ceunty Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereinafter called the COUNTY, and the City of Naples, Florida, hereinafter called the CITY. W1TNESSETH WHEREAS, the COUNTY, in cooperation with the CITY wishes to engage the services of a consultant, hereinafter called the CONSULTANT to challenge the latest FEMA flood maps for Collier County, hereinafter referred to as Project, and WHEREAS, the CITY, proposes to engage said CONSULTANT in regard to similar services; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY desires to compensate and have the CITY, on behalf of the COUNTY, engage said CONSULTANT for the Project; and WHEREAS, the CITY is agreeable to and desirous and capable of performing~ providing, or otherwise undertaking such services for COUNTY in connection with the Project; NOW, therefore, in consideration of the promises and mutual covenants hereinafter contained, the CITY hereby agrees to perform, provide, or otherwise undertake said services in connection with the Project as outlined below, and both the COUNTY and the CITY hereby covenant each to the other to implement the Project concurrently subject to the terms and provisions as hereinafter contained. SECTION I. DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED UNDER PROJECT Review all Federal'Emergency Management Agencies (FEMA) Flood Insurance Study (FIS) documentation to determine if it is complete with respect to FiS reported assumptions, data applications and model analyses. Review all FEMA updates to the still water flood levels and the statistical basis for such updates. (Were the updates based on calibrated models.* Were the statistics properly applied?) 3. Review FEMA Assumptions, calibrations and procedures applying the wave height analysis. 4. Review FEMA procedures and assumptions in applying wave height analyses. 5. Prepare a report summarizing the process used by FEMA in the above analysis and any potential points of contention in their assumptions, data analysis, and model applications. If applicable, recommend further analysis necessary to further verify the points of contention. SECTION IL TERMS 2.01 Except as this Agreement may otherwise be terminated, this Agreement shall remain in full force from the date first above written and shall terminate upon the completion of the services and responsibilities performed by the COUNTY and the CITY to each other's reasonable satisfaction which shall be evidenced in writing. 2.02 The COUNTY or CITY may terminate this Agreement with reasonable cause prior to the completion of the Project, upon thirty (30) days prior written notice each to the other. In the event of such termination by either party, the COUNTY shall be entitled to compensation for the value of services provided, and termination costs as actually incurred. 2.03 The Project as proposed shall be primarily maintained by the CITY or its assigns. JAN 1 1 2000 SECTION IlL CITY's RESPONSIBILITIES 3.01 The CITY shall assume the entire responsibility for contracting with the CONSULTANT. 3.02 The CITY shall be responsible for, the means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures relating to the Project, 3.03 The CITY agrees to assign a representative or agent to the Project during the term of the Project so that the COUNTY may effectively coordinate its services with CITY. In this respect, the CITY agrees to require its representative or agent to attend regular progress meetings as may be requested by the COUNTY. The CITY's representative or agent under this Agreement shall be any individual, firm or entity that the CITY recommends to the COUNTY and thc COUNTY henceforth approves. Moreover, the CITY's representative or agent under this Agreement, shall act as CITY's contract authority under this Agreement and any directions, instructions, or notifications given such representative or agent by the COUNTY or by the COUNTY'S authorized representative or agent shall be in full force as if given directly to the CITY. The above notwithstanding, the COUNTY shall endeavor to issue directives, instructions, or notifications relating to the Project directly to the CITY. 3.04 Administrate, in the form of plans, memoranda, reports, Project clarifications and changes which may be necessary during the Project. If any such changes directly affect the COUNTY, the CITY shall notify the COUNTY's representative, and if the COUNTY approves such changes in writing, the CITY shall forthwith prepare Change Order and/or Supplemental Agreement documents as appropriate. The above notwithstanding, the COUNTY additionally authorizes the CITY to prepare, execute and implement minor Change Orders for work changes necessitated by the Project so long as the contract amount authorized by this Agreement is not exceeded. 3.05 Obtain required waivers and releases of claim of lien from persons and fu'ms performing work or providing services on or for the Project. SECTION IV. COUNTY'S RESPONSIBILITY 4.01 With respect to specific services to be provided to the CITY by the COUNTY under the terms of this AGREEMENT, the services are deemed to include but shall not necessarily be limited to the following items: 4.0'2 In the event that the COUNTY should require additional services as necessary and mutually agreed upon by COUNTY and CONTRACTOR under this Agreement, and which would exceed the contract sum of twelve thousand five hundred dollars ($12,500.00), Change Orders and/or Supplemental Agreement documents for this Agreement must be issued by the COUNTY for said additional services, and shall be authorized in writing signed by both the COUNTY's representative and the CITY. 4.03 Reimbursement of a portion of the actual costs of the Project up to and including the sum of twelve thousand five hundred dollars ($12,500.00) with the understanding that the CITY shall share in the cost of the Project in the amount of twelve thousand five hundred dollars ($12,500.00). 4.04 Regularly and periodically examine, with the CITY or CITY's representative, requests for payment (monthly pay estimates) as submitted to the COUNTY by the CITY'S contractor to determine that they are in order for payment and consistent with the contract documents entered into between the COUNTY and the CITY. When such requests are deemed to be in proper order the COUNTY shall certify that to the best of its knowledge, the quality and quantity of work performed is in accordance with the Project services and shall transmit them for payment to the COUNTY Finance Director as part of the monthly payment processes for the Project. 4.05 Notify the CITY if the COUNTY'S contractor's performance is or appears to be behind schedule with regard to the Project 4.06 Upon completion of all work associated with the Project, including all Change Orders and Supplemental Agreements thereto, make a final review of the Project with the CITY's agent or representative. 2 JAN I ! 2000 SECTION V. INSURANCE 5.01 The COUNTY and the CITY shall maintain insurance in the minimum amounts and types as required by Florida Law. 5.02 The COUNTY and the CITY agree that either party may be self-insured on the condition that all self insurance(s) must comply with all state laws and regulations and must meet with the approval of the other party to this Agreement. SECTION VI. ,REPRESENTATIVES 6.01 The Collier County Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator, or their designee, either directly with the CITY or through duly authorized representatives assigned to the Project by them, shall act as the COUNTY'S contract authority and representative under this Agreement. SECTION VII. MUTUAL COVENANTS 7.01 The COUNTY shall pay unto the CITY the amount of COUNTY'S cost of services pursuant to Article 4.01 and 4.02 above. SECTION VIH. MISCELLANEOUS 8.01 This Agreement shall be governed by and constructed under the laws of the State of Florida. In the event any litigation is instituted by way of construction or enforcement of this Agreement, the party prevailing in said litigation shall be entitled to collect and recover from the opposite party all court costs and other expenses including reasonable attorney's fees. 8.02 It is understood that this Agreement must be executed by both parties prior to the CITY and the COUNTY commencing with the work and services described heretofore. 8.03 This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties and any modifications to this Agreement shall be mutually agreed upon in writing by the CITY or it's designee and the Development Services Director or their designee. 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: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK PAMELA S. MAC'KIE, CHAIRWOMAN Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: David C. Weigel County Attorney No. ~ JAN 1 1 2000 3 AS TO THE CITY: SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED IN THE PRESENCE OF: City Clerk CITY OF NAPLES, FLORIDA Bill Barnett, Mayor Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Kenneth B. Cuyler / City Attorney JAN 1 1 2000 P~. ~ _ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPROVE A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECUTE A LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR STATE ROAD 951 LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS OBJECTIVE: Obtain Board approval of a Resolution for the State Road 951 landscaping project, therein authorizing the County Administrator to process and execute a Landscape Construction and Maintenance Memorandum of Agreement. CONSIDERATIONS: Companion Item 8-B-2 requests Board approval of the Median Landscape Beautification Agreement for State Road 951 adjacent to Fiddler's Creek. The agreement discusses construction and maintenance of the beautification project. Because the project is located in a State Road right-of-way and the County will assume maintenance responsibility, the County is required to enter into a Construction and Maintenance Memorandum of Agreement with the State DOT. Board approval of the attached Resolution will authorize the County Administrator to execute the memorandum of Agreement on behalf of the County. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no direct fiscal impact associated with approval of this Resolution. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached Resolution for the State Road 951 landscape project and direct the Board Chairman to execute salTle. ~ward N. ~n, OPerations Director / ~ REVIEWED BY: Edward J. Kant, P.E., Transportation Services Director APPROVED BY:,&ff-~d~~~.-"-~ Date:/.~ --~,~ -- ~ ? Ed Ilschner, Public Works Administrator DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 00- RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO ENTER INTO A LANDSC.~PE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF LANDSCAPING AND RELATED BEAUTIFICATION IMPROVEMENTS TO BE LOCATED ON A PORTION OF STATE ROAD 951 BETWEEN PORT AU PRINCE ROAD AND MAINSAIL DRIVE WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS, the median and roadside areas within the State of Florida Department of Transportation, S.R. 951 road right-of-way between Port au Prince Road and Mainsail Drive, more specifically, between M.P./STA 5.183 and M.P./STA 7.065. are capable of receiving and sustaining landscape beautification improvements; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners by this Resolution authorize the County Administrator to execute and enter into a Highway Landscape Installation And Maintenance Memorandum of Agreement between the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, and the Florida Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: 1. The Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, hereby direct and authorize the County Administrator to execute and enter into a Highx~'ay Landscape Installation And Maintenance Memorandum of Agrec~nent i:npro~ements along S.R. 951 between M.P./STA 5.183 and M.P./STA 7.065 (approximately 0.71 miles) within unincorporated Collier Count7. 2. The Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners is hereby directed to forward a certified copy of this Resolution to the Florida Depardnent of Transportation, in Barrow, Florida. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. ADOPTED *his _ day of ~anuary 20~'~0. after motion, second and majorxB~ vote favoring same. ATTES-[: D~[qGHT E. BROCK. Clerk BOARD OF COUNTY COlvlMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: By: Approved as to form and legal sufficiency Thomas C. Palmer. Assistant Com~B' Attorney Chairperson DRAFT LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , by and between the STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, a component agency of the State of Florida, hereinafter called the "DEPARTMENT" and Collier County Florida a political subdivision of the State of Florida, existing under the Laws of Florida, hereinafter called the "AGENCY." WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the DEPARTMENT has jurisdiction over and maintains State Road 951 as part of the State Highway System: and WH EREA S, the AG ENCY seeks to install and maintain certain landscaping within the unpaved areas within the right of way of State Road 951; located at FDOT RCI Section #03030 at M.P, 5.183 to M.P. 7.065. WHEREAS, the DEPARTMENT agrees that landscaping should be installed and maintained as proposed by AGENCY. WHEREAS, the parties hereto mutually recognize the need for entering into an Agreement designating and setting forth the responsibilities of each party; and WHEREAS, AGENCY, by Resolution No. , dated , and attached hereto as Exhibit "A", has authorized its officers to execute this AGREEMENT on its behalf. NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual benefits to flow each to the other, the parties cc,~, ~r, an: and agree as follows: The AGENCY hereby agrees to i~stall or cause to be installed landscaping on the highway' facility as specified in the Landscape Plan(s) included as Exhibit "B." Such installation shall be in conformance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-40.003, as it may be amended from time to time and the "Florida Highxvay Landscape Guide", which is incorporated into Rule 14.40.003 by reference. The AGENCY shall not change or deviate from said plan(s) without v,~itten approval of thc DEPARIMENT. The AGENCYagrees to maintain the landscaping within the median and areas outside the travel way within the right of way line in accordance with the Landscape Maiptenance Plan(s) included as Exhibit "C." Said maintenance will be in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 14.40.003 and thc "Florida Highway Landscape Guide", as they may be amended from time to time. The AGENCY'S responsibility for maintenance shall be consistent with the requirements of Flor/da Administrative Code Rule 14-40.003 (5). The above named functions to be performed by the AGENCY. shall be subiect to periodic inspections by the DEPARTMENT. The AGENCY shall ~:ot cl]angc or dec,ate from said plan(s) without written appro;aI of the DEPARTMENT. .&ll l~.ndscape installation and maintenance activities undertaken by AGENCY shall be in accordance with the Maintenance of Traffic Plan(s) included as Exhibit "D" and Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-40.003. JAN 1 12000 If at any time after the AGENCY has assumed the landscaping installation or maintenance responsibility above-mentioned, it shall come to the attention of the DEPARTMENT that the limits or a part thereof is not properly installed or maintained pursuant tot he terms of this AGREEMENT, the District Secretary or his designee may issue a written notice that a deficiency or deficiencies exist(s), by sending a certified letter to the AGENCY on notice thereof. Thereafter the AGENCY shall have a period of thirty (30) calendar days within which to correct the cited deficiencies. If said deficiencies are not corrected within this time period, the DEPARTMENT may at its option, proceed as follows: (a) If installation is not completed in accordance with the plans in paragraph 1, the DEPARTMENT may complete the installation, with DEPARTMENT or Contractor's personnel, and deduct the reasonable cost thereof from the money otherwise due the AGENCY under this AGREEMENT. (b) If installation has been properly completed or if the DEPARTMENT elects not to complete the landscaping under (a) above, and maintenance by AGENCY is not in compliance with paragraphs 2 or 3, the DEPARTMENT may take action to maintain the landscaping or a part thereof, with DEPARTMENT or Contractor's personnel and invoice the AGENCY for expenses incurred, or (c) The DEPARTMENT ma5' terminate the AGREEMENT, in which casethe AGENCY shall at it oxx~q expense and within sixty (6(0 days after written notice by the DEPARTMENT, remove all of the landscaping that the DEPARTMENT, directs be removed and return the right-of-xxay to its original condition. The AGENCY will o~x~ such materials as it removes and the DEPARTMENT shall ovm any materials remaining. The DEPARTMENT may, ~n its ,iiscrc:ion, remove, relocate or adjus! thc tandscap;ng ~nateriais, with the AGENCY being responsible for the cost of any removal. Upon DEPARTMENT action under one of the above options and upon direction of the DEPARTMENT, AGENCY shall cease installation and maintenance activities under this AGREEMENT. It is understood between the parties hereto that the landscaping covered by this AGREEMENT may be removed, relocated or adjusted by the DEPARTMENT at any time in the future as deternfined to be necessary.' bx' the DEPARTMENT in order that the state road be xxidened, altered or otherwise changed to meet with future criteria or planning of the DEPARTMENT. THE AGENCY shall be gtvcn sixty (60) calendar da','s nc,~;cc to remove said la~dscapingd'hardscape after whmh time the DEPAR'fMENT may remove the same. AGENCY max.' utilize its employees' or third parties to accomplish its obligations under paragraphs 1, 2 or 3; however, AGENCY remains responsible for proper performance under this AGREEMENT and shall take all steps necess~ to cnsure that its employees or third parhcs perform as requircd under this AGREEMENT. JAN 1,1 2000 10. 11. 12. The term of this AGREEMENT commences upon the execution. The A G ENCY shall indemni~,, defend, and hold harmless the DEPARTMENT and all of its officers, agents, and employees from any claim loss, damage, cost, charge, or expense arising out of any act, error, omission or negligent act by the AGENCY, its agents, or employees, during the performance of the AGREEMENT, except that neither the AGENCY, its agents, or employees, during the performance of the AGREEMENT, except that neither the AGENCY, its agents, or employees will be liable under this paragraph for any claim, loss, damage, cost charge, or expense arising out of any act, error, omission, or negligent act by the DEPARTMENT or any of its officers, agents, or employees during the performance of the AGREEMENT. When the DEPARTMENT receives a notice of claim for damages that may have been caused by the AGENCY in the performance of services required under this AGREEMENT, the DEPARTMENT will immediately forward the claim to and the DEPARTMENT will evaluate the claim and report their findings to each other within seven working days and will jointly discuss options in defending the claim. After reviewing the claim, the DEPARTMENT will determine whether to require the participation of the claim or to require that participation of the AGENCY in the defense of the claim or to require that the AGENCY defend the DEPARTMENT in such claim as described in this section. The DEPARTMENT's failure to notify the AGENCY of a claim shall not release the AGENCY from any of the requirements of this section. The DEPARTMENT and the AGENCY will pay their ow~ costs for the evaluation, settlement negotiations, and trial, if any. However, if only one part3' participates in the defense of the claim at trial, that party is responsible for all costs, but if the vcrdict determines that there is joint responsibility, the costs and liability for damages ~411 be shared in the same percentage as that judicially established. This writing embodies the entire AGREEMENT and understanding between the parties hereto and there are no other AGREEMENTS and understanding oral or written, with reference to the subject matter hereof that are not merged herein and superseded hereby. Yhis AGREEMENT may not be assigned or transferred by the AGENCY in whole or part without the consent of the DEPARTMENT. This AGREEMENT shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida. In the event of a conflict between any portion of the AGREEMENT and Florida law, the laws of Florida shall prevail. IN V(IINESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents to be executed the day and year first above written. (AGENCY) STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BY: BY: Chairman District SecretaD' Attest:__ (SEAL) Attest: (SEAL) Clerk/Director Executive Secretary Legal Approval Legal Approval JAN 1 I 2000 9.30.99 DATE: SUBJECT: SECTION 03030 PERMITTEE: Gulf Bay 100, STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PERMIT : PERMIT NO. STATE ROAD 951 Inc., COUNTY COLLIER dba 951 Land Holdings Joint Venture 3955 Championshipe Drive ADDRESS: PHONE{~(941) Naples, FL 34114 Att. John Hayes, V.P. REQUESTING PERMISSION FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPkRTMENT OF TP~%NSPOR- TATION, HEREINAFTER CALLED THE DEPARTMENT, TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN: AT/FROM M.P./STA. 5.183 TO M.P./STA 7.065 1. PROPOSED WORK IS WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF A MUNICIPALITY. YES ( ) NO ( x } NAME OF MUNICIPALITY 2. IS INTERSTATE OR TOLL ROAD R/W INVOLVED? YES ( ) NO ('X ) 732-7022 APPLICANT DECLARES THAT PRIOR TO FILING THIS APPLICATION HE/SHE HAS ASCERTAINED THE LOCATION OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES, BOTtt AERIAL AND UNDERGROUND AND THE ACCURATE~LOCATIONS ARE SHOWN ON THE PLANS. A LETTER OF NOTIFICATION WAS MAILED ON 9.30.99 TO THE FOLLOWING UTILITIES/MUNICIPALITIES: Florida Power & Light Co,, Sprint, Collier County-Public Works, Media One Cable. THE OFFICE OF THE LOCAL MAINTENANCE OR RESIDENT ENGINEER SHALL BE NOTIFIED FORTY-EIGHT (48) HOURS PRIOR TO STARTING WORK AND AGAIN IMMEDIATELY UPON COMPLETION OF WORK. TIlE ENGINEER IS JOHN VLIET LOCATED AT 4800 DAVIS BOULEVARD_, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 TELEPHONE NUMBER ~LL %;ORK, ~ATER!ALS, AN[) EQU.~"MENT SIIALL PE SUBJkCT Tn ± i~PEC'FIC~:? 8Y '.~iE LOCAL MAI>)~E~AN,JL gl, RESil/[iiqT E!qGINEqR ANN SII;i,L DEPARTMENT SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS IN EFFECT AS OF THE APPROVAL DATE OF THIS PERMIT. ALL DEPARTMENT PROPERTY SHALL BE RESTORED TO ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION IN KEEPING WITH THE DEPARTMENT'S SPECIFICATIONS AND IH A MANNER ACCEPTABLE TO THE DEPARTMENT. PLANS OF THIS INSTALLATION SIIALL CON['ORM TO THE DEP~AqTb~ENT'S STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AN~ ROADWAY AC~D TRAFFIC DESIGN STANDARDS AND SHALL BE I~A~E [At{T OF THIS PERMIT BY ATTACHMENT. 8. THE PERMITTEE SHALL COMMENCE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION IN GOOD FAITH WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DAY OF SAID PERMIT APPROVAL AND ALL ~,~ORK SHALl, E£ CO,MPLE?[~D WITIIIN I 20 DAYS. IF THE ?EGiNNING WORI( DATE IS MORE TIIAN 51XTY (60) DAYS FROM TIlE DATE OF PERMIT APPROVAL, THEN THE FERMITTEE MUST REVIEW THE PERMIT WITH THE AFFECTED DEPARTMENT ENGINEER TO DETERMINE IF ANY CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED THAT WOULD AFFECT THE PROPOSED PERMIT ACTIVITY. 9. THE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF SAID ACTIVITY SHALL NOT INTERFERE WITH TiIE PROPERTY AND RIGHTS OF A PRIOR PERMITTEE. IT IS EXPRESSLY STIP~U,ATE5 THAT THIS PE~IT T~ A LICENSE FOR PE~ISSI~ USE O~Y AND '~hAT I?E ?LACi~2 %I? FAC]LI'.I' ~.; UFO'J PU~LI ~ PRC, PERT'.' PURSUAi~T Po ~IHiS PERMIT SHALL NOT OPE~TE TO ~REA'~E OR VEST ANY PROPERTY RIGIIT IN SAID HOLDER. !0. WHENEVER NECESSARY FOR THE CONSTRUCTI'ON, REPAIR, IHU~<OVEMENT, E4AIHTENANCE, SAFE AND EFFICIENT OPEP~ATIOH, ALTERATION OR RELOCATION OF ALL, OR ANY PORTION OF SAID HIGHWAY AS DETERMINED BY THE DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF OPE~TIONS, ANY AND ALL FACILITIES AND APPURTENANCES AUTHORIZED HEREUNDER, SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY REMOVED FROM SAID HIGHWAY OR RESET OR RELOCATED THEREON AS REQUIRED BY THE DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS. THIS WIi. L BE ACCOMPLISHED AT THE EXPENSE OF THE PERMITTEE. NO. _~~_ JAN ll 2000 PG, /Z) ....m ___y_',~ 11 12 13 IT IS UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED THAT THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES HEREIN SET OUT ARE GRANTED ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF THE STATE'S RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST IN THE LAND TO BE ENTERED UPON AND USED BY THE PERMITTEE. THE PERMITTEE WILL, AT ALL TIMES, ASSUME ALL RISK, INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND SAVE HARMLESS THE STATE OF FLORIDA, THE DEPARTMENT'S OFFICERS, AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES FROM AND AGAINST ALL CLAIMS, DEMANDS, ACTIONS, LIABILITIES AND SUITS OF ANY NATURE WHATSOEVER ARISING OUT OF, BECAUSE OF, OR DUE TO THE PERMITTEE'S USE (OR USE BY ITS AGENTS OR EMPLOYEES) OF DEPARTMENT R/W. THIS WILL INCLUDE ANY AND ALL LOSS, DD24AGE, COST OR EXPENSE ARISING IN ANY MANNER ON ACCOUNT OF THE EXERCISE OR THE ATTEMPTED EXERCISE BY THE PERMITTEE OF THE AFORESAID RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES. THIS WILL INCLUDE ANY ACT OR OCCURRENCE OF OMISSION OR COMMISSION BY THE PERMITTEE, ITS AGENTS OR EMPLOYEES. IT IS SPECIFICALLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED THAT THIS INDEMNIFICATION CLAUSE DOES NOT COVER OR INDEMNIFY THE DEPARTMENT FOR ITS SOLE NEGLIGENCE. DURING CONSTRUCTION, ALL SAFETY REGULATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT SHALL BE ADHERED TO AND THE PERMITTEE SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO PROVIDE MEASURES, INCLUDING PLACING AND DISPLAY OF SAFETY DEVICES, THAT MAY BE NECESSARY IN ORDER TO SAFELY CONDUCT THE PUBLIC THROUGH THE PROJECT AREA IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FEDERAL ~%/~JAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES {I~RJTCD), AS AMENDED, AND THE DEPARTMENT'S LATEST ROADWAY AND ~3%FFIC DESIGN STA/qDA~UDS. SPECIAL CONDITIONS: SECTION 102 MOT - PERMITTEE'S RESPONSIBILITY - CONTINUALLY AND ADEQUATELY REVIEW TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES TO ENSURE PROPER INSTALLATION AND WORKING ORDER, INCLUDING MONITORING OF LIGHTS. PROVIDE A~ INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS REVIEW WHO IS CERTIFIED AS AN AMERICAN TRAFFIC SAFETY SERVICE~ ASSOCIATION CERTIFIFIED WORKSITE SUPERVISOR. (DISRUPTION OF TRAFFIC) FOR SAFETY AND OPERATIONAL PURPOSES, THE DEPARTMENT MAY REQUIRE OR RESTRICT }{OURS OF CONSTRUCTION TO MINIMIZE DISRUPTION OF TRAFFIC ON THE STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM. 14. SUBMITTED BY: Holdings Joint Venture PERMITTEE (PRINT) THIS IS TO CERTIFY TIIAT TNE ABOVE INFORM3ATION IS CORRECT WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT ~LNY FALSE STA~'EMEN'f WILL VOID THE PE9MIT HEREBY REQUESTED. IN CASE OF NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE STATUTE, RULE, REGULAmION, STANDARD OR SPECIFICATION, THIS PERMIT IS VOID AND THE FACILITY/ACTIVITY WILL HAVE TO BE 3FOI~GHT INTO CO}~PLIANCE OR ~E~OVED FROM THE DE~ARTMENT'S R/W A'F THE PERMi'tTEE'S EXPENSE [~,~EDIATELY. Gulf Bay 100, Inc.; dba 951 Land PLACE CORPOR3~TE SEAL (OR FACSIMILE) ATTESTED WITNESS IS WAIVER OF CORPORATE SEAL ON FILE WITH THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF T~TN2P !{"?,TiON, TrLL~H~'~SE~, ~LORI[~A? YES ( IS 9OADWAY CONSTRUCTION PROPOSED OF UNDERWAY? YES ( ) NO ( ) RECOM~4ENDED FOR APPROVAL TITLE: DATE: APPROVED BY: DATE: DISTRICT PERMIT ENGINEER OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE JAN 1 1 2O00 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO CONDUCT A REVIEW HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER SEWER IMPACT FEES ARE APPLICABLE TO REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15000 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL OBJECTIVE: That the Board of County Commissioners, as the governing body of Collier County, Florida, and as Ex-Officio the Governing Board of the Collier County Water and Sewer District, conduct a Review Hearing pursuant to Section 3.07 of Ordinance No. 98-69, to determine whether sewer impact fees are applicable to specific parcels of real property in the former Rookery Bay~ Sewer Service area, which parcels of land are currently owned by DY Associates Joint Venture. CONSIDERATIONS: Collier County purchased the Rookery Bay Utility (RBU) on February 1, 1999. No wastewater treatment capacity was purchased. Wastewater from the former Rookery Bay certificated area is now treated by County's wastewater treatment facilities. In accordance with County Ordinance No. 98-69, all property owners in the former Rookery Bay service area have been notified that they are required to pay wastewater impact fees. The real property subject to this Review Hearing is called DUDA Farms at 15000 East Tamiami Trail. In 1996 and 1997, DY Associates Joint Venture purchased portions of the subject land, folio numbers 00741120003 & 00741160102, which includes migrant farm housing and a day care facility. On September 27, 1999, DY Associates received a Notice of Sewer Impact Fee Statement. On October 25, in accordance with Ordinance No. 98-69, the owners requested a "Review Hearing" to determine whether sewer impacl fees are applicable to this real property. The County Attorney's Office has concluded that the subject impact fees are applicable to this real property. FISCAL IMPACT: Staff estimates that 48 mobile homes are located on the subject property. The resulting sewer impact fees would be $24,960. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners, as the governing body of Collier County, Florida, and as Ex-Officio the Governing Board of the Collier County Water and Sewer District, conduct a Review Hearing pursuant to Section 3.07 of County Ordinance No. 98-69 and determine whether sewer impact fees are applicable to these parcels of land, now owned by DY Associates Joint Venture. SUBMITTED BY: Susan Usher, Senior Accountant REVIEWED ~ - ~w~i~, ~perations Director Ed Ilsc~er, Public Works Administ{at~ JAN I1 2006 ~¢. I ATTO RN EYS-AT- LAW October 21, 1999 Via Certified Mai/No. Z 495 343 890 Return Receipt Requested Robert Fernandez Co .in,, Administrator .'301 East Tami;~rni Trail, Bldg. F. 2"d Floor Naples, Florida 34112 Re: Notice of Request for Hearing on Sewer Impact Fees Property Description: Folio Nos. Site Address: Section 13, Township 51, Range 26 (Housing for Farm Helpers) 00741160102 & 00741120003 15000 East Tamiami Trail Dear Mr. Fernandez: Burr L. SAUNDERS OF COUNSEL · Board Certified Real Estate Atto rney **Board Certified City, County and Local Government Attorney *** Also admitted in Indiana and Georgia **** Also admitted in Pennsylvania Pleqse be advised that this law firm represents DY Associates Joint Venture (hereinafter the "O,"ner") ,,,,.'!th regatrd to the Notice of Sewer Impact Fee dated September 23,193~9 received from the Board of Collier County Commissioners, Public Works Division. Pursuant to Section 3.07, Collier County Ordinance No. 98-69, this office is requesting a review hearing on behalf of our client to determine whether sewer system impact fees are applicable to the subject property. For your reference, the following information is submitted in accordance with Section 3.07. Collier County Ordinance No. 98-69: 1) The name and address of the Applicant/Owner of the property is DY Associates Joint Venture whose address is 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 710, Naples, Florida 34108. 2) The full and complete legal deschption of the property in question is: Section 13, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. I .....c' - 4 :.he ~"~r,' ~_ e," c,.r;he buildimz_ permits and th,.~ date such b~:i!di ng ?~_nnits ',,,'e-~, ~ issued arc as ~)liows: mzknown Pelican Bay Marco Island Please Respond to: Pelican Bay 801 Laurel Oak Dr., Suite 710, Naples, FL 34108 (941) 566-3131 Fax (941) 566-3161 606 Bald Eagle Dr., Suite 500, P.O. Box 1, Marco Island, FL 34146 (941) 394-5161 Fax (941) .o., 2-CArl 11 2000 4) A briefly description of the nature of improvements on the property are as follows: Fifty-two f52t mobile homes rented by migrant farm workers, and (1) one child care facility. 5) Ii paid, the date the water and/or sewer systems impact fees was paid: We submit that impact fees in the amount of$15,000.00 have been paid by the Owner's predecessor in title. 6) A statement of the reasons as to why the Owner is requesting the hearink: We submit that pursuant to Florida statutory law; Florida common law; Collier County Code, and Collier County Ordinance 98-69, the subject property is exempt from sewer impact fees. Alternatively, any applicable sewer impact fees should be reduced by the financial contribution of the Owner's predecessor in title as forth in paragraph five (5) above. U.:e ....... look for,~, xrd to ,'e~-eivln,-~= written notification of the date and time of the hearing on Lhl~ matter. Should you have any questions or require any further documentation prior to the scheduled hearing date, please feel free to contact me. Respectfully submitted, Mark I Woodward eric. cc'. DY Associates Joint Venture Edward Finn. Public Works Division Via Certified Mail No. Z 495 343 886 F: USERS WANDA FiDDLERS,ROOKER¥,DYIMPACT.FEE JAN 11 2000 ATTO P.N £YS-AT-LAW Via Certified Mail No. Z 495 345 059 Return Receipt Requested Mr. Edward N. Finn Public Works Operations Director .3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Bldg. H, 3ra Floor N'aptes, Florida 34112 November 16,'. 1999 CRAIG R.. WOODWARD" M,,~J. Wooow~,o ANmO~ P. P~s, J~." J. CHRISTOPHER LOiVlBARDO STE'VEN V. BLOUNT JOHN 3,. P^UL L. KLrrClq£R"""" BURT L. SAUNDERS OF COUNSEL ' Board Certified Real Estate Attorney '"Board Certified City, County and Local Government Attorney ~' Also admitted in Indiana and Georgia '~' Also admitted in Pennsylvania Re: DY Associates Joint Venture Dear Mr. Finn: This office is in receipt of your letter dated October 27, 1999 regarding our client, DY Associates Joint Venture. As you are aware, this office has timely requested a hearing pursuant to Section 3.07, Collier County Ordinance No. 98-69 to determine whether sewer system impact fees are applicable to the subject property. Pursuant to Section 3.07 (E), Collier County Ordinance No. 98- 69, the County Administrator is obligated to schedule a hearing before the Board of Collier County Commissioners upon the receipt of our request for a hearing. However, in an effort to accommodate your request for additional information, I am enclosing a copy ofWillinm E Sundstrom's letter to the County Administrator written on behalf of our mutual client, DY Associates Joint Venture. This letter fully explains the basis of our position that our client is exempt from sewer impact fees, and also discusses the previous payments made by our client's predecessor in title. If I can be o£ any further assistance, please feel free to contact me. cc: client Very truly yours, ~ J. Woodward Pelican Bay Marco Island Please Respond to: Pelican Bay ' " S01 Laurel Oak Dr., Suite 710. Naples, FL 34108 (941) 566-3131 Fax (941) 566~3161 JAN I 1 2000 606 Bald Eagle Dr., Suite 500, P.O. Box 1, Marco Island, FL 34146 (941) 394-5161 Fax (9 1) ~2.~6402 ell .,, CHRIS H BENTLEY. P.A. E MARSHALL DETERDING CAROL L. DuTRA MARTIN S. FILIEDMAN. PA JOHN R. JENKINS, S'FEW'~N'~ MINDLIN. PA DAREN L. SHIPPY WILLIAM E. SUNDSTM, PA. DIANE D.T'REMOR. P.A. JOHN L.XI;'HARTO N LAw O~cEs RECEIVED COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS OFFICE ROSE, SUNDSTROM ~ BENTLEY, LLP ' 2548 BL~mSTONE P~N~S DRrV~ TALLAHASSEE, FLORID^ 32301 N0~ ~- ~ ~9~ FILE ."cs'r orr:c: _~ev , 5~-~ __ TALL~IASSEE, FLORID^ 32302-1567 TELECOPIER (850) 656-4029 November 16, 1999 ROBERT M. C. ROSE OF COUN,¥,~ Robert Fernandez County. Administrator 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Bid. F, 2"a Floor Naples, Florida 34112 DY Associates Joint Venture ("Owner") Sewer Impact Fees Property Description: Folio Nos. Site Address: Section 13, Township 51, Range Farm Helpers) 00741160102 & 007441120003 15000 East Tamiami Trail 26 (Housing for Dear Mr. Fernandez: We represent DY Associates Joint Venture. This letter requests that Collier County reconsider its September 23, 1999 Notice of Sewer Impact Fee. As set forth in the Owner's October 21, 1999 request for a hearing on behalf of the Owner, applicable law does not permit the assessment of additional sewer impact fees. Collier County Ordinance Section 74-167(4), entitled "Exemptions," is clear and unambiguous. That sec*don says t~he following are exempt from *~'...e ra3.~n,.,,t ..... ...... r;,,,pa,..,~ fees, Buildings, structures, or improvements, either then ex:sting or which then have been issued a building permit for which construction is proceeding in good faith, previously served by a utility service provider other than the county, provided that at the time the county formally resolves to acquire that utility, the board expressly declares its intention to operate said utility as a component of the regional water and/or regional sewer system. As you are aware, the Owner's predecessor in title, A. Duda & Sons, Inc. ("Duda"), paid to the County's predecessor in ritle, Rookery Bay Utility_Company_ JAN 2000 Mr. Robert Fernandez November 16, 1999 Page 2 ("Rookery Bay"), $15,000 as connection fees and reserved capacity. Since that agreement, monthly guaranteed revenues have been paid, first to Rookery Bay, and now to Collier County (for a total of 26 years), in accordance with the Sewer Agreement between Rookery Bay and Duda, including the Addenda. Additionally, Collier County "expressly declare[d] its intention to operate said utility as a component of the regional water and/or regional sewer system[,]" pursuant to Resolution 98-297. Specifically, Collier County stated: 2. The County, by and through its Public Works Administrator and staff, has investigated and is generally apprised as to the physical condition of the utility facilities for interconnection of the existing collection system presently owned by the County with the system owned by Rookery Bay Services, Inc. (RBS). 6. RBS has agreed to construct the necessary facilities for connection to the County's regional transmission and treatment facilities. 13. The County has the financial ability to provide sewer service to the current Rookery Bay service area within Collier County. The County has budgeted for extension of necessary sewer transmission facilities to serve the Rookery Bay service area. Clearly then, the Owner fits within the designated exemption afforded by Section 74-167(4) of the Collier County Code. Furthermore, Florida common law affords an additional basis for not requiring the Owner to pay additional sewer impact fees. The dispositive case is City of Cooper City v. PCi-I Cot2v., 496 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 4~ DCA 1986). In that case, PCH, the developer, pursuant to a Developer's Agreement with Cooper City Utilities ("Utility"), gave the Utility the exclusive right to provide water and sewer service to 520 acres of land that PCH owned and was ready to develop. PCH paid $450 per connection. The Devo~oper's Agreement was binding on the parties' successors and ,~.ssigns. Thereafter, the Utility ~old its assets to the City'of Sunrise, which was also involved in litigation with the City of Cooper City over ownership of the Utility. Upon resolution of that dispute, the City of Cooper City became the owner of the utility and passed an ordinance increasing the connection fee charged PGH from $450 to $1,550. On appeal, the court framed the issue as follows: "Whether the water and sewer Rose, Sundstrom &Bentley, LLP I JAN 1 1 2000 Mr. Robert Fernandez November 16, 1999 Page 3 connection fees imposed by the City's ordinance are invalid beca. use such fees are unreasonable and therefore invalid because they arbitrarily discriminate against new users in favor or existing users." In invalidating the increased connection fee, the court noted that the Gity's ordinance "constitute[d] an unreasonable exercise of governmental authority, d [id] not defray cost on a fair share pro rata basis, and as such [wa]s an unconstitutional impairment of contract." Id. at 846. Based upon the foregoing, the Owner respectfully requests that Collier County reconsider its Notice of Sewer Impact Fee. The Owner has previously paid Connection Fees to reserve capacity, and further, made guaranteed revenue payments; therefore, it would constitute an unreasonable exercise of governmental authority and unconstitutional impairment of contract fights to attempt to impose additional connection fees. Thank you for your consideration to this matter. ROSE, SUNDSTROM & BENTLEY, For the Firm WESkit cc: Mark Woodward, Esquire Woodward, Pires & Lombardo ',~gul fbay\cotmty letter Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP 25-.i8 Bla~rstone Pines Drive,Tallahassec. Florida 32301 .JAN 1 1 PG.. , "~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ASSIST THE COLLIER COUNTY FAIR AND EXPOSITION, INC. WITH THE COMPLETION OF THE NORTH AND SOUTH WINGS OF THE AGRICULTURAL PAVILION BY PROVIDING A TAX-EXEMPT COMMERCIAL PAPER LOAN OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners borrow an amount not-to- exceed $570,000 for the Collier County Fair and Exposition, Inc. (Fair). The Fair will provide debt service payments as noted in the attached agreement. CONSIDERATIONS: The Fair was created in 1976 by the Board of County Commissioners in accordance with Chapter 616, F.S., which is entitled "Public Fairs and Expositions". The officers and five special directors are appointed annually by the Board of County Commissioners. The five special directors must be appointed from the following: · Collier County Agriculture Department · Collier County School System · Collier County Bar Association · Collier County Sheriff's Office · Any current or past officer of a recognized civic organization. The purpose of the Fair as identified in Chapter 616, F.S. and in the Articles of Incorporation is as follows: To conduct and operate public meetings or expositions for the benefit and progressive development of the education, agriculture, horticulture, livestock, cultural and other resources of Collier County and the State of Florida. Bo To hold an annual fair in Collier County, Florida primarily for the purpose of providing an opportunity for 4-H Club members, FleA and FHA Chapter members and the public at large of all ages to display exhibits of their work and to compete as individuals with one another and against the highest standards of perfection; each exhibit presenting a personal achievement for each participant; and each participant thereby gaining for himself valuable experience, confidence and the desire to achieve greater goals. To provide through an exhibition or fair an opportunity for the general public to view the achievements of the 4-H members, FFA and FHA Chapter members. AGENDA ITEM No. 1 JAN 1 1 2000 pg. ! D. To hold and conduct agricultural and home economic exhibitions, fairs, horse and cattle shows and sa!es, and various other educational exhibits, both non- commercial and commercial. The fairgrounds and all permanent improvements on the grounds, built by the Fair belong to the County. The County leased the grounds to the Fair in 1987 for a fifty year term. The fairgrounds has cu/'rently in place one large and six smaller permanent facilities. The smaller facilities include three trailers, a central bathroom and showers building, a horse arena, fencing and a potable water supply. In addition, the Fair has built an equipment barn. These existing facilities have been acquired by contributions, state grants and by revenues generated from Fair activities. The long-range development plan for the Fairgrounds includes a 44,650 square foot Agricultural and Exhibition Pavilion. This multi-purpose building was designed to be built in stages. The first stage, a 21,600 square foot building was completed in December, 1994. The cost, $125,000, was funded by a $100,000 advance from the Board of County Commissioners to be paid back in ten equal installments. The second stage includes two wings for the Pavilion. Each wing is 11,500 square feet. The total square footage that will be available for exhibitions and events is 44,600 square feet. A 44,600 square foot covered facility will provide an opportunity to attract regional events such as recreational vehicle (RV) and marine exhibits; dog and cat shows, regional arts and crafts shows; and many other regional and State-wide events that were not possible in the 21,600 square foot building. Because the Fairgrounds and all permanent facilities belong to the County, commercial financing for buildings is not possible. Commercial lending institutions require but cannot have a secured interest in public assets. The Fairgrounds and the activities on it are an extension of the will and purposes of the Board of County Commissioners and the County. In addition to the cultural and social activities the public enjoys, the Fairgrounds become a shelter and compound during emergency events. During the last fire season horses and dogs were sheltered on the Fairgrounds. Both the County and FPL used the Fairgrounds during hurricanes Harvey, Floyd and Irene as compounds for their vehicles. During Harvey, FPL had over 200 vehicles and their crews marshaled on the Fairgrounds. Agend ! m JAN I 1 2000 The County Fairgrounds generated over $500,000 in revenues last year. Approximately 10 to 15% of annual revenues are used for capita improvements. This year the Fair has already built and paid for the following: Lights in the existing Pavilion Parking expans!on from 2,500 cars to 3,500 cars (fill and compaction) Electrical for parking Fence extension Gray water holding tanks Golf carts Principal and interest payment to the Board of County Commissioners $14,000 21,000 6,000 2,000 3,000 2,400 14,500 $62,900 In addition, FPL contributed 1,700 tons of fill dirt valued at over $50,000 to the Fairgrounds. This fill was used as the base for the new wings and for the central promenade of the Fairgrounds. As part of the Fairgrounds building fund effort, one major contributor, Allen Systems Group has contributed $7,500 a year for three years for a three year total of $22,500. In addition to building fund contributions, the Fairgrounds will use ground rental income to fund the debt service requirements for the loan, if the loan guarantee is approved. Annual debt service payments for this $570,000 loan guarantee will be approximately $56,000 over a fifteen year period. The current proposal is a request for the Board of County Commissioners to guarantee a loan from the tax-exempt commercial paper program in an amount not-to-exceed $570,000 to the Fair. The loan would be repaid in fifteen annual installments for principal. Interest will be paid monthly. The draws on the $570,000 loan are contemplated to be requested on a reimbursement basis. The Fair Board will pay the contractors/vendors and request a reimbursement from the County equal to the invoiced amount. Certain items such as a portion for the electrical improvements and the bleachers are already in progress and are being cash flowed for operations. If approved, the Fair will reimburse itself from the loan. JAN 1 1 2000 The breakdown of anticipated costs are: $12,000 15,000 108,500 6,500 176,500 14,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 92,000 $ 529,500 40,500 $ 570,000 Permitting/Impact Fees Retrofit Existing Bldg for Sprinkler System Fire Sprinkler System for Entire Bldg. 10' Non-potable Well for Sprinkler System Two Wings Lighting for Two Wings Electrical Improvements for the Pavilion and Fairgrounds Bleachers Water Management Permitting Cement Slab for Entire Pavilion 7.64% Contingency If the loan guarantee is approved, construction will commence in late January, 2000. The cement floor cannot be initiated until the water management permitting has been approved. Approval and floor construction is scheduled for June 2000. This method of guarantying the loan instead of advancing the money from General Fund Reserves has been reviewed by and is recommended by the County's Finance Committee. Attached please find: Letter from the County Fair Board · Business Plan for the feasibility of this Project · Financial options · Proposed agreement between the County and the Fair · Resolution authorizing the commercial paper draw Title to the building, as has all assets, will revert to the County at the conclusion of the lease. FISCAL IMPACT: $570,000 loan guarantee from the Tax Exempt Commercial Paper Program. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: In accordance with the terms of the lease, the fairgrounds are accounted for as recreational facilities for the County. Agend T f RECOMMENDATION: The Board approve the loan guarantee as presented by the terms of the agreement. The Board approve the guarantee and terms, as appropriate, and authorize the Chair to execute the agreement following final negotiations with staff and upon review and approval of the County Attorney and adopt the resolution approving the commercial paper loan and .authorize the Chair and staff to execute the documents related to the draw. Prepared b~ ~ ~_~"~~~ Thdmas ~. ~liff, Pu$~ervices Administrator JAN COLLIER COUNTY FAIR 751 39TM AVE., NE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34120 Tel. (941) 455-1444 Fax (941) 455-6701 December 3, 1999 Thomas W. Olliff, Administrator Public Services Division Collier County Courthouse Complex 3301 Tamiami Trail E Naples, FL 34112 Dear Tom: This letter is a request for your help and assistance in placing an agenda item on the Board of County Commissioner's agenda for their 1/11/00 meeting. As we have discussed, the Fair is requesting the Board of County Commissioners guarantee a loan for the Fair Board in the amount of $570,000 for the construction of Phase 2 of the Agricultural and Exhibition Pavilion. The following is provided by way of background. The Collier County Agricultural Fair and Exposition, Inc., serves as a vital link between the agricultural and urban population in Collier County. The Fair was created in 1976 as a public fair in accordance with Chapter 616, F.S. by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners. The County Fairgrounds are situated in the middle of Collier County, halfway between Naples on the west and Immokalee on the east, on 90 acres owned by Collier County. A County public fair has been provided every year since January 1977. The 1999 Fair provided exhibits of over 130 livestock, swine and sheep raised by the youth of this County. Over 100 poultry and rabbit exhibits were on display. Over 500 Family Living exhibits such as arts, crafts, cooking, canning, etc., were featured. Each of Collier County's 33 public and 4 private schools provide exhibits annually for the Fair. The students of this County take a great deal of pride in and compete annually for the "best of exhibit" category in their Education tent. JAN 1 1 2000 In addition, the Fairgrounds provides a forum for many broad-based public events such as circuses, equestrian shows, concerts and many other community-wide public interest opportunities throughout the year. During natural disasters such as hurricanes and large brush fires, the centrally located 68.01 acre Fairgrounds is used by Collier County and FPL as a compound to marshal, store and control rolling stock. During Hurricane Harvey, FPL had over 200 trucks stored on the Fairgrounds. In 1994, the Board of Directors of the Collier County Fair initiated a building campaign to provide permanent, versatile year around facilities on the Fairgrounds for use by the public. The centerpiece building is a $800,000 agricultural pavilion designed to be built in 3 Stages. The center of this pavilion, a 120 by 180 foot open air structure was completed in December, 1994. The 2"" Stage consists of two wings on the northern and southern sides. Each wing is 64' x 180'. The wings are intended to serve as stockades and pens for the annual fair among other uses. The gates and panels of the stockade and pens will be stored in a separate warehouse on the fairgrounds when not in use, providing a 44,000 square foot building to be used by 4-H, FFA and other organizations as well as being available for many other community-wide needs throughout the year. This Stage includes a fire containment sprinkler system and a supporting well. This Stage is scheduled for completion in 2000. The 34 Stage consists of a washrack, a scalehouse, and loading/unloading ramps. This Stage is scheduled for completion in 2004. The Fair Board recommends the debt service requirements be established on an installment basis over a fifteen year period as explained in the attached proposed contract. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, Terry Wolfson, President Collier County Agricultural Fair and Exposition, Inc. JAY:TW:pc Attachment i" Agend ..... JAN ! f 2000 COLLIER COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS BUSINESS PLAN Fiscal Years 2000 - 2004 December, 1999 COLLIER COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS BUSINESS PLAN FY 2000 - 2004 DECEMBER, 1999 TABLE OF CONTENTS: · DEDICATION · MISSION · BACKGROUND · NEED · METHODOLOGY · PROFORMA FINANCIALS FY2000- 2004 Page # 1 2 3 5 7 12 JAN I 1 ~000 COLLIER COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS BUSINESS PLAN FY 2000 - 2004 DECEMBER, 1999 DEDICATION The Collier County Fairgrounds are dedicated to the citizens of Collier County, Florida. From east to west; from junior to senior; from rural to urban setting; from education to industry; the County Fairgrounds are dedicated to the growth, enhancement, and understanding of all Collier Countians. '! JAN 1 1 ?000 ' COLLIER COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS BUSINESS PLAN FY 2000 - 2004 DECEMBER, 1999 MISSION To provide a public forum for the cultural, social, educational and recreational needs of a diverse and energized Collier County population. 2 JAN ! 1 2000 i COLLIER COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS BUSINESS PLAN FY 2000 - 2004 DECEMBER, 1999 BACKGROUND County Fairs and County Fairgrounds have become institutionalized and have deep roots across the United States. For nearly 150 years, County Fairs have served as a focal point where the citizens interested in agriculture, family living and crafts could come together to proudly exhibit, display and sell their accomplishments. County fairs provide a window, where the mostly urban population of today can look at and touch their agrarian past. Today, County Fairgrounds from California to Maine, from Florida to Washington, host a variety of public interest events throughout the year. County Fairgrounds have evolved into focal points of public participation for community-wide events. County Fairgrounds represent and stand for diversity and wide public participation. They stand shoulder to shoulder with and complement other community-based municipal capital facilities such as parks and libraries. Collier County, Florida is a vast and complex public structure. The County is a world-wide destination point for tourists. Images of gentle tropical breezes, miles of white sandy beaches and visions of paradise comes immediately to mind when Naples is mentioned. The tourism industry is a strong and motivating economical force in Collier County. A second and very powerful economic muscle in the local economy of Collier County is the vast and expansive agricultural base in the eastern County that provides citrus products, vegetables and beef for the tables of America. Billions of dollars (before the multiplier effect) are provided annually for Collier County's economy from its agricultural base. Collier County is analogous to a giant barbell. Weighted on the west by an elite tourism industry and weighted on the east by a vast agricultural industry, the County Fairgrounds is located midway between these two giants on the major east-west roadway in the County. The County Fairgrounds are strategically located where east can meet west, where urbanites can shake hands with their rural counterparts, where broad-based community events can support, enhance and enrich the entire community of Collier County. In the mid-seventies, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County recognized the need for a County Fair. Chapter 616 of the Florida Statutes provides a mechanism and guidance for the creation of and purposes for County Fairs. 3 JAN 1 I 2000 COLLIER COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS BUSINESS PLAN FY 2000 - 2004 DECEMBER, 1999 As required by Florida law, twenty-five citizens and the Board of County Commissioners came together and created a partnership with a vision as big as the County itself. From this small and humble beginning in 1976, Collier County has been blessed with twenty-two County public fairs beginning with the first Fair in January, 1977. For ten years, the annual fair was held at several different locations in western Collier County. One favorite spot for the Fair was on Radio Road, a fairly rural setting in those early days. One story that many remembers and associates with the Radio Road Fairs' is the attack, by a giant bull on a bright red, brand new pickup truck taking a test drive from that new automobile dealership next to the County seat. As the story goes, the bull won that day. in the late 1980's the Board of County Commissioners established a permanent County Fairgrounds (55 acres) at the present location on Immokalee Road. Later that year, the Board of County Commissioners purchased an additional 30.96 acres expanding the Fairgrounds to approximately 86 acres. The western portion of the Fairgrounds (approximately 18 acres) currently houses the County Extension offices and a recently built EMS substation. The Board of County Commissioners has been very supportive over the years of its Fairgrounds. The Board has donated staff time, the use of heavy machinery and equipment, fill dirt, paving, mowing, trailers and furniture. In 1994, the Board of County Commissioners advanced $100,000 for the initiation of a long-term permanent building program. That $100,000 was used to build the anchor section of the Pavilion. This 21,600 square foot structure was designed to be built in stages. Upon completion, the Pavilion will be a 44,640 square foot building designed to be a showcase for community-wide public interest events. 4 Agenda. Item No. k~(~') ! JAN"-i 2 00 ! COLLIER COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS BUSINESS PLAN FY 2000 - 2004 DECEMBER, 1999 NEED The citizens of Collier County are a diverse and many-faceted population with varied and multiple cultural, social, educational, recreational and other community-based needs. The County Fairgrounds is one of the most valuable assets owned by the Board of County Commissioners that can meet and serve community-based needs in Collier County. The growth in Collier County from west to east and from east to west has stressed the existing public facilities in the County. Many Collier County citizens look North to Lee County and East to Broward and Dade Counties for satisfaction of unique community-based needs. The County Fairgrounds is centrally located and is strategically positioned to provide a forum for community-based events. The development of the County Fairgrounds as a viable County-wide resource and public asset to be used year around is an excellent community oriented goal. The transformation of the County Fairgrounds into a County-wide asset used and enjoyed by the public throughout the year will require a strong commitment by the Board of County Commissioners and the County Fair Board of Directors. The annual public fair generates approximately % of a million dollars annually. 10 to 15% of these annual revenues are used in conjunction with public and private contributions to subsidize a capital program. In order to fund Phase 2 of the Pavilion, which will expand the usable square footage to 44,640 square feet, an investment of $570,000 is needed. This investment includes a water management plan and related permitting, electrical capabilities for a five year expansion plan, and a cement floor for the entire pavilion which will have a 248' x 180' footprint when finished. A minimum debt service of $56,000 a year for fifteen years is required to fund the $570,000 investment in this asset. The Board of County Commissioners has always been an advocate and supporter of the Fairgrounds, but the underlying caveat has remained intact throughout the years. The Board will support the efforts of the Fair Board in a variety of ways such as mentioned earlier from staff support to mowing to the occasional use of heavy equipment and as a guarantor. The Board of County 5 Agenda,. AN ! 1 2000 COLLIER COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS BUSINESS PLAN FY 2000 - 2004 DECEMBER, 1999 Commissioners will not directly fund for capital improvements on the County Fairgrounds. The challenge is to develop a business plan that will provide sufficient funding to cover the debt service requirements. 6 COLLIER COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS BUSINESS PLAN FY 2000 - 2004 DECEMBER, 1999 METHODOLOGY The previous section of this business plan stated the challenge is to develop a feasible concept that will provide for the debt service requirements of the contemplated loan. The debt service requirements should be both reasonable and beyond the existing budgetary structure. The stated primary function of this capital asset is to provide a forum for community-based events of a public nature. The community-based events should, be self supporting and generate the revenues required to meet the debt service. The Fair Board of Directors will define and develop guidelines for the events to be used to meet the debt servicing. As a starting point, the Fairgrounds has three primary sources of income. They are: · Revenues generated from the annual County Fair · Contributions · Off-season ground rentals. The Fairboard has committed to dedicate and restrict all net off-season ground rental revenue to debt service. In fiscal 1999, the Fairgrounds generated $22,000 in off season ground rentals. This $22,000 was comprised of the fOllowing: · Rental of a small section of the grounds to an airplane club for $350 per month for 12 months $4,200 · 1 wedding 500 · 1 rodeo 2,500 · 7 truck pull events @ $750 each 5,200 · 2 Spanish festival concerts @ $2,500 ea. 5,000 · I revival show (Leroy Jenkins) 3,000 · 1 stage show (Theatrical Angels) 600 · 2 parties 1,000 $22,000 7 2000 COLLIER COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS BUSINESS PLAN FY 2000 - 2O04 DECEMBER, 1999 This year in fiscal 2000, the Fairgrounds off-season grounds rentals have generated the following: Rental to airplane club $350 per month for 9 months $3,150 2 circuses 3,500 X-Fest 5,227 $11,877 Only the X-Fest used an outside promoter. The Fairgrounds has never used a professional promoter to schedule and provide events and the Fairgrounds have never actively competed for events. This is about to change. The Fair Board of Directors is currently undergoing contract negotiations with a nationally recognized promoter to utilize the Fairgrounds throughout the year. The local market in Collier County will support the following entertainment activities and community-based events: 1. Country/Western concerts 2. Spanish Festivals 3. Youth-rock 4. Jazz-light rock 5. Regional dog/cat shows 6. Regional RV/^utomobile events 7. Truck/Tractor Pulls 8. Circuses 9. Regional arts/craft shows 10. Rodeos Items I through 4 are classified as major events. Items 5 through 10 are classified as minor events. To avoid market saturation, major events will be rotated and recycled every three to four months. Rather than just providing and renting the facilities, the Fair will participate/partner in the promotion of major events. Minor events will be o.n a rental basis only. Historically the Fairgrounds have been available on a rental basis only from $500 for a half-day event to $2,000 for a two day event. 8 JAN 1 ~~2 O0 ~,g 17 COLLIER COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS BUSINESS PLAN FY 2000 - 2004 DECEMBER, 1999 The recent X-Fest was a one-day event. The Fairgrounds were rented to the promoters for $2,000 and a percentage of the gate. Parking generated $2,000+ net dollars for a local not-for-profit organization. The Fairgrounds did not retain any revenue from parking. In addition, the Fairgrounds did not participate in vendor/concessionaire revenues. The Fairgrounds received $5,227 for its limited (rental only) participation in this event. As a participating partner, the Fairgrounds could have realized $8,000 to $10,000 (net) from this event. The business plan for the Fairgrounds for Fiscal 2001 (4/1/00 - 3/31/00) provides for one major event every month and a minimum of one minor event per month. The minimum charge for a 1-day minor event will be $1,500. The minor event contracting promoter/sponsor will be responsible for parking, gate and concessions. For monthly major events, the Fairgrounds will be a co-sponsor and participate in the gate and concession proceeds. Parking receipts will belong to the Fairgrounds, The Fair will partner with Collier County civic organizations to provide parking at major events. There will be no events scheduled between December 7th and January 19th of each year because of annual County Fair activity. The Pavilion with 44,640 square feet will easily accommodate 4,000 people after a reduction of 25% for use by the entertainers (33,480 sq. ft..-' 4,000 people = 8.4 sq. ft. per person). Concessionaires will be restricted to two sides for the Pavilion and the promenade. The current Fairground parking will accommodate 3,500 automobiles. AT $3.00 per automobile, gross daily revenues at capacity will be $10,500. Approximately 1/3 of gross revenues will be required to fund staffing costs. Using a conservative forecasting process of $5,500 net to the Fairgrounds for gate and concessions proceeds plus 2,000 cars (net is $4,000) per major event, the Fairgrounds will realize at least $9,500 net per major event. The rental fee for minor events will be $1,500 per minor event. 9 COLLIER COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS BUSINESS PLAN FY 2000 - 2004 DECEMBER, 1999 ANNUALLY 10 major events @ $9,500 10 minor events @ $1,500 Airplane Club 12 months @ $350 each = $95,000 = 15,000 = 4,200 $114,200 The above is forecast at 10 major and 10 minor events for a 12 month period. Assuming there were major problems during a 12 month period and only 5 major and 5 minor events could be conducted. The reduced revenues as seen below will cover the debt service requirements. 5 major events @ $9,500 5 minor events @ $1,500 Airplane club 12 months @ $350 each Debt service requirement Residual = $47,500 = 7,500 = 4,200 $59,2OO (56,000) $3,200 Over the past five years, the Fairgrounds construction fund contributions from both citizens and commercial organizations $12,000 per year. has received in excess of Allen Systems alone has contributed $22,500. Waste Management has contributed over $7,000. WCI has contributed $10,000. Every year the livestock buyers contribute several thousand dollars. One private citizen contributed $5,000. Many organizations contribute in-kind goods and material. FPL recently contributed over $50,000 in fill material. The Fairgrounds is a viable partner in the continuing process of providing for the social, cultural, educational and recreational needs of Collier Countians. This Business Plan for off-season ground rentals demonstrates that the Fairgrounds can feasibly meet and exceed the debt service requirement for a $570,00 loan guarantee by the Board of County Commissioners. 10 Agenda JAN ! ! Z000 COLLIER COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS BUSINESS PLAN FY 2000 - 2004 DECEMBER, 1999 At this time projected major events for the Fairgrounds for 2000 include: · The Bellamy Brothers · VVillie Nelson · Alabama · Hank Williams, Jr 11 Agenda Tte, m NO.~ AN ! '1 ~OOO COLLIER COUNTY AGRICULTURAL FAIR AND EXPOSITION, INC. PROFORMA 2000 - 2004 12/30/1999 ATTENDANCE I 32,570 35,589 ' 37,368 I 39,237 I 41,199 43,259 45.422 I ACTUAL ACTUAL ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 REVENUES GATE: ! ADULTS $ 134,265 $ 143,281 ! 150,445 157,967 165,866 174,159 182.867 CHILDREN $ 17,151 $ 20.073 [ 21,077 22.130 23,237 i 24,399 25,619 SENIOR $ $ j CHURCH: - ADULTS $ $ - - CHILDREN $ $ - - STUDENT ARM BANDS $1.00 $ $ CANNED FOOD DISCOUNT $ (1,669) $ (1,750) (1,838) (1,929), (2.026) (2,127) (2,233] TOTAL $ 149,747 $ 161,604 i $ 169.684 $ 178,168 $ 187,077 $ 196,431 ~ $ 206,252 OTHER.' UVESTOCK PASSES $ 125 $ 300 315 331 347 365 383 PARKING $ 24,278 $ 23,391 24,561 25,789 27.078 28,432 29,854 MIDWAY CONCESSIONS $ 12,285 $ 13,169 13,827 14.519 15.245 16.007 16,807 MIDWAY RIDES $ 71.292 $ 79,552 83,530 87,706 92,091 96,696 101,531 IND. MIDWAY $ 33.904 $ 39,560 41,538 43,615 45,796 48.085 50,490 COMMERCIAL TENT ~ $ 11,452 $ 10,550 11,078 11,631 12,213 12,824 ~ 13,465 R.V. PARKING $ 3,200 $ 7,390 7,760 8,147 8,555 8,983 9.432 HELICOPTER $ 1.934 $ 2.234 2,346 2,463 2,586 2,715 2,851 STATE PREMIUMS $ 1.241 $ 1,340 1,407 1,477 1,551 1,629 1,710 ~ROGRAM ADVERTISING $ 2.950 $ 2,9t0 3.056 I 3.208 i 3,369 3,537 3,714 CONT/DONATIONS $ 6.170 $ 26 i 27 29t 30 32 33 STEER/HOG AUCTION $ 124,929 $ 132.133I 138,740 145,677 152,960 160,608 [ 168,639 MEMBERSHIPS $ 700 $ 500 525 551 579 608 638 INTEREST $ 1,323 $ 2,916 3.062 3,215 3,376 3,544 3,722 COKE $ 220 $ 202 212 223 234 ~ 246 258 i-CE $ 143 $ 1,380 1,449: 1,521 1.598 i 1.677 1,761 GROUND RENTAL $ 15.000 $ 22,125 56,000 67,000 ) 78,000 89,000 100,000 MISCELLANEOUS $ 849 $ 3.330 3,497 3,671 ! 3.855 4,048 4,250 HORSE SHOW $ 365 $ I I i HOG RAFFLE ' $ $ ~l TOTAL ! $ 312.360 I$ 343,008 I $ 392,927 i $ 420,774 $ 449,462 i $ 479,035 :$ 509,537 ~RANDTOTAL ! $ 462,107 ~$ 504.612 iS 562,611 I $ 598,942 '$ 636,539 iS 675.466 i $ 715.789 EXPENDITURES I ~)FFICE: J OFFICE SALARIES $ 21,458 $ 28.987 i, 30.436 I, 31,958 33,556 35,234 36,996 GROUNDS SALARIES $ 20,252 $ 19,640 ~ 20,6221 21,653 22,736 23,873 25.066 FINANCE SALARIES $ 3,621 $ 3.563 [ 3.741I, 3,928 4,125 I 4,331 4,547 PAYROLL TAXES $ 5,492 $ 4,451i 4.674 4,907 5,153 i 5,410 5,681 ACCOUNTING $ 4,799 $ 5,214 5,475 I 5,748 6,036 6,338 6,655 OFFICE SUPPLIES/MISC $ 7,141 $ 8,278 8,692 9,126 9,583 10,062 10,565 1.482 1.556 1,634 COKE I$ 140 $ 1,280 1,344 1,411 I 10,832 11,373 11,942 ~ROUNDS TRASH / FUEL , $ 10.035 $ 9,357 9,825 10,316 1 REPAIRS/MAINTENANCE $ 11.881 $ 27.521 28,897 ~, 30.342 i 31,859 33,452 35,125 PHONE/ELECTRIC $ 14,660 ~$ 14.400 15,120[, 15,876 I 16,670 17,503 ! 18,378 TENT RENTALS $ 20,535 ,'$ 18,946 19,893 20,888 21,932 23.029 i 24,180 $ 16.828 I $ 15,134 , 15,891 16,685 17,519 18,395 19.315 OTHER RENTALS I~NSURANCE $ 26,858 I$ 27,238 i 28.600! 30,030 31,531 i 33.108 34,763 LICENSES, PERMIT & DUES $ 2,198 $ 4,000 4,200 I 4,410 4,631 4,662 , 5,105 INTEREST i$ 4.479$ - , - OFFICE TOTALS I $ 170,377 i $ 188,009 I $ 197,409 i $ 207,280 ~ $ 217.644 $ 228,526 i $ 239,952 COMMII'rEES: INDEPENDENT MIDWAY $ $ 2,607 2,737 2,874 3,018 3.169 3,327 LONG RANGE PLANNING $ $ ,, [DUCATION $ $ 1,777 1,866 1.959 2,057 , 2,160 __ 2,268 ~NTERTAINMENT $ 37,614 $ 46.571 48,900 51,345 53,912 56,607 59,438 PROGRAM BOOK $ 2,885 I $ 2.765 2,903~ 3,048 3,201 3.361 I 3.529 ADVERTISING $ 16,102 $ 15,990 16.790 i 17.629 18,510 19,436} 20,408 ~-REMIUMS/TROPHIES ! $ 9,970 $ 5,582 5,861 * 6,154 6.462 6,785 7,124 ~PENING DAY CEREMONIES $ 5.163 $ ' ° LIVESTOCK PARTICIPANTS $ 121.205 $ 128,170 134,579 141,307I 148,373 155,791 163,581 PAVILION $ 8.990 $5,982 I 6,281 6.595 ~" 6,925 7,271 7,635 FAMILIY LIVING $ 1,1825 986I 1,035i 1,087i 1,141 1,198 1,258 §ECURITY $ 33,180 'j $ 38,544 Ii 40,471 I 42,495 ,, 44,619 46,850 49,193 ClVlC CLUBS t $ 8,997 i $ 8,659; 9,092 9,547 10,024 10,525 11,051 HORSE SHOW $ 217 I$ TOTALCOMMITrEE $ 245,505 I $ 255,026 ~ $ 267,777, $ 2.81,166 { $ 295,224 $ 309,986 iS 325,485 Agend~ AVAILABLE FOR DEBT SERVICE i$ 46,226 ;$ 61,577 [$ 97,425 iS 110,496 !, $ 123,671 ;$ 136,954 iS 16,).3S2 JAN 1 1 2080 12 pg~ FINANCIAL OPTIONS FOR PHASE 2 OF THE PAVILION Borrow from General Fund Reserves > Long term Advance (15 year amortization) > 1 Payment per year (P& I) ~. Rate (approximately 5 - 7%) Borrow from Commercial Sources > Monthly payments (P & I) > Rate (approximately 8 - 10%) > BCC would need to guarantee Borrow from Commercial Paper Program ~ Monthly payments (Int.) ~ 'Annual Principal payments (Flexible) ~ Rate (Approximately 3.75- 5%) > BCC Guarantee ~ 5 Year Balloon/Roll Over F :\John\Fin, Opt. Ph2. Pavil ion .doc Ag~nde ,o. JAN I 1 2000 0 THE PAVILION (WINGS) AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made this day of , 2000, between the Collier County Agricultural Fair and Exposition, Inc., (hereinafter referred to as "the Fair") and Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereinafter referred to as "the County"). WHEREAS, the County owns 68.01 acres of land, more particularly described in the attachments hereto described as Exhibit "A", and WHEREAS, the Fair has leased said property in accordance with a lease agreement dated November 1, 1986, as amended, for a term of fifty (50) years commencing on January 15, 1987 and terminating on January 14, 2037; and WHEREAS, the Fair is proposing to make improvements to the demised premises by adding two wings to the existing Pavilion which will comprise the second phase of the proposed agricultural exhibition center; and WHEREAS, the Fair is in need of financing in order to construct the improvements; and WHEREAS, the County has an interest in the construction of the improvements, to wit: its ownership interest of the property and the improvements made thereon; and WHEREAS, the County is willing to guarantee a loan from the Tax Exempt Commercial Paper Program to provide the financing for said construction NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the above premises, which are incorporated within and made part of this Agreement, and in further consideration acknowledged by the parties to be sufficient, and adequate, the parties hereto do agree as follows; 1. The County agrees to guarantee a loan from the Tax Exempt Commercial Paper Program in an amount not-to-exceed Five Hundred and Seventy Tho~ sand Agend. a .It~ JAN 1 1 2000 Pg.~ Dollars ($570,000.00) to the Fair for construction of the two wings to the existing steel building and other expenses as identified on the attached schedule identified as Exhibit "B" comprising Phase Two of the agricultural exhibition center on the following terms and conditions: a. Advances of funds (draws) will be made by the County to Fair as requested in writing by the Fair upon proof of completion of the improvements representing said draw request(s). The County will make and issue a check payable to the Fair which shall correspond to said draw request(s) as invoiced by the contractor(s) and/or vendor(s) and approved by the Fair. All funds advanced pursuant to draw requests shall be tendered by the County to the Fair within five (5) business days of said request. b. Upon the final request which shall occur on or before December 31, 2000, the total amount drawn will comprise the total principal amount provided by the County. c. Interest to be paid to County by Fair on said draws and principal amount shall be equivalent to the interest invoiced by the Commercial Paper Program. d. The amount of monthly interest owed pertaining to the draws shall be paid to the County by the Fair within five (5) business days of notification. e. Thereafter, equal principal payments shall be made by Fair for fifteen (15) years, beginning January 1, 2001 and each January 1 thereafter until paid in full on or before January 1, 2016. f. Principal may be prepaid at any time without penalty. g. Time is of the essence concerning the Fair's obligation of repayment under this Agreement. The failure of Fair to make timely payment of any payment obligation under this Agreement shall effectuate an interest penalty against Fair in favor Agent&.. I JAN ! ! 2000 of the County at the then current statutory rate of interest on the unpaid payment until such overdue payment is paid. 2. The Fair agrees and warrants that the funds will be used solely for the construction of the improvements described herein. 3. The Fair will keep the improvements insured to their full value at all times. 4. The Fair agrees to protect, defend, indemnify and hold the County of Collier and its officers, employees and agents free and harmless from and against any and all losses, penalties, damages, settlements, costs, charges, professional fees or other expenses or liabilities of every kind and character arising out of or relating to any and all claims, liens, demands, obligations, actions, proceedings or causes of action of every kind and character in connection with or arising directly or indirectly out of this Agreement and/or the performance thereof. 5. In the event it becomes necessary for either party to litigate in order to enforce its rights under the terms of this Agreement, then the prevailing party shall be entitled to reimbursement of its costs and reasonable attorney's fees, including those caused by appellate proceedings, by the other party. 6. This Agreement contains the final and entire understanding and agreement between the parties hereto, and supersedes any pdor agreement between such parties or any term, statement, representation, warranty or condition, oral or written, not contained in this Agreement. To be effective, any modification of this Agreement, subsequent to its execution, must be in writing and signed by both parties. 7. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida and shall be binding and inure to the benefit of the respective successors and assigns of the parties hereto, if any, as permitted by this Agreement. 2000 .,~ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Fair and the County have caused this Agreement to be duly executed on the day and year first written above. Dated: Attest: DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk As to the County: COLLIER COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA, BY ITS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS By: Deputy Clerk By: CHAIRMAN As to the Fair: COLLIER COUNTY AGRICULTURAL FAIR AND EXPOSITION, INC. By: Terry Wolfson, President STATE Of COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20 by Terry Wolfson, President of Collier County Agricultural Fair and Exposition, Inc., a Florida corporation, on behalf of the corporation. He is personally known to me or has produced as identification. Notary Public printed, typed or stamped Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: David C. Weigel County Attorney EXHIBIT "A" PROJECT NO. PROJECT PARCEL NO. TAX PARCEL NO. LEGAL DESCRIPTION ,'.,, ?" 'Part of'Block 1189 ?North Golden Gate:Unit 2, as recorded in Plat Book 9, Pages 29 through 43 ~ Public Records of Collier County, Florida, described as follows: Commence at the Northwest comer of said Block 489; Thence along the north boundary of said Block 489, S 88' 08' 24" E, 455.75 feet to the Point of Begimiing; 'rhe~ce continue along said north boundary, S 88' 08' 24" E, 2695.75 i';'~et; Thence leaving said north boundary, S 01' 53' 16" W, i 184.51 l'~et; Thence N 88' 08' 24" W, 2696.65 feet; Thence N 01 ' 53 '16" E, 35.00 feet; Thence S 88' 08' 24" E, 240.00 feet; Thence N 46' 51'36" E, 14.1,.49 feet; Thence N 01 '53' 16" E, 560.00 feet; Thence N88'08'24"W, 235.00feet; Thence N37'I0'00"W, 173.07 feet; Thence N01'53' 16"E, 350.06 feet to the Point of Beginning. Contait)Jng 68.01 acres more or less. SKETCH OF LEGA[, DESCRIPTION (NOT A SURVEY) SCALE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: FILE NO: REVISED: NOT TO SCALE~ RSG ~"~- DATE: E. LU~ D; ~!JRVEYOR #2769 , ~.~[;I~.ES DIVISION ~?[-RNMENT COMPLEX '' I'i' ..... ..... JAN 1 1 2000 Pg EXHIBIT "B" $12,000 15,000 108,500 6,500 176,500 14,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 92,000 $ 529,500 40,500 $ 570,000 Permitting/Impact Fees Retrofit Existing Bldg for Sprinkler System Fire Sprinkler System for Entire Bldg. 10' Non-potable Well for Sprinkler System Two Wings Lighting for Two Wings Elentrical Improvements for the Pavilion and Fairgrounds Bleachers Water Management Permitting Cement Slap for Entire Pavilion 7.64% Contingency RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE BORROWING OF NOT EXCEEDING $570,000 FROM THE POOLED COMMERCIAL PAPER LOAN PROGRAM OF THE FLORIDA LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO THE TERMS OF THE LOAN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COMMISSION AND THE COUNTY IN ORDER TO FINANCE THE EXPANSION OF THE EXHIBITION PAVILION FOR THE FAIR AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY; AUTHORTZING THE EXECUTION OF A LOAN NOTE OR NOTES TO EVIDENCE SUCH BORROWING; AGREEING TO SECURE SUCH LOAN NOTE OR NOTES WITH A COVENANT TO BUDGET AND APPROPRIATE LEGALLY AVAILABLE NON-AD VALOREM REVENUES AS PROVIDED IN THE LOAN AGREEMENT; AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF SUCH OTHER DOCUMENTS AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO EFFECT SUCH BORROWING; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA: SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS. Unless the context of use indicates another meaning or intent, the following words and terms as used in this Resolution shall have the following meanings. Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed thereto in the hereinafter defined Loan Agreement. "Act" means, collectively, Part I, Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, Part I, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and all other applicable provisions of law. "Additional Payments" means the payments required to be made by the County pursuant to Sections 5.02(b), 5.02(c), 5.02(d), 5.05 and 6.06(e) of the Loan Agreement. "Board" means the Board of County Commissioners of the County. NC).~ JAN 1 1 2000 "Chairman" means the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Board, and such other person as may be duly authorized to act on his or her behalf. "Clerk" means the Clerk of the Circuit Court for the County, ex-officio Clerk of the Board, and such other person as may be duly authorized to act on his or her behalf. "Commission" means the Florida Local Government Finance Commission, and any assigns or successors thereto. "County" means Collier County, Florida, a political subdivision of the State of Florida. "County Administrator" means the County Administrator of the County and such other person as may be duly authorized to act on his or her behalf. "Designated Revenues" means (1) Public Agency Moneys budgeted and appropriated for purposes of payment of the Loan Repayments and any other amounts due under the Loan Agreement, and (2) the proceeds of the Loan pending the application thereof. "Draw Date" has the meaning set forth in the Loan Agreement. "Finance Director" means the Director of Finance and Accounting and such other person as may be duly authorized to act on his or her behalf. "Loan No. A-14-1" means the Loan designated as "Loan No. A-14-1" the proceeds of which are to be used to finance Project A-14. "Loan" means the loan to be made by the Commission to the County from proceeds of the Series A Notes in accordance with the terms of this Resolution and of the Loan Agreement. "Loan Agreement" means the Loan Agreement, dated as of April 12, 1991, between the County and the Commission, as amended and supplemented and as the same may be further amended and supplemented. "Loan Rate" has the meaning set forth in the Loan Agreement. "Loan Repayments" or "Repayments" means the payments of principal and interest at the Loan Rate on the Loan amounts payable by the County pursuant to the provisions of 2 the Loan Agreement and all other payments, including Additional Payments, payable by the County pursuant to the provisions of the Loan Agreement. ,Non-Ad Valorem Revenues" means all legally available revenues of the County derived from any source whatsoever other than ad valorem taxation on real and personal property, which are legally available to make the Loan Repayments required in the Loan Agreement, but only after provision has been made by the County for the payment of services and programs which are for essential public purposes affecting the health, welfare and safety of the inhabitants of the County or which are legally mandated by applicable law. "Program" means the Pooled Commercial Paper Loan Program established by the Commission. "Project A-14" means the costs and expenses relating to the expansion of the exhibition pavilion for the Fair Authority of the County, as the same may be amended or modified from time to time, all as more particularly described in the plans and specifications on file with the County. "Public Agency Moneys" shall mean the moneys budgeted and appropriated by the County for payment of the Loan Repayments and any other amounts due hereunder from Non-Ad Valorem Revenues pursuant to the County's covenant to budget and appropriate such Non-Ad Valorem Revenues contained in Section 6.04 of the Loan Agreement. "Resolution" means this Resolution, as the same may from time to time be amended, modified or supplemented. "Series A Notes" means the Commission's Pooled Commercial Paper Notes, Series A (Governmental Issue), to be issued from time to time by the Commission. The terms "herein," "hereunder," "hereby," "hereto," "hereof," and any similar terms, shall refer to this Resolution; the term "heretofore" shall mean before the date of adoption of this Resolution; and the term "hereafter" shall mean after the date of adoption of this Resolution. ; Words importing the masculine gender include every other gender. Words importing the singular number include the plural number, and vice versa. SECTION 2. AUTHORITY FOR RESOLUTION. This Resolution is adopted pursuant to the provisions of the Act. 3 SECTION that: FINDINGS. It is hereby ascertained, determined and declared (A) The Commission has been established for the principal purpose of issuing commercial paper notes .in order to provide funds to loan to public agencies, such as the County, desiring to finance and refinance the cost of acquiring, constructing and equipping capital improvements and to finance and refinance other governmental needs. 03) In furtherance of the foregoing, the Commission shall issue, from time to time, commercial paper notes to be known as "Florida Local Government Finance Commission Pooled Commercial Paper Notes, Series A (Governmental Issue)" and shall loan the proceeds of such Series A Notes to public agencies, including the County. (C) Pursuant to the authority of the Act, the Commission has agreed to loan, from time to time, to the County such amounts as shall be authorized herein and in the Loan Agreement in order to enable the County to finance, reimburse or refinance the cost of acquisition, construction and equipping of capital improvements. (D) There is presently a need by the county to finance Project A-14 and the most cost-effective means by which to finance Project A-14 is by the use of moneys obtained pursuant to the Program by means of the Loan. 0E) The County hereby determines that the provision of funds by the Commission to the County in the form of Loan No. A-14-1 pursuant to the terms of the Loan Agreement and the financing of Project A-14 will assist in the development and maintenance of the public welfare of the residents of the County, and shall serve a public purpose by improving the health and living conditions, and providing governmental services, facilities and programs and will promote the most efficient and economical development of such services, facilities and programs. (G) Loan No. A-14-1 shall be repaid solely from the Designated Revenues. Such Designated Revenues shall include moneys derived from a covenant to budget and appropriate legally available Non-Ad Valorem Revenues. The ad valorem taxing power of the County will never be necessary or authorized to make the Loan Repayments. SECTION 4. TERMS OF LOANS. The County hereby approves of Loan No. A-14-1 in the aggregate amount of not exceeding $570,000 for the purpose of providing the County with sufficient funds to finance Project A-14. The Chairman and the Clerk are hereby authorized to execute, seal and deliver on behalf of the County a Loan Note or Notes with respect to Loan No. A-14-1 and other documents, instruments, agreements and certificates necessary or desirable to effectuate Loan No. A-14-1 as provided in the Loan 4 Agenda I%~ NO.~ JAN ! 1 2000 Pg o.~.~ Agreement. The Loan Note or Notes with respect to Loan No. A-14-1 shall reflect the terms of such Loan and shall be substantially in the form attached to the Loan Agreement as Exhibit I. The Finance Director shall make the Draw Request or Requests with respect to Loan No. A-14-1 in accordance with the terms of the Loan Agreement at such lime as shall be determined by the Finance Director as appropriate to finance Project A-14 and is permitted by the Loan Agreement. Loan No. A-14-1 shall mature in accordance with the provisions described in Schedule I attached hereto. Loan No. A-14-1 shall bear interest at the Loan Rate in accordance with the terms of the Loan Agreement. The County further agrees to make all Loan Repayments required of it pursuant to the terms of the Loan Agreement. The Letter of Credit fees for Loan No. A-14-1 shall be 30 basis points or such other mount as First Union National Bank and the Finance Director shall agree. SECTION 5. AUTHORIZATION OF PROJECT A-14. The County does hereby authorize the acquisition and construction of Project A-14. SECTION 6. SECURITY FOR THE LOAN. The County's obligation to repay Loan No. A-14-1 will be secured by a pledge of and lien upon the Designated Revenues in accordance with the terms of the Loan Agreement. The obligation of the County to repay Loan No. A-14-1 shall not be deemed a pledge of the faith and credit or taxing power of the County and such obligation shall not create a lien on any property whatsoever of or in the County other than the Designated Revenues. SECTION 7. GENERAL AUTHORITY. The members of the Board and the officers, attorneys and other agents or employees of the County are hereby authorized to do all acts and things required of them by this Resolution and the Loan Agreement, or desirable or consistent with the requirements of this Resolution and the Loan Agreement, for the full punctual and complete performance of all the terms, covenants and agreements contained in this Resolution and the Loan Agreement, and each member, employee, attorney and officer of the County or its Board is hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver any and all papers and instruments and to do and cause to be done any and all acts and things necessary or proper for canying out the transactions contemplated by this Resolution and the Loan Agreement. SECTION 8. SEVERABILITY. If any one or more of the covenants, agreements or provisions herein contained shall be held contrary to any express provision of law or contrary to the policy of express law, though not expressly prohibited, or against public policy, or shall for any reason whatsoever be held invalid, then such covenants, agreements or provisions shall be null and void and shall be deemed separable from the remaining covenants, agreements or provisions and shall in no way affect the validity of any of the other provisions hereof. 5 JAN 1'1 2000 ' t SECTION9. REPEAL OF INCONSISTENT RESOLUTIONS.: A11 resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby superseded and repealed to the extent of such conflict. SECTION 10. EFFECTIVE DATE. immediately upon its adoption. This Resolution shall take effect DULY ADOPTED this 1 lth day of January, 2000. (SEAL) ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: Chairman Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: County Attomey 6 JAN. 1 1 2000 SCHEDULE I PROPOSED LOAN REPAYMENT SCHEDULE The principal of Loan No. A-14-1 shall be repaid as follows: December 7, 2004 $570,000 (or such other principal amount as is actually borrowed) Interest on the Loan shall be paid monthly in accordance with the terms and provisions of the Loan Agreement. Additional Payments shall also be made in accordance with the Loan Agreement. 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY To discuss the recruitment for a County Administrator. OBJECTIVE: To discuss the County Administrator recruitment process. CONSIDERATION: At its board meeting on December 14, 1999, the Board of County Commissioners agreed to send to Human Resources their recommendations on what items should be included in the candidate profile for the vacant County Administrator position. Human Resources utilized these recommendations and developed the attached candidate profile. FISCAL IMPACT: None GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None direction on the recruitment for a County Administrator. s~n~TTa~ ~y: ~~ ~ ~~~at¢: 6/ ,,~ ' ~aren A. Kocses, Senior Human Resources ~alyst fiemfifer J,"E~'ards, tluman Resources Director ~PROVED BY: Dine: Michael McNees, Acting County Administrator Collier County Administrator Candidate Profile Education and Professional Development A. Equivalent to a Masters degree with major course work in public or business administration or related field. B. Evidence of continuing professional development is important. H Experience mo Eight years of experience in county or municipal government including at least five years in a senior level capacity (director of a large department or division). Strong management experience as a County Administrator, Assistant County Administrator, City Manager or Assistant City Manager of an entity similar in size and demographics to Collier County is preferred. · ' E.:i:,c, i;.ncz i~; comm~:nitics with the f'ollo'~ing characteris',ics is importa~t: 1. High degree of citizen interest and involvement in government. 2. High growth area. 3. Government receives close scrutiny from media. 4. Go;'crun~ent provides wide range of services. 5. Local economy has heavy emphasis on land development and construction. III Skills, Abilities, Personal Traits A. Demonstrated skills, abilities and personal traits listed below are of particular interest: 1. Interaction with the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) a. Communicates very_ effectively both orally and in writing. b. Is apolitical at all times in dealing with thc BCC and never gives the appearance of"playing favorites." c. Is clear, concise and timely in communicating with the BCC, being careful to bring controversial or sensitive items to the BCC before public announcement. Is responsive to requests by tt ~BC~GENDA i.TF.,M No.scr _ t;_ JAN 11 2.300 do go h° Provides accurate, well-developed, timely and complete recommendations for BCC actions, including alternatives, implications and best professional advice, to allow the BCC to make the most informed policy decisions possible. Is able to stay focused on BCC direction and bring forth recommendations based on priorities of the BCC. Has strategic insight and is able to work with the BCC in looking to the future and setting direction for Collier County Government. Has high comfort level with the non-charter form of government and the difference between implementing and establishing policy. Fully and enthusiastically follows Commission policy decisions and ensures the best possible implementation via a firm vision and sound business management practices. Is prepared and organized so as to avoid crisis management. Anticipates problems and prevents failures by strategizing change when necessary. Understands the practical impact of actions the County takes. A sc,se c~fhistory of C~,l~cr County and institutio~lal knowledge of its county government is preferred. Has the ability to judge whether or not adopted policies continue to work well in a changing environment. Considers every decision in light of its legacy to the community in .q,e fi.:!ur,~ Stays informed as to current and pending legislation affecting Collier County and takes steps to protect the interests of Collier County. Understands budget process and State of Florida fi~nding as well as cost copminment and possible ballot issu¢~ (i.e., sales tax). Is able to guide the BCC and communicate needs of the County on these issues. Has knowledge of the Growth Management Plan, environmental concerns and efficient planning and permitting. Projects a positive, professional image lbr County Government. AG E N~DA.I;T, EM No. JAN I1 2. Interaction with Employees Is able to bring out the full potential of staffby creating a "can do" teamwork approach. Works with top administrators in developing creative innovations and ideas. b. Encourages supervisors to be more effective by having decisions made by the responsible individuals closest to the activity. Co Keeps staff fully informed as to the County's objectives and formulates business strategy so that all operations strive to accomplish these objectives. Is able to assess staff strengths and weaknesses and delegate authority. Holds staff accountable for completing assignments. Gives credit for good performance. e. Sets the high standards for him/herself and all employees for excellent customer and citizen relations and professionalism. f. Is a leader in cost reduction and cost effectiveness. Possesses strong leadership skills; is comfortable making difficult ticcisio]~s ;~d "l~'ading by e×amplc?' h. }las knowledge of, and experience with, collective bargaining. i. Promotes and ensures an effective working relationship among all divisi~ms. 3. In~:racti(m wi!h ',he Cc?mmmity a. Communicates well with Constitutional Officers, advisory boards and ,h~ public. b. Possesses excellent public relations skills and is visible in the ct)mn: mity. c. Constantly seeks-the pulse of the community. Is a good listener and encourages input from others. d. Enjoys working with diverse groups and individuals and gets satisfaction from helping others. AGEN~AJ~E~ JAil 11 Personal Traits a. Projects integrity, honesty and professionalism at all times. b. Is approachable. c. Is able to stay focused and set priorities. d. Has a good business mentality. e. Possesses conflict resolution skills. f. Is able to think analytically and gather pertinent, concise information. g. Is results-oriented, decisive and uses sound judgement. h. Is creative/innovative. i. Is confident without being egotistical. j. Has a good sense of humor and takes criticism well. k. Is able to ~rovidc. vision; sec ~h~. '~hlg 7ict~re." 1. Is flexible. m. Enjoys and is sensitive to diversity. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT THAT WILL RECOGNIZE ADDITIONAL GRANTS OF $6,334.00, TRANSFER $1,583.50 FROM AIRPORT AUTHORITY CAPITAL RESERVES, INCREASE THE IMMOKALEE RUNWAY LIGHTING CONSTRUCTION BUDGET BY $3,716.25 AND INCREASE THE IMMOKALEE AIRFIELD SIGNAGE CONSTRUCTION BUDGET BY $4,201.25. OBJECTIVE: For the Board of County Commissioners to approve a budget amendment that will recognize additional grant revenue of $6,334.00, transfer $1,583.50 from Airport Authority Capital Reserves, increase the Immokalee runway lighting construction budget by $3,716.25 and increase the Immokalee airfield signage construction budget by $4,201.25. : CONSIDERATIONS: On September 22, 1999, the Authority received the following bids for the Immokalee runway lighting and airfield signage projects, which were bid together: Runway Lighti.ng Gulf States $226,036.00 Mid Continent $240,152.55 Best Electrical $318,223.90 Airfield Signage Total Bid $42,201.00 $268,237.00 $49,004.00 $289,156.55 $65,863.00 $384,086.90 Budget Available For Construction $222,319.75 $37,999.75 $260,319.50 Deficit $ 3,716.25 $ 4,201.25 $ 7,917.50 The lowest bid received exceeded the available construction budget by $7,917.50. The portion of the bid applicable to runway lighting exceeded the budget for that project by $3,716.25 and the portion of the bid applicable to airfield signage exceeded the budget available for that project by $4,201.25. Staffhas secured additional grant funds from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) in the amounts of $3,716.25 and $4,201.25 for the runway lighting and airfield signage projects respectively to cover 80% of the budget deficit. The Airport Authority has $1,583.50 available in Capital Reserves to match FDOT's supplemental grants. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None. FISCAL IMPACT: No additional funding is required from the Board of County Commissioners as funds are available from FDOT and within the Airport Authority's Capital Budget. The proposed budget amendment will increase the project budgets for the Immokalee runway lighting and airfield signage projects by $3,716.25 and $4,201.25 respectively in Fund 496. RECOMMENDATION: proposed budget amendment.  g.'D~'mry, Executive Directorv / Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the AO£NDA I¥.~'M EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT THAT WILL RECOGNIZE AN ADDITIONAL GRANT OF $41,000.00, TRANSFER $41,000.00 FROM AIRPORT AUTHORITY CAPITAL RESERVES AND INCREASE THE IMMOKALEE T-HANGAR CONSTRUCTION BUDGET BY $82,000.00. OBJECTIVE: For the Board of County Commissioners to approve a budget amendment that will recognize additional grant revenue of $41,000.00, transfer $41,000.00 from Airport Authority Capital Reserves and increase the Immokalee t-hangar construction budget by $82,000.00. CONSIDERATIONS: Staff has. secured a supplemental grant in the amount of $41,000.00 from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to assist with the construction of the t-hangar project at the Immokalee Regional Airport. These additional funds require a 50% local match of $41,000.00 which is available in Airport Authority Capital Reserves. The additional funds will be used to connect the apron to the taxiway which will improve traffic flow between the fuel farm area and the runway system and to address complicated drainage issues that need to be resolved in order to secure a South Florida Water Management permit. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None. FISCAL IMPACT: No additional funding is required from the Board of County Commissioners as funds are available from FDOT and within the Airport Authority's Capital Budget. The proposed budget amendment will increase the Immokalee t-hangar budget by $82,000.00 in Fund 496. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed budget amendment. PREPARED BY: Jo-Anne Leamer, Finance Manager ~)i{n H. Drury, Executive i~irector APPROVED BY: AGENDA ITEM 11 2000 pg.. .......... EXECUTIVE S~Y :' · APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO THE GOLDEN GATE BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE OB.IECTIVE: To appoint 1 member to fulfill the remainder of a vacant term, expiring October 6, 2003 on the Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee. CONSIDERATIONS: This 5 member committee assists the Board of County Commissioners in handling the matters pertaining to the taxing district which was formed for the purpose of beautification and maintenance of landscape improvements within the road right of way as described bv ordinance boundaries. Terms are 4 years. A list of the current membership is included in the backup. Mr. Charles McMahon's term expired on October 6, 1999 and he did not request re-appointment. A press release was issued and resumes were received from the following interested citizen: APPLICANT CATEGORY DIST ELECTOR ADV. COMM. Glenn E. Wilt n/a 5 yes GG Community. Center CO3,.1.XlI'I I'EE Rt:iCO;'~I~IEND:x'I'ION: Glenn E. Wilt FISCAL IMPACT: NONE GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: NONE RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners consider the recommendation for appointment and appoint 1 member to fulfill the remainder of the vacant term a;::! dircct ?he County .'\ttorne'. *r', p,'e!,arc a resolution confirming ~he apvoinlment Prep:~red Bx: Agenda Date: Sue Filcon. ,\dlninislrative ,Assistant bc~a'd ol County Conunissioncrs JANUARY 11, 2000 AC.~A ITEM NO. JAN ~00 / Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee tl"ork Phone .4ppt'd Exp. Date Term Home Phtme DateRe-appt 2~tdExpDate 2nd Tertlt Cherx'Ie L. Newman 510t 3Ist .&venue. $.W. Na?le:~.FL 34116 District: : Categoo,: Precinct 626 declared vacant 3/23/99 Naples. FL District: ~, Categoo': Precinct 624 Sabina *lusci aZ70 3 ",d .*venue. S.W. Naples, FL 3111(3 District: 3 Categ, o~Tv: Precinct 627 Bonnet G. Bacon 2570 47th Terrace. S.W. Naples. FL 34116 District: 3 Cate,go?: Precinct 02?626 Charles NlcNlahon D/strict: ~ C, tegorv: Precinct 625 11/07/95 I006..,97 2 Years 353-7969 12/16/97 10.'06/01 4 Years 10.06;01 10/04."94 10 06:98 4 Years _.,., 90 10, 06/02 4 Years I 1/07/95 t0:06/98 3 Years 455-4373 2/9/99 10 06/02 4 Years 05,' 2V,'97 I 0, 06,, 99 999-3498 353-2055 2 -- Years This 5 member committee was created by Ord. No. 87-78 to advise and recommend as to the beautification and maintenance of landscape improvements within the road right Of way as described by ordinance boundaries. The committee shall prepare an itemized budget of the amount of money required to carry out the business of the committee for the next fiscal year. .'~'"'?: :~:., '.:' S'?~em,~r '3, IS~6 k~y Or~: No 96-50 and 96-51. Precincts are 623. 624 625. 626. C::'. and parX of 522 FL STAY': 12:~.01 Staf~'~__b-~- an DeCesare, Engineer l I: 774-8494 It't'dnestltl. v, ,$1arcll 24, 1999 Page I of I NO. /r; .fo _ J4N I 1 2.000 filso~ s From - Sent: To: Subject: decesare d Wednesd-~y, December 15, 1999 8:'12 AM fitson s Gold~-n Gate Advisory Committee Member Sue. At last nights advisory committee meeting, the committee recommended that the BCC approve Glen Wilt's application for committee member. He is a ,~egistere~ voter and lives within the district. Please pest the other vacant position. Thank you. Dan Page AGENDA IT. EM JAN, 1 Pg.__ MEMORANDUM DATE' November 22, 1999 TO: FROM: Vinell Hills, Elections Office Sue Filson, Administrative Assist Board of Counw Commissioners RE' Voter Registration - Advisory. Board Appointments Th,; Bc. ~rJ o!' County Commissioners will soon consider the following individuals for appointment to one of the county's advisory, committees. Please let me know if those listed below are registered voters in Collier County.. Also. please list the commission district in which each applicant resides. G< 5 if. ? .x,, , 1!-lC.-\ i'I(., \D ~ 1..,,._ Rh COMMITTEE CO~!~_~.ssJgN_DjS__T Glenn E. \Vilt 5010 ~1~' .~xvenue. S.W. Naples. t:L 34i 16 Thank ' ,-,cz F,',' ?ur !~etp. MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: November'm 1999 Dan DeCesare, Engineer II Sue Filson, Administrative Assistan Board of County Commissioners Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee As you know. we currently have vacancies on the above-referenced advisory committee. A press release was issued requesting citizens interested in serving on this committee to submit a resume for consideration. I have attached the resumes received for your review as follows: Glenn E. Wilt 5019 31~ Avenue, S.W. ",:,~p, lc,, ,r.} -.; 116 Please let me know, in writing, the recommendation for appointment of the advisory committee within the 41 day time-frame, and I will prepare an executive summary, for the Board's consideration. Please categorize the applicants in areas of expertise. If you have any questions, please c:~l! mc at 774-8097. Thank you for >,our attention to this matter. SF Attachments JAN 11 2000 GOLDEN GATE AREA CIVIC ASSOCIATION 4701 Golden Gate Parkway N0'.' "!i '25? Golden Gate, FL 33999 _, ?;:;~'! 0.7 '~.; '' i? ~'; :7 November 6, 1999 Ms. Susan Filson Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners 3301 Tamiami Trail East Naples, FL 33962 SUBJECT: Golden Gate Beautification Committee Dem Ms Filson: Please accept this letter as my request for consideration, to fill an open position on the above mentioned committee. I am a registered voter in Collier County since 1993 living in Golden Gate. I am a current member of the Golden Gate Area Civic Association, Voluntee: Lode Enlbrccment, the VFW. tl-:e Eagles and serve on the Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Committee. If you require additional information or wish to discuss in further detail, feel free to contact me at Thank you for your consideration of this application. Glenn E. Wilt 5019 31~' Ave SW Golden Gate, FL 34116 (P) 353-6843 FAX 353-6841 E-Mail: IABTIMAIN@juno.com JAN ~ 1 D30 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPOD..., ..... T OF IMEMBERS TO THE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT BOARD, REGION 24. OBJECTIVE: To Obtain Board approval for the appointment of 1 member to the Workforce Development Board, Region 24, previously known as the Southwest Florida Private Industry Council. Inc.. Service Delivery Area #20. CONSIDERATIONS: An interlocal agreement among Collier, Charlotte, Hendry, Glades. and Lee Counties designates the Collier County Board of Commissioners to confirm appointments to the Workforce Development Board, Region 24, from nominations submitted by organizations according to the Job Training Partnership Act. This board is a partnership between business, labor, education, community, and government services to ensure that a skilled workforce is available to the regional economy it serves. The Workforce Development Board, Region 24, is composed of 45 members representing the private sector, education, organized labor, rehabilitation facilitica, community based organizations, economic development and public employment service. The Board also oversees and provides policy guidance for programs funded through the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA). A list of the current membership is attached ~br )'our review. Mr. Joseph Paterno. Executive Director for the Workforce Development Board, in a letter dated December 13. 1999, has requested confirmation of the following appointment: 3 vear term: represcnfi:'::~, the !,' ix ate sector of Collier Count:': ~ ;,, ! ot~es. Associa*.e - Ouarles & Brady FISCAL IMPACT: NONE GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: NONE RECOM~X. li. NL)AT1ON: '['hat thc Board of County Conm'fissioners coniinn the recommendation for appointment to the Workforce Development Board, Region 24, and direct the County Attorney to prepare a resolution confirming the appointment. Prepared By: Sue Filson Date: January 11,2000 AGENDA ITEI~ NO. JAN 11 2000 ¥ ~' DEVELOPMEt~T BOARD, INC. STEVE PERSONETTE,/~resia/,wr 24311 Walden Center Drive. Suite 200 Bonita Springs. Florida 34134 Phone: 941-992-8000 F,qx: 941-948-3359 E-mail: WFDB24@AOL.COM JOE PATERNO, Executive Director December 13, i999 Commiss;oner Pan Mac'Kie Collier County Board of Commissioners 3301 Tamiami Trail East Naoles, Flori,~a 34112 Dear Commissioner Mac'Kie, ,.. ...... ..i.m .... 2$oar~, lnG. I Dr,~ su'2m!tT;%a For vour concurrence the following inetivfdua[ for appc;ntmen; to the Wor~force Developraent Board, Region 24-: Ms. Lisa Lottes, Associate Quarles & Brady .¢;501 Tami~m: Tra!l b:c~h, Sbitc. Napi~s,/iorida 5~!Q3 accordance with our Workforce Investment Act Five Year Plan. Ms. Lottes was recommended ~ the Econo~ic ...... ~_ Co..~:;; -; ~-,.:,-- ,~,,.** , ** ;:;I a o,';..,te <ect.".r c :.at vac.a~c,¢ d~sccv,~red durin~ the Workfcrce ,.,est .or, = Act cc~.,, ;c;~ .... ;,: cre ~c ',r~. Your concurrence of this appointment would be appreciated. /Joe Paterno Executive Director '/elm A~DA ITEM NO. ~ JAN 11 2083 12/17/1999 13:4S SWFL WORKFORCE DEUELOPMENT BOARD ":~ '~:~' ~SO!JTHWEST FLORIDA ~ T DEVELOPMENT BOARD, INC. S~E~ PE~SONEI'I'E, Presi~nc ~ 774360~ N0.687 BSZ 24311 Walden Center Drive, Suite 200 Bonita Springs, Florida 34134 Phone: 941-992-8(' Fax: 941-948-33. E-mail: WFDB24@AOLCOM JOE PATERNO, Executive Dtrecror Southwest Florida Workforce Development Board of Directors JAN 11 23C.,3 12×17/1~9g 13:4~ S~FL ~ORKF~CE DEUELOPMENT BORED ~ 77~60~ NO.6~? g~3 ..~ '~ ~]~S©LTHWEST FLORIDA DSVELOPM~N] BOARD, INC. 24311 Walden Center Drive, Suite 200 Bonita Springs, Florida 34134 Phone: 941-992-8000 Fax: 941-948-3359 E-maih WFDB24@AOL.COM JOE PATERNO, Executive Director Charlotte Counl;,y ~arpon Coast National Bank '~90 Tamiami Trail Pr.. Charlotte, Fl. Fh~,~: ~zx-67.9-~11 Fax. 9~:-C26-;73Z Bryan LaneuvJlle STAR 525 Bowman Terrace Pt. Charlotte, FI. 33953 Phone: 941-629-~655 Fax: 941-©24-524i 360 E. O!ymFia Avenue =unta Oorda, FI. 3~950 -°",c 'et 941- G~9-66S© :ax: ~°41-639-6115 Dr, Max 5cnmi4t Charlotte County Schools 1446 Education Way Pt. Charlotte, FI. 33948 Phone: 941-255-0808 F~;x: 941-255-7~71 Don Grosecicse 2~O~S Harborview Road Fax: 9~-62~3394 Betty Wllliam6 Economic Development Cocrdma-.~r 1600 Tamiami Trail. Suite 100 t'*, Charlot*~,, FI ~3.o48 , non~. 94!-627-~0£3 Fax: 941-627-63tz~ W~DB\Do~'& mmilin~j li~, 8117199 '"'- AGENDA ITEM .o. JAN 11 2333 William Blevins --irs~ ~nion National Bank 580~ Per can ~ay Boulevard Na?ies. F~. 3~108 Phone: 941-598-7549 Fax:v ~-~8-7~26 Collier County Thomas Riley Thomas Riley's Artisans Guil~ 1510 Rail Head Boulevard Naples, FI. 34110 Phone: 941-591-3203 Fax: 941-597-6421 Catherine Etterman 13310 Corbel Circle #1827 Ft. Myers, Fi. 33907 Phone: 94~-430-6900 Fax: 94:-4~0-~922 Tony l~obe~ts D.A. Rober~ & Company 382 Br~ad Avenue South Naples, FI. 34102 Phone: 941-261-242~ Fax: 941-261-5709 Frank Rodriguez 1st National Bank of Naples 900 Goodle~-~e Road North Naples, FI. 34102 F~ione: 9~ i..435- ?~35 Fax: 941-262-5203 Ma~' Ellen Kelly NCH ~.~ltr: Care ~ys~em P.O. [~cx ~i~029 ~-,~o!es, Fi, 34101 Fax: 941-~36-56~ Jim McGregor Ca~pente;'~ Lcsal Union !6z~1 3427 Enterprise Avenue Naples, Fi. 34~04 F,ax: 941-~4~-35 iO Dr. Leu Traina International College 2654 Tam[ami Trail Ease Naples, FI. 34112 Phone: 941-774-4/0Q Fax: 94t-774-4593 *Dr. Dan White Coiller County Public Schools 3710 Estey Avenue Naples, FI. 34104 Pax: 94~-436-64*31 Susan Pareigis EDC of C,~l!ie, r Ceur, ty 3050 N. rtorses~oe Dr., Suite 12Q Naples, FI. 34104 Phone;- 94!-2e3-8~S9 Fax: 941-26~-6021 °AIt~r~al~ F, epre~ntative Dr. Frederick B. Turtle, Jr. Lorenzo Walker Institute of Technology 3702 Estey Avenue Naples, FI. 34104 Phone: 941-430-6900 Fax: 941-430-6922 · £,'L7×I~99 i3:48 5~L ~0~0~C5 DS~LOP~5NT BO~D ~ 7743682 Gary Ciar~ G!ades County School District Mailing A~eress: P. O. Box 459 Moore Haven, FI, 33471 ?~o~e: 9~1-946-2083 ?ax 94'-946-~529 Physical Address: Avenue L and loth Street Giades/Hendry County Michael Vinson, Sr. Glades Electric Cooperative P.O. Box 519 Moore Haven, I=1. 33471 Phone: 1-800-226-4024 Fax: 1-941-946-0824 David Lyons Lyons Printing Mailing Address: C!ewiston, FL 33440 ~ho,~e: 9~I-9B3-6753 Fax: 9~,1-98~-2607 532 E. ObieFo Avenue ~onny Williams P,O. Box 2277 LaBelle, Ft. 33975 ~hone: 94!-675-7939 No Fax Machine WFBl~\l~rd m~lli~ II~t/)fi7/99 12×17/1995 13:48 SWFL WORKFORCE DEUELOPMENT BOARD a 7743682 N0.607 Q06 Lee County L~z ~:~mJe,-Nor'th America Corporation 2780 Westlinks Drive Ft. Myers, FI. 33913 Phone'. 9~t-561-3600 Fax: 9~1-76B-8136 Duane Anglavar Dn Piper Center for Social Services 1771 Evans Avenue --t. Myers, Ft. 33901 Fax: 941-332-7815 Dr. James w Edison Community Coitege P.O. Box 60210 Ft..Myers, FI. 33906 Fax: ~1-489-94t8 F-~n Gibbons ChUdren 2299 Victoria Avenue, 2n~i F;oor Fo. Ivlyers, Fl. 33901 Phone: 9~-5~2-2~22 Fax: Lee County Schoo~ Boarcl Z~'~5 .Central Avenue --t. Myers, FI. 33901 Phone'. 9zi-~37-8301 ':-,~:, :'4 Karen Hawes Lee County Community Action Agency 85 !~ondella I~oa~, Suite 1 No,~ch Ft. Myers, Ft. 33903 =hone: 941-656-7930 =~×: -~1-656-7~'6© Clark Hill Holiday Inn 13051 Bell Tower Drive Ft. Myers, FI. 33907 Phone: 941-482-2900 Fax: 941-482-2900 Richard Hotlis JobSmar~, Irc. 3900 Colonial Boulevard, Suite 3 Ft. Myers, Fi. 33912 Phone: 941-278-0228 Fax: 941-278-0312 tRobert Janes 1203 KiStlwake Circ!e Sanibel, FI. 33957 Phone: 9m1-~72-5061 Fax~ 941-472-9/61 George Krahn DLES Division of jobs & Benefits 24311 Walden Center Drive, Suite 200 Bonita Springs, Fi. 34134 Phone~ 941-992-8000 941 948. ~,~ F~.l x: " 2196 Pauldo S'~reet Ft. Myers, Fi. 33916 Phone: 941-332-0092 Fax: 941-332-0092 (call first) Steve Pereonet~te Sprint Box 370 Ft. Myers, FI. 33902 FLFTM¢0501 Phone' 941-335-8201 Fax: 941-334-0583 AGENDA ITEM JAN 11 ?.333 - _v,'l~ 13:48 SWFL WORKFO~CE DEVELOPMEHT BOARD ~ 774368Z N~.607 ~87 Dr. Geral~ Schoenfe[d Fiorida Gulf Coast. LJniversit. y 10501 FGCU Boulevard Ft. M:~ers, FI. 33965 Phone: 94t-590-7388 Fax: 941-590-7330 Lee County [Continued) Steve Spencer Pall Aeropewer Corporation ~245 Evans Avenue Ft. Myers, FI. 33901 Phone: 941-936-8700 Fax'. 9~1-936-1715 2_995 Lafayette S'I;reet Cc~ Myers, FI. 33916 :~×: 941-3:~7-2411 Jare~ Watermeier 2~8© W. First Street, Suite 306 Ft. Myers, Fi. 33901 o **-~8-3161 Fax: 941-335-3227 Mary Watfc rd DOL/Div. of Voc-Rehab 3745 Broadway, Suite 203 F~. Myer's, FI, Z3901 Phone'. 9Sl-278-7317 Fax'. 94t-278-7255 Sunstate Coll~ge of Hair Design ,.olonia~ ,~oule,vard Ft Myers, FI. 33907 Phone: ¢41-278-1311 Fax'. 941-764-1208 AGENDA ITEM JAN 11 F~LE No.293 12/29 '95 18:31 ID:WORKFORCE DEV BOARD FAX:941 945 3359 PAGE 1 FAX TRANSMISSION SOtITHV¢[ST FLORIDA WORKF()RCE DEVELOI'MENI' BOARD, IN(:. 24311 WAI,DIr. N CI*.NTER DRIVE, SUI'I'I;'. 200 BONI'rA .SPRIN¢-/N, Fi, 34134 ( 941 ) 902-81.100 VAX: {§41) 048-3359 I)cc. 24. 1998 .Sue l"it.s~n Coll icr County ( ?omm i.~.~i~m ('arrflyn Klinc liar .h~L' Pulcrnt~ Inl"[~rlnation rmluCstcd on thc Southwcst I:lorida Work three [)cvci~q'm~ent l~,ourd. Incl txdc:.t (ic::cral dc~criptitm t~t' I'~t~md rcnpon>ibilitic~: Requirements Iht membership on Work lbrce I)evelopment Regis)hal lo:mis (;tI.~o called Jobs & I.'.dL~catit~l~ I~artncrship [trotH'tis) AGi~NDA ITEM NO. JAN tl P~GE 2 FiLE No .~¢ ~2/29 '98 18:31 ID:WORKFORCE DEV BOARD F~X:941 948 3359 .'-.,OL/i'H~'I,~ST I"LOI;tI1)A WORKF¢)RCE DI~VIi',i.¢)PMI,;NT BOARD, ling.:. ("tHIIn'~ul~iLy (.'m'eer .',nd Ser~'icu ('cnler~ in lhe I(e~hm ensure dmt ~v~' empl~wcr and prov Ming a v:tri~[y ot' su~ic~ fi~r ~ntployers and job nu~k~l'S \k,' el f'arc- tt~- Wt,'k Ibc ,vcll':::3 refi,rn', prog~:m~ iu [:l:,'ida, WA(;ICb (W~rk anti rhun St, t'ficicnc')), vnds emitlcmem, requires w.rk and suppm'ts imlividual rcspun~il,li~y. 'l'hc Hoard. ,~ admiuistrativc cmity Ibr Ihe WAGF. N L'oalititm in R~gion 24, works wifl~ irs mcmb,zr~ to idem i~ nnd provide activities and services which enub[e Welfare-to- Work Fcdmul I' ~griun lbr eligible pm'licipants woo need ;sdditional credit- ~nc()m'agc empi~yer:, to pmticipate m [he program~ and .gain pmduclive cmpl~yc~s. 'i'iU,~ is thc t~ cg,zil'.~ )~t~ll~ and ~tluh w,,'klbrc~ education sit, tug)' Iht c,,urdinai i.~ httsin~ ,, education, a,d lhe c~nflnlun~ty 1~} suppo~ ~lud~nts i~ achieving lung-term career goals ami I)ctween sch~mls anti busmcsucs ~s an ir~vestmm~l in tbturu workplace productivil)and I-ligh .qkills/1 li~h W~gc .lobs ;his i~i,i .tiw: a;ign:: cthtc;t',iol~ ~ll,I r;'ai~lmg p~o~a:n.~ ,,~,~th xisChlg high-vmue .i~,ins ,J P, cg~on 24, encmnaging thc prcparal, iun ol'a skilled and ct~rllpetil, iv¢ workforce. 'lite Bn;ml works clu,~cly with area emptuyers, public and private cducatitm and ll'aining providers and oconomit: development' ti) identify o¢cupation.~ forcca.stcd for higher earllJllgS, growtll, llIttJ nlabilily. '1 hc Board also oversees an,I provides pnlicy guidan¢~ I'or prosrmn., ~adcd thmush thc J~,b Parlnership Ac~ (J'['PA). Progrmnn fimded dmmgh JTPA provide ~mploymm~l and training activities servic~m~r residCql,~ ol l~c ~vc-~:t~lN~ly m'ea who are experiencing unusual barriers ta emph~y,~nl and FAX:9~i 945 3359 PaGE 3 FILE No.:v; ~2/29 '98 18:32 ID:WORKFORCE DEV 80ARD 'q . JOB.J AND EDUCATI()N PARTNERSHIP REGIO~'AL Pre:;idenr of' the Corrm~uniry Co~lego ?resident o[' [/nive~iry Priva~,e C~xi[icate or Dip[oma institution Degree Granting J. 5~40rg~ized Labor or Communkv Based Economic Developmen: Direcrcr'.s Vocational Rehabilitation Jobs & Benefits TOTAL. BOARD FILE No.2~3 12/29 '~8 18:32 ID:WORKFORCE DEV BOARD FAX:941 948 3359 PAGE WORK I,'OR('E DEVELOPMENT BOARD RI,:G ION 24 CHARLO'I'I'E COUNTY MEMBERS East Olympia Avenue Punla (Jorda. I,'lorida 94 1-03 c)-6oO() 941-03q-0115 941-255-7571 Mr, B~an I .ancuville Slat 525 Bowman Terrace Pon Charlotte, Florida 941-629 5, t~55 Ms PeggieWillis Charlotte County EDC 9414' Tmniami Trail Pt)ri Charlotte, Florida 941-627-3023 33t~53 941-1524-. 041-627-6314 AGENDA ITEM F;LE N0.293 12-29 '98 18:32 ID:WORKFORCE DEV BOARD FAX:941 948 3359 PAGE 5 WORKICORCE DEVELOPMENT BOARD REGION 24 COLI,IER (;OtINTY MEMBERS 33912 941-643-7462 Dr. 'Fe,,-w Mc Mahan Informational (.'oliege "654 Tamiami Trail East Naples. Florida 941-774-4700 34112 g41-774--45~3 i~ A Re,hefts & Compan.~ 382 Broad Avenue South Naples. Florida 34104 g4 l-2e i-2424 q41-261-cTOq; l,a.. W hlte ( I nter:m) Collier ('o'tmtv Public School Nap[es, F io,-~da 34 i 04 q41,..., ~ ' ;-27[)(), 941-643-5f)43 Mr Jack l tumphrey IPM 3903 Enterprise Avenue Naples, FIo~da .14104 941-643-2020 941-b43-2708 Ms Susan PeteR, is ED(: of (?oilier County 3050 N Horseshoe l)r, Suite 120 Naplc~, Florida 34104 941-263-8080 941-2h3-602 Mr Frank RodrSguez i st National Bank ot'Napics 9O0 Goodle~te Road North Naples, Florida 34102 q41 -435-7635 94 ~-262-52C3 Dr David Baidaia Lx~rcnzo Walker Institute of Technology ~7~}2 I!stey Avenue N~ples, Florida34104 041-643-0910 941 -~3-7462 AGENDAJ'rEM JAN /? FILE N0.293 12/29 '98 18:32 ID:WORKFORCE DEV BOARD F~X:9al 948 3359 PaGE WORKFOI~(;E DEVEI,OPMENT BOARD REGION 24 (;I,AI)IC_S/HF, NDRY (:OUNT¥ MEMBERS Gl~des (.'OUllfy School I)islrict Pos1 ()lllce Box 45g Moore I laven, l"lorSda 2~4~ ~ ~, I 041-040-2083 941-040- 1 blades t-.lec~ric ('ooperalive Post Ot~cc Box 519 9,11-94o-0~,24 Dr I-':d Upthegrove Hendry.' Coutny School District Posl ()llice Box 1980 ' 5 LaBelle, f:lorida 3.~03 041-902-.4244 '941-074-400() Mr. l)avid l.yons I.yons Printing Post Office Box 510 ('lev~ist{m, I'[orida 041-983-6753 33440 Mr Stmny ~,Villian'~.,. POSL ()ffice liox 2277 I,aBelle, Florida 3397S qal-o7~, 941-083-2607 AO~.NDA LTEIVb JAN i1 [;,,;C, FILE No.293 12/29 '98 18:32 ID:WORKFORCE DEV BOARD FAX:9al 9a8 3359 PAGE ? WORKF()RCE DEVEI,OPMENT BOARD REGI¢)N 24 I.Ei'; COUNTY BOARD MEMBERS Ms I,iz &lpen lia'ader North America C(~rporathm 12780 Westlinks Drive F,~rt \h'ers. Florida 33913 0,41-5t'i 1-50t)0 941-708-8136 Mr Joe Brown 'l)inily ('ontmction & I)evelopmenl Pes'~ ()lt~ce Box 150234 Cape('~ral. Fhmda 33Ol5 l.ee ('Otmlv School Board 2055 ('unreal Avenue I:~,'t \b.,ers. Fi:,Ilcl:~ 33q0[ V4 i-337-830 ~ q4 t-33 7-8.178 I)r .lames lhowder. III Lic;ison ('ommunily ('ollcFe ro~~ Mve~s. Florida 33906 04 i 9-11-489-v,418 Mr. (iet~rge Krahn I)1 ,h$ Divisien of Jobs & Benefits 24311 Walden Cenl'er Drive, Suite 200 941-0~y2-8000 941-948 .~.~ 50 Dr'. Gary Bonvillian College o1' Business 10501 FGCU Boulevard I"ort Myers, t"lorida 33965-6505 941-590-7315 Q41-590-73 ~(} Ms. Fran Gibbons Children & Family Services 2295 Vicloria Avenue, 2nd Fhmr Fort Myers, I"torida 33901 941-332-2822 941-.t.t8-1443 941-472-9761 Mrs Melvin Morgan I)IAD 2190 Pauldo Street I:tnl Mvc~,s Flo, ida '~'~916 94 I-3 t2-OtW2 94 t -532.-~ )(),32 (call first) Mr .$~ex, c Pcrsone~Ic Sprim Box 370 MI(' 002 Mr. Sieve Spencer Pall Acropower Coporation 4245 Evans Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901 941-335-82() 1 94 I-3.t4-0583 941-936-8700 941-030-1715 Mr Robert Janes ~203 Kitltwake ('i~cte Sanibel, I,'londu o41-472-5061 ~,4s Kdrcn Hawe.~ [,ce County Community Acnon Agent), 83 Pondella Road, Suite 1 Noith [:Orl Myers. Florida 33003 94 t -650-792 > q,4 [ -0 FiLE No.293 12--29 '98 18:33 ID:WORKFORCE DEV BOARD FAX:941 948 3359 PaGE 8 WOI~KFORCI,'. I)I'WI<,I~OPMI<NT BOARD REGION 24 IA<I< Ms Jane', WatcrmcicF LD(' of Lee County 941--~3 M-i IF, I q4 I-.I 3N- ~2£7 Ms. Trudi Williams I'KW Consulling F'.n~ineers 1400 Colonial l],lvd. Suite For~ Myers, Flmida 35~07 941-278- I q~£ Sunstal¢ College of I lair Dest~h 2418 ('ohmial Boulevard Fon Myers, Flodda 3.~ )I 6 041 ~-)4 I-33 7-24 i 1 AOF. NDA ITEM, JAN 1l 2200 Pg. /& EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PUD-82-26(3) D. WAYNE ARNOLD, AICP, OF Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES, P.A., REPRESENTING REVCO/GE JOINT VENTURE, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "PUD" TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS VILLAGE PLACE PUD FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING THE PUD DOCUMENT HAVING THE EFFECT OF CLARIFYING THAT THE FRONT YARD BUILDING SETBACK IS MEASURED FROM THE BACK OF CURB OR SIDEWALK, AND REDUCING THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR A PORTION OF THE REMAINING LOTS IN PHASE 1, GLEN EDEN AND ALL OF PHASE 2, GLEN EDEN, FROM 6 FEET TO FIVE FEET, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH (U.S, 41) AND EAST SIDE OF VANDERBILT DRIVE, IN SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 72.5-J: ACRES. OBJECTIVE: The petitioner seeks to repeal the current Village Place PUD and to adopt a new PUD having the effect of amending the PUD document and clarifying that the front yard building setback is measured from the back of curb or sidewalk, and reducing the side yard setback from 6 feet to 5 feet for a portion of the remaining lots in Phase 1, Glen Eden and all of Phase 2, Glen Eden, without essentially changing the land use strategy. CONSIDERATIONS: The approved Village Place PUD presently requires a 20-foot front yard setback from the property line. The petitioner proposes that this be measured from the back of the curb or sidewalk. For zero lot line units, the current PUD requires a 0 or 6-foot side yard; the proposed PUD changes this to 0 or 5-feet for the remaining lots. Therefore, the 12-foot separation between structures is proposed to be reduced to 10 feet. The replacement PUD seeks to change "Section 3.4 Development Standards" only. PROS/CONS: PROS: This petition allows the clarification of the front setback measurement. It will also reduce the required side yard by one foot to six feet, thus allowing a different, slightly larger style of home to be built. CONS: None. AGENDA ITEM JAN 11 2000 HISTORIC/ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT: Staffs analysis indicates that the petitioner's property is located outside an area of historical and archaeological probability as referenced on the official Collier County Probability Map. Therefore, no Historical/Archaeological Survey and Assessment is required. FISCAL IMPACT: This PUD by and of itself will have no fiscal impact on the County. However, if this request meets its objective, a portion of the existing land will be further developed. The mere fact that new development has been approved will result in future fiscal impact on County public facilities. The County collects impact fees prior to the issuance of building permits to help offset the impacts of each new development on public facilities. These impact fees are used to fund projects in the Capital Improvement Element needed to maintain adopted levels of service for public facilities. In the event that impact fee collections are inadequate to maintain adopted levels of service, the County must provide supplemental funds from other revenue sources in order to build needed facilities. The following impact fees will be applicable to this project: Fire Impact Fee: Road Impact Fee: Regional Parks Community Parks Library School Utilities Radon Impact Fee: EMS Impact Fee: Correctional Facilities $0.15 per square foot $1,379 per dwelling unit $179 per dwelling unit $399 per dwelling unit $180.52 per dwelling unit $1,778 per dwelling unit $1,340 per dwelling unit $0.005 per square foot $14 per dwelling unit $117.98 per dwelling unit For an average unit size of 1,500 square feet for the 58 units affected, the total fiscal impact will be $5,620 per unit. Since this phase of the project proposes a maximum of 58 units, the total amount of impact fees collected at build-out will total $325,960. It should be noted that because impact fees vary by type of use and because this approval does not provide this level of specificity as to the actual type of use, the total impact fee quoted above is at best a raw estimate. Additionally, there is no guarantee that the project at build-out will have maximized their authorized level of development. JAN 11 2000 Other fees will include building permit review fees and utility fees associated with connecting to the County's sewer and water system. Building permit fees and utility fees have traditionally offset the cost of administering the community development review process, whereas utility fees are used on their proportionate share of impact to the County system. Finally additional revenue is generated by application of ad valorem tax rates. The revenue that will be generated depends on the value of the improvements. At this point in time a model has not been developed to arrive at a reasonable estimate of tax revenue based on ad valorem tax rates. Not withstanding the fiscal impact relationship, development takes place in an environment of concurrency management. When level of service requirements fall below adopted standards, a mechanism is in place to bring about a cessation of building activities. Certain LOS standards apply countywide and would therefore bring about a countywide concurrency determination versus roads that may have local geographic concurrency implications. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Future Land Use: The applicant is not requesting an increase in density. For this reason, staff is of the opinion that the required findings for standard and PUD rezones do not apply in recognition of the fact that when the property was initially rezoned, the decision to approve the Breezewood PUD was based upon a preponderance of evidence and conditions which support the required findings for both standard and PUD rezoning actions. This rezoning action will do nothing to impact the Growth Management Plan. HISTORIC/ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT: -Staff's analysis indicates that the petitioner's property is located outside an area of historical and archaeological probability as referenced on the official Collier County Probability Map. Therefore, no Historical/Archaeological Survey and Assessment is required. PLANNING SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) recommend approval of Petition PUD-82-26(3), being a petition to repeal the current Village Place PUD and adopt the revised Village Place PUD as described by the draft Ordinance of Adoption and Exhibits thereto (i.e. PUD document). A ~GE.~DA ITF..~ JAN 11 2000 Pi. ~ EAC RECOMMENDATION: The Collier County Environmental Advisory Council did not hear this petition. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: At its meeting of December 16, 1999, the CCPC voted 7 to 1 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve PUD-89-14(2). Commissioner Abernathy voted in the minority, stating that he thought a ten-foot separation between structures was too little in any development. Because of the split vote, this petition is not on the summary agenda. PREPARED,~ FREI~Rt~'I~CHL, SENIOR PLANNER CUR~'~ IT PLANNING CURR ED : qT PLANNING MANAGER ROBERT J. ML~LHERE, AICP PLANNING SERVICES DIRECTOR DATE DATE DATE VINCENT A. TE DATE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR Petition Number: PUD-82-26(3) Village Place PUD AGENDA ITE~ JAN 11 2000 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION NOVEMBER 22, 1999 PETITION: PUD-82o26(3) VILLAGE PLACE PUD OWNER/AGENT: Agent: Owner: D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Revco/GE Joint Venture REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner seeks to repeal the current Village Place PUD and to adopt a new PUD having the effect of amending the PUD document and clarifying that the front yard building setback is measured from the back of curb or sidewalk, and reducing the side yard setback for a portion of the remaining lots in Phase 1, Glen Eden and all of Phase 2, Glen Eden, from 6 feet to five feet, without essentially changing the land use strategy. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject site is located in Section 9, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, west of US 41 and east of Vanderbilt Drive. AGENDA ITEM JAN 1,1 2000 PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The approved Village Place PUD presently requires a 20-foot front yard setback from the property line. The petitioner proposes that this be measured from the back of the curb or sidewalk. For zero lot line units, the current PUD requires a 0 or 6-foot side yard; the proposed PUD changes this to 0 or 5-feet for the remaining lots. Therefore, the 12-foot separation between structures is proposed to be reduced to 10 feet. The replacement PUD seeks to change "Section 3.4 Development Standards" only. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: Existing: The property is presently zoned PUD and is partially developed. Surrounding: North - Bentley Village; zoned PUD (The Retreat) South - Undeveloped land; zoned RSF-4 and RSF-4(3) East- US 41 ROW West- Vanderbilt Drive ROW GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: The applicant is not requesting an increase in density or permitted number of dwelling units. For these reasons, staff is of the opinion that the required findings for standard and PUD rezones do not apply in recognition of the fact that when the property was initially rezoned, the decision to approve the Village Place PUD was based upon a preponderance of evidence and conditions which support the required findings for both standard and PUD rezoning actions. This rezoning action will do nothing to impact the Growth Management Plan. Consistency with other applicable elements of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) is as follows: Staff evaluation for consistency with applicable elements of the GMP advises that this PUD, as structured, is consistent with applicable elements of the GMP. HISTORIC/ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT: Staff's analysis indicates that the petitioner's property is located outside an area of historical and archaeological probability as referenced on the official Collier County Probability Map. Therefore, no Historical/Archaeological Survey and Assessment is required. 2000 EVALUATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL, TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE: The appropriate staff responsible has reviewed the subject petition for oversight related to the above referenced areas of critical concern. This includes a review by the Community Development environmental and engineering staff, and the Transportation Department. These reviews help shape the content of the PUD document and cause development commitments to be formulated to achieve GMP and LDC requirements. The petition was administratively reviewed on behalf of the EAC and staff addressed those matters jurisdictionally within their purview. ANALYSIS: This is a PUD amendment even though the process is one of rezoning the land from "PUD" to "PUD". When we use a rezoning process to accomplish a PUD amendment, we do so to achieve a level of administrative convenience because it avoids the requirement to track amendments and their relationship to the original document in order to understand the totality of the regulations as they apply to the PUD zoning district. The amendment seeks to clarify that the front yard building setback is measured from the back of curb or sidewalk, and reducing the side yard setback for a portion of the remaining lots in Phase 1, Glen Eden and all of Phase 2, Glen Eden, from 6 feet to five feet. This will be accomplished without essentially changing the land use strategy. These proposed changes would not have a negative impact on the intensity or infrastructure internal or external to the project. For these reasons, staff is of the opinion that the required findings for standard and PUD rezones do not apply in recognition of the fact that when the property was initially rezoned, the decision to approve the Village Place PUD was based upon a preponderance of evidence and conditions which support the required findings for both standard and PUD rezoning actions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) recommend approval of Petition PUD-82-26(3) being a petition to repeal the current Village Place PUD and adopt the revised Village Place PUD as described by the draft Ordinance of Adoption and Exhibits thereto (i.e. PUD document). AGENDA ITEM JAN 11 20.30 Pg. 7 PREPARED BY: , SENIO~NER RO~I~D-~N~, ~'iG'~ CURRENT PLANNING MANAGER ROBERT J. MULHERE, AICP PLANNING SERVICES DIRECTOR DATE DATE DATE VINCENT A. CAUTERO, AICP, ADMINISTRATOR DATE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION Petition PUD 82-26(3) Staff Report for the December 16, 1999 CCPC Meeting COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: RUSSELL A. BUDD, CHAIRMAN AGENDA ITEM JAN 11 2000 Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Civil Engineers · Land Surveyors · Planners Q. GRADY MINOR, P.E. MARK W. MINOR, P.E. C. DEAN SMITH, P.E. DAVID W. SCHMITr, P.E. MICHAEL J. DELATE, P.E. September 24, 1999 Mr. Fred Reischl County Planning Services Department 2800Collier North Horseshoe Drive Naples, F1 34104 D. WAYNE ARNOL[_ ROBERT W. THINNES, ERIC V. SANDOVAL, P.S.N THOMAS CHERNESKY, P.S. ALAN V. ROSEMA/ Re: PUD Amendment Application: Village Place (Glen Eden) PUD, Ord. 97-20 Dear Fred: Attached, please find the completed PUD amendment application for the Village Place PUD, Ordinance 97-20. As we previously discussed, the proposed amendments affect only Section 3.4, Development Standards of the PUD; therefore, with your concurrence, the proposed amendments have been submitted in strikethrough and underline fashion. The proposed amendments are being requested to permit a greater variation in detached villa product types and to respond more favorably to market demand for this type of product. Specifically, we are proposing to clarify that the front yard building setback is measured from the back of curb or sidewalk, whichever greater. This modification will insure that an adequate setback will be provided to eliminate pedestrian/vehicle conflicts. Additionally, we are proposing to reduce the side yard setback for a portion of the remaining lots under the developer's control in Phase 1, Glen Eden and all of Phase 2, Glen Eden. The proposed reduction from six feet to five feet is a typical building setback for villa home product types and a separation of ten feet between structures is an industry standard. The proposed amendments will affect only sixty lots within the PUD, all of which are contiguous and under the unified control of the developer. A site plan indicating the lots for which the amendments will be effective has been provided as supporting information to this PUD amendment application. Please contact me at (941) 947-1144 if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Director of Planning (941) 947-1144 · FAX (941) 947-0375 · E-Mail: QGMA@aol.com 3800 Via Del Rey · Bortitlt Springs, Florida 34134 JAN ~Juu PETITION NUMBER DATE APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARINq FOR PUD AMENDMENT/DO AMENDMENT[ ~i $[? 3 9 ':~ Ifil COMMUNITY OEVELOPMENT DlmSI~m~.2~mu ct S V CES ....................... - Name of Applicant(s) Revco/GE Joint Venture Applicant's Mailing Address 14510 Vanderbilt Drive City Naples State Fl Zip 34110 Applicant's Telephone Number: (941) 592-7466 Is the applicant the owner of the subject property? X Yes No (a) If applicant is a land trust, so indicate and name beneficiaries below. If applicant is corporation other than a public corporation, so indicate and name officers and major stockholders below. x (c) If applicant is a partnership, limited partnership or other business entity, so indicate and name principals below. Owner: Revco/GE Joint Venture, A Florida General Partnership General Parmer: Revco Holdings, Inc. A Florida Corporation Gary Kinsella, President Kinwood Palm - Aire Holdings, Inc. A Florida Corporation Mangrove Development and Consultants, Inc. A Florida Corporation -1- Western Sales and Development Company of Corpus Christi, Texas A Texas Corporation (d) (e) (f) Name of Agent Firm Agent's Mailing Address City Bonita Springs Agent's Telephone Number: PUD Ordinance and Number: If applicant is an owner, indicate exactly as recorded, and list all other owners, if any. If applicant is a lessee, attach copy of lease, and indicate actual owners if not indicated on the lease. If applicant is a contract purchaser, attach copy of contract, and indicate actual owner(s) name and address below. D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey State F! Zip 34134 (941) 947-1144 PUD 82-26(2) Village Place PUD (AKA Glen Eden) (Previously amended by Ordinance #'s Ord. 97-20 Detailed legal description of the property covered by the application (if space is inadequate, attach on separate page; if request involves change to more than one zoning district, include separate legal description for property involved in each district; if property is odd-shaped, submit five (5) copies of survey; 1" to 400' scale). The applicam is responsible for supplying the correct legal description. If questions arise concerning the legal description, an engineer's certification shall be required. Section 9 Township 48 S Range 25 E Please see attached legal description Address or location of subject property: The property is located between Vanderbilt Drive and U.S. 41 North, immediately south of the Retreat PUD. -2- 11 2000 Does property owner own contiguous property to the subject property? If so, give complete legal description of entire contiguous property. (If space is inadequate, attach on separate page.) No o Type of Amendment: X A. B. C. Does amendment comply with the comprehensive plan: If no, explain: PUD Document Language Amendment PUD Master Plan Amendment Development Order Language Amendment X Yes No Has a public hearing been held on this property within the last year? If so, in whose name? N/A 10. Petition Number: Date: Has any portion of the PUD been X sold and/or X developed? Are any changes proposed for the area sold and/or developed? If yes, describe. (Attach additional sheets if necessary.) No changes are proposed that will affect previously developed portions of the PUD. Please see the attached cover letter for an additional amendment description. -3- AG~A ITEM I 1 1 2000 AFFIDAVIT I, Gary Kinsella , being fa'st duly sworn, depose and say that I am the owner of the property described herein and which is the subject matter of the proposed hearing; that all the answers to the questions in this application, and all sketches, data, and other supplementary matter attached to and made a part of this application, are honest and true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand this application must be complete and accurate before a hearing can be advertised. I further permit the undersigned to act as my representative in any matters regarding this Petition. Gary Kinsella Signature of Agent D. Wayne Arnold, AICP STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing Application was acknowledged before me this ~ ~ day of ~'~ ¥ ~-~ ~ ~_o.__ , 1999, by C.---~..,,.~ ¥.__. ~ ~ ~.~ o._ , who is pe_rsonally known to me or who has produced as identification and who did (did not) take an oath. (Signature of Notary Public) Notary Public. State of Florida My comm. exp, res Septem~r 11,2001 -4- AGF. J',iDA il E.M JAN 11 ,:cOD /,2 3.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Minimum Land Area )r Per Dwelling Unit i&'~' Structu re 7500 SF 8000 SF 3000 SF ~ite or Lot Width Min. Avg. 80 FT ;100 FT 40 FT Front Yard Setback 25 FT 30 FT I 20 FT Side Yard Setback 7.5 FT 25 FT 10FT 35 FT 15 FT 25 FT 10 FT 35 FT 2 6 FT or Zero Feet for Zero Lot Linl Units 20 FT 5 FT 35 FT One (1) Acre 150 FT 30 FT 30 FT 30 FT 10 FT Rear Yard Setback N/A 30' or a distance equal to 1/2 the sum of the building heights, whichever is greater 3 12 FT Rear Yard Setback (Accessory.) Max. Building Height 35 FT Distance Between Principal 'Structures I =loor Area Minimum/Dwelling Unitl I 1000 SF 800 SF 800 SF Front yard setback shall be measured from back of curb or sidewalk, whichever greater. For lots 138 -144. Phase 1. Glen Eden and all of Phase 2. Glen Eden. setbacks may be reduced to zero feet or 5 feet: however, structures shall maintain a 10' separation. 20' or a distance equal to 1/2 the sum of the building heights, whichever is greater 1 story-800 SF 2 or 3~ story-1200 SF with at! least 800 SF on 1st. Floor 3, 10' for Lots 138 - 144. Phase 1 Glen Eden and all of Phase 2 Glen Eden. OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENT,~ As required by Division 2.0 of the Collier County Land Development code in in effect at the time of building permit application. F:JOB/GE/GE2PUD A ~'(.~.DA ITIDG JAN 11 A~A ITr~.~ JAb'! ~ 2~30 ORDINANCE 2000- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 91-102. THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSWE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING TIlE OFFICIAL ZONTNG ATLAS MAP NUMBERED 8509S BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM "PUD" TO "PUD" PLANNED L~IT DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS VILLAGE PLACE PUD FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING THE PUD DOCUMENT HAVING THE EFFECT OF CLARIFYING THAT THE FRONT YARD BUILDING SETBACK IS MEASURED FROM THE BACK OF CURB OR SIDEWALK, AND REDUCING THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR A PORTION OF THE REMAINING LOTS IN PHASE 1, GLEN EDEN AND ALL OF PHASE 2, GLEN EDEN, FROM 6 FEET TO FIVE FEET. FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH (US 41} AND ON THE EAST SDE OF VANDERBILT DRIVE (CR ,)~1) IN SECTION 9, ['OWNSHIP 48 SOUTH. RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER ('OUNTY, FLORIDA. CONSISTING OF 72.5+ ACRES; I'ROVID[NG FOR THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 97-20, IHE FORMER VILLAGE PLACE PUD; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WI-IEREAS, D. Wayne Arnold, AICP of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., representing Revco/GE Joint Venture, petitioned thc Board of C~,t~:uv Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the hereto described real property; NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA: SECTION ONE: The Zoning Classification of the hereto described i'cal property located in Section 9, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County. Florida. is cmmgcd from "PUD" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development in accordance with the PUD Document. attached hereto as Exhibit "A", which is incorporated herein and by reference made part hereof. The Official Zoning Atlas Map numbered 8509S as described in Ordinance Number 91-102, the (_'oilier County Land Development Code, is hereby amended accordingly. AGENDA ITF..M JAN 11 2030 SECTION TWO: Ord;nance Number 97-20, known as the Village Place PUD, adopted on May 13, 1997 by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County. is hereby repealed in its entirety. SECTION THREE: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing xx ith the Department of State. 'PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this __ day of ,2000. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK. Clerk BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLI ER COUNTY, FLORIDA Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency BY: CH.AIRMAN Marjorie M. Student Assistant County Attorney 8/~dmin/ORDINA NC E/PUD- 8 2 - 2 m 3 }/FR/im -2- J/, t I 1 .u00 /2' VILLAGE PLACE PUD Exhibit 'A" AGF_iv. DA II'E~M JAN 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT OF COMPMANCE ................................... 1 SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP & DESCRIPTION .............. 2 SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT .......................... :3 ~ECTION ~1 RESIDENTIAL TRACTS ............................. 6 SECTION V DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS .................... 11 PUD MASTER PLAN ................................... EXHIBIT JAN 11 2000 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE The development of approximately 72.5 acres o~ property In Collier Count/, as a Planned Unit Development known as Village Place, Is in compllince with the goals, obiectives end policies of Collier County as set forth In the Growth Management Plan. The residential, recreational, and other development authorized herein vail be consistent with the growth policies, land development regulations and applicable comprehensive planning objectives of each of the elemen[s of the Growth Management Plan for the following reasons: Residential I=Folect 1. The subject property Is within the Ufl3an Residential land use designaflo~ as idemifled on the Future Land Use Map as required In Objective 1, Policy 5.1 and Policy 5.3 of the Future Land Use ElemanL 2. The ~ubJect propem/s location In relation to existing or proposed community facilities and services permits the development's residential density es required In Objective 2 of the Future Land Use Element. 3. The pro~ect development Is compatible and complemecmry to existing and future surrounding lind uses as required In Policy 5.4 of the Future Land Use Element. 4. Iml:m3vernent4 ere planned to be In comp/lance with all current and applicable land development regulations u set foflh In the Grow~ Management Plan and amandmenls thereto. The project development vdll result In an efficient and economical extension of community facifltles and ~ as required In Pc/ides 3.1.H and L of the Future Land Use Element. The project development b ~ to incorporate natural systems for water management In accordance with their natural functions and capabilities as required by Objective 1.5 of the Drainage Sub-Element of the Pub/lc Facilities Element. The maximum density of lour (4) dwelling units per acre Is In compliance with the Future Land Uso Element of the Growth Mar~gemenl Plan. .1 AGENDA 1.1 1.2 1.:3 1.4 1.6 SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIFTION The purpose of this Section Is to set forth the location end ownership d the property, and to describe the existing conditions ot the property proposed to be developed under the pro]ect name of V~lage Place. LEGAL DESCRIPTION The subject property being 72.5 acres is described as: The south 1/2 cd the south 1/2 of the south 1/2 of Section 9, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Coaler County, Rodda, lying west o~ U.S. Highway 41. PROPERTY OWNERSHIP The sub{ect property Is currently under the ownership o! Gaffl, Inc., a Rorida Corporation, ?.~l.-~e-t=al,,~, Suite 329. 853 Vanderbllt Beach Road. Naples, Florida 33963. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF pROPERTY AREA The Village Place PUD Is located In northwestern Collier County in section 9, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. ComaInlng 72.5 acres, the property approximately 6813 feet by 4,640 feel It Is bounded to the east by U.S. Highway 41, to the north byThe Reb'eet PUD, to the west by Vanderbilt Drive (C-901) and to the south by undeveloped b. nda lying In Section 16, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The total ~ number of dwelling units for the project v~l be 290, resulting In a gross density ol 4.0 units per acre. This Ordinance shall be known and cited aa the Vlllage PI Deveiopmem Ordinance. 2.2 2.3 2.4 SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PURPOSE The puq3ose of this Section Is to delineate and generally describe the project plan of development, relationships to applicable County ordinances, lhe respective land uses of the tracts included in the project, aa well as other project relaUonShil~ GENERAL Regulations Ior developmen~ of Village Place PUD shall be In accordance with the contents of thIs document, PUD-Planned Unit Development District and other applicable sectlorm and parts of the Collier County Land Development Code and G[~,,~h Mana0ement Plan In effect at the lime of --~-.=~"'"'4~ .... ~._ ..... ~' :p~.~.flon Issuance of any develcoment order to which said re0utatlo~s relate which a~tho~zes the construction of Imoroveme~s. such as but nm limited tO F!nat..SUtXflVision Plat. Final Site Oev~oome~ Plan. Excavation Permit and Preliminary Wo~ Authorization. Where ~ PUD regulations fall to provide developmental standards, then the provisions of the most similar district In the Collier County Land Development Code shaJl apply. Unless othan&'ba noted, the deflnltlon~ of ail terms shall be the same as the definitions set forth In Co]IIsr County Land Development Code in effect at the ~me of building pem~t application. C. Development permitted by the approval of this petition will be sublect to , concurrency review under the provislorts of the Adequate Public Faciiitfaa ~ESCRIPTION OF THE PUD MASTER PLAN The PUD Master Plan Including layout of streets and uses of land for the vm~ous tracts is iljustrated graphically by the PUD Master Plan. There shall be ~ thai. Five :Y~dgt~ residential tracts, ;::;= *' .... due conservallon ~ the general configuration of which IS also iljustrated by the PUl) Master Pfa~ ~LATED PROJECT P~.AN APPROVAl. REOUIREMENT~ A maximum of 290 dweaing unit~ shall be consmJcted In the total p~o~ect ama. The gro~ prolect area is 72.5 acres. The gross prolect density, therefore, will be a maximum of 4 units ~ ac~e. AG~A 2.5 2.8 2.7 2.8 RELATED PROJE(;:T PLAN APPR~VA[, ~EQUIREMENT$ A. Pdor to the recording of a record plat, and approval of the conatmct~n plans, a preliminary subdivision plat for the entire PUD shall receive approval o! the appropriate Collier County GovernmentaJ Agency to ensure compliance with the PUD master plan 8nd the Colllar County Land Development Code. B. At the time of Prellmlrmry Subdlvlsk)n Plat (P~P] or Site Develooment Plan (SDP) review, the plans wil be reviewed for the Water Manageman~, Ut~litles and Environmental aspects of the develo~ The Environmental Advisory Board wll hear the petition at the PSP or SDP review time. C. The provisions of Division 3.3 of the Cc~ller County Land Development code when applicable shaJI apply to the development of ali platted tracts, or parcels of land as provided In said Division 3.3. D. The developmem of any tract of parcel aplxoved for residendel development contemplating fee simple ownersl~p of land for each dwelling unit shall be required to submit and receive approval :of a Preliminary Subdivision Plat in conformance with requirements of ENvision 3.2 of the Collier County Land Development Code prior to the submittal of construction plans and a flnaJ plat for any poAlon of the tract or parcel. E. Appropriate instnJments w~l be provided at the lime of InfrastrdcturaJ improvements regarding any dedications and method for providing perpetuaJ maintenance o! common facilities. MODEL HOMES AND SALE~ FAClUTIES Model homes/model home centers Including sales center shall be pem'dtted In conjunction with the promoaofl of the development sublect to the pmvlsiom set forth in the Cailler County Land Developmen~ Code. AMENDMENTS TO PUD Ip~iCUMENT OR PUD MAb~I'ER PLAN Amendments may be made to the PUD as provided In the Collier County Land Development Code - AS$OCIATI(~N OF PR~)PEFIT~ C)WN~RS FOR COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE For land areal and/or recreation amenltlas whose ownership and maintenance resportsli~lity will be of a common Interest to all subsequent pLxchaea~ of property within said development in which the common Interest I~ located, the developer shall provide appropriate legal InsmJ'nem for the establishment of a Ptopem/ Owners Association whose function shall Include provisions for the pe~p~ cam and maintenance of those ~ [ac~itles and opan splice sul~ect to the 2.9 2.10 2.11 UMITATIONS OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL As provided for witl~in Section 2.7.3.4, Division 2.7, Artlde 2 of the Collier County Land Development Code. As provided for in Section 3.2.8.3.14, Division 3~, Article 3 of the Collier County PUD MONITORING An annuaJ monitoring repo~ shall be submitted pursuant to Section 2.7.3.6, Division 2.7, Article 2 of the Collier County Land Deveiopmen{ Code. 3.1 3.2 3.3 SECTION III RESIDENTIAL TRACTS PURPOSE The purpose of this Section Is to Identify specific development standards for areas designated on the PUD Master Plan as residential tracts. MAXIMUM DWELLING UNIT,~ Trac~ designated fm reelder~al uses shall be developed In accordance with the standards set forth In the Collier County Land Development Ccx~e and the development regutat~ms established in thIs ordinance provided the tolal dwelling units for the entire Vilage Place PUD does not exceed a total of 290. No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used. or land used. In whole or part. for other than the following: A. PrinclpaJ Use~: 1. Single famiy dwellings, t~vo-fan~ or duplex dwellings, model home~ multlple-~Taly dw~ings and duster housing.. 2. Parks, ~aygrouncls, play fields and commonly owned open space. 3. Water managemem faclitle~ 4. Recreational dubs. Intended to serve the surrounding residential Customa~/a_ _~ce_~_-.=_ry uses ~ ~s ~N a~ ~ d~ ~ ~ ~ d~, ~ a~ a~ on a ~e d~~ ~ ~ Pr~ Su~ ~ f~ ~t d~~ R~ ~ as ~1~ in the ~r ~ ~ D~em ~e ~y ~d~e, b~ are ~ I~ to. g~ ~ du~, c~ cemar building a~ tennis A~A I~L 3.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Land Area Der Structure or Per Dwelling Unit 7500 SF 8000 SF 3000 SF One (1) Acre Site or Lot Width Min. Average 80 FT 100 FT 40 FT 150 FT Front Yard Setback 25 FT 30 FT 1 20 FT 30 FT 2 6 FTor Zero Feet for Zero Lot Line Side Yard Setback 7.5 FT !5 FT Units 30 FT Rear Yard Setback 25 FT 25 FT 20 FT 30 FT Max. Building Height Distance Between Principal Structures Floor Area Minimum/Dwelling Unit 35 FT N/A 1000 SF 35 FT 30' or a distance equal to 1,2 the sum of the building heights, whichever is greater 800 SF 35 FT 3 12 FT 800 SF 35 FT 20' or a distance equal to 1/2 the sum of the building heights, whichever is greater 1 story-800 SF 2 or 3 story-1200 SF with at least 800 SF on 1st. Floor 1. Front yard setback shall be measured from back of curb or sidewalk, whichever is greater. 2. For lots 138 - 146, Phase 1, Glen Eden and all of Phase 2. Glen Eden, setbacks may be reduced to zero feet or 5 feet. however, structures shall maintain a 10' separation. 3 10' for Lots 138 - 146, Phase 1 Glen Eden and all of Phase 2 Glen Eden. OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS As required by Division 2.0 of the Collier Count~ Land Development Code ~n effect at the time of building permit aDplicatmn F JOBIGEJGE2PUD1 JAN 1 1 2 ,30 A. l~eslan and construcff~n of all {morovements shall be sub!ect C~.a-r-~ol~ance with the aoorooriate orovlslons of the Collier County La~L D_evelooment Code. Division ~ Work wffhln Collier County right-of-way shall meet the reoul~e~,ems Collier County Rloht.oLWav Ordinance No. g3.~, -- 4.1 4.2 SECTION IV CONSERVATION/PRESERVE TRACT PURPOSE Conservation/Preserve Tract - The purpose Ls to preserve and protect ~aelatk~ and natur'~ly functk)nlng habRats such as wetlands ~ thek naturaJ state whge allowing compatible uses aa outi~ed below. No budding or structure Or part thereo~, sh~l be erected atered or used, or end used, In whcde or In part, for othe~ than the fcWlovdng subject to regional state and tederaJ perm~ when requ~ed; A. Pdn~p~ Uses: Co 1. Open Spaces/Nature PreMwe~ 2. Boardwalks subject to appropriate approve-, by perm~ng agenc~ 3. Water management facleles may be ,,qowed IXoviding that such actMtJea or use~ do not requee excavatk~ fl~, change ~ grade or the removal of any protected vegetatlork peat or other matmtal substance othe~ than noxkx~ exoOc vegetation. PermUted Acceaao~ Use~ and Stmctur~ permitted In this Dlsl~ct. Consewatlon Tract Ovmemhlp and Maintenance A ...... '~ :~.~.T.:~ thc.?, k :.__.' ......... ~"~ .--~ ~ it'-.-:---' ...,.. ......· ~ .-'. -.~:"._.~-.:: '.'j._. .............. , .~;~.;; ~.L~.;.~: .:%. C.-.'3-.~. ~ -'.~'. ": ~. :.. :3 ........... ...................... JAN'I 1 2000 All conservation areaa shall be dealona~ed =,, a comerv~tlo~/oreservatlon tracts or easements on all constmcaon ~lans and shall be recorded on the ~lat with orotectlve covenama Der or similar to Section 704.06 of the Flodda S{atutes. B~er~ shah be ~rovtded tn accordance 'With Subsecflo~ 3.2.6.4.7.3 ~ In the eve~t the t:~:decl does r~ re<mire otattlno, all ~~ ar~s s~ ~ ~ aa ~t~/~~ ~s ~ easters d~l~t~ to an aoo~ ~ ~ 1o ~ll~ ~ ~h ~ ~slb~ ~ ~e~ a~ su~ to ~ us~ a~ I~ slm~ar to ~ as ~ R~a S~ S~ ~.~. 5.1 5.2 5.3 SECTION V DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS The purpose of this Section Is to set forth Ihe development commitment~ for the development of the project. Ail facilities shall be constructed in s~rlct accordance with Final Site Development Plans. final Subdivision Plar~ and ali applicable state and local laws. codes, and regulations applk:aUe to this PUD in effect at the time of bunting permit appilcafl0n. Except where spectflca]~ noted or stated othenvise, the standards and spececatlons of the Land Development Code shall apply to this pro~ec~ even I the land within the PUD Is no~ to be I~atted. The develops, his succes.~' and assigns, shall be responsible for the commitments oudined In this document The developer and ail subsequent landow~era are hereby placed on nodce that they are required to satisfy the requirements c~ all applicable Ceunty ordinances or codes In effect prto~ to or concutren~ with any subsequent development order relating to this site. This Includes, but is not limited to, Subdivtslon Master Plans, Site Development Plans and any other application that wil result In the Issuance o/ ttnal local develel~nen~ o~er or bulding pem~ Exhibit 'A': The PUD Master Plan is conceptual In nature and proposed tract, Io{ or land use bounda~es o~ special land use boundaries shall not be construed to be ~ and may be varied at any subsequent approval phase as may be executed at the time c~ prelln'anaty or final plaiting or site development plan application. All n~ry easements, dedlcatlona, or other Instruments shall be granted to Insure the conUnued operation and maintenance of all senace 11 JAN 5.4 TRAN$[~ORTATION The development of this PUD Master Plan shall be sublect to and governed by the following conditions: The developer shall convey at no cost to the County the following land along the southern boundary of the project site for future road right.of, way and associated Improvement requirement~ This conveyance is to f~c~ltate the future axte~sion of C.R. 860. Slxt~/.seven and one-half (67~) feet measured north from the southern-most property line of the Project site and paraJlei with The develcoer may In~ll raoulred turn-lane end ~'lvate security features wtthln the ~ feel wide strto that would form the access oofnt to U,$, 41. If at such time In the future the county reoulrea the same for t)ubtlc road doht-of-wav to connect U.S. 41 to Varxlerbllt Drive. then the cost of relocatlna or rernovln~ any facilities or structures constructed by develo~r w~l be at the develooer's exoonse. The above desc~bed cortveyance of fight-of-wey will aid the ~ to provide for the consUuctlo~ of a I~ of Livingston Road as outtlned In the transpo~atio~ element of the Coalar County Growth Managemen~ ~ The above lands shall be conveyed within 30 dav~ ~ "-" "~ '~-"~'~'~ "' '~' ='-' ~"~'~'~-- ~'-~ C.' "~ e~ of the time of Issuance by Collier County to Its construction conl~ctor of a nolJoa to aforesaid addltlor~ right-of-way. The develoge' shall hew a right as ~ option to convey to the Cour~ at an eadler date all or ~art of the abov~ lands as ~er 5.4.A. The donation of the abov~ refere ._~ced__ land ha~ been deemed non-site related and, therefore, ~ quaJlfy for Developer Contrtbuflo~ Credlta In credits against payme~ o~ Impacts fees that are mqutred by the Adequate Public Faciities Ordlrtance 90-24. Th~ developer, It _~__~_-essom or asa~Fl~ she~ be ~ to utJize such c~d~ at application for, any Final Developme~ Order as roadway impact fee credils toward an Adequate Public Facililtes Cert~cate. The value of said co~veyed proper set ma~ ~ ':~-~ !-~ -~? - determined by an al3pmisal perlorrr~d by a MN certbled appra at the tinm oi coflveyar.~ and determined to be accel3tabie 12 JAN 1 1 2000 & p~ , ?/ The County will allow the proIect°s ~lgnage end related Improvements within the ~.-~".%=:~p.--'~ right-of-way, ~ublect to the ~evlew ,,nd sppm~aI ~t the ~pp~prtme County ~gency. The developer, Its successor or assigns shall be responsible for the relocation of the elgnage at such time as the land is required by the County for roadway or other public uso Improvement; such relocation shall be at no cost to Collier CounLy. F. G, Sublect to aooroval bv FDOT. the devMoper shaft construct a ~ left-turn storage lane and a southbound.right-turn deceleration lane on U.S. · 41 at the project entrance, at the time of connection to U.S. 41. The developer shall also provide left and right turn lanes on Vanderblt Drive at the pro~ect entrance at the time of conmctlon to Vanderbllt Drive. Required turn lanes shall be constructed before any certJflcate,s of occupancy are Issued fm each sermrat,, C4~ase. The developer studl provide it fair share contribution toward the capital of · tml!tc $1gnaJ on U.S. 41 at the project entrance when deemed warranted by Collier County. The signal will be owned, opm'ated and maintak~:l by Collier County. H. t, If the developer, Its succasso~ assigns or grantees constructs any of the roadway end associated Improvemer~, the actuaJ cost of such constp__,c_~o__n (excluding the cost of coma~dng any storage lanes or turning lanes into the prope~t'y) aha# may quaflfy for roadway Impact fee credits as set forth In Ordinance 92-22 as *'mended in accordartcewith stan(/ards and procedures governing Developer Contdbutk:ma. 1, The tv~caJ road cross sectkm for CR 860 shall be of a curb end outt~ tvcm In accordance with the Collier County Land Devatoomem Code. Preilrrdns~v Subdlviskm Plat shall reflect this eccordlnolv. Access to varfl:x~ tre_~s vAR be tm~4ded by vfltue of an access oofnt oft U.S. 41 via a 67.5 foot w~e rioht-of-wav alm~o the south side of the orolect. Until and urdees ~id rlaht-of-wav la utilized as a public road rtoht- of-way, developer wll have ThQ rk~ to maize Mid roadway and accesa ooint aa · orivate rk3ht-~-wav. If~udlrm ~on of accessory uses comoatJ~le therewith. Nothino in *,nv develoome~ aoofoval M ~h* In Oa, o~ to a meal'",', ---'-"-'~"° at aw ,x~ "*ooo I*s Mx~Vl_ AN froga,m'm_ Any m~man ooentno er driveway corm~tk~ location Idmll be 5.5 5.6 5.7 Road Imoact fees shall be oald Ordinance 92-22. aa emended. The schedule In the Ordinance shell used to comoute the moulted Develooment of this t~arcel sh~ll be _~ovemed bv the LOS and eva[a~,, ca~actt"v on the adlacent arterial roadway n~l~ The develooer shall be ms~nslble for the Installation' of arterial ~ ~--m~_ Ilohttna at all ~rolec~ accesses prior to the Issuance of certlfl~n!_n~_ ~ occunancv lor residences other that1 the model ce~m. The access to Vandetb~t Odve will be v~ a t~vate road to be allaned v,4th the entrance to ~oor Trace to the Immed~_!e west. A 15' additional rk~ht-of, wav alor~ Vande~lt Drive will be conv~...tn Collier County ut)o~ at~oroval of the PSP. This is to be of no cost tn Collier Cour~vo ~CCESSORY STRUCTURE,~ Accessory structures shai be constructed slmultnneoush/with,, or following the c~'tstruction of, the principal structure except ns allowed In the I. and Development Code and Ior cons~ site office and rumored lac~ltles. NI signs shall be In a__,~>~d_, ance with OMsion 2.5 of the C~ County ~ Developmer~ Code. A, ,, = r.~..--., ,- ,, .... -.,/ .......~ ..... ....... =.:=.- ..... · a .~,,.=_. , e , E.-'. ........ -- ~_-~_ .... ...... .... ....... A. B, A minimum o~ twenty41ve percent (25%} of the ~e's native v~]etatl~ shall be retained as required by CoOler County Land Oevaiopmem Code Division l~at. Wetland presmvatlc~ and/or retained protect___,~_ spedes habitat n~y 5.6 EnvironmentaJ oermittlno shag be In accordance with the ~tate of ICindda Environmental Resource Permit ~des and 13o eubleet to review and ~looroval bv Curr(~r~ IPl{inpino Environmental Review Staff. Removal of exotic ve0etaflon shall not be counted towards mitloaflon for Imoacta to Collier County lurlsdlctlonal wetlands. Petitioner shall comoN with the ouldetlnes and recommendations of the U.S. Fish & W~dlife Service ~ (IJ~FWS) and Rodda Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission fFGFW]=(~ lr~oardlno potential Irnmcts to wildlife soectes. W~lere protected soectes am observed on site. a Hahbt Manaaeme~ Plan for those protected sm~es shall be submitted to Curvent Plannino Environmental staff for review and aoorovaJ orlor to Site FianlC, omtmctlon Plan aonroval. An exl;4k~veoetatlofl r~novat, rnonitorino.and ma~e~anc~ (exoltc-fme) alan for the site. with emphasis on the conservaflonl~fl(xt areas-M be submitted to Current Planrdno Environmental Review Staff for review and amxT~al odor to final site o~an/cormmctlon nlan aoorovaL A. Water dlstrlbut~n, sewage co~qectlon and tr~ faclltlea to SMVO the project are to be designed, constructed, co~ owned and maintained In accogdance with CoOler Coumy Ordlfmfx~e N~ 88-78, as amended, and othe~ ap~a~e ~ ~es ar~ n~aka'n. Co 'the on-site wate~ distribution system to ~ me i:~o~ect must be connecled to the Dlst~8 12 Inch water maIn on U.S. 41 and VandMblt Ortve consistent with the ma~ sizing requirements specitled In the CountY'a Water Master Plan. During design of these facilities, dead end mains Ihd be ellmlfmtad by looping the internal pip(dine naMol~ or shall with a fire hydrant. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PETITION PUD-90-17(1), KAREN BISHOP OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., REPRESENTING BISHOP JOHN NEVINS, DIOCESE OF VENICE, REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO A "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FACILITIES COMPLIMENTARY TO THE EXISTING RELIGIOUS DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS THE ST. JOHN THE EVANGELIST CATHOLIC CHURCH PUD, ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF llfru AVENUE NORTH APPROXIMATELY % MILE WEST OF U.S. 41 IN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 14.9 + ACRES. OBJECTIVE: The petitioner seeks to amend the existing "PUD" Planned Unit Development Document and Master Plan to allow two additional principal uses and a variety of accessory uses on the undeveloped 5.7 acres located in the north portion of the 14.89-acre church property k~o,vn as St. !ohn the Evangelist Catholic Church PUD. CONSIDERATIONS: The subj ecl property is located approximately three-qnarters of a mile west of U.S. 41 on thc north side of i i 1'~ Avenue North. l~hc PUL) was approved in 1990 (R-90-17) and has direct access from 111 ~ Avenue North and access from 6th Street via a private shared drive with the North Naples Elementary School. The subject PUD is partially developed and contains a 1,000 seat church, a rectory (residence), a Parish Life Center with classrooms and library, parking areas, and a retention lake on 14.89 acres. In addition to the above existing uses, the PUD is currently approved for a school and related facilities. The purpose of this petition is to provide additional uses for the growing Parish by amending the · Iv, ei~pp~ ~nt plan to ir~clude the !i. licwing pcinci?al use~ and accessory u3cs, ~ rich would be built on the remaining undeveloped 5.7 acres: Principal Uses: 1. A house of worship (existing 16,500 SF sanctuary with 1,000 seats). 2. A WTM -sc~'~o(q (p~eviot~sty approved?not exisling). 3. A parish health and fitness center. 4. A parish adult and children's care facility. 5. An adult care living facility (ACLF with a maximum 125 dwelling units). Accessory Uses: 1. A Parish Life Center (existing 23,000 SF). 2. A ~x~.imnfing pool. 3. Recreational faciltities such as boardwalks, nature trails, picnic area, playgrounds, and fimess trails. 4. Residential facility to serve as the rectory (existing). 5. Maintenance and storage facilities. When completed, the project master plan will provide a mixture of land uses for religious, social, and residential uses. The development plan will also provide a preserve area and open space, including the existing retention lake located in the front yard area. The petitioner also proposes to reduce the rear yard setback from 50 feet to 25 feet, and the side yard setbacks fi.om 30 feet to 15 feet. The side yard setback will be 25 feet for a short distance where the PUD abuts the property line of the Northshore Lake Villas PUD. The original setbacks were required to create separation between the more intensive church use and the residential properties abutting the church. Since the surrounding properties have developed with more intensive or passive uses (golf course), the reduced setbacks should not create any impact to surrounding properties. PUD Findings were made by the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) and staff as required by Section 2.7.2.5 of the LDC. Those findings support the proposed rezoning as outlined iv the AnMvsis Section and as recommended here (see exhibits with Staff Repo/l). The petition has also been reviexved by the appropriate staffresponsible for oversight :vi:~ cd to tl lc referenced areas of concern. This included reviews for environmental, transportation, and traffic impacts. Staff recommendations are included in the development commitments sections of the PUD Document, which also incorporates stipulations made by the Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC). Analysis for consistency with applicable elements of the GMP shows that the petition will be consistent with the elements of the GMP if approved. FISC^I. IMP 4. CT: Because of the potential for a wide range of uses, and the religious and community facilities and programs that are proposed, the fiscal impact for this project is more difficult to estimate than for a typical project. Even so, the predominant authorized uses and planned intensity of development can be used to give a picture of the fiscal impacts. .rl~c ~,l]o.e.i.,g :cwm,.~,z i~ e:4imated at build out: Impact Fees Fire Impact Fee: Road hnpact Fee: $0.30 x 16,000 SF non-res. = $187.00 x 125 unit ACLF = $150.00 x 100 students = $ 2,063.00 x 3 (kSf) fitness ctr = 4,8O0.00 23,375.00 15,000.00 6,129.00 Radon Impact Fee: Correctional Fac. Imp.' EMS Impact Fee: Bldg. Code Adm.: Micro Film Surcharge: $.005 per Sq. Ft. of bldg. area ~ .005 x 16,000 = $. 1170 x 16,000 SF = $46.00 x 3 (ksf) = $142.00 x 3 (ksf) non-res. = $128.00 x 10 (ksf) -- $0.005 x 16,000 SF of bldg. area = $2.00 per unit x 4 = 80.00 1,872.00 138.00 426.00 1,280.00 80.00 8.00 TOTAL IMPACT FEES $ 53,188.00 The estimated total amount of impact fees collected at build out will be $ 53,188.00 +, which does not include any impacts fees already paid for the existing sanctuary, life center, and accessory facilities. This is a very raw estimate based on current impact fees, proposed non-residential structures, and estimated square footage. In addition to the impact fees described, there are building permit review fees and utility fees associated with County water and sewer connections. Building permit fees have traditionally off-set the cost of administering the community development review process, whereas, utility fees are ba3ed on their proportionate share of impact to County uti'dP. Cb. Finqtly, additional revenue is generated by ad valorum taxes. The amount of revenue case, whether the particular use within this development is an exempt non-profit use. At this time, staff has not developed a method to arrive at a reasonable estimate of tax revenue based on ad valorum tax rates. Fhe above discussion deals with revenue streams. Keep in mind, any discussion of fiscal impact analysis is incomplete without an estimate of costs that will be generated by a q,, :;~::;~1~,: !and dcx ,:iop,,'aent pruject. But, a~ ,m:, thnc, staff has not developed it method by which to estimate the cost of a particular land development project. Such a model, in our opinion, would be nusleading because there is no cmtain way to determine their value and the likelihood that not all of the authorized development will occur. P ,.:_:m'-I ~ ::~:~ .., :, ;;t~:k ~,,~c~,, ,.,h ,,.,..,,? ~,l,,,,i~,,~,.~_. to de!ermine all of the fisc:d impacts of a land development project, development still has concu~ency relationships or limitations. ~en levels of se~ices (LOS) hll below County adopted st~d~ds, a mech~ism is in place that would require that building activities would cease until such a time as additional hcilities are provided for by the developer or made available by the Count. Ce~ain LOS standards also would require a c,:,un~wide concu~ency dete~ination versus an area or local dete~ination such as for roads. The proposed PUD will not cause Court,'.~' '~S to be exceeded. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Petitions deemed to be consistent with all provisions of the Growth Management Plan can not have an impact on the Collier County Growth Management Plan. This petition was reviewed and found consistent with all provisions of the Growth Management Plan. Furthermore, development permitted by the approval of this petition will be subject to a concurrency review under the provisions of Division 3.1 of the Collier County Land Development Code. HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT: Staff's analysis indicates that the petitioner's property is not located within an area of historical/archaeological probability as designated on the official Collier County Probability Map. PLANNING SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning Services Staff assigned to the review of this petition has reviewed it and found it consistent with the policies and objectives of the Collier County Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code as stated in Staff's report to the Collier County P!a':~ning Commission on December 2, 1999; therefore, qtaffrecommends approval of petition PUD-90-I 7(1), St. John the Evangelist Catholic Church PUD Document and Master Plan. EN;1RONMENTAL ADViSOR~x' COMMIfTEE RECOMMENDATION: The EAC met on December 1, 1999 to review this petition. The EAC recommended approval of PUD-90-17(1) with stipulations requiring changes to the PUD Document as stated in the report to the EAC attached to this executive summary. The motion to approve was carried by a vote of 7-1. The dissenting vote was cast because the member Oclieved that the golpher tortoise relocation plan was inadequate. I'LANN!NG COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: At the December 2, 1999 meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of Petition PUD-90- 17(1 ) to the Board of County Commissioners with EAC and Staff stipulations which were incorporated into the PUD Document. There were no objections from the public. AGEN,gA !TE~, ~ PREPARED BY: DONALDX'"-J,/~VIURRAY, ,pd, CP PRINCIPAL PLANNER~' / REVIEWED BY: I~ONAED'F. N~O, AICP CURRENT PLANNING MANAGER DATE DATE ROBE~RT J.-1QiL~LHERE, AICP, PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR DATE APPROVED BY: \'iNC EN'I A. CAU · ERO, A1CP, ADNIFNiSTRATOR DATE COMMUNITY DEV. AND ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS. Petition PUD-90-17(1 ), St. John the Evangelist Catholic Church PUD. JAN !! 2000 AGENDA ITEM 7-F Memorandum To: From: Date: Subject: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COMITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES NOVEMBER 15, 1999 PETITION PLq3-90-17(1) ST. JOHN THE EVANGELIST CATHOLIC CHURCH PUD O%VNER/AGENT: Agent: Applicant/Owner: Karen Bishop PMS, Inc., of Naples 2335 Tamiami Trail N., Suite 408 Naples, Florida 34103 John J. Nevins Bishop of the Diocese of Venice, Florida P.O. Box 2006 Vemce, Florida 34284 REQUESTED ACTION: This petition seeks to have the herein described land rezoned from its current classification of"PUD" to "PUD" Planned umt Development in order to provide two additional principal uses and a variety of accessory uses on the undeveloped 5.7 acres located in the north portion of the PUD known as St. John the Evongelist Catholic Church pLrD. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The propert?' is located on the north side of 111~' Avenue North approximately 1,300 feet east of Vanderbilt Drive in Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 25 East (See location map on following page }. PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The subiect PUD is partially developed and contains a 1,000 seat church, a rectory (residence), a Parish Life Center Classroom, and parking areas on 14.89 acres. The PUD, which was approved in 1990 (R-90-17), also has direct access from 111a' Avenue North and access from 6e Street via private drive. The purpose of this petition is to provide additional uses for the growing Parish by amending the development plan to include the following principal uses and accessory uses: Principal Uses: 1. A house of worship (existing 16,500 SF sanctuary with 1,000 seats). 2. An adult congregate living facility (maximum 125 dwelling units). 3. A pre-school. 4. A parish health and fitness center. 5. A parish adult and children's care facility. ?,cccssory Uses: 1. A Parish Life Center (existing 23,000 SF). 2. Maintenance and storage facilities. 3. A swimming pool. 4. Recreational faciltities such as boardwalks, nature trails, picnic area, playgrounds, and fitness trails. 5. Residential facility to serve as the rectory (existing). When completed, the project master plan will provide a mixture of land uses for religious, social, and residential uses. The development plan will also provide a preserve area and open space, including the c.-:i~:,ng :~-:,:.n;tcn ~:.ke loc.~tcd in thc Front :,'ard ~ea. The pctitK, ner also proposes to reduce the rear yard setback from 50 feet to 25 feet, and the side yard setbacks from 30 feet to 15 feet. The original setbacks were required to create separation between the more intensive church use and the residential properties abutting the church. Existing: The property is partially developed with a house of worship and a parish life center. The property is zoned "PUD" and is 14.89 acres in size. The area subject to future use is an undeveloped 5.7-acre portion of the PUD located in the rear (north) area of the PUD. Sur,-ou,::ding: North - Collier Tract 2! [golf course), zoned PUD. South - Naples Park, zoned RMF-6, and the 111t~ Avenue North right-of-way. East - West- Elementary, School and little league baseball fields, with P.U. approval in an Agricultural District, and single family homes, zoned RSF-4. Naples memorial Gardens Cemetery, zoned Agricultural, and Northshore Lake Villas PUD. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: The subject property is presently zoned as a PUD with the approved principal use being a church (existing), and the accessory uses being a rectory, a life center (existing), and a school. The existing PUD was approved in 1990 (R-90-17/PUD) and was deemed to be consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE). A review of the consistency relationships of the proposed amendment with elements of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) is as follows: Future Land Use Element - The subject site is located within the Urban Mixed Use - Urban Residential Subdistrict as designated on the Future Land Use Map of the GMP. The Residential Subdistrict permits higher density and intensity development where there are few natural resource constraints, and where existing and planned public facilities are concentrated. Therefore, the proposed additional uses being added to this PUD are deemed consistent with the FLUE/GMP if all development standards are satisfied. Thc pr,.,} ,.)sc:: inte~sity of the subject .4ire wottld essentially remain the same, due to the limited development area left on site. The proposed PUD will have to meet concurrency requirements and standards of the LDC, and the petitioner will not be able to double count density and intensity for the proposed Friacipal and accessory uses. Once a use is allocated, the site will be assessed the required density and intensity requirements based on the land area available for use as required by Section 2.2.20.3.2 of the LDC, and the required standards for development. Therefore, this petition is deemed consistent with the FLUE density rating system as set forth in Policy 5.1 of the Future Land Use Element of the GMP if all development standards and any conditions of approval, as incorporated into thc, PUD Document, are met. Traffic_~ Circl!la_tipo_E_}le_n.~ent - Based on staff's analysis, the site generated traffic from the proposed changes will nc~ exceed the significance test standard (5% of the LOS "C" design volume) on any County or state road after trip assignments are made. As a result, the proposed project will not lower the level o£ service below the adopted LOS "D" standard within the project's radius of development influence (RDI). It should be noted that the current traffic count for this segment of 111'~ Avenue North is 2.058 ADT and it is operating at a LOS of "D". It should also be notcxt that this segment is expected to bc deficient by the year 2000. Given this analysis, the project is consistent with Policy 5.1 and 5.2 of the Traffic Circulation Element (TCE). Open Space Element - The proposed open space has not decreased. A required minimum of thirty percent ope-~ space shall be maintained as required by Section 2.6.20.3.5 of the Land Development_ Code. As a resatt, the proposed conservation and open space plan is consistent with the Conservation and Open Space Elements of the GMP. Other Applicable Element(s) - These include utilities and water management. Development of the land will proceed on the basis of connection to the County's sewer and water distribution system. Once these utili~ lines are completed in accordance with County standards, they will be conveyed to Collier County as required by County Ordinances. Water management facilities will be constructed to meet County Ordinances and these will be reviewed and approved as a prerequisite to obtaining subsequent development order approvals. The above prescribed com'se of action makes this petition consistent with this element of the GMP. HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGIC,~ IMPACT: Staffs analysis indicates that the petitioner's property is located outside of any areas of historical and archaeological probability as referenced on the official Collier County Probability Map, therefore, an Historical/Archaeological Survey and Assessment or waiver fi.om this requirement was required at the time of the existing PUD approvals. Pursuant to Section 2.2.25.8.1 of the LDC, if during the course of site cleating, excavation or other construction activity an historic or archaeological artifact is found, all development within the minimum area necessary to protect the discovery shall be immediately stopped and the Collier County Code Enforcement Department contacted. EVALUATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL~ TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE: The subject petition has been reviewed by the appropriate staffresponsible f,':r o~'~zrsight relaX, ed to the above refi:renced areas ot concern. This primarily includes a review by the Community Development and Environmental Services Division Staff and the Transportation Department Staff. The petition is scheduled to be presented, to the Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC) prior to tile mi'd~?,:,i CCPC heahng on this petition and any reco~tanendations will be included in the PUD Document. ANALYSIS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition and the criteria on which a favorable detr~mination must be based. This evaluation is intended to provide an objective, c~np?~h(.~:~i ,,~ overview of thc impact of the proposed land use change, whether it is positive or negative, culminating in a staff recommendation based on that comprehensive overview. The listed criteria are specifically noted in Section 2.7.2.5 and Section 2.7.3.2.5 of the Land Development Code, .~ thus requiring staff evaluation and comment, and shall be used as the basis for a recommendation of-' approval or denial by the Planning Commission to the BCC. Each of the potential impacts or categorized as either pro or con, whichever the case may be, in the opinion of staff. Staff review of each of the criterion is followed by a summary conclusion culminating in a determination of compliance, non-compliance, or compliance with mitigation. These evaluations are completed as separate documents and are attached to the staff report as Exhibit "A' and Exh, Jbit "B'. In addition, an appropriate evaluation of petitions for rez~ning should establish a factual basi~ for ~upportiv.: action bv appoint~ ,-'md elected decision makers. The evaluation by professional staff should typically include an analysis of the petition's relationship to the community's future land use plan, and whether or not a rezoning action would be consistent with the Collier County G/viP in all of its related elements. Other evaluation considerations should include an assessment of adequacy of transportation infrastructure, other infi'astructure, and compatibility with adjacent land uses as they relate to both the rezoning action and the long range plan for future land uses. Subsequent to this analysis. Staff advises the following: Relationship to Future and Existing Land Uses: This provides for a discussion of the relationship of thc proposed zoning action to the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan as it applies specifically to Collier County's legal basis for land use planning. Other considerations should include an assessment of adequacy of transportation infrastructure, other ~tructure, and compatibility with adjacent land uses, a consideration usually dealt with as a facet of analyzing the. relationship of the rezoning action to the long range plan for future land uses. Land Use: The currently approved PUD was deemed compatible with adjacent land uses as discussed above. The proposed amendments will not create any new or substantial impacts to nearby and adjacent land uses. With respect to the matter of compatibility with the FLUE, this is an evaluation whose primary focus is similarity of land use and the proposed development's relationship to adjacent land uses. In the case at hand, and based upon the Future Land Use Plan, we have an expectation that the land will be used and developed for those land uses authorized within the existing PUD project. The proposed PLrD Document includes the same land ~se as approved in the original PUD except the list of uses has been increased. The proposed uses are compatible with the abutting uses, but the minimum setback should not be decreased where the property line abuts the Northshore Iakes Villas and the RSF 1 /:~;iliilg district. The proposed changes should have li!tle or no effect on the nemby abutting properties if developed as proposed and with additional consideration given to the neighboring properties by maintaining separation and setbacks as originally approved. Densitw - The Urban Residential Subdistrict permits residential development at a maximum density of 4.c) ~iw¢lling units per acre. The subdistrict also allows mixed use development at higher intensity of use, as proposed here. The PUD is also located within the Coastal Management Boundary of the FLL~. which reduces the base density by 1.0 units per acre. The proposed intensity of development is, therefore, deemed consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Future Land Use Element and the Urban Re~;idential Fcinge Subdistrict. Traffic - The primary vehicular access point is fi.om 111"' Avenue North (C.R. 846), a two-lane Cou,v? read S¢,:ondary access is from 111a Avenue No~th via the Norda Naples Elementary School property located to the east of the subject PUD. In view of the adequate depth and sight distance on these road segments, the access point should operate with an acceptable level of safety and is subject to the Access Management Plan. Furthermore, the petitioner shall provide a certificate of Adequate Public Facilities at the time of any final Development Order. The GMP consistency review states that approval of th~s portion is consistent with policies of the Traffic Circulation Element (TCE), including policies 1.3, 5.1, 5.2 and 7.3 of the TCE. Utiliv,, Infrastructure - Both County. sanitary sewer and water supply are available to the property. All development must comply with surface water management requirements invoked at the time of site development plan approval as the case will be for development of this land. Community Infrastructure and Services - The subject property is readily accessible to a whole range of community infrastructure which is enhanced by its location near activity centers at CR-846 and U.S. 41 Road, and along U.S. 41. Shopping centers, business offices and medical offices of various specialties, and schools are all within a short driving distance. The PUD will also include programs which will provide education and adult and child care for church members. PUD Document and Master Plan - The PUD document is modeled after the County Planning Services Model PUD Document in terms of format, general provisions, and development standards and commitments. The PUD Document contains Staff's recommendations and will make provision of standards commonly employed in similar PUDs in the County. The uses will be well buffered and contain adequate separation and landscaping. In addition, sidewalks, paving, and turn lanes already exist, and preservation and recreation areas will also be provided. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) recommend approval of Petition PUD-90- 17(1), The St. John the Evangelist Catholic Church PUD Document and Master Plan as described by :i~,~ ':c,'~:~v~t~ - of at;o?t,,w~ a~'~d ,~xmblts t::,zreto, and with tile following conditions so be ~ncorporated into the PUD Document: Section q.3.C of thc PUD Oo,:umen! thc following: 5. Setbacks shall be twenty-five (25) feet along the property boundary_ abutting the North Shore Lake Villas PUD. 2. Add ~o the PUD Document the following statement: This proje_.ct_ rnus&.ob!3jD, a South Florida Water ,,:!aE.~.~/¢:ment Distr/ct Surface Water Management Permit prior to Site Development Plan Approval. Section IX, "Water Management" requ. irements must be chanv,_e4 to show this. 3. The following stipulations shall be added to Section VI of the PUD document: A. A minimum of 3.73 acres of native vegetation shall be presexved on site or shall be mitigated for in accordance with Section 3.9.5.5.4 of the CCLDC, which requires larger plant material in all recreated arehs. If mitigation plantings are utilized for all or a portion of this acreage, a restoration plan shall be submitted for review and approval to the Current Plan~ing Environmental staff at the time of Site Development Plan submittal. A_.Oo__pher tortoise rclocation permit shall be obtained from Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, to relocate all on site tortoises to adequate off site habitat. A Gopher tortoise relocation plan shall be submitted for review and approval at the time of Site Development Plan submittal. C. The PUD shall be consistent with the environmental sections of the Collier County Grow-th Management Plan Conservation and Coastal Management Element and the Collier Coun[y Land Development Code at the time of final development order approval. 4. The PUT) Master Plan shall be amended to show 3.73 acres of native vegetation (not 3.63 acres). PREPARED BY: DONALD J./.~~Y, AIC~/, P~CIPAL PLANNER CL]D>,ENT J3~LANNING SECT44DN REVI~X3,~D BY: DATE CL~RENT PLANNING SECTION I~,OBERT J. HERE, .MCP, DIRECTOR PI..A N~,~NG.._KERVXCE S DEPARTMEN F ~CENT A. CA~ERO, ~CP, ~~S~TOR CO~TY DEV. ~ E~O~~ SVCS. DATE DATE DATE Petition PUT)-90-17(1) Staff Report for December 2, 1999 CCPC meeting. NOTE: This petition has been advertised for the December 14, 1999 BCC meeting. COl :.f?:,~e, t '£)L;NFV PI,ANND{G CG?,,EMISSION: RUSSELL A. BUDD, CHAIt~£~N PUD-96- I O(2)/STAFF REPORT,T)JM FINDINGS FOR PUD PUD-90-17(1) Sectio;~ 2.7.3.2.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code requires the Planning Commission to make a finding as to the PUD Master Plans' compliance with the following criteria: The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to phYsical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. Pro: (i) Intensifying land development patterns produces economics of scale relative to public utilities, facilities, and services, which are currently available in this area. (ii) The subject property, which is mostly developed, is served by a network of aner,ai roads, a!l within th~- arbaniz,a.t area facilitating access to a variety of commumty services and facihties. Surrounding properties are mostly developed and compatible with the proposed use. (iii) Abutting and nearby properties have developed with mostly non-residential uses making the proposed use compatible with the surrounding development. Con..: (i) Existing residents often perceive a mixed use residential and non- residential intensification near their neighborhood as a contributing factor tO inconveniencing traffic movements to and fi.om their place of residence, increasing noise and pollution, and reducing property values. ~:inding: Jurisdictional re,~iews by County staff support the manner and pattern of development proposed for the subject property. Development conditions contained in the PUD document give insurance that all infrastructure will be developed and be consistent ,a, idl Coullty reg~.:~ations. Any inadequacies that require supplementing the PUD document will be recommended to the Board of County Commissioners as conditions of approval by staff. Recommended mitigation measures will ensure compliance with Level of Service relationships as prescribed by the Growth Management Plan. Exhibit "A' Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable. Finding: Documents submitted with the application provide evidence of unified control. The PUD document makes appropriate provisions for continuing operation and maintenance of common areas. Conformity. of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan. Pro: (i) The development strategy for the subject property is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan. Con: (i) None. Finding2 The subject petition has been found consistcnt with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan. A review of consistency relationships with elements of the GMP is as follows: Furore Land Use Element - The subject site is located within the Urban Mixed Use District - Urban Residential Subdistrict as designated on the Future Land Use Map of the GMP. The district also permits a variety of community facilities such as churches and ~chocl~, ,-c~mmuricatic, ns f,:cilities, ~.~crcation and open space, child couu'nercial uses subject to locational criteria, and other similar uses. Additionally, FLUE Policy 5.8 permits group housing in the Urban Designated Area. This petition is deen~ed consistent with the FLUE density rating system as set forth in Policy 5.1 of the Future Land Use Element of the GMP. l~affic Ct,cuiation Element - Based on staff's analysis, the site generated traffic from the proposed change will not exceed the significance test standard (5% of the LOS "C" design volume) on CR-951 after trip assignments are made (see staff report). As a result, the proposed project will not lower the level of service below the adopted LOS "D" standard within the project's radius of development influence (RDI). It should be noted that this portion of the CR-846 is projected to be deficient by the year 2000. Even so, the project is consistent with Policy 5.1 and 5.2 of the Traffic Circulation Element (TCE) given this analysis. Open Space Element - The proposed open space has not decreased. A required n~ of thirty percent open space shall be maintained as required by 'Section 2.6.20.32 2 Land Development Code. As a result, the proposed conservation and open space plan is consistent with the Conservation and Open Space Elements of the GMP. _Other Applicable Element(s) - These include utilities and water management. Water and sewer are currently available to the site. Any additional water management facilities will be constructed to meet standards of County Ordinances and these will be reviewed and approved as a prerequisite to obtaining subsequent development order approvals. The above prescribed course of action makes this petition consistent with this element of the GMP. e The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. Pro: The master plan is so conceptual with regard to the undeveloped portion of the PUD, it is difficult to determine if internal and external land use relationships are designed to provide an optimal buffering and separation to protect properties fi'om more intensive uses. Th,: PUD is clearly compatiblc with mos? of the abutting non-residential land uses but the abutting residential properties should be separated by a maximum setback and buffering as was provided for in the original PUD. Con: None. Finding: The PUD Document and Master Plan should be designed to optimize internal land use relationships through the use of various forms of open space separation. Additionally, external residential properties should be buffered and separated to protect them from the possible intrusion of intensive uses. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve tbe development. Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable. Summary Findin8: The amount of open space set aside by this project is consistent with the provisions of the Land Development Code. 'I he timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable. Summary Finding: Timing or sequence of development in requirements is not a significant problem. 3 light of conc The ability, of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. Pro/Con: NA Summary Finding: Ability, as applied in this context, implies supporting infi'as~c~e such as wastewater disposal system, potable water supplies, characteristics of the property, relative to hazards, and capacity of roads, is supportive of conditions emanating from urban development. This assessment is described at length in the staff report to the CCPC. Relative to this petition, development of the subject property is timely, because supporting infrastructure is available. ge Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal ~l:plic'~tiuu of.~ucb regala~i,ms. Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable. Summar~ Finding: This finding essentially requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. The development standards in this PUD are similar to those standards used for similar uses and nonresidential structures, and associated requirements. PUD FINDINGS FOR PUD-90-17( 1 ) tDJM 4 JA, N!l 2259 REZONE FINDINGS PETITION PUD-90-17(1) Section 2.7.2.5. of the Collier County Land Development Code requires that the report and reco~nmendations of the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners shall show that the Planning Commission has studied and considered the proposed change in relation to the following, where applicable: Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives & policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. Pro: The subject property is located within the Urban Mixed Use - Urban Residential Subdistrict that allows for the types of uses as proposed. ii. Development Orders deemed consistent with all applicable elements of the FLUE of the GMP ~.,ouM be cons~,~,:red a positivc ~.'elationship Con: None Summary Findings: I'he proposed development is in compliance with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. The uses permitted within this PUD are consistent with the currently approved uses. This petition is also consistent with Policy 5.1 of the FLUE to the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern; Pro: A more detailed study is contained in the staff report. The subject property is 14.89 acres in size and only 5.7 acres of that remains undeveloped. Properties abutting to :he east and wes~ are non-residential and residential. The property to the north is a golf course belonging to the Collier Tract 21 PUD. Property to the south is residential but is buffered by the 111~h Avenue North right.of-way. Con: Only the small areas abutting residential on the northwest and east sides are of concern. Exhibit "B" Summary Findings: The subject PUD should provide ample separation in the form of buffering, open space and setbacks. Setbacks, at least abutting neighboring residential properties, should not be reduced from 50 feet to 25 feet. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts; Pro.', Approval of this PUD will not create an unrelated zoning district. The property is partially developed, contiguous with other non-residential zoning classifications, and is of sufficient size that will not result in an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. Con: Evaluation not applicable. Summary Findings: The parcel is of sufficient size that it will not result in an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. It is also consistent with expected land uses by virtue of its currently approved zoning which is consistent with the FLUE. '.J,'}~ctk~ exisE:?g dig:ri,:r bau~daries are illogically drawn in relation to existiag conditions on the property, proposed for change. Pro: The district bou:~daries arc logically drawn and they are consistent with ;he FLUE of the GMP. Con: None. Summary Findings: The district boundaries are logically drawn and are consistent with the GMP. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. Pro: The proposed zoning change is appropriate based on the existing conditions of the .~rc~pc~y and because its relationship to the , LI.~ (Fut,:re [and Use Fle~en~ o£ the Cr~, ,~'!h ",ia:..gc~ent Plan) is a positive one. Con: None. Summary Findings: Consistent with the Growath Management Plan. 2 o e XVhether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood; _Pro: Evaluation not applicable. Con: The change should not adversely affect neighborhood conditions, but care should be given to adequate setbacks. Following county development standards should ensure that any impacts are minimzed. Summary Findings: The proposed PUD will not adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood because the recommended development standards and other conditions for approval have been promulgated and designed to ensure the least amount of adverse impact on adjacent and nearby developments. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. Pro: (i) An action to rezone the property as requested is consistent with the traffic circulation element. (ii) The property fronts directly on a public road (CR-846) thereby providing an access to the road network over which traffic fi'om this mixed use development will draw and defuse traffic. The primary and secondary access also eliminates further need for additional access points on CRo846.. (iii) The site generated trips will not reduce the level of service, significantly, on any roadway segment within the projects RDI at build out. Con: (i) As urban intensification increases, there is some loss of comfort and ease of travel to the motoring public. However, by law, this degree of discomfort is regulated by concurrency requirements. (ii! In the sho~t run construction traffic is necessary for development may be irritating to local residents. Summary Findings: Evaluation of this project took into account the requirement for consistency with Po!icy 5.1 of the Traffic Element of the GMP and was found consistent, and, when developed, will not excessively increase traffic congestion. Additionally certain traffic management 'system improvements are required as a condition of approval e 10. (i.e., turn lanes, traffic signals, dedications, etc.). In the final analysis all rezone actions are subject to the Concurrency Management System. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem; Pro: (i) The Land Development Code specifically addresses prerequisite development standards that are designed to reduce the risk of flooding on nearby properties. New development in and of itself is not supposed to increase flooding potential on adjacent property over and above what would occur without development. Con: (i) None Summary_ Findings: Every project approved in Collier County involviag the utilization of land for some land use activity is scrutinized and required to mitigate all sub-surface drainage generated by developmental activities as a condition of approval. This project was reviewed for drainage relationships and design and construction plans are required to meet County standards as a condition of approval. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas; Pyo: Tke pr.qposed ~leve!c?ment v,411 coJ~fe?m t:.~ the at,!.;rvved PUD ,,.tandards. Fr, e overall development standards are compatible with the standards listed for similar non- residential districts in the LDC that are designed to protect the circulation of light and air to adjacent areas. Con: None. Su...m_~_a.~ F_i_g. din~gs.~ All projects in Collier County are sub. j~t to lt:¢ development ~ta~mards that are unique to the zoning district in which it is located. These development standards and others apply generally and equally to all zoning districts (i.e., open space reqmrcment, corridor management provisions, etc.) were designed to ensure that light penetration and circulation of air does not adversely affect adjacent areas. Wh~:thcr the proposed chaage will atvcrsely affect property values in the adjacent area; Pro: Typically urban intensification increases the value of contiguous underutilized land. This project has had little negative impact on surround/ng properties and most Likely will continue to have a positive impact on them. Con: None. 4 11. 12. 13. Summary_ Findings: This is a subjective.determination based upon anticipated results which may be internal or external to the subject property that can affect property values. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning, however zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination by law is driven by market value. The mere fact that a property is given a new zoning designation may or may not affect value. Regardless, existing development on this property has had no negative impact to abutting and neighborhood property values. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations; Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable. Summary Findings: The basic premise underlying the zoning development standards in the LDC is that their sound application, when combined with the site development plan approval process, gives reasonable insurance that a change in zoning will not deter improvement of adjacent property. Also, by requiring the PUD Document and Master Plan to make provision for buffering or transition of intensity of uses between parcels within the PUD, and those adjacent to it, negative impacts will be minimized. This arrangement coupled wifl~ the nxtuirement to piovide open space should provide reasonable insurance that a change in zoning will not result in a deterrence to improvement or development of adjacent residential property. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare; Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable. Summary. Findings: The proposed PUD complies with the Growth Management Plan. ?ublic pohcy statement.~ suppm~ing zo~fing actions when they are consistent with said plan. In light of this fact the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning; Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable. Summa~' Findings: The subject property can be developed in accordance with the existing zoning, however to do so would deny this petitioner of the opportunity to maximize the development potential of the site as made possible by its consistency relationship with the FLUE as contained in the Growth Management. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County; Pro: The project is designed in a manner that is compatible with most surrounding and approved property in size, scale, density and intensity of use. Con: None Summary Findings: The subject PUD complies with the Growth Management Plan while the intensity of land uses is deemed acceptable for this site. 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Pro: The site is already altered. The 5.7-acre undeveloped portion of the property was alread'/ap?roved for some uses listed in the PUD Document. Con: None Summary Findinus: The extent of site alteration will be determined as a function of obtaim~.g a Site Development Plan approval to execute the PUD's developmeot st~tcgy. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as det'med and implemented through the Comer County Adequate Public Facilities Ordin8nce, as amended. Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable. Summary. Findings: A multi-disciplined team responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP have reviewed this petition and have found it consistent with the GMP. The conditions of approval have been incorporated into the PUD document. Staff reviews for adequacy of public services and levels of service determined that required infi'astr~cmre meets with GMP established relationships. REZONE FINDINGS PUD-90-17(I)/DJM 7 PROJECT NARRATIVE St. John's Catholic Church The I~oject is comprised of 14.89+ acres. Access to the site is provided from 111 th Avenue North and a sh.a~-d access driveway with the North naples Elementary School. This I~oect is a~ edsting facility with the original zoning action occ~ring in 1 990. The church has grown over the last nine y~.ars which has I~u:-dicated the need fo~ expamion of it's services to the community. The project is located within the Urban Residential designation, which is intended to I~ovide loc~ fo~ the development cf t~igher densi~i~ and intensities ~,t h.,,d use, which include bo~ ~i~jen~M dt'~opment ,~ non.residential development s~ch as community facilitiEs. The p~oPosed development consists of a compl~en~.ary range of co~munity I'acjlides, including ^ church auditorium, religious education facilities, school, and rec~.ation facjljty, heabh a~l fimess center, rectory, day care, adub day care, adub living facilities,and classrooms which will !~ necessary a~l complimentary to the principal uses of the site. All of theses uses are consistent with the collier County Growth Management Plan. I~acement of ~und us~ buffers, and the propos~ devdop~ent sta~bu,~ds contained herein. The P;ojec~ [X:vdop~em includes op~.n spaces, natuP.,d features and ^ la~, wfiich will se~v~ to enhance the p~oject and impure irs co~patibi '.~. to s~rrounding propemie~ and land uses. 2335 Talli~li Tllail N. - ~ 406 .- N~dls ~ ~4103 / (941) 435-90l~0- F~Ix (941) Petition Number Date APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HE,~UN'G FOR PUD AMENDMENT:DO ,&MENDMENT COMML~'ITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION P L,-~N-NING SERVICES Name or'Applicant Is) John J. Nevins A~micant's Mailing Address PO Box 2006 Ci~' Venice State Florida Zip 34284 Appucant's Telephone numoet: Res: Bus: 941-484-9543 is the applicant the owner of the subject property? Yes No d~ If apvticant is a land m~st. so indicate and name beneficiaries below If applicant is corporation other than a public corporation, so indicate and name officers and major stockholders below. If applicant is a parmership, limited partnership or other business entity., so indicate and name principals below. If applicant is an owner, indicate exactly as recorded, and list all other owners, if ~', !:' ap01ican: is a !essee. aitach c~,py of lease, and indic::te act-ual owners if rot indicated on the lease. If applicant is a contract purchaser, attach copy of contract. 2nd indicate actual owner (si name and address below. (If space is inadequate, attach on separate page.) Namc of Agent _.Kare._n Bishop __Firm_PMS Inc., of Na_~le~ Agents maqing address 2.335 Tamiami Trail N. Suite 408 C:w NapJ~ State _Fl.oril. _ Zip _~_I0:~ Telephone number Res.: PUD ORDINANCE NAME AND NUMBER: Claur~h Ord. # 90-73 Bus: St. John The ~vangelist Catholic 1. DETAILED LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY COVERED BY THE APPLICATION {If space is inadequate, attach on separate page. If request invotves change :o more than one zoning district, include separate legal description for property, involved in each district. If property is odd-shaped, submit tire (5) copies of survey (1" to 400' scale). THE APPLICANT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SUPPLYING THE CORRECT LEGAL DESCRIPTION. IF QUESTIONS ARISE CONCERNING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION. AN ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATION SHALL BE REQUIRED SECTION 21 TO%.NSHIP 48 RANGE See attached Legal Description 5. Address or location of >ubject property. 6th Street and 11 lth Ave. North 6. Does property, owner own contiguous property, to the subject property.'? If so. give complete legal description of entire contiguous property.. { If space is inadequate, attach on separate page). No 7. TYPE OF AMENDMENT: X A. PUD Document Language Amendment X B. PUD Master Plan Amendment ..... C. Develooment Order Language Amendment DOES AMENDMENT COMPLY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: ' X 5'E~ __NO If no, explain: 9. HAS A PUBLIC HEARING BEEN HELD ON THIS PROPERTY WITHIN THE LAST YEAR? If so. in whose name': No PETITION :~: DATE: HAS ANY PORTION OF THE PUD BEEN SOLD AND/OR X DEVELOPED? ARE ANY CHANGES PROPOSED FOR THE AREA SOLD AND/OR DEVELOPED'? X Yes. No. If yes. describe:/attach additional sheets if necessary.). A Worship Sanctuary, Parish Life Center Classrooms and Parkin~ areas have been devcioEed. AFFIDAVIT \Ve. being first dui',' sworn depose and say that we are the owners of the property, described herein and which is the subject matter of the proposed heanng; sketches, data. and other supplementary, matter attached to and made part of this application are honest and true to the best of our knowledge and belief. We understand this application must be complete and accurate before a hearing can be advertised. We further permit the undersigned to act as our representative in any matters regarding this Petition. NOTE: SIGNATURES OF ALL O'4,',_'NERS ARE MANDATORY as tc~o!amre of Own~ ney-in-Fact for John J. Nevins shop of the Diocese of Venice, poration sole S i gnamrT.' ~,t' .X gent State of Florida Counw of Collier t'he foregoing Application was acknowledged before me this 12th day of January, 1999 ~ bv Jerome A. Carosella . who i~ kno47n to~_~or has produced as identification and who d/d-t~ take an oath. / Si~'~amre ~fNotary Publ~z ~//Jeanne C. Hickey Notary. Public Commission = CC566911 Mv Commission Expires :July 15, 2000 I-- OFFICh~ NOTARY SEAL IF. ANNE C HICKI[Y ORDINANCE 2000- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 91-102, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS MAP NUMBER 8521S BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM "PUD" TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS ST. JOHN THE EVANGELIST CATHOLIC CHURCH , LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 111TM AVENUE NORTH IN THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 21, TOWNSI-ffP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 14.9~: ACRES; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 90-73, AS AMENDED, THE FORMER ST. JOHN THE EVANGELIST CATHOLIC CHURCH PUD; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ~,ViiER[TAS, Karen Bishop of Proiect Management Services, Inc., representing Jotm J. Nevins, Bishop of the Diocese ofVe~ce, a co~oration sole, petitioned the Board of County Com~ssioners to change the zonivg classification of the hereir~ described real prope~y; NOW T~FO~ BE IT O~D BY T~ BO~ OF CO~Y CO~SSIO~RS OF COLLAR CO~TY, FLORA; SECTION O~: The Zoning Classification of the herein described real propeay located in Section 21, TownsNp 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed ~om "P~" to "P~" Pla~ed U~t Devzlop,re::~ in accordance with the PL~ Document, attached hereto as E~Sit "A", which is inco~orated herein and by reference made pan hereof The Official Zoffing Atlas Map number 8521S, as described in Ordinance Number 91-102, the Collier County L~d Development Code, is hereby amended accordingly. Ordinance Number 90-73, as mended, ~own as the St. Jo~ the Ev~gelist Catholic Church P~, adopted on September 25, 1990 by'the Board of Coun~ Comssioners of Collier CounW, is hereby repealed in its entirety. SECTION l'fl~E: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing ~dth the Depa, tment cf State NO. ~~ ~ JAN 1 1 2000 PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this __ day of ,2000. ATTEST: D\VIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency Marjo~e M. Student Assistant County Attorney BY: CHAmMAN § admm'PL'D-90-17( I )/Otdinanc¢/DM,qs -2- 2000 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF DECEMBER 1, 1999 Item IV.B. Il. lII. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No.: Petition Name: Applicant/Developer: Planning Consultant: Environmental Consultant: Planned Unit Development No. 90-17(1) St. John the Evangelist Church John J. Nevins, Bishop PMS, Inc. of Naples Tun'ell & Associates, Inc. The subject property is located at 625 111~ Avenue North, Naples Florida. The entrance is on the north side of the road, approximately ~ mile west of US 41 and mun-'~liately east of the Naples Memorial Gardens cemetery. It is located within Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: The surrounding parcels are developed, or are currently under development. To the north is a golf course under construction; an elementary school and .qngle comity l:omcs subdivision to the em:; road fight of way and residential single family homes to the south and a cemetcn'y to the west. ZONING DESCRIPTION N - PUD - Collier Tract 21 Golf Course S - Road right-of-way RMF-6 lmmokalee Road Naples Park E - P.U. on A RSF - 4 Elt.nnentary School Single family homes Agriculture PUD - Northshore Lake Villas Cernetc'uT Single family l~m~ ;~ ' EAC Meeting ........................................................................................... December 1, 19~ PL"D-90-17( I ) Page 2 of 5 IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The St. John the Evangelist Catholic Church PUD comprises a total of 14.89 acres. The proposed PUD rezoning will amend an existing PUD Master Plan and PUD Document approved in 1990 in order to provide two additional principal uses and a variety of accessory uses on the undeveloped 5.7 acres located in the north portion of the PUD. In addition to the existing principal use, a 1,000-seat house of worship, the petitioner proposes two more principal uses. One is an adult congregate living facility (maximum 125 dwelling units), and the other is a school. The proposed accessory uses will provide a list of optional facilities such as a parish life center, a health and fitness center, an adult care facility, maintenance and storage facilities, a swimming pool and recreational facilitim such as boardwalks, nature trails, picnic area, playgrounds, and fimess trails. The existing rectory (residential), the existing parish hall (life center), ami proposed school were previously approved by the existing PUD Document and Master Plan. The proposed amendment also proposes to reduce the rear yard setback from 50 feet to 25 feet, and the side yard setbacks from 30 feet to 15 feet. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: The PUD is located in the Urban Mixed Use - Urban Residential Sub district of file Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan (FLUE-GMP). The Urban Mixed Use - Urban Residential Sub district provides for higher density m(I intensity development m an area with relatively few natural resource constraints, and where existing and planned public facilities are concentrated. The exislil~; development was found consistent with the Growth Management Plan (GM~'~ 1090 and, given the geo(:tal oature of ~h¢ p/ope>seal ctum~ea, ~t is also c~o~ as it relates to compatibility with existing and proposed development nearby. The proposed PUD will also be required to meet concurrency requirementa, and the petitioner will not be able to double count density and intensity for p~ principal and accessory uses. Once a ~,se is allocated, the site will be assessed the required density and intensity requirements based on the available land area available for use as required by Section 2.2.20.3.2 of the Land Development Code, and the required standards for development. MAJOR ISSUES: Water Managgment: The presence of over ¥2 acre of wetlands on-site requires that thi~ pr( reviewed by the South Florida Water Management District. EAC Meeting ........................................................................................... December 1, 1999 PLT)-90-17( 1 ) Page 3 of 5 Environmental: Site Description: The property currently has a church sanctuary, parish hall, Gopher tortoise preserve, recreated wetlands and parking. The 5.15 acre upland tortoise preserve is comprised mainly o£ scrub/xeric oak habitat and scrubby pine flatwooda. Scrub oak; sand live oak, rosemary, buckthom, rusty lionia and a variety of xeric ground covers were observed in the upland area. The scrubby flatwoods also include slash pines and saw palmetto. Very few exotics exist on site, as it is a requirement for the church to maintain the property exotic flee. Wetlands: Currently .59 acres of created wetlands exist within the preserve area at the rear of the parcel. They were reouirecl to be created ,~ part. iai mitigation for impacting i.7 .,.cresc i' wetlands ident~hed on site dmmg the original environmental permitting procedure. This area is described as wet prairie with wetland ground cover and mid story but absent of any wetland canopy trees. The spocies planted in this area ;nclude swa~np fern, ma~cncane, salt bush, wire grass, St. John's wort and wax myrtle. Approximately 2-3 inches of standing water occurs is this wetland as indicated by sediment marks and water stains in the existing vegetation. The church proposes to clear this wetland area during construction and at the completion of the project, recreate a 1.6 acre wetland marsh, in addition to purchasing lands within Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed (CREW) at a 3:1 ratio for the original wetland impacts of 1.7 acres. Preservation Requirements: Fhis PUD is required to preserve a minimum of 3.73 acres which is 25% of the native vegetation of the originally approved PUD. At the time of the original approval it was determined that 5.74 acres was the appropriate amount of native vegetation to preserve, largely because of the sizable population of Gopher tortoise on the parcel. The request to develop a portion of the 5.74 acre pre~-rve is allowable by the Land Development Code, given that they do not go below the minimum 25% that would have been required for preservation. The church proposes to impact the entire 5.74 acre~ pre~e and recx~ 3.81 acres of pr¢serv,tion area alter completion of the buildings and infiastmcture. The proposal is for creation of 1.54 acr~ of uplands, .67 acres of me~ic community and 1.6 acres of wetland mar~h. They will be required to mitigate for the loss of native vegetation by replanting with larger plant .material in am EAC Meeting ........................................................................................... December 1, 1999 PUD-90-17( 1 ) Page 4 of 5 VII. with Section 3.9.5.5.4 of the Land Development Code and environmental section of their PUT). Listed Species: The consultant conducted approximately 27 hours of gopher tortoise surveys and identified 49 active burrows, 23 inactive burrows and a number of abandoned burrows within the Gopher tortoise preserve. No other protected species were observed utilizing the property. Became of the limited habitat that will be remaining for this large a population of tortoises, the petitioner will be obtaining relocation permits from Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) for all on site tortoises. They shall present those approved State permits prior to any site improvements or relocation of tortoises. The consultant does not address the relocation of tortoises as an on site impact in the EIS as they feel obtaining the relocation permit mitigates for any impacts to the existing population. RECOMMENDATIONS: $~affreconunends approval of Planned Unit Developmem No. 90-17(1)"St. John the Evangelist Church" with the following stipulations: Water Management: This project must obtain a South Florida Water Management District Surface Water Management Permit prior to Site Development Plan Approval Section IX "Water Manao~ement" requb pments must be claanged to show tbas. Environmental: The following stipulations shall be added to Sectiov VI of the PUD document: A. "A minimum of 3.73 acres of native vegetation shall be preserved on site or shall be mitigated for m accordance with Section 3.9.5.5.4 of the CCLDC, which requires larger plant material in all recreated areas. If mitigation plantings are utilized for all or a portion of this acreage, a restoration plan shall be submitted for review and approval to the Current Planning Environmental stuff at the time of Site Development Plan submittal." B. "A Gopher tortoise relocation pesmit shall be obtained from Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, to relocate all tortoises to adequate off site habitat. A Gopher tortoise relo&ation" EAC Meenng ........................................................................................... Deccmi:~r 1, 1999 PUD- 90-17( 1 ) Page 5 of 5 o plan shall be submitted for review and approval at the time of Site Development Plan submittal." C. ' The PUD shall be consistent with the environmental sections of the Collier County Growth Management Plan Conservation and Coastal Management Element and the Collier County Land Development Code at the time of final development order approval." The PUD Master Plan shall be amended to show 3.73 acres of native vegetation (not 3.63 acres). PREPARED BY: STAN CHRZANOWSKI, PE SENIOR ENGINEER DATE SENIOR ENVIRO~~ SPECIALIST REVIEWED BY: DON MURRAY, AIrCP// PRINCIPAL PL/C~iV~R DATE EAC Meeting ........................................................................................... December 1, 1999 PUD-90-17(1) Paoe o of 5 7' . HO. 'lAS E. KUCK, P,E. ENGINEERING REVIEW MANAGER DATE RONALD F. NINO, AICP CUq~RENT PLANNING MANAGER DATE B S B/gdtv'c:StlohnsChurchStaffReport 2 4 5 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 28 29 31 32 33 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 4.3 ORDINANCE 2OOO- ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE .X%~MBER 91-102, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES TI-IE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS MAP ~ER 8521S BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM "PUD" TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS ST. JOHN THE EVANGELIST CATHOLIC CHURCH, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 111m AVENUE NORTH IN THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 14.9-~ ACRES; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ORDI]qANCE NUMBER 90-73, AS .~4ENDED, THE FORMER ST. JOHN THE EVANGELIST CATHOLIC CHURCH PUD; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Karen Bishop of Project Manegement Services, Inc., repr~ John $. Nevilm, Bishop of the Diocese of Venice, a c~rporation soi~, petitioned the Bovsd of Couray CommL~ic~ners to change the zoning classification of the herein described reel property;, NOW TI-IEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COLrNTY CO1VEMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SECTION ONE: The Zoning ClaKnifi~on of the ~ deaen'bed real property loc. axed in Section 21, Tow~hi__ 'p ~.~ ~ .~' ~a.~g¢ .... V.:.~, C.:_,i;~er C>~nt~ ;4onda, i.~ c~.~mScd fi.om "P'CD~ to 'PUD" Planned Urat Development in accordance with the PUD Documem, attached hereto as Exh~t 'A', wl~eh is incorporated hereto and by ret~ence made part hereof. The O~ciai Zoning Atlm Map n. mi~r B521S, as described in Ordinance Number 91-102, the Coili~ County Land Development Code, is hereby amend~,cl accordingly. SEC .TION TWQ: Ordinance Number 90-73, aa amended, known aa the St. John the Evanget~ Catholic Chnteh PUD, adopted on September 25, 1990 by the Board of County Commissio~e~ of Collier County, ia hereby repealed in it~ entir~,~/. SECTION THREE.'. 1 2 3 4 6 ? g 9 lO 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Boara of County Commimoners of Collier County, Florida, this __ day of ,2000. ATTEST: DWIGHT E, BROCK, Clerk BOARD OF COLU'qTY COMIvflSSIO~ COLLIER COU'bFI'Y, FLOR.IDA Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency BY: Marjone M Student Assistant County At'tome5. w ~clmin, Pul~9o- l ?( 1 ~M -2- ST. JOHN THE EVANGELIST A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND SUPPORTING MASTER PLAN GOVERNING ST. JOHN THE EVANGELIST A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PREPARED BY: PMS, INC. OF NAPLES 2335 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH SUITE 408 NAPLES, FL. 34103 DATE REVIEWED BY CCPC DATE APPROVED BY BCC ORDINANCE NUMBER AMENDMENTS AND REPEAL DOCUMENT DATE Exhibit "A" 12/20/99 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE SECTION I STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE ............................................................... SECTION Il PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND SHORT TITLE .............................................................................................. 2 SECTION m STATEMENT OF INTENT AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................... SECTION IV GENERAL DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS ...................................... 4-5 SECTION V ?ERMI"ITED USES AND DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS ...................... 6-7 SECTION VI ENVIRONMENTAl_ S"] X24DARDS ........................................................... 8 SECTION VII TRANSPORTATION ................................................................................... 9-10 SECTION VIII UTILITIF..S AND ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS ............................... 11 SECFION IX WATER MANAGEMENT REQUIRE~NTS .......................................... 12 LIST OF EXHIBITS ATTACHMENT A ............. CONCEPTUAL PUD MASTER PLAN ATTACHMENT B ............. LEGAL DESCRIPTION SECTION I STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE The subject property is approximatley 14.89+_ acres, and is located in Section 21. Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County. Florida. The development of this property as a Planned Unit Development. to be known as St, John the Evangelist Catholic Church, will be in compliance with the planning goals and objectives of Collier County as set forth in the Growth Management Plan. The proposed development will be consistent with the growth policies, land development regulations, and applicable comprehensive planning objectives for each of the elements of the Growth Managment Plan for the following masons: 1.1 The subject property, is located within the Urban Residential Land Use designation as identified in the Collier County Land Use Map. Objective 1 requires new or revised uses of land to be consistent with the designations outlined on the Future Land Use Map. Policy 5.1 requires the rezomng to be consistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan. Policy 5.2 requires proposed developments to be reviewed for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. All these Plan objectives and policies require the vroposed rczoning to be loomed in the approprm~e land use category and ~.~ssed for .:o~np:eiiensive plan consislency. 1.2 1.3 The Urban - Mixed Use District is intended to accommodate a variety of resid::~:i,~l land uses including single-family, multi-family, duplex, mobile home and mixed-use (PUD) types of development. This urban land use district also allows certain industrial and commercial uses. The Urban Residential sub-district designation is intended to provide for higher residential densities in areas with relatively few natural resource constraints and where existing and planned public facilities are concentrated. The designation can also allow marinas, yacht clubs and related accessory and recreational uses that include boat storage, launching facilities, fueling facilifie& ~-'c:.,taum' ':: ~r~t i~e ?,!th ctuVs. The ! :rb~u~: R:z~idential dcsignatio~ in.;i~.~ L',,',h :csidential and non-residenual land uses and would appropriately include the communit~ facilities type of development. The proposed development consists of a complementary range of community facilities, including a chu~h auditorium, religious education facilities, school, and rccreation facility, rectory, day care, adult day care, adult living facilities, therefore, they are determined to be consistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan. 1.4 The project shall be in compliance with all applicable County regulations, including th, Growth Management Plan. 1.5 The project will be served by a full range of services and utilities provided by the County. 1-1 1.6 1.7 1.8 The project will be compatible and complimentary with adjacent land uses through the internal arrangement of tracts, the placement of land use buffers, and the proposed development standards contained herein. The P!anned Unit Development includes open spaces, natural features and a lake, which x~,j se~'e to enhance the project and improve its compatibility to surrounding properties and land uses. All final local Development Orders for this project are subject to the Collier County Concurrency Management System, as implemented by the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. 1-2 SECTION II PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, LEGAL DESCRIPTION, AND SHORT TITLE 2.1 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP This project, comprising 14.89 + acres, is owned by John J. Nevins, Bishop of the Diocese of Venice, Florida. LEGAL DESCRIPTION This project is described in "Exhibit B" GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AREA A. The vroject site is located in the south ha'~f of Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 25 East approximately 1/4 mile east of Vanderbilt Drive (C.R. 901). B. The zoning classification of the subject property prior to the date of this approved PL:D D~un~.em was PUD. 2.4 SHORT TITLE This Ordinance shall be known and cited as the "St. John the Evangelist Planned Unit Development Ordinance". 2-1 SECTION III STATEMENT OF INTENT AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 3.2 INTRODUCTION It is the church's intent to establish a Planned Unit Development meeting requirements as set forth in the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is comprised of 14.89+ acres. Access to the site is provided from 11 lth Avenue North and a shared access driveway with the North Naples Elementary School. l'he project will provide a selected range of facilities which will include a health and fitness center, a parish life center, and adult care facility, maintenance buildings, a memorial garden, pre-school and recreational facilities, and classrooms which will be neocs~arv ~,~ c,~mi, lime, t~-aS.' to the principal uses of the site. 3.3 PLAN APPROVAL The location of the land uses are shown on the PUD Conceptual Master Plan. Changes and variations in building location shall be permitted via Site Development Plan approval in accordance with Division 3.3 of the Land Development Code. Changes and variations in building tracts may be permitted during Site Development Plan approval if, at the discretion of the County Manager, or his designee, such changes and variations are in conformance with the substantive and procedural requirements of Collier County. The following phasing schedule and development intensities are approximate and are based on the best information available. Actual development intensity and phasing will be determined based on the availability of need and funding. The PUD Master Plan contains one (1) development tract consisting of an existing sanctuary, an existing parish life center and memorial garden as well as existing parking areas and access drives. Future development includes an apartment, adult assisted living facility (ALF), a parish adult care facility, a parish health and fitness center, children's care center, a classroom expansion, a maintenance building and a rectol'y. 3-1 SECTION IV GENERAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 4. I 4.2 4.3 PURPOSE The purpose of this section is to set forth the development regulations that apply to the development and use of the St. John the Evangelist Catholic Church PL'D and Master Plan. GENERAL The following are general provisions applicable to the PUD Master Plan: Regulations for the development of the St. John the Evangelist PUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this document, the PUD-Planned Unit Development District and other applicable sections and parts of the Collier Cou~ty I,a-,d Deve!o~mem Code ,~LDC) in efl'~ct at the time of builamg pernfit application. Should these regulations fail to provide specific developmental standards, then the provisions of the most similar zoning district of the LDC shall apply. Unless otherwise noted, the definitions of ali terms shall be the same as the definitions set forth in the LDC in effect at the time of building permit application. All conditions imposed and all graphic material presented depicting restrictions for the development of St. John the Evangelist shall become part of the ,-. ~::b~.iions ?hicb g,.~>,,,?.~, th,~. rammer in w;-dch this site may be devciope~. Development pem~itted by the approval of this petition will be subject to a concurrency review under the provisions of Div. 3.14.89, Adequate Public Facilities of the LDC at the earliest or next to occur of either final SDP approval, final plat approval, or building permit issuance applicable to this development. SITE gLEARIN0 AND DRAINAGE Clearing, grading, earthwork, and site drainage work shall be performed in accordatx~ with the Collier County LDC and the standards and commitments of thi~ document in effect at the time of construction plan approval. 4-1 4.4 EAS.EMENTS FOR UTILITIES Easements, where required, shall be provided for water management areas, utilities and other purposes as may be required by Collier County. All necessary easements, dedications or other instruments shall be granted to ensure the continued operation and maintenance of all services and utilities. This will be in compliance with applicable regulations in effect at the time construction plans and plat approvals are requested. 4.5 AME. NI)_. MENTS TO THE. ORDINANCE_ Amendments to this Ordinance and Master Plan shall be pursuant to Section 2.7.3.5 of the Collier County LDC, as revimd, in effect at the time the amendment is requested. 4.6 PROJECT PLAN APPROVAL REOUIREMENTS Attachment "A". PUD Matter Plan, constitutes the required PUD Development Plan. All division of property and the development of the land shall be in compliance with the subdivision regulations set forth in Section 3.2 of the LDC. 4.7 PROVISION FOR OFFS~ REMOVAL OF EARTHEN MATERIAL The ex,'avation of earthe~ material and its stockpiling in preparation of water management facilities or to otherwise develop water bodies is hereby permitted. If after consideration of fill activities on buiidable portions of the project site, there is a surplus of earthen material, offsite disposal is also hereby permitted subject to the following :OOC~ itioos: Excavation activities shall comply with the definition of a "Development Excavation" pursuant to Section 3.5.5.1.3 of the LDC, whereby offsite removal shall not exceed ten (I 0) percent of the total volume excavated up to a maximum of 20,000 cubic yards. 4-2 A timetable to facilitate said removal shall be submitted to the Development Services Manager for approval. Said timetable shall include the length of time it will take to complete said removal, hours of operation and haul routes. 4.8 HISTORIC'ARCHAEOLOGICAL Pursuant to Section 2.2.25.8.1 of the Land Development Code, if during the course of site clearing, excavation or other construction activity a historic or archaeological artifact is found, all development within the minimum area necessary to protect the discovery shall be immediately stopped and the Collier County Code Enforcement Department contacted. SECTION V PERMITTED USES AND DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS 5.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this section is to identify permitted uses and development standards for areas within the St. John the Evangelist Catholic Church PUD designated on Exhibit "A", PUD Master Plan. 5.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION 5.3 Development areas as shown on the PUD Master Plan, are designed to accommodate a full range of principal uses. essential services and accessory uses. Actual acreages of all development areas will be provided at the time of Site Development Plan or Preliminary. Subdivision Plat approvals in accordance with Article ~, Di .'ision 3.3 and Division :.2 respectively, of the Collier County Land Development Code. All development areas are designed to accommodate internal roadways, parking, open spaces, amenity areas, water management facilities, and other similar uses. gERMIWYED USES AND STRUCTURES No other building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following uses: A. Principal Uses 2. 3. 4. 5. House of Worship Adult Assisted Living Facility (maximum 125 dwelling units) School A parish health and fitness center A parish Adult and children's care center B. Acce.ssory Uses Residential facilities to serve as a rectory A parish life center for use by members of the congregation 5-1 Facilities for maintenance and storage Swimming pools and open space for recreation, boardwalks, nature trails, picnic areas, playgrounds and fitness trails Co Ho Minimum Setback Standards 3. 4. 5. Rear Yard: - twenty five (25) feet Side Yard: - fifteen (14.89) feet Front Yard: - fifty (50) feet Minimum Distance Between Buildings: - ten (10) feet Setbacks shall be twenty-five (25) feet along the property boundary abutting the North Shore Lake Villas PUD. Maximum Building Height Forty five ~45) feet will be the maximum height of any building on this property, not including appurtenances typically associated with houses of worship, such as bell towers and flagpoles, as set fort. h in Section 2.6.3 of the Land Development Code. Parking Requirements Development of parking areas shall comply with Division 2.3., Off-Street Parking and Loading, of the Land Development Code in effect at the time of building permit application. Acces,$ory Structures Accessory structures shall be constructed simultaneously with or following the construction of the principal structure(s) except for temporary construction site offices. Lighting Lighting shall be located so that no light is aimed directly toward an off- site property used for re,~idential purposes, which is located within two- hundred (200) feet of the light source. 5-2 SECTION VI ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS 6.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this section is to set forth the environmental commitments of the Church. A minimum of 3.63 acres of native vegetation shall be preserved on site or shall be mitigated for in accordance with Section 3.9.5.5.4. of the Collier County Land Development Code, which requires larger plant material in all recreated areas, ff mitigation plantings are utilized for all or a portion of this acreage, a restoration plan shall be submitted for review and approval to the Current Planning Environmental staff at the time of Site Development Plan submittal. A Gop~::'r :',;~oisc relocation permit shall be obt,~;ned from t3orida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, to relocate all on site tortoises to adequate off site habitat. A Gopher tortoise relocation plan shall be submitted for review and approval at the time of Site Development Plan submittal. The PUD shall be consistent with the environmental sections of the Collier County Growth Management Plan Conservation and Coastal Management Element and the Collier County Land Development Code at the time of final development order approval. 6-1 SECTION VII TRANSPORTATION REQUIREMENTS 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 PURPOSE The purpose of this section is to set forth the transportation commitments of the Church. The Church shall provide arterial street lighting at the project entrance. Said lighting shall be in place prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy. Internal access improvements shall not be subject to impact fee credits and shall be in place before any certificates of occupancy are issued. All traffic control devices used shall conform with the Manual on Uniform Traffic C,-'.qt:'ol Dcvic::s ;~s r,~r?ired ~;y Ch;after 316.0745, lqonda Statmes. All median openings and driveway locations shall be in accordance with the Collier County Land Development Code and Access Management Policy as they may be amended. Median access and control shall remain under County control unless established via a right-of-way agreement between the Board of County Commissioners and the Church. 7-1 SECTION VHI UTILITIES AND ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS 8.1 8.2 8.3 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the utilities and engineering commitments of the project developer. pURPOSE Water distribution, sewage collection and transmission lines to serve the project are to be designed, constructed, conveyed and/or owned and maintained in accordance with Collier County Ordinance No. 97-17, as amended, and other applicable County roles and regulations. Al} cuqtomers connecting to the water distribution and sewage collection facilities to be constructed will be customers of the County and will be billed by the County in accordance with the County's established rotes. ~NGINEF~RING Detmled paving, grading, site drainage and utility plans shall be submitted to ~ Development Services Department for review. No construction permits shall be issued unless and until approval of the proposed construction, in accordance with the submitted plans, is granted by the Development Services Department ~,sign and construction of ali improvements :,hall be subject to compliance with the appropriate provisions of the Collier County LDC. Co The Church and all subsequent petitioners are hereby placed on notice that they shall be required to satisfy the requirements of all County ordinances or codes in effect prior to or concurrent with any subsequent development order relating to this site, including but not limited to Preliminary Subdivision Plats, Site Development Plans and any other application that will result in the issuance of a final or final development order. Do Prior to Final Site Development Plan approval a right-of-way permit shall be obtainea if required. 8-1 SECTION IX WATER MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS 9.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this section is to set forth the stipulations established by the Water Management Advisory Board, which shall be accommodated by the project developer. Detailed paving, grading, site drainage and utility plans shall be submitted to the Development Services Department for review. No construction permits shall be issued unless and until approval of the proposed construction in accordance with the submitted plans is granted by the Development Services Department. Design and construction of all improvements shall be subject to c~:mpli~m,-e w~ff~ ~l',e. appropriate provisior, s of the Collie:' County Land Development Code. This project must obtain a South Florida Water Management District Surface Water Management Permit prior to Site Development Plan Approval. 9-] J~ I LEGAL DESCRIPTION All that part of Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the southwest comer of said Section 21; thence South 89 degrees 51' 48" East along the southerly line of the southwest quarter (SW 1/4) of said Section 21 a distance of 1342.48 feet to the southeast comer of the west on-half of the southwest quarter of said Section 21; thence North I degree 52' 47" West along the easterly line of said west one-half of the southwest quarter a distance of 40.03 feet to an intersection with the northerly fight-of-way line of 111 th Avenue North. said intersection being the Point of Beginning of the parcel herein being described; thence continue North 1 degree 52' 47" West along said easterly line a distance of 1390.27 feet; thence South 89 degrees 51' 48" East along a line parallel with the southerly line of the southwest quarter (SW 1/4) of said Section 21 a distance of 470.98 feet; thence South 1 degree 32' 23" East along a line parallel with the easterly line of the southwest quarter of said Section 21 a distance of 1390.00 feet to an intersection with the northerly right--of-way line of 11 lth Avenue North: thence North 89 degrees 51' 48" West alc~ng: ~:aid a,~rtt~erly eight-of-way line. ciis~.nce of 462.72 feet to the Point of Begimfing of the parcel herein described. Exhibit "B" ST. JOHN THE EVANGELIST A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOP~NT REGULATIONS AND SUPPORTING MASTER PLAN GOVERNING ST. JOHN THE EVANGELIST A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PREPARED BY: PMS, INC. OF NAPLES 2335 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH SUITE 408 NAPLES, FL. 34103 DATE REVIEWED t3Y CCPC DATE APPROVED BY BCC ORDINANCE NUMBER AMENDMENTS AND REPEAL DOCUMENT DATE 12/20/99 ExhiLit "A" TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE SECTION I STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE ............................................................... SECTION II PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND SHORT TITLE ...................... ........................................................................ SECTION III STATEMENT OF INTENT AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................... SECTION IV GENERAL DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS ...................................... SECTION V l-i:RMil'I ED USES AND DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS ...................... SECTION VI ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS ........................................................... SECTION VII TRANSPORTATION ................................................................................... SECTION VllI UTILITIES AND ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS ............................... WATER MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS .......................................... 4-5 6-7 8 9-10 11 12 LIST OF EXHIBITS ATTACHMENT A ............. CONCEPTUAL PUD MASTER PLAN ATTACHMENT B ............. LEGAL DESCRIPTION SECTION I STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE The so0ject property, is approximatley 14.89+ acres, and is located in Section 21. Township 48 South. Range 25 East. Collier County.. Florida. The development of this property as a Planned Unit Development, to be known as St. John the Evangelist Catholic Church, will be in compliance with the planning goals and objectives of Collier County as set forth in the Growth Management Plan. The proposed development will be consistent with the growth policies, land development regulations, and applicable comprehensive planning objectives for each of the elements of the Growth Managment Plan for the following reasons: 1.1 The subject property is located within the Urban Residential Land Use designation as identified in the Collier County Land Use Map. Objective 1 requires new or revised uses of land to be consistent with the designations outlined on the Future Land Use Map. }'olicy 5.1 requires the rezoning to be consistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan. Policy 5.2 requires proposed developments to be reviewed for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. All these Plan objectives and policies require the proposed rezoning to be located in thc appropriate land use catego,y and assessed for .zomprehensive plan consistency. 1.2 The Urban - Mixed Use District is intended to accommodate a variety of residential land use,~ including single-family, multi-family, duplex, mobile home and mixed-use (PUD) types of development. This urban land use district also allows certain industrml and cormnerc'~al uses. The Urban Residential sub-district designation is intended to provide for higher residential densities in areas with relatively few natural :~scmrce constraints and where existing and planned public facilities are concentrated. The designation can also allow marinas, yacht clubs and related accessory and recreational uses that include boat storage, launching facilities, fueling facilities, :estaur:mts and heait?~ clubs The Urban Residc. ntial designation includes both resideniia~ and non-residential rand uses and would appropriately include the community facilities type of development. 1.3 The proposed development consists of a complementary range of community facilities, including a church auditorium, religious education facilities, school, and recreation facility, rectory, day care, adult day care, adult living facilities, therefore, they are determined to be consistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan. 1.4 The project shall be in compliance with all applicable County regulations, including the Growth Management Plan. 1.5 The project will be served by a full range of services and utilities provided by the County. 1-1 1.6 1.7 1.8 The project will be compatible and complimentary with adjacent land uses through the internal arrangement of tracts, the placement of land use buffers, and the proposed development standards contained herein. The Planned Unit Development includes open spaces, natural features and a lake, which will serve to enhance the project and improve its compatibility to surrounding properties and land uses. All final local Development Orders for this project are subject to the Collier County Concurrency Management System, as implemented by the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. 1-2 SECTION II PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, LEGAL DESCRIPTION, AND SHORT TITLE 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP This project, comprising 14.89 + acres, is owned by John J. Nevins, Bishop of the Diocese of Venice, Florida. LEGAL DESCRIPTION This project is described in "Exhibit B" GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AREA A. The project site is located in the south half of Section 21, Township 48 South. i~:mge ,25 East ,~pproxJmately 1,:4 mile east of Vanderbilt Drive (C.R. 901). B. The zoning classification of the subject property prior to the date of this approved PUD Document was PUD. SHORT TlqlE This Ordinance shall be known and cited as the "St. John the Evangelist Planned Unit Development Ordinance". 2-1 SECTION III STATEMENT OF INTENT AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 INTRODUCTION 3.2 It is the church's intent to establish a Planned Unit Development meeting requirements as set forth in the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.3 The project is comprised of 14.89+ acres. Access to the site is provided from 11 lth Avenue North and a shared access driveway with the North Naples Elementary School. The project will provide a selected range of facilities which will include a health and fitness center, a parish life center, and adult care facility, maintenance buildings, a memorial garden, pre-school and recreational facilities, and classrooms which will be necessary and complimentary to the principal uses of the site. PLAN APPROVAL 3,4 T~e location af tile iaml uses are shown on the PUD Conceptual Master Plan. Changes and variations in building location shall be permitted via Site Development Plan approval in accordance with Division 3.3 of the Land Development Code. Changes and variations in building tracts may be permitted during Site Development Plan approval if, at the discretion of the County Manager, or his designee, such changes and variations are in conformance with the substantive and procedural requirements of Collier County. ! &'::D L~SE PI AN,;5~D PgQ~JE_C~.r. The following phasing schedule and development intensities are approximate and are based on the best information available. Actual development intensity and phasing will be determined based on the availability of need and funding. The PUD Master Plan contains one ~. 1) development tract consisting of an existing sanctuary, an existing parish life center and memorial garden as well as existing parking areas and access drives. Future development includes an apartment, adult assisted living facility (ALF), a parish adult care facility, a parish health and fitness center, children's care center, a classroom exparkqon, a mmntenance building and a rectory. 3-1 SECTION IV GENERAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 4.1 4.2 4.3 PURPOSE The purpose of this section is to set forth the development regulations that apply to the development and use of the St. John the Evangelist Catholic Church PUD and Master Plano GENERAL The following are general provisions applicable to the PUD Master Plan: Regulations for thc development of the St. John the Evangelist PUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this document, the PUD-Planned Unit Development District and other applicable sections and parts of the Collier Coun .ty Land Development Code (LDC) in effect at the time of building permit application. Should these regulations fail to provide specific developmental standards, then the provisions of the most similar zoning district of the LDC shall apply. Bo Unless otherwise noted, the definitions of all terms shall be the same as the defimtior~s set forth in the LDC in effect at the time of building permit application. All conditions imposed and all graphic material presented depicting restrictions for the development of St. John the Evangelist shall become part of the regulations which govern the manner in which this site may be developed Development permitted by the approval of this petition will be subject to a concurrency review under the provisions of Div. 3.14.89, Adequate Public Facilities of the LDC at the earliest or next to occur of either final SDP approval, final plat approval, or building permit issuance applicable to this development. SITE CLEARING AND DRAINAGE Clearing, grading, earthwork, and site drainage work shall be performed in accordance witt~, the Collier County LDC ,md the standards and commihments of this document in effect at the time of construction plan approval. 4-1 4.4 EASEMENTS FOR UTILITIES Easements. where required, shall be provided for water management areas, utilities and other purposes as may be required by Collier County. All necessary easements, dedications or other instruments shall be granted to ensure the continued operation and maintenance of all services and utilities. This will be in compliance with applicable regulations in effect at the time construction plans and plat approvals are requested. 4.5 AMENDMENTS TO THE ORDINANCE Amendments to this Ordinance and Master Plan shall be pursuant to Section 2.7.3.5 of the Collier County LDC, as revised, in effect at the time the amendment is requested. 4.6 PROJECT PLAN APPROVAL REOUIREMENT$ Attachment "A". PUD Master Plan. constitutes the required PUD Development Plan. All divisit)n of pr~.,pe~'ty and the development of the land shall be in compliance with the subdivision regulations set forth in Section 3.2 of the LDC. 4.7 PROVISION FOR OFFSIT~ REMOVAL_OF EAR_THI~.N MAT~_ RIAL The excavation of earthen material and its stockpiling in preparation of water management facilities or to otherwise develop water bodies is hereby permitted. If after consideration of fill activities on buildable portions of the project site, there is a surplus of earthen material, offsite disposal is also hereby permitted subject to the following , '-,.-. 'qtioqs: Excavatien activities shall comply with the definition of a "Development Excavation" pursuant to Section 3.5.5.1.3 of the LDC, whereby offsite removal shall not exceed ten (10) percent of the total volume excavated up to a maximum of 20,000 cubic yards. 4-2 4.8 A timetable to facilitate said removal shall be submitted to the Development Services Manager for approval. Said timetable shall include the length of time it will take to complete said removal, hours of operation and haul routes. HISTORiC/ARCHAEOLOGICAL Pursuant to Section 2.2.25.8.1 of the Land Development Code, if during the course of site clearing, excavation or other construction activity a historic or archaeological artifact is found, all development within the minimum area necessary to protect the discovery shall be immediately stopped and the Collier County Code Enforcement Department contacted. 4-3 SECTION V PERMITTED USES AND DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS 5.1 5.2 5.3 PURPOSE The purpose of this section is to identify permitted uses and development standards for areas within the St. John the Evangelist Catholic Church PUD designated on Exhibit "A', PUD Master Plan. GENERAL DESCRIPTION Development areas as shown on the PUD Master Plan, are designed to accommodate a full range of principal uses, essential services and accessory uses, Actual acreages of all development areas will be provided at the time of Site Development Plan or Preliminary Subdivision Plat approvals in accordance with Article 3. Division 3.3 and Division 3.2 respectively, of the Collier County Land Development Cede. All developmcnt areas are designed to accommodate internal roadways, parking, open spaces, amenity areas, water management facilities, and other similar uses. PFRMITTED USES AND Sf'RUCFURE$ No other building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following uses: A. Principal Uses 2. 3. 4. 5. }4ouse e,f Warship Adult Assisted Lnmg Facility (maximum 125 dwelling units) School A parish health and fitness center A parish Adult and children's care center B. Accessory_ Uses Residential facilitieg to serve as a rectory A parish life center for use by members of the congregation 5-1 Facilities for maintenance and storage Swimming pools and open space for recreation, boardwalks, nature trails, picnic areas, playgrounds and fitness trails mo Minimum Setback Standards 2. 3. 4. 5. Rear Yard: twenty five (25) feet Side Yard: fifteen (14.89) feet Front Yard: fifty (50) feet Minimum Distance Between Buildings: ten (10) feet Setbacks shall be twenty-five (25) feet along the property boundary. abutting the North Shore Lake Villas PUD. Maximum Building Height Fot'ty live 1,45) ieet will be the maximum height of any building on this property, not including appurtenances typically associated with houses of worship, such as bell towers and flagpoles, as set forth in Section 2.6.3 or' the Land Development Code. Parking Requirements Development of parking areas shall comply with Division 2.3, Off-Street Parking and Loading, of the Land Development Code in effect at the time of building permit application. Accessory Structures Accessory structures shall be constructed simultaneously with or following the construction of the principal structure(s) except for temporary construction site offices. Lighting Lighting shall be located so that no light is aimed directly toward an off- site property used for residential purposes, which is located within two- hundred (200) feet of the light source. 5-2 SECTION VI ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS 6.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this section is to set forth the environmental commitments of the Church. Bo A minimum of 3.63 acres of native vegetation shall be preserved on site or shall be mitigated for in accordance with Section 3.9.5.5.4. of the Collier County Land Development Code, which requires larger plant material in all recreated areas. If mitigation plantings are utilized for all or a portion of this acreage, a restoration plan shall be submitted for review and approval to the Current Planning Environmental staff at the time of Site Development Plan submittal. A Gopher tortoise relocation permit shall be obtained from Florida Fish and ¥;:i~i~/fe ConserYation Commission, to relocate all orJ site tortoises to adequate off site habitat. A Gopher tortoise relocation plan shall be submitted for review and approval at the time of Site Development Plan submittal. The PUD shall be consistent with the environmental sections of the Collier County Growth Management Plan Conservation and Coastal Management Element and the Collier County Land Development Code at the time of final development order approval. 6-1 SECTION VII TRANSPORTATION REQUIREMENTS 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 PURPOSE The purpose of this section is to set forth the transportation commitments of the Church. The Church shall provide arterial street lighting at the project entrance. Said lighting shall be in place prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy. Internal access improvements shall not be subject to impact fee credits and shall be in before any certificates of occupancy are issued. All traffic control devices used shall conform with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices ag required by Chapter 316.0745, Florida Statmes. All median openings and driveway locations shall be in accordance with the Collier County I ~md Development Code and Access Management Policy as they may be amv,~dcd. Medi,?n access and control sl~all remain under Count)' control unless established via a right-of-way agreement between the Board of County Commissioners ,_qnd thc Church. 7-1 SECTION VIII UTILITIES AND ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS 8.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the utilities and engineering commitments of the project developer. 8.2 PURPOSE Aa Water distribution, sewage collection and transmission lines to serve the project are to be designed, constructed, conveyed and/or owned and maintained in accordance with Collier County Ordinance No. 97-17, as amended, and other applicable County rules and regulations. Ali customers connecting to the water distribution and sewage collection facilities to be constructed will be customers of the County and will be billed by the County in accordance with the County's established rates. ENGINEER. lNG Detailed paving, grading, site drainage and utility plans shall be submitted to the Development Services Department for review. No construction permits shall be issued un!es~ and until approval of the proposed construction, in accordance with the submitted plans, is granted by the Development Services Department. De,~,~i[:n and consw~cfion of all :,~i~pvovemec..ts sh~l be subject to compliance w}th the appropriate provisions of the Collier County LDC. Co The Church and all subsequent petitioners are hereby placed on notice that they shall be required to satisfy the requirements of all County ordinances or codes in effect prior to or concurrent with any subsequent development order relating to this site, including but not limited to Preliminary Subdivision Plats, Site Development Plans and any other application that will result in the issuance of a final or final development order. Prior to Final Site Development Plan approval a right-of-way permit shall be obtained if required. 8-1 SECTION IX WATER ,MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS 9.1 PURPOSE Ao The purpose of this section is to set forth the stipulations established by the Water Management Advisory Board, which shall be accommodated by the project developer. Detailed paving, grading, site drainage and utility plans shall be submitted to the Development Services Department for review. No construction permits shall be issued unless and until approval of the proposed construction in accordance with the submitted plans is granted by the Development Services Department. Design and construction of all improvements shall be subject to cotnp~iance wi~h the appropriate i:.rovis~o~s of th,.', Collier County l,m~d DeYetopment Code. This project must obtain a South Florida Water Management District Surface Water Management Permit prior to Site Development Plan Approval. 9-~] .o ATTACgMENT 'A" LEGA:L D~SCRIPTION All that part of Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the southwest comer of said Section 21; thence South 89 degrees 51' 48" East along the southerly line of the southwest quarter (SW 1/4) of said Section 21 a distance of 1342.48 feet to the southeast comer of the west on-half of the southwest quarter of said Section 21; thence North 1 degree 52' 47" West along the easterly line of said west one-half of the southwest quarter a distance of 40.03 feet to an intersection with the northerly fight-of-way line of 111 th Avenue North, said intersection being the Point of Beginning of the parcel herein being described; thence continue North 1 degree 52' 47" West along said easterly line a distance of 1390.27 feet; thence South 89 degrees 51' 48" East along a line parallel with the southerly line of the southwest quarter (SW I/4) of said Section 21 a distance of 470.98 feet; thence South 1 degree 32' 23" East along a line parallel with easterly line of the southwest quarter of said Section 21 a distance of 1390.00 feet to an in.- .ection with the northerly right-of-way line of 11 l th Avenue North; thence North 89 degrees 51' 48" West along said northerly right-of-way lin,: a di.';~.-,,:¢ of 462'72 feet to thc Point of Beginning of the parcel herein described. Exhibit "B" EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PETITION PUD-98-20, WILLIAM L. HOOVER, AICP, REPRESENTING GULF SUN CORPORATION, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "A" TO "PUD" TO BE KNOWN AS WHIPPOORWILL LAKES PUD, A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT NOT TO EXCEED 518 DWELLING UNITS, ON PROPERTY LOCATED APPROXIMATELY ¼ MILE SOUTH OF PINE RIDGE ROAD (C.R. 896) ON WHIPPOORWILL LANE, IN SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 76.85 +_ ACRES. OBJECTIVE: The petitioner is seeking to rezone the subject parcel from "A" Rural Agricultural to "PUD" Planned Unit Development in order to develop the subject property as a mixed residential project consisting of approximately 518 multifamily and/or single family dwelling units on 76.85 acres. CONSIDERATIONS: The subject property is located south of the Pine Ridge Road - 1-75 Activity Center with access from Pine Ridge Road (CR-896) via Whippoorwill Lane a local road. An 11.42 acre parcel (Parcel "B") extends into the Activity Center and is between 1-75 and the Seagate Baptist Church property, and borders the south side of the Best Western Hotel. The remaining 65.43 acres of the proposed PUD extend southward and are bordered on the west and south sides by low-density single-family development and some vacant properties which are zoned "RMF-6", "RSF-5", and "A" Rural Agricultural, respectively. The existing residential properties located to the west across Whippoorwill Lane and directly to the south have developed at densities of four to five dwelling units per acre. A PUD, Whippoorwill Woods, located less than ¼ mile to the south was approved for 5.51 dwelling units per acre in 1998. No other development has been approved or has taken place in this area. Maximum eligible residential densities in the Activity Center and the Activity Center Density Band are determined through the Density Rating System provided in the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The 11.4-acre Parcel "B" qualifies for up to 16 units per acre because it is located in the Activity Center. The remaining 65.43 acres (Parcels A,C, & D) of the PUD qualify for up to 7.0 dwelling units per acre because they lie within the Activity Center Density Band. The applicant proposes a maximum of 518 dwelling units. for an overall density of 6.74 dwelling units per acre. The Parcels "A", "C", and "D" will be limited to a maximum of AGENDA IlF_J~ JAN 11 2000 6.0 dwelling units per acre to provide a transitional land use density through the project. A maximum of 16 dwelling units per acre will be allowed in Parcel "B" which is located in the Activity Center; however, the petitioner has indicated that Parcel "B" will likely be developed at a maximum of 10 dwelling units per acre. The proposed densities are within the range allowed by the Density Rating System. Rezone Findings were made by the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) and staff as required by Section 2.7.2.5 of the LDC. Those findings support the proposed rezoning as outlined in the Analysis Section and as recommended here (see exhibits with Staff Report). Although Rezone and PUD Findings were made by the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) and staff as required by Section 2.7.2.5 of the LDC, those findings only support the proposed rezoning inasmuch as it was a singular development in a slowly developing area. Since the findings by the Planning Commission, six additional PUDs were proposed which affect transportation and drainage along the Whippoorwill Lane corridor and the future Livingston Road. Staffhas revisited this proposal and finds that while the proposed PUD by itself may not cause any level of service to be exceeded, the total impacts of the combined proposed seven PUDs will cause a degradation of service, increase trip lengths for residents, and will impact the surrounding road network and intersections at Pine Ridge Road. It is, therefore, staff's recommendation to attach certain stipulations as outlined in the Executive Summary presented to the Board of County Commissioners on December 14, 1999, and which was supported by the Board (see attached Executive Summary). The petition has also been reviewed by the appropriate staff responsible for oversight related to the referenced areas of concern. This included reviews for environmental, transportation, and traffic impacts. Staff recommendations are included in the development commitments sections of the PUD Document, which also incorporates stipulations made by the Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC). Analysis for consistency with applicable elements of the GMP shows that the petition if approved will be consistent with the elements of the GMP. PROS/CONS: Pros (i) The subject petition appears to be consistent with the locational criteria for residential development as it applies to the County's Growth Management Plan. (ii) The PUD development plan will provide for transitional density to make it more compatible with neighboring development. (iii) Roads and utilities will be extended along Whippoorwill Lane at the owners expense. A G £ i',~.,') A tTF_M 11 2O00 Cons (i) The combined development of the area will cause levels of services to be exceeded and will likely degrade service on the surrounding road network (see attached Executive Summary dated. (ii) Some residents may find that any increase in residential development will bring increased inconveniences such as traffic. FISCAL IMPACT: Whippoorwill Lakes PUD will likely be a multi-family residential project. Based upon authorized uses and planned intensity of development, the following revenue is estimated at build out. Impact Fees Park Impact Fee: Library Impact Fee: Fire Impact Fee: School Impact Fee: Road Impact Fee: Radon Impact Fee: EMS Impact Fee: Bldg. Code Adm.: Micro Film Surcharge: $578.00 per unit x 518 du's = $180.52 per unit x 518 du's = $0.15 per Sq. Ft. of bldg. area ~ 1,200 SFx 518 x 0.15 = $1,778.00 per unit x 518 du's = $1,379.00 per unit x 518 du's = $.005 per Sq. Ft. of bldg. area ~ .005 x 518 x 1,200 = $14.00 per unit x 518 = $0.005 per Sq. Ft. of bldg. area @ .005 x 3000 x 518 = $2.00 per unit x 518 = TOTAL IMPACT FEES $ 299,404.00 93,509.36 93,240.00 921,004.00 714,322.00 3,108.00 7,252.00 7,770.00 2,072.00 $ 2,141,681.30 The average size of most of the proposed dwelling units will be 1,100 - 1,200 square feet. This project will provide 518 dwelling units of this size or less; therefore, the estimated total amount of impact fees collected at build out will total $ 2,141,681.30+. this is a raw estimate based on current impact fees and proposed dwelling units. In addition to the impact fees described, there are building permit review fees and utility fees associated with County water and sewer connections. Building permit fees have traditionally off-set the cost of administering the community development review process, whereas, utility fees are based on their proportionate share of impact to County utilities. Finally, additional revenue is generated by ad valorem taxes. The amount of revenue generated by the ad valorem tax depends on the value of the improvements. At this time, ¢'}'112000 ~' ,~ staffhas not developed a method to arrive at a reasonable estimate of tax revenue based on ad valorem tax rates. The above discussion deals with revenue streams. Keep in mind, any discussion of fiscal impact analysis is incomplete without an estimate of costs that will be generated by a particular land development project. But, at this time, staffhas not developed a method by which to estimate the cost of a particular land development project. Such a model, in our opinion, would be misleading because there is no certain way, with respect to housing projects, to determine their value and likelihood that not all of the authorized development will occur. Regardless of a lack of methodologies to determine all of the fiscal impacts of a land development project, development still has concurrency relationships or limitations. When levels of services (LOS) fall below County adopted standards, a mechanism is in place that would require that building activities would cease until such a time as additional facilities are provided for by the developer or made available by the County. Certain LOS standards also would require a countywide concurrency determination versus an area or local determination such as for roads. The proposed Whippoorwill Lakes PUD will not cause County LOS to be exceeded. This rezoning by and of itself will have little or no fiscal impact on the County. However, if this rezoning is approved, the land could be further developed. New development will result in a future fiscal impact on County public facilities. The County collects impact fees prior to the issuance of building permits to help off-set the impact of each new development on public facilities. These impact fees are used to fund projects in the Capital Improvement Element needed to maintain adopted levels of service for public facilities. In the event that impact fee collections are inadequate to maintain adopted levels of service, the County must provide supplemental funds from other revenue sources in order to build needed facilities. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The approval of this rezoning request will not affect or change the requirements of the Growth Management Plan. A review of consistency relationships with elements of the GMP is as follows: Future Land Use Element - The northernmost portion of the proposed PUD is Parcel "B", an 11.42 acre parcel that lies within the Pine Ridge Road (C.R. 896) - Interstate 75 Activity Center. The Activity Center allows a density of up to 16 dwelling units per acre based on proximity to the major intersection that it surrounds and the compatibility of the surrounding land uses. The remaining 65.43 acres of the PUD lies within the Residential Density Band that surrounds the Activity Center. The Residential Density Band provides for an additional three (3) dwelling units per acre that may be added to the Urban Designated Area ba,e density of four (4) dwelling units per acre, for up to seven (7) total dwelling units per acre. Parcels "A", "C", and "D" of the proposed PUD are located within the Residential Density Band qualifying the southern portion of the PUD for up to seven (7) total dwelling units per acre if deemed compatible with surrounding land uses. The applicant proposes a density of 6.74 dwelling units per acre with a maximum 518 total dwelling units. This is less than the possible 8.33 dwelling units per acre and 640 total dwelling units allowed by the Density Rating System and which is calculated as follows: Parcels "A", "C", and "D" Base Density Activity Center Density Band Maximum Permitted Density Maximum Number du's ~ 65.43 acres x 7 du's per acre 4 du's/acre +3 du's/acre = 7 du's 458 du's maximum Parcel "B" Activity Center Maximum Number du's ~ 11.42 acres x 16 du's/acre = 16 du's/acre = 182 du's maximum Total Maximum Density Allowable = Total Maximum Density Proposed = 640 du's/76.85 acres = 8.33 du's per acre 518 du's/76.85 acres = 6.74 du's per acre The requested density is consistent with the provisions of the Density Rating System provided the density is otherwise deemed compatible by Staff's analysis (Attachments "A" and "B"). Transportation Element - The Traffic Impact Statement estimates that the 628 MF units (reduced to 518 du's) will generate an average of 3,898 Weekday Daily. The peak hour trips are estimated at 385 trips. Based on this analysis, Staff estimates the site generated traffic fi.om the proposed change will exceed the significance test standard (5% of the LOS "C" design volume) on Pine Ridge Road (CR-896) after trip assignments are made; however, the project trips for this one proposed development will not lower the level of service below the adopted LOS "E" standard. Therefore the project by itself would be considered consistent with Policy 5.1 and 5.2 of the Traffic Circulation Element (TCE). However, the combined impact of the recently submitted PUDs in this area would cause an impact. Therefore, it is important to develop an integrated and planned road network in order to minimize degradation of services in this area and to provide alternate access for future residents along Whippoorwill Lane. ii 2000 ! It should be noted that this segment of CR-896 is projected to be deficient in 2003 if road improvements are not completed. Since this segment from CR-31 to Logan Blvd. is scheduled to be improved to six (6) lanes by the year 2000, the LOS will remain at an acceptable standard after build-out of this proj eot. Also, an intersection analysis of CR- 896 and Whippoorwill Lane indicates that the LOS will remain at acceptable standards with a traffic signal; therefore, the project complies with Policy 1.3 and 1.4 of the TCE. Keep in mind though, the applicant proposes an additional project on Whippoorwill Lane that in combination with this project and the five other proposed PUDs would cause the 5 percent LOS "C" significance test to be exceeded and would lower the LOS on CR-896 even more. HISTORIC/ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT: Staff's analysis indicates that the petitioner's property is not located within an area of historic/archaeological probability as designated on the official Collier County Probability Map. WHIPPOORWILL LANE COORDINATED MASTER PLAN CONSIDERATIONS: This plan is necessary due to the number of PUD applications recently submitted for the Whippoorwill Lane and Livingston Road area, and their potential for degrading future levels of service. On September 14, 1999, Staffasked the Board for time, prior to considering any approval of development orders in the above mentioned area, in order to direct a coordinated effort between area property owners and County Staff. The proposed Coordinated Master Plan addresses the concems of adequate access for all area properties, proposes an alternate road access to help minimize potential level of service impacts to both Pine Ridge Road and the future Livingston Road, and addresses concerns regarding the ability of the Kensington Lakes Drainage Canal to adequately handle drainage produced by area development projects and the County's Livingston Road project. Staff also proposes that certain stipulations be made, which would be made common to each rezoning approval in the Whippoorwill Lane Coordinated Plan area. These stipulations will limit building permits until adequate fight-of-way is obtained, drainage problems are addressed and under control of the County, an areawide sewer and potable water system is designed and implemented, and a Whippoorwill Lane East-West Connector is constructed. Costs of such improvements will be distributed among all property owners receiving direct benefits. A~£i'~DA iTF. M '"'--" PLANNING SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of PUD-98-20, The Whippoorwill Lakes PUD Document and Master Plan, with the following stipulations: The issuance of building permits will be suspended upon the issuance of permits for five-hundred (500)-dwelling units in the event that at such time Livingston Road is not yet completed for public travel between Golden Gate Parkway and Pine Ridge Road. Prior to completion of construction of Livingston Road, Whippoorwill Lane and its east-west connector to Livingston Road shall be constructed to County collector road standards, and dedicated to the County. Impact fee credits in part may be made for construction of said roadway from Pine Ridge to Livingston Road in the event said road is included on the traffic way map to the Traffic Circulation Element as an urban collector road. Adequate right-of-way as determined by the County's Transportation Department for Whippoorwill Lane and an east-west road shall be conveyed to Collier County pursuant to the provisions of Section 2.2.20.3.7 of the Land Development Code (i.e., 90 days following rezone action). The costs for acquisition of land for the east-west right-of-way shall be borne proportionately by all benefiting property owners having frontage on Whippoorwill Road or its east-west extension including the most southerly parcel of land. o Area-wide drainage facilities and appurtenances, including land requirements shall be under the control of Collier County. Prorated improvement costs to benefiting property owners shall have been determined and approved by said property owners. Both of these actions will take place prior to the issuance of building permits. A sanitary sewer collection system and a potable water supply distribution system is designed having area-wide design standard specifications as determined acceptable to the Collier County Public Works Engineering Division. Design specifications resulting in incurred costs to a project having area-wide benefits will be prorated against all benefiting property owners. Both of these actions will take place prior to approval of any subdivision plat or site development plan. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The EAC voted to recommend approval of PUD-98-20 on June 9, 1999, with stipulations that were incorporated into the PUD Document. JAN ~1 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: At the July 15, 1999 meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of Petition PUD-98-20 to the Board of County Commissioners. JAN I 1 ~uO0 Pg. PREPARED BY: IRRENT ~LANNING MANAGER R ~BER~ ~: MULHER]E, AICP, PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR DATE DATE DATE APeD BY: VINCENT A. CAUTERO, AICP, ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNITY DEV. AND ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS. DATE Petition PUD-98-20, Whippoorwill Lakes PUD. Tentatively set for the January 11, 2000 BCC Meeting. TO: AGENDA ITEM 7-I COLLIER COUNT~ PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DATE: RE: OWNER/AGENT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES JUNE 16, 1999 PETITION PUD-98-20, WHIPPOORWILL LAKES PUD Agent: Mr. William L. Hoover, AICP Hoover Planning 3785 Airport-Pulling Road, Suite B Naples, Florida 34105 Mark Bates, President Gulf Sun Corporation 533 Turtle Hatch Lane Naples, Florida 34103 REQUESTED ACTION: This petition seeks to have the herein described land rezoned fi.om its current classification of "A" Rural Agricultural to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Whippoorwill Lakes PUD for a mixed-use residential development. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The property is located ¼ mile south of Pine Ridge Road (CR-896), north of Night Hawk Drive between Whippoorwill Lane and 1-75, in Section 18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East (See location map on following page). PURPOSEfDESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: When completed, the project master plan will provide a singular development that will encompass approximately 76.85:!: acres of land to be developed with a mixed residential land use strategy in the PUD Document. If approved, the development plan will include the following: A total of 628 dwelling units with a density of 8.17 units per acre, which the applicant estimates is consistent with the maximum density permitted by the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). .,:~huA iTF. M J~Nll 2000 i · I.iJ z ,I J! ~ll 2000 fid II Z 2. Open space that includes a 14.7 acre preservation area, 16.1 acres of a lake, and landscaping and buffeting equaling 72 percent open space and exceeding the minimum 60 percent required for PUDs. 3. Common access for recreation use of the preservation area and lake. 4. Four development tracts (Parcels "A"-"D"). 5. A gate house. 6. Access from Pine Ridge Road via Whippoorwill Lane. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: Existing: The property is undeveloped and is zoned "A" Rural Agricultural. Surrounding: North- To the north lies the Seagate Baptist Church and the Sutherland Center Commercial PUD. Both are within the Activity Center which contains a motel, fast food restaurant, a convenience store, and a service station. East - To the east lies the Interstate 75 fight-of-way and drainage canal. South - Two single family homes abut the proposed PUD on the south side. Properties located farther to the south are mostly undeveloped and designated "A" Rural Agricultural. The Whippoorwill Woods PUD, approved in 1998, lies approximately 660 feet south and was approved for mixed housing with a density not to exceed 5.51 dwelling units per acre. West- A six-bed hospice is located across Whippoorwill Lane from the northwest comer of the proposed PUD. The underlying zoning for the property is RIVIF- 6 which allows no more than six units per acre. Running southward from the hospice are properties zoned "A" Rural Agricultural and "RSF-5" Residential Single Family with a maximum density of four (4) dwelling units per acre. These properties contain four (4) existing single family homes. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: The proposed PUD lies within the Urban Mixed Use - Urban Residential Subdistrict as designated by the Future Land Use Map {FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). This designation provides for higher densities in an area with relatively few natural resource constraints and where existing and planned public facilities are concentrated. It is also located partially within the Pine Ridge Road (C.R. 896) - Interstate 75 Activity Center with the remainder of the PUD lying within the Residential Density Band that provides for an additional three (3) dwelling units per acre. The following consistency analysis addresses the relationship of the proposed PUD with applicable elements of the GMP: Land Use Element and Densi _ty - The northernmost portion of the proposed PUD is Parcel "B", an 11.42 acre parcel that lies within the Pine Ridge Road (C.IL 896) - Interstate 75 Activity Center. The Activity Center allows a density of up to 16 dwelling units per acre based on proximity to ~~['~L,, -- intersection that it surrounds and the compatibility o.f the surrounding land uses. The 11 2000 65.43 acres of the PUD lies within the Residential Density Band that surrounds the Activity Center. The Residential Density Band provides for an additional three (3) dwelling units per acre that may be added to the Urban Designated Area base density of four (4) dwelling units per acre, for up to seven (7) total dwelling units per acre. Parcels "A", "C', and "D' of the proposed PUD are located within the Residential Density Band qualifying the southern portion of the PUD for up to seven (7) total dwelling units per acre if compatible with surrounding land uses. The applicant proposes a density of 8.17 dwelling units per acre based on a possible 640 dwelling units determined aa follows: Parcels "A", "C", and "D" Base Density Activity Center Density Band Maximum Permitted Density 4 du's/acre +3 du's/acre = 7 du's 65.43 acres x 7 du's per acre = 458 du's maximum Parcel "B" Activity Center = 16 du's/acre 11.42 acres x 16 du's/acre = 182 du's maximum Total Maximum Density Allowable = 640 du's/76.85 acres = 8.33 du's per acre The requested density is consistent with the provisions of the Density Rating System provided the density is otherwise deemed compatible by SlaWs analysis (Attachments "A" and "B"). Traffic Circulation Element - The Traffic Impact Statement estimates that the 628 MF units will generate an average of 3,898 Weekday Daily Trips more than the currently approved Club Estates PUD. The peak hour trips are estimated at 385 trips. Based on this analysis, Staff estimates the site generated traffic from the proposed change w~.ll exceed the significance test standard (5% of the LOS "C" design volume) on Pine Ridge Road (CR-896) after trip assignments are made; hoWever, the project trips will not lower the level of service below the adopted LOS "E" standard. Therefore the project will be consistent with Policy 5.1 and 5.2 of the Traffic Circulation Element (TCE). It should be noted that this segment of CR-896 is projected to be deficient in 2003 if mad improvements are not completed. Since this segment from CR-31 to Logan Blvd. is scheduled to be improved to six (6) lanes by the year 2000, the LOS will remain at an acceptable standard after build- out of this project. Also, an intersection analysis of CR-896 and Whippoorwill Lane indicates that the LOS will remain at acceptable standards with a traffic signal; therefore, the project would comply with Policy 1.3 and 1.4 of the TCE. Keep in mind though, the applicant proposes an additional project, which in combination with this project would exceed the 5 percent LOS "C" significance test and would lower the LOS on CR-896 even more. Furthermore, the Pet Ranch Road right of way ts' proposed to be vacated. The applicant als~ses~.x~ .... 5~).'7'~r. Ja vacating Nighthawk Drive, which provides access to the property abutting this PUD on its ~outh 's'~l.;~'-.~ .~ thus reducing any future interconnections to development to the south. The loss of intertonn~etio~ 2000 between the PUD and future development to the south is not consistent with Policy 9.3 of the TCE. In addition, the FLUE Density Rating System of the GMP requires subtracting one (1) dwelling unit from the project for lack of interconnection of local streets. Open Space Element and Natural Features - The required amount of open space will be achieved by the retention of wetland and jurisdictional preserve areas, and other open space totaling 55.4 acres (72 percent) of thc gross acreage and including land set aside for: preservation (14.7 acres); landscaping (24.6 acres); and a lake (16.1 acres). As a result, the proposed conservation and open space plans are consistent with the Conservation and Open Space Elements of the GMP. Other Applicable Element(s) - These include utilities and water management. Development of the land will proceed on the basis of connection to the County's sewer and water distribution system. Once these utility lines are completed in accordance with County standards, they will be conveyed to Collier County as required by County Ordinances. Water management facilities will be constructed to meet County Ordinances and these will be reviewed and approved as a prerequisite to obtaining subsequent development order approvals. The above prescribed course of action should make this petition consistent with this element of the GMP. HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT: Staffs analysis indicates that the petitioner's property is located outside of an area of historical and archaeological probability as referenced on the official Collier County Probability Map, therefore, no Historical/Archaeological Survey and Assessment are required. EVALUATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL¶ TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE: The subject petition has been reviewed by the appropriate staff responsible for oversight related to the above referenced areas of concern. This primarily includes a review by the Community Development and Environmental Services Division Staff and the Transportation Department Staff. The petition was reviewed by the Environmental Advisory Board (EAB) and was recommended with minor stipulations that were incorporated into the PUD Document. ANALYSIS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition and the criteria on which a favorable determination must be based. This evaluation is intended to provide an objective, comprehensive overview of the impact of the proposed land use change, be they positive or negative, culminating in a staff recommendation based on that comprehensive overview. The listed criteria are specifically noted in Section 2.7.2.5 and Section 2.7.3.2.5 of the Land Development Code thus requiring staff evaluation and comment, and shall be used as the basis for a recommendation of approval or denial by the Planning Commission to the BCC. Each of the potential impacts or considerations identified during the staff review are listed under each of the criterion note~d and are categorized as either pro or con, whichever the case may be, in the opinion of staff. Staff review of each of the criterion is followed by a summary conclusion culminating in a determination of compliance, non-compliance, or compliance with mitigation. These evaluations are separate documents and are attached to the staff report as Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B'.- ~ In addition, appropriate evaluation of petitions for rezoning should establish a factual basis for supportive action by appointed and elected decision makers. The evaluation by professional staff should typically include an analysis of the petition's relationship to the community's future land use plan, and whether or not a rezoning action would be consistent with the Collier County GMP in all of its related elements. Other evaluation considerations should include an assessment of adequacy of transportation infraslxucture, other infxastmcture, and compatibility with adjacent land uses as they relate to both the rezoning action and the long range plan for future land uses. Subsequent to this analysis, Staff advises the following: Relationship to Future and Existin~ Land Uses: This provides for a discussion of the relationship of the proposed zoning action to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GM?) as it applies specifically to Collier County's legal basis for land use planning. Compatibility - The subject property is located within the Urban Mixed Use - Urban Residential Subdistrict as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the GMP. The site is located contiguous to the west alignment ofi-75 south of the Pine Ridge Activity Center and east of the Whippoorwill Lane southern terminus. The applicant proposes a multifamily development on four parcels of the proposed PUD. Those parcels are designated as Parcels "A" through "D'. Parcel "B', is 11.42-acres in size and is located just south of the Best Western Hotel located in the Sutherland Center PUD. Both the hotel and Parcel "B" are located within the Pine Ridge Activity Center, which allows for higher density residential development up to 16 dwelling units per acre. Parcel "B' also abuts a church property located on its western boundary, and the northern boundary of Parcel "A'. The church property is mostly undeveloped with the church being located in the northwestern one-quarter of the property and, in effect, creates a buffer or transition between the commercial properties located to its north and Parcels "A" and "B' of the proposed PUD. Parcels "A" and "D" are located near lower density residential uses located on the west side of Whippoorwill Lane. Those properties contain four single family homes with the exception of a hospice located near the northwest corner of Parcel "A". The single family homes are considered lower density residential with lot sizes ranging from one-quarter acre to one-half acre in size. The smaller lots are zoned RSF-5 with a maximum density of four (4) dwelling units per acre. The remaining parcels located to the west and south of Parcel "A" are zoned Rural Agricultural and are mostly undeveloped at this time, except for two large lots with existing single family homes located on the south side of the PUD. Also, located approximately 660 feet south of the proposed PUD is Whippoorwill Woods PUD, which was approved for mixed residential uses with 5.51 dwelling units per acre in 1998. In addition, the owner of the Whippoorwill Lakes property has recently submitted another application for a multifamily PUD that will lie between the Whippoorwill Lakes and Whippoorwill Woods PUDs. The owner is requesting to develop that PUD with a maximum allowable 210 dwelling units. Given the contiguous relationship of the subject property to a commercial use (i.e., hotel) and a church, and considering the impact of Interstate 75, a higher density residential development is justified. This is moreover supported by the density strategy inherent in the density rating.~ that .... :- ,, acknowledges higher densities as related to location within an activity center (i.e., 16 d~t~a/acre) density band (i.e., 7 du's/acre). The question we need to answer is, what is the desirable transitiont~ru~t-~t-' 11 2000 ..._ density? The PUD to the south (Whippoon,.'ill Woods) is approved for 5.51 dwelling units per acre. Most likely, the land area to the west of Whippoorwill Lane will be limited to three (3) dwelling units per acre because, for the most part, only the base density from the density Rating System applies to this land area. Amendments to t..e GMP, although not officially adopted, are nevertheless for all practical purposes now in effect and would limit the density of this project to five (5) dwelling units per acre assuming the proposed reduction of the base density to two (2) dwelling units per acre can be increased to three (3) dwelling units per acre based on design and highway relationships. Because the density of the Whippoorwill Woods PUD is now approved for 5.51 dwelling units per acre, it would not be equitable to require a lesser density in an area that is supposed to be a transition between higher density and intensity to an area of lower density and intensity; therefore, Staff recommends a density of six (6) dwelling units per acre and asserts that this would be more compatible with the type of surrounding development and the density/intensity characteristics. Traffic - The primary vehicular access point will be from the southward extension of Whippoorwill Lane. Whippoorwill Lane intersects with Pine Ridge Road (CR-896) within the Pine Ridges Highway Interchange Activity Center. The access road should operate with an acceptable level of safety and is subject to the Access Management Plan. The increased traffic impact from this and other proposed PUD development along Whippoorwill Lane may substantially reduce the level of service (LOS) on CR-896 but the LOS should remain at acceptable standard at the build out of this project, especially with the six lane widening proposed for CR-896 in the year 2000; therefore, the proposed PUD meets the policies of the Traffic Circulation Element. Although road capacity may be at an acceptable LOS, the proposed PUD does not provide for interconnectivity as required by the FLUE Density Rating System of the GMP. The FLUE Density Rating System subtracts one (1) dwelling unit per acre from a project for failure to interconnect with all existing and future projects when possible. This project also proposes to vacate existing road rights-of-ways and fails to provide interconnections as portrayed on the concept plan. If Whippoorwill Lane is ever extended to the proposed Livingston Road, it might help reduce some of the traffic load onto CR-896 and help to compensate for a lack of interconnection between the PUDs and future development in this area. It is highly unlikely that would happen before build out of these PUDs, if it ever happens. Utility Infi'astmcture - Both County sanitary sewer and water supply are available to the property and will be extended as a consequence of future development. Ail development must comply with surface water management requirements invoked at the time of site development plan approval as the case will be for development of this land. Community Infrastructure and Services - The subject property has convenient access to a wide range of community infiastmcture which is enhanced by its proximity to activity centers at 1-75 and Airport-Pulling Road, which contain shopping centers and business and medical offices all within a short driving distance. Police, fire and other emergency services can be readily provided from the appropriate facilities located nearby. PUD Document and Master Plan - The PUD document is modeled after the County Planning Services Model PUD Document in terms of format, general provisions, and development s _ta~ia~.. and..~._,.: - commitments. The PUD Document contains all of Staff's recommendations and will ma~e ' "' '12000 6 of standards commonly employed in similar PUDs in the County. The uses will be well buffered and contain adequate separation and landscaping. The proposed PUD will also provide sidewalks and paving of Whippoorwill Lane for access to this PUD and future development located to the south. It will also include a common area, trails, and access to the lakes and preservation areas for recreational use by residents. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) recommends approval of Petition PUD-98- 20, the Whippoorwill Lakes PUD Document and Master Plan, to the Board of County Commissioners subject to the following condition: 1. Density shall be limited to six (6~ dwelling units per acre for a total of~ryr"dwelling rots. 7 PREPARED BY: · 7WED BY: \~ ONALD'~.'NrIN ,~5'~'~CP, MANAGER CURRENT PLANNING SECTION DATE VINCENT A. CAUTERO, AICP, ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNITY DEV. AND ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS. DATE DATE Staff Report for July 15, 1999 CCPC meeting. Note: This petition has been scheduled for the August 3, 1999 BCC meeting. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: PUD-98-20 WHIPPOORWILL LAKES PUD/STAFF REPORT/DIM FINDINGS FOR PUD PUD-98-20 Section 2.7.3.2.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code requires the Planning Commission to make a finding as to the PUD Master Plans' compliance with the following criteria: The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the laud, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. Pro: (i) Intensifying land development patterns produces economics of scale relative to public utilities, facilities and services, which are currently available in this (iii) The extent that location choice is enhanced for residential environments within the urban area reduces the push on urban sprawl. (ii) The subject property is served by a network of arterial roads, all within the urbanized area facilitating access to a variety of community services and facilities. Con: (i) Proposed density and intensity is not compatible with existing and future residential densities of the surrounding environs. (ii) Loss of travel time for users of the same arterial road network. (iii) Existing residents often perceive a residential intensification near their neighborhood as contributing factors to inconveniencing traffic movements to and fi:om their place of residence, decreasing safety, increasing noise, and reducing property values. Findine: Jurisdictional reviews by County staff support the manner and pattern of the proposed development, except for the proposed density for the subject property unless modified. Any inadequacies that require supplementing the PUD document will be recommended to the Board of County Commissioners as conditions of approval by staff. Recommended mitigation measures will ensure compliance with Level of Service relationships as prescribed by the Growth Management Plan. Development conditions contained in the PUD document give insurance that all infrastructure will be developed and be consistent with County regulations. Exhibit 1 Based on the criteria of the FLUE of the GM? and Staff's review of compatil';lity of the proposed PUD with surrounding land use, Staff is of the opinion that the proposed density needs to be adjusted to make the proposed PUD more consistent with Policies 5.1 through 5.4 of the FLUE of the GMP. A more acceptable density would be based on an overall maximum total of 461 dwelling units with an overall maximum density of 6.0 units per gross acre. This should allow for compatibility with surrounding properties and a transition from higher density to lower density land use. This is more consistent with the intent of the Density Rating System and the policies of the FLUE. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable. Finding: Documents submitted with the application provide evidence of unified control. The PUD document makes appropriate provisions for continuing operation and maintenance of common areas. 0 Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan. Pro: (i) The development strategy for the subject property is consistent with most of the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan. Con: None Finding: The subject petition has been found consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan. A review of consistency relationships with elements of the GMP is as follows: Future Land Use Element and Densi _ty - The subject site is located within the Urban Mixed Use -Urban Residential Subdistrict on the Future Land Use Map of the GIMP. Parcel "B" of the proposed project is also within the Pine Ridge Road (CR-896) - Interstate 75 Activity Center. This area is limited to a base density of four dwelling units per acre and three dwelling units per acre for the area located within the Residential Density Band up to a total of seven dwellings per acre if the development is compatible with the surrounding land use. Since Parcel "B" is within the Activity Center it qualifies for up to 16 dwelling units per acre based on the criteria of the Density Rating System and land use compatibility. The failure to provide an interconnection of loc~t, adjacent properties results ina reduction of one dwelling unit per acre by the ~CC~ - e If the applicant adjusts the dens!~y to be more consistent with the Density Rating System and makes provision for compatibility and transitional densities, Staff would be able to support the request. Based on Staff's analysis, this project is only eligible for 461 dwelling units at a density of 6.0 dwelling units per acre based on density bonus provisions of the Density Rating System and compatibility (see Analysis in Staff's Report). The recommended density also takes into account staff's analysis of neighborhood compatibility, transitional densities, and buffering. Appropriate density will ensure that the development of the property will be compatible with nearby properties. Land Use - The Urban Residential Subdistrict allows all residential structure types and other uses normally found in a residential environment, such as recreational use. Traffic Circulation Element - Analysis of the subject petition concluded with a finding that the petition is consistent with the policies of the TCE. Recreation and Open Space - The proposed PUD provide approximately 72 percent of the project as open space, which will include a lake, landscaping, and preservation area. Staff's review indicates that the petition has been designed to be consistent with the GMP with the exception of the proposed density. The internal and external compatibility of proposed include restrictions on location of improvements, buffering and screening requirements. uses, which conditions may restrictions on design, and Pro: The PUD has been designed to minimize internal land use conflicts through open space separation thereby protecting sensitive areas and buffering residences internally. Con: The proposed higher density is not deemed compatible externally. Densities in Parcels "A" and "D" should be held to compatible densities of no greater than 5- 6 dwelling units per acre in order to provide for buffering between adjacent off- site land uses and to provide transition from lower density to higher density residential development. Finding: The PUD Master Plan has been designed to optimize internal land use relationship through the use of various forms of open space separation. Additionally, most external relationships are automatically regulated by the Land Development Code to ensure harmonious relationships between projects. While this holds true for most of the proposed PUD, the proposed density still needs to be reduced to acceptable levels to help enhance the external relationships; therefore, Staff recommends that the proposed density be reduced and transition from the lower density areas to the higher density northern area ('Pamel "B"). I A ~-~A 3 J.'-,H 1 1 2000 Pg. o The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable. Summary Finding: The amount of open space set aside by this project meets or exceeds the provisions of the Land Development Code. am The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable. Summary Finding: Timing or sequence of development in light of concurrency requirements is not a significant problem (see Staff's Report). The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable. Summary. Finding: Ability, as applied in this context, implies supporting infrastructure such as wastewater disposal system, potable water supplies, characteristics of the property relative to hazards, and capacity of roads, is supportive of conditions emanating from urban development. This assessment is described at length in the staff report adopted by the CCPC. Relative to this petition, development of the subject property is timely, because supporting infrastructure is available. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable. .Summary Finding: This finding essentially requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. The development standards in this PUD are similar to those standards used for the particular housing structures and associated requirements. The proposed density will be conforming if it is held to an acceptable density (see Staff's Report). 4 FINDINGS FOR PUD-98-20/DJM REZONE FINDINGS PETITION PUD-98-20 Section 2.7.2.5. of the Collier County Land Development Code requires that the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners shall show that the Planning Commission has studied and considered the proposed change in relation to the following, where applicable: Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives & policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. Pro: Development orders deemed consistent with all applicable elements of the GMP should be considered a positive relationship. Con: None Summary_ Findings: The PUD as proposed is in compliance the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan with the exception of the proposed density of development. The uses permitted within this PUD are consistent with the currently approved uses. The existing land use pattern; Pro: A more detailed study is contained in the staff report. Con: None Summary_ Findings: The parcel is of a sufficient size that it will not result in an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts because it is consistent with expected land uses by virtue of its location within the Urban Residential Subdistrict on the Future Land Use Element and location within the density band. e The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts; Pro: The proposed rezone is similar to other approved PUDs in this area. Approval of this PUD will not create an unrelated zoning district. Con: Evaluation not applicable. Exhibit "B' 1 JAN 11 2 ,g0 Summary Findinas: The parcel is of sufficient size that it will not result in an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. 0 Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. Pro: The district boundaries are logically drawn and they are consistent with the FLUE of the GMP. Con: None. Summary Findings: Nearby Lands are zoned PUD that will contain similar residential development. In addition, the boundaries are logically drawn by virtue of the site's location within two existing zoned PUD projects. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. Pro: The proposed zoning change is appropriate based on the existing conditions of the property and because its relationship to the FLUE (Furore Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan) is a positive one. Con: None. Summary Findings: With the exception of the proposed density of 8.17 dwelling units per acre, the proposed zoning change is consistent with the Growth Management Plan. e Whether the proposed change will adversely influence Hying conditions in the neighborhood; Pro: (i) Adjacent properties north of Parcel "B" are higher density and located within an activity center. The properties further south and southwest are zoned for lower density (0.4 to 5.0 du's per acre); therefore, the proposed density of development does not adequately buffer or transition from higher densities to lower densities. (ii) The proposed apartment use will be appropriate near the activity center and 1-75. 2 JAN 11 20'00 Pg. Con: (i) Although the PUD will contain a preservation area, proposed demi,ties may be too high for this area. Summary_ Findings: The proposed PUD will not adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood if thc recommended development standards and other conditions are approved to ensure the least amount of adverse impact on adjacent and nearby developments. A lower density should be adopted to ensure that the FLUE policies and objectives to limit densities are being met. e Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. Pro: (i) An action to rezone the property as requested is consistent with the traffic circulation element. (i) The property will access private and public roads providing access to the arterial and collector road system serving the project. Other projects dependent upon the same street system may perceive this result as one which will reduce their perceived comfort levels. Con: (i) As urban intensification increases, there is some loss of comfort and ease of travel to the motoring public. However, by law, this degree of discomfort is regulated by concurrency requirements. (ii) In the short mn construction traffic is necessary for development may be irritating to local residents. Summary_ Findings: Evaluation of this project took into account the requirement for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Traffic Element of the GMP and was found consistent, and, when developed, will not excessively increase traffic congestion. Additionally certain traffic management system improvements may be required as a condition of approval (i.e., turn lanes, traffic signals, dedications, etc.). In the final analysis, all rezone actions are subject to the Concurrency Management System. Se Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem; Pro: (i) The Land Development Code specifically addresses prerequisite development standards that are designed to reduce the risk of flooding on nearby properties. New development in and of itself is not supposed to increase flooding potential on adjacent property over and-above would occur without development. ,,..~, Con: (i) None Summary Findings: Every project approved in Collier County involving the utilization of land for some land use activity is scrutini?~xi and required to mitigate all sub-surface drainage generated by developmental activities as a condition of approval. This project was reviewed for drainage relationships and design and construction plans are required to meet County standards as a condition of approval. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas; Pro: The proposed mixed use development conforms to the approved zoning on the adjacent properties. The overall development standards are compatible with the standards listed for the similar commercial districts in the LDC that are designed to protect the circulation of light and air to adjacent areas. Con: None. Summary_ Findings: All projects in Collier County are subject to the development standards that are unique to the zoning district in which it is located. These development standards and others apply generally and equally to all zoning districts (i.e., open space requirement, corridor management provisions, etc.) were designed to ensure that light penetration and circulation of air does not adversely affect adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area; Pro: Typically urban intensification increases the value of contiguous underutilized land. This project should have little negative impact on surrounding properties if development standards and conditions are followed. Con: Sometimes, urban intensification is perceived as having a negative impact on neighboring property values. Summary Findings: This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results which may be internal or external to the subject property that can affect property values. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning, however zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination by law is driven by market value. The mere fact that a property is given a new zoning designation may or 'may not affect value. The proposed PUD should have a positive impact on property values, especially if it is developed with transition of density and intensity of development. 4 JAN 11 2 00 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations; Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable. Summary Findings: The basic premise underlying the zoning development standards in the LDC is that their sound application, when combined with the site development plan approval process, gives reasonable insurance that a change in zoning will not deter improvement of adjacent property. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public weffare; Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable. Summary Findings: The proposed PUD complies with the Growth Management Plan. Public policy statements support zoning actions when they are consistent with said plan. In light of this fact the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning; Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable. Summary Findings: The subject property can be developed in accordance with the existing zoning, however to do so would deny this petitioner of the opportunity to maximize the development potential of the site as made possible by its consistency relationship with the FLUE as contained in the Growth Management Plan. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County; Pro: The project would comply with the GMP if the proposed density is lowered. Con: The project as proposed on the Master Plan (concept plan) makes it difficult to detcm,ine whether it is designed in a manner that is compatible with surrounding and approved PUD property in size and scale. Summary Findings: The subject PUD does not comply with the Growth M~ Plan as a whole because the intensity of land uses is not deemed acceptable for' 5 proposed. Although the PUD Document appears to address the scale of development, the concept plan makes it difficult to determine the scale and intensity of development because it does not define where units may be located in relation to internal and external development. 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable. Summa~ Findings: There are many sites that are zoned to accommodate the proposed development. This is not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a rezoning decision. The determinants of zoning are consistency with all elements of the GMP, compatibility, adequacy of infi'astmcmre and to some extent the timing of the action and all of the above criteria. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable. Summary Findings: The extent of site alteration will be determined as a function of obtaining a Site Development Plan approval that will further define the PUD. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Comer County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. Pro/Con: Evaluation not applicable. Summary Findings: A multi-disciplined team responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP have reviewed this petition and have found it consistent with the GMP. The ' conditions of approval have been incorporated into the PUD document. Staff reviews for adequacy of public services and levels of service determined that required infrastme~ meets with GIMP established relationships. REZONE FINDINGS R-98-20/DJM JAN 11 2000 COLLIER COUNTY -- APPLICATION FOR PUD REZONE ~ ~ C~V~ [ COO~A~GPL~R: ~ ~~ DA~CE~ ........ Applicant Name (Agent): grdliam L. Hoover, AICP, of Hoover Planning Address: 3785 Airport Road North, Suite B, Naples, FL 34105 Phone: 403-8899 Fax: 403-9009 Property Owner (Petitioner) Name and Address: Mark Bates, President, Gulf Sun Corporatio~ 533 Turtle Hatch Lane, Naples, Forida 34103 Phone: 261-6434 Fax: 261- 6434 Detailed Legal Description of Subject Property: Section 18 Township 49S Range 26E See attached Exhibit "A" Property Identification #: Parcels "A" and "B" = 00287000001 (Spaide Land). Pardi "C" = 00286320009 and 0028636001 (Cook Land), and Parcel "D' = 00286400000 (Rayburn Land). Size of Property: 2270+ Feet x 1,320± Feet (L-shaped) = 76.85± Acres General Location of Subject Property: Located 1/4 mile south of Pine Ridge Road, and encompasses the area north of Night Hawk Drive, between Whippoorwill Lane and 1-75.. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use: ZONING N- Agricultural/PUD E - Right-of-Way W - Right_ -of-Way and tl~ RMF-6/ARric./RSF-5 LAND USE Seagate Baptist Church north of our western 1/2 and Best Western Motel north of our, eastern 1/2. Vacant with 2 scattered single-family homes. 325' wide Imerstate 75 ROW/Drainage Wh~poorwill Lane7 Hospice of Naples and Single-Family homes on Lake. Existing Zoning: Agricultural Proposed Land Use or Range of Uses: PUD with Permitted Uses of coach homes, attached villas/patio homes, townhouses/condomirdums, garden apartments and single- family homes. Does Property Owner own comiguous property to the subject property: If so, give complete legal description of the entire contiguous property: No. Has a public hearing for a rezone been held on this property within the past 12 months? If yes, please write thc rezone application number. No. Is this property curremly vacant? Yes. land use and all existing structures. Signature of Petitioner (~.,) If the answer is no please describe the current Date * If petitioner is a corporation other than a public corporation, so indicate and name officers and major stockholders. * If petitioner is a land trust, so indicate and name beneficiaries. * If petitioner is a partnership, limited partnership or other business entity, so indicate and name principals. * If petitioner is a leasee, attach copy of lease, and indicate actual owners if not indicated on the lease. * If petitioner is a contract purchaser, attach copy of contract, and indicate actual owner's Parcels "A" and "B" are owned by L.E. and Leona Spaide, 1480 NE 103rd Street, Miami Shores, FL 33138 and are under sales contract by the petitioner. Parcel "C" comprises 2 parcels, is owned by Dell E. Cook, Trustee, 27671 Bay Point Lane, Bonita Spring~ FL 34134 and is under sales contract by the petitioner. A trust breakdown is attae~ a.,~ Exhibit "B". Parcel 'D" is owned by JKR Investments, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Suite 6, Camargo House, 1207 Third Street South, Naples, FL 34102. The attach authorization letters demonstrate the petitioner hstq permi~ion to have all of the_ subject land within the PUD rezone& The petitioner is a private corporation whose officers are shown on Exhibit "C". JAN 1I 2ff20 3/ EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF WHIPPOORWILL LAKES PUD Parcels "A" and "B", the Spaide land, described as: A. The S 1/2 of the NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Sec. i8, Twp. 49S, Rng. 26E, Collier County, Florida; subject to existing restrictions and reservations of record; and subject to an easement for public mad right-of-way over and across the East 30 feet thereo~ and B. The SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Sec. 18, Twp. 49S, Rag. 26 E, Collier County, Florida; subject to existing restrictions and reservations of record; and subject to aa easement for public road fight-of-way over and across the West 30 feet thereof and the South 30 feet thereof. Co LESS A parcel of land in Sec. 18, Twp. 49S, Rng. 26E, more particularly described COMMENCE at the SE comer of Sec. 18, Twp. 49S, Rng. 26E; thence North 00039'46" West 2639.68 feet to a point; thence North 00°40'16'. West 1319.90 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence South 89036'42'' West 461.39 feet to a point; ~ North 14°36~28" West 680.88 feet to a point; thence North 89°3T08'' East 625.38 feet to a point; thence South 00°40'16" East 659.95 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Parcel "C", the Cook land, described as: The N 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Sec. 18, Twp. 49S, Rng. 26E, Collier County, Florida; LESS the W 70' thereof and LESS the 1-75 right-of-way. Parcel "D", the Rayburn land, described as: The S 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Sec. 18, Twp. 49S, Rag. 26E, Collier County, Florida; LESS the W 70' thereof and LESS the 1-75 fight-of-way. JAN EXHIBIT "B" 1-75 & PINE RIDGE RD. LAND TRUST SEC. 18-49-26 DELL E. COOK, (TRUSTEE) 27670-B4 BAYPOINT LARE BONITA SPRINGS FL. 34134 PHONE 941-992-5300 JAMES G. COLEMAN 4060 TAMIAMI TR. NAPLES FL. 34103 Ne PHONE 941-261-7776 % of Ownership 25% 25%. WILLIAM SCHROEDER 4482 3rd AVE N.W. GOLDEN GATE, NAPLES PHONE 941-455-5554 FL. 34116 25% LYNN DAFFRON ~854 HARBOR LN. APLES FL. 34109 PHONE 941-774-3737 12.5% JUDITH FRYE 1988 45th ST. ~ ........................................... NAPLES FL. ~// ~ PHONE 941-353-6450 TOTAL 12.5% 100% 2000 Ex~rrBIT "C' Mark Bates is President of GuffSun Corporation, 533 Turtle Hatch Lane, Naples, Florida 34103 and Buford Bates is Secretary-Treasurer of Gulf Sun Corporation. Mark Bates has 100% interest in Gulf Sun Corporation. NOTARIZED AUTHORIZATION LETTER/LETTER OF UNIFIED CONTROL RE: Proposed 78-Acre Residential PUD, Located East of Whippoorwill Lane in Section 18, Township 49S, Range 26E, Unincorporated Collier County, Florida To Whom It May Concern: Please be advised that Passarella and Associates, Inc., 4575 Via Royale, Suite 104, Fort Myers, Florida 33919; Hoover Planning, 3785 Airport Road North, Suite B, Naples, Florida 34105; and Keene Engineering, 3785 Airport Road North, Suite D, Naples, Florida 34105 have been engaged by the contracted purchaser, who is also the applicant, to act as authorized agents and to request necessary applications during the ElS Preparation and Review/PUD Rezoning petition process for the subject project. The applicant also acknowledges to have unified control over all of the acreage within the proposed PUD. Sincerely, Printed Name/Title Signature STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before t~ ,199_~ by /~t~,~.~ who is/are personally known to me or have produced Rs identification and who did (did not) take an oath. Printed Name My Commission Expires: SEAL me this ~I day of F ECE VEE HAR 2 1999 PUD98- NOTARIZED AUTHORIZATION LETTER/LETTER OF UNIFIED CONTROL RE: Proposed 78-Acre Residential PUD, Located East of Whippoorwill Lane in Section 18, Township 49S, Range 26E, Unincorporated Collier County, Florida To Whom It May Concern: Please be advised that Passarella and Associates, Inc., 4575 Via Royale, Suite 104, Fort Myers, Florida 33919; Hoover Planning, 3785 Airport Road North, Suite B, Naples, Florida 34105; and Keene Engineering, 3785 Airport Road North, Suite D, Naples, Florida 34105 have been engaged by contracted purchaser Gulf Sun Corporation, who is also the applicant for the PUD Rezoning, to act as Gulf Sun Corporation's authorized agents and to request necessary applications during the Environmental Impact Study preparation and review/PUD Rezoning petition process for the subject project. The property owner(s) of the land shown on the attached deed, to the best of their knowledge, also acknowledge that Gulf Sun Corporation has unified control over all of the acreage within the proposed PUD. Sincerely, Signature of Property Owner -Z'~'L, .>',--~ ~-. Signature of Property Owner Signature of Property Owner STATE OF COUNTY OF' / The~ foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ day .wl~, ~/~re pem~lly kno~ to ~ or have pr~u~d -- as identifi~tion and ~o did (did not) ~ke an oa~. Notary Public~/' /~/" Printed Nar~ - My Commission Expires: SEAL of 1-2.2-19~g E~: II~PH F'ROH P. 2 NOTARIZED AUTHORIZATION LETTER/LETTER OF UNIFIED CONTROL RE: Proposed 78-Acre Residential PUD, Located East of Whippoorwill Lane in Section 18, Township 49S, Range 26E, Unincorporated Collier County, Florida To Whom It May Concern: Please be advised that Pessarella and Associates, Inc., 4575 V'm Royale, Suite 104, Fort Myers, Florida 33919; Hoover Planning, 3785 Airport Road North, Suite B, Naples, Florida 34105; and Keene Engineering, 3785 Airport Road North, Suite D, Naples, Florida 34105 have been engaged by contracted purchaser Gulf Sun Corporation, who is also the applicant for the PUD Rezoning, to act as Gulf Sun Corporation's authorized agents and to request necessary applications during the Environmental Impact Study preparation and review/PUD Rezoning petition process for the subject project. The property owner(s) of the land shown on the attached deed, to the best of their knowledge, also acknowledge that Gulf Sun Corporation has unified control over all of the acreage within the proposed PUD. Sincerely, Signature of Property Owner Signature of Property Owner ~gnatur~ of Pmj~erty'-O/~ner who is/are personally known to me or have produced ~who did (did not) take an oath. My Commission E~ire$: h/r4 SEAL ~ before me this ~-CJ'I,, day of , .... 2230 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: This is to advise that GULF SUN CORPORATION has the authority to act for L. E. Spaide and Leona Spaide with regard to the rezoning of the property shown in the attached Indenture lying in Section 18, Township 49S, Range 26E, Unincorporated Collier County, Florida. ChaHex~. Spaido, asaa~:tO ey-' - for ~E~ Spaide Charles.~_/Spaide, as ~t6mey-in-fact// for Le~r~ Spaide STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF /-/~t( The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this/d_~ day of February, 1999, by Chades L. Spaide as attorney in fact for L E. Spaide and Leona Spaide, who personally appeared before me at the time of notarization and who are pemonally known to me or who produced ~,'~'¥~; ~/~'~ ¥~ as identification. ~ARY PUBUC My commission expires: And the ~atd Farttla o( the Carat part G harsh? ~utt¥ varranc ciaiml fit al. perlonl vhomlo~Ver. vrttten. ~.EX)N A S PA I O.~, STATE Or F[.ORXD~ ) COUNTY Of OADE' SPAZD£, hLl ItCHAAD J, HORWZCK, ~SQ. LS4L Suflsac DrLva, Sq~td 202 WO]$oALo2 tea r r&nty Deed C0LLID1 COUNTY ~[ 2;: ~0 St~tutocy REC ~ ~B~ Z~DENTUR~, IfiT. ~-~44~e chXs [gth day o~ November, A.D. [9S6, BETNEEN I.. E. SFAID£ 4n.1 L~ONA SPA[O£, nil v[Ee, o~ the CQuncy SPAfDE, NL, w~fe, 4s tendntN tn com~n vttn.cJ~ r~;-' lurvtvora~tp, seve~-tenthl (7//0i to ~. t. SPA[:~ ~ ~nr~l-tent~l ~t.~ce o~ Ftor~d4, e~o~e pGI~ O~tce dddresJ coflstd~rmctons, -o them tn ~nd ~td by the tJ~ :::~;~s o~ the seco~.d,d~ :t, the receipt ~4reof .LI hereGy ~:(~;v:.~;~,,. . ~e' S~CUdt~, and ~nq tn the County A. T~e 5o~t~ half c~ [4sc, ,:olILec County, rloiida/ 9uD[tC rO4d rtqhf.-O~oviy t~et~O~l 4nd ' thereof. C. A pdrCeL Q~ Land C~NCE 4C ~K4 SO~Ch~s: ~o 4 ~fltl thence North thence NOtCh I~e3?'~le [44t JAN I1 Pl. qZ//~l ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF JUNE 2, 1999 Item V.C. IV. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No.: Petition Name: Applicant/Developer: Engineering Consultant: Environmental Consultant: Planned Unit Development No. PUD-98-20 Whippoorwill Lakes PUD Guff Sun Corporation Keene Engineering Passarella and Associates, Inc. LOCATION: Whippoorwill Lakes PUD is an undeveloped 76.85 acre parcel located in the southwest quadrant of Pine Ridge Road and Interstate 1-75 in Section 18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. The site is located approximately ¼ mile south of Pine Ridge Road and comprises the area north of Night Hawk Drive, between Whippoorwill Lane and 1-75. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: Surrounding properties are partially developed with the following zoning classifications. ZONING DESCRIPTION Agricultural (Seagate Baptist Church of Christ) PUD (Sutherland Center) Partially Developed Partially Developed S - R.O.W. Night Hawk Lane Agricultural Partially Developed E - R.O.W. Interstate 1,75 R.O.W. RMF-6 (Hospice) Agricultural RSF-5(0.4) Whippoorwill Lane Developed Partially Developed Undeveloped PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Whippoorwill Lakes PUD is a proposed residential project with a maximum of 628 residential units, recreational facilities, water management lake and preserve area. The residential umts are projected to be developed as garden apartments. Access to the site would be onto Whippoo~rill Lane from Pine ridge Road. The water management system for the project proposes the consm~ction of a perimeter berm crest elevation set at or above the 25-year, 3-day peak flood stage. Water quality pretreatn ent proposed in the on-site lake system prior to discharge to the wetland preserve. EAC Meeting .................................................................................................. Sune 2, 1999 PUD-98-20 "Whippoorwill Lakes PUD" Page 2 Plan of Record: Environmental: Whippoorwill Lakes PUD document prepared by Hoover Planning and Keene Engineering, received by Planning Services on March 24, 1999. Whippoorwill Lakes PUD Collier County Environmental Impact Statement prepared by Passarella and Associates, Inc., dated March, 1999, revised May, 1999. Whippoorwill Lakes PUD Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Nesting Season Survey prepared by Passarella and Associates, Inc., dated May, 1999. V. STAFF COMMENTS: Water Management: The surface water management for this project will be reviewed by the South Florida Water Management District and therefore is exempt from review by the Environmental Advisory Council (5.13.6 CCLDC). Environmental: Approximately 16.1 acres of South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD)/ColIier County jurisdictional wetlands have been identified on the subject property. The jurisdictional wetlands are composed entirely of pine/cypress/cabbage palm mix. Approximately 0.6 acres of impacts to jurisdictional wetlands are proposed, and are shown on Figure 4 on page 11 of the EIS. Project related wetland impacts will be compensated for by enhancing and preserving 96.3 percent of the wetlands on site. Preserved wetlands will be enhanced by hand removal of exotic plant species. Present seasonal high water levels are believed to be at or just below the level of the ground surface within the interior portions of the wetland preserve, Historic high water levels appear to have been at least six inches above the ground surface within the wetland preserve. Elevations of both present and historic high water levels will be surveyed and submitted as part of the South Florida Water Management Disaict perrmt application. Natural ground elevation on site averages around 10.7 feet NGVD. The property has a total of 46.2 acres of uplands. Uplands on site consist of pine flatwoods, pine, pine/cypress, cypress (drained) and disturbed land. The majority of the uplands on-site will be impacted for development of the project. A minimum 15 foot and average 25 foot upland buffer will be maintained around the wetland preserve except for the area adjacent to Whippool'will Lane. According to the Collier County Soils Map, the following three soil types are found on the property: Malabar fmc sand (Unit 3), Oldsmar fmc sand (Unit 16), and Boca, Riviera, limestone substratum and Copeland fine sand, depressional (Unit 25). The types of soil found within the limits of the property are predominantly Unit #3, Malabar fmc sand. Unit #16, Oldsmar fine sand, is found in the northwest portion of the site and Unit #25, Boca, Riviera, limestone substratum and Copeland fine sand, depressional is found in the northeast portion of the site. All soil types encountered on site are listed as hydric with the exception of#16, Oldsmar fmc sand. EAC Meeting .................................................................................................. June 2, 1999 PUD-98-20 "Whippoorwill Lakes PUD" Page 3 A red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) nesting season survey was conducted on the subject property. Morning and evening RCW foraging surveys were conducted over a period of seven consecutive days beginning May 10, 1999 and ending May 16, 1999. Surveys were conducted by ecologists txaversing suitable habitat by foot. Morning observations began approximately 15 minutes to 30 minutes prior to sunrise and ended by. 10:30 a.m.. Evening observations were conducted from approximately 4:30 p.m. to sunset. Visual observations were aided by 8x power binoculars and 46x power spotting scope. Previous listed species surveys conducted on the property included a seven man-hour survey in January, 1999. Additional listed species observations were conducted incidental to over 20 man-hours of on-site activities in November and December, 1998 associated with vegetation mapping and wetland flagging. No RCWs were seen or heard during the nesting season seven-day survey. No RCW cavities were identified on site. Listed wildlife species observed on the subject property include Big Cypress fox squirrel (Sciums niger avicennia), which is listed as threatened by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (FGFWFC). Big Cypress fox squirrels were observed in the pine and pine/cypress habitats. The preservation and enhancement of 15.5 acres of pine-cypress wetland and adjacent upland pine buffer will provide continuing habitat for fox squires on the project site. A review of the official Historical/Archaeological Probability Maps for Collier County indicate no archaeological or historical sites to be located on the subject property. Correspondence from the Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, indicates no significant archaeological or historical sites recorded for or likely to be present within the project area. The letter further states that because of the project location and/or nature it is unlikely that any such sites will be affected. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of Planned Unit Development No. PUD-98-20 "Whippoorwill Lakes PUD" with the following stipulations: Environmental: Amend section 5.2(A)(3) of the PUD document by adding the underlined language and deleting the :~-'-:k Water management structures £ae:22~e: a.v.d e:gen~a! :erAeg:. 2. Amend section 6.10(D) of the PUD document by adding the underlined lan~rua~e. An exotic vegetation removal, monitoring, and maintenance (exotic free) plan for the site, with emphasis on the conservation/preservatiun areas, shall be submitted to Current Planning Environmental Review Staff for review and approval prior to final site plan/construction plan approval. This plan shall include methods and time schedule for removal of exotic vegetation within conservation/preservation areas. 3. Add the following stipulation to section 6.10 of the PUD document. Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commi (FGFWFC) regarding potential impacts to protected wildlife species. Where species are observed on site, a Habitat Management Plan for those protected species sl Petitioner shall comply with the guidelines and recommendations of the U.S. Fish and Pg. EAC Meeting .................................................................................................. June 2, 1999 PUD-98-20 "Whippoorwill Lakes PUD" Page 4 be submitted to Current Planning Environmental Staff for review and approval prior to f'mal site plan/cons~uction plan approval. PKEPAKED BY: STEPHEN LENBERGER ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST II DATE ~WED BY: CUP.RENT PLANNING MANAGER SL/h:,~-_,ACStaffReports DATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROPOSAL TO PREPARE REGULATIONS TO 12qSURE THAT PROPERTIES IN NORTH NAPLES (SECTIONS 18 AND 19, TOWNSH/P 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST) ARE DEVELOPED IN A COORDINATED MANNER WITH REGARD TO PUBLIC ROADS, STORM DRAINAGE, WATER, AND SEWER UTILITIES. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this request is to require the pwperty owners to initiate a collaborative effort to address and resolve the matter of proportionately sharing the cost of infrastructurai impwvements. This is required to insure that the development of these properties proceeds in a coordinated and integrated manner which takes into account the requirement for a local collector public street, from which ail development approvals will interface, and to insure that adequate provision is made for other supporting infrastructure based on the cumulative impact and needs of all of the properties in the defined area. The plan should provide an area-wide, integrated transportation network having the effect of integrating neighborhoods, and providing residents of the area direct access to commercial services located at the intersection of Whip~{I Lane and Pine Ridge Road, and nearby activity centers. The plan should address needed improvements to Whippoorwill Lane and provide for the dedication of land to create an east-west road link between Livingston Road and Whippoorwill Lane, ~ to facilitate traffic movements between Pine Ridge Road and Livingston Road and to reduce impacts at nearby major intersections. The plan should provide for an overall stormwater management system which identifies and provides for necessary stormwater management facilities. The plan should also provide for an overall utility extension plan to evaluate the feasibility of accessing nearby County facilities m order to provide utility service to the area as a whole. CONSIDERATIONS: The site is located west of 1-75, south of Pine Ridge Road, north of Wyndemere PUD and east of the future Livingston Road extension in Section s 18 and 19, Township 49 South, Range 26 East (sec attached map). Cumulatively, these petitions affect approximately 500 acr~ of land. If current zoning requests are approved, 2,448 dwelling units will be authorized for development. Recognizing the desirability of a coordinated development plan staff took the initiative to seek recogn/tion by ail jurisdictional county agencies that we ought to look at this area in a holistic, coordinated manner relative to the requirements for infrasUuctural improvements. Staff from the Depm'tments of Planning Services, Transpo~on Services and Public Works Engineering Division met on August 18, 1999 to discuss how we could achieve this and subsequently ---%C. JL:..:.,~ I JAN ~ 2C~3 met on August 25, 1999 with property owners and their representatives to discuss 01ir concerns ensuring adequacy of infias~c~l requirements including the need for making Whippoorwill Lane a public street and creating an east-west leg to Livingston Road ~(i.e. local collector). Most property owners and their agents appeared receptive to this collaborative effort. Historically smaller rezoning petitions submitted in a piecemeal fashion have failed to address the cumulative impacts of development on land and County facilities. Typic, ally, small scale rezonmgs have unfairly burdened the first developer in an area with having to provide road access and utilities to his site to the benefit of future developments without compensation. Additionally, piecemeal development has resulted in inefficient movement of traffic, lack of neighborhood integration, lack of roadway network intercormection, and in some cases failure to provide for adequate stormwater management and utility expansion needs on a regional basis. Preliminary staff analysis indicates that an additional 500 dwelling units utilizing Whippoorwill Lane for access will cause significant operational difficulties at its future signalized intersection with Pine Ridge Road. In response to this premise, proposed project petitioners retained professional assistance to conduct a traffic impact analysis with particular emphasis on the effect development will have on the intersection of Whippoorwill Lane and Pine Ridge Road. The conclusion of that study advised that improvements to this intersection in the way of turn lane capacity improvements can ameliorate the need to limit the anticipated growth rate that will impact this intersection. This report was reviewed by our Transportation engineering staff and they find fault with the study. Irrespective of this fact, however, staff remains convinced that Whippoorwill Lane and an east/west extension thereof to Livingston Road provides a valid public benefit and should be made a public street. Staffbelieves that the development of a public road providing an east-west link between Livingston Road and Whippoorwill Lane will result in significant benefit to all property owners in the area. Based on land development patterns and the location of commercial facilities, it is staff's opinion that a significant number of drivers living in that area will travel to the south and west. An alternative east-west route for motorists who desire to travel south from Whippoorwill Lane, will not force motorists to the intersection of Whippoorwill Lane and Pine Ridge Road, then back to the intersection of Livingston Road to Pine Ridge road, in order to access Livingston road to head south. An east-west link coupled with the extension of Whippoorwill Lane to the boundary of the proposed Livingston woods PUD will provide property owners fronting Livingston Road direct access to Livingston Road to access commercial facilities located at the intersection of Pine Ridge Road and Whippoorwill Lane, without having to travel on Pine Ridge Road. The proposed east-west link will also serve to integrate neighborhoods within the area, while providing for efficient traffic circulation and alternative routes to access nearby commercial facilities. Preliminary staff analysis indicates that there could be sufficient storage of stormwatex discharge through various existing canals and nearby lakes provided stormwater maxmgement is properly planned to address the cumulative impacts proposed by development of land in the area, including the water runoff reciting from the future Livingston Road. The existing Kensmgston Canal which mm east- west between the proposed Livingswn Village PUD and Balmoral PUD is a private drainago easement for which the County is currently in the process of obtaining rights pursuam to the need ~or ~. i, for Livingston Road. Should the County fail to obtain usage rights and/or additional land area to expand its capacity, storrnwater runoff fi.om Liv/ngston Road will have to be accommodated otherwise. A area w/de master plan will allow developers and the County to properly plan for and obtain necessary easements and land in order to properly accommodate stormwater flow from property in this area, Staff has been informed that it is also the desire of the South Florida Water management District and Army corps for a area wide plan which addresses cumulative stormwater impacts, County wastewater and potable water facilities exist within thc area. Specifically, there is an existing I6" water main and a 10" force main along the Livingston Road corridor and an 8" force main on Pine Ridge Road. The plan should also provide for an overall utility extension plan to evaluate the feasibility of accessing nearby County facilities, and a plan to extend them to serve proposed development. Most importantly, the plan should evaluate thc availability of sufficient capacity in the system to serve ail of the proposed development. FISCAL IMPACT: A general overview of the fiscal impact would indicate that developer-funded improvements will have a minimal fiscal impact to the County. Properly accounting at this time for infrastructural improvements based on the entire area and having these costs borne by the property owners will avoid future costs to homeowners that may have otherwise resulted from the typical project by project development process. Any cost to the County would occur mostly in terms of staff review time associated with the submission of such a plan. The cost of the review is typically recovered in required fees at the time of re'zoning application, for which such a plans will be utilized. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The approval of this request will not affect or change the requirements of the Growth Management Plan. The request is consistent with the applicable elements of the Growth Management Plan and will have the effect of identifying cumulative impacts of a development on a specific region which has the objective of minimizing negative impacts on adopted level of service standards for County facilities. RECOMMENDATION: Staff rec, ommellds that the Board of County Commissioners go on record indicating that each and every application for re'zoning approval demonstrate a commitment to proportionate sharing of costs of infraztructural improvements including the establishment of a public local collector road consisting of thre~ optional locations in order of priority, Whippoorwill Lane and an east-west leg .extension to Livingston Road and further that the aliment of said east/west road be prioritized in the order in which they are listed as follows: 1. South and near parallel the Section line between 18 and 19 and Kensmgston Canal. 2. Parallel to the FP & L Easement. 3. Extension of Night Hawk Drive. Further that the following stipulation be made common to each rezonmg approval. The issuance of building permits will be suspended upon the issuance of pe~-mits for five hundred ($00) dwelling units in the event that at such time Livingston Road is not yet completed for public travel between Golden Gate Parkway and Pine Ridge Road. Prior to the completion of construction of Livingston Road, Whippoorwill Lane and its east/west connector to Livingston Road shall be constructed to county collector wad standards, and dedicated to the County. Impact fee credits in part may be made for conslruction of said roadway from Pine Ridge Road to Livingston Road in the event said road is included on the traffic way map to the Traffic Circulation Element as an urban collector road. Adequate right-of-way as determined by the County's Transportation Department for Whippoorwill Lane and an east/west road shall be conveyed to Collier County pursuant to the provisions of Section 2.2.20.3.7. (i.e. 90 days following rezone action). The costs for acquisition of land for the eas-t/w~ right-of-way shall be borne ~onately by all benefiting property owners having frontage on Whippoorwill Road or its easO~est extension including the most southerly parcel of land. Area wide drainage facilities and appurtenances including land requirements shall be under the control of Collier County. Prorated improvement costs to benefiting property owners shall have been determined and approved by said property owners. Both of these actions will take place prior to the issuance of building permits. A sanitary sewer collection system and potable water supply distribution system shall be designed having areawide design standard specifications as determined acceptable to thz Collier County Public Works En~neermg Division Design specifications resulting in incurt~ costs to a project having areawide benefits will be prorated against all benefiting propea~ owner~ Both of these actions will take place prior to approval of any subdivision phi or site development plan. Staff further recommends that the Real Property division be~n negotiating the acquisition of fight-of- way along Whippoorwill Lane for properties for which no application is being made for a _revonlng action. PREPARED BY RONALD F. NINO, AICP CURRENT PLANNING MANAGER DATE REVIEWED BY: ROBERT J. MULl:iF. RE, AICP PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR DATE APPROVED BY: VINCENT A. CAUTERO, AICP, ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNITY DEV. AND ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS. DATE LIVINGSTON ROAD PUD EX SUMMARY/md 1i COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION (941) Planning Services Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples. Florida 34104 FAX ligMORA.NDUM 643-3266 or (941) 643-6968 TO DATE: t~--' 7--~ 7 TIME: FIP. M/DEPARTMENT: CITY, STATE: FROM DEPARTMENT: TELEPHONE: TOTAL PAGES INCLUDINO COVER SHEET: SPECIAL INSTRUCTION: Phone 19.11 ~ .~03-2400 Fax (941) 643-6968 ORDINANCE NO. 2000- ,'N ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 91-102 THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS MAP NUMBER 9618N; BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM "A" AGRICULTURE TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS WHIPPOORWILL LAKES PUD FOR A MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT NOT TO EXCEED 518 DWELLING UNITS, LOCATED ONE- QUARTER MILE SOUTH OF PINE RH)GE ROAD (C.R. 896) AND NORTH OF NIGHT HAWK DRIVE BETWEEN WHIPPOORWILL LANE AND INTERSTATE ?5 IN SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 49 SOU'IH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF ?6.85_+ ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Wilham L. Hoover, AICP, of Hoover Pla.ning, representing Mark Bates. petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida: SECTION ONE: The zoning class~cafion of the hereto described real property located in Section 18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from "A" Agricultural to "PUD" Planned Unit Development in accordance with the Whippoon~ill Lakes PUD Document, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference herein. The Official Zoning Atlas.Map Number 9618N, as described in Ordln~.ce Number 91-102, the Collier County Land Development Code, is hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective upon £tling with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida~ this . day of ,2000. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIO1VERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AITEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk BY: CHAIRMAN Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency Marjo~d:- M. Student Assistant County Attorney g/PUD-98-20 ORDINANCE/ts -1- No..~...~...~'--~ JAN 1 1 2000 WHIPPOORWILL LAKES PUD A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PREPARED FOR: GULF SUN CORPORATION MARK BATES, PRESIDENT 533 TURTLE HATCH LANE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34103 PREPARED BY: WILLIAM L. HOOVER, AICP HOOVER PLANNING 3785 AIRPORT ROAD NORTH, SUITE B NAPLES, FLORIDA 34105 and BEAU KEENE, P.E. KEENE ENGINEERING 538 NINTH AVENUE SOUTH NAPLES, FLORIDA 34102 DATE FILED DATE REVISED DATE REVIEWED BY CCPC DATE APPROVED BY BCC ORDINANCE NUMBER EXHIBIT "A" Mamh 19, 1999 July 14, 1999 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF EXHIBITS STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SECTION III RESIDENTIAL AREAS PLAN SECTION IV PRESERVE AREAS PLAN SECTION V DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS PAGE i ii 3 5 8 14 JA~] 1 I 2:?3 Pg. LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT 'A' EXHIBIT "B' EXHIBIT 'C' EXHIBIT 'D' EXHIBIT 'E' EXHIBIT 'F' EXHIBIT 'G' PUD MASTER PLAN PUD WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DEPICTION OF ARCHITECTURALLY DESIGNED POLE LIGHTING DEPICTION OF ARCHITECTURALLY DESIGNED POLE LIGHTING DEPICTION OF PROJECT ENTRY SIGN DEPICTION OF PROJECT ENTRY SIGN LEGAL DESCRIPTION STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE The development of approximately 76.85~ acres of property in Collier County, as a Planned Unit Development to be known as Whippoorwill Lakes PUD will be in compliance with the planning goals and objectives of Collier County as set forth in the Collier County Growth Management Plan. The residential facilities of the Whippoorwill Lakes PUD will be consistent with the growth policies, land development regulations, and applicable comprehensive planning objectives for the following roasons: The subject property's location in relation to existing or proposed community facilities and services permits the development's residential density as described in Objective 2 of the Future Land Use Element. The project development is compatible and complimentary to surrounding land uses as required in Policy 5.4 of the Future Land Use Element. Improvements are planned to be in compliance with applicable sections of the Collier County Land Development Code as set forth in Objective 3 of the Future Land Use Element. The project development will result in an efficient and economical allocation of community facilities and services as required in Policies 3.1.H and 3.1.L of the Future Land Use Element. The project development is planned to protect the functioning of natural drainage features and natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas as described in Objective 1.5 of the Drainage Sub-Element of the Public Facilities ElemenL The project is located partially (11.42 acres) within the Mixed Use Interstate Activity Center and the remaining land (65.43 acres) is within the Residential Density Band of the Urban Residential Mixed Use District around the Pine Ridge Road - Interstate 75 Activity Center, on the Future Land Use Map. The projected density of 6.74 dwelling units per acre is in compliance with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan based on the following relationships to required criteria: Land Within Residential Density Band Base Density 4 dwelling units/acre Activity Center Density Band +3 dwelling units/acre Maximum Permitted Density 7 dwelling units/acre 65.43 acres x 7 dwelling units/acre = maxinmm of 458 units Land Within the Mixed Use Activity Center Activity Center 16 dwellin.q units/acre Maximum Permitted Density 16 dwelling units/acre 11.42 acres x 16 dwelling units/acre = maximum of 182 units Entire Project Area Maximum number of units on entire project = 458 + 182 = 640 units. Maximum permitted density = 640 units,r76.85 acres = 8.33 dwelling units/acre. All final local development orders for this project are subject to Division 3.15, Adequate Public Facilities, of the Collier County Land Development Code. SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the location and ownership of the property, and to descdbe the existing conditions of the property proposed to be developed under the project name of Whippoorwill Lakes PUD. LEGAL DESCRIPTION The subject property being 76.85+ acres, and located in Section 18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, and as described on Exhibit 'G': PROPERTY OWNERSHIP All of the property is under sales contract held by: Mark Bates, Gulf Sun Corporation, 533 Turtle Hatch Lane, Naples, Florida 34103. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AREA Ao The subject property is located 1/4 mile south of Pine Ridge Road, and encompasses the area north of Night Hawk Drive, between Whippoorwill Lane and the western boundary of the Interstate 75 right-of way (unincorporated Collier County), Florida. The entire project site currently has Agricultural Zoning, with part of the land having a Special Treatment Overlay, and is proposed to be rezoned to PUD. PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION The project site is located within the 1-75 Gate Canal Drainage Basin according to the Collier County Drainage Atlas. The proposed outfall for the project is the existing borrow pit located on the eastern portion of the subject property. This existing water body discharges into the D-2 Canal, located along the eastern side of 1-75, via existing canal cross drains. The peak discharge rate from the design storm will be limited to 0.15 cubic feet per second/acre per Collier County Ordinance No. 90-10. 3 Natural ground elevation averages 10.7 NGVD. The entire site is located within FEMA Flood Zone 'X' with no base flood elevation specified. The water management system for the project proposes the construction of a pedrneter berm with crest elevation set at or above the 25-year, 3-day peak flood stage. Water quality pretreatment is proposed in the on-site lake system prior to discharge to the wetland preserve areas. The water management system will be permitted by South Flodda Water Management District (SFWMD) through the Environmen[al Resource Permit process. All rules and regulations of SFWMD will be imposed upon this project including but not limited to: storm attenuation with a peak discharge rate of 0.15 cfs/acre; minimum roadway centerline, perimeter berm and finished floor elevations; water quality pre-treatment; and wetland hydrology maintenance. Per Collier County Soil Legend, dated January 1999, the types of soil found within the limits of the property are predominantly #3 - Malabar Fine Sand. Number 16 Oldsmar Fine Sand is found along the northern property line and a small pocket of #25 - Boca, Riviera, Limestone Substratum and Copeland Fine Sands, Depressional can be found within the northeast portion of the site. Ail soil types encountered on the site are listed as hydric with the exception of #16 - Oldsmar Fine Sand located along the northern portion of the site. The site vegetation consists primarily of FLUCCS #624 - pine cypress cabbage palm areas, primarily drained with about 113 of this area likely to be considered wetland jurisdictional, and FLUCCS ~,411 - pine flatwoods, primarily disturbed, The project as proposed will incorporate restored upland and wetland preserve areas maintained in a contiguous arrangement. 1.6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1.7 The Whippoorwill Lakes PUD is a project comprised of a maximum of 518 residential units. The residential units are projected to be developed as garden apartments. Recreational facilities will be provided in conjunction with the dwelling units. Residential land uses, recreational uses, and signage are designed to be harmonious with one another in a natural setting by using common architecture, quality screeningFouffedng, and native vegetation, whenever feasible. ~HQRT TITLE This Ordinance shall be known and cited as the "Whippoorwill Lakes Planned Unit Development Ordinance'. '--"~-~-~. JAN 11 2.1 2.2 SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to delineate and generally describe the project plan of development, relationships to applicable County ordinances, the respective land uses of the tracts included in the project, as well as other project relationships. GENERAL Regulations for development of the Whippoorwill Lakes PUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this document, PUD - Planned Unit Development District and other applicable sections and parts of the Collier County Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan in effect at the time of issuance of any development order to which said regulations relate which authorizes the construction of improvements, such as but not limited to Final Subdivision Plat, Final Site Development Plan, Excavation Permit and Preliminary Work ^uthodzation. Where these regulations fail to provide developmental standards, then the provisions of the most similar district in the Land Development Code shall apply. Bo Unless otherwise noted, the definitions of all terms shall be the same as the definitions set forth in the Collier County Land Development Code in effect at the time of building permit application. Co All conditions imposed and graphic material presented depicting restrictions for the development of the Whippoorwill Lakes PUD shall become part of the regulations which govern the manner in which the PUD site may be developed. Do Ail applicable regulations, unless specifically waived, modified, or excepted by this PUD Document, shall remain in full force and effect. Development permitted by the approval of this petition will be subject to a concurrency review under the provisions of Division 3.15 Adequate Public Facilities of the Collier County Land Development Code at the earliest or next to occur of either Final Site Development Plan approval, Final Plat approval, or building permit issuance applicable to this development. 2.3 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT DENSITY OR INTENSITY OF LAND USES 2.4 2.5 2.6 A maximum of 518 dwelling units shall be constructed in the residential areas of the project. The gross project area is 76.85+ acres. The gross project density shall be a maximum of 6.74 units per acre. RELATED PROJECT PLAN APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS The general configuration of the land uses are iljustrated graphically on Exhibit "A", PUD Master Plan, which constitutes the required PUD Development Plan. Any division of the property and the development of the land shall be in compliance with the PUD Master Plan, Division 3.2 Subdivisions of the Land Development Code, and the platting laws of the State of Flodda. The provisions of Division 3.3, Site Development Plans of the Land Development Code, when applicable, shall apply to the development of all platted tracts, or parcels of land as provided in said Division 3.3 prior to the issuance of a building permit or other development order. Appropriate instruments will be provided at the time of infrastructural improvements regarding any dedications to Collier County and the methodology for providing perpetual maintenance of common facilities. MODEL UNITS AND SALES FACILITIES In conjunction with the promotion of the development, residential units may be designated as models. Such model units shall be governed by Section 2.6.33.4 of the Collier County Land Development Code. Bo Temporary sales trailers and construction trailers can be placed on the site after Site Development Plan approval subject to the requirements of Section 2.6.33.3 of the Land Development Code. PROVISION FOR OFF-SITE REMOVAL OF EARTHEN MATERIAL The excavation of earthen material and its stock-piling in preparation of water management facilities or to otherwise develop water bodies is hereby permitted. If after consideration of fill activities on those buildable portions of the project site are such that there is a surplus of earthen material, then its off-site disposal is also hereby permitted subject to the following conditions: Excavation activities shall comply with the definition of a 'Development Excavation' pursuant to Section 3.5.5.1.3 of the Land Development Code, whereby off-site removal shall be limited to 10% of the total volume excavated but not to excccd 20,000 cubic yards. Ail other provisions of Division 3.5 Excavation of the Land Development Code shall apply. 3.1 3.2 3.3 PURPOSE SECTION III RESIDENTIAL AREAS PLAN The purpose of this Section is to identify specific development standards for the Residential Areas as shown on Exhibit "A", PUD Master Plan. MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS The maximum number of residential dwelling units within the PUD shall be 518 units. If the petitioner has not acquired title to the Dog Ranch Road right-of-way, north of Nighthawk Drive and internal to the project, prior to Site Development Plan approval the project shall be reduced to a maximum of 506 dwelling units. PERMITTED USES No building, structure or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following: A. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures: 1. Single-family dwellings (includes zero-lot line). 2. Two-family dwellings (includes duplexes). 3. Multi-family dwellings (includes townhouses, garden apartments, villas, coach homes, and carriage homes). 4. Any other use deemed comparable in nature by the Development Services Director. B. Permi.tted Accessory Uses and Structures: 1. Customary accessory uses and structures associated with the permitted principal uses including garages, and utility buildings. 2. Recreational uses and facilities including swimming pools, tennis courts, volleyball courts, children's playground areas, tot lots, boat docks, pitching and putting golfing facilities, walking paths, picnic buildings, verandahs, and basketball/shuffle areas, recreation board courts. 3.4 Manager's residences and offices, temporary sales trailers, and model units. 4. Gatehouse and entrance features. o Essential services, including interim and permanent utility and maintenance facilities. Any other accessory use deemed comparable by the Development Services Director. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Table I sets forth the development standards for land uses within the Whippoorwill Lakes PUD. Front yard setbacks in Table I shall be measured as follows: If the parcel is served by a public or private right-of-way, the setback is measured from the adjacent right-of-way line. If the parcel is served by a non-platted private drive, the setback is measured from the back of curb or edge of pavement. If the parcel is served by a platted private ddve, the setback is measured from the road easement or property line. (a) Carports are permitted within parking areas. (b) Garages are permitted at the edge of vehicular pavement which provides access to a designated parking space; however, garages shall use a parking apron of at least fiften (15) feet separating the garage from the edge of curb on a private right-of-way without sidewalks or fifteen (15) feet from a sidewalk. TABLE I RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS STANDARDS Minimum Lot Area (oer unit) Minimum Lot Width Front Yard Setback Side Yard Setback 1 Story 2 Story 3 Story Rear Yard Setback Principal Structure Accessory Structure PUD Boundary Setback (3) Principal Structure Accessory Structure Lake Setback (5) Preserve Area Setback Distance Between Structures Main/Principal 1-Story 2-Story 3-Story Accessory Structures Maximum HeiRht: Principal Building Accessory Building Minimum Floor Ama SINGLE-FAMILY 6,000 Sq. Ft. 60' Interior Lots (1) 70' Comer Lots 25' 0' & 10' or both 5' 0' & 15' or both 7.5' NA TWO-FAMILY 7,200 Sq. Ft. 1 Acre 80' Interior Lots (1) 150' (40')(2) 100' Comer Lots (50')(2) 25' 20' 0' & 15' or both 7.5' 0' & 20' or both 10' NA MULTI-FAMILY Greater of 7.5' or 1/2 BH Greater of 10' or 1/2 BH Greater of 12.5' or 1/2 BH 20' 20' 25' 10' 10' 10' 20' 20' 20' H) 10' 10' 10' 20' 20' 20' 25' 25' 25' 15' 20' 20' 20' NA NA 10' 10' 35' and 2 stodes 35' and 2 stories 20'lClubhouse 35' 20'/Clubhouse 35' 1200 Sq. Ft. 1100 Sq. Ft. Greater of 15' or 1/2 SBH Greater of 20' or 1/2 SBH Greater of 25' or 1/2 SBH 10' 40' and 3 stories 20'lClubhouse 35' I bedroom -- 650 Sq. Ft. 2 Bedroom = 900 Sq. Ft. 3 Bedroom = 1100 Sq. Ft. (1) May be reduced on cul-de-sac lots upon approval by the Director of Planning. (2) Minimum lot frontage in parenthesis applies in cases where a dwelling unit in a 2-family structure is on an individually platted lot. (3) PUD Boundary setback shall be a minimum of seventy-five feet adjacent to the cellular tower, that is located at the southeast comer of the Seagate Baptist Church. (4) Three-story buildings shall be set back a minimum of seventy-five feet from Whippoorwill Lane ROW. (5) Lake setbacks are measured from the control elevation established for the lake. SBH refers to 'Sum of Building Heights'. l0 B. Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements: Co As required by Division 2.3 of the Land Development Code in effect at the time of building permit application. Open Space/Natural Habitat Preserve Area Requirements: A minimum of sixty (60) percent open space, as described in Section 2.6.32 of the Land Development Code, shall be provided on-site. A minimum of twenty-five (25) percent of the viable naturally functioning native vegetation on-site (natural habitat preserve area), including both the understory and the ground cover emphasizing the largest contiguous area possible, shall be retained on-site, as described in Section 3.9.5.5.3 of the Land Development Code. Landscapin,q and Buffedn.q Requirements: A berm, wall, fence, or combination thereof, may be provided by the developer adjacent to the eastern PUD boundary along Interstate 75. Such buffer may have occasional openings to provide glimpses of the project from Interstate 75. In order to maximize security and minimize impacts on existing trees, walls or fences may comprise up to eight (8) feet in height of any berm/wall or berm/fence combination. If landscape buffers are determined to be necessary adjacent to wetland preserve areas, they shall be separate from those preserve areas. e A twenty-five (25) foot buffer shall be provided where a multi-family project is adjacent to any single-family or two-family project within the PUD. All other landscaping shall be in accordance with Division 2.4 of the Land Development Code. Architectural Standard; 1. Ail buildings, lighting, signage, and architecturally and aesthetically unified. 1! landscaping shall be Said unified architectural Fe theme shall include: a similar architectural design and use of similar materials and colors throughout all of the buildings, signs, and fences/walls to be erected on all of the subject parcels. Landscaping and streetscape materials shall also be similar in design throughout the subject site. All buildings shall be primarily finished in light subdued colors with stucco except for decorative trim. Within any multi-family project all roofs, except for carports, shall be peaked and finished in file or metal. Within any single- family or two-family project all roofs, except for carports, shall be peaked and finished in tile, metal, or architectural designed shingles (such as Timberline). o Ail pole lighting, internal to the project, shall be architecturally designed, limited to a height of thirty (30) feet, and similar architecturally to one of the lighting fixtures shown on Exhibits 'C' or 'D'. Sians Signs shall be permitted as described within Division 2.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code, except as described in the following instances. Up to two (2) ground or wall signs shall be permitted at the main entrances to the PUD and located within the interior of the PUD. Such sign(s) shall contain only the name of the entire 76.85_+-acre PUD project, names of individual communities within the PUD project, and insignia or mottos of the development. Such ground or wall sign(s) shall be similar architecturally to one of the signs shown in Exhibits 'E' or 'F' and architecturally compatible with the unified architectural theme of the entire PUD (as described in Section 3.4E. of this PUD Document). Said ground or wall sign(s) shall not exceed a combined area of sixty-four (64) square feet, and shall not exceed the height or length of the wall upon which it is located. A ground sign shall be permitted along the eastern PUD boundary adjacent to Interstate 75. Such sign shall contain only the name of the entire 76.85-z--acre PUD project and shall be compatible architecturally with the unified architectural theme of the PUD (as described in Section 3.4E. of this PUD Document). Exclusive of landscaping, such ground sign shall not ex, cd an area of twenty- four (24) square feel Density The densities on Parcels ^, C, and D shall be 6 dwelling units per acre unless the owner(s) of such parcel(s) provide(s) written notice to Collier County Development Services that it will accept a lower density on such parcel(s). 13 4.1 4.2 SECTION N PRESERVE AREAS PLAN PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to identify specific development standards for the Preserve Areas as shown on Exhibit "A", PUD Master Plan. PERMITTED USES No building, structure or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following: A. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures: 1. Passive recreational areas including recreational shelters. 2. Biking, hiking, and nature trails, and boardwalks. 3. Water management structures. 4. Native preserves and wildlife sanctuaries. 5. Supplemental landscape planting, screening and buffering within the Natural Habitat Preserve Areas, after the appropriate environmental review. 6. Any other use deemed comparable in nature by the Development Services Director. 14 SECTION V DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 5.1 5.2 5.3 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the commitments for the development of this project. GENERAL All facilities shall be constructed in strict accordance with Final Site Development Plans, Final Subdivision Plans and all applicable State and local laws, codes, and regulations applicable to this PUD, in effect at the time of Final Plat. Final Site Development Plan approval or building permit application as the case may be. Except where specifically noted or stated otherwise, the standards and specifications of the official County Land Development Code shall apply to this project even if the land within the PUD is not to be platted. The developer, his successor and assigns, shall be responsible for the commitments outlined in this document. The developer, his successor or assignee, shall follow the PUD Master Plan and the regulations of this PUD as adopted and any other conditions or modifications as may be agreed to in the rezoning of the property. In addition, any successor in title or assignee is subject to the commitments within this Agreement. PUD MASTER PLAN Exhibit "A", PUD Master Plan iljustrates the proposed development and is conceptual in nature. Proposed area, lot or land use boundaries or special land use boundaries shall not be construed to be final and may be varied at any subsequent approval phase such as Final Platting or Site Development Plan approval. Subject to the provisions of Section 2.7.3.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code, amendments may be made ~om time to time. All necessary easements, dedications, or other instruments shall be granted to insure the continued operation and maintenance of all service utilities and all common areas in the project. ]5 5.4 SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT/MQNITQRING REPORT 5.5 5.6 5.7 A Site Development Plan shall be submitted per County regulations in effect at time of site plan submittal. The project is projected to be completed in one (1) or two (2) phases. The landowners shall pro,cd and be govemed according to the lime limits pursuant to Section 2.7.3.4 of the Land Development Code. Monitoring Report: An annual monitoring report shall be submitted pursuant to Section 2.7.3.6 of the Collier County Land Development Code. ENGINEERING This project shall be required to meet all County Ordinances in effect at the lime final construction documents are submitted for development approval. Bo Design and construction of all improvements shall be subject to compliance with appropriate provisions of the Collier County Land Development Code, Division 3.2. Subdivisions. WATER MANAGEMENT A copy of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) Surface Water Permit Application shall be sent to Collier County Development Services with the SDP submittal. A copy of the approval of this SFWMD Surface Water Permit shall be submitted prior to Final Site Development Plan Approval. An Excavation Permit will be required for any proposed lakes in accordance with Division 3.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code and SFWMD Rules. Lake setbacks from the perimeter of the PUD may be reduced to twenty- five (25) feet where a six (6) foot high fence or suitable substantial barrier is erected. i~'ILITIE~ Water distribution, sewage collection and transmission and interim water and/or sewage treatment facilities to serve the project are to be designed, 16 5.8 5.9 5.10 constructed, conveyed, owned and maintained in accordance with Collier County Ordinance No. 97-17, as amended, and other applicable County rules and regulations. Bo No on-site central sewage collection, treatment and disposal systems shall be permitted. TRAFFIC The applicant shall be responsible for the installation of arterial level street lighting at all project entrances. Installation shall be in place prior to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy. Co Substantial competent evidence shall be provided by the developer to the effect that the project is designed to provide capacity and treatment for historical roadway runoff. In addition, site drainage shall not be permitted to discharge directly into any roadway drainage system. / Road Impact Fees shall be paid in accordance with Ordinance 92-22, as amended, and shall be paid at the time building permits are issued unless otherwise approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Whippoorwill Lane shall be extended by the developer, unless previously extended by other area developers, and such extension shall be to minimum Collier County construction standards. The portion of Whippoorwill Lane on the subject site shall be dedicated to Collier County, upon completion of construction. PLANNING Pursuant to Section 2.2.25.8.1 of the Land Development Code, if during the course of site clearing, excavation or other construction activity a historic or archaeological artifact is found, all development within the minimum area necessary to protect the discovery shall be immediately stopped and the Collier County Code Enforcement Department contacted. Bo A lake access, with associated recreational facilities, shall be constructed by the developer and made available to all residents of the subject project. ENVIRONMENTAL ]7 Co Do Eo Environmental permitting shall be in accordance with the State of Flodda Environmental Resource Permit Rules and be subject to review and approval by the Current Planning Environmental Review Staff. Removal of exotic vegetation shall not be counted towards mitigation for impacts to Collier County jurisdictional wetlands. All conservation areas shall be designated as conservation/preservation tracts or easements on all construction plans and shall be recorded on the plat with protective covenants per or similar to Section 704.06 of the Flodda Statutes. Buffers shall be provided in accordance with Section 3.2.8.3.4 of the Collier County Land Development Code. In the event the project does not require platting, all conservation areas shall be recorded as conservation/preservation tracts or easements dedicated to an approved entity or to Collier County with no responsibility for maintenance and subject to the uses and limitations similar to or as per Section 704.06 of the Florida Statutes. Buffers shall be provided around any wetlands, extending at least fifteen (15) feet landward from the edge of wetland preserves in all places and averaging twenty-five (25) feet from the landward edge of wetlands. Where natural buffers are not possible, structural buffers shall be provided in accordance with the State of Florida Environmental Resources Permit Rules and be subject to review and approval by the Current Planning Environmental Review Staff. An exotic vegetation removal, monitoring, and maintenance (exotic-free) plan for the site, with emphasis on the conservation/preservation areas, shall be submitted to Current Planning Environmental Review Staff for review and approval pdor to Final Site Development Plan/Construction Plan approval. This plan shall include methods and a time schedule for removal of exotic vegetation within conservation/preservation areas. Petitioner shall comply with the guidelines and recommendations of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (FGFWFC) regarding potential impacts to protected wildlife species. Where protected species are observed on- site, a Habitat Management Plan for those protected species shall be submitted to Current Planning Environmental Staff for review and approval prior to final site plan/construction plan approval. 18 Ltllltllllllllllllltlllllllltllll,lllllllltlltll Illll ~tlllllllillllll~lllllillllllliit:~llllllllllllll illll kt itltltltllll~llllllllillllill'llllllllllllll ..llllllllll' II ExI4mrr "C' DEPICTION OF AKCI-IrrECrURALLY DESIGNED POLE LIGHTING EXHmlT "D" DEPICTION OF ARCHTI~CTURALLY DESIGNED POLE LIGHTING EXI-rmlT "E" DEPICTION OF PKOJECr ENTKY SIGN ~rr "F- DEPICTION OF PRO/ECT ENTRY SIGN J.Z'~'~l ! t 2:?] EXIIIBIT 'O~ LEOAL DESCRIPTION OF WHIPPOORWILL LAKES PUD Parcels "A" and "B", the Spaide land, described as: A. The S 1/2 of the NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Sec. 18, Twp. 49S, Rng. 26E, Collier County, Florida; subject to existing restrictions and reservations of record; and subject to an easement for public road right-of-way over and across the East 30 feet thereof; and B. The SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Sec. 18, Twp. 49S, Rng. 26 E, Collier County, Florida; subject to existing restrictions and reservations of record; and subject to an easement for public road fight-of-way over and across the West 30 feet thereof and the South 30 feet thereof. LESS A parcel of land in Sec. 18, Twp. 49S, Rail. 26E, more particularly descn'bed COMMENCE at the SE comer of Sec. 15, TWP. 49S, Rng. 26E; thence North 00039'46" West 2639.68 feet to a point; thence North 00°40'16" West 1319.90 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence South 89036'42'' West 461.39 feet to a point; thence North 14036"28" West 680.88 feet to a point; thence North 89°37'08" East 625.38 feet to a point; thence South 00°40'16'' East 659.95 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Parcel "C", the Cook land, described as: The N 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Sec. 18, Twp. 49S, Rng. 26E, Collier County, Florida; LESS the W 70' thereof and LESS the 1-75 fight-of-way. Parcel "D", the Raybum land. described as: The S 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Sec. 18, Twp. 49S, Rng. 26E, Collier County, Florida; LESS the W 70' thereof~ LESS the 1-75 fight-of-way. ........ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ADOPT AN ORDINANCE REVISING THE ROAD IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE (CONTINUED FROM THE DECEMBER 14, 1999, BOARD MEETING). OBJECTIVE: To present a proposed road impact fee rate schedule (the "Schedule") to the. Board and to the public, to receive .input from both and to have the Board adopt an Ordinance incorporating the new fees. CONSIDERATIONS: On October 26, 1999, (Agenda Item 8B1), the Board received a status report and a preview of a proposed new Schedule for road impact fees. At that meeting, staff requested and received approval to proceed to a Public Hearing for presentation of the proposed Schedule to the public. The proposed Ordinance is attached (Attachment No. 1). At its December 14, 1999 meeting the Board directed staff to meet with the Development Services Advisory Committee (DSAC) and receive further input. That meeting was scheduled for January 5, 2000. The findings and recommendations arising from that meeting are not available in time for the Agenda printing deadline and x~ill be made available to the Bom'd and to the public before the ~neeting. Attachment No. 2 is a copy of the Consultant's (Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc. [TOA]) Summary Report. This document provides a brief background of the methodology of reviewing the cun'ent road impact fees and details the factors and parameters'used in determining the proposed revi~cd fee ~chcdule Four fee tables are included in the report. The first table (Table "A") is based on maintaining the original allocation of gas taxes with respect to capital funding and keeping the full local option gas taxes in place or replacing them with other revenue sources. The last table (Table "D") assumes that the Five-cent Local Option Gas Tax, expiring December 31, 2003, is not renewed. Table "D" also assumes that the Board will continue the present fiscal policy of re-allocating one cent of the Six-cent Local Option Gas Tax each year for seven years to maintenance. Table "D" is based on the assumption that the re-allocation and the sunsetting will take place simultaneously and instantaneously. It is not a likely scenario, but has been prepared as a nlca:~ o1' dcmt):~stI'aU nga "vv ors~ case" sccnatio. In Table "A", 21.2 cents of gas tax is the basis for computing the gas tax credit and in Table "D", 10.2 cents is available. TOA has also prepared tables showing the effect of phasing out the Six-cent Local Option Gas Tax and not renewing the five-cent Local Option Gas Tax (Tables "B" and "C"). Table "C" presents the most dependable revenue stream scenario and is the rate schedule proposed by staff. .0. '? JAN 11 2000 P~- Executive Summary Adopt a Revised Road Impact Fee Rate Schedule Page 2 of 3 As an example of the effect of the differences in these two tables, a single-family home that would pay $1,379.00 under the existing Schedule would pay $2,011.00 under Table "A" and $2,433.00 under Table "C". The proposed tables also incorporate several new features not presently provided for in the existing Ordinance. Chief among these is the use of multiple rates for single-family homes based on size. It has been demonstrated that there is a rational nexus between the size of a dwelling unit and the average number of daily vehicle trips generated. The figures used in the example above assume a "medium" or middle-of-the-road size home for comparison purposes. Several of the other pertinent parameters have been adjusted to reflect current data since the existing fee schedule was adopted in 1992. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no precise way to quantify the fiscal implications of the proposed Schedules. The ultimate impact of this proposal will depend on the final deternfination of gas tax availability, the Board's direction with respect to maintenance funding policy, continuation of historic growth trends in Collier County, and other factors beyond the control of staff or the Board. If one assumes that, for several representative land use categories, the same numbers of measured units would be built within a given time period, then the following indicates how the proposed fees would compare to the existing fees: Category No. Ex. Fee Ex. Revenue Fee "A" Revenue Fee "C" Revenue "A" "C" SF Home~ 1000 du $1,379 $1,379,000 $2,011 $2,011,000 $2,433 $2,433,000 _(?!~d__c .....~.___l_0_0_0. d_¢~ ...... 58_46 $846.000 __ _$1,243 ' $1,243,000 $1,512 $1,512,000 Gen. Office I 50,000 SF $2,453 $122,650: $3,249 $162,450 $3,947 $197,350 Commercial I '150.000 SF $1,995 $299,250 $3,020 $453,000 $3,838 $575,700 Totals $2,646,000 $3,869,450 $4,718,050 The foregoing table indicates that, for the categories and numbers of units chosen for the example, the range of potential revenue increase is from about 46% (Table "A") to about 78% (Table "C"). GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The proposed fee revisions are consistent with the review requirements of the existing ordinance and are necessary to assure an uninterrupted ~e',enuc source for the imp!ementation (,f the Transportation Element of the Collier County Growth Mtmagement Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board re-affirm its existing policy with respect to the allocation of the Six-cent Local Option Gas Tax revenues from capital to maintenance: adopt the attached Ordinance utilizing the fee schedule referred to as Table "C" above, and; authorize staff and the Chairwoman to implement and sign any documentation necessary to carry out the Board's direction. Executive Summary Adopt a Revised Road Impact Fee Rate Schedule Page 3 of 3 DSAC RECOMMENDATION: The Development Services Advisory Committee reviewed the consultant's report on January 5, 1999. Because of timing constraints associated with the deadline for submitting executive summaries, the DSAC recommendation will be presented separately. SL~MI FI'ED B'i: - ,~. ~- -,-'t?~~/,~7 Edwfird~ J. Kan~sportation Services Director REVIEWED BY: A~'~ :p~l/~inS~l, ~pact ke ~ordinator Vtnee~e A. Cautero, AICP, Community Development & Environmental Services Administrator APPROVED BYV~ Ed Ilschner, Public Works Administrator DATE: DATE: Attachments: No. 1 - Proposed Ordinance No. 2 - Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc. Summary Report .o. JAN I 1 2000 ORDINANCE NO. 99- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 92- 22, AS AMENDED, BY REVISING APPENDIX A, ROAD IMPACT FEE IL~TE SCHEDULE, TO ADD, DELETE AND REVISE DEFINITIONS CONTAIN~ED IN APPENDIX A AND TO REVISE AND UPDATE THE RATE SCHEDULE CON'TAINrED IN APPENDIX A; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT ANTI SE'~q~I~4, BILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; ANTI PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, on April 16, 1992, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 92-22, entitled the Road Impact Fee Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners desires to revise and update Appendix A, Road Impact Fee Rate Schedule contained in Ordinance No. 92-22, as amended; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners desires to revise and update the definitions and land uses contained in Appendix A; and WFt~REAS, the Board of County Commissioners desires to revise and update the rate schedule contained in Appendix A; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners desires to replace the previously adopted Appendix A with a new Appendix A in order to effectuate these changes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMNHSSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: DELETION OF APPENDIX A OF COUNTY ORDINANCE 92-22, AS AMENDED, AND ADOPTION OF APPENDIX A ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PA_RT HEREOF AS APPENDIX A. Appendix A of County Ordinance No. 92-22, as amended, is hereby deleted, and in its place, the attached Appendix A is adopted and added in its place. ipATIACHMENT NO. AGE / ,,, OF Words underlined are additions, words "+"'~'~' *~' ..... ~' ............. ~,, are deletions. .0. /~7/¢) Ct JAN 11 2000 SECTION TWO: CONFLICT AND SEVERABrIJTY. In the event this Ordinance conflicts with any other ordinance of Collier County or other applicable law, the more restrictive shall apply. If any phrase or portion of the ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion. SECTION THREE: INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES. The provisions of this Ordinance shall become and be made a part of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier County, Florida. The sections of the Ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article", or any other appropriate word. SECTION FOUR: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this ~ day of ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk Approved as to form and Heidi F. Ashton Assistant County Attorney F:\U S ER.~ ~WM3~'~C 0 LLI~R'~iNTER2M ,1999. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORDA By: Words underlined are additions, words o*"'"t' ,~. ..... ~, ............. ~,. are deletions. IATTACHMENT NO. / PAGE '7-- OF. ~ ,o. /,J (~2 U? ,lAN 11 2000 PG.~ APPENDIX A ROAD IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE For the purposes of calculating the amount of Impact Fee to be imposed under Section 2.01 of the Ordinance on all Road Impact Construction the following definitions si'~a~, :.e utiiized: DEFINITIONS "Auto Repair/Body ShoPs" provide for mechanical repairs and cosmetic ,, ,9ro,~m~n,~ to vehicles. "Bank/Savings: drive-in" means a financial institution with facilities for motorists as well as walk-in customers. "Bank/Savings: walk-in" means a financial institution in a free standing building with its own parking lot, and no drive-in windows. "Business Park fFlex-space)_" consists of a proud of flex-type or incubator one..: or ~wo-stc, rv build,nas served bv a common roadway system. The tenant space is f:exible and lends itself to a variety of uses: the rear side of the buildinq is usuatlv served by a aaraae door. Tenants may be start-up companies or small mature companies that reouire a variety of space. The space may include offices, retail and wholesale stores. restaurants, recreational areas, and warehousinq, manufacturin.q, li.qht industrial, or *=~ ":i*rescarch functions. Tha averaae mix is 20 to 30 ~)ercent office/commercial and S .... ~J~ ~ 70 to 80 p.arcent industrial/warehousinq. "Church" means a structure used primarily by a group of individuals for the practice of religion or the profession of faith. "Condominium" means a single-family or time-sharing ownership unit that has at least one other similar unit within the same building structure. The term Condominium includes all fee-simple or titled multi-unit structures, including townhouses and duplexes. The term Condominium includes single-family detached houses on lots less than 50 feet wide, such as zero-lot tine homes. Hi.qh rise condominiums are considered structures with three or more floors of dwe~.Lr~,q units. "Congreaate Care (ACLF)" means a facility typically consistin.q of one or more multiunit buildinos desianed for elderly living. They may also contain dinina rooms. medical facilities, and recreational facilities. Also known as "Assisted Livinq Facility". "Convenience StorelVlar-k~" means a facility typically open from 15 to 24 hours daily selling primarily a limited assortment of food, food preparation and wrapping materials and household cleaning and servicing items. Convenience ~af-ke-t-~stores may also sell fuel for motor vehicles. "Day Care Center" means a facility that cares for pre-school age children during ar~as A~, ...... hours. The facility generally includes classrooms, offices, eating and a playground. I~lO'/~-'~'~t? "Gasoline Stations" are qenerally located at intersections or freeway ,.n,:'~'~an~s'~¢ and have facilities for fuelin.q motor vehicles. They may also have facilities for .~--',.;3ino and repairinq motor vehicles. This land use includes qasoline stations WithOut convenience stores. "General Industrial" facilities provide for the conversion of raw materials into finish, ed ~roducts, or the assembly of components manufactured elsewherre into ~ntearated products. Examples of :qeneral industrial activities include printinq plants, ma,,~nal testinq laboratories, assemblers of data processinq equipment, and power stations. "Golf Course" means an area designed for playing the game of golf, including any clubhouse, with or without bar and banquet facilities. "Home Improvement Super Stores" are free-standinq warehouse type facilities v:it~ off-street sarkina. Home improvement superstores .qenerally offer a variety of customer services and centralized cashierinq, and they specialize in the sale of home im2rovement merchandise. They typically maintain Ionq store hours seven days a week. Examples of items sold in these stores include lumber, tools, paint, liphtin.q, wallpaper and ~aneiinq. kitchen and bathroom fixtures, lawn eauipment, and aarden plants and ~, S2-~SSC r:~S. "Hospital" means any institution where medical or surgical care is given to nonambulatory and ambulatory patients, Hospitals do not include facilities that provide diagnoses and are only for outpatients (See Medical Office) nor do they include facilities that are devoted to the care of a person unable to care for themselves (See Nursing Home). "Hotel" means a place of lodging, providing sleeping accommodations, restaurants, cocktail lounges, meeting and banquet rooms, and other retail and service shops. "Junior/Community College" means all two or four-year post high school educational institutions which utilize the name "college" in their titles. "Marina" means a facility ~or berthing boats, including any ancillary social Or club facilities "Medical Office" means a facility for individual or small groups of physicians, that provide diagnoses and outpatient care, but not prolonged in-house medical or surgical care. "Mini-Warehouse" means a building in which a storage unit or vault is rented for the storage of goods. "Mobile Home" means trailers and manufactured homes. and campers which have been affixed to a site or which have been received ATTACHMENT NO. PAGE ~ OF Recreational vehicles InRF~i~i~~- .~ .o. /a ?/(',; JAN 11 2000 use classification by the Property Appraiser shall be considered a mobile home for the purpose of this Ordinance. "Motel" means a place of lodging offering only sleeping accommodations and possibly a restaurant "Movie Theaters" consist of audience seatinq, sinqle or multiple screens and auditoriums, a lobby, and a refreshment stand. "Multi-Family Dwelling Unit" means a rental dwelling unit located within the same building as other dwelling units and includes apartments. "New or Used Auto Sales" are tvoically located alona major arterial streets that are characterized by abundant commercial development. Automobile repair services. parts sales, and substantial used car sales may also be available. Some dealerships also include leasinQ options and truck sales and servicinq. "Nursing Home" means a facility whose primary function is to care for persons unable to care for themselves, including rest homes (which are primarily for the aged) and chronic and convalescent homes. "Office" means a bui!ding housing one or more tenants where the affairs of a business, commercial or industrial organization, professional person or firm are conducted. · 'Pharmacy/Drug Store" are retail facilities that Drimarilv sell prescription and ,qOF,-Pr¢~S.OriDtiorl druqs. These facilities may also sell cosmetics, toiletries, medications. stath-nerv, persof',al .:~are products, limited food orr)ducts, anqJ aef~eral merchandise. These d[ua stores may also contain drive-throuqh windows. .... ~*a~iu+;~ inc!~ing .......... y ............. ~ ~ ............................ "Recreational Vehicle Park" means a facility for the temporary siting of recreational vehicles and may have community facilities such as recreational rooms, swimming pools and laundry facilities. "Resort Hotel" are similar to hote!s in that these provide sleeDinq accommodations, restaurants, cocktail Iounaes. retail shops, and auest services. The ............... ,.O_ _,.h_. : ]rLUZr...:,.t.. and vacation busine--.s, ofte~t 9rn'r',arv d!fference "s th~?__eE,9._rt__h_c!~ei~ c_az-~r~ ' ~ ";" _ prov,dir,q a vanety of recreational facilities, r?,ther than convenUon and rneetinq business. Resort hotels are normally located in suburban or outlvina locations on laraer sites than conventional hotels. "Restaurant: drive-in" means an eating establishment with limited or no sit- down facilities, where food is frequently ordered and taken out to be consumed outside the restaurant. "Restaurant: high turnover" means an eating establishment with indoor service and places for customers to sit while consuming their meals, with turnover being ATTACHMENT NO. / PAGE ~ _OF_ 8 less than one hour. (c) (U JAN 11 200O "Restaurant: Iow turnover" means an eating establishment with indoor service and places for customers to sit while consuming their meals, with turnover being of at least one hour or more. "Retail" means one or more establishments devoted to selling merchandise goods and products to consumers. "Retirement Home" means one or more dwelling units consisting of apartments, condominiums or a self-contained village which is restricted to adults or senior citizens who are self-sufficient. "School" means facilities which provide educational training between kindergarten and high school. "Self Service Car Wash" are typically free-standinq automobile washinq facilities. They usually consist of several bays with pressure washinq equipment. They may be staffed or un-staffed. These car washes are not the variety that are found in conjunction with a aasoline station or convenience store. "Service Station" means a facility primarily designed for dispensing fuel to motor vehicles, including maintenance and repair services. "Single-Family Detached House" means a home on an individual lot, except detached homes on lots less than 50 feet wide, such as zero-lot line homes. "Specialty Retail" centers are ,qenerallv small buildinos that contain a variety of retail shops and specialize in quality apparel: hard Roods: and services such as real es:ate offices, dance studios, florists, and small restaurants. "Supermarket" means a retail store selling an assortment of food, food preparation and wrapping materials and household cleaning and servicing items. Supermarkets are usually open less tan 14 hours per day. "Tire Store" means the primary business is the sales and marketinq of tires for automotive vehicles. Services offered by these stores usually include tire installation and re3air, as well as other automotive maintenance or repair services and customer ass[stance. These stores .qenerally do not contain larqe storacte or warehouse areas. "Univetsity" means all four-year post high school educational institutions which utiiize the name "university" in their title. iATIACHMENT,NO. / PAGE ~' OF B J JAN 11 20DFj | December. 14.1999 APPENDIX A RATE SCHEDULE For the purpose of calculating the Road Impact Fee to be imposed under Section 2.01 of the Orainance, the following schedule shall be utilized: IMPACT FEE LAND USE CATEGORY IMPACT FEE RATE Single Family Detached House Less than 1,500 SF RESIDENTIAL $1,379/dwo!!ing ,~'nit Sl ,667/dwelline unit 3. 1.500 to 2.499 SF 2.222/dwellina unit 4. 2.500 SF or laraer 2.622/dwellino unit 42. 102. !1. Multi-Family (!-2 stories) Multi-Family (3-9 stories) Multi-Family (10 stories & above) Conareoate Care Facility (ACLF/ Condominium/Townhouse Mobile Home Park Retirement Home Hi~h-Rise Condominium 1.641 952/dwelling unit 1.651 935/dwelling unit 1.046 607/dwelling unit 238/dwellinq unit 1.378--S46/dwelling unit 957 526/dwelling unit 917 455/dwelling unit 983/dwellinq unit LoaQinq ':28. Hotel $1,6101,113/room . ~9. Motel 8101 ,o~7/room ~ 4. Resort Hotel 1.415/room -.=z_g. Recreabonal Vehicle Park Rec,eat~on COMMERICAL 97';,'rah oho ~--4 ..... 16. Golf Course $142.286/18 holes 17. Movie Theaters 9.498/screen ,8--.,. Marina 786S 457/boat berth ~ 2. Mcte! ! .066/acre '~ 3. .=,acc'Jet C!ubs 2.063/! 000 sq. ft. Institut~on~i 1--9-I-4. Hospital S3.433 ..... /1,000 sq. ft. 2__~_0~-5.Nursing Home 307187/bed 21~.-6. Church 1.996 ..... /1,000 sq. ft. 21. Elementary School 194/student 23. Middle School 293,'student 23. Hiah School 383/student 2_?-8. Junior/Community College 348183/student 2__6 :~9. University 538327/student 27'20. Day Care 1986g/student F:\Impact Fees\TOA APPENDIX A.doc iATTACHMENT NO. / PAGE ;?. OF 3' ACCeDe. ITfl,1. x ~. /~ (c?tJ JAN 11 2000 ~,~. /6 . December. 14.1999 282-:-. Office Office - 50,000 SF or less Office - 50,001 - 1 00,000 SF Office - 100,001 - 200,000 SF Office - 200,001 - 400,000 SF Office - greater than 400,000 SF Medical Office Retail 'Specialty Retail $3.5982,453/1,000 sq. ft. 3.0632,076/1,000 sq. ft. 2.6081,753/1,000 sq. ft. 2.22I 1,474/1,000 sq. ft. 2.021 ! ,252/1,000 sq. ft. 6.6123,638/1,000 sq. ft. $5.526/1.000 sq. ft. 35'_~. Retail - 50,000 SF or less $2.9711,755/1,000 sq. ft. ou_¢&. Retail 50,001 - 100,000 SF 3.429,,~/1,000 sq. ft. 3_~_72~9~.Retail- 100,001 - 150,000 SF 3.5062,046/1,000 sq. ft. o__~. Retail- 150,001 - 200,000 SF 3,6242,!30/1,000 sq. ft. ,~3o, Retail - 200.001 - 400,000 SF 4.0822,366/1,000 sq. ft. -t3°~__. Retail - 400,001 - 600,000 SF 4.3062,508/1,000 sq. ft. 2'.~3. Retail- 600,001 - 1,000,000 SF 4.5292,785/1,000 sq. ft. 'z~=='-. Retail- greater than 1,000,000 SF 4.5922,706/1,000 sq. ft. -:.3 Pharmacv Druo Store w/Drive-Thru 3.206/1.000 sq. ft. Home Improvement Superstore 3.964/1.000 sq. ft. -,_2=z,e. Restaurant: high turnover 9.473 ..... /1,000 sq. ft. z.~:-~ Res;aur~nt: ~o',', turnover ~.0.__80 -:-,_.-.~-/1,000 sq. ft. 47'~. Restaurant: drive-in 18.627!6,6!8/1,000 sq. ft. -'~q= Service Station 2.101 ~/fuel oos~ .... ~ .~_~.~. Supermarket 3.947 ..... /1,000 sq. ft. 50. Quick Lu3e 4.125/bay 51. Convenience S:ore 9.661/1.000 sa. ft. 52. Convenience Store v,./'Gas Pumps 5.900/fuel pos Convenience .,..%as/Fast Food Store .379/1.000 sq. ft. Services 5__~_.~2- Auto Repair/Body Shop $4.029! .... 11,000 sq. ft. .55. Tire Store 2.950/bays 56 rqew/Used Auto Saies 7.377/1.000 sq. ft. 4-3~.57. Bank/Savings: walk-in 594.g. Car Wash Industrial and Aaricultural 60 General Industrial 61. 3.904 ..... /1,000 sq. ft. ~.~8_~.8_z.-7,468/1.000 sq. ft. 9,016/bay 7,205;'1,000 sq. ft. Bus,ness Park (Flex-space) 46. Light- ,,,~¢,1'~' ,¢~; 62~ Mini-warehouse S2,083/1.000 sq. ft. S3.994/1.000 sq. ft. S1.2!8/1 r~n~ o~ ~, 516239/1,000 sq. ft. JATTACHMENT NO. / F:\lmpact F¢cs\TOA APPE 'DIX A.do1PAGE OF JAN I 12000 // DRAFT COLLIER COUNTY 1999 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE UPDATE STUDY SUMMARY REPORT Pcci;ared for: Collier County Board of County Commissioners Prepared by: Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc. Tampa, Florida Revised: November 22, 1999 IAI*I*ACHN~ENI NO. ~ PAGE ,/ OF COLLIER COUNTY 1999 TIL-kNSPORTATION IMPACT FEE UPDATE STUDY 1.0 INTRODUCTION Collie:' County's Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance was or/ginally adopted in January, 19S5. to assist the County in providing adequate transportation facilities for expected growth. Section G of the current ordinance requires the fee to be reviewed and, if appropriate, updated every two years. The County retained Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc. to undertake the 1999 review, which is summarized in this summary report. In addition, alternative fee schedules are.presented for consideration by the County for adoption. The cenera] equation used to compute the transportation impact fee for a given land use is: Demand x Cost - Credits = Fee The demand for travel placed on the transportation system is usually expressed in units of vehicle-miles or lane-miles of roadway capacity consumed, the cost of building capacity in units of dollars per vehicle-mile or lane-mile of roadway capacity, and the credits are an estimate of the revenues generated by the development which are allocated to roadway construction or transportation system capacity expansion. Thus, the fee represents an "up front" payment for a portion of the cost to replace the transportation facilities consumed by a development. Since Collier County's original transportation impact fee was prepared and adopted, several ch~anT_es in local policies have occurred, and additional or new information relevant to transportation impact fees has become available. Some of the more si~ificant of these issue~ which have necessitated this update study include: Modifications in gasoline taxes, An amended and updated long-range transportation plan, ATTACHMENT NO., PAGE 7_ ~OF / JAN 11 2DOD ~,~. /..5 Inclusion of more specific land uses in the fee schedule, Additional surveys of typical travel characteristics for various categories of land uses, and Updated roadway improvement cost estimates. These items are all discussed in the sections below. This summary report identifies key issues in the current impact fees for which changes are proposed, presents a brief discussion of each issue, and provides an estimate of the sensitivity of the fee to each issue for consideration by the County. In addition, fee schedules are provided showing the effect of these changes. Finally, an estimate of potential revenues from the revised fee schedules are provided.. 2.0 CHANGES IO CURRENT t-EE ~'ARIABLES Changes to all eleven input components of the fee equation were reviewed, and changes to seven of the variables are proposed. These potential changes are reviewed in the following secti~:IqS. 2.1 Individual Land Use Trip Characteristics The amount of road system consumed by a land development activity is measured by the number of trips generated, the length of those trips, and the proportion of that travel that is new travel, rather than travel that might have already been on the road system. When the current fee schedule was adopted, relatively few studies of the n-ip length ;md "percent ~ew trips" x~ ere available. More such data is now available and, where it is, the trip characteristics data has been updated. Trip characteristics studies of three land uses (residential, business parks, and specialty retail land uses) in Collier County are being undertaken. Trip generation rates from the recently updated Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation reference (6th edition) have also been incorporated. Generally, these changes have not been significant; however, the trip len~h for residential single-family land uses has been increased from 4.7 mi]es to 5.5 miles as a result of field studies in other Honda ATTACHMENT NO. '~-" PAGE ~ 2 OF / ? JAN 1 120O0 counties. Further adjustments may be appropriate pending the findings of the Collier Count.,,' field studies. Finally, specific ]and uses have been included in the fee schedule and the independent variables on which the fee is computed have been changed to make the assessment process easier. 2.2 Cost of Transportation Capacity As with the cost of many things, the cost of providing transportation system capacity has increased in recent years. Information from the Collier County Public Works Engineering Department and Florida DOT regarding recent road construction costs have been used to develop a unit construction and engineering cost of 5922.520 per lane-mile of road. This cost, excluding fight-of way costs, is eight percent higher than the current fight-of-way, construction and engineering cost of $854,170. Fu;~her, thc prOJects included in the current work programs have been able to make use of fight-of-way that has been acquired in the past, the cost for which has not been reflected in the specific project costs used to develop the above unit cost. It is appropriate to include the value of this fight-of-way in the unit cost, or value, of the facility being consumed by the travel associated with a development. While it is difficult to estimate the full cost of this value, it is reasonable and conservative to assume that from 24 to 36 feet of land will be used to add two lanes to a road. If land is acquired (land cost, acquisition fees, severance damages, etc.) for an average cost of $9.00 per square foot, the land cost will add from $570,240 to $855.360 per lane-mile. Thus, the value of land associated with a lane-mile of capacity is approximately $712,778. Thus, the total cost to provide a lane-mile of capacity proposed in the updated impact fee is $1,635,298. Accounting for the cost of providing road system capacity in this manner has close to a 100 percent increase effect on the fee. The County has included overpasses at major intersections in its currently adopted long range transportation plan. Overpasses are more expensive to construct per unit of capacity added than typical road construction projects. However, the costs of these overpasses are not included in this analysis. ATTACHMENT NO. 2~ ] PAGE '~ OF'~ / ? ! AC~.N~, I T,[I'~ . JAN 11 2000 2.3 Gasoline Tax Credit Travel from new development generates gasoline tax revenues, a portion of which is typically allocated to expansion of the transportation system. In the current impact fee, 12.3 cents of the tax on each gallon of gasoline was allocated to system capacity-increasing improvements. The present value of gasoline taxes generated by a new development over a 25-year period is credited against the cost of the system consumed by travel associated with the development. A review of current State and County transportation financing plans indicates that gasoline taxes collected at the local and State levels has increased; however, the portion of these revenues allocated to maintenance, operations, and administration is also increasing. The proportion of gasoline taxes allocated to system expansion is currently 21.2 cents (7.7 cents State and Federal, and 13.5 County). In 2003, the five-cent local option gasoline tax (second local option gas tax) will expire and must be renewed through a countywide referendum. In addition, the County has begun to aho.:...tc~n.r.,~.s.~,__.' ~' ,~r, ~.o proportions of the six cent local option _-°a~oline t:,x (first local option gas tax) to maintenance of roadways, thus decreasing amounts of local gasoline taxes will be available to fund capacity expansion. This increase from the current gasoline tax credit rate results in an increase in the gasoline tax credit and lower fees. For each penny of gasoline tax allocated to capacity expansion, the fee changes by three to four percent. Four alternative fee schedules are attached to this Summary Report for c'..n~,idcra~gca by 'he Bo?,_rd of C,3untv Co~ndssioners Each ~.onsiders a different gasoline tax credit approach. The first, Schedule "A", reflects an assumption that the current 21.2 cents of tax will continue through the next 25 years. The second scenario. Schedule "B", considers the continued re-allocation of the six cents local option gasoline tax to maintenance, a penny per year, through 2003. The third, Schedule "C" considers the reallocation of the six cents to maintenance and the lapse of the five cent local option gasoline tax in 2003. The fourth, Schedule "D", assumes the immediate reallocation of all of the six cent and five cent gasoline PAGE _ ,3' _ OF4 / .,2 j taxes away from capacity increases in January 2000. This schedule is provided for informational purposes only, as it reflects a departure from current County policy. A geographic approach to gasoline tax credits was also developed and discussed with County staff. This approach relies on a distinction between already developed areas of a community and developing areas. With a larger existing "base" of development, gasoline taxes generated by the "urban core" in a community are typically significantly =creater over a planning horizon than the gasoline taxes generated in developing areas. The taxes generated by existing development are often used to build roads in developing areas of the County. If the gasoline taxes generated by existing development were allocated to improve roads within the "urban core", then the impact fees for development in the urban core could be credited with more significant gasoline taxes, with attendant lower impact fees. Developments in the developing areas would not have the "base" of existing dc~,elopme, nt to generate gasoline taxes, the gasoline tax credits would not be as large, and impact fees would be higher. It is unknown if there is significant interest in such a "two-tiered" impact fee structure, or providing reduced impact fees within developed areas. Furthermore, this concept is innovative and has not been tested, and therefore it is not being recommended for Collier County. 2.4 Facility Life The facility life relates to the time period over which gasoline tax revenues might be bonded to pa>' for an improvement. The life used in the current fee is 25 >.'ears, v,'hich is typical of impact fees in man}, other communities. Thus, no change in this ratable is recommended. 2.5 Interest Rate This is the discount rate at which gasoline tax revenues might be bonded, used to compute the present value of the gasoline taxes generated by new development. A rate of seven percent is used in the current fee. Due to recent low interest rates, a change to six percent is recommended. The proposed change from seven to six percent results in a 2.5 percent reduction in the fee. ATTACHMENT NO. "Z.. PAGE ~ _OF5 / 7 .o. /ol(c)('.? JAN 1 ZDDD [ 2.6 Capacity per Lane This value provides for the conversion of travel (in vehicle-n-files) to units of lane-miles so the cost of new facilities needed to serve new t?avel can be computed. The value used in the current ordinance is 8.685 vehicle-miles per lane-mile, and no chan_oe is recommended. 2.7 Fuel Efficiency The fuel efficiency of the fleet of motor vehicles using the road system over the next 25 );ears is used to estimate the quantity of gasoline consumed by travel associated with a land use. A value of 18 miles per gallon is used in the current fee, which we believe is high. Information from the Florida DOT State Revenue Estimating Conference indicates this value is appropriate for the passenger vehicle fleet. When trucks are also considered, a lower value is more appropriate. Thus, a ~ue] efficiency value of 16 miles per gallon is recommended. This change results in a 3.4 percent decrease in the fee, as more gallons of fuel, and more tax revenue per mile of travel are credited against the cost of system consumed. 2.8 Effective Days per Year For all land uses, an effective 365 days per year of operation was assumed in the current fee. This will not be the case for all land uses, as some uses operate only on weekdays (e.g. office buildings) and/or only seasonally (e.g. schools). Use of _,6_ days per year provides a "conservative" element, ensurin~ that gasoline taxes are adequately credited against the fee. No changes are proposed in this fee update. 2.9 Interstate Mileage Percent This variable is used to reco~ize that Interstate highway improvements are funded on a national basis and not by local funds. On that basis, travel on the , Interstate system should not be assessed. As local trips are made on the Interstate highway, gasoline taxes funding local road construction are being generated. In the current fee, only four percent of locally-generated travel was estimated to occur on the Interstate highway system. However, as the urban area has expanded_and ,with .o. (c) ATTACHMENT NO. 7- JAN il 2000 the planned new interchange on 1-75 at Golden Gate Parkway, use of the Interstate system by local traffic is expected to increase. Using the Collier County MPO's nficro-FSUTMS travel demand model, 13 percent is estimated and is recommended for use. This change has the effect of reducing the fees by twelve percent. 2.10 Across-the-Board Adjustment This factor simply allows the impact fee rates to be adjusted on an "across- the-board" basis. Some Communities do not wish to assess the full impact fee, and opt to discount all land uses by some percentage. Collier County has historically charged the full fee. 2.11 V:C Ratio Mana_oement Factor This variable was introduced to reco~ize that level of service standards are · c.xccpt~on" star,&u'-ds. To maintain a systv, m ~ here 29.0 road operates at a level of service worse than the adopted standard (a volume to "service volume" ratio of 1.00), a system-wide average volume to capacity ratio of less than 1.00 must be maintained. This factor is intended to address inefficiencies in the utilization of road capacity, the lead-time required for road improvements to be scheduled, and other considerations. The fee will change in inverse proportion to the value used-- for example, use of a value of 0.80 will result in a (1/0.80=1.25) 25 percent increase in the fee. This is an innovative concept which, to our knowledge, has not been adopted bv any other community. Thus, it has not been tested, nor is there any established basis for setting an appropriate value for the factor to be used. 3.0 PROPOSED FEE SCHEDULES ~; The four alternative fee schedules outlined in the Gasoline Tax Credit section (Section 2.3) are provided for consideration by the County for adoption. The values of the various parameters discussed in the above sections are summarized in the header area of tine Fee schedule tables. These fee schedules are preliminary, noting that several of the local trip characteristics studies will not be undertaken until "the season" returns to Collier County. Land uses that may be affected are residential, specialty retail, and business park. .0. ATTACHMENT NO._ Z-.- - PAGE /3 _OF__/"7_ JAN 1 12000 The trip characteristics used for these land uses in the proposed fee schedules m'e based on information used in impact fee studies in other communities, and they will be updated as the local studies are completed. Tine proposed fee schedules provided herewith indicate impact fee increases of 45 percent to 65 percent assuming the current allocation of gasoline taxes to system expansion will continue for the next 25 years (Schedule "A"), and of 90 percent to 140 percent if the six- cent and five-cent local option gasoline taxes are diverted from capacity increasing improvements immediately (Schedule "D"). IMPA CT FEE REV'ENTrE PROJECTIONS From 1994 to i998, Collier County has averaged $5.2 million per year in transportation impact fee revenues. If recent development trends continue, the present value of this re',cnue flow o;er the next 20 years is approximately $i00 million. With a 55 percent increase in the fee schedule, estimated revenues would be valued at $155 million. With a 110 percent increase, the estimated revenue would be $210 million. ATTACHMENT NO. 74 PAGE 9 OFs / 7 JAN 11 2000 Table "A " COLLIER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE Draft Fee Schedule: Existing Gas Tax Allocation Scenario Fee Schedule Assumptions: Gasoline Tax: Unit Construction Cost: $1,635,298 SS per gallon to capital: S0.212 Capacity per lane: 8,685 Faciiity life {years): 25 Fuel Efficiency: 16 mpg interest rate: 6.0% Effective days per year: 365 IntersTate Mileage %: 13% Across-the-Board Adjustment: 0% V:C ratio management factor: 100% Assessable Total Percent Total Annual Gas Net ITE Trip Trip Trip New Impact Gas Tax Impact Current Percent LUC Land Use Unit Rate Length Length Trips Cost Tax Credit Fee Fee Difference RESIDENTIAL: 210 SinCe Family (Detached) ~ Lessth~l.500s.f,' . · : ;~du-¢ i~ 5.68~ ;' 5.5o ' r,~5.98 100%: : $2,558, .~- $82 ',.; $1,049 $1,508. $1,379 ~1,500to2,499s.f;:~ ';,~,.~:~. .:~: du'- i- 7.57; 5.50 [ 5.98 100%~ $3,410 ~: i" $109 '! $1,399 $2,011 $1,379 v. · 2,500 s.l' or larger . .~'.du~ . 8.93 . 5.50 , 5.98 100% ;i'. $4,024 , ~ $129 $1,651'; $2,373 $1,379 221 Multi-Famib, I-2 stones du 6.59 4.70 5.18 10056 $2,537 $83 $1,055 $1,482 $952 56% 220 Muiti-Famii,~ 3-9 stones du 6.63 4.70 5.18 10056 $2,552 $83 $1,062 S1,491 $935 59% 222 MF 10 storte5 and up du 4.20 4.70 5.18 10056 $1,617 $53 $673 $944 $607 56% 240 Mobiie Ho:me Park du 4.81 3.80 4.28 100% $1,497 $50 $63~ $861 $526 64% 252 Coyrega~e Care Facility (A,OLF) du 2.15 3.00 3.48 72% $378 $13 $166 $213 $153 39% 2501Retireme~ Home du 5.36 3.30 3.78 100% $1,449 $49 $626 $822 $455 81% 230! Condominium To~',"~ouse I au 5.86 4.45 4.93 100% $2,136 $70 $893 S1,243 $846 47% 232i, H~-~!?~ '~c c:'"'¢i-,~u- i cu 4.!8 4.45 t 4.9~ 160~ S1.524 S50 $637 $887 new LODGING: 310 Hotel room 8.23 5.55 6.03 66% $2,469 $79 $1,012 $1,457 $1,113 31% 330 Reso,'l Hind room 5.90 5.40 5.88 83% $2,174 $70 $893 $1,280 new 320 Motel ! room 5.63 3.60 4.08 77% $1,272 $43 $544 $728 $1,327 -45% 416RVPark I mhsite 3.9 4.70 5.18 100% $1,501 $49 $624 S877 $10,744 · R£CR£ATION: 4301GclfSou:5~ { 18no,~$ 643.32I 4.20 I 4'68 I 100% t 5221'306 443IMovieTnea~ers screen 1109.97I 2.26 I 2.74 I 76% I $15,532 INSTITU%ONS: 6101HospF, al 5.00 2.60 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 I 1.000sf 126. ~7¢ 620 jNursing Home j bed . 520JEiementar~ School j student j 1.02 5221Middle Sonooi ] student 1.45 530High S;nool I student 1.79 5401junior.'OommunF, y So;.ege I student I 1.54 550fUnivers%' j student t 2.38 I 5601Church !,000 sf I 9.11 [ 565fDay Care student 1 4.52 $39 I $501 ! $711 I $45-~-Tt ..... 56~'o 1 $7,280 $93,067 1$128,239 $85,440t-I 50~,~ I $556 $7,107 S8,425 I 4.50 4.60 1.30 5.48 77% 95,291 $171 $2,189193,103 l$2.589ll 20% 3.08 89% $495 $17 I $221 I $274 I$187 I I 46% 4.98 I 8o% $301 St0 $126 I $175 I5150 tl 17% 4.98 I 85% $454 $15 $190 $265 $150 76% 4.98I 90% I $594 $19 $248 I $346 $190 82% 4.98 I 95% I $539 $18 S225 $314 J $183 I I 72% 4.98 95% $833 $27 $348 $485 I $327 I I 48% 5.08 I 90% I $3,089 $101 $~.2s8 $~,8o2 l$~,~o311 38% 1.78 J ~3%_.~___$35~ tTM _1 s~82 l.$~70 IS60 IJ 184% OF=ICE: 710iS00009for~e~s I 1.000 sf i 15.59 4.70 5.18 93% $5,562 $181 $2,314 $3,249 $2,453 32% 710 50001-!00.000 sf i 1,000 sf 13.27 4.70 5.18 93% $4,736 $154 $1,970 $2,766 $2,076 33% 710 100.001-200.000 sf 1,000 sf 11.30 4.70 · 5.18 93% $4,032 $131 $1,677 $2,355 $1,753 34% 710 200.001-400 000 sf 1,000 sf 9.62 4.70 5.18 93% $3,433 $112 $1,428 $2,005 $1,474 36% 710 greater tsar, 430.002, sf 1,000 sf 8.76 4.70 5.18 93% $3,125 $102 $1,300 $1,825 $1,252 46% 720 Medicai Off~ce ! 1,000 sf 36.13 4.15 4.63 84% $10,291 $'~39 $4,333 S5,958 $3,638 64% RETAIL: 820pss man 50.000 sfa,a I 1,003 sf I 87.31 / 1.50' I ~.sa / 4~ I 95,~49 ~$201 820150.001-1t0.000 sfSa j 1,000 ,f 68.17 1.90 2.38 54:b $5,728 $212 $2,708 $3,020 { $1,995 8201100.00!-.500000313 1,000sf j 58.98 2.10 2.58 57;~ $5,783 $210 $2,681 J $3,101 !$2,046 820I!50.001-230.0009f~13 I 1,000 sf 53.22 2.30 2.78 59Y~ $5 916 $211 $2,699 820200.001-400.000sfgla ~l.000sf ,1.56 2.90 3.38 69, $6.,,, $~4 820 4o0.o01-6o0.000 sfgla 1.ooo sf 3~E q mn 3.78 70% ~ $6,803 $230 $2.941 s3,862 ~';b~N~A 820 600.00t-1.000.0D0 sfgla 1,000 sf 2~.96 / 3.80 4.28 75'/~ ~ $236 $3,013 8201greaterman1.000.000sfma I 1.000sf 2~JP~1~,¢~8 / 80% t $7,174 I $238 $3,041 I 94.~3: {$2,706 ' ' .... ~'"'"~! I I~ Source: T, ndale-OliverandAssoc,ates, lnc.*JpAGc ---- JAN I Table "A " COLLIER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE Draft Fee Schedule: Existing Gas Tax Allocation Scenario Fee Schedule Assumptions: Gasoline Tax. Unit Construction Cost: $1,635,298 $$ per gallon to capital: S0.212 Capacity per lane: 8,685 Facility life (years): 25 Fuel Efficiency: 16 mpg Interest rate: 6.0% Effective days per year: 365 I nterstaie Mileage %: 13% Across-the-Board Adjustment: 0% V:C ratio management factor: 1005;= Assessable Total Percent Total Annual Gas Net ITE Trip Trip Trip New Impact Gas Tax Impact Current Percent LUC Land Use Unit Rate Length Length Trips Cost Tax Credit Fee Fee Difference 880/881 Pharmacy/Drug Store w/Drive-Thru. 1,000 sf I 90.58 I 1'.90 2.38 38% $5,357 $198 $2,532 $2,824 new 862 Home Improvemen Supers ore 1,000 sf ! 35.05I 4.29 4.77 50% $6,158 $202 $2,584 $3,574 new 83I Quali~ Restaurant 1,000 sf [ 89-95 2.40 2,88 77% $13,615 $482 $6,166 $7,449 $7,081 5°,;= 832 High-Turnover Restaurant 1,000 sf f 130.34 2.05 2.53 72% $15,670 $571 $7,299 $8,371 $8,388 0% 834 Fast Food Rest w/Drive-Thru 1.000 sfI 496.12 1.36 1.84 60% $32,882 $1,313 $16,790 $16,092 $16,618 -3% 844 Gasoline Station fuel pos 168.56 t 1.20 1.68 23% $3,810 $157 $2,013 $1,797 $989 82% 837 Quick Lube bays 42.54 i 2.68 3.16 71% $6,630 $231 $2,950 $3,680 new 850 Supermarket ' 1.000 sf * 11.51 1.90 2 38 38% $6,594 $244 $3,117 $3,477 $2,825 23% 851 Convenience Store 1.000 sf 737.99 0.80 1.28 41% $19,826 $937 $11,972 $7,854 new 853 Convenience Store with Gas Pump fuel pos 542.6 0.90 1.38 29% $11,599 $525 $6,712 $4,887 new n/a Conv'se./Gasoiine/Fast Foo~ STore 1,000 sf 918 1.00 1.48 33°,;= $24,813 $1,084 $13,859 $10,953 new 840 Aulc Repair or Body' Shop 1,000 sf 37.6 2.90 3.38 725;= $6,430 $221 $2,829 $3,602 $1,338 169% 849,Ti,e Store } bays .. _3¢._55 ..... 2_6_8_._ 3.15 71% S4,741 $165 $2,i'10 S2.631 new 847[Self-Servic~ I bay ! 108 2.40 2.88 69% $-'--14,649 $519 $6,634 $8,015 $7,205 115;= ~ 911iSank'SavingsWalk-~n i 1,000sf I 156.48 1.70 2.18 46% $10,023 $379 $4,851 $5,172 $3,959 315;= 912!Ban~'Savings Drive-in ! 1.000 sf I 265.21 1.70 2.18 46% $16,802 $6~6 $8,132 $8,671 $7,468 165;= INDUSTRY: b__~..~Genera!!n_dustrial I I,000sfl 6.97 I 6.00 16.481 93% I$3,186 I t.298 61,887 l st.2tsII $5,299 '~ ~ltMir,,:¢;sre%ous~ [ 1.000sf ]~% 4.30 f 4.78 I 91% I S801 I $26 I $3~-- $465" /"s~ / I 95% J Source: Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc. "' ATTACHMENT NO. PAGE // 20F / ? .o. / (e5 c¢, JAN 11 2000 Table "B" COLLIER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE Draft Fee Schedule: Six-cent Local Option Gas Tax to Maintenance Allocation Scenario (One cent per year for six years, until all six cents are allocated to maintenance) Fee Schedule Assumptions: GAsoline Tax: Unit Construction Cost: $1,635,298 $$ per gallon to capitat: $0.180 Capacity per lane: 8,685 Facility life (years): 25 Fuel Efficiency: 16 mpg Interest rate: 6.0% Effective days oar year: 365 Interstate Mileage %: 13% Across-the-Board Adjustment: 0% V:C ratio management factor: 100% Assessable Total Percent Total Annual Gas Net iTE Trip Trip Trip New Impact Gas Tax impact Current Percent LUC Land Use Unit Rate Length Length Trips Cost Tax Credit Fee Fee Difference RESIDENTIAL: 2101Single Famii':~r IDetached) Less than 1.500 s.f;~ :;. du.~? 5.68 5.50 5.98 100%: $2,558 $70' $891;~ $1,667 $1,379 21% 1,500 to2,499 s.f. -~ du;-t, r~: 7.57,t % 5.50:,-. 5.98: .100%'~. ~ $3;410~ ~ :.:,,$93%~ $1,188,, ;,$2,222;q $1,379 ,~ ¢~.: 61~ 2,500 s.f or ~argef - du - 8.93 5.50 5.98 100% $4,024 '- $111)' $1.402. $2,622 $1,379 . 90%~' 221 Multi-Family 1-2 stories t du t 6.59 4.70 5.18 100% $2,537 $70 $896 $1,641 5952 72% 220!MultFFamily 3-9 stones t du I 6.63 4.70 5.18 100% $2,552 $71 $901 $1,651 $935 77% 222 MF 10 stories and up du i 4.20 4.70 5.18 100% $1,617 $45 $571 $1.046 $607 72% 240 Moble Home Park , du t 4.81 3.80 4.28 100% $1,497 $42 $540 $957 $526 82% 2521Congregate Care Facility {ACLF) du i 2.15 3.00 3.48 72% $378 $11 $t41 S238 $153 55% 250iRetirement Home du I 5.36 3.30 3.78 100% $1,449 $42 $532 $917 $455 102% 230iCondominiur',, Townhouse , du i 5.86 4~45 4.93 100% $2,136 S59 $758 $1,378 $846 63% 2221H;~h-~ise Ccrc.~m:qlJm j du I 4 18 4.45 4.93 100% $1,524 S42 $541 S983 new LODGING: 3101,~o~el [ room ] 8.23 5.55 6.03 I 66% $2,469 $67 $860 $1,610 $1,113 45% 330jResorl Hotel f room I 5.90 5.40 5.88 83% $2,174 $59 $758 $1,415 new 320!Motel i room i 5.63 3.60 4.08 77% $1,272 $36 $462 $810 $1,327 -39% 416!RVPark I m~site [ 3.9 4.70 5.18 100% $1,501 $41 $530 $971 S10,744 - RECREATION: ~,~rina ! bei'th I 2.96 4301Golf Course I 18ho!es 843.32 4431Mo¢ie Theaters I screen 109.97 INSTITUTIONS: 500 5.48 J 100% $1,212 4.20 4.68 107o% J $221,306 2.26 2.74 76 ,~, $15,532 $33 j S426 $786 $457 $6,181 S79,019 $142.286 $85.440 ' 67% $472 $6,034 $9,498 610 Hospital i 1.000 sf ! 16.78 5.00 5.48 77% $5,291 $145 $1,858 S3,433 $2,589 33% 620 NursngHome ! bed I 2.61 2.60 308 89% $495 $15 $188 $307 $187 64% 520JElementaq,, School I student I 1.02 4.50 4.98 80% $301 $8 $107 $194 $150 29% 522jM~ddte School j student j 1.45 4.50 4.98 85% $454 $13 $161 $293 $150 95% 530 High School student ! 1.79 4.50 4.98 90% $594 $16 $211 $383 $190 102% 540 Junor,Commur,~vCo!!eae student i !.54 4.50 4.98 95% $539 $15 $191 $348 $183 90% 5531Univers~y ! studem I 2.38 4.50 4.98 95% $833 $23 S296 $538 $327 64% 5501Church ! 1.000 sf I 9.11 4.60 5.08 90% $3,089 $86 $1,093 $1,996 $1,303 53% 5851DayCare~ ___ __l~stuc~ent! 4.52 1.30 11.78 73%i $352 $12 $155 $198 $60 230% OFFICE: 710!50.000 sf or less J 1,000sf j 15.59 4.70 5.18 I 93% $5,562 $154 $1,964 $3,598 $2,453 47% 710150,001-100.000 si 1.000 sf 13.27 4.70 5.18 93% $4,736 $131 $1,673 $3,063 $2,076 48°/;, 710!100.001-200.000sf , 1,000sf 11.30 4.70 . 5.18 93% $4,032 $111 $1,424 $2,608 $1,753 49% 4.70 5.18 93% $3,433 $95 $1,21352,22151,474 51% j 710 greaterihan 400.000 sf 1.000 sf 8.76 4.70 5.18 93% $3,125 $86 $1,104 $2,021 $1,252 61% J 7201Medical Office I 1,000 sf 36.13 4.15 4.63 84% $10,291 $288 $3,679 $6,612 $3,638 82% RETAIL: 814 ! Specialty Reta~ 820',':ess than 50.000 sr.=la 820150001-100.003 sfg~a 820 100.001-150.000 sfgla 820 150,001-200.000 sfgla 820J200.001-400.000 sfgia 820 400.001-600.000 sfgla 8201600,001-1,000.000 sfg a 8201greaterthan 1.000.000 sfgta J 1,000 sf Source; Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc. ^ 1.000sfI 87.31 $5,149 j 1.0O0sf J 68.17 $5,728 1,000sf I 58.98 $5.783 71% 1.000 sft 53.22 $5.916 70% $6,515 $6,803 3.90 ATTACHMENT NO. PAGE / z- OF / 7 Table "B" COL LIER TRA NSPOR TA TION IMPA CT FEE $CHEDULE Draft Fee Schedule: Six-cent Local Option Gas Tax to Maintenance Allocation Scenario (One cent per year for six years, until all six cents are allocated to maintenance) Fee Schedule Assuml2tions: Gasohne Tax: Unit Construction Cost: $1,635,298 per gallon to capital: $0.180 Capacity per lane: 8,685 Facil b tile (years): 25 Fuel Efficiency: 16 mpg Interest r~:~: 6.0% Effective davs per year: 365 interstate Mileage %: 13% Across-the-Board Adjustment: 0% V:C ratio management factor: 100% ITE LUC Land Use Unit Assessable Total Percent Total Annual Gas Net Trip Trip Trip New Impact Gas Tax Impact Current Percent Rate Length Length Trips Cost Tax Credit Fee Fee Difference 880;881 IPharmacy. Dru¢ Store v, Dnve-TnrL 862 Home Improvement Superstore 831 IQuality Restaurant 8321High-Turnover Restaurant 834 Fast Food Rest w' Dr.'ve-Thru 844 Gaso ne Stat on 8371Quick Lube 8501Su~rmarket 851 Convenience Store 853 Convenience Store wP, n Gas Pum n,'a IConv'ce/Gasoline/Fast Food Store 840JAuto Repair or Boay 1.000 sf I 90.58 1,0~0 si I 35.05 1.000 sf I 89.95 1.000 sf I 130.34 1.000 sf I 496.12 fuel cos 168.56 Days I 42.54 1.00'3sf I 111.51 1.000 sf I 737.99 fuel pos 542.6 1,000 sf 918 1,000 sf t 37.6 1.90 2.38 4.29 4.77 2.40 2.88 2.05 2.53 t.36 1.84I 60~ 1.20 1.68f 23°/° 1.90 2.38 0.80 1.28 0.90 1.38I 29°¢° 1.00 1.48 ~ 33% ~.~0 3.3~I ~2% i 649!Ti:e Store ba,.'e I 30.55 2 68 [ 847tSelf-Se~e-SarV(a** bay i 108 2.40 288I 69% [ J 911~San~.'Sav,n~sv,'a,~-,n 1,000 sf i 156.48 1.70 2.18 46% I 912~Bank'Savings Dnv~-~n t .000 sf ~ 265.21 1.70 2.18 46% $5,357 $6,158 $13,615 $15,670 $32,882 $3,810 $6,630 $6,594 $19,826 $11,599 $24,813 $6,430 S4,741 $11,404 $14,649 $10,023 $16,802 $168 $2,150 $3.206 t new $172 $2,194 $3.964 new $410 $5,235 $8138o $7.o8111 1~ $485 $6,197 $9,473 $8,388II 13;¢r $1,115 $14,255 $18,627 $16,618 12~ $134 $1,709 $2,101 I $989 $196 $2,505 $4,125 new II o $207 $2,647 S3,947 I$2,825 II 40~ $795 $10,165 S9,661 t new II $446 $5,699 $5,900 new $921 $11,767 $13,045 newII I $188 I52,402 I$4,029 151,338II 201~ ! $~40 151,791/S2,950 I n.w .... --1 15441 !$5,633/39,016 $7,20511 25% I $322 154,118~$5,904 153,959 t t 49% I $540 156,904~$9,898 J$7,468 INDUSTRY: 770 ¢Susiness Po. rk INtmi-Warer, ousc 6.o0 I 6481 93% I 4.30 I 4.78 J 91% i $3,186 I $86 151,102~ $2.083 $1.218 71% $80t I 322 f'~T I $516 $239 J' 116% Source: Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc. ^ IATTACHMENT NO. PAGE /-'~ OF / ? ? J JAN 11 ZOOO Table "C" COLLIER TRANSPORTA TIOIV IMPA CT FEE SCHEDULE Dra~ Fee Schedule: Loss of five°cent Local ©ption Gas Tax and Six-cenl Local ©pIion Gas Tax to Mainlenance Allocation Scenario /Sunsmting oS flve-c~n! gas tax in 2003 and one cent per year o~ six-cent gas tax ~or six years, until all six cents a~e allocated to maintenance/ Fee Schedule Assumptions: Gasoline Tax: Unit Construction Cost: $1,635,298 SS per galion to capital: $0.148 Capacity per lane: 8,685 Facility, life (years): 25 Fuel Efficiency: 16 mpg interest rate: 6.0% Effective days per year: 365 Interstate Miteage %: 13% Across-the- Board Adjustment: 0% V:C ratio management factor: 100% Assessable Total Percent Total Annual Gas Net ITE Trip Trip Trip New Impact Gas Tax Impact Current Percent LUC Land Use Unit Rate Length Length Trips Cost Tax Credit Fee Fee Differ.ence RESIDENTIAL: 210 Single Fam!l¥ fDetached) I Less~anl,500s.f. . ~ du: 5.68 . 5.50 -.5.98' 100% $2,558 ; ?$57:L $733 $1,825 $1,379 i-:32%*~ ~. 1,500to2,499s.f:?~" ,'~ '~::;~ :'&~ du~, :.~'7.57~ I~-" 5.50 ~ ~ 5.98: ~-100% ~ $3,41Q;?~ .;-: $76% ~ $97Z~ $2,433~, $1,3Z9~ ~ ~'~7636~ 2,500s.~oHarger ', ' .' du ,- 8.93 5.50 5.98 I 100% ,$4.024 ~,,, $90-~ $1,153 $2,871- $1,379 ~' 108%L, 221 Multi-Famiiy 1-2 stories du 6.59 4.70 5.18 100% $2,537 $58 $737 $1.800 $952 89% 220 Mul:i-Famib' 3-9 stones I du 6.63 4.70 5.18 100% $2,552 $58 $741 $1,811 $935 94% 2221MF 10 stones and up du I 4.20 4.70 5.18 100% $1,617 $37 $469 $1,147 $607 89% 240tMobiie Home Park du t 4.81 3.80 4.28 100% $1,497 $35 $444 $1,053 $526 100% 252 Congrega e Care =acili~, IACLF) du I 2.15 3.00 3.48 72% $378 $9 $116 $263 $153 72% 250 Retirement Home du t 5.36 3.30 3.78 100% $1,449 $34 $437 $1,012 $455 122% 230 Concom~n~um'fownhouse du i 5.86 4.45 4.93 100% $2,136 S49 $623 $1,512 $846 79% 2__3_2 _.H!~-~:s? ~?~;_~:min~,;~ ............ _du____ j~__4~8 .... _4.4__5_. _._4_.93~ 1.__00% __ $1 ,_524~ ..... $35~_ $__4_.4..5__,__$_1,0__.7_9 _n_.e.w__. LODGING: 310 i~o',ei t room i 8.23 5.55 6.03 t 665;, $2,469 $55 $707 $1,762 $1,113 58% 330 Resod ~otel i room 5.90 5.40 5.88 83% $2,174 $49 $624 $1,550 new 3201Mote! t room , 5.63 3.60 4.08 77% $1.272 $30 $380 $892 $1,327 -33% 416iRVPark i mhsi~e I 3.9 4.70 5.18 100% S1.501 $34 $436 $1,065 $10,744 * RECREATION: j 4201Man~a I bert~ I 2.96 43013o!f Course 18 holes I 643.32 4431MovieTheaters screen ! 109.97 INSTITUTIONS: 5.00 ! 548 I 100~:~ S1.212 4.20 4.68 10.,0j¢~, S221,306 2.26 2.74 76 ~, $15,532 $27 $350 I $862 $457 89% $5,083 $64,971 I$156,334 $85,440 I*1 83% I $388 $4,961 iS10,571 610 HospC, al 1,000 sf I 16.78 5.00 5.48 77% $5,291 $120 $1,528 $3.763 $2,589 45% 6201Nursing Home bed 2.61 2.60 3.08 89% S495 $12 $154 $340 S187 82% 5201E~ementan~, Sshc31 ! stuoent 1.02 4.50 4.98 80% $301 $7 $88 $213 $150 42% 5221Middle School I student 1.45 4.50 4.98 85% $454 $10 $132 $322 $150 115% 5301High School i student I 1.79 4.50 4.98 90% $594 $14 $173 $421 $190 121% 540tJunior/Commun~'¢Coliege i student I 1.54 4.50 4.98 95% S539 $12 $157 $382 $183 109% 550tUniversitY I student 1 2.38 4.50 [ 4.98 95°/° $833 S19 S243 $590 $327 81% 560 Church I 1,000 sf I 9.11 4.60I 5.08 90% $3,089 $70 $899 $2,190 $1,303 68% 585 DayCare I studenl i 4.5~22 1.30 1.78 73% _ __ $3~52 $10 $127 $225 $60 275% OFFICE: 710 50.030 sf or less j 1,000 sf 15.59 4.70 5.18 93% $5,562 $126 $1,615 $3,947 $2,453 J 61% 710 50.001-100.0005ft 1,000 sf 13.27 4.70 5.18 93% S4,736 $108 $1,375 $3,361 $2,076 62% 710 i00.001-200.0005f 1,000 sf ' 11.30 4.70 · 5.18 93% $4,032 $92 $1,171 $2,861 $1,753 63% 710 200.001-400.000 sf i 1,000 sf 9.62 4.70 5.18 93% $3,433 $78 $997 $2,436 $1,474 , 65% 710 greater than 400.000 sf 1.000 sf 8.76 4.70 5.18 93% $3,125 $71 $907 $2,218 $1.252 I 77% 720 JMeaicaJ Office 1,000 sf 36.13 J 4.15 4.63 84% $10,291 $237 $3,025 S7,266 $3.638J 100% RETAIL: 814JSpecialtyRetail.~; ,- t , ';~ 820 ]ess than 50.000 sfgla 820 50.001-100.000-s'~'g1~- 820 100.001-150000 sfaia 820J150,001-200.000 sf~la j 1.00 8201~reater man 1,000000 s~Ca Source: Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc. ^ 1.50 PAGE 1.98- j 4 /~ 2.38 5 % 2.58 5 % 2.78 J ~ % ~ % /,~ 1 OF_/7 S5,149 J $140 $5,728 J $148 S5.783 J $146 $5,916 ~ $147 $6,515 ~ $7,087 I $165 $7,174 ~J $166 $1,791 $3,358 $1,891 $3,838 $1,872 J $3,911 J$1,884 / $4,032 Table "¢" COLLIER TRANSPORTATION IMPA CT FEE SCHEDULE Draft Fee Schedule: Loss of five-cenl Local Oplion Gas Tax and Six-cent Local Option Gas Tax to Maintenance Allocation Scenario (Sunsettin9 of five-cent gas tax in 2003 and one cent per year of six-cent gas tax for six years, until all six cents are allocated to maintenance) Fee Schedule Assumptions: Gasohne Tax: Unit Construction Cost: $1,635,298 SS per galion to capital: S0.148 Capacity per lane: 8,685 Facilit~ life (years): 25 Fuel Efficiency: 16 mpg Interest rate: 6.0% Effective days per year: 365 Interstate Mileage %: 13% Across-the-Board Adjustment: 0% V:C ratio management factor: 100% Assessable Total Percent Total Annual Gas Net ITE Trip Trip Trip New Impact Gas Tax Impact Current Percent LUC Land Use Unit Rate Length Leneh Trips Cost Tax Credit Fee Fee Difference 880881 :Pharmacy, btu; SIore w DriveT~,r~ 1.000 sf I 90.58 1.90 2.38 I 38% $5,357 $138 $1,768 $3,589 new 862;Home Improvement Superstore J 1,000 sf I 35.05 4.29 4.77, 50% $6,158 $141 $1,804 $4,354 new 831 Quality Res;auran: 1.000 sf 89.95 2.40 2.88 77% $13,615 $337 $4,305 $9,310 $7,081 31% 832 High-Turnover Restaurant 1,000 sf 130.34 2.05 2.53 72% $15,670 $399 $5,095 $10,575 $8,388 26% 834 Fast F-cod Res;w Dri,'?Thru I 1,000 sf 496.12 1.36 1.84 60% $32,882 S917 $11,721 $21,161 $16,618 27% 844 Gasoline Ststion fuel Dos 168.56 1.20 1.68 23% $3,810 $110 $1,406 $2,405 $989 143% 837 Quici< Lube bays 42.54 2.68 3.16 71% $6,630 $161 $2,060 $4,570 new 850 Supermarke~ 1,000 sf 111.51 1.90 2.38 38% $6,594 $170 $2,176 $4,418 $2,825 56% 851 Convenience Sucre I 1,000 s-f 737.99 0.80 1.28 41% $19,826 $654 $8,358 $11,468 new 853 Convenience Store with Gas Pure2t fuel pos 542.6 0.90 1.38 29% $11,599 $367 $4,686 $6,913 new n/a Conv'ce/Gasoiine'Fas~ Food Store ! 1,000 sf 918 1.00 1.48 33% $24,813 $757 $9,675 $15,137 new 840 Auto Repair or Body Shop ! 1.000 sf 37.6 2.90 3.38 72% S6,430 $1 ,~4 $1,975 $4,456 $1,338 233% 849 Tire $~ore [ bays 30.55 268 3.16 71% $4.741 $115 $1,473 $3,268 new ' ---'-' --~ -'~;~'~.~': 1~,~'~ ..... F:~-~'~,5~'s-f--'-~7;-~- 4'70 ~5 '8 1~ 79% $11,404 $259 $3,312 $8,093 new i--8471Sel¢-Se~'~7~''~r'¢''asr, I Day I--~-8' 2.4~ 2.88 69% $14,649 $362 $4,631 $10,017 $7,205 39% ~ 9111Bank.'Savir, gs Wal~:-m i 1.000 sf 156.48 1.70 2.18 46% $10,023 $265 $3,386 $6,636 $3,959 68% 9121Banic'Savin~sDr~ve-r~ ! 1.000sf ! 265.21 1.70 2.18 46% $16,802 $444 $5,677 $11,125 $7,468 49% INDUSTRY: o 1101Generallnaus;r:a', I 1.000sfi 6.97I 6.00 I 6.48 I 93Yo I $3,186 $71 $906 $2,279 l$1,218 I I 87% ] ,:r---~70-'~T~c~s-/;~,?k.--~'e.:-s?~ce) · ,~ ~000 ~f_~.-~_~ 6.00_~L.[_.-~ 6.~48__.L_85% i' $5,299 I $118- $1.508 [ $3,791 I~new~, t' I':;'~'~ '~':~ I F--~?'~;;~:~; ....... : ~,0~5-~; f-~-~30 I77~ t 9~J $80~ t S18 "$235 S567 { $239 I~ 1~7,~ ] Source: Tindate-Oliver and Associates, Inc. ^ ,o._. ATTACHMENT NO. z% JAN I 12000 PAGE /~"' ~ OF /'~ , "~;-_..,~, Table "D" COLLIER TRANSPORTATION IMPA CT FEE SCHEDULE Draft Fee Schedule: Loss of five-cent Local Option Gas Tax and Six-cent Local Option Gas Tax 1o Maintenance Allocation Scenario (Same as Table "C", except that ali loss of revenues are immediate rather than stepped each year) Fee Schedule Assumptions: Gasoiine Tax: Unit Construction Cost: $1,635,298 SS per gallon to capital: $0.102 Capacity per lane: 8,685 Fac:,lity life (years): 25 Fuel Efficiency: 16 mpg interest rate: 6.0% Effective days per year: 365 Interstate Mileage %: 13% Across-the-Board Adjustment: 0% V:C ratio management factor: 100% Assessable Total Percent Total Annual Gas Net ITE Trip Trip Trip New Impact Gas Tax Impact Current Percent LUC Land Use Unit Rate Length Length Trips Cost Tax Credit Fee Fee Difference RESIDENTIAL: 210 Single Family 13etachedt J J J Less~a~l,500s. l. .. du i 5,68 ' 5.50 5.98 100% *¢. $2,558 % ~: $40 $505 $2,053 $1,379 .'.~'1,500 to 2,499 s.f. ;:.,:~ -,: :'-.: dU5 l*, 7.57:¢ c~ 5.50~-.'~ ,. 5.9¢~ * 100%", ;~; $3,410-:;~¢ i~ $53'? $673: $2,737~.-:: $1.;379' ! &, 98~% : 2,500s.forlarger .. du I' 8.93 ' : 5.50~ i- 5.98- 100%-' i~ $4,024 ~ ? $62 $794 $3,2.30: $1,379 221 IMultFFamiy t-2 stores au t 6.59 4.70 5.18 100% $2,537 $40 5508 $2,029 $952 113% 220 Multi-Farnii,,'3-gstories du I 6.63 4.70 5.18 100% $2,552 $40 $511 $2,041 $935 118% 222 MF 10 stories and up du 4.20 4.70 5.18 100% $1,617 $25 $324 $1,293 $607 113% 240 :Mobile Home Park du 4.81 3.80 4.28 100% $1,497 S24 $306 $1,191 $526 126% 252 ICongregate Care Facihty fACLF) du 2.15 3.00 3.48 72% $378 $6 $80 $299 $153 95% 250/Retirement ~,cme du 5.36 3.30 3.78 100% $1,449 $24 $301 $1,147 $455 152% 230tConr~omin~urrt Townnouse I du i 5.86 4.45 4.93 100% $2,136 $34 $430 $1,706 $846 102% ~-"':~'~:'- ' d3 i ,~:_1~_!___4..~5_ t 493 I 100% S1524 .......... $306 [01.27_ _~_ 232"~ ~; --!~ ._~"*' ~ .......................... S24 .......... new~ LODGING: 310Hotel t room ,I 8.23 5.55 6.03 J 66% $2,469 $38 $487 $1,982 $1,113 I 78% 3300ResortHo[el room 5.90 5.40 5.88I 83% $2,174 $34 $430 $1,744 new ! 320 Motel room 5.63 3.60 I 4.08 77% $1,272 $20 $262 $1,010 $1,327 t -24% 416tRVPark I mhsite I 3.9 4.70 t 5.18 100% $1,501 S24 $300 Sl,201 $10,744 "j RECREATION: 4201Mar~a I berth I 2.96 430 i3olf0ou;s9 I 18no!es 1643.32 443 Mo~e~-~ters I screen I 109.97 INSTITUTIONS: 5.00 i 5.48 100% 4.20 4.68 t 100% 2.26 2.74 76% $1,212 S19 $241 S971 $457 1 1127 I S221,306 S3,503 $44,778 $176,528 1$85,440 '1 $15,532 $267 $3,419 $12,113 610 Hospital I 1.000 sf I 16.78 5.00 5.48 ! 77% $5,291 S82 $1,053 $4,238 $2,589 I I 64% 620 Nursing Nome I bed I 2.61 2.60 3.08 I 89% $495 $8 $106 $388 $187 108% 520 Etementa~ School 1 student I 1.02 4.50 4.98[ 80% $301 S5 $60 $240 $150 60% 522 MiddleSshool I student I 1.45 4.50 4.98 I 85% $454 $7 $91 $363 $150 142% 530tHighScnc~l t student ! 1.79 4.50 4.98 i 90% $594 89 $119 $474 $190 150% 540 Junior,'Commun~. Cc:ege I student I 1.54 4.50 4.98 i 95% $539 S8 $108 $431 $183 135% 550 Univers~y ! student i 2.38 4.50 4.98 95% $833 $13 $167 $666 $327 104% 560 Church I 1.000 sf t 9.11 4.60 5.08 90% $3,089 $48 $619 $2,470 $1,303 90% . 5~6. 5..__D~v~ sze- ............... [ _st.u~d~_nt~ L__4~:5__2__ __ 1.3.__.~0 . _ .......................... 1.78 ! 73% $352 $7 $88 $265 $60 341% OFFICE: 710 50.000sf0r ~ess 1,000 sf I !5.59 470 5.18 93% $5,562 $87 $1,113 S4,449 S2,453 I 81% 710 50.001-100,000 sf 1,000 sf 13.27 4.70 5.18 93% $4,736 $74 $948 $3,768 $2,076 82% 710 100.001-20~0008f 1,000 sf 11.30 4.70 . 5.18 93% $4,032 $63 $807 $3,225 $1,753 84% 710 200.001-400000 Sf !,000 Sfll 9.62 t 4.70 5.18 93% $3,433 $54 $687 $2,746 $1,474 86% 710 greater than 400.000 sf i 1.000 sf 8.76 4.70 5.18 93% $3,125 $49 $625 $2,500 $1,252 100% 720 Me:ii,al Off~ce [ 1,000 sf 36.13 4.!5 4.63 84% $10,291 $163 $2,085 $8,207 $3,638 126% RETAIL: · [~ 814 ISpecialty Retail.: 820tless than 5C.00C, sf~la I 820150.001-100.000 sf~a [' 820 t 100.00', -150.000 s,g,a ~,.000 sfg~a I 8201400,001-600.000 sfg',a · 820t600.00t-1.000.000 sf~la [ 8201greater t~an 1 000 00~ stgla Source: Tindale-Ohver and Associates, Inc. ^ Sc. $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 1,0008f 45.90 .;-',~:r~:. t 0.48 I',F:~;: 1.C~'00 sf / 87.31 1.50 [ 1.98 48yo $5,149 1,0008f [ 68.17 1.90 [ 2.38 I 54~/~ $5,728 t 1,000sf t 58.98 2.10 I 2.58 I 57~ $5,783 1,000 sf 53.22 2.30 I 2.78 59Yo $5,916 1,000 sf 41.56 2.90 ~ 3.38 66% $6,515 1,000 sf 35.96 0.33 t ~ 7¢I 70~o $6,803 1,000 si 29.96 3.80 / 4.28 f 76? 1,000I 28.07 IAT P-HtJE.?.',iO8° $7,174 1 PAGE / r $0'..~-~` I$1'234 I $3,91~ 2 $1,303 $4,42~ 1 $1,290 2 [$1,298 I $4,610 8 $1,379 $5,13( 1 $1,415 I $5,38f i3 $1,449 I $5,63I 4 $1,463 / $5,¢1' $1'995 I $2'046 / 120°/° $2,130 1177 JAN Table 'D" COLL/ER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE Draft Fee Schedule: Loss of five-cent Local Option Gas Tax and Six-cent Local Option Gas Tax to Maintenance Allocation Scenario (Same as Table "C", except that all loss of revenues are immediate rather than stepped each year) Fee Schedule Assumptions: Gasoline Tax: Unit Construction Cost: Sl ,635,298 SS per gallon to capital: $0.102 Capacity per lane: 8,685 Fasiiit~ life (years): 25 Fuel Efficiency: 16 mpg Interest rate: 6.0% Effective days Der year: 365 Interstate Mileage %: 13% Across-the- Board Adjustment: 05,, V:C ratio management factor: 100% Assessable Total Percent Total Annual Gas Net ITL Trip Trip Trip New Impact Gas Tax Impact Current Percent LUC Land Use Unit Rate Length Length Trips Cost Tax Credit Fee Fee Difference 880'881 IPhamnacy/Drug Store w.' Drive-Thr~ 1.000 sf I 90.58 1.90 2.38 38% $5,357 $95 $1,218 $4,138 new 8621Home improvement Superstore ! 1.000 sf I 35.05 4.29 4.77 50% $6,158 $97 $1,243 $4,915 new 8311Qua',ity Restaurant ! 1:000 sf I ~9.95 2.40 2.88 77% $13,615 $232 $2,967 $10,648 $7,081 5050 832iHigh-Turnove; Restauranl I 1.000 sf I !30.34 2.05 2.53 72% $15,670 $275 $3,512 $12,158 $8,388 45% 8341Fa61 Food Rest w/Drive-TDru I 1,000 sf I 496.12 1.36 1.84 60% $32,882 $632 $8,078 $24,804 $16,618 49% 844!Gasoline Station I fuel pos i 168.56 1.20 1.68 23% $3,810 $76 $969 $2,842 $989 187% 83713u~,~kLuDe I bays I 42.54 2.68 3.16 715o $6,630 $111 $1,419 $5,210 new 8501SuDerm, arket I 1,000sf i 111.51 1.90 2.38 38% $6,594 $117 $1,500 $5,094 $2,825 80% 8511Convemence Store 1,000 sf i 737.99 0.80 1.28 41% $19,826 $451 $5,760 $14,066 new 853fConvenience Store wi~h Gas Pum2~ fuel pos f 542.6 0.90 1.38 29% $11,599 $253 $3,230 $8,370 new n,'a IConvce/Gasoline/Fast Food Store 1,000 sf t 918 1.00 1.48 33% $24,813 S522 $6,668 $18,144 new 8401A¢,o Repair or Body Shop ! 1.000 sf I 37.6 2.90 3.38 72% $6,430 $106 $1,361 $5,069 $1,338 279% 849!Tire S~or6 ~ bays I 30.55 2.69 3.16 71% $4,741 $79 $1,015 S3,726 new 8.~,;Ir,e',;,L, sed&,~,cSae; ~ 1.003sf i 375 4.70 i 5.18 79% 511,404 $179 :52,282 $9,122 new 84,,SJ ~erv~ce Car ?,_sh I bay I 108 2.4-0 I 2.88 69% $14,649 $250 $3,192 $11,457 $7,205 59% L911 iBa2k/Savings WalK-in i 1,000 sf I !56.48 1.70 2.18 46% I $10,023 $183 $2,334 $7,689 $3,959 94% 91215anb'SavingsDHve-[n I 1.000 sf ! 265.21 1.70 2.18 46% I $16,802 $306 $3,912 $12,890 $7,468 73% INDUSTRY: 11,~l,.~.n~ra, induslr~al I1.000sfl 6.97 600 6.48__~ 93%1 $3,186 I $49 $625 62.661 !$1,21811 11o% I 77C LBusin~ ss :erK (Fiex-sp,%e) 1,000 sr._L 12.76- 6.30, ~ 6. 8 $5-']299,_L [---h-C~h.',;-V,are,~ouse l.ooo~tl-~ 4.30 14.781 91,~ i 6801 / $I3 I 6162 ~ $640 t5239 II 168%1 Source: Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc. ^ ATTACHMENT NO. PAGE /? 2 OF /7 JAN 2000 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PETITION A-99-02 JEFFREY S. KANNENSOHN, ESQ., PORTER, WRIGHT, MORRIS & ARTHUR LLP, REPRESENTING EUGENE C. THRUSHMAN, REQUESTING AN APPEAL OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING SERVICES DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION (I- 99-03), CONCERNING THE INSTALLATION OF FENCING WITHIN A CONSERVATION EASEMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN NORTHSHORE LAKE VILLAS PUD, TRACTS E AND F AND LOT 55. OBJECTIVE: Section 1.6.6. of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) establishes a procedure for appeal of an official interpretation of the Planning Services Director. On July 29, 1999, Attorney Kannenson requested an official interpretation from the Collier County Planning Services Director, regarding his client's ability to place fencing around a conservation area located within the Northshore Lake Villas PUD. On July 29, 1999, an official interpretation on this matter was rendered by the Planning Services Director. Mr. Kannenson, within the prescribed thirty-day appeal period, submitted a written request to appeal the Planning Services Director's Official interpretation to the Board of Zoning Appeals. The objective of this executive summary is to provide the Board with all of the evidence and pertinent information utilized by the Planning Services Director in reaching the subject interpretation, as well as any inlbn~ation and evidence placed into the record by the appellant, in order that the Board, after considerin~ this evidence, can make a determination to either uphold the Planning Services Director's Inler;wetaiion. or r,~nder it null and void. CONSIDERATIONS: By letter dated June 3, 1999, Mr. Jeffrey S. Kannensohn, representing Eugene C. Thrushman, requested an official interpretation of certain provisions of the Northshore Lake Villas PUD and of the iccorded Plat of the Northshore Lake Villas. Specifically, the request for interpretation centers around the issue of whether or not these provisions in the PUD and the LDC prohibit Mr. Thrushman from erecting a fence around the perimeter boundary of PUD Tracts E and F, both of which are designated conservation tracts (and both of which are dedicated to the Northshore Lake Villas Homeowners Association, with responsibility for perpetual maintenance). An official interpretation (I-99-03) was conveyed ta Mr. t2am~ensohn by letter dated July 29, 1999. Said letter of intmpretation is attached to this executive summary. Essentially, the Director opined that the construction of a fence around the perimeter of Tracts E and F is prohibited for the following reasons:: a) If the fence is erected within tracts E & F it is prohibited, as the declarations contain specific language prohibiting the erection of a fence within the easement; and b) Even if the fence is erected o the exterior (outside) of he boundaries of the easement, it is still not permitted as neither the PUD nor the LDC anticipates the erection of a fence around an easement dedicated to the homeowners association (for perpetual maintenance) and to the County (without the maintenance responsibility). This would have the effect of denying property owners in the Northshore Lake Villas access to the conservation areas for which they have the responsib~ A, CiF_.I'4D ~ ITEI~ JAN !1 2000 b) Even if the fence is erected on the exterior (outside) of the boundaries of the easement, it is still not permitted as neither the PUD nor the LDC anticipates the erection of a fence around an easement dedicated to the homeowners association (for perpetual maintenance) and to the County (without the maintenance responsibility). This would have the effect of denying property owners in the Northshore Lake Villas access to the conservation areas for which they have the responsibility for maintenance, and would be inconsistent with purpose and intent of a conservation easement which is included in the overall open space dedication requirement of the PUD. FISCAL IMPACT: Not Applicable. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Not Applicable. RECOMMENDATIONS: That the Board of County Commissioners deny this appeal and uphold the detemfination of the Planning Services Director that the erection of a fence around the perimcter of Tracts E smd F is not permitted by both the Northshore Lake Villas PUD and the Plat of the Northshore Lake Villas. PREPARED BY ROBERT J. MULHERE, AICP PI,ANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR DATE APprOVED BY:~ //> VINCENT':4. CAUTERO, AICP, ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNITY DEV. AND ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS. DATE EX SUMMARY/Petition A-99-02/RJM/im AGENDA ITEM JAN 11 2000 ORDINANCE NO. 95- ~4 r?' - :"7 AN ORDINANCE ~ENDING ORDINANCE N~BER 91-102> THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGU~TIONS ~J~-' FLORIDA BY ~ENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING AT~S.'. ~P N~BER 8521S; BY C~GING THE ZONING C~SSIFICATION OF THE HE~E~N DESCRIBED aEA~,,~:~ RECEIVED PROPERTY FROM "A" TO "PUD" P~NNED UNIT DEVE~PMENT KNOWN AS, NORTHSHORE ~KE VIL~S ~.:.,. of Board PUD FOR A ~XIH~ OF 55 DWELLING ~IWS FO~ A "C.~. .< GROSS DENSITY OF a UN~TS PER ACRE FOR PROPER~Y~'''¥?: ....... .. '"' LOCATED ON THE EAST S~DE OF VANDERB~LT DRfVE "-~- ...... (C.R. 90~), NORTH OF f~O~LEE ROAD (C.R. 846) IN SECTION 2~, TOWNSHfP 48 SOUTH, ~NGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF ~8.3~ ACRES$ AND BY PROViDiNG AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Blair A. Foley, of Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc.',~representing Gulfshore Lake Villas, Inc., petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida: SECTION ONE: The zoning clascification of the herein described real property located in Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from "A" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development in accordance with the Northshore Lake Villas PUD Document, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference herein. The official Zoning Atlas Map Number 8521S, as described in Ord~nanc ~ Number 91-102, the Collier County Land Development Code, is hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. -1- JAN 11 2000 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION PLANNING SERVICES July 29, 1999 Planning Services Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 Mr. Jeffrey S. Kannensohn 5801 Pelican Bay Boulevard, Suite 300 Naples. Florida 34108-2709 Re: Petition No. 1-99-03, Jeffrey S. Kannensohn, representing Eugene Thrushman, requesting an interpretation of provisions of the Northshore Lake Villas PUD, Ordinance No. 95-64, and Declarations to the Northshore Lake Villas as these instruments apply to the fencing of conservation tracts in the Northshore lake Villas PUD zoning district. Dear Mr. Kannensohn: This communication is in response to your letter dated June 3, 1999 requesting an official inteu-~rctaticn ?ursuam to Section I 6.3. of the Land Dcvelopment Code Pursuant to ', our r~grcement the o!'ficiai date of this reaponsc is hereby ar[iusted in view of our omi~smn to sc~.d this interpretation via ce~1ified return receipt mail. Thc ,.mat~c:'s for which an interpretation has been requested include provisions of the Northshore Villas PUD. Ordinance No. 95-64 with respect to whether or not said provisions allow a fence to be constructed along or xvithin all of the boundaries which enclose certain lands designated as conservation areas. Additional regulatoo instruments thai cover this same subject matter include the Plat of Northshore Lake Villas. Relative to the provisions of Ordinance No. 95-44 we find as follows: Phone (941) 403-2400 Section 2.8 ot~ the PUD provides that land areas and recreation amenities whose ownership and maintenance responsibility is a common interest to all subsequent purchasers of property within said development in which the common interest is located, the developer has provided the appropriate legal instnanents for the establishment of a Master Property Owners Association whose function includes provisions for the perpetual care and maintenance of those common facilities and open space. This document is known as the "Master Declaration of Covenants Conditions and Restrictions for Northshore lake Villas, to be recorded in the Public Records of Collier County." Fax (941) 643-6968 w~ ~.co.collier.fl.us Mr. Kannensohn July 29. 1999 Page Two Section 2.6.32. of the Land Development Code provides that sixty (60) percent of the land area in PUD's be set aside as open space. Conservation areas always count as part of this requirement, and therefore constitute a common interest set aside. This opinion is further enhanced by the provisions of Section 2.7.2.8.1. of the Land Development Code which provides for dedication of amenities inclusive of natural preservation areas in PUD's. The Board of County Commissioner's approval of the PUD assumes that any property iljustrated as a conservation/open space area would be set aside as a common amenity for all of the owners of land in this PUD. This line of reasoning is further supported by the provision of Sections IV and V of the PUD document whose purpose is as follows: Sec. IV The purpose of this section is to set forth the development plan and development standards for the areas designed as Tracts G, H, K, L, M, and N, Open Space, on the PUD Master Plan, Exhibit "A". The primary function of this tract is to provide lake, open space, and recreational facilities. If any vegetation is removed '.vi~hin Tracts It. K, L, M _,r :J. it shall be pre. ~dcd c'Isewnere within the PUD to maintain the required twenty-five percent (25%) retained native vegetation. Sec. V Conservation/Preserve Area- The purpose is to preserve and protect the native vegetation and naturally functioning habitat such as scrub oak in their natural state. Once again with respect to provisir;ns of'the pl rD that be,~ upoo~ the issues raised, Section 6.7 provides as follows: The conservation preserve tract shall be recorded on the plat or by a separate easement in favor of Collier County with no responsibility for maintenance and subject to protective covenants as per or similar to Chapter 704.06 of the Florida Statutes This provision is typical of the manner in which the County deals with conservation/preserve areas in Planned Unit Developments. Clearly the intent is that conservation/preserve areas be recorded as spaces accessible to all fee simple owners within the PUD. Restricting access by fee simple owners within this PUD to the conservation/preserve area, with a fence, is :on~ ~ to intent of these provisions of the PUD and LDC. ~o.~/-~ (~q) ? JAN 11 2000 Mr. Kannensohn July 29, 1999 Page Three Finally, we point to the dedications/reservation section of the Plat of Northshore Lakes Villa's and find as follows: Tc The Northshore Lake Villas Homeowners Association, Inc.: Tract "C", Tract "E", Tract "F" and all conservation easements shall be the perpetual responsibility of Northshore Lake Villas Homeowners Association and may in no way be altered from their natural state with the exception of permitted activities. Activities prohibited within the conservation areas include but are not limited to: construction or placing soil or other substances such as trash: removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation, with the exception of exotic/nuisance vegetation removal; excavation, dredging or removal of soil material; dykir~g ot fencing; and any other activities detrimental to drainage, floc, d control, water conservation, erosion control or fish and wildlife habitat conse~ation or t~reservation. To Collier County: Tract "C", Tract "E", Tract "F" and all conservation easements without responsibili~' for maintenance. Relative to the application of the word "within the conservation area" it is our opinion that a fence located along the Conservation boundary line falls within the meaning of the word "within". As an aside if the fence is clearly located external to the Conservation boundary line then it would be equally inconsistent because it would be located on other properties with easements such as rights-of-way. Thc entities to which these easements are dedicated, such as Collier County, must approve the placement of a fence. Clearly in all of the above citations the intent is that Tract "F" be dedicated as a public space conservation easement (for fee simple owners of property within this PUD). It follows that a fence enclosing this space, is not consistent with the cited provisions, and clearly, the fee owner of that land is not entitled to erect a fence around the perimeter of the conservation/preserve area. JAN 11 2000 Mr. Kannensohn July 29, 1999 Page Four In accordance to Section 1.6.6 of t. he Collier County Land Development Code within 30 days after receipt by the applicant or affected property owner of a written interpretation sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt requested by the Planning Services Department Director, the applicant may appeal the interpretation to the Board of Zoning Appeals. If I can be of any further assistance, please call 403-2400. Sincerely, Planmng Services Department Director RJM/md/l-99-03 D~-;a C. Weigel, Co~,r, t2 Attorney · ,,.:cent ,'x. Cautcio, AICi', Community Dev. & Environmental Svcs. Administrator Marjorie M. Student, Assistant County Attomey Heidi Ashton, Assistant County Attorney Ronald F. Nino, AICP, Current Planning Manager Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director File JAN 11 2000 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS IN RE: EUGENE C. THRUSHMAN PETITION NO. 1-99-03 APPEAL TO THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FROM A WRITTEN INTERPRETATION ISSUED BY OF THE DIRECTOR OF COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Eugene C. Thrushman ("Appellant"), pursuant to Section 1.6.6 of the Collier County Land Development Code ("LDC"), by and through his undersigned attorney, hereby files his appeal to the Collier County Board of Zoning Appeals from a written interpretation letter dated July 29, 1999 (received on August 6, 1999) issued with regard to Petition No. 1-99-03 by the Collier County Planning Services Director ("Director"), and in support of this appeal, the Affidavit of Eugene C. Thrushman ("Appellant's Affidavit") is attached hereto as Exhibit "A', and Appellant states as follows: FACTUAL BACKGROUND: On about Jane 26, 1995, Gulfshore Lake Villas, Inc., a Florida corporation ("Developer") made application with Collier County for a planned unit development of an 18.3 acre p~cel of real property located on Vanderbilt Drive, Naples, Florida ("PUD"). The Developer initially intended that the PUD would be comprised of 70 single family residential units, together with recreational amenities. In order to meet the requirements of the LCD and, more particularly, the' County's o?en space requirements, the Developer revised its plans, reducing the PUD to a 54 residential single family development, with an additional larger single family estate located on the eastern end of the PUD, together w4th two adjoining tracts of property, upon which the Counb' wuald require the imposition of a conservation easement to assure that the adjoining tracts would remain in their natural state. It was the Developer's intent that *he ownership of a single family estate lot and adjoining tracts would remain in the same person and constitute a single transferable parcel of property, subject to any conservation easement and restrictions placed upon the adjoining tracts (See Paragraph 3 of Appellant's Affidavit). On November 14, 1995, Collier County approved the PUD application and issued the "Northshore Lake Villas Planned Unit Development Ordinance No. 95-64" ("PUD Ordinance"), changing the zoning classification from "A" to "PUD", and allowing for the development of 54 residential villa units and a single family estate, recreational pool area, and gate house. Section 5 of the PUD Ordinance (which described the tracts adjoining the single family estate parcel as "Conservation\ Preserve Tract J")stated that Tract J .would be established "to preserve and protect the native vegetation and naturally functioning habitat such as scrub oak in their natural state". Section 6.7 of the PUD Ordinance provides that "the conservation/preserve tract shall be / recorded ,.,n the plat.., in favor of Collier County with no responsibility for maintenance subject to pro~ec::~, e covenants ar per or similar to... Section 704.06 of the Florida Statutes." Pursuant to the terms of the PUD Ordinance, on March 7, 1997, the plat for the PUD ("Plat") was filed in Plat Book 28, Page 8, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Tract J in the PUD Ordinance was relabeled in the Plat as Tracts E and F, and shown as being made subject to a "conservation easement". (Tracts E and F are sometimes collectively hereina,Ser referred to as the "Conservation Parcel".) The Plat shows a 10 foot utility easement ("Utility Easement") along the westerly 10 feet of Tracts E and F, and a 40 foot fight of way easement for access, drainage, and county utilities over Tract A (designated as "Captain Kate Court"), with cul de sacs located on the north and south side of Lot 55, and adjacent to Tracts E and F. The Developer presently holds fee simple title to Tract A, subject to the dedicated easements. The Plat contains the following dedications: To Northshore Lake Villas Homeowners Association, Inc.: 3) Tract C, Tract CC, Tract E and Tract F, and all conservation easements shall be the perpetual responsibility of Northshore Lake Villas Homeowners Association and may in no way be altered from the natural state with the exception of permitted activities. Activities prohibited within the conservation areas include but are not limited to: construction or placing of soil or other substances such as trash; removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation, with the exception of exotic/nuisance vegetation removal; excavation, dredging or removal of soil material; dyking or fencing; and any other activities detrimental to the drainage, flood control, water consgrvation, erosion control or fish and wildlife habitat conservation or preservation. To Collier County: 3) Tract C, Tract CC, Tract E, Tract F, and all conservation · ,~ ':,~c;::..~ xx itt-,,~t re~po~4'~-.i[i~F· for :~einter. ance. Prior to the sale of any lots in the PUD to third party purchasers, in order to evidence the Developer's intent (and to provide actual and constructive notice to all property owners in the PUD) that the single tinnily estate parcel (labeled as Lot 55 on the Plat and Tracts E and F) would remain in unified ownership, the Developer filed an "Amended and Restated Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions" ("Declaration") on April 2, 1997, in Official Records Book 2300, Page 3927, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Section 3.05 of the Declaration provides as follows: "At the time that the Declarant conveys to a third party fee simple title in and to Lot 55 as depicted in the Plat, the Declarant shall also transfer fee simple title to Tracts E and F, as depicted on the Plat, to such third party. At the time of any subsequent transfer and conveyance by such third party or any successor in interest of Lot 55, Tracts E and F shall also be deemed to have been transferred to the transferee whether Tracts E and F are referred to in the deed of conveyance or not. The owner of fee simple title to Lot 55 shall have the sole responsibility for maintenance and control of Tracts E and F, subject, however, to any fights or obligations with respect to Tracts E and F as set forth in the Plat. 2 JAN 11 2000 PS- On May 6, 1997, the Developer deeded Lot 55 and Tracts E and F to Appellant. On May 3, ' 996, Appellant retained Coastal Wire & Fence, Inc. ("First Contractor") to install a chain link fence to run along the boundary of Tracts E and F and Lot 55. The First Contractor's responsibility to construct the fence included obtaining all necessary permits from Collier County. The First Contractor, prior to finalizing the installation of the fence, abandoned the work. Thereafter, Appellant retained Carter Fence Company ("Second Contractor") to complete the installation of the fences, which the Second Contractor finished on or about May 15, 1997. Unbeknownst to Appellant or Second Contractor, the First Contractor had failed to procure the necessary fence permits. The fence, for the most part, straddles the boundary line between Tracts F and E, and the adjoining Utility Easement, Tract A (along the north and south cul de sacs on Captain Kate Court) and the property to the north, east, and south of Tract F. The location of the fence is shown on the' survey attached hereto as Exhibit "B". On March 9, 1999, Appellant was notified by a Collier County Code Enforcement officer that the fence had been installed in violation of the LCD since no building permit had been issued therefor. Thereafter, Appellant applied with Collier County for a building permit for the fence. The application was granted for the fence located on the north, east, and south boundary of Tract F ("Permitted Fence"), but was denied as to the remaining fence ("Non Permitted Fences"). After numerous meetings with Collier County officials to attempt to resolve this matter, the Appellant requested, pursuant to Section 1.6.6 of the LCD, the issuance by the Director of a formal interpretation setting forth the reasons for the County's partial denial of the fence building permit application, which interpretation letter ("Interpretation") was issued by the Director on or about July 29, 1999, and received by Appellant on August 6, 1999. L EGA L ARGUMENT: The Director in the Interpretation adopts two basic positions in concluding that a building permit mey pot be issued for the Non Permitted Fence: (a) that the location of such fence is "within the conservation area" in violation of the easement dedication in the Plat, and (b) even if the Non Permitted Fence was located, or could be located, outside of such restricted area, the 'con Permitted Fences ~ould interfere with thc fight of access provided to owners of residential units within the PUD ("PUD Owners") under the Plat and PUD Ordinance. It is Appellant's contention that (i) the Non Permitted Fence as located is not prohibited by the restrictions in the Plat, and (ii) that while there is a conservation easement granted in the Plat, there is no express or implied grant of an access easement to or over the Conservation Parcel in favor of PUD Owners that is, or would be, interfered with by the Non Permitted Fence. AGENDA ITEM JA,'t 1 1 2000 ISSI/E ONE: THE NON PERMITTED FENCE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PLAT RESTRICTIONS PROHIBITING THE PLACEMENT OF A FENCE WITHIN THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT. The Plat dedication to the Northshore Lake Villas Homeowners Association, Inc. contains the following restrictions upon the use of the Conservation Parcel ("Plat Restrictions"): 3)... Tract E, Tract F and all conservation easements shall be the perpetual responsibility of Northshore Lake Villas Homeowners Association, Inc. and may in no way be altered from their natural state, with the exception of permitted activities. Activities prohibited within the conservation areas include but are not limited to: Construction or placing soil or other substances such as trash; removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or the vegetation.., dyking or fencing; and any other activities detrimental to drainage, flood control, water conservation, erosion control or fish and wildlife habitat conservation or preservation (emphasis added). Most of the Non Permitted Fence is located physically outside of the boundary lines of Tracts E and F. On both cul de sacs within Captain Kate Court the fence posts and most of the fence are located just within the boundary line of Tract A. The notable exceptions are the short stretch of fence running south to north on the north side of the cul de sac that is at most a few feet inside the Tract F boundary line, and the short stretch of fence located to the north of the driveway on Lot 55. that is located a few feet inside the boundary line.~ 'l"he Non Permitted Fence located on the west boundary of Tract E and F is located just outside the Utility Easement, and just inches inside the western boundary line of Tracts E and F. Since the Non Permitted Fence, in substance, is not located within the boundary lines of the Conservation Parcel, the Director's findings that the Plat Restrictions prevent the issuq~.ce of a building permit f, ar that fence is clearly erroneous. Even assuming, arguendo, that the Non Permitted Fence is located physically inside the boundary, line of Tracts E and F, the finding of the Director that the fence violates the Plat Restrictions is still erroneous. The Director's findings imply that the Plat Restrictions impose an absolute restriction upon any fence being located inside the boundary line of Tracts E and F, even if the encroachment is only a matter of inches. Such an interpretation is overly restrictive and overreaching given the language in the Plat and the clear intent of the County and the Developer in making 'he dedication of' ~e conservation easement at the time the Plat was filed. The Plat Restrictions regarding fences are ambiguous at best, which ambiguity must be resolved by giving consideration to the parties' expressed intention in creating the conservation easement. Given such intent, is clear that the present placement of the Non Permitted Fence just within the ~ To the extent these encroachments into the boundary area of the Conservation Parcel 9iolate the Plat restrictions, Appellant hereby offers to move such encroaching fences to outside the boundary line of the Conservation Parcel. The location of the Non Permitted Fences within the Utility Easement and Tract A area clearly does not. and would not, interfere with the use of the easement areas by Collier County, and should tb ,~,.c,,,. he subject to Count)..' approval, to the extent required by law. 4 JAN 11 2000 boundaD' area of Tracts E and F does not interfere with the conservation easement nor violate the Plat Restrictions. In Florida the courts have consistently held that in determining the extent of an easement, and any restriction thereon, the intention of the parties at the time the easement was created is of controlling importance. 20 Fla Jut 2d Easements ~q29. The Florida courts have also found that where easements contained in plats are unclear or ambiguous, reference can and shall be made to extrinsic evidence of intent. Wilson v. Dunlap, 101. So2d 801 (Fla 1958). The conservation easement was created pursuant to the PUD Ordinance as required by Section 6.7, which indicated that the protective covenants in the dedication shall be similar to the restrictions set forth in Section 704.06 of the Florida Statutes. The Plat Restrictions contain very similar limitations and restrictions to those listed in the statute. But notably missing from the statutory limitations is any restriction upon fences being placed within the boundaries of a conservation easement. In addition to this inconsistency between the Plat Restrictions and the statutory provision, it should also be noted that the stated purpose for the conservation easement under Section 5.1 of the PUD Ordinance is "to preserve and protect the native vegetation and natural functioning habitat..." Further, at the time the Developer signed the Plat it was its understanding and intention that it could not disturb the natural habitat within Tracts E and F, but nothing would prohibit him from placing a fence just inside the boundary of that property (See attached Paragraph 4, Appellant's Affidavit). The stated purpose of the conservation easement and the Developer's intention in creating such easement confirms the legal construction that the Plat Restrictions are not an absolute prohibition on all fences located within the boundary of the Conservation Parcel, but are only intended to be a limitation on fences within that parcel that are "detrimental to drainage, flood control, water conservation, erosion control or fish and wildlife habitat conservation or preservation." Such a construction is totally consistent with the purpose and intent of the conservation easements as stated in the PUD Ordinance and Florida Statute Section 704.06. The Director, it should be noted, has not found the Non Permitted Fence to be "detrimental" to the habitat within the Conservation Parcel. In fact, common sense would dictate that the Non Permitted Fence will serve to protect the Conservation Preserve by keeping people and vehicles from entering that property, which could result in damage to the habitat, injury to wildlife, and contamination or trashing of the property. It is also important to consider that Collier County, by its own prior action, has itself recognized that the location of a fence within the boundary area of the Conservation Parcel in and of itself is not prohibited by the Plat Restrictions. The County has issued a building permit for the Permitted Fence that is located inside the boundary of the north, east e-~d south boundary lines of the Conservation Parcel, to the same extent that the Non Permitted Fence is located on that parcel. The County, by issuing the building permit, has obviously concluded that the Permitted Fence is not prohibited. There is no difference betxveen the Permitted Fence and Non Permitted Fence, with exception that the Non Permitted Fence would prevent PUD Owners from traversing onto the Conservation Parcel. AGENDA~TEM / 5 JAN 11 2000 The County's inconsistent positions regarding the Permitted Fence and the Non Permitted Fence demonstrate that the heart of this issue is not whether the Non Permitted Fe.~ce is prohibited by the Plat Restrictions, but whether that fence interferes with the claimed fights of PUD Owners to access the Conservation Parcel, a fight which Appellant asserts does not exist. ISSUE TWO: THERE IS NO GENERAL RIGHT OF ACCESS TO THE CONSERVATION PARCEL IN FAVOR OF PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE PUD CREATED UNDER THE PLAT OR PUD ORDINANCE AND, THEREFORE, THE NON PERMITTED FENCE AS LOCATED, OR RELOCATED, DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH EASEMENT RIGHTS OF SUCH OWNERS. The Director, by referring to a number of provisions of the LCD and PUD Ordinance, correctly asserts that the approval of the PUD by the County Commission contemplated a set aside by the Developer of Tracts E and F as a conservation area for the benefit of the PUD and property owners therein. The Director, however, goes too far by then making an unsubstantiated assertion that since the conservation area is a common area set aside for all the PUD Owners: · . . the intent is that conservation/preserve area be recorded as spaces accessible to all fee simple owners within the PUD. Restricting access by fee simple owners within the PUD to the conservation area, with a fence, is contradictory to the intent of these provisions of the PUD and LDC. Contrary to the Director's conclusions, it is clear from a close review and analysis of the PUD Ordinance and Plat that there is no express or implied easement, nor any intention, express or implied, to grant a right of access to the PUD Owners. In Florida an easement right can be granted in one of three ways: (a) by express agreement. (b) by implication, or (c) by prescription. 20 Fla ./ur 2d, Easement ,~ 10. There is no pro'.qsion in the PUD Ordinance or Plat that expressly grits a fight of access to the Conservation Parcel in favor of the owners within the PUD, and the concept of the right of prescription clearly would not apply in this case. Therefore, the only legal basis for finding the existence of a fight of public access to the Conservation Parcel would be under the law of an easement by implication. The Courts in Florida generally discourage implied grants of easements, but such an easement may be implied from the construction and effect of an express grant of an easement. 20 Fla Jur 2d Easements L;q20. Any such determinatic ~ must be made on a case by case basis. Highland Construction~ Inc. v. Paquette, 697 So. 2d 235 (Fla 5th DCA 1997). The Florida courts in various cases have recognized the existence of an implied easement in favor of property owners within a PUD based upon a reference to a plat in the deed of conveyance, which plat shows certain park, beach, lake, or similar areas obviously intended to be used by the property owners. 20 Fla. dur 2d Easements ~25: See, e.g., Enos v. Case¥ Mountain, Inc., 532 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 5th DCA, 1988); Flowers v. Seagrave Beach, Inc. 479 So. 2d 841 (Fla. Ist ~ ?'d IA~t,~TF.~ I 6 JAN l l 2000 These cases, however, have consistently been applied to factual situations where the common interest set aside area is clearly of a nature that is intended to be used and traveled over by the general population of the development. The facts in the present case are clearly distinguishable from the factual situations present in the reported Florida court cases. The conservation easement within the Conservation Parcel is clearly stated in the PUD Ordinance to be established to preserve the natural habitat. Such a use clearly does not contemplate nor allow access to that property by the general population of the PUD, which access to and use of the conservation area x~ould only serve to damage or harm that area. Accordingly the above cited legal authority cannot serve as a basis for finding the existence of an access easement by implication, A comparison between the conservation/preserve area established on Tracts E and F pursuant to Section 5 of the PUD Ordinance, with the common interest set aside required under Section 4 of the PUD Ordinance. further serves to iljustrate that the Developer and the County recognized the different uses contemplated in Section 4 and Section 5 would, in the case of the Section 4 property, require access for the property owners, and in the case of Section 5 property, not require any such fight of access. Under Section 4 a specific set aside for Tracts G, H, K, L, M and N is required for the primary function and purpose of providing lake, open space, and recreational facilities, all uses which clearly contemplate and require access to the enumerated parcels by the PUD Owners in order for those parcels to be enjoyed and used by the PUD Owners. Therefore, under the reasoning of the above cited case law, an implied easement for ingress and egress over the Section 4 property does exist consistent with the stated purpose and use of those recreational use parcels. No such similar purpose exists for the Section 5 conserxation7 preserve property that would require access for the owners, and accordingly, no intended or implied right of access can be found to exist. ~ In fact, the intended use and purpose of the Section 5 property requires the exclusion of the PUD Owners and their guests from access to that prc)perxty in order to meet the stated objective for that property. The Conservation Parcel has not }~.een. and may not be, a!tered ,"rom its natural state, and is intended, at best, to be a visual amenity to the owners. Allowing access to this property by the general population will only serx'c to harm the natural habitat. One can picture trash, litter, and contaminants being dmnped on the property, not to mention the risk to PUD Owners and their guests of personal injury in the natural wooded area which could expose Appellant to claims for premises liability for anyone hurt x~ hile tr:~velling within the Conservation Parcel. In summary, not only is there no express or implied fight of access to the Conservation Parcel, any access to that property would only serve to frustrate the purpose and intent of the Developer and County in establishing the preserve area in the first place. The Non Permitted Fence does not interfere with any valid and recognizable fight of access to the Conservation Parcel. ~nd further serves to promote the originally stated purpose for creating the conservation area. ~Appellant agrees that since the homeowners association has an obligation to maintain the conservation area, the association has a limited implied right of access to property for the sole purpose of perfr ['/pine that maintenance obligation. A~A ITEM 7 JAN Il 2000 SUMMARY: For the reasons set forth above, the Director's finding in the Interpretation is not supported by substantial competent evidence, and the County's prior denial of the Appellant's application of a building permit for the Non Permitted Fence is contrary to the Collier County Land Development Code, the PUD Ordinance, and Plat. Accordingly, Appellant respectfully request the Board of Zoning Appeals to reject the Director's Interpretation and to require for,.hv,~ith the issuance by Collier County of a building permit for the Non Permitted Fence. Dated the 2nd day of September 1999. Jeffrey~.~i~tnen~hn, Esq. Attome~r ~ppellant Florida Bar.lo. 246972 Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur LLP 5801 Pelican Bay Blvd., Suite 300 Naples, Florida 34108 941/593-2900 8 ITEM AFFIDAVIT OF EUGENE C THRUSHMAN IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL TO THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FROM A WRITTEN INTERPRETATION ISSUED BY OF THE DIRECTOR OF COLLIER COUNTY OF PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority,, personally appeared EUGENE C. THR: 5HMAN ("Affiant"), who being by me first duly sworn, deposes and says subject to penalzes of perjury that: 1. Affiant, Eugene C. Thrushman, is the President of GULFSHORE LAKE VILLAS, INC., a Florida corporation ("Developer"). 2. Affiant is providing this Affidavit in his individual capacity and as the President of the Developer, in support of the Affiant's Appeal To The Collier County Board Of Zoning Appea3 From A Written Interpretation Issued By Of The Director Of Collier County Of Planm,_~. Services Department. Affiant has personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein. 3. On about June 26, 1995 the Developer made application with Collier County for a planned unit development of an 18.3 acre parcel of real property located on Vanderbilt Drive, Naples. Florida ("PUD"). The Developer initially intended that the PUD would be comprised of 70 single family residential units, together with recreational amenities. In order to meet the requirements of the LCD and, more particularly, the County's open space requirements, the Developer revised its plans, reducing the PUD to a 54 residential single family development, with an additional larger single family estate located on the eastern end of the PUD, together wi~h t~v ~djoirJng tr.~c~s of property, upon which the County would require the imposition of a conservation easement to assure that the adjoining tracts would remain in their natural state. It was the Developer's intent that the ownership of a single family estate lot and adjoining tracts ~ould remain in the same person and constitute a single transferable parcel of property, subject to any conservation easement and restrictions placed upon the adjoining tracts. 4. At the time the Developer signed the Plat it was its understanding and intention that the Developer could not disturb the natural habitat within conservation easement located within Tracts E and F, but nothing would prohibit him from placing a fence on the boundary of that property, consistent with Developer's intent that the owner of Lot 55 would have unified ownership and control over that lot and Tract E and F as a single family estate propcrty. 5. Prior to the sale of any lots in the PUD to third party purchasers, in order to evidence the Developer's intent (and to provide actual and constructive notice to all property owners in the PUD) that the single family estate parcel (labeled as Lot 55 on the Plat and Tracts E and F) would remain in unified ownership, the Developer filed an "Amended and Restated Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions" ("Declaration") on Apfi] 2, 1997, in Official Records Book 2300, Page 3927, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. 6. On May 6, 1997, the Developer deeded Lot 55 and Tracts E and F to Affiant. lay 3, 1996, Affiant retained Coastal Wire & Fence, Inc. ("First Contractor") to install cl On AGENDA ITEM JAIq 11 2000 link fence to run along the boundary, of Tracts E and F and Lot 55. The First Contractor's responsibility to construct the fence included obtaining al'. necessary permits from Collier County. The First Contractor, prior to finalizing the installation of the fence, abandoned the work. Thereafter, Affiant retained Carter Fence Company ("Second Contractor") to complete the installation of the fence, which the Second Contractor finished on or about May 15, 1997. Unbeknownst to Affiant or Second Contractor, the First Contractor had failed to procure the necessary fence permits. The location of the fence is shown on the survey attached to the Appeal Brief as Exhibit "B". 7. On March 9, 1999, Affiant was notified by a Collier County Code Enforcement officer that the fence had been installed in violation of the LCD since no building permit had been issued therefor. Thereafter, Affiant applied with Collier County for a building permit for the fence. The application was granted for the fence located on the south and west boundary of Tract F ("Permitted Fence"), but was denied as to the remaining fence ("Non Permitted Fences"). After numerous meetings with Collier County officials to attempt to resolve this matter, the Appellant requested, pursuant to Section 1.6.6 of the LCD, the issuance by the Director Planning Services for Collier County ("Director") of a formal interpretation setting forth the reasons for the County's partial denial of the fence building permit application, which interpretation letter ("Interpretation") was issued by the Director on or about July 29, 1999, and received by Affiant on August 6, 1999. 8. At the time the Developer executed and delivered the Plat it was the Developer's intention and purpose to grant a conservation easement over Tracts E and F as required by Collier County in the PUD Ordinance, but there was no intention that the o~ners of property within the PUD would have any' right of access to Tract E and F. To the contrary, Developer expected and understood that access to Tract E and F would be limited only to the owner of that propert?', Collier Count)', and the homeowners association, given the stated purpose of the conservation easement under the PUD Ordinance as being to preserve the natural habitat on that Ev% gg - c GULFSHORE VILLAS, INC., a By,~_~,., Eugenic~ C. Thrum, As Its President 2 AGEI~A I'rEM JAN 11 2000 STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me on this 31st day of August 1999, by EUGENE C. THRUSHMAN, who is personally known to me, in his individual capacity and as President of GULFSHORE VILLAS, INC., a Florida corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public My Commission Expires: Commission Number: (Notary Seal) NAPLE3/2O~376 v 01 AGE. I~::)A ITEM JAN 11 2000 pg. /,/,~' _ AGENDA I'1. ~/-.~,~) / JAN 11 2000 ,,,../£ dllll! :l , Il [~ ............. c~j~ Jill[ [ I Il I 11 Ill il l~_ , !l I i { I1 .... i'~:li~[i !l!~i[ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJtJJJJJ I~JJjJlJJJjjljjj~jjjjj !lti!J:lzmiilllllllll]: .! I VANDERBILT DRIVE 100' RIGHT OF WAY (5-901) AGEI~A ITEM m. /J/,,~ ) / JAN 11 2000 P,. /? DEDICATiONS/RESERVATIONS STATE OF FLORIDA / SS COUNTY OF COT.1.1~.R ) KNOW Al.i. 'Mug BY THESE PRESENTS THAT G~ORE LAKE ~ INCORPORATED A FLORIDA CORPORATION, THE OWNER OF THE LANDS DESCRI~ED HEREON HAVE CAUSED THIS PLAT OF NORTHSHORE IduKE VqT.T~S REPLAT TO BE MADE AND DO ~4 HEREBY DEDICATE THE FOLIX)~ING: TO THE NORTHSHORE LkKE VTLTAS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.: 1) TRACT "A" (CAPT'N KATE COURT) AN EASEMENT FOR THE INST~I.TATION AND MAINTENANCE OF A PRIVATE ROADWAY SUBJECT TO THE EASE~_,NTS CREATED HEREIN. 2) TRACT 'B" AND ~].T. LAKE MAINTENANCE EASEMENTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF INST~I.TATION AND M~NTENANCE OF THOSE RESPECTIVE FACILITIRS WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTENANCE. (~) "C", TRACT "CC", TRACT "E', TRACT 'F' AND ~I.T. CONSERVATION TRACT ~EMENTS SHALL BE THE PERPETUAL RESPONSIBILITY OF NORTHSHORE LAKE VI].~.S HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AND MAY IN NO WAY BE ALTERED FROM THEIR NATURAL STATE ~flTH THE EXCEPTION OF PERM/TI~D ACTIVI'ITES. ACTIVITIES PROHIBITED W1THIN THE CONSERVATION AREAS INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT [.TUTI~D TO: CONSTRUCTION OR PLACING SOIL OR OTHER SUBSTANCES SUCH AS TRASH; REMOVAL OR DESTRUCTION OF TREES, SHRUBS OR OTHER VEGETATION, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF EXOTIC/NUISANCE VEGETATION REMOVAL; EXCAVATION, DREDGING OR REMOVAL OF SOIL MATERIAL; DYKING OR FENCING; AND ANY OTHER ACTIVITIES DETRIME~AL TO DRAINAGE, FLOOD CONTROL, WATER CONSERVATION, EROSION CONTROL OR FISH AND WTIDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION OR PRESERVATION. 4) TRACT "D" FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING A RECREATION AREA WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTENANCE. 5) ALL DRAINAGE EASEMENTS INDICATED ON THE PLAT, FOR THE PURPOSES OF ACne,IDA ITEM JAN 11 2000 Ps. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners ~f Collier County, Florida, this /~ day of ~~~, ~9~. DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK ".. ".: ',"' / ."--.' "t" '" ".."{' AP.P~OVED .AS~ TO FORM · . <AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY MARJORI~ M. STUDENT ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PUD-95-8 ORDINANCE/15212 Secr~et. prY of State's Offtce a~d acknowledgement of that · -ecoFved this ~ -2- AGE. I~ A I'1'~c.~ JAN 11 2000 NORTHSHORE LAKE VILLAS A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN GOVERNING DEVELOPMENT OF NORTHSHORE LAKE VILLAS, A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PREPARED FOR: NORTHSHORE LAKE VILLAS, INC. 2063 TRADE CENTER WAY NAPLES, FL 33942 PREPARED BY: COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. 3106 S. HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FL 33942 CEC FILE NO. 95.145 June 26, 1995 Revlsed August 16, 1995 Revlsed October 11, 1995 Revlsed October 12, 1995 Revised October 18, 1995 ORDINANCE NUMBER: 95-64 AGENDA JAN 11 PI. T/~BLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT OF COMPUANCE ................................... 1 SEG~Iq ON I SECTION II SECTION III SECTION IV SECTION V SECTION VI EXHIBITS 'A' PROPERTY OWNERSHIP & DESCRIPTION .............. 2 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT .......................... 3 RESIDENTIAL TRACTS ............................. 5 OPEN SPACE TRACTS G - N ........................ 8 CONSERVATION/PRESERVE, TRACT J ................. 9 DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS .................... 10 PUD MASTER PLAN JAN 11 2000 STATEMENT OF COMPUANCE The development of approximately 18.3 acres of property In Co~ller County, as a Planned Unit Development known as Northshore lake Villas, Is In compliance with the goals, objectives and policies of Collier County es set forth In the Growth Management Plan. The residential, recreational, and other development authorized herein will be consistent with the growth policies, land development regulations and appllcable comprehensive planning objectives of each of the elements of the Growth Management Plan In effect at the time of approval by the C(flller County Board of County Commlssloners for the I'ollowlng reasons: ~eOdent!al Prolect 1. The subject property Is within the Urban Residential land use designation as identified on the Future Land Use Map as required In Objective 1, Policy 5.1 and Policy 5.3 of the Future Land Use Element. 2. The subject property's location In relation to existing or proposed community facilities and services permits.the development's resldentlal density as required tn Objective 2 of the Future ~ 'Isa Element. 3. The project development Is compatible and complementary to existing and future surrounding land uses as required In Policy 5.4 of the Future Land Use Element. 4. Future Improvements are planned to be in compliance wlth all current and applicable land development regulations as set forth In the Growth Management Plan and amendments thereto. The project development results In an efficient and economical extension of community facilities and services as required In P, ollcles 3.1.H and L of the Future Land Use Element. The project development Incorporates a natural system for water management in accordance with their natural functions and capabilities as required by Objective 1.5 of the Drainage Sub-Element of the Public Facilities ElemenL The maximum density is 3.0 dwelling units per acre and Is in compliance with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. The project Includes extensive open space In the form oi' a native vegetation preserve to provide a high quality of life for its residents. SHORY TITLE This Ordinance shall be known and cited as the Northshore Lake Villas Planned Unit Development Ordinance. JAN !1 2000 SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION 1.1 pI,]RPO~E The purpose of this Section is to set forth the location and ownership of the property, and to describe the existing conditions of the property being developed under the project name of Northshore Lake Villas. 1.2 PROPERTYOWNERSHIP The subject property Is currently under the ownership of Thomas R. Brown, Trustee, 2660 Airport Road South, Naples, FL 33942. 1.3 LEGAL DE$CRIPTIQN A tract of land lying in Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 25 East; Collier County, Florida, being more particularly described as follows: The NW 1/4 of SW 1/4, less 800 ft + 621 ft TR in SW comer + South 1/2 of South 1/2 of NW 1/4 of SW 1/4 R/W in O.R. 106, Page 131, less O.R. 1241, Page 727, O.R. 1235, Page 1095, O.R. 1292, Page 933. 1.4 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AREA The project site contains 18.3 acres and is located in lands lying within Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. The property is bounded on the north by Vanderb~t Villas; on the east by Naples Park Elementary, arid (~n the south by the Naples Memorial Gardens. 1.5 P R O J ECT._[_DESCRI PTI O N. Northshore Lake Vi[las is a proposed residential communRy. The project will consists of 54 v~la units, single fam~y estate, recreational pool area and gate house. The project entrance is on Vanderbilt Drive and the Internal road system is a dual dead end cul-de-sac. The maximum number of dwelling units for the project wilt be 55 units, resulting in a gross density of 3 units per acre. JAN 11 2000 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.5 SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT [PURPOSE The purpose of this Section Is to delineate and generally describe the project plan of development, relationships to applicable County ordinances and the respective land uses of the tracts Included In the project. ~ENERAL Co Regulations for development of Northshore shall be In accordance wlth the contents of this document, PUD-Planned Unit Development District and other applicable sections and parts of the Colller County Land Development Code and Collier County Growth Management Plan - Conservation and Coastal Management Element In effect at the time of local final development order or building permit application. Where these PUD regulations fall to provide developmental standards, then the provlslons of the most similar dlstrlct In the Collier County Land Development Code shall apply. Unless otherwise noted, the definitions of all terms shall be the same as the definitions set forth In Collier County Land Development Code In effect at the time ol~ local finaJ development order or buildlng permit appllcatlon. The development permitted by Ihe approval of th!s petition will be subject to review under the applicable provisions In effect at the time development permits are requested. DESCRIPTION OF THE PUD MASTER PLAN The PUD Master Plan Including layout of streets and uses of land for the various tracts Is Iljustrated graphically by the PUD Master Plan, Exhibit 'A'. RELATED p.ROJECT pLAN APP~V,.AL REQUIREMENTS No more than the maximum of 55 dwelling unlls shall be constructed In the total project area. The gross project area Is 18.3 acres. The gross project density, therefore, will be a m~x[mum of 3 units per acre. RELATED PROJECT PLAN APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS Prior to recording the Subdivision Plat, and/or approval of a Condominium Plat, final plans shall receive approval of the appropriate Collier County governmental agency to Insure compliance with the PUD Master Plan, the Collier County Land Development Code and the platting laws of the State of Florida. JAN 1.1 2000 ? .. 2.6 2,7 2.8 MODEL HOMES AND ~ALES FACILITIES Model homes/dry model home centers, sales centers and administrative offices shall be permitted In conjunction with the promotion o! the development after approval ol~ the rezone or preliminary plaL AMENDMENTS TO PUD DOCUMENT OR PUD MASTER PLAN Amendments may be made to the PUD as provided in the Collier County Land Development Code. ASSOCIATION OF PROPERTY OWNERS FOR COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE The land areas and recreation amenities whose ownership and maintenance responsibility is a common Interest to ~11 subsequent purchasers of property within Mid development In which the common Interest Is Iocated~ the developer has provided the appropriate legal Instruments for the establishment of a Master Property Owners Association whose function Includes provisions for the perpetual care and maintenance o! those common facllltles and open space. This document Is known as the 'Master Declarallon of Covenants, Condltlons and Restrictions for Northshore Lake Villas, to be recorded In the Publlc Records of Collier County. JAN 11 2000 3.1 3.2 3.3 SECTION III RESIDENTIAL TRACTS: B, C, D, E, F ~tJRPOSE The purpose o! this Section Is to Identify specific development standards for areas designated on the PUD Master Plan as resldentlal tracts. I~.A~(IMUM DWELLING UNITS Tracts designated for residential uses shall be developed In accordance with the standards set forth In the Cotller County Land Development Code and the development regulations established In this ordinance provided the total number of dwelling units for the entire Northshors lake VHlas PUD does not exceed 55. USES PERMITTED The lype of prlnolpaJ use that characterizes the Initial development of any platted tract shall be carried throughout the development of that entire tract. No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, In whole or part, lot other than the following: A. Principal Uses: Single Family Detached Duplex/Villas/MultI-FamUy/Patlo Recreation CommuP",, Facilities (See B.2 below) B. Accessory Uses: Customary accessory uses and structures, including carports, garages, patios, pools, spas, decks, fences and other accessory uses that are typically associated with similar principal uses per the Land Development Code. Recreational community facilities that serve as an Integral part of a residential tract and have been designated, reviewed and approved on a see development plan or Pre~i.ni.~ary Subdlvis~cn Plat lot that development. Recreatlor,~ facilities may Include, but are not limited to a pool budding and swimmlng pool. Small buildings, enclosures, or other structures constructed lot purposes of maintenance, service or shelter. Small docks, piers, boardwalks or other such facilities constructed for purposes of lake access. JAN 11 200[3 3.4 pEVELQPMENT STANDARDS PERMITTED USE STANDARDS TYPE '1' SINGLE-FAMILY TYPE '11° DETACHED MULTI-FAMILY V~LLAS,/DUPLEX/PATIO Minimum Land .Nee Per Dwelling Unit 4500 SF 2000 SF S~te or Lot Width Min. Avg.. 40 FT N/A Front Yai'd Setback, Prlnclp~l 20 FT 20 FT F;ont Yard Setback, Accessory 10 FT 10 FT S~de Yard ~tback, Principal ~ FT 0 FT or · mln, of e FT S~de Yard Selback ,~3ce~ry 71~ FT 0 FT or I min. of 6 FT Rear Y~rd Setback, Principal 15 FT , .... 15 FT Rea/Yard Selback, Arx:e~ory 10 FT 10 FT Max. B~lldlng Height 35 FT 40 FT D~stance Between Principal SVucturee N/A 15' or · diet,race equal to 1,/2 the sum of the bulldlng heights, whichever la greater Iqoor Area Minimum/Dwelling Unit 10OO SF 1 etory.~30 SF Mtn. F~ght-of-W&y Easement Widths lot Ratted Reade with V~llay Gutter or 40 FT N/A Curb ~nd Gullet NOTE: Unless otherwise Indicated, development standards apply to principal structures. Front yard setbacks shall be measured as follows: (1) (2} · (3) If the parcel Is served by a public or private right-of-way, setback Is measured from the adjacent right-of-way fine, If the parcel Is served by a non-platted private drive, setback Is measured from the back of curb, valley gutter or edge of pavement. If the parcel ls served by a platted private drive, setback Is measured from the road easement or property line. 3.5 [~.~_F-_.S_T_.._R_E_ET._._PARK;NG AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS As required by Division 2.3 of the Collier County Land Development Code In effect at the time of building permit appllcatlon. No recreational or commercial vehicle parklng Is allowed wlthln housing tracts. Parking within principal structures Is permtHed. AGENDA ITEM JAN 11 2000 3.6 3.7 HOUSING TYPES Slnale Family Detached: A building which contains only one dwelling unit and Is occupied by no more than one family, Patio {'Zero Lot Line): A structure In which one wall Is concurrent with a side property line and the required mlnlmum slx foot side yard Is shred to the non-zero slde lot line. DuDleX: Means a housing structure containing two dwelling units either vertically or horizontally attached. Do Vill{~: Multiple family structure containing three or more dwelling units both vertically and horizontally attached bjplc, ally with dwelling units over dwelling units having Irregular shaped exterior walls. Eo Multiple Family: A group of three or more dwelling units withln a single conventional bulldlng, attached Side by side, or one above another, or both, and wherein each dwelllng unit may be Indlvldually owned or leased but the land on which the building Is located Is under common or slngle ownership. BUILDING HEIGHT The vertical distance measured from the first finished floor to the highest point of the roof surface of the flat or Bermuda roof, to the deck line of a mansard roof and to the mean height level between eaves and ridge of gable, hip and gambrel roofs. Where minimum floor elevations In flood prone areas have been established by law, the building height shall be measured I'rom such required r~lnlmum floor elevations. (See Sec. 2.6.3, of the Land Development Code, 'Exclusion from Height Llmlts' and 'Off-Street Parking Within a Building') JAN 11 2000 4.1 4.2 4.3 SECTION IV OPEN SPACE TRACTS TRACTS G, H, K, L, M, N pURPOSE The purpose of this section Is to set lorth the development plan and development standards for the areas designed as Tracts G, H, K, L, M, and N0 Open Space, on the PUD Master Plan, Exhibit 'A'. The primary lunctlon and purpose of this tract Is to provide lake, open space, and recreational facilities. If any vegetation Is removed within Tracts H, K, L, M or N, It shall be provided elsewhere within the PUD to maintain the required twenty-Eve percent (25%) retained native vegetation. USES PERMITTED No building or structure or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, In whole or in part, for other than the following; A. Principal Uses: 1. Lakes, pool building, pool, and tennis courts. 2. Open Spaces/Nature Prase~ves (Conservation Area). Small docks, boardwalks, or other such facilities constructed for purposes of lake access. Small buildings, enclosures or other str~ctures construction for purpose of maintenance, storage, recreation or shelter with appropriate screening and landscaping. , ~ DE~VELQPMENT REGULATIONS Ao Overall site design shall be harmonious In terms of landscaping, enclosure of structures, location of access streets and parking areas and location and treatment of buffer areas. 'B. Llghting facilities shall be arranged In a manner which will protect roadways and neighboring properties frcm direct [;late or other lntederencc. Co A site development plan meeting all of the Development Regulations shall be required tn accordance with Section 3.2 of the Land Development Code. Do Maximum Height: Forty-six (46) feet with the building height as defined In Article 6 of the Land Development Code. Eo Minimum Off-Street Parking and Loading: As required by Divlslon 2.3 of the Land Development Code at time of building permit application. Buildings shall be setback a minimum of 20' from abuttlng residential tracts outside this Planned Unit Development, and the setback area shall be appropriately landscaped and malntalned as a buffer zone. AGENDA ITEM JAN 11 2000 5.1 · 5.2 SECTION V CONSERVATION/PRESERVE TRACT J PURPOSE Conservation/Preserve Area - The purpose Is to preserve and protect the native vegetation and naturally functioning habitat such as scrub oak In their naturaJ state. USES PERMI'I-rED No building or structure or part thereof shall be erected, aJtered or used, or land used, In whc~e or In part. for other than the following, subject to local, regional, state and federal permits when required: A. PrlnclpaJ Uses Open Spaces/Nature B. Permitting Accessory Uses and Structures Accessory uses and structures custorna~y associated with the uses permitted In this District. JAN 11 2000 · 6.1 6,2 6.3 SECTION VI ~URPOSE DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS The purpose of this Section Is to set forth the development commitments for the development of Northshore Lake Villas. GENERAL All facilities shall be constructed In strict accordance with Final Site Development Plans, Final Subdivision Plans and all applicable state and local laws, codes, and regulations appllcable to this PUD In e~fect at the time of local final development order or building permit application. Except where specifically noted or stated otherwise, the standards and specifications of the Land Development Cods shall apply to this project even If the land within the PUD Is not to be platted. The developer, his successor and assigns, shall be responsible for the commitments outlined In this document. The developer and all subsequent landowners are hereby placed on notice that they are required to satisfy the requirements of all appllcable County ordinances or codes In effect prior to or concurren( with any subsequent development order relating to this site. This Includes, but Is not limited to, Subdivision Master Plans, Site Development Plans and any other application that will result In the Issuance of final local development order or building permit. ~PVD MASTER PLAN A. Exhibit "A*; The PUD Master Plan reflects the proposed site Improvements. Ail necessary easements, dedications, or other Instruments have been, or shall be, granted to Insure the continued operation and maintenance of all service utilities and all common areas In the project. TRANSPORTATION The development ~,' this PUD Master Plan shall be subject to and governed by the · following conditions: /~q adjacer;t projects that desire a connection lo this PUD sha!l also have access from a public road where geographically feasible. All streets shall remain private with controlled access. The developer Is responsible [or a falr share contribution to a traffic signal, when warranted, at the Intersecllon of Vanderbilt Drive and Vanderb~t Beach Road. The expected traffic Irom this project will have some e~fect on that intersection. Arterial level street lighting shall be Installed at the project entrance before any certificates of occupancy are Issued. There Is an existing right turn lane from Vanderbllt Drive Into Roma Drive, a private road servlclng Vanderbilt Villas PUD, to Ihs north o! the site. The proposed entrance to this project will Interfere with this turn lane. The 10 AGENDA IT~'~.M JAN 11 2000 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 developer shall be responsible for extending the existing right turn lane south to accomodate this project In accordance with the Land Development Code requirements. This Improvement shall be In place before any certificates of occupancy are Issued. In addition, If compensating rlght-ofoway Is required, the developer shall be responsible for such right-of-way dedlcatlon to Collier County within 90 days of receipt of notification by the county. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Accessory structures shall be constructed simultaneously with, or following the construction gl, the prlnclpal structure except as allowed In the Land Development Code and for construction site office and related facilities such as Project Admlnlstrative Offices and Project Sates Offices. ~GNS Ail signs shall be In accordance with Dh/Is{on 2.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code. ENVIRONMENTAl., If gopher tortoise burrows (active, InactNe and/or abandoned) are located on site, they shall be Indlcated on the Site Development Plan or Preliminary Subclivlslon Plat and field verified by Collier County Planning and Technical Services Environmental Staff. Management plans and/or permits from Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commlsslon (If appropriate) shall be submltted to Planning and Technical Servlces Environmental Staff for revlewand approval. Management plans shall be In compliance with Section 3.11.3.1 of th~ Collier County Land Development Code. Areas of retained nath/e vegetation may serve as potential gopher tortolse relocation areas, If applicable. The conservation/preserve tract shall be recordec~on the plat or by a separate easement In favor gl' Collier County wlth no resP'0'hslbllity for maintenance and subject to protective covenants as per or similar to Chapter 704, Section 704.06 of the Florida Statutes. The applicant shall be required to remove all prohibited exotic vegetation on site and to prevent the relnvaslon of prohibited exotic vegetation by malntalnlng the site exotic free in perpetuity. UTILITIES constructed throughout [he p~oJect by the developer at no cost to Collier County and the state of Florida. Potable water and sanitary sewer facl]itles constructed within platted rights-of-way or wllhln dedicated County ut~ity easements, requlred by the County, shall be conveyed to the County for ownership, operation and maintenance pursuant to Collier County Ordinance No. 88-76, as amended and all State and Federal regulations and adopted policies In effect at the time of conveyance. All potable water and sanitary sewer facilities constructed on private property and not required by the County to be located within County utility easements shall be owned, operated and maintained by the developer, his asslgns or successors. Upon completion of the potable waler and sanitary sewer AGENDA IT' JAN 1 I 2000 Bo Do within the project, the facilities sha~l be tested to Insure they meet Collier County's utility construction requirements In effect at the time construction plans are approved. The above tasks shall be completed to the satisfaction of Engineering Review Services prlor to placlng the facilities, whether County owned or privately owned, Into service. Upon completion of the potable water and sanitary sewer facilities and prior to the Issuance of Cert~catee of Occupancy lot structures wlthln the project the utility facilities shall be conveyed to the County, pursuant to Collier County Ordinance No. 88-76, as amended and all regulations In effect at the time conveyance Is requested. All construction plans, technical speclflcatlons and proposed plat, If appilcab~e, for the proposed potable water and sanitary sewer collection and transmlsslon systems, whether County owned or privately owned shall be reviewed and approved by Englneerlng Review Services prior to commencement of construction. A~I customers connecting to the potable water distribution system shall be customers o! the County and shall be baled by the County In accordance with the County's established rate. Ail potable water and sanitary sewer !acllitles In publicly owned rights-of- way or within dedicated County utllity easements within the project's limits shall make connection to the County's off-site potable systems and sanitary sewer facilities Including but not limited to the following: 1) Maln sewage lift station and properly sized force main Inter-connecting wllh the County utility easements necessary. 2) Potable water dlstrlbutlon facilities from the point of connection with the County's potable water facllitles to a point of the project's property line. Construction and ownershlp o! the potable water and sanitary sewer facllltles shall be In compliance with Collier County Ordinance No. 88-76, as amended, all Federal, State regulations which apply and practices etc. In effect at the time construction approval Is requested. Detalled hydraulic design reports co'verln,~ potabie water and sanitary sewage collection and transmission systems to serve the project shall be submitted with the construction documents, The reports shall Ils[ all deslgn assumptions, demand rates and all other factors pertinent to the system under conslderatlon. 5) Certlflcatlons of Occupancy !or structures constructed within the project shall not be approved by Engineering Review Services until fire flow tests have been conducted on the project's potable water dlstrlbutlon system and the results are found to be acceptable and approved. 12 AGENDA ITEM JAN 11 2000 6.10 WATER MANAGEMENT In accordance with Ihe rules of the South florida Water Management Dlstrlct I~SFWMD), Chapters 40E4 and 40E-40, this project shall be designed for a storm event of a 3-day duration and 25-year return frequency. An Excavatlon Permit will be requlred for the proposed lake In accordance with Division 3.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code. Co Offsite drainage from the south shall be routed through the project's storm water management system. ENGINEERING Deign and construction of all Improvements shall be subject to compliance with the appropriate provlslons of the Collier County Land Development Code, D~'Islon 3.2. Work wlthln Collier County right-of*way shall meet the requirements of the Collier County Rlght-oi'-Way Ordinance No, 82.91, · 13 JAN 11 2000 ITEM JAN 11 2000 STATE OF FLORIDA) COUNTY OF COLLIER) I, DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk of Courts in and for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Collier County, Florida, do here.by certify that the foregoing is a true copy of: ORDINANCE NO. 95-64 Which was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on the 14th day of November, 1995, during Regular Session. WITNESS my hand and the official seal of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 16th day of November, 1995. Clerk of Courts an~'Cterk'~ Ex-officio to Board o.f'. County Commis sioner, s .' ' AGENDA ITF_NI 1! .2000 UNP4ATTED ~!-j JAN ti 2~00 UNPLA'T'FED EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PETITION V-99-21, DAVID E. BRYANT REPRESENTING ALFRED LUCKERBAUER, REQUESTING A 7.5-FOOT VARIANCE TO THE REQUIRED 15-FOOT SIDE SETBACK FOR DOCKING FACILITIES TO 7.5 FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9 PELICAN STREET EAST, FURTHER DESCRIBED AS LOT 40, ISLES OF CAPRI NO. 1, IN SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. OBJECTIVE: The petitioner requests a variance of 7.5 feet from the required 15-foot side yard setback for docking facilities to 7.5 feet to allow the construction of a docking facility protruding a total of 121 feet into the waterway. Approval of this petition is contingent on the approval of companion petition BD 99-04, requesting the 121-foot boat dock extension. The subject property is located at 9 Pelican Street East described as Lot 40, Isles of Capri No. 1. on Isles of Capri, legally The petitioner wishes to construct a boat dock protruding 121 feet into the waterway. In order to do so. a variance would have to be granted to allow the facility to encroach 7.5 feet intc the 15-foot side setback required by the Code fo~' dock;i'~g facil;ties on property having waterfrontage of 60 feet or more. Several objections to this project have been received, and staff is recommending denial of both petitions based on the potential negative impact that the facility would have on use of one of the two neighboring docks. The Collier County Planning Commission is to review this petition on 6 January 2000. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this petition would have no fiscal impact on the County. GROVVTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The proposed ,,/a~iance's ~onsi~;te~'lt with ap,.~licabte, provisions of the ('3rowth Management Plan. HISTORIC/ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT: None. No Historical/Archaeological waiver is required for a boat docking facility. PLANNING SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of both petitions based on potential negative impact on one of two r~eighboring docks. JAN I I 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Collier County Planning Commission recommendation is not known at this time. V 99-21 and companion petition BD 99-04 are scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission on 6 January 2000. PREPARED BY: II CURRE~rqT PLANNING SECTION REVIEWED BY: RgN/ L"D-'-F.v NINO,-AICP, MANAG,-,-,, CL]RRENT PLANNING SECTION ~OBERT'~. MULHERE, AICP, DIRECTOR P!.ANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT APPROVED BY VINCENT A. CAUTERO, AICP, ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION DATE DATE D~TE DATE 2000 1 2 3 5 6 7 i0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 2S 20 21 22 23 24 ~5 26 27 21 33 34 35 36 RESOLUTION NO. 2000- RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER V-99-21, FOR A VARIANCE ON PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zomng and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance No. 91-102) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of variances; and VCHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals, being the duly elected constituted Board of the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a 7.5 foot variance fi.om the required 15 foot side setback for docking facilities to 7.5 feet as shown on the attached plot plan, Exhibit "A", ~n a RSI--4 Zone for the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Section 2.7.5 of the Zoning Regulations of said Land Development Code for the unincorporated area of Collier County; and ~q-IEREAS, all interested parties have been g~v~n opportunity to be heard by this Board in public meeting assembled, and the Board having considered all matters presented; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS of Collier County, Florida, that: The Petition V-99-21 filed by Jerry C. Neal, P.E., representing A. Luckerbauer, with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Lot 40, Isles of Capri No. 1, as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 41, Official Records of Collier County. be ,~.i :!:c sa ~,c hereb) ~,'~ app~o',cd tbr a 7.5 Cc:or ~ ~i:xnce !rom the required ~ide s~[ ~ci-: for docking facilities of 15 feet to 7.5 feet as shown on the attached plot plan, Exhibit "A", of the RSF-4 Zoning District wherein said property is located. -1- 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 2O 21 22 23 BE IT RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number V-99-21 be recorded in the minutes of this Board. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this day of ., 2000. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: , CHAIRMAN Ma~jorie M. Student Assistant County Attorney g,'admin,,' RESOLUTION/V-99-21/RG/im -2- LOT 40 ..~. ~ . ~ ISLES OF CAPRI NO. I ~, ' ~ Luck~ba~ MEMORANDUM TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DATE: 9 SEPTEMBER 1999 RE: PETITION V-99-21 AGENT/APPLICANT: Agent: Jerry Neal Purse Associates 4450 Bonita Beach Road, Unit 9 Bonita, FL 34134 Owner: Alfred Luckerbauer 9 Pelican Street East Naples, FL 34113 REQUE. S~I'Ei~ AC'FION: The petitioner requests a variance of 7.5 feet from the required 15-foot side setback for docking facilities constructed on property with waterfrontage of 60 feet or greater in order to construct a 121-foot docking facility. The proposed facility would consist of the addition of a lift and a 44-foot extension to an existing 77-foot dock. This variance request is made simultaneously with an extension request to construct the 121-foot facility, and approval of ,'.he extension would be contingent on approval of the variance. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is located at 9 Pelican Street on Isles of Capri, legally described as Isles of Capri No. 1, Lot 40, Section 32, Township 51 South, Range 26 East. PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petitioner wishes to construct a docking facility which would protrude 109 feet into the 620-foot wide waterway, and would encroach 7.5 feet into the required 15-foot side setbacks. This would involve a 44-foot addition to an existing 77-foot dock. The status of the existing dock, which appears on the Property Appraiser's card at its current length as of an unknown date, cannot be determined with certainty, but has been assumed to be iegally nonconforming. The facility would accommodate one 38-foot and one 18-foot vessel. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: Existing: Surrounding: North - South - East - West - Single-family residence zoned RSF-4 Snook Bay waterway Pelican Street East waterway Single-family residence, zoned RSF-4 Single-family residence, zoned RSF-4 View of existing dock looking north across waterway View from site looking northwest View looking east showing existing dock (foreground) and dock on Lot 39 HISTORIC/ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT: Not applicable: docking facilities are not included in areas of historical/archaeological probability. ~V,~]-.U_A':"~gN :::OR !~.,IPAC, r__s_rp__ ENVIRONMENT: TRANSPORTATION, INFRASTRUCTURE AND Approval of this variance request will have no effect on infrastructure, transportation or the environment. ITEM ANALYSIS: Section 2.7.5 of the Land Development Code grants the authority to the Board of Zoning Appeals to grant variances. The Planning Commission is advisory to the BZA and utilizes the provisions of Subsection 4(a) through (h) which are general guidelines to be used to assist the Commission in making a determination. Responses to items (a) through (h) of Subsection 11.1 4) are as follows: Are there special conditions and circumstances existing which are peculiar to the location, size and Characteristics of the land, structure, or building involved? No. The shoreline is curving but not at "the end or side end of a canal or waterway" as indicated by the petitioner. The LDC allows the use of 7.5-foot setbacks for end-of-waterway lots, but it is the clear intent of the Code to employ these setbacks in a situation which involves a "corner" of the lot, or lots, forming an angle which, when bisected, would create a riparian line from which to measure setbacks (see attached drawing: "Typical Setback Requirements for Dock Facilities"). That situation does not apply here. The platted waterfrontage of the subject lot is 61.96 feet, and the LDC requires 15-foot setbacks for such lots. The curvature of the shoreline does restrict the riparian rights of property owners when riparian lines are drawn in accordance with any of several guidelines used to project lines from an irregular shoreline more so than when drawn from a linear shoreline; however, all property owners are equally affected. While the conditions and circumstances are peculiar to the general location, they are not unique to the petitioner's property. Are there special conditions and circumstances which do not result from the action of the applicant such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property which is the subject of the variance request? No. While conditions and circumstances peculiar to the general location which do not result from the action of the applicant exist, these are not unique to the subject property. Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Land Development Code work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant? No. Although other lots with similar conditions but having slightly less waterfrontage are allowed the 7.5-foot setbacks, the circumstances vary with each dock depending on the shoreline and the location of the riparian lines. A reasonable facility could be constructed on the subject property using the existing setbacks. The petitioner originally applied for a 77-foot facility, accommodating one vessel, for which staff was prepared to recommend approval. --'-'-" Wiii the variance, if granted, be the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure and which promote standards of health, safety and welfare? No. As referred to above, a dock of reasonable length, accommodating a pleasure craft of average length, could be constructed at the site. The requested facility would accommodate two vessels, .with a combined length of 56 feet, for property having about 62 feet of waterfrontage. Will granting the variance, requested confer on the petitioner any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district? Yes. The Land Development Code requires 15-foot docking facility setbacks for all private docking facilities with waterfrontage of 60 feet or more. Other docking facilities in the area have 7.5-foot setbacks either as legal nonconforming structures, or because these lots have less than 60 feet of waterfrontage. This variance, as requested, would probably allow the petitioner to inhibit use of the docking facility on neighboring Lot 39. Will granting the variance be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this Land Development Code, and not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare? Nc. Granting ota variance to allow a dock of this length would probably restrict use of the docking facility on adjacent Lot 39. In addition to the length, although the I_DC does not address the positioning of riparian lines other than on end-of- waterway lots as described above, it appears that the line as shown on the petitioner's drawings increases the area of riparian rights of Lot 40 at the expense of those of Lot 39, thereby further limiting access to the dock on Lot 39. The riparian lines are also drawn from the mean high water line and not the property line as is commonly the case. Furthermore, in order to access the proposed lift, the petitioner would have to maneuver the vessel in the narrow area between the proposed catwalk, and the vessel and mooring pilings on Lot 39. Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves, lakes, golf courses, etc.? No. Although the waterbody is wide enough to accommodate the proposed facility under normal circumstances - that is, where the property would have more waterfrontage and a linear shoreline - this fact would not offset the negative aspects at this particular site. ?/ Will granting the variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan. Approval of this plan will not affect or change the requirements of the Growth Management Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The proposed facility, comprising dock, mooring pilings, and vessels, would inhibit use of the dock on adjacent Lot 39. The facility would be used to accommodate two vessels, one quite large, on a relatively small waterfront lot at a location where access is already restricted. A smaller facility, such as that originally proposed by the petitioner, would mee? the criteria for a reasonable extension without encroaching into the 15-foot setbacks. Staff believes that this facility as currently proposed is inappropriately large and recommends denial of this petition. PRE~ BY: CURRENT PLANNING ~~~~.Ni EWED IiO, AICP~ CURRENT PLANNING MANAGER DATE ' DATE ~ULHERE, AICP, PLANNING SERVICES DIRECTOR DATE APPROV D BY: ~,'-IN(~.;E~q=I: ~ ~,~UTERO, AiCP, ADMINISrRATOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Petition Number: V 99-21 Staff report for the 4 November 1999 CCPC meeting. This Petition has tentatively been scheduled for the 23 November 1999 Headng. Collier County Planning Commission: BZA Public MICHAEL J BRUET, CHAIRMAN TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DATE: 2 FEBRUARY 1999 RE: BD 99-04 AGENT/APPLICANT: Agent: Jerry Neal Custom Dock 1757 San Marco Road Marco Island, FL 34145 Owner: Alfred Luckerbauer 9 Pelican Street East Naples, FL 34113 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner is requesting a 101-foot boat dock extension from the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet for waterways greater than 100 feet in width, which would allow for a boat docking facility prot~udin~ a ~ota~ of 121 feet into the w~terway. (Note thal k~:e o~i.~;!_nal app}~cat~on requested a 49-foot extension to a~ existing. 69-foot dock. The petitioner has revised these dimensions to 44 and 77 feet respectively: see amended drawing.) GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is located at 9 Pelican Street East, further described as Isles of Capri No.1, Lot 40, Section 32, Township 51 South, Range 26 East. PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The Du~eose of the project is to create a boat docking facility which would protrude a total of 121 feet into the waterway and consist of modifications to an existing 77-foot dock situated perpendicular to the shoreline. The modifications would involve the addition of a boat lift to the existing dock, and the .addinion of mooring pilings protruding another 44 feet, which would accommodate a second, larger, vesSel. The status of the existin~ .dock, which appears on the Property Appraiser's card at its curren5 length as ef an unknown date, cannot be determined. Since the possibility exists that this dock may be l~_~ly nonconforming, this petition has net been processed as aft~i~~d~,~- fact. ~_~_~~ SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: Exzsting: Single-family dwelling, zoned RSF-4 Surrounding: North - Snook Bay South - Pelican Street East East - Single-family dwelling, zoned RSF-4 West - Single-family dwelling, zoned RSF-4 View of existing dock looking across waterway Existing dock (foreground) and docks to east -2- EVALUATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL~ TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE: The environmental staff of Planning Services has reviewed this petition and has no objection to the granting of this request. According to Section 3.2.4.1 of the Collier County Manatee Protection Ordinance, this boat docking facility will be cons!doted a "Moderate Development Site", which allows up to 10 boat slips for every 100 feet of shore line. Therefore, the proposed boat docking facility is consistent with the Collier County Manatee Protection Ordinance. Staff Comments: SEa£f has reviewed this petition in accordance with Section 2.6.21 of the Collier County Land Development Code and finds the following: a o Whether or not the proposed dock design and moored vessel protrude greater than 25 percent of the width of the navi_~able canal or .greater than 20 feet for boathouses, and will a minimum of 50 percent of the canal width between dock structures/moored vessel(s) on the opposite side of the canal be maintained in order to ensure reasonable waterway width for navigability. · lcc~r:iiLg '~c the petitioner, the waterway is 620 feet wide a' the p~cposed site. The proposed !21-£oot dock would occupy about 20 percent of the width of the waterway. Whether or not there are special conditions related to the subject property or waterway which will justify the proposed dimension and location of the sub~ect dock. The subject property is located on a relatively broad waterway; however, the bottom at the site is extremely shallow, and dredging is not permitted. The curvature of the shoreline restricts the area of riparian rights of abutting propers{es as the ~iparian li~es cor~verge towa~ the center ef the waterway. Extensions have been approved for other docks in the area ranging from 80 to 125 feet. The deck on adjacent Lot 39, to the east, extends 82 feet into the waterway. The deck on adjacent Let 41, to the west, extends about 55 feet into the waterway. -3- do e o f o go Whether or not the proposed dock is of minimal dimensions necessary in order to adequately secure the moored vessel while providing reasonable access to the boat for routine maintenance, without the use of excessive dock area. While the actual dock area, in terms of decking, is minimal, the overall length of the facility is excessive in relation to the property's waterfront area and location on the waterway. Whether or not the proposed structure is of minimal dimensions to minimize the impact on the view of the waterway by surrounding property owners. ?he pzoposed facility, which includes the dock and vessel combination, would have some impact on the view of adjacent property owners; however, there are a number of similar exlensions in the area so that the overall effect would be negligible. Whether or not the moored vessel is in excess of 50 percent of the length of the waterfrontage such that the addition of a dock structure will increase the impact on~ or negatively impact the view of~ the property owners. !l~e facility is intendea to accoimmodate one 38-foot and one 18-foot vessel, which, in combination, would occupy about 90 eercenT ef the length of the 61.9-feet waterfrontage. Both vessels would presumably be moored perpendicular to the shoreline and the impact on the view of adjacent property owners wo~Id be negligible, taking into consideration the relatively large number of extended docks in the area. Whether or not the proposed location and design of the dock/vessel combination is such that it may infringe upon the use of neighboring properties, including an~ dock structures. use ef uno dock on Let 41, to the west. The faciliuy probably would, however, interfere with the use of the dock en adjacent Lot 39 to the east if the mooring pilings and vessel combination were allowed te encroach into the 15-foot side setback from the riparian line. Regarding benthic organisms in the vicinity of the proposed extension~ (A) Whether or not seagrasses are located within 200 the proposed dock. -4- (B) Whether the proposed dock subject to the manatee protection requirements of this code (Sec. 2.6.22). The environmental staff of Planning Services has reviewed this petition and has no objection to the granting of this request. No seagrasses are located within 200 feet of the proposed facility. At least one "Manatee Area" sign shall be posted during construction. Appeal of Boat Dock Extension to Board of Zoning Appeals As to any boat dock extension petition upon which the Collier County Planning Commission takes action, an aggrieved petitioner or adversely affected property owner may appeal such final action to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Such appeal shall be filed with the Community Development and Environmental Services Administ~-ato~ within 14 days of the action by the Planning Commission. In the event that the petition has been approved by the Planning Commission, the applicant shall be advised that he/she proceeds with construction at his/her risk during this Staff Recommendation: Approval of this petition is contingent upon approval of a companion variance petition (V-99-21) which asks that the faci!_~y be allowed to encroach into the 15-foot side yard seEbac~. S~a~f is reco~mmending denial of V-99-21. Due to the fact that the facility, as currently configured, would tend to i:~terfere wit%~ the use of the dock on adjacent Lot 39, staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission deny PetiYion BD 99-04. It should be noted that staff may recommend approval of a request for facility of similar design, but with a lesser extension, to accommodate a smaller vessel without encroaching inEo the required side setbacks. -5- PREPARED BY: ROSS ~JCHENAUR PLA~)R I I CU~ RENT PLANNING MANAGER DATE bATE ~OBER~ J. MULHERE, AICP, PLANNING SERVICES DIRECTOR V~C~NT'A. CAUTERO, AICP, ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Petition Number: BD 99-04 Staff Report for 4 November 1999 for CCPC meeting. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: MICHAEL J. BRUET, CHAIRM~N -6- VARIANCE PETITION (VARIANCE FROM SETBACK (S) ~ ~-~, ,'~F~.,~m ~r'~,, REQUIRED FOR A P~TICU~ ZONING DISTRI~T~I PETitION NO ~ ¥ ~ ~ ~ ~ (~OVE T0 BE FILLED'IN BY ST~FF) PETiTiONER'S NAME PETITIONER'S ADDRESS FI A o 3 4z//R TELEPHONE LEGA~L DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: LOT(S) ~ ~ BLOCK(S) SUBDIVISION SECTION 3~ TWP. ~ RANGE (If legal description is lengthy, i.e. metes & bounds description, attach additional page) CURRENT ZONING OF SUBJECT PROPERTY ~~ EXISTING LAND USE ON SUBJECT PROPERTY ~,~~'~ ~-DJAC. EN'.~ ZONING & LA~b'USE ZONING LAND USE MINimUM YA_RD REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBJECT PROPERTY FRO~T: _ /%,/8 SIDE: I g ' REA,q: A//~ CORNER LOT:Q~3 (CIRCLE ONE) WATERFRON LOT: ~~(CIRCLE ONE) NATURE OF PETITION Provide a detailed explanation of the request including what s%ructures are existing and what is proposed; the amount of encroachment proposed using numbers, i,e. reduce front setback fr:z~ 25' to 18'; when property owner purchased property; when existing principal structure was built (include building permit nUmOer if possible); why encroachment is necessary; how existing encroachment came to be; etc. / Iff g-. 7 V . Please note that staff and the Collier County Planning Commission shall be guided in their recommendation to the Board of Zoning Appeals, and that the Board of Zoning Appeals shall be guided in its determination to approve or deny a variance petition by the below listed criteria (1-6). (Please address this criteria using additional pages if necessary.) A.:_-e theue spe.c:_al co:.',d!tions and-:~_rc;.:ms~.~,ncos existin,~ which are peculiar to the location, size anO characteristics of the land, structure, or building involved. '" 2 J. N !I o o Are there special conditions and circumstances which do not result from the action of the applicant such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property which is the subject of the variance request. t / / ' Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of this zoning code work unnecessary and undue hardship or create practical difficulties on the applicant. Will the variance, if granted, be the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure and which promote standards of health, safety or welfare. Will granting the variance requested confer on the petitioner any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands, buildings, or structures in the s~me zoning district. Will granting the variance be in harmony with the intent and purpose of this zoning code, and not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimenEal to the public welfare. o~ 7 ?~. F=~.¥ .... " Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the gca!s and objec[ives of the regulation such as natural preserves, lakes, golf course, etc. Will granting the variance be consistent with..the growth management plan. y' ~__. S) AFFIDAVIT I, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~C~,~Y being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the owner of the property described herein and which is the subject matter of the proposed hearing; that all the answers to the questions in this application, and all sketches, data, and other supplementary matter attached to and made a part of this application, are honest and tru% to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand this application must be ccmp!eted and accurate before a hearing can be advertised. I ~ ..... to act as my (AGENt'S NAME) representative in any matters regarding this Petition. Sta%e of Florida County of Collier SIGNATURE'OF OWNER The foregoing Agreemen~ Sheet was acknowledged before me this day of , 1996 by , who is personally known to me or who has produced as identification and who did (did not) take an oath. (Signature of Notary Public) NOTARY PUSLIC Commission # My Commission Expires: SIGNATURE OF AGENT State of Florida County .3f Collier The foregoing. Agreement Sheet was acknowledged before me this day of , 1996 by .......... , who is personally known to me or who has produced ............. ~s i. den~] ficaticn and who did (did not) take an oath. (Signature of Notary Public) VARIA3{CE APPLICATION/md NOTARY PUBLIC Commission ~ My Con~niss~on Expires: DOCK FACILITY EXTENSION PETITION Information to be completed by staff: Petition number: BD- Planner: ~ 0 ~ ( Informanon to be completed by pet/honer: Property owner: Address: 9 '~S J/- Date received: Telephone: . Fax: Agent: Subject Property: Address: 9 Legal Description: Section: .~g-Township: .5'/ Range: Describe in detail, the nature of your request including the type of structure to be constructed (boat dock, boat lift, boathouse, etc.), requested extension length, total protrusion into waterway, setbacks, etc. (A graphic iljustrating the dimensions, location and type of structure should also be submitted with this application). Land use on subject property: Adjacent zoning & land use: Zoning N ~'~i=' E ~5~- s ~ w ~ Land use Length of existing dock facility List any additional dock facilities in close proxhnity to the subject property and indicate the total protrusion into the waterway of each: ~a.~4 : too, ~a, 114, ~~P ' 13o , 8o, What is the width of the Waterbody or waterway at the proposed dock location? The following criteria, (pursuant to Section 2.6.21.3 of the Land Development Code) shall be used as a guide by staff in determining its recommendation to the Collier County Planning Commission, and by the Planning Commission in its decision to approve or deny a particular Dock Extension request. Please provide a narrative response to the listed criteria and/or questions. Attach additional pages if necessary. -2- I. What are the number of dock facilities or slips to be located on the subject property in relation to the length of waterfront property available (include required setbacks) for the location of the proposed dock facilities? 2. Is there sufficient water depth to allow for safe mooring of the vessel without the use of a dock facility extension request? adverse impact to navigation within an adjacent navigable channel? Will the proposed dock facility and moored vessel(s) in combination have an 4. Does the proposed dock design and moored vessel protrude greater than 25 percent of the width of the navigable canal or greater than 20 feet for boathouses, and is a minimum of 50 percent of the platted canal width between dock s~, uctu~.'e~,'moored vessel(s) on the opposite siae of the car~al ;naintaincd i~; order to ensure reasonable waterway width for navigability? -3- 5. Are there special conditions related to the subject property or waterway which justify the proposed dimensions and location of the subject dock? 6. Is the proposed dock is of minimal dimensions necessary in order to adequately secure the moored vessel while providing reasonable access to the boat for routine maintenance, without the use of excessive deck area? 7. Is the proposed structure is of minimal dimensions to minimize the impact of the view of the waterway by surrounding property owners? z-X. 8. Is the moored vessel is in excess of fifty (50) percent of the length of the waterfrontage such that the addition of a dock structure will increase the impact on or negatively impact the view of the waterway by surrounding property owners? -4- 9. Will the proposed location and design of the dock/vessel combination be such that it may infringe upon the use of neighboring properties, including any existing dock structures? 10. Regarding existing benthic organisms in the vicinity of the proposed extension: (a) Are seagrasses located within 200 feet of the proposed dock? (b) Is the proposed dock is subject to the manatee protection requirements of this code (Sec. 2.6.22)? /4//0 In addition to the above, tl~ollowing criteria shall apply to Boa~uses. Please indicate whether or not the following listed crit~e been met: ~ Minimum side setback requirement~ '~ _ Maximum protrusion into wate/~y~ 25. ,p.,erc ~of canal Standard Yes/No Criteria Maximum height 15 as measured fro~ of seawall o: .ank, whichever more restrictive Max. number of boathouses per site All boathouse structures shall be complet~ open on all four (4) sides Roofing material and roof color same as materials and colors structure or may be of palm the the principal "chickee" style One (1) I ~RSTAN~ .TH. AT, IN ADDITION TO APPROVAL OF THIS DOCK -." E~I'ENSION~ A BUILDING PERMIT IS REQ. UIRED PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION. I UNDERSTAND THAT IF THIS DOCK EXTENSION PETITION IS APPROVED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, AN AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNER MAY FILE AN APPEAL WITHIN 14 DAYS OF THE HEARING. IF I PROCEED WITH CONSTRUCTION DURING THIS TIME, I DO SO AT MY OWN RISK. /~amrej~titioner or Agent cJm o~ I¢I .~ a'n,'~ q .~,a ~/o'n,,'/ ;~ae~,.g, 'u,'~lac/' ;s"o3' 'ON I~c~3 ~0 Of; I I I I I ! Z ISLES OF CAPRI SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR [!XISTIN('~ DOCKS 400 600 ALE 1"=200' Luckerbauer 9 East Pelican Street I~ot 40 Isles ol'Capri SCALE 1"=200' SECTIO PH(~'TO DATE NOV. 96 PHOTO JOB NO. TWP. 51S AFFIDAVIT I, ~ , ~' ~¢~ ~C~.~ bein~ first ~uly sworn, depose and say that I am the owner of the property ~scribed herein and which is the subject matter of the propOSed h~aring; that all the answers to the questions in this application, and all sketches, data, and other supplementary matter attached to and made a _Dart of this application, are honest and true ~o the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand this application must be'~ completed and accurate before a hearing can be advertised. further permit ~ ~,r~ /%/~/ ',. to act as my (AGENT'S "NAME) ' representative in any matters regarding thi Petition. -SI .OF ' State of Florida County of Collier The foregoing Ac 2~ day oflreeme~_j~e~~t Sheet was acknowledged before me this , by _A., ,who is personally Known to me or who has produced . ~s l~~on and who ~did not) take an oath. NOTARY PUBLIC Commission # CC. c a ,lq My Commission Expires: SIGNATURE OF AGENT State of Florida County of Collier The foregoing Agreement Sheet was acknowledged before me this .... day cf_. , 199~ by __, who is personally known to me or who has produced as identification and who did (did not) take an oath. VARIANCE APPLICATION/md (Signature of Notary Public) NOTARY PUBLIC Commission #. My Commissio: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PETITION V-99-24, JACKIE RITTER OF PENBROS PRECISION COURTS, INC., REPRESENTING LESLIE O'SULLIVAN, REQUESTING A 39-FOOT AFTER-THE- FACT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 50-FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK TO 11 FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 111 CARIBBEAN ROAD, FURTHER DESCRIBED AS LOT 9, BLOCK A, PINE RIDGE, IN SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. OBJECTIVE: The petitioner requests a 39-foot after-the-fact variance from the required 50-foot front yard setback for a tennis court, to allow the structure to remain in its current location. CONSIDERATIONS: The petitioner wishes to allow a tennis court to remain in its current location on the subject property. A tennis court on a single-family lot does not require a building permit, but does have a front yard setback requirement. The 10-foot fence surrounding the court requires a building permit, and therefore, the encroachment was discovered. Phone calls and letters were received in opposition to the granting of the variance. Reasons for objection included the magnitude of the error, the distance from the courts to the right-of-way and the intensity of the lights. FISCAL IMPACT: Since the subject property is a platted lot with infrastructure to support a single family home, approval of this petition would have no additional fiscal impact on the County. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Since the use of the lot is single family residential and within the parameters of the Density Rating System, the use of the property proposed for the variance is consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. HISTORIC/ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT: Staff's analysis indicates that the petitioners' property is not located within an area of historical and archaeological probability as referenced on the official Collier County Probability Map. Therefore, an Historical/Archaeological Survey and Assessment or waiver is not required. JAN 11 2000 PLANNING SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Because of the existing vegetation and because the tennis court is 30 feet from the edge of pavement, Planning Services Department staff recommended that the CCPC forward Petition V-99-24 to the BZA with a recommendation for approval. EAC RECOMMENDATION: The Collier County Environmental Advisory Council did not hear this petition. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Collier County Planning Commission reviewed this petition on December 2, 1999. The CCPC discussed the lighting, the magnitude of the encroachment, and the possibility of the reconfiguration of the court on the property. By a unanimous vote, the Planning Commission forwarded Petition V-99-24 to the Board of Zoning Appeals with a recommendation of denial, due to the fact that the setbacks should have been known by the contractor. PREPARED BY: FRED REISCHL, SEN OR PLANNER CURRENT PLANNING REV EWE RO'NALD F:r~l,~O, AICP CURRENT PLANNING MANAGER DATE DATE RSBE,,I~? ~:-~-LH'ERE, AICP PLANNING SERVICES DIRECTOR DATE APPROVED BY: VINCENT A. ~-~-L~TER DATE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR executive summaryN-99-24 AGE.~A ITEM JAN 11 2000 MEMORANDUM TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: FRED REISCHL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DATE: NOVEMBER 8, 1999 SUBJECT: PETITION V-99-24 AGENT/APPLICANT: Owner: AGENT: Leslie O'Sullivan 111 Caribbean Court Naples, FL 34108 Jackie Ritter Penbros Precision Courts, Inc. 4775 Mercantile Avenue, #3 Naples, FL 34104 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests a 39 foot after-the-fact variance from the required 50 foot front yard setback for a tennis court, along the east property line to allow the structure to remain in its current location. AGENDA ITEM JAN 11 2000 Pg. ~ GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subiect property is Lot 9, Block A, Pine Ridge, located at 111 Caribbean Road at the intersection of Caribbean Road and Ridge Drive. PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petitioner wishes to allow a tennis court to remain in its current location on the subject property. A tennis court on a single-family lot does not require a building permit, but does have a front yard setback requirement. The 10-foot fence surrounding the court requires a building permit, and therefore, the encroachment was discovered. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: Subject: Surrounding: Northeast - Southeast - Southwest - Northwest - Single family house; zoned RSF-1 Caribbean Road ROW Lot 8; zoned RSF-1 Lot 10; zoned RSF-1 Ridge Drive ROW HISTORIC/ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT: Staff's analysis indicates that the petitioner's property is not located within an area of historical and archaeological probability as referenced on the official Collier County Probability Map. Therefore, an Historical/Archaeological Survey and Assessment or waiver is not required. EVALUATION FOR IMPACTS TO TRANSPORTATION, INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENVIRONMENT: Approval of this variance request will have no effect on infrastructure, transportation or the environment. JAN 11 2000 ANALYSIS: Section 2.7.5 of the Land Development Code grants the authority to the Board of Zoning Appeals to grant variances. The Planning Commission is advisory to the BZA and utilizes the provisions of Section 2.7.5.6.1 through 2.7.5.6.8, which are general guidelines to be used to assist the Commission in making a determination. Responses to the items in Section 2.7.5.6 are as follows: am Are there special conditions and circumstances existing, which are peculiar to the location, size and characteristics of the land, structure or building involved? No. The subject improvements could have been configured to fit on the property with the required setbacks. However, the petitioner wanted to retain as much vegetation as possible. Are there special conditions and circumstances, which do not result from the action of the applicant such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property, which is the subject of the variance request? Yes. There is existing vegetation on site, which the petitioner wished to retain. Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Land Development Code work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant? There is no land-related hardship. However, denial of this variance would cause financial hardship to the Petitioner. Will the variance, if granted, be the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure and which promote standards of health, safety and welfare? Yes. The structure is existing and therefore this request would be the minimum variance required. em Will granting the variance requested confer on the petitioner any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district? Yes, this variance will allow the petitioner to have a smaller front yard than would be permitted for a similar lot in the RSF-1 zoning district. JAN 11 2000 Will granting the variance be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this Land Development Code, and not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare? No, granting of this variance will reduce the amount of the required front yard, which will not be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the LDC. However, approval of this request will not be detrimental to the public welfare. Approval will be injurious to the neighborhood only aesthetically. Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves, lakes, golf courses, etc.? Yes. There is existing vegetation and the court is approximately 30 feet from the edge of the pavement of Ridge Drive. Will granting the variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? Approval of this variance will not affect or change the requirements of the Growth Management Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Because of the existing vegetation and because the tennis court is 30 feet from the edge of pavement, staff recommends that the CCPC forward Petition V-99-24 to the BZA with a recommendation for approval. JAN 11 2001) P~ .~ PREPARED BY: FRE~ I~-~S-CHL, SENIO~PLANNER CURRENT PLANNING ,/~ REVIEWED BY: CURRENT PLANNING MANAGER DATE DATE PLANNING SERVICES DIRECTOR DATE AP~,~ED BY: VINCENT A. CAUTERO, AICP DA~F'E ~ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR Petition Number: V-99-24 Staff report for the December 2,1999 CCPC meeting. Collier County Planning Commission: RUSSELL A. BUDD, CHAIRMAN AGENDA ITEM JAN 11 2000 _V_A E PETITION Petition No. Date Petmon Received: Commission Dist6ct: ~ Planner Assigned: AB¢)VE' [ l { ) B E C(}MrI,EllEi) BY STAFF GENERAL INFORMATION; Petitioner's Name: Leslie O'Sullivan Petitioner's Address: 111 Caribbean Court Naples, FL 34102 Telephone: 860-8665 Agent's Name: Agent's Address: Penb~r_o_s PrecisiQn C~urts~ Inc./Jackie Ritter 4775 Mercantile AVe. #3 Naples, FL 34104 Naples: FL 34104 Telephone: 649-7712 COI,I,IER COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING SERVICES/CURRENT PI,ANNING 2800 N. I!ORSESil()E DRIVE- NAPLES, Fi, 34104 P ! I ONE (94 I) 403-2400~FAX (941 ) 643-6968 Application for Variance Petition - 8/98 Plge 1 of 8 AGENDA ITEM JAN 11 2OO0 Complete the following for all Association(s) affiliated with this petition. (Provide additional sheets i f necessary) Name of llomeowner Association: Mailing Address City State ~ Zip Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address City State ~ Zip. Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address City State ~ Zip. Name of Master Association: Mailing Address City State __ Zip Name of Civic Association: Mailing Address PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal Description of Snbject Property: Subdivision: Pine R.t dqo Section 10 T.wp. 49 Metes & Bounds Description: City State__Zip Unit Range 25 __ Lot (s) 9 Block (s) A Property i.D.# 67180360001 Application for Variance Petition - 8/98 Page 2 ol JAN 11 2000 Pg. Address of Subject Properly: (If different from Petitioner's address) 111 Caribbaan~urt CurrentZ°ningand Land useofSubjectParcel: Single Family HOme Adjacent Zoning & Land Use: ZONING N S W E Single Family Single Family Single Family Sigle Family Minimum Yard Requirements for Subject Property: Front: 5 0 WT Corner Lot: Yes I~]kx No I~] Side: 30FT Waterfront Lot: Yes [] No [~ Re~: N/A Application for Variance Petition - 8/98 Page JAN !I 2000 Nature of Petition Provide a detailed explanation of the request including what structures are existing and what is proposed: the amount of encroachment proposed using numbers, i.e. reduce front setback from 25' to 18': when properly owner purchased property: when existing principal structure was built (include building permit number (s) if possible); xvhy encroachment is necessary; how existing encroachment came to be; etc. THe subject property, includes a single family home, with pool and tennis court. Due to the fact that this property is a corner lot the north property line is considered a front property line and a 50' setback is necessary. We are requesting a reduction of setback from 50' to ~J~, for the main purpose of saving ~he natural vegetation that is surrounding the house, tenis court and easements. Application for Variance Petition - 8/98 Page 4 of 8 2000 Please note Ihat staff and the Collier County Planning ('ommission shall be guided in their recommendation to the Board of zoning Appeals, and that the Board of zoning appeals shall be guided in its determination to approve or deny a variance petition by the below listed criteria t I-8). (Please address this criteria using additional pages if necessary.) Are there special conditions and circumstances existing which are peculiar to the location, size and characteristics of the land, structure, or building involved. THis property is a corner lot and has different set backs than a standard lot. Are there special conditions and circumstances which do not result from the action of the applicant such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property which is the subject of the variance request. no Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of thi~ zoning code work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficullies on the applicant. There will be a tremendouse financial hardship placed on the owner for the removal of the court. The court was placed in this particular area so there would be less d~truction to natural vegetation and trees on the Wiilthevariance, ifgranted, bethemintmumvariancethatwillmak¢ ~ssiblethe~asonableuseof theland, buildingorstmcmreandwhichptomotestandardsofhealth, sa~orwel~re. yes. This will promote the n~tnrnl growth of undisturbed areas of trees and plants. property. Applic~tlon for Variance Petition - 8/98 JAN 11 2000 /,3 5. Will granting the variance requested confer on the petitioner any special privilege that is denied by d~ese zoning regulalions to other lands, buildhlgs, or stn~clures in the same zoning district. no Will granting the variance be in harmony with tile inten! and purpose of thi~ zoning code, and not be injurious to the neighborhood, or olherwise detrimental to tile public welfare. .___~_ea_wJlic_h_ surround the area in question are the natural"pine"trees which fill the entire neighborhooed and are in harmone¥ with surroundinq properties. The subject court is in no way injurious to the neighborhood It would be detrimental to move the trees in this area. Ared~etenaturalconditionsorphysicallyinducedcoudilionslhatamelioratethegoalsand ,~bjectiveso£th~regulationsuchasnaturalprese~es, lakes, golfcourse, etc. ~h~_nak~ak~rees and vegetation of this area would __~e_~[.aaLl~_effec~e~_if moving would be required. Willgrantingthevariancebeconsistentwilhthegtowthmanagementplan. YES! Application for Variance Petition - 8/98 .JAN !, 2000 _. RESOLUTION NO. 2000- RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER V-99-24, FOR AN AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE ON PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance No. 91-102) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of variances; and WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals, being the duly elected constituted Board of the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a 39-foot after-the-fact variance from the required front yard setback of 50 feet to 11 feet as shown on the attached plot plan, Exhibit "A", in a RSF-1 Zone for the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory, provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Section 2.7.5 of the Zoning Regulations of said Land Development Code for the unincorporated area of Collier County; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board in public meeting assembled, and the Board having considered all matters presented; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS of Collier County, Florida. that: The Petition V-99-24 filed by Jackie Ritter of Penbros Precision Courts, Inc., representing Leslie O'Sullivan, with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Lot 9, Block A, Pine Ridge Subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 24 of the Official Records of Collier County, Florida. be and the same is hereby approved for a 39-foot after-the-fact variance from the required front yard setback of 50 feet to 11 feet as shown on the attached plot plan, Exhibit "A", of the RSF-1 Zoning District wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions: 1. This var/ance is for the encroachment shown in Exhibit "A" only. Any other encroachment shall require a separate variance. 2. In the case of the destruction of the encroaching structure, for any reason, to an extent equal to or ~eater than 50 percent of the actual replacement cost of the structure at the time of it's destruction, any reconstruction shall conform to the provisions of the Land Development Code in effect at the time of r, cons .trinA ITE~ JAN tl 2000 Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Completion. the petitioner shall plant 3 live oak trees between the property line and the fence. The trees shall be a minimum of 14 feet in height at the time of planting BE IT RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number V-99-24 be recorded in the minutes of this Board. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this day of 2000. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: Marhi S. Scuderi Assistant County Attorney gadmin/ RESOLUTION/V-99-24/FR/im JAN t~ 2000 F,_~ND 5/s ~OD NO FOUND 5/8 ROD NO CAP LOT 10 (OCCUPIED) ...... N24'40'40"W _ 250.,O,O'(P&C) 6' WOOD FENCE I ...I t FLOOR OF ] -- ADDITION .L_ MATCHES EXISTING 42.4' .I FOUND I 5/8 ROD NO CAP pp FENCED IN TENNIS COURT 16.6' RENOVATION 38.3' 82.4' 8.1' FLOOR OF ADDITION MATCHES EXISTING ~ PHONE PP ASPHALT DRIVE LOT 9 BLOCK A DECORA~VE FENCE S24'40'40"E 250.O'(P&C) EDGE OF PAVEMENT CARIBBEAN ROAD 60' RIGHT OF WDAY NOTES: ADDRESS: 111 CARIBBEAN ROAD FLOOD ZONE "X" PANEL NO. 120067 0381 E 8/03/92. BASIS OF BEARINGS EAST PROPERTY LINE BEING SO0'O0'O0"E. P--PLAT, C--CALCULATED, M--MEASURED, UE--UTILITY EASEMENT ~_=CENTER LINE, CO=CLEANOUT, PP=POWER POLE R/W--RIGHT OF WAY Oct. 2q. lqq~ Date of Survey, Addition5 4/15/qq T~nnt5 Ct. 8/2~/qq Scale, 1' = 40' ProJect No. PNRGLOqA FD No. _025 p._Sl LEGEND ~ ~. C~. M~. Thl~ ~urvey I~ certified to, LESLIE O'SULLIVAN TM[ MUNTINGTON MORTGAGE COMPANY GL]LFSMOR[ TITLE COMPANY. L.C. AMERICAN PIONEF~ TITLE INSURANC[ COMPANY Legml Description, LOT cl. I~LOCR A, PIt,'E ~/DGE. recorded In P/mt Dook 3 p~ge 24 of thru P~llc R~cord~ of Collier FOUND I -- 5/8 ROD PH / ~10 CAP~ .ON? GUY)'-' p.~ FOUND LAND SURVEY EXHIBIT "A" I HEREBY CERTIFY thet e survey done ~nder my direct/on end meets the Mt~m Techdcml 5tmndmrd~ ms per Chmpt~r G1G17-G F.A.C. Certl?tcetlon I~ only for the lmnd~ de~cr~ed. It ~ not m certlflcmtto'~ Title. Z~g. Em~ ~ ~ents. re~trlctlon~ end ~ub~ct to ~m$~ mcor~~ JAN 1 1 ~000 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A RESOLUTION TO PARTICIPATE IN FUNDING THE COLLIER COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION. Objective: To authorize the Chairman to sign a resolution to participate in funding the activities of the Collier County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). Considerations: In mid 1999 the composition of the MPO was changed with the execution of a new Interlocal Agreement to include the City of Marco Island. This agreement supersedes a previous agreement that contained a provision for participation in funding MPO activities. That participation was in proportion to the number of voting members on the MPO board. The new agreement contains no such provision. There are few funding sources for MPO activities that require a local match contribution. Although there have been no reimbursements sought yet in the MPO fiscal year beginning July 1, 1999 that require a local match, such expenditures will begin soon, in connection with the Transit Operation Plan. To avoid any timing issues, the resolution is worded to be retroactive to the execution of the lnterlocal Agreement. In five years, or following any change in MPO membership, the Interlocal Agreement will need to be re-authorized, at which time staff will ensure the inclusion of language that describes funding participation obligations. For that reason the resolution is worded to be in effect only for the duration of the Interlocal Agreement. Under the funding participation system proposed, the total local match contribution that would be requested before September 30, 2000 will be determined by negotiations on the price of the consultant contract for the Transit Operation Plan. These negotiations are not finished, but due to the l ira it (m funds available, the maximum possible contribution that would be requested from the County before September 30, 2000 is $6,250. This amount exceeds slightly the amount budgeted at the beginning of the fiscal year. Staff has requested that the Cities of Naples and Marco Island adopt identical resolutions. Fiscal Impact: In the current fiscal year, no more than $6,250, to be transferred from the General Fund. Growth Management Impact: None. Recommendations: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the Chairman to sign the resolution, and to approve any budget amendments necessary for participation in MPO funding in the current fiscal year, to a maximum of $6.250. JAN !] Prepared by: Gavin Jones, P.E., Tr;~nsportation Planning Manager Date: l~,- '2.'2.--q c~ Reviewed by: Robe~t---Mulhere, AICP, Planning Services Director Approved by: ~ ~, Vincent A. Cautero, AICP, Community Development & Environmental Services Administrator Date: 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2000- 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 -~-43 4 A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO PARTICIPATE IN FUNDING THE COLLIER COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION. Whereas, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners participates on the Collier County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO); Whereas, the voting apportionment on the MPO as approved by the Governor is as follows: Collier County Board of County Commissioners, five (5) voting members; the City of Naples, two (2) voting members; and the City of Marco Island, one (1) voting member. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners that: Collier County's participation in funding the MPO will be in direct proportion to its voting membership on the MPO. This resolution will apply to any MPO funding obligations incurred since the execution of the State of Florida Department of Transportation Interlocal Agreernent for the Creation of the Collier County Metropolitan Planning Organization dated June 28, 1999. o This resolution will be in effect only for the duration of the above mentioned Interlocal Agreement. DULY PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK DAY OF ,2000 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS By: By: , CHAIRMAN APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Robert Zachary, Assistant County Attorney EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AUTHORIZATION OF A 75% DEFERRAL OF IMPACT FEES FOR ONE HOUSE TO BE BUILT BY HENRIETTA EIMERS AT 3418 WESTCLOX STREET IN IMMOKALEE, COLLIER COUNTY. OBJECTIVE: The Board of County Commissioners accept the Resolution and Agreement for 75% deferral of Collier County Impact Fees authorizing the payment of impact fees and appropriating the funds for deferral of Correctional Facilities Impact Fees, Road Impact Fees, Library System Impact Fees, Parks and Recreational Facilities Impact Fees, Emergency Medical Services System Impact Fees, and Educational Facilities System Impact Fees for one house to be built by Henrietta Eimers, with funds from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. CONSIDERATIONS: Henrietta Eimers has submitted an application for a 75% deferral of impact fees for one house to be built by Henrietta Eimers at 3418 Westclox Street in Immokalee, Collier County, as a moderate income, first time home buyer and qualifies for an impact fee deferral under the provisions of the Impact Fee Deferral Ordinances. The cost of the house will be $80,000.00. FISCAL IMPACT: Funding for the proposed impact fee deferral is available in the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. The total amount of impact fees requested to be deferred is $3,217.75. a) Library System Impact Fee $ 135.39 b) Road Impact Fee 1,034.25 c) Parks Impact 615.63 d) EMS Impact Fee 10.50 e) Educational Systems Impact Fee 1,333.50 f) Correctional Facilities Impact Fee 88.48 Total Impact Fees to be Deferred $3,217.75 GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The impact fee deferral will bring relief for a moderate income family in compliance with Policy 1.5.2 of the Housing Element of the Growth Management Plan. JAN 11 2000 Executive Summary Eimers Impact Fee Deferral Page Two RECOMMENDATION: The Board of County Commissioners accept the Resolution and Agreement authorizing the deferral of impact fees for a home to be built at 3418 Westclox Street in Immokalee, Collier County, by Henrietta Eimers, a moderate income family, and to pay for these impact fees with State Housing Incentive Partnership (S.H.I.P.) program revenue funds. Prepared by: /c.~anne Dalbey, eianner II- Housing and Urban Improvement Reviewed by: Gr~g.Iffiha~tex, Directo-~ - Housing and Urban Improvement Date//g'/?. ? Y Approve,~y: ~/~ ~~/--~d & Date/~//~ ~. VINCENT A. CAUTERO, AICP, ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES jd/c/execsurn/eimers AGENDA ITEM JAN 11 2000 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2000- 2 3 RESOLUTIO., OF THE BOARD OF COLrNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER 4 COUNTY, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING A 75% DEFERRAL OF CORRECTIONAL 5 FACILITIES IMPACT FEES, LIBRARY SYSTEM IMPACT FEES, PARKS AND 6 RECREATIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEES, ROAD IMPACT FEES, 7 EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES IMPACT FEES AND EDUCATIONAL 8 FACILITIES SYSTEM IMPACT FEES FOR ONE HOUSE TO BE 9 CONSTRUCTED BY HENRIETTA EIMERS AT 3418 WESTCLOX STREET, IN 10 IMMOKALEE, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. I 1 WHEREAS, Collier County has recognized and attempted to address the lack of adequate and 12 affordable housing for moderate, low, and very-low income households in the County and the need 13 for creative and innovative programs to assist in the provision of such housing by including several 14 provisions in the Collier County Growth Management Plan, including: objective 1.4, policy 1.4.1; 15 objective 1.5, policy 1.5.2, policy 1.5.3, policy 1.5.4, policy 1.5.5, policy 1.5.6; objective 1.6, policy 16 1.6.3; objective 2.1, policy 2.1.1, policy 2.1.2, policy 2.1.3, policy 2.1.5, and policy 2.1.6 of the 17 Housing Element; and 18 WHEREAS, Collier County has received funding pursuant to the State Housing Initiatives 19 Parmership Program set forth in Section 420.907 et. seq., Florida Statutes and Chapter 91-37, Florida 20 Administrative Code; and 21 WHEREAS, in accordance with Collier County Ordinance No. 93-19, the County is 22 author/zed to use funding from the State Housing Initiatives Partnership [SHIP] Program for waiver 23 of Collier County impact fees; and 24 WHEREAS, Henrietta Eimers is seeking a 75% deferral of impact fees; and 25 WHEREAS, Henrietta Eimers will construct a two (2) bedroom unit (the "Dwelling Unit") at 26 3418 Westclox Street in Immokalee, Collier County, Florida; which is proposed to sell for Eighty 27 Thousand Dollars ($80,000.00), and 28 WHEREAS, the Dwelling Unit will be owned by a moderate income household, and 29 WHEREAS, Henrietta Eimers submitted to the office of the Housing and Urban 30 Improvement Department an Affordable Housing Application dated November 5, 1999 for a 75% 31 deferral of impact fees for the construction of a house at 3418 Westclox Street, Immokalee, Collier 32 County, Florida, a copy of said application is on file in the Housing and Urban Improvement 33 Department; and 34 WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 3.04 of the Correctional Facilities Impact Fee 35 Ordinance, Ordinance No. 99-52; Section 3.04 of the Library System Impact Fee Ordinance, 36 Ordinance No. 88-97, as amended; Section 3.04 of the Parks and Recreational Facilities Impact Fee 37 Ordinance, Ordinance No. 99-39; Section 3.04 of the Road Impact Fee Ordinance, Ordinance No. 38 92-22, as amended; Section 3.05 of the Emergency Medical Services System Impact Fee Ordinance, 39 Ordinance No. 91-71, as amended; and Section 3.05 of the Educational Facilities -1- JAN 1 1 2000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Ordinance, Ordinance No. 92-33, as amended; an applicant may obtain a 75% deferral of impact fees by qualifying for a deferral; and WHEREAS, Henrietta Eimers has qualified for a 75% deferral of impact fees based upon the following representations made by Henrietta Eimers: A. The Dwelling Unit shall be owned by a first-time home buyer. B. The Dwelling Unit shall be owned by a household with a moderate income level as that term is defined in the Appendices to the respective Impact Fee Ordinances and the monthly payment to purchase the unit must be within the affordable housing guidelines established in the Appendices to the respective Impact Fee Ordinances. C. The Dwelling Unit shall be the Homestead of the owner. D. The Dwelling Unit shall remain affordable for fifteen (15) years from the date the certificate of occupancy is issued. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, THAT: 1. The Board of County Commissioners hereby authorizes the County Administrator to issue an Authorization for 75% deferral of impact fees to Henrietta Eimers for one (1) house which shall be constructed at 3418 Westclox Street, Immokalee, Collier County, Florida. Upon receipt by the Housing and Urban Improvement Director of an agreement for deferral signed by Henrietta Eimers, or other documentation acceptable to the County Attorney, the Board of County Commissioners hereby authorizes the payment by Collier County of the following impact fees from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, Fund (191), in the following amounts for the one (1) house to be built at 3418 Westclox Street, Immokalee, Collier County, Florida by Henrietta Eimers: Total Impact Fee 75% Deferral A. Library Impact Fee B. Road Impact Fee C. Parks Impact Fee: D. EMS ImPact Fee E. Educational Facilities System Impact Fee F.. Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Total Impact Fees 180.52 $ 135.39 1,379.00 1,034.25 820.84 615.63 14.00 10.50 1,778.00 1,333.50 117.98 88.48 $ 4,290.34 $3,217.75 AGENDA ITEM 11 2000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 The payment of impact fees by Collier County is subject to the execution and recordation of an Affordable Housing Agreement for payment of Collier County Impact Fees between the property owner and/or purchaser and the County. Based on industry standards the financial industry has demonstrated that a subordination of the County's fights, interests and lien to the first mortgage loan to the Owner is necessary to obtain financing to purchase the dwelling unit. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote favoring same. DATED: ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By:. , CHAIKM~ Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Heidi F. Ashton Assistant County Attorney jd/c~impfees/eimers -3- AGENDA ITE. JAN 11 2000 Pg. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 EXItIBIT 'A' LEGAL DISCRIPTION HENRIETTA EIMERS RESIDENCE BEGIN AT POINT 520 FT, WEST OF SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SOUTHWEST ~A OF SOUTHEAST tA OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST, RUN THENCE NORTH 660 FT., WEST 130 FT., SOUTH 660 FT, EAST 130 FT TO POINT OF BEGINNING, 2 ACRES, ACCORDING TO THE DEED RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 194, PAGE 726, IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. 2000 Dec-10-99 05:12P Jim Walter Homes I 941 936 1B22 P. 0..~ AGREEMENT FOR 75% DEVERRAL OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES This Agreement for the 75% Deferral of Impact Fees entered into this day of , 2000 by and between the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY" and Henrietta Eimers, hereinafter referred to as "OWNER." WITNESS ETH: WHEREAS, Collier County Ordinance No. 99-52, the Correctional Facilities Impact Fee; Collier County Ordinance No. 88-97, as amended, the Collier County Library System Impact Fee Ordinance; Collier County Ordinance No. 99-39, the Collier County Parks and Recreational Facilities Impact Fee Ordinance; Collier County Ordinance No. 91-71, as amended, the Collier County Emergency Medical Services System Impact Fee Ordinance; Collier County Ordinance No. 92-22, as amended, the Collier County Road Impact Fee Ordinance; and the Collier County Ordinance No. 92-33, as amended, the Collier County Educational Facilities System Impact Fee Ordinance; as they may be further amended from time to time hereinat~er collectively referred to as "Impact Fee Ordinance", provide for waivers of impact fees for new owner-occupied dwelling units qualifying as affordable housing; and WHEREAS, OWNER has applied for a 75% deferral of impact fees as required by the Impact Fee Ordinance, a copy of said application is on file in the office of Housing and Urban Improvement Department; and WHEREAS, the County Administrator or his designee has reviewed the OWNER's application and has found that it complies with the requirements for an affordable housing 75% deferral of impact fees as established in the Impact Fee Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the impact fee waiver shall be presented in lieu of payment of the requisite impact fees subject to satisfaction of all criteria in the Impact Fee Ordinance qualifying the project as eligible for an impact fee deferral and JAN 11 2000 WHEREAS, the COUNTY app~roved a 75% deferral of impact fees for OWNER embodied in Resolution No. 2000-__ at its regular meeting of ,2000; and WHEREAS, the Impact Fee Ordinance requires that the OWNER enter into an Agreement with the COUNTY. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals, the parties covenant and agree as follows: 1. RECITALS INCORPORATED. The foregoing recitals are tree and correct and shall be incorporated by reference herein. 2. LEGAL DESCRIPTION. The legal description of the dwelling unit (the "Dwelling Unit") and site plan is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference herein. 3. TERM. OWNER 'agrees that the Dwelling Unit shall remain as affordable housing and shall be offered for sale in accordance with the standards set forth in the appendices to the Impact Fee Ordinance for a period of fifteen (15) years commencing fi.om the date the certificate of occupancy is issued for the Dwelling Unit. 4. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES. OWNER represents and warrants the following: a. Owner maintains a household with a moderate income as defined in the appendices to the Impact Fee Ordinance and the monthly payments to purchase the Dwelling Unit must be within the affordable housing guidelines established in the appendices to the Impact Fee Ordinance; b. Owner is a first-time home buyer; c. The Dwelling Unit shall be the homestead of owner; AGENDA I' 2000 d. The Dwelling Unit shall remain as afforda~.!e housing for fifteen (15) years from the date the certificate of occupancy is issued for the Dwelling Unit; and e. OWNER is the owner of record of the Dwelling Unit and owes impact fees in the total amount of $3,217.75 pursuant to the Impact Fee Ordinance. In return for the 75% deferral of the impact fees owed by OWNER, OWNER covenants and agrees to comply with the affordable housing impact fee deferral qualification criteria detailed in the Impact Fee Ordinance. SUBSEQUENT TRANSFER. If OWNER sells the Dwelling Unit subject to the impact fee deferral to a subsequent purchaser or renter, the Dwelling Unit shall be sold only to households meeting the criteria set forth in the Impact Fee Ordinance. AFFORDABLE REQUIREMENT. The Dwelling Unit must be utilized for affordable housing for a fifteen (15) year period after the date the certificate of occupancy is issued; and if the Dwelling Unit ceases to be utilized for that purpose during such period, the impact fees shall be immediately repaid to the COUNTY, except for waived impact fees if the dwelling unit has been used for affordable housing for a continuous period of fifteen years after the date the certificate of occupancy is issued. LIEN. The deferred impact fees shall be a lien upon the property which lien may be foreclosed upon in the event of non-compliance with the requirements of this Agreement. The COUNTY and OWNER agree that all of the COUNTY'S rights, interests and lien arising under this Agreement shall be made junior, inferior and subordinate to the first mortgage loan to OWNER. RELEASE OF LIEN. Upon satisfactory completion of the Agreement requirements and fifteen (15) years after the date of issuance of the certificate of occupancy, or upon payment of the deferred impact fees, and upon payment of the deferred impact A~A ITEM' JAN 11 200[ fees, the COUNTY shall, at the expense of the COUNTY, record any necessary documentation evidencing the termination of the lien, including, but not limited to, a release of lien. 9. BINDING EFFECT. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties to this Agreement and their respective heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns. In the case of sale or transfer by gift of the Dwelling Unit, the original OWNER shall remain liable for the impact fees waived until said impact fees are paid in full or until the conditions set forth in the Impact Fee Ordinance are satisfied. In addition, this Agreement shall mn with the land and shall remain a lien against the Dwelling Unit until the provisions of Section 8 are satisfied. 10. RECORDING. This Agreement shall be recorded by OWNER at the expense of OWNER in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, within sixty (60) days after execution of this Agreement by the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners. 11. DEFAULT. OWNER shall be in default of this Agreement (1) where OWNER fails to sell the Dwelling Unit in accordance with the affordable housing standards and qualification criteria established in the Impact Fee Ordinance and thereafter fails to pay the impact fees within 30 days of said non-compliance, or (2) where OWNER violates one of the affordable housing qualification criteria in the Impact Fee Ordinance for a period of thirty (30) days after notice of the violation. 12. REMEDIES. Should the OWNER of the property fail to comply with the said qualification criteria at any time during the fifteen (15) year period or should OWNER violate any provisions of this Agreement, the impact fees waived shall be paid in full by OWNER within 30 days of said non-compliance. OWNER agrees that the impact fees deferred shall constitute a lien on the Dwelling Unit commencing on the effective date of this Agreement and continuing until repaid. AGENDA 4 JAN I I 2000 Except as set forth in Section 7, such lien shall be superior and paramount to the irterest in the Dwelling Unit of any owner, lessee, tenant, mortgagee, or other person except the lien for County taxes and shall be on parity with the lien of any such County taxes. Should the OWNER be in default of this Agreement, and the default is not cured within thirty (30) days after written notice to OWNER, the Board may bring civil action to enforce this Agreement. In addition, the lien may be foreclosed or otherwise enforced by the COUNTY by action or suit in equity as for the foreclosure of a mortgage on real property. This remedy is cumulative with any other right or remedy available to the COUNTY. The Board shall be entitled to recover all attorney's fees, incurred by the Board in enforcing this Agreement, plus interest at the statutory rate for judgments calculated on a calendar day basis until paid. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement for Waiver/Deferral of Impact Fees on the date and year first above written. Witnesses: /c/Print Name -.~,q-~.v ~-'--xZ/..~.at~: 7 STATE OF ."7'~a~'.~-.e~__~_--":'~/%~ ) COUNTY OF- /~..,,~'J.~.~.'..,/ Henrietta Eimers The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 1999, by Henrietta Eimers. She is personally known to me ~~----- i,~,~-,~ ~,,~al,-,,-n_~o identification-. [NOTARIAL SEAL] ,~vbrmature of Person Taking Acknowledgn ~ ~' .w My COMMISSION · CC ?~ day of ~u/&'.e'.t'~m.~L-v,,, .(type~of. ent 11 2000 DATED: ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk BOARD OF COUNTY COMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: Approved as to form and legal sufficiency ~"~id~: Xshton" ' Assistant County Attorney jd/c/impfee/eimers 6 EXHIBIT 'A' LEGAL DISCRIPTION HENRIETTA EIMERS RESIDENCE BEGIN AT POINT 520 FT, WEST OF SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SOUTHWEST ¼ OF SOUTHEAST ¼ OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST, RUN THENCE NORTH 660 FT., WEST 130 FT., SOUTH 660 FT, EAST 130 FT TO POINT OF BEGINNING, 2 ACRES, ACCORDING TO THE DEED RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 194, PAGE 726, IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. AC__~A ITEM JAM 11 2000 L UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Cooperative Extension Service Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences TO: FROM: Cormac Giblin "' Collier County Housing and Urban Improvement Bonnie Fauls ~~~/ Collier County University Extension DATE: October 29, 1999 Impact Fee Waiver/Deferral Collier County 14700 Immokalee Rd Naples, FL 34120 Tel. (941) 3534244 SUN 974-5098 FAX (941) 353-7127 In regard to our conversation earlier this week about the Impact Fee Waiver/Deferral program, I am writing to ask that the County Attorney's Office reconsider their recommendation that banks take the second position On these loans. None of the 11 member banks of the Collier County Loan Consortium are willing to provide financing in these cases where they are asked to take the second mortgage position behind the County. It is accepted practice in other similar programs around the state that the county goes second to the bank. Typically through our program, the banks are providing 97% loan to value and simply cannot consider financing if they are asked to take the second position. They have too much invested. If you need further information on this topic or would like to talk directly to any of the bank representatives please let me know how I can help you. Thank you for your support in this matter. The I~sfit~m of Food and Agricult~rnl 5ciencas ~s an Bqu~ Employment ~porlunlty - Mfirmatiw Action Emplo~r authofi~d ~ provide msea~h, educaflo~ C~PE~TIVE EXIENSION WORK IN AG~L~RE~ FAMILY AND CO~UMER ~i~NC~, SEA G~NT AND ~-H YOUTH, gTATE O ;~ ~nt~ ~IVE~I~ OP P~RIDA. U.S. DEPAR~ENI OF AG~CUL~RE, AND BOAR~ OF CO~ COMMISSIONERS C~PER~ 'lNG. JAN 11 2000 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AUTHORIZATION OF A 50% WAIVER/50% DEFERRAL OF IMPACT FEES FOR ONE HOUSE TO BE BUILT BY CARLOS M. LOPEZ AT 3047 54T" STREET, S. W., GOLDEN GATE CITY, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA OBJECTIVE: The Board of County Commissioners accept the Resolution and Agreement for 50% Waiver/50% Deferral of Collier County Impact Fees authorizing the payment of impact fees and appropriating the funds for waiver of Correctional Facilities Impact Fees, Road Impact Fees, Library System Impact Fees, Parks and Recreational Facilities Impact Fees, Emergency Medical Services Impact Fees, and Educational Facilities System Impact Fees for one house to be built by Carlos M. Lopez, with funds from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. CONSIDERATIONS: Carlos M. Lopez has submitted an application for a 50% waiver/50% deferral of impact fees for one house to be built by Carlos M. Lopez at 3047 54th Street S. W., Golden Gate City, in Collier County, as a low income, first time home buyer and qualifies for an impact fee waiver/deferral under the provisions of the Impact Fee Waiver Ordinances. The house is proposed to sell for $84,604.00. FISCAL IMPACT: Funding for the proposed impact fee waiver/deferral is available in the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. The total amount of impact fees requested to be waived/deferred is $4,290.34. a) Library System Impact Fee $ 180.52 b) Road Impact Fee 1,379.00 c) Parks Impact 820.84 d) EMS Impact Fee 14.00 e) Educational Systems Impact Fee 1,778.00 f) Correctional Facilities Impact Fee 117.98 Total Impact Fees to be Waived/Deferred $4,290.34 GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The impact fee waiver will bring relief for a low income family in compliance with Policy 1.5.2 of the Housing Element of the Growth Management Plan. AGENDA ITEM JAN 11 2000 Pl. / Executive Summary Lopez Impact Fee Waiver/Deferral Page Two RECOMMENDATION: The Board of County Commissioners accept the Resolution and Agreement authorizing the waiver/deferral of impact fees for a home to be built at 3047 54th Street S. W., Golden Gate City, Collier County, by Carlos M. Lopez, a low income family, and to pay for these impact fees with State Housing Incentive Partnership (S.H.I.P.) program revenue funds. Prepared by: :.~anne Dalbey, Planner II ~ Housing and Urban Improvement Reviewed by: Greg Miha}fc, Director Housing and Urban Improvement Date Approved b~'.'~'~// VINCENT A. CAUTERO, AICP, ADMINISTRATOR COMMULNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Date j d/c/'impact fee/I opez JAN 11 2000 Pl. ~ 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2000- 2 3 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, 4 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING 50% WAIVER 50% 5 DEFERRAL OF CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEES, 6 LIBRARY SYSTEM IMPACT FEES, PARKS AND RECREATIONAL 7 FACILITIES IMPACT FEES, ROAD IMPACT FEES, EMERGENCY 8 MEDICAL SERVICES IMPACT FEES, AND EDUCATIONAL 9 FACILITIES SYSTEM IMPACT FEES FOR ONE HOUSE TO BE 10 CONSTRUCTED BY CARLOS M. LOPEZ, AT 3047 54th STREET S.W., 11 GOLDEN GATE CITY, IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. 12 WHEREAS, Collier County has recognized and attempted to address the lack of adequate and 13 affordable housing for moderate, low, and very-low income households in the County and the need for 14 creative and innovative programs to assist in the provision of such housing by including several 15 provisions in the Collier County Growth Management Plan, including: objective 1.4, pohcy 1.4.1; 16 objective 1.5, policy 1.5.2, policy 1.5.3, policy 1.5.4, policy 1.5.5, policy 1.5.6; objective 1.6, policy 17 1.6.3; objective 2.1, policy 2.1.1, policy 2.1.2, policy 2.1.3, policy 2.1.5, and policy 2.1.6 of the 18 Housing Element; and 19 WHEREAS, Collier County has received funding pursuant to the State Housing Initiatives 20 Partnership Program set forth in Section 420.907 et. seq., Florida Statutes and Chapter 91-37, Florida 21 Administrative Code; and 22 WHEREAS, in accordance with Collier County Ordinance No. 93-19, the County is 23 authorized to use funding from the State Housing Initiatives Partnership [SHIP] Program for waivers of 24 Collier County impact fees; and 25 WHEREAS, Carlos M. Lopez is seeking a 50% waiver/50% deferral of impact fees; and 26 WHEREAS, Carlos M. Lopez will construct a three bedroom unit (the "Dwelling Unit") at 27 3047 54'h Street, S. W., Golden Gate City, Collier County, Florida; which is proposed to sell for 28 EIGHTY FOUR THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED AND FOUR DOLLARS (S84,604.00), and 29 WHEREAS, the Dwelling Unit will be owned by a low income household, and 30 WHEREAS, Carlos M. Lopez submitted to the office of the Housing and Urban Improvement 31 Department an Affordable Housing Application dated August 24, 1999 for a 50% waiver/50% deferral 32 of impact fees for the construction of a house at 3047 54th Street, S. W., in Collier County, Florida, a 33 copy of said application is on file in the Housing and Urban Improvement Department; and 34 WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 3.04 of the Correctional Facilities Impact Fee 35 Ordinance, Ordinance No. 99-52; Section 3.04 of the Library System Impact Fee Ordinance, 36 Ordinance No. 88-97, as amended; Section 4.05 of the Parks and Recreational Facilities Impact Fee 37 Ordinance, Ordinance No. 99-39; Section 3.04 of the Road Impact Fee Ordinance, Ordinance No. 38 92-22, as amended; Section 3.05 of the Emergency Medical Services System Impact Fee Ordinance, 39 Ordinance No. 91-71, as amended; Section 3.05 of the Educational Facilities System Impact Fee 40 Ordinance, Ordinance No. 92-33; an applicant may obtain a 50% waiver/50% defers" ~f i_~--~ 41 by qualifying for a waiver/deferral; and ~o._,~,/~(~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2,3 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 WHEREAS, Carlos M. Lopez has qualified for an impact fee waiver/deferral based upon the following representations made by Carlos M. Lopez: A. The Dwelling Unit shall be owned by a first-time home buyer. B. The Dwelling Unit shall be owned by a household with a moderate income level as that term is defined in the Appendices to the respective Impact Fee Ordinances and the monthly payment to purchase the unit must be within the affordable housing guidelines established in the Appendices to the respective Impact Fee Ordinances. C. The Dwelling Unit shall be the Homestead of the owner. D. The Dwelling Unit shall remain affordable for fifteen (15) years from the date the certificate of occupancy is issued. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, THAT: 1. Thc Board of County Commissioners hereby authorizes the County Administrator to issue an Authorization for 50 % waiver/50% deferral of impact fees to Carlos M. Lopez for one (1) house which shall be constructed at 3047 54th Street, S. W., in Collier County, Florida. 2. Upon receipt by the Housing and Urban Improvement Director of an agreement for 50% waiver/50% deferral of impact fees signed by Carlos M. Lopez, or other documentation acceptable to the County Attorney, the Board of County Commissioners hereby author/zes the payment by Collier County of the following impact fees from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, Fund (191), in the following amounts for the one (1) house to be built at 3047 54th Street, S. W., in Collier County, Florida by Carlos M. Lopez: A. Library Impact Fee $ 180.52 B. Road Impact Fee 1,379.00 C. Parks Impact Fees: 820.84 D. EMS Impact Fee 14.00 E. Educational Facilities System Impact Fee 1,778.00 F. Correctional Facilities Impact Fee 117.98 Total Impact Fees $ 4,290.34 The payment of impact fees by Collier County is subject to the execution and recordation of an Affordable Housing Agreement for payment of Collier County Impact Fees between the property owner and/or purchaser and the County. Based upon industry standards the financial industry has demonstrated that a subordination of the County's rights, interests and lien to the first mortgage loan to the Owner obtain financing to purchase the dwelling unit. A C.~t~A ~TEM JAN 11 2000 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 5O 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote favoring same. DATED: ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Assistant County Attorney By: jd/c/reso/lopez AGE.~A ~TE~ JAN 11 2000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION CARLOS M. LOPEZ RESIDENCE LOT 14, BLOCK 232 IN GOLDEN GATE CITY, UNIT 7, ACCORDING 70 THE PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 5, PAGES 135-146, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. 4 JAN 11 2000 pg.. ~o 3047 54~'Jr'z STP~J~"'Z' $.~. TANK. JAN 11 2O0O AGREEMENT FOR 50%WAIVER/50% DEFERRAL OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES This Agreement for the Waiver of Impact Fees entered into this day of ., 2000 by and between the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY" and CARLOS M. LOPEZ, hereinafter referred to as "OWNER." WITNESSETH: WiqEREAS, Collier County Ordinance No. 99-52, the Correctional Facilities Impact Fee; Collier County Ordinance No. 88-97, as amended, the Collier County Library System Impact Fee Ordinance; Collier County Ordinance No. 99-39, the Collier County Parks and Recreational Facilities Impact Fee Ordinance; Collier County Ordinance No. 91-71, as amended, the Collier County Emergency Medical Services System Impact Fee Ordinance; Collier County Ordinance No. 92-22, as amended, the Collier County Road Impact Fee Ordinance; Collier County Ordinance No. 92-33, as amended, the Collier County Educational Facilities System Impact Fee Ordinance; and Collier County Ordinance No. 98-69, as they may be further amended from time to time hereinafter collectively referred to as "Impact Fee Ordinance", provide for waivers of impact fees for new owner-occupied dwelling units qualifying as affordable housing; and WI-iEREAS, OWNER has applied for a 50% waiver/50% deferral of impact fees as required by the Impact Fee Ordinance, a copy of said application is on file in the office of Housing and Urban Improvement Department; and WHEREAS, the County Administrator or his designee has reviewed the OWNER's application and has found that it complies with the requirements for an affordable housing 50% waiver/50% deferral of impact fees as established in the Impact Fee Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the impact fee waiver/deferral shall be presented in lieu of payment of the requisite impact fees subject to satisfaction of all criteria in the Impact Fee Ordinance qualifying the project as eligible for an impact fee waiver/deferral and 1 JAN 11 2000 p~,. ~ WHEREAS, the COUNTY approved a waiver/deferral of impact fees for OWNER embodied in Resolution No. 2000- WHEREAS, the Impact Fee Agreement with the COUNTY. __ at its regular meeting of ,2000; and Ordinance requires that the OWNER enter into an NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals, the parties covenant and agree as follows: 1. RECITALS INCORPORATED. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and shall be incorporated by reference herein. 2. LEGAL DESCRIPTION. The legal description of the dwelling unit (the "Dwelling Unit") and site plan is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference herein. 3. TERM. OWNER agrees that the Dwelling Unit shall remain as affordable housing and shall be offered for sale in accordance with the standards set forth in the appendices to the Impact Fee Ordinance for a period of fifteen (15) years commencing from the date the certificate of occupancy is issued for the Dwelling Unit. 4. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES. OWNER represents and warrants the following: a. Owner maintains a household with a low income as defined in the appendices to the Impact Fee Ordinance and the monthly payments to purchase the Dwelling Unit must be within the affordable housing guidelines established in the appendices to the Impact Fee Ordinance; b. Owner is a first-time home buyer; c. The Dwelling Unit shall be the homestead of owner; JAN 11 2000 Pg. d. The Dwelling Unit shall remain as affordable housing for fifteen (15) years from the date the certificate of occupancy is issued for the Dwelling Unit; and e. OWNER is the owner of record of the Dwelling Unit and owes impact fees in the total amount of $4,290.34 pursuant to the Impact Fee Ordinance. In return for the 50% waiver/50% deferral of the impact fees owed by OWNER, OWNER covenants and agrees to comply with the affordable housing impact fee waiver qualification criteria detailed in the Impact Fee Ordinance. 5. SUBSEQUENT TRANSFER. If OWNER sells the Dwelling Unit subject to the impact fee waiver/deferral to a subsequent purchaser or renter, the Dwelling Unit shall be sold only to households meeting the criteria set forth in the Impact Fee Ordinance. 6. AFFORDABLE REQUIREMENT. The Dwelling Unit must be utilized for affordable housing for a fifteen (15) year period after the date the certificate of occupancy is issued; and if the Dwelling Unit ceases to be utilized for that purpose during such period, the impact fees shall be immediately repaid to the COUNTY, except for waived impact fees if the dwelling unit has been used for affordable housing for a continuous period of fifteen years after the date the certificate of occupancy is issued. 7. LIEN. The waived/deferred impact fees shall be a lien upon the property which lien may be foreclosed upon in the event of non-compliance with the requirements of this Agreement. The COUNTY and OWNER agree that all of the COUNTY'S rights, interests and lien arising under this Agreement shall be made junior, inferior and subordinate to the first mortgage loan to OWNER. 8. RELEASE OF LIEN. Upon satisfactory completion of the Agreement requirements and fifteen (15) years after the date of issuance of the certificate of occupancy, or 3 JAN 11 2000 upon payment of the waived impact fees, and upon payment of the deferred impact fees, the COUNTY shall, at the expense of the COUNTY, record any necessary documentation evidencing the termination of the lien, including, but not limited to, a release of lien. 9. BINDING EFFECT. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties to this Agreement and their respective heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns. In the case of sale or transfer by girl of the Dwelling Unit, the original OWNER shall remain liable for the impact fees waived/deferred until said impact fees are paid in full or until the conditions set forth in the Impact Fee Ordinance are satisfied. In addition, this Agreement shall run with the land and shall remain a lien against the Dwelling Unit until the provisions of Section 8 are satisfied. 10. RECORDING. This Agreement shall be recorded by OWNER at the expense of OWNER in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, within sixty (60) days after execution of this Agreement by the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners. 11. DEFAULT. OWNER shall be in default of this Agreement (1) where OWNER fails to sell the Dwelling Unit in accordance with the affordable housing standards and qualification criteria established in the Impact Fee Ordinance and thereafter fails to pay the impact fees within 30 days of said non-compliance, or (2) where OWNER violates one of the affordable housing qualification criteria in the Impact Fee Ordinance for a period of thirty (30) days after notice of the violation. 12. REMEDIES. Should the OWNER of the property fail to comply with the said qualification criteria at any time during the fifteen (15) year period or should O~;NER violate any provisions of this Agreement, the impact fees waived/deferred shall be paid in full by OWNER within 30 days of said non-compliance. OWNER agrees that the impact fees waived/deferred shall constitute a lien on the Dwelling 4 JAN 11 2000 Unit commencing on the effective date of this Agreement and continuing until repaid. Except as set forth in Section 7, such lien shall be superior and paramount to the interest in the Dwelling Unit of any owner, lessee, tenant, mortgagee, or other person except the lien for County taxes and shall be on parity with the lien of any such County taxes. Should the OWNER be in default of this Agreement, and the default is not cured within thirty (30) days after written notice to OWNER, the Board may bring civil action to enforce this Agreement. In addition, the lien may be foreclosed or otherwise enforced by the COUNTY by action or suit in equity as for the foreclosure of a mortgage on real property. This remedy is cumulative with any other right or remedy available to the COUNTY. The Board shall be entitled to recover all attorney's fees, incurred by the Board in enforcing this Agreement, plus interest at the statutory rate for judgments calculated on a calendar day basis until paid. 1N WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement for Waiver/Deferral of Impact Fees on the date and year first above written. Witnesses: Print-N'~me STATE COUNTY OF ) ) OWNER: Carlos M. Lope~r The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ 1999, by Carlos M. Lopez. He is personally known to me ~ pmduc~-~d of identification) as identification. 7 day of (Zy-lae 5 DATED: ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk BOARD OF COUNTY COMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: Approved as to form and legal .sufficiency ~eidi -- ~" F. Ashton Assistant County Attorney jd/c/agreements/lopez 6 JAN 11 2000 EXHIBIT 'A' LEGAL DISCRIPTION CARLOS M. LOPEZ LOT 14, BLOCK 232 IN GOLDEN GATE CITY, UNIT 7, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 5, PAGES 135-146, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. 7 ' AC.~.ICDA ITEM JAN ~1 2000 / / - / WAY · ~047 54TH STJ~EI~T D~I~IL~EI.D SERVa:ES & DESB6N, INC. ,,~/~,,¢)~ JAN 11 2000 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AUTHORIZATION OF A 100% WAIVER OF IMPACT FEES FOR ONE HOUSE TO BE BUILT BY ENOCK JARBATH AT 5224 MARTIN STREET IN NAPLES MANOR ADDITION, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA OBJECTIVE: The Board of County Commissioners accept the Resolution and Agreement for 100% waiver of Collier County Impact Fees authorizing the payment of impact fees and appropriating the funds for waiver of Correctional Facilities Impact Fees, Road Impact Fees, Library System Impact Fees, Parks and Recreational Facilities Impact Fees, Emergency Medical Services Impact Fees, Educational Facilities System Impact Fees and Water and Sewer Facilities Impact Fees for one house to be built by Enock Jarbath, with funds from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. CONSIDERATIONS: Enock Jarbath has submitted an application for a 100% waiver of impact fees for one house to be built by Enock Jarbath at 5224 Martin Street, Naples Manor Addition, in Collier County, as a very low income, first time home buyer and qualifies for an impact fee waiver under the provisions of the Impact Fee Waiver Ordinances. The house is proposed to sell for $92,400.00. FISCAL IMPACT: Funding for the proposed impact fee waiver is available in the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. The total amount of impact fees requested to be waived/deferred is $7,140.34. a) Library System Impact Fee $ 180.52 b) Road Impact Fee 1,379.00 c) Parks Impact 820.84 d) EMS Impact Fee 14.00 e) Educational Systems Impact Fee 1,778.00 f) Correctional Facilities Impact Fee 117.98 g) Water Impact Fee 1,275.00 h) Sewer Impact Fee 1,575.00 Total Impact Fees to be Waived/Deferred $7,140.34 GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The impact fee waiver will bring relief for very low income family in compliance with Policy 1.5.2 of the Housing Element of the Growth Management Plan. AGENDA ITEM JAN 11 2000 Executive Summary Jarbath Impact Fee Waiver Page Two RECOMMENDATION: The Board of County Commissioners accept the Resolution and Agreement authorizing the waiver of impact fees for a home to be built at 5224 Martin Street, Naples Manor Addition, in Collier County, by Enock Jarbath, a very low income family, and to pay for these impact fees with State Housing Incentive Partnership (S.H.I.P.) program revenue funds. Prepared by: Dalbey,'P[mner II fi" Housing and Urban Improvement Date Reviewed by: ~Greg M~'h~c, Director Housing and Urban Improvement Date//Z - / 3 - 2"'~' Approved b~ ~ Date VINCENT A. CAUTERO, AICP, ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES jd/c/impactfee/jarbath AGENDA ITEM JAN 11 2000 Ordinance, Ordinance No. 92-33, as amended; and Section 3.04 of the Regional 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2000- 2 3 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COLIN . Y COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER 4 COUNTY, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING WAIVER OF CORRECTIONAL 5 FACILITIES IMPACT FEES, LIBRARY SYSTEM IMPACT FEES, PARKS AND 6 RECREATIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEES, ROAD IMPACT FEES, 7 EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES IMPACT FEES, EDUCATIONAL 8 FACILITIES sySTEM IMPACT FEES, AND WATER AND/OR SEWER IMPACT 9 FEES FOR ONE HOUSE TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY ENOCK JAR.BATH AT 10 5224 MARTIN STREET, NAPLES MANOR ADDITION, COLLIER COUNTY, 11 FLORIDA. 12 WHEREAS, Collier County has recognized and attempted to address the lack of adequate and 13 affordable housing for moderate, low, and very-low income households in the County and the need 14 for creative and innovative programs to assist in the provision of such housing by including several 15 provisions in the Collier County Growth Management Plan, including: objective 1.4, policy 1.4.1; 16 objective 1.5, policy 1.5.2, policy 1.5.3, policy 1.5.4, policy 1.5.5, policy 1.5.6; objective 1.6, policy 17 1.6.3; objective 2.1, policy 2.1.1, policy 2.1.2, policy 2.1.3, policy 2.1.5, and policy 2.1.6 of the 18 Housing Element; and 19 WHEREAS, Collier County has received funding pursuant to the State Housing Initiatives 20 Partnership Program set forth in Section 420.907 et. seq., Florida Statutes and Chapter 91-37, Florida 21 Administrative Code; and 22 WHEREAS, in accordance with Collier County Ordinance No. 93-19, the County is 23 authorized to use funding from the State Housing Initiatives Partnership [SHIP] Program for waivers 24 of Collier County impact fees; and 25 WHEREAS, Enock Jarbath is seeking a waiver of impact fees; and 26 WHEREAS, Enock Jarbath will construct a four (4) bedroom unit (the "Dwelling Unit") at 27 5442 Martin Street in Naples Manor Addition, Collier County, Florida; which is proposed to sell for 28 Ninety Two Thousand Four Hundred Dollars (92,400.00), and 29 WHEREAS, the Dwelling Unit will be owned by a very low income household, and 30 WHEREAS, Enock Jarbath submitted to the office of the Housing and Urban Improvement 31 Department an Affordable Housing Application dated September 30, 1999 for a waiver of impact 32 fees for the construction of a house at 5442 Martin Street, Naples Manor Addition, Collier County, 33 Florida, a copy of said application is on file in the Housing and Urban Improvement Department; and 34 WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 3.04 of the Correctional Facilities Impact Fee 35 Ordinance, Ordinance No. 99-52; Section 3.04 of the Library System Impact Fee Ordinance, 36 Ordinance No. 88-97, as amended; Section 3.04 of the Parks and Recreational Facilities Impact Fee 37 Ordinance, Ordinance No. 99-39; Section 3.04 of the Road Impact Fee Ordinance, Ordinance No. 38 92-22, as amended; Section 3.05 of the Emergency Medical Services System Impact Fee Ordinance, 39 Ordinance No. 91-71, as amended; Section 3.05 of the Educational Facilities System Impact Fee 40 -1- JAN 11 2000 1 Systems Impact Fee Ordinance, Ordinance No. 98-69, an applicant may obtain a waiver of impact 2 fees by qualifying for a waiver; and 3 WHEREAS, Enock Jarbath has qualified for an impact fee waiver based upon the following 4 representations made by Enock Jarbath: 5 6 7 8 9 I0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 A. The Dwelling Unit shall be owned by a first-time home buyer. B. The Dwelling Unit shall be owned by a household with a very low income level as that term is defined in the Appendices to the respective Impact Fee Ordinances and the monthly payment to purchase the unit must be within the affordable housing guidelines established in the Appendices to the respective Impact Fee Ordinances. C. The Dwelling Unit shall be the Homestead of the owner. D. The Dwelling Unit shall remain affordable for fifteen (15) years from the date the certificate of occupancy is issued. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, THAT: 1. The Board of County Commissioners hereby authorizes the County Administrator to issue an Authorization for waiver of impact fees to Enock Jarbath for one (1) house which shall be constructed at 5442 Martin Street, Naples Manor Addition, Collier County, Florida. 2. Upon receipt by the Housing and Urban Improvement Director of an agreement for waiver signed by Enock Jarbath, or other documentation acceptable to the County Attorney, the Board of County Commissioners hereby authorizes the payment by Collier County of the following impact fees from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, Fund (191), in the following mounts for the one (1) house to be built at 5442 Martin Street, Naples Manor Addition, Collier County, Florida by Enock Jarbath: A. Library Impact Fee $ 180.52 B. Road Impact Fee 1,379.00 C. Parks Impact Fee: 820.84 D. EMS Impact Fee 14.00 E. Educational Facilities System Impact Fee 1,778.00 F. Correctional Facilities Impace Fee 117.98 G. Water Impact Fees 1,275.00 H. Sewer Impact Fees 1,575/00 TotalImpact Fees $ 7,140.34 -2- JAN 11 2000 The payment of impact fees by Collier County is subject to the execution an( recordation of an Affordable Housing Agreement for payment of Collier County Impact Fees between the property owner and/or purchaser and the County. Based upon industry standards the financial industry has demonstrated that a subordination of the County's rights, interests and lien to the first mortgage loan to the Owner is necessary to obtain financing to purchase the dwelling unit. 8 This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote favoring same. 9 10 11 DATED: 12 13 ATTEST: t4 DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Approved as to form and 23 legal sufficiency: 24 27 H~eidi F.-'A~hton 28 Assistant County Attorney 29 3O 31 32 jd/chmpfees/jarbath 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: , CHAIRMAN -3- AGF..~A I'1. JAN 11 2000 Pg. ~ ~ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION ENOCK JARBATH RESIDENCE LOT 11, BLOCK 13, NAPLES MANOR ADDITION, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK38, PAGES 67 AND 68, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. -4- AG~A ITEM JAN 11 2000 JAN 11 2000 AGREEMENT FOR 100% WAIVER OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES This Agreement for the Waiver of Impact Fees entered into this day of , 2000 by and between the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY" and ENOCK JARBATH, hereinafter referred to as "OWNER." WITNES SETH: WHEREAS, Collier County Ordinance No. 99-52, the Correctional Facilities Impact Fee; Collier County Ordinance No. 88-97, as amended, the Collier County Library System Impact Fee Ordinance; Collier County Ordinance No. 99-39, the Collier County Parks and Recreational Facilities Impact Fee Ordinance; Collier County Ordinance No. 91-71, as amended, the Collier County Emergency Medical Services System Impact Fee Ordinance; Collier County Ordinance No. 92-22, as amended, the Collier County Road Impact Fee Ordinance; and the Collier County Ordinance No. 92-33, as amended, the Collier County Educational Facilities System Impact Fee Ordinance; as they may be further amended from time to time hereinafter collectively referred to as "Impact Fee Ordinance", provide for waivers of impact fees for new owner-occupied dwelling units qualifying as affordable housing; and WHEREAS, OWNER has applied for a 100% waiver of impact fees as required by the Impact Fee Ordinance, a copy of said application is on file in the office of Housing and Urban Improvement Department; and WHEREAS, the County Administrator or his designee has reviewed the OWNER's application and has found that it complies with the requirements for an affordable housing 100% waiver of impact fees as established in the Impact Fee Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the impact fee waiver shall be presented in lieu of payment of the requisite impact fees subject to satisfaction of all criteria in the Impact Fee Ordinance qualifying the project as eligible for an impact fee waiver and AGE. I~A ITEM JAN 1 1 2000 WHEREAS, the COUNTY approved a waiver of impact fees Resolution No. 2000-__ at its regular meeting of WHEREAS, the Impact Fee Ordinance requires that the Agreement with the COUNTY. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals, the parties covenant and agree as follows: 1. RECITALS INCORPORATED. The foregoing recitals are tree and correct and shall be incorporated by reference herein. 2. LEGAL DESCRIPTION. The legal description of the dwelling unit (the "Dwelling Unit") and site plan is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference herein. 3. TERM. OWNER agrees that the Dwelling Unit shall remain as affordable housing and shall be offered for sale in accordance with the standards set forth in the appendices to the Impact Fee Ordinance for a period of fifteen (15) years commencing from the date the certificate of occupancy is issued for the Dwelling Unit. 4. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES. OWNER represents and warrants the following: a. Owner maintains a household with a very low income as defined in the appendices to the Impact Fee Ordinance and the monthly payments to purchase the Dwelling Unit must be within the affordable housing guidelines established in the appendices to the Impact Fee Ordinance; b. Owner is a first-time home buyer; c. The Dwelling Unit shall be the homestead of owner; for OWNER embodied in ,2000; and OWNER enter into an AGENDA ITEI~ JAN 11 2000 Pg. t~ d. The Dwelling Unit shall remain as affordable housing for fifteen (15) years from the date the certificate of occupancy is issued for the Dwelling Unit; and e. OWNER is the owner of record of the Dwelling Unit and owes impact fees in the total mount of $7,140.34 pursuant to the Impact Fee Ordinance. In return for the 100% waiver of the impact fees owed by OWNER, OWNER covenants and agrees to comply with the affordable housing impact fee waiver qualification criteria detailed in the Impact Fee Ordinance. 5. SUBSEQUENT TRANSFER. If OWNER sells the Dwelling Unit subject to the impact fee waiver to a subsequent purchaser or renter, the Dwelling Unit shall be sold only to households meeting the criteria set forth in the Impact Fee Ordinance. 6. AFFORDABLE REQUIREMENT. The Dwelling Unit must be utilized for affordable housing for a fifteen (15) year period after the date the certificate of occupancy is issued; and if the Dwelling Unit ceases to be utilized for that purpose during such period, the impact fees shall be immediately repaid to the COUNTY, except for waived impact fees if the dwelling unit has been used for affordable housing for a continuous period of fifteen years after the date the certificate of occupancy is issued. 7. LIEN. The waived impact fees shall be a lien upon the property which lien may be foreclosed upon in the event of non-compliance with the requirements of this Agreement. The COUNTY and OWNER agree that all of the COUNTY'S rights, interests and lien arising under this Agreement shall be made junior, inferior and subordinate to the first mortgage loan. 8. RELEASE OF LIEN. Upon satisfactory completion of the Agreement requirements and fifteen (15) years after the date of issuance of the certificate of occupancy, or upon payment of the waived impact fees, and upon payment of the deferred impact 3 .lAN 11 2000 /d fees, the COUNTY shall, at the expense of the COUNTY, record any necessary documentation evidencing the termination of the lien, including, but not limited to, a release of lien. 9. BINDING EFFECT. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties to this Agreement and their respective heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns. In the case of sale or transfer by gift of the Dwelling Unit, the original OWNER shall remain liable for the impact fees waived until said impact fees are paid in full or until the conditions set forth in the Impact Fee Ordinance are satisfied. In addition, this Agreement shall run with the land and shall remain a lien against the Dwelling Unit until the provisions of Section 8 are satisfied. 10. RECORDING. This Agreement shall be recorded by OWNER at the expense of OWNER in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, within sixty (60) days after execution of this Agreement by the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners. 11. DEFAULT. OWNER shall be in default of this Agreement (1) where OWNER fails to sell the Dwelling Unit in accordance with the affordable housing standards and qualification criteria established in the Impact Fee Ordinance and thereafter fails to pay the impact fees within 30 days of said non-compliance, or (2) where OWNER violates one of the affordable housing qualification criteria in the Impact Fee Ordinance for a period of thirty (30) days after notice of the violation. 12. REMEDIES. Should the OWNER of the property fail to comply with the said qualification criteria at any time during the fifteen (15) year period or should OWNER violate any provisions of this Agreement, the impact fees waived shall be paid in full by OWNER within 30 days of said non-compliance. OWNER agrees that the impact fees waived shall constitute a lien on the Dwelling Unit commencing on the effective date of this Agreement and continuing until repaid. 4 JAN 1 1 2000 Except as set forth in Section 7, such lien shall be superior and paramount to the interest in the Dwelling Unit of any owner, lessee, tenant, mortgagee, or other person except the lien for County taxes and shall be on parity with the lien of any such County taxes. Should the OWNER be in default of this Agreement, and the default is not cured within thirty (30) days after written notice to OWNER, the Board may bring civil action to enforce this Agreement. In addition, the lien may be foreclosed or otherwise enforced by the COUNTY by action or suit in equity as for the foreclosure of a mortgage on real property. This remedy is cumulative with any other right or remedy available to the COUNTY. The Board shall be entitled to recover all attorney's fees, incurred by the Board in enforcing this Agreement, plus interest at the statutory rate for judgments calculated on a calendar day basis until paid. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement for Waiver/Deferral of Impact Fees on the date and year first above written. Witnesses: Print Name t_~,Print Name,_./"~--~,e,,?.,, ~_. -/_~z~-~/ OWNER: gnb"ok Jar~'~. h STATE OF ~z~.~.~, '..~_;~ ) COUNTY OFF~-? ___:.,- The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 1999, by Enock Jarbath. He is personally known to me or produced. Pag~z._. identification) as identification. ~"~ - [NOTARIAL SEAL] ~/~i~n~ture of Person-Taking Ack~ledgment (type of Pt. /o2 DATED: ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk BOARD OF COUNTY COMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: Approved as to form and legal sufficiency I4eidi-F:Xsfiton - - Assistant County Attorney jd/c/impfee/jarbath 6 AGEI~A ITEM JAN 11 2000 EXHIBIT 'A' LEGAL DISCRIPTION ENOCK JARBATH RESIDENCE LOT 11, BLOCK 13, NAPLES MANOR ADDITION, AS RECORDED IN pLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 67 AND 68, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. AGEI~A ITEM No. /~/,'~)/-/ JAN 11 2000 · JAN 11 2000 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AUTHORIZATION OF A 100% WAIVER OF IMPACT FEES FOR ONE HOUSE TO BE BUILT BY MARCIA L. BICHARD AT 2721 LINDA DRIVE, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA OBJECTIVE: The Board of County Commissioners accept the Resolution and Agreement for 100% waiver of Collier County Impact Fees authorizing the payment of impact fees and appropriating the funds for waiver of Correctional Facilities Impact Fees, Road Impact Fees, Library System Impact Fees, Parks and Recreational Facilities Impact Fees, Emergency Medical Services Impact Fees, Educational Facilities System Impact Fees and Water and Sewer Facilities Impact Fees for one house to be built by Marcia L. Bichard, with funds from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. CONSIDERATIONS: Marcia L. Bichard has submitted an application for a 100% waiver of impact fees for one house to be built by Marcia L. Bichard at 2721 Linda Drive in Collier County, as a very low income, first time home buyer and qualifies for an impact fee waiver under the provisions of the Impact Fee Waiver Ordinances. The house is proposed to sell for $98,500.00. FISCAL IMPACT: Funding for the proposed impact fee waiver is available in the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. The total amount of impact fees requested to be waived is $6,695.34. a) Library System Impact Fee $ 180.52 b) Road Impact Fee 1,379.00 c) Parks Impact 820.84 d) EMS Impact Fee 14.00 e) Educational Systems Impact Fee 1,778.00 l) Correctional Facilities Impact Fee 117.98 g) Water Impact Fee 830.00 h) Sewer Impact Fee 1,575.00 Total Impact Fees to be Waived/Deferred $6,695.34 GROW'FH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The impact fee waiver will bring relief for very low' income family in compliance with Policy 1.5.2 of the Housing Element of the Growth Management Plan. Executive Summary Bichard Impact Fee Waiver Page Two RECOMMENDATION: The Board of County Commissioners accept the Resolution and Agreement authorizing the waiver of impact fees for a home to be built at 2721 Linda Drive in Collier County, by Marcia L. Bichard, a very low income family, and to pay for these impact fees with State Housing Incentive Partnership (S.H.I.P.) program revenue funds. Prepared by: ;(o~nne Dalbe>, Planner II Housing and Urban Improvement Date Rex,,ewet by: Greg Mil~iic, Director Housin~ and Urban Improvement Approved, b~//// Date VINCENT A. CAUTERO, AICP, ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES jd/c/impactfee'bichard AGENDA ITEM JAN 11 2000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 RESOLUTION NO. 2000- RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING 100% WAIVER OF CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEES, LIBRARY SYSTEM IMPACT FEES, PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEES, ROAD IMPACT FEES, EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES IMPACT FEES, EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES SYSTEM IMPACT FEES, AND WATER AND/OR SEWER IMPACT FEES FOR ONE HOUSE TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY MARCIA L. BICHARD AT 2721 LINDA DRIVE, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, Collier County has recognized and attempted to address the lack of adequate and affordable housing for moderate, low, and very-low income households in the County and the need for creative and innovative programs to assist in the provision of such housing by including several provisions in the Collier County Growth Management Plan, including: objective 1.4, policy 1.4.1; objective 1.5, policy 1.5.2, policy 1.5.3, policy 1.5.4, policy 1.5.5, policy 1.5.6; objective 1.6, policy 1.6.3; objective 2.1, policy 2.1.1, policy 2.1.2, policy 2.1.3, policy 2.1.5, and policy 2.1.6 of the Housing Element; and WHEREAS, Collier County has received funding pursuant to the State Housing Initiatives Partnership Program set forth in Section 420.907 et. seq., Florida Statutes and Chapter 91-37, Florida Administrative Code; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Collier County Ordinance No. 93-19, the County is authorized to use funding from the State Housing Initiatives Partnership [SHIP] Program for waivers of Collier County impact fees; and WHEREAS, Marcia L. Bichard is seeking a 100% waiver of in,pact fees; and WHEREAS, Marcia L. Bichard will construct a three (3) bedroom unit (the "Dwelling Unit") at 2721 Linda Drive in Naples Manor Addition, Collier County, Florida; which is proposed to sell for Ninety Eight Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($98,500.00), and WHEREAS, the Dwelling Unit will be owned by a very low income household, and WHEREAS, Marcia L. Bichard submitted to the office of the Housing and Urban Improvement Department an Affordable Housing Application dated October 22, 1999 for a waiver of impact fees for the construction of a house at 2721 Linda Drive, Collier County, Florida, a copy of said application is on file in the Housing and Urban Improvement Department; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 3.04 of the Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Ordinance, Ordinance No. 99-52; Section 3.04 of the Library System Impact Fee Ordinance, Ordinance No. 88-97, as amended; Section 3.04 of the Parks and Recreational Facilities Impact Fee Ordinance, Ordinance No. 99-39; Section 3.04 of the Road Impact Fee Ordinance, Ordinance No. 92-22, as amended; Section 3.05 of the Emergency Medical Services System Impact Fee Ordinance, Ordinance No. 91-71, as amended; Section 3.05 of the Educational Facilities System Impact Fee Ordinance, Ordinance No. 92-33, as amended; and Section 3.04 of the Regional Water and/or Sewer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1© I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Systems Impact Fee Ordinance, Ordinance No. 98-69, an applicant may obtain a waiver of impact fees by qualifying for a waiver; and WHEREAS, Marcia L. Bichard has qualified for an impact fee waiver based upon the following representations made by Marcia L. Bichard: A. The Dwelling Unit shall be owned by a first-time home buyer. B. The Dwelling Unit shall be owned by a household with a very low income level as that term is defined in the Appendices to the respective Impact Fee Ordinances and the monthly payment to purchase the unit must be within the affordable housing guidelines established in the Appendices to the respective Impact Fee Ordinances. C. The Dwelling Unit shall be the Homestead of the owner. D. The Dwelling Unit shall remain affordable for fifteen (15) years from the date the certificate of occupancy is issued. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, THAT: 1. The Board of County Commissioners hereby authorizes the County Administrator to issue an Authorization for waiver of impact fees to Marcia L. Bichard for one (1) house which shall be constructed at 2721 Linda Drive, Collier County, Florida. 2. Upon receipt by the Housing and Urban Improvement Director of an agreement for wai~ er ~igned by Marcia L. Bichard. or ott-~cr documentation acceptable to the County Attorney, the Board of County Commissioners hereby authorizes the payment by Collier County of the following impact fees fi.om the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, Fund (191), in the following amounts for the one (1) house to be built at 2721 Linda Drive, Collier County, Florida by Marcia L. Bichard: A. Library Impact Fee B. Road Impact Fee C. Parks Impact Fee: D. EMS Impact Fee E. Educational Facilities System Impact Fee F. Correctional Facilities Impace Fee G. Water Impact Fees H. Sewer Impact Fees Total Impact Fees 180.52 1,379.00 820.84 14.00 1,778.00 117.98 830.00 1,575/00 $ 6,695.34 AGENDA ITEM JAN 11 20~ - 2 - pg., 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 3. The payment of impact fees by Collier County is subject to the execution and recordation of an Affordable Housing Agreement for payment of Collier County Impact Fees between the property owner and/or purchaser and the County. 4. Based upon industry standards the financial industry has demonstrated that a subordination of the County's fights, interests and lien to the first mortgage loan to the owner is necessary to obtain financing to purchase the dwelling umt. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote favoring same. DATED: A'I FEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By:. Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Heidi F. Ashton Assistant County Attorney j d:c, imp fees,~oichard -3- /LL G JAN 11 2000 1>8. '~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION MARCIA L. BICHARD RESIDENCE LOT 11, LINDA PARK, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 19 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. -4- JAN ti 2000 NOO~9'37"E 155.0' $O0'Og'37'W 552.55' -t z SAM GOODMAN JAN !I 2000 AGREEMENT FOR 100% WAIVER OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES This Agreement for the Waiver of Impact Fees entered into this day of , 2000 by and between the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY" and Marcia L. Bichard, hereinafter referred to as "OWNER." WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Collier County Ordinance No. 99-52, the Correctional Facilities Impact Fee; Collier County Ordinance No. 88-97, as amended, the Collier County Library System Impact Fee Ordinance; Collier County Ordinance No. 99-39, the Collier County Parks and Recreational Facilities Impact Fee Ordinance; Collier County Ordinance No. 91-71, as amended, the Collier County Emergency Medical Services System Impact Fee Ordinance; Collier County Ordinance No. 92-22, as amended, the Collier County Road Impact Fee Ordinance; the Collier County Ordinance No. 92-33, as amended, the Collier County Educational Facilities System Impact Fee Ordinance; and Ordinance No. 98-69, the Collier County Regional Water and/or Sewer Impact Fee Ordinance, as they may be farther amended from time to time hereinafter collectively referred to as "Impact Fee Ordinance", provide for waivers of impact fees for new ewner-c~ccupied dwelling units qualifying as affordable housing; and WHEREAS, OWNER has applied for a 100% waiver of impact fees as required by the Impact Fee Ordinance, a copy of said application is on file in the office of Housing and Urban Improvement Department; and WHEREAS, the County Administrator or his designee has reviewed the OWNER's application and has found that it complies with the requirements for an affordable housing 100% waiver of impact fees as established in the Impact Fee Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the impact fee waiver shall be presented in lieu of payment of the requisite impact fees subject to satisfaction of all criteria in the Impact Fee Ordinance qualifying the project as eligible for an impact fee waiver; and A~IDA ITE. J~ JAN !I 2000 WHEREAS, the COUNTY approved a waiver of impact fees for OWNER embodied in Resolution No. 2000- at its regular meeting of ,2000; and WHEREAS, the Impact Fee Ordinance requires that the OWNER enter into an Agreement with the COUNTY. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals, the parties covenant and agree as follows: 1. RECITALS INCORPORATED. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and shall be incorporated by reference herein. 2. LEGAL DESCRIPTION. The legal description of the dwelling unit (the "Dwelling Unit") and site plan is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference herein. 3. TERM. OWNER agrees that the Dwelling Unit shall remain as affordable housing and shall be offered for sale in accordance with the standards set forth in the appendices to the Impact Fee Ordinance for a period of fifteen (15) years commencing from the date the certificate of occupancy is issued for the Dwelling Unit. 4. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES. OWNER represents and warrants the following: a. Owner maintains a household with a very low income as defined in the appendices to the Impact Fee Ordinance and the monthly payments to purchase the Dwelling Unit must be within the affordable housing guidelines established in the appendices to the Impact Fee Ordinance; b. Owner is a first-time home buyer; c. The Dwelling Unit shall be the homestead of owner; 2 JAN 11 2000 d. The Dwelling Unit shall remain as affordable housing for fifteen (15) years from the date the certificate of occupancy is issued for the Dwelling Unit; and e. OWNER is the owner of record of the Dwelling Unit and owes impact fees in the total amount of $6,695.34 pursuant to the Impact Fee Ordinance. In return for the 100% waiver of the impact fees owed by OWNER, OWNER covenants and agrees to comply with the affordable housing impact fee waiver qualification criteria detailed in the Impact Fee Ordinance. 5. SUBSEQUENT TRANSFER. If OWNER sells the Dwelling Unit subject to the impact fee waiver to a subsequent purchaser or renter, the Dwelling Unit shall be sold only to households meeting the criteria set forth in the Impact Fee Ordinance. 6. AFFORDABLE REQUIREMENT. The Dwelling Unit must be utilized for affordable housing for a fifteen (15) year period after the date the certificate of occupancy is issued; and if the Dwelling Unit ceases to be utilized for that purpose during such period, the impact fees shall be immediately repaid to the COUNTY, except for waivcd impact fees if the dwelling unit has been used for affordable housing for a continuous period of fifteen years after the date the certificate of occupancy is issued. 7. LIEN. The waived impact fees shall be a lien upon the property which lien may be foreclosed upon in the event of non-compliance with the requirements of this Agreement. The COUNTY and OWNER agree that all of the COUNTY'S rights, interests and lien arising under this Agreement shall be made junior, inferior and subordinate to the first mortgage loan. 8. RELEASE OF LIEN. Upon satisfactory completion of the Agreement requirements and fifteen (15) years after the date of issuance of the certificate of occupancy, or upon payment of the waived impact fees, and upon payment of the deferred impact JAN l~ 2000 fees, the COUNTY shall, at the expense of the COUNTY, record any necessary documentation evidencing the termination of the lien, including, but not limited to, a release of lien. 9. BINDING EFFECT. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties to this Agreement and their respective heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns. In the case of sale or transfer by girl of the Dwelling Unit, the original OWNER shall remain liable for the impact fees waived until said impact fees are paid in fidl or until the conditions set forth in the Impact Fee Ordinance are satisfied. In addition, this Agreement shall run with the land and shall remain a lien against the Dwelling Unit until the provisions of Section 8 are satisfied. 10. RECORDING. This Agreement shall be recorded by OWNER at the expense of OWNER in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, within sixty (60) days after execution of this Agreement by the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners. 11. DEFAULT. OWNER shall be in default of this Agreement (l) where OWNER fails to sell the Dwelling Unit in accordance with the affordable housing standards and quahfication criteria established in the Impact Fee Ordinance and thereafter fails to pay the impact fees within 30 days of said non-compliance, or (2) where OWNER violates one of the affordable housing qualification criteria in the Impact Fee Ordinance for a period of thirty (30) days after notice of the violation. 12. REMEDIES. Should the OWNER of the property fail to comply with the said qualification criteria at any time during the fifteen (15) year period or should OWNER violate any provisions of this Agreement, the impact fees waived shall be paid in full by OWNER within 30 days of said non-compliance. OWNER agrees that the impact fees waived shall constitute a lien on the Dwelling Unit commencing on the effective date of this Agreement and continuing until repaid. 4 JAN 1! 2000 Except as set forth in Section 7, such lien shall be superior and paramount to the interest in the Dwelling Unit of any owner, lessee, tenant, mortgagee, or other person except the lien for County taxes and shall be on parity with the lien of any such County taxes. Should the OWNER be in default of this Agreement, and the default is not cured within thirty (30) days after written notice to OWNER, the Board may bring civil action to enforce this Agreement. In addition, the lien may be foreclosed or otherwise enforced by the COUNTY by action or suit in equity as for the foreclosure of a mortgage on real property. This remedy is cumulative with any other right or remedy available to the COUNTY. The Board shall be entitled to recover all attorney's fees, incurred by the Board in enforcing this Agreement, plus interest at the statutory rate for judgments calculated on a calendar day basis until paid. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement for Waiver/Deferral of Impact Fees on the date and year first above written. Witnesses: Print NSame OWNER: Marcia L. Bichard STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 1999, by Marcia L. Bichard. She is personally known to 4dentifmatiov0-as4dentificatiom [NOTARIAL SEAL] __ day of , .(-type .of_ Sf'gq~ature of Person Taking Acknowledgment [L~4AN 11 20'00 DATED: ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk BOARD OF COUNTY COMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Approved as to form and legal sufficiency Heidi F. Ashton Assistant County Attorney By: , Chairman jd/c/impfee,%ichard JAN 1! 2000 EXHIBIT 'A' LEGAL DISCRIPTION MARCIA L. BICHARD RESIDENCE LOT 11, LINDA PARK, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 19, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. AGENDA ITEM JAN t! 2000 SAM GOODMAN CAROL E. NELSON, P.A. 1308 RIDGE STREET,NAPLES, FLORIDA 54103 (94-1)261--5748 i o~ ~..j-~ NOO'D9'37"E ~ 135.0' ~ S00'09'37"W 532,55' U'IIUTY EASMENT SO0'0t'O0"W 100' RIGHT OF WAY BAYSHORE DRIVE SUMMARY EXECUT,IV,E ...... BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR PLANNING SERVICES COMPUTER UPGRADE PURCHASE. OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners approve a budget amendment for Planning Services computer upgrade purchase. CONSIDERATION: The purpose of this budget amendment request is to transfer $60,000 from Community Development 113 Reserve Funds to the Planning Services Administration, in order to make sufficient funds available to cover the upgrade of 42 computers. This will allow aH planning and engineering review staff the ability to utilize the Perconti Development Review module and the Optical Scanning software. This software upgrade is necessary for record retention and retrieval. One third of these computers will share in Information Technology's Computer Purchase Program. However, it is necessary that the remainder of the existing computer stock be upgraded now because they do not meet the minimum standards for the above mentioned software programs. FISCAL IMPACT: This amendment will transfer $60,000 from the Reserve Contingency object code, of Fund 113, to the Data Processing Equipment object code of the same fund, to provide sufficient operating 'unds to cover the cost of the computer upgrades. .GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: No Growth Management Impact from this Budget Amendment request. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners approve the transfer of the requested funds from the designated line items to the object codes requested in the Budget Amendment request form. Don~d~R. Blaloeb,, Jr.- Pri~qi~ Planner Services Plann~g REVIEWED BY: APPROVED BY: ?Rob6{t J. M~here - Director /--- --/~ 7 ~. ' Date: Vincent A. Cautero, MCP - DMsion Ad~strator Co~u~ty D~elopmem & Env~oment~ Se~ces AGENDA ITEM .JAN 11 2000 Pt. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AUTHORIZE A BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF OPENING A PURCHASE ORDER FOR THE NAPLES AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE/COLLIER COUNTY FILM OFFICE TO PAY THE REMAINING INVOICES FOR FY99. OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners authorize a budget amendment for the purpose of opening a purchase order for the Naples Area Chamber of Commerce/Film Office to pay the remaining balance of invoices for FY 99. CONSIDERATIONS: On April 27, 1999 the Board of County Commissioners approved $50,000 to operate a Collier County Film Office housed within the Naples Area Chamber of Commerce through the end of the 1998-99 fiscal year. At the end of fiscal year 99, this purchase order was closed. The purchase order fbr the Collier County Film Office should have rolled into the next fiscal year to pay off the remaining outstanding invoices for FY99. A purchase order will have to be opened via budget amendment to pay the remaining balance. FISCAL IMPACT: The remaining balance on the purchase order at the end of FY99 was $28,547.26 for the Collier County Film Office. The remaining balance still outstanding for FY99 is $18,000, which is available in the TDC Fund 194. A budget amendment will be required to transfer funds to the project from carry forward so remittances can be paid. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None RECOMMENDATIONS: The Board of County Commissioners approve a budget amendment tbr the purpose of opening a purchase order to pay the remaining balance of invoices totaling $18,000 for FY99 to the Collier CounW Film Office. .' / TDC Coordinator REVIEWED BY: --J _ ~, Greg Mihalic, Director Housing/fi/nd Urban Improveme~7'/ Vincent A. Cautero, AICP, Administrator Community Dev. & Environmental Services Date Date Date AGENDA ITEM JAN 11 2000 Pg. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.725 POWER ENTERPRISES COMMERCIAL EXCAVATION LOCATED IN SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 47 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST: BOUNDED ON THE NORTH BY 72ND AVENUE N.E. R/W, ON THE EAST BY VACANT TRACT, ON THE SOUTH BY 70TM AVENUE N.E. R/W AND ON THE WEST BY RURAL AGRICULTURAL. OBJECTIVE: To issue Excavation Permit No. 59.725 for Power Enterprises Commercial Excavation in accordance with County Ordinance No. 91-102 as amended, Division 3.5. CONSIDERATIONS: The petitioner proposes to obtain a commercial excavation permit to allow fill material totaling 226,613 C.Y. to be hauled off-site. FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact to the County is none. The County will realize revenues as follows: Fund: 113 Agency: County Manager Cost Center 138900- Development Services Revenue generated by this project Total $8,824.00 The breakdown is as follows: a) Excavation Review Fee - $ 850.00 b) Excavation Permit Fee - $ 738.00 c) Road hnpact Fee - $7,236.00 GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners approve the issuance of Excavation Permit No. 59.725 for Power Enterprises Commercial Excavation with the following stipUlations: JAN 11 2000 o 10. The excavation shall be limited to a maximum depth of twenty (20) feet below natural ground and a minimum depth of six (6) feet below low water table. Off-site removal of material shall be subject to "Standard Conditions" imposed by the Transportation Services Division in document dated 5/24/88 (copy attached). The lake littoral zone shall be created and planted as indicated on the Plan of Record. In order to ensure a minimum eighty percent (80%) coverage of littoral zone planting areas, a performance guarantee, based on a cost estimate to replace the original installed littoral zone plants, will be required upon completion and acceptance of the excavation (Land Development Codc 3.5.7.2.5). No Certificate of Occupancy will be issued until this performance Guarantee is submitted. All provisions of Collier County Ordinance No. 91-102, Division 3.5 shall be adhered to. Where groundwater is proposed to be pumped during the excavating operation, a Dewatering Permit shall be obtained from the South Florida Water Management District, and a copy provided to Engineering Review Services for approval prior to the commencement of any dewatering activity on the site. No blasting will be permitted. If trees are to be removed as a result of the excavating operation, a Vegetation Removal Permit, requi~ed by Land Development Code, Division 3.9 shall be obtained ii'om Collier County Planning & Technical Services before work shall commence. Stockpile side slopes shall be at a maximum of 4:1 unless fencing is installed around the entire perimeter of the stockpile area. Any stockpile in place for a period exceeding 60 days shall be seeded and mulched and erosion control devices installed. A~...ND A ITFJ~ JAN 1 1 2000 S T E'-~pH E(N~'~XL'~ ~,. Et' SENIOR ENGINEER REVIE'~iED BY: T~t~OMAS E. KUCK, P.E. I}~/GINEEI~, NG REVIEW MANAGER ~OBERT J. MULHERE, XI'-~ PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR APPROV~DB/Y: ~. VINCENT A. CAUTERO, AICP, ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNITY DEV. AND ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS. /z//?/qq DATE I~ATE DATE SC, den h:'N chc's EX SUMMARIES JAN ~1 2000 COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES "STANDARD CONDITIONS" EXCAVATION PERMIT APPLICATIONS INVOLVING OFF-SITE REMOVAL OF MATERIAL The intent of these "Standard Conditions" are to provide excavation permit applicants a summary of conditions which may affect their projects and which should be taken into consideration during all stages of project development: Haul routes between an excavation site and an arterial road shall be private with property owner(s) approval or be a public collector road built to standards applicable to handle the resulting truck traffic. Where residential areas front collector roads, appropriate mm lanes, buffer and bikepath shall be required aa minimal site improvements and if recommended for approval, shall be so with the condition that the Transportation Services Administration reserves the right to suspend or prohibit off-site removal of excavated material should such removal create a hazardous road condition or substantially deteriorate a road condition; such action by the Transportation Services Administration shall be subject to appeal before the Board of County Commissioners. Haul routes utilizing public roads shall be subject to road maintenance and road repair or an appropriate fair share by the permittee in accordance with Excavation Ordinance No. 91-102 as amended Div. 3.5 and Right-of-Way Ordinance No. 93-64. o Off-site removal of excavated material shall be subject to Ordinance No. 92-22 (Road Impact Ordinance). A traffic and road impact analysis shall be made by the County to determine the effects that off-site removal of excavated material will have on the road system within the excavation project's zone of influence. If appropriate, road impact fees in accordance with Ordinance No. 92-22 shall be paid prior to the issuance of an excavation permit. The Transportation Services Administration reserves the fight to establish emergency weight limits on public roadways affected by the off-site removal of excavated material; the procedure for establishment of weight limits shall be the presentation of an applicable resolution before the Board of County Commissioners. Should weight limits be instituted, the permittee shall be responsible to implement measures to assure that all heavy track loadings leaving the permit's property conform to the applicable weight restriction. The Excavation Performance Guarantee shall apply to excavation operations and also the mamtenanccYrcpair of public roads in accordance with current ordinances and applicable permit stipulations. EXH~IT "B" Pa~e One of Two k C.~ND A IT E.,M JAN 11 2000 o Based on soil boring information per Ordinance No. 91-102 as mended, a blasting permit may be appropriate. Should a blasting permit application be submitted and should residential areas exist within one mile of the excavation site, the County reserves the right to deny a blasting permit based on concerns for off-site impacts from blasting at an excavation site. Should a blasting permit be considered and approved, the minimum conditions of approval in addition to conditions per Ordinance No. 91-102 as mended are as follows: Slructure inventory/monitoring and applicable property owner release as required by the Development Services Director. B. Security bond applicable to private property damage acceptable to the County. Control of size/depth/number of charges per blast by the Development Services Director. Do The right of the County to suspend and/or revoke blasting permit authority should it be determined that blasting activities are creating unacceptable off-site conditions either in terms of private property damage and/or related physical effects of blasting operations. No excavation permit shall be issued until receipt of a release fi.om the Transportation Services Administration applicable to proper mitigation of off-site impacts, meeting of applicable provisions of Ordinance No. 93-64, Ordinance No. 92-22, and Ordinance No. 91-102 as amended. Reference to letter of 5/24/88 Revised 1 / 13/98 Page Two of Two JAN I t 2000 47-2 19-47- 70TH 30-47-28 ROAD AVE. N. N.t 29-47-28 28-4 £:~-4 PROJECT LOCATION ~2-~7-25 33-47-28 4-48-~8 ROAD :8-48-28 858 2-48-58 i 7-~8-28 9-48-28 ORANGETREE LOCATION MAP NORT~ i JAN ! 1 2000 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REQUEST TO APPROVE FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "VILLA FLORENZA", AND APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY OBJECTIVE: To approve for recording the final plat of "Villa Florenza", a subdivision of lands located in Section 5, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, following the alternative procedure for approval of subdivision plats. CONSIDERATION: Engineering Review Section has completed the review of the construction drawings, specifications, and final plat of "Villa Florenza" These documents are in compliance with the County Land Development Code and Florida State Statute No. 177. All fees have been paid. Security in the amount of 10% of the total cost of the required improvements, and 100% of the cost of any remaining '-"improvements, together with a Construction and Maintenance Agreement for Subdivision Improvements, shall be provided and accepted by the Planning Services Director and the County Attorneys office prior to the recording of the final plat. This would be in conformance with the County Land Development Code - Division 3.2.9. Engineering Review Section recommends that the final plat of "Villa Florenza" be approved for recording. FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact to the County is as follows. The project cost is $226,789.18 (estimated) to be borne by the developer. The cost breakdown is as follows: a) b) Water & Sewer Drainage, Paving, Grading - $107,318.00 - $119,471.18 The Security amount, equal to 110% of the project cost, is $249,468.10 JAN 2000 Executive Summary Villa Florenza Page 2 The County will realize revenues as follows: Fund: Community Development Fund 113 Agency: County Manager Cost Center: 138900 - Development Services Revenue generated by this project: Total: $~650.85 Fees are based on a construction estimate of $226,789.18 and were paid in August, 1999. The breakdown is as follows: a) Plat Review Fee ($425.00 + $4./ac)- $ 473.48 b) c) Paving, Grading (1.3% const, est.) GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Construction Drawing Review Fee Water & Sewer (.50% const, est.) - $ 536.59 Drainage, Paving, Grading (.42% const, est.)- $ 507.75 Construction Inspection Fee Water & Sewer (1.5% const, est.) - $1609.77 Drainage, - $1523.26 The Concurrency Waiver and Release relating to conditional approval has been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's Office for the project. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners approve the Final Plat of "Villa Florenza" for recording with the following stipulations: Approve the amount of $249,468.10 as performance security for the required improvements. 2. Approve the standard form Construction Agreement, and and Maintenance a. That no Certificates of Occupancy be granted until the required improvements have received preliminary acceptance. b. That the plat not be recorded until suitable security and an appropriate Construction and Maintenance Agreement is approved and accepted by the Planning Services Director and the County Attorney's office. AGENDA I'rF._l~ JAN 11 2000 Executive Summary Villa Florenza Page 3 PREPARED BY: John R. Houldsworth, Senior Engineer Engineering Review REVIEWED BY: /.Th~omas E. Kuck, P.E. EDgineering Review Manager Planning Services Department Director APPNOVED BY: Vincent A. Cautero, AICP, Administrator Community Development & Environmental Services Community Dev. and Environmental Svcs. DIVISION ~ rh Date ?? Date Date AGENDA ITEM JAN 1~ 2000 111, LOCATION MAP / VICINITY MAP F 6 F-- 7 ~tDGE CENTER 18 32 $ ,,"NE 8 ~ ASTRON BEACH ROAD EXT P~NE ~IDOE RC'~,D 34. JN!= 2 10 UN!T ~ 15 JN,T 26 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PETITION VAC 98-025 TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN A I2' WIDE PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO COLLIER COUNTY AS A DRAINAGE EASEMENT AS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 1052, PAGES 1628 THROUGH 1638 AND TO ACCEPT A 15' WIDE DRAINAGE EASEMENT AS A REPLACEMENT EASEMENT. LOCATED IN SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. OBJECTIVE: To approve Petition VAC 98-025, to execute a Quitclaim Deed to vacate the above- described easement and to accept a 15' wide Drainage Easement as a replacement easement. CONSIDERATIONS: Petition VAC 98-025 has been received by the Planning Services Department from Greg Jeppesen, E.I., of Coastal Engineering, as agent for the petitioner, Worthwhile Development III, Ltd., requesting the vacation of the above-described 12' wide Drainage Easement to accommodate proposed construction of a residential building at the site. They are also requesting that Collier County accept a 15' wide Drainage Easement as a replacement easement. The new drainage pipe will be installed or a swale will be in place before the old pipe is removed. Letters of no objection have been received from all pertinent agencies. Zoning is P.U.D. FISCAL IMPACT: Planning Services has collected a $1,000 "Petition to Vacate" fee from the petitioner which covers the County's cost of recording and processing the Petition. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None PLANNING SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners: 1. Approve Petition VAC 98-025 for the vacation of the above-described 12' wide Drainage Easement; and 2. Authorize the execution of the Quitclaim Deed by its Chairwoman; and 3. Approve and accept the replacement easement; and 4. Direct the Clerk to the Board to record the Replacement Easement in the Official Records. PREPARED BY: LT_'_, ~,~_. Rick Grigg, P.S.M. Planning Services Thomas E. Kuck, P.E., Engineering Review Manager REVIEWED BY: /'P. ob eOgmulher~, AICP APPROVED BY' ^ min r to Community Development & Environmental Services DATE: DATE: DATE: AC~r.J~A ITEM JAN 11 2000 Pg. / Z Z Z Z .. Z Z 0 C) <~ ~Z ltb,~ 2 ~ 2 VAC 98-O25 JAN QUITCLAIM DEED THIS QUITCLAIM DEED made this day of ,2000, by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, GRANTOR, and Worthwhile Development III, Ltd., whose address is: 2949 State Road 434 West, Suite 400, Longwood, Flodda, 32779, its successors and assigns, GRANTEE. WITNESSETH: That the GRANTOR, for and in consideration of Petition VAC 98-025 and the sum of Ten Dollars and other valuable consideration to it in hand paid by the GRANTEE, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, hereby remises, releases and quitclaims unto GRANTEE forever, all right, title, interest, claim and demand which the said GRANTOR has in that certain portion of a 12' wide drainage easement interest in, of, and about the following described lands being located in Collier County, Florida, to-wit: (See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference) Also, the Drainage Easement, more particularly described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein, is hereby accepted as the replacement easement for the Drainage Easement vacated herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the GRANTOR has caused these presents to be executed in its name by the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS acting by the Chairwoman and Vice Chairman of said Board, the day and year aforesaid. DATED: ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: PAMELA S. MAC'KIE, Chairwoman Prepared by: Marni M. Scuderi, Esquire~)c~ Office of the County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 AGENDA ITEM JAN 1 1 2000 COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS INC Coastal Engineenng Civil Engineenn~ Survey E nvironmenta Real Estate AIDpraisa HERITAGE APARTMENTS 12' WIDE RIGHT-OF-WAY, UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT TO BE VACATED DESCRIPTION VAC Easement "G" and Easement "H" as listed in Exhibit "A" and recorded in O.R. Book 1052, Pages 1628 through 1638 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida being further described as follows: The east six (6) feet of vacated Lot 5, Block 66 of Golden Gate, Unit 2 Part 1 as recorded in Plat Book 9, Pages 116 through 120 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida AND The west six (6) feet of vacated Lot 6, Block 66 of Unit 2 Part 1 as recorded in Plat Book 9, Pages 116 through 120 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. COA,~TAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. FL~ A~~~ AUTH,ORIZATION NO. LB 2464 Richard J. E~ ~' Professional ~urveyor and M/gpper Florida Certificate No. 5295~ NOT VALID WITHOUT THE SIGNATURE AND THE ORIGINAL RAISED SEAL OF A FLORIDA LICENSED SURVEYOR AND MAPPER CEC FILE NO. 97.246 DATE: / 2.."'1~'~2:~ JAN 11 2000 3106 S. HORSESHOE DRIVE * NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 · (941) 643-2324 · FAX (941) ~43-1p1~.3 COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS INC Coastal EngineennG Civil Engineering Supv'e, Environmen Real Estate Apprals, HERITAGE APARTMENTS PROPOSED 15' WIDE DRAINAGE EASEMENT DESCRIPTION VAC 98-025 A strip of land lying in that part of Block 66 of Golden Gate, Unit 2 Part 1 as recorded in Plat Book 9, Pages 116 through 120 inclusive, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida being described as follows: Commencing at the centerline intersection of 41st Lane SW and 16th Place SW located in said Golden Gate, Unit 2 Part 1 subdivision nm S00°00'00"E along the southerly extension of said centerline of 41st Lane SW for a distance of 30.00 feet to an intersection with the south right-of-way line of said 16th Place SW; thence along said south right-of- way line N90°00'00"W 690.57 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence S72°46'45"E 89.41 feet; thence S00°00'00"E 138.53 feet to an intersection with the south line of said subdivision; thence along said line S90°00'00"W 15.00 feet; thence N00°00'00"W 127.48 feet; thence N72°46'45"W 126.75 feet to said right-of-way line; thence along said right-of-way line S90°00'00"E 50.67 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The above area describes approximately 3,616 square feet or 0.08 acres of land. Subject to easements, restrictions and reservations of record. COASTAL ENG[NE.,ERING CONSULTANTS, INC. 464 Richard J. Ewing/k.P.-- Professional Surveyor and Mapper Florida Certificate No. 5295 NOT VALID WITHOUT THE SIGNATURE AND THE ORIGINAL RAISED SEAL OF A FLORIDA LICENSED SURVEYOR AND MAPPER CEC FILE NO. 97.246 DATE: 3106 S. HORSESHOE DRIVE * NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 · (941) 643-2324 · FAX (941) 643 ACaENDA ITl JAN 11 2000 PETITION Attachment "B' FORM FOR VACATION'OF OF PLATS OR PORTION~"' OF SUBDIVIDED LAiND' D~te Received: Petitioner:,, !~rthwbile. Develq~eqt tI~ r .Ltd. _ Address: 2949 State N~ad 434 ~'~st, Suite-400 .. City/$~te: Lonqw~od, F ~ ..... T~epbon,: (407)_ 7,74-Q303 Z~p Cod,:_32779 , AgenY: Greg J ..e~pesen, E._!., Goastal Engineering Oonsultants AddresS. 7595 S. Tamiami__~ail, Suite 102 TelephOn0~90-9900 City/State:Ft..~;ersr FL, ,. Zjp Code:-~'~cm8 Address of' SubJec~ Property:. 16th ~.Z~.ce Sw'r C~lden Cote . Location: Section,]'5,/g 2f Township49S RAnge 2~: Subdivision.* Golden Gate ~ee ~ _tch & desCriPtion L~st Description: Lot.__..___ Block Unit__ Plat Book. Page(s) Raison for Request?c°P°sad building lies on to~ of existin9 easement. Cu~en~ Zontu~ .=VD Douthb t~ density? no , I hereby ~U~~; this petition: _..~mre of/l'efltlone~/ l'rtnt lqame / ' ~'Yes [2] No (Tit]e) Please see "Policy -nd Procedure [or the Yacttiou and Annulment of l)lats or Port~ons of Plst~ of Subdivided Land" for the list of' supportive maurt.ls which must Kconsptmy this petition, and deliver or m~ii to: Community Development & EnYlFonmentai Services Division l'laun[ug Ser~ces Department 2500 North H~,rseshoe Dr. Naples, Florid i 34104 (1) If appllc-nt b I had trurt, tndic.~e the name of benefici~rle~. (2) IF applicant is a corporation other than - public corporation, indicate the name or of Ticers and major stockholders, (3) If'applicant is u ptFtnerJhip, li-,{red partnership or other business entity, indicate the name of. principals. (4) List ali other owners. Afflcbment Psge 4 0/'4 Official Receipt - Collier County Board of County Commissioners CDPR1103 - Official Receipt ITrans Number Date Post Date Payment Slip Nbr 108387 12/16/1998 9:30:23 AM 12/16/1998 MS 46478 KELDING, LABASKY, CORRY, EASTMAN, HAUSER & JOLLY, P.A. New or Exist: N Payor- SKELDING IFee Code 12PVAC Fee Information IDescription PETITION TO VACATE GL Account 11313890032910000000 Total Amount I Waived $1000.00 $1000.00 Payment Code CHECK Memo: Easement Vacation CK #5950 Account/Check Number 5950 Payments Amount $1000.00 Total Cash $0.00 Total Non-Cash $1000.00 Total Paid I $1000.00 Cashier/location: GARRETT_S / 1 User: KIRK_D Collier County Board of County Commissioners CD-Plus for Windows 95/NT Printed:12/ AGENDA ITEk 16/1998 9:3b:52 AM JAN 11 2000 12/09/99 09:52 FAX 9416436968 COLLIER CO CO~flR~ITY DEV 797 [2/07 '99 17:32 liD:avatar. Lega) Dept. 3054489927 OO2 2 AVATAR VIA FACSI3VIILE 941.643-6968 December 7, 1999 Rick Grigg Plarming S~zvices Collier County Commtmit¥ Dev. 2800 lIo~seshoc Drive Nat'th Naples, FL 34104 Re: Golden Gate C~rcen Boulevard/Sale by Avatar P.rope~cs I~. to WtxrthwhJle D~vclopmcnt i'II, Ltd. VAC 98-025 (I6~ Placc SW) Dear Mr. Grigg, Per this letter, I would hereby advis~ you that thc abovc-rcfar~mced re=ti estate transaction f~m Avatar Propexti~ inc. to Worthwhile ~Development Ill, Ltd. has close~ and title wa. c. onvayed m the subject parcel on Dcce~ab~r 6, 1999. If you should have a~y queation~ or nell any fizrthcr information, please do not hesitat$ to contact m~. Sincerely, AVATAR PROPERTIES 12qC. G. Patr/ck Settles Assistant C. nmr. zal Counsel ~: Sonya Daws, Esq. P.O. ~u,x 023000, Idiami, Florict~ 33102-3000 - (305) 442-7000 PA]((3~5) 448-9927 AGENDA ITEM JAN 1 1 2000 DEC. 8..S998 110 to tr n~act huslnl~ ~n tho ~tatn o'f Fl~)r~da,' p,,rty of the i;IT~I,~SC'PIlt That the *aid ~,rt.v ,,r the ttrst part, wher-~f iS ht',.ehy ac~pOWle,l;~etl, ha, ~dnted, I~d~atned and : 3 B T O 4 6 h 10 ~llbJeCt tO ~he e.~cel,tJ,,nu, ca,gment% awl .re.4,,,.v. tX.ns conta~ncJ in 'that- cortai de.ri Y~,, O.rrF ~rotli~r. ~ eumpa, y to ~raflt.r huro~fl, recorded ~n O~.'I,~MX kecur'd u,m.mk T~, AGENDA I)~. JAN 71 2000 pg. ~' DEC. 8. 1998 ~_.l.B P. 13/14 111 i ~d ~he uaLd partT o~ the l~irlt,~.rt 'does hereb~ £u~7 ~ ~ VZ?J~ W~:~OP. the said ~rtT,~ thQ first purr ~,.~/. · , ~T~. . ,. · . c~!~ o~ ~ ,. ~. ~. ~961~ before' .. p.reonally a~e~red'~nneth ~. Schwartz and %'. I{. Carmine. Z~., ,Vice-President .nd ~ecratar~ or Coll'hff~ ~ei~W,' Inc., a. c~rp~r.t~on under'the the Stute o~ ~'~oplda~ to me ~0~ to t:a the puruun, 'doacribed in und ~ho executud the ~o~n~ deed. ... , .. /;~ c~'.,_, . , ,. . ..... ',~~~y~. .,... ~ '~ , . ~. .;., ~, AGENDA ITEM JAN 11 2000 orr, ! .' .. ';:~;'~' , , , ...~ x~:' . , 'i .' ,; ': ' .' :.:..- ..-.: ..... , ' '.. "- '..'..".., ."-~r~.~.:. ":' ' ' " ... . ... , ., · ~..' , . unde~ th~.f,Q~ o~ the ~,o~ . . . . , .' · · J .'~;~ v. ,'% ;.. ;... . :' .. ',/:~,=~.'~-,_. ~ __ '~. ... .'· .... .. ' ,~,**,"' ' ~ l~,l' ' ' '' ' '~ . · · T*~I.~;,~,~,~c&;~ / .... ' · · ..." ,,,~b~$%~..,:,;'~=/,', ... .. . .... :' . . . . . . ;, :.. -::/;.. '; ./~./~:.. ,o~,:-' ..,~,~ :_ ..,=~ .: .... . ' . · ,., · .~ ., ~ , .' /~ /~ ' . ' .., :,': ",, ,' · ' -~ .,. .'." .,,.'~:~X/~>/~ ~z;' , :...... . . ,,.,v-,., ,. . . :: ..,.... ....... :~q.....~ . . ,.. · ' ' '. ~: ' ~ ': . ,'..' ..,, ...,.~. .. ~ . . .. ,........,~,.. _ ..... ' '" "' ~' ~,~ "~T,~A~i :. z.., ~ ~,.~ ~,_,~,'~Z~/_ . . ..., .. 7: , . JAN 11 2000 8.1EE:J~ 4:41P~ NO,(~ P.~/4"k I'l,l,f3 ~ -ii AGENDA ITEId JAN 11 2000 DEC. 8.1998 4:41F:~I exi~:x~; under she La~o o~ th~ State ag FlotLda, its c~rpotate nam, a'~ GA: PROPERTIES I~J, to ~ec:~e e''ec~ve on the 2~h day ~969,.;£1e~ on ~he ~.7~:h day of .~over~bm:, A. D,.. l~6g, ae s.~w~...~, ~he reco:do oe trio ogfice. AGENDA ITF.~ ~../,~,~_) Jd J~N 11 2000 JAN 11 2000 .,. /-/ L..q iAi.'.~CT. ~. 1997T R. 2-: 57P~ ID :g4~7742627 OOB~3Z~? 18-28-97 n".T 2~ 'g? apl 0',2 0[1 BOOK N p. 7/19 u.uur P.07 ID:9417742627 nCT' 28'97 18-28-97 14:55 RECEIVED FROM: ITEM JAN 1~ 2~0 ~g417742627 P~o.uu~ P.og (i('lOS;~ , 001 County 38-20-97 14:55 RECEIVED FROM: AGEI~A ITEM JAN 11 2000 uuf LA bL%XCT..~. A 9_g?T R o .~.: .~ In :9417742627 ~fT 2~'97~ BOOK KIG~I?' O¥-~IAY AN:) I':A:~),:~I~,N'|' %8-28-9? KIK~d &bL NIGN fS~ ?ll~S~ PK~SBNT~ LhAL AVATAR iit~lc~ Ln ~m ~n~ of ~2Z~e~, and State o~ PXozXda, and nfl oz und~ ~m ~Aghc~f~ ~ova~mc~ib~, ~Ch AXX rashes a~ prAvA%~oW necessary o~ ~Lmfle for Who %~X en~n~ oF nme ~e~f mot who ~o~n~&m.~ purposes, Lno~Jhg ~e be~mr, ~o Or~aam m~%% ha~ ~ho rAghc ~ ele~ e~ %mud and ~op Ac ~e~ ~ ~ ~o~, ~dorgr~h or och~ ObeSe=CLOne ~A~hln e~ tilo~ aro~ and to scan ~d cu~ ~d Xm~ ~Am amd ~ mAI dead, v~, laanAflV ~ dango~m Cr~ oF l&~t ~Ldm of ~he ~m~at Bream ~Lch ~nCocfe~ w/th the rAghe o% ~o o% ~he ~m~nt areal ~m~e~'~m Wreaked ~ore~n. · RECEIVED FROM: [.H ~OCT. 2~lB. 199~.Ti !D:9417742627 Nu.uur P..1.1 ) BOOK %8-28-97 m known ~nd kfjouu ~ ma tO bw tho ~r~a~ ~ho dm~ am nob o~%%~m for ~bo ~om end p~z~oeu khere~n ~' ... w~~ '~, [4:57 RECKIVKD FROM: JAN 11 2000 -RW'OCl'.~8? 2.99TTR z:$gF~ ID~9417742527 nOT 2=&97 ~4F~s?~ ~ P.~Z/~9_ '~oouur ~.12 Of. ~flOK PAGI: Pres tho #i corner oF LoL a II0ck 61 NQ#?~ 52,0', ~hence NM ti tko P,0.i,, Total Area · 3473 square reeC br 0.DC acre, M.ap' ~kS~' 37~ ~3") ne an irc of 26,0' radius to o toojent (Mb{Gh t0ngent point 15 41,43' talc of ih· orlllnOl SM corna~ P,O,l.. Total Area · 3473 squire ~oet or O,0O ·cra. E~#~BIT A 1e-28-97 X4:57 RKC~- IVKD FROM: ITEM In~)9417742627 18-28-97 14:57 B4 d, O8 --J *. II RECEIVED FROM: JAN 11i 2000 ~.G-28-g? .t4:S8 R~C~IV~D FROM: 436 :t2:~8 Na, 007 P. PAGE : JAN 11 2000 ID:9417742627 nCT 2~.%97 BOOK 1Sam eT l~h Place $~, ~p the.South of-vo~ 11ne o¢ Green BouvevmPa. B, bJeek 67, to tho YeaB rlBh~-of-Ya~ l.Jne nY 43rd Lobe s¥. slx. foot dedicated 8mGo~em~ clone ~he fellou~g !o~ l~es of the .":' {ts~mm~ S: Welt 11~ of Lot 6, Bluet 6S ::.... hsome,t ~: hit lt~t of Lot S, llock 66 ..-. Emstneat d: Emit 11fie of Lot ~l, Block 67 .~. . ,~... - of-vi~ line of Green JoM]ivird. The fo110wlmJ lauds, ;mt forth iud dg;crlbed Iff the plot of £o111ef Count,, Florida, and $4td lands shill be Il described below even though the applicable portions of the plfl hove oil dedicated rights.et-way tn the obove referenced pier: L4:58 RECI~-IVKD ~'ROH: JAN 11 2000 10-28-97 1n~9417742627 '"CT ~" '3,97 ~;2 :~9 P' No.OOT:P.16 r · Ea;emo~t L~ ~4 sequent ~J: {a$olem~ O: line of 16Th Place SM, to %ho South rtBh~* dirk Lane S¥ arm tho Point or Curvature Boulevard. P3OJ, diSe4f ~uT~ 30, [ase~oat T: Jest lane of Lot s. BJock 347 le-2B-97 L4:58 -4- JAN 2000 j. Hi~.~3CT.~8.19~'?TR 3:01PM 1D:941?742627 ut, IUD?' OP. BOOK iud Golden hc~ Un%c ~r, fa~& One. 11 2.000 'l FILE No. 361 12/16 '95 13:56 ID:COASTAL ENGINEERING 30 6O 1"=-60' 120 941 643 1143 PAGE 2 z~ A i (2) EXIST. CB~...~ l J ,__"_ ........... CB-25 6.70 11.70 WCS-1 3.20 11,,,'37 JB-3 8.60 12.4,.3 ME-1 10.00 CB-A vga · ~JB- 2 I ~ 7 tgUILDING 18 ~J TYPE III ~C) (CBt~C) ' BU TYPI NIAL CONCRETE FLUME (TYP.) (SEE SHEET 21 OF 21 FOR DETAIL) I FE-8 INSTALL FE FLUSH WITH EXIST. LAKE mm AGENDA ITE JAN 11 2000 COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS INC Coastal Engineering Civet Eng~neenng Survey Environmental Real Estate ApDraisal April 9, 1998 Mr. Stan Chrzanowski, P.E. Community Development & Environmental Services Division Planning Services Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 .~.L A.,,,,.~..,~K.~ ¢¢F¢~..¢~c0E-S Proposed Vacation of Right-of-Way Easement within Heritage Apartments CEC File No. 97.246 Dear Stan: Please review the attached legal description and sketch for the proposed right-of-way vacation and the proposed 15' wide replacement drainage easement of the above referenced property. Upon your review, please contact our office with any questions or concerns you may have regarding this vacation. If acceptable, please sign and remm correspondence back to our office. Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter. Sincerely, Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc. Gregory D. Jeppesen, E.I. StaffEn~neer Attachments - As noted. SIGNATURE OF NO OBJECTION: I, Stan Chrzanowski, have reviewed the above and have no objection to the vacation of the 3106 S. HORSESHOE DRIVE * NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 · (941) 643-2324 * FAX (941) 641 Date - JAN 11 2000 COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTAii .iNC April 9, 1998 IBY: / Coastal Engineering Civit Engineering Survey Er~vironmer Real Estate Appra, Mr. John Boldt, P.E. & P.S.M. Stormwater Management Director Public Works Collier County Stormwater Management 3301 Tamiami Trail East "H" Building, 3a Floor Naples, Florida 34112 Proposed Vacation or Right-of-Way Easement within Heritage Apartments CEC File No. 97.246 Dear John: Please review the attached legal description and sketch for the proposed fight-of-way vacation and the proposed 15' wide replacement drainage easement of the above referenced property. Upon your review, please contact our office with any questions or concerns you may have regarding this vacation. If acceptable, please sign and remm correspondence back to our office. Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter. Sincerely, Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc. Gregory D. Jeppesen, E.I. Staff Engineer Attachments - As noted. SIGNATURE OF NO OBJECTION: I, John Boldt, have reviewed the above and have no objection to the vacation of the easement. SigrO~re ~ v Date 3106 S. HORSESHOE DRIVE · NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 · (941) 643-2324 · FAX (941) 64 AC, ENOA IT' JAN ]} 2000 .... EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF SEATING BENCHES FROM THE NORIX GROUP, INC. ON FLORIDA STATE CONTRACT AND APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT OBJECTIVE' Obtain Board approval to purchase seating benches from The Norix Group. Inc. on Florida State Contract 420-420-98-1 and obtain approval of a budget amendment to purchase all of the required streetscape furniture. CONSIDERATION: The purchase of strcetscape fin'niture (seating benches, bike racks and trash cans) is required to complete the Immokalee Beautification Phase B Streetscape Project in downtown Immokalee. 2. Forty-eight scaring benches can be purchased from 'l'l~c Norix Group, Inc. on F'lorida State Contract 420-420-98-1 in the amount of $32,496.00. 3. A budget amendment in the amount of $65,000.00 is required to complete the purchase streetscape furniture. FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval of the requested budget amendment, funds will be available in the hnmokalee Beautification MSTU for the purchase of all streetscape furniture. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners approve the purchase of seating benches in the amount of $32,496.00 from The Norix Group, Inc. on Florida State Contract 420-420-98-1 and approve a budget amendment in the amount of $65,000.00 to make funds available to purchase all streetscape furniture for the hnmokalee Beautification MSTU. Daniel A. DeCesare, Engineer II Stephen Y. Carnell, Purchasing/GS Director Date: /2-.-//~/~' Date: REVEIWED BY: Date:/Z-,,/29- ~f · es Director APPROVED ~~ Date: Ed ~schner,~ub~c Works Administrator -/ JAN 1 12000 Dec-D2-99 06:07P NORIX Group, Inc. 1 630 231 4343 P.O1 1000 Atlantic Drive · West Chicago, IL 60185 TEL 800 234-4900 · 630 231-1331 FAX 630-231-4343 To: Dan De Cerse From: Jan Overstreet Company: Pages: 2 Fax= 941-774-5375 Date: 12/02/99 Re: Quotation -Immokale Streetscape cc.. Bill Kad [] Urgent [] For Review [] Please Comment [] Please Reply [] Please Recycle NORIX GROUP, INC. is pleased to provide the fol',owing quotation based on Florida State contract #420-420-98-1' QTY ITEM UNIT PRICE EXTENSION 48 Maximum Seating Benches $677.00 $32,496.00 Model ML-ZFAA-3F 76" Sled Base Benches Zinc Plated Steel Frame w/RAL 5005 Blue Tiger DryLac Powder Coat Light Grey Ribs, 3 Seat Units (4 arms) Assembled & Individually Packaged FREIGHT: Dock delivery to your Flodda site included in unit pdces** Total: Does not include applicable taxes or installation. $32,496.00 ] NOTE: DELIVERY: TERMS: Quotation valid for 90 Days estimated January 15, 2000 delivery if order is placed by 12/15/99. Net 30 Days Thank you for allowing us to quote your requirements *'The fre~ht quote is for common carder, standard dock delivery. This requires Ihe use of your personnel and equipment. If you require 24 hour notification, exact day delivery, unloading assistance, inside delivery, or special assistance, please contact NORIX before bhe scheduled shipment date as additional charges may be incurred. JAN 11 2000 Sent By: CONTRACT CONNECTTON; 95492~0800;iI~ Dec-7-99 10:53AM; Page 1/2 tract! /' ,,. Connection Inc. c'"' "-':.' -~ ~' ~ ~Box 8254 ' -Pembr°k'~ Pi"es, Florida 33084 990204446 3 12/6/99 Patty Stack " 11 !9/99 Roadway Freightways Victor Stanley Frederika Quote #: Version: Date: Sales Rep: Original Date: Ship Via: Factory: Prepared By: QUOTE TO: Voice: 954-925-2800 Fax: 954-925-0800 504 South 2nd Street Jacksonville Beach, Florida 32250 Voice: 904-249-5353 Fax: 904-249-8177 JOB NAME; Collier County Transportation 3301 E. Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 ATTN: Dan Decesare Phone: 941-774-8494 Fax: 941-774-5375 Project: Road & Bridge Immokalee Collier Co. Transportation Brd of County Commissioners Stockade Road Immokalee, FL 34142 ATTN: Dan Decesare Phone: Veodor Catalo~ VS-RAL VS-S-2 VS-Signage Des. criptio~ Add to have custom RAL #5005 color per unit Optional Steel Dome Lid Ironsites 36 gallon receptacle with side door opening and Keyed Lock Assembly Custom Signage 16"x6" (each) "lmmokalee My Home" Quantity Unit Price ~ 19 $40.00 $760.00 19 $100.00 $1,900.00 19 $83~.00 $15,884.00 19 $72.00 $1,368.00 ,Special Instructions: IDelivery 12 weeks from receipt of signed order and P.O. {Pdces do not include site preparation, installation, offioading, linside delivery, or storage of materials. Prices valid 45 days Ifrom 12131 Payment Terms: Net 30 Days Tax Exempt: Yes Credit Rel>ort Required No ..--"~suing Office: Pembroke Pines, FL 3rovat and acceptance of this prop(3sal may be executed by .dning below anc~ faxing back to the office in the box above Author[zed Material Subtotal: Installation Chrg: Freight: Tax Rate: Tax: $19,91200 $0,00 $1,637.30 0.00% $0.00 Other: Quote TotalS%21 Company Purchaser Title Date ~ Offices In: Jacksonville Beach, Ft Lauderdale, Tampa, Orlando, Pensacola, Naples, Atlanta, ar~! Melbourne [ JAN 1-1 200 ?415975152 S~ARTZ ASSOCIATES, INC, P.O, Box 110206 ..... :- .... NAPLES, FL q4101 941-597-9500 ~,-~:~._.. c-:-,_ _ _-? r.,, I: ,rl~... PaXl 941-I97-5! 52 PRICE qUOTATION TO: .Quantity 24 ea. Collier County Transportation Dept. 3301Tamiami Trail East Naples, FL 34112 attn: Dan DeCesare 774-8494 774-5375 (FAX) Oescflption DuF~r ~130-20/S-2 Date: Dec. 7, 1999 ,Ship Date: approx. 5-6 weeks ARO Temls: ne+.. 30 days " F.O.B.: Destination Salesman': Kent Swa~{z ' ._ Ship ,ped ,Via: CC Multi-Loop Bike Rack, 2 3/8" O.D., 2 top loops/5 bikes surface mount less 2% SNAPS discount shipping & handling UPCHARGE for RAL 5005 BLUE TOTAL PRICE Pricing is per Swartz Associates SNAPS contrac"c #6501222. Price does no% include installation or unloading. Unit Price $182.00 240.00 15.0o Total 5760.00 - 115.20 5644.80 + 259.20 5904.00 + 360.00 $6264.C)(, JAN 11 2000 PG. ~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AWARD BID NO. 99-3015 "GENERATOR REPAIR, MAINTENANCE AND INSTALLATION" TO AAA GENERATOR. OBJECTIVE: That the Board of County Commissioners, Ex-Officio the Collier County' Water/Sewer District, award Bid No. 99-3015 for Generator Repair, Maintenance and Installation to AAA Generator. CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The purpose of this bid is to provide service (scheduled and emergency) for approximately thirty-five (35) generators used by the County's Water and Wastewater systems. As the system continues to grow, generators will be added. 2. Bid g99-3015 was posted on November 16, 1999. TwentY-four (24) inquires were sent and one (1) bid was received and opened on December 8, 1999. Staff has reviewed the bid received and recommends award of Bid No. 99-3015 to AAA Generator as the lowest qualified and responsive bidder, in the estimated amount of $130,000.00. AAA Generator had the previous contract for three (3) years. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are currently budgeted in Water and Wastewater Collections budgets. O~er County departments may also utilize this bid. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners, Ex- Officio the Collier County Water/Sewer District, approve the award of Bid 99-3015 "Generator Repair, Maintenance and Installation" to AAA Generator in the estimated amount of $130,000.00. SUBMITTED BY: .X~,~/{,_ ~,~. ~q~ Steve ~agy, Acfi~ollections Supe~isor ~V~DBY: ~~ ~ Jo ~, W~teWater Director ~PROVED BY: ~ector Ed ~schner, ~lic Works Ad~is~ator DATE: DATE: lZ-iC'. DATE: Attachment: Bid Tabulation Sheet JAN 11 2000 .u U EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DESIGNATE THE PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS DIRECTOR AS AN ADDITIONAL AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SOLID WASTE DEPARTMENT TO SIGN ALL GRANT APPLICATIONS AND QUARTERLY GRANT REPORTS FOR THE RECYCLING & EDUCATION GRANT, WASTE TIRE GRANT, AND LITTER CONTROL AND PREVENTION GRANT. OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners designate the Public Works Operations Director as an additional authorized representative to sign grant applications and quarterly grant reports for the Recycling & Education Grant, Waste Tire Grant, and Litter Control & Prevention Grant. CONSIDERATION: Every year the Solid Waste Department applies for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection grants - the Recycling & Education Grant, Waste Tire Grant and Litter Control & Prevention Grant. The grant applications need to be signed by an authorized representative of the Solid Waste Department. An authorized representative must also sign the quarterly grant reports that are submitted during the grant period. The Board of County Commissioners at their meeting of January 26, 1993, Agenda Item 8G(2), declared the Director of the Solid Waste Department as the authorized representative to sign the quarterly grant reports. The Solid Waste Director has resigned from County government and it is now necessary to name an additional designee to sign grant, documents. This will also cover those times when the Solid Waste Director is not available. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: N/A RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners designate the Public Works Operations Director as an additional authorized representative for the Solid Waste Department to sign grant applications and quarterly grant reports for the Recycling & Education Grant, Waste Tire Grant, and Litter Control and Prevention Grant. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: JAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPROVE AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE OF A PARCEL TO PROVIDE FOR EXPANSION OF AREAS WHERE FUTURE STORMWATER AND ROADWAY PROJECTS ARE PROPOSED. OBJECTIVE: Staff is requesting approval and execution of the attached Agreement for Sale and Purchase with Janice W. Wardell and Billie D. Martin for a 10 +/- acre parcel needed to provide environmental mitigation lands for the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project (LASIP) conceptual permits and future right-of-way for the proposed East-West Collector roadway between County Barn Road and CR-951. CONSIDERATION: The Stormwater Management Department has been actively involved in the design and permitting of the LASIP for a number of years. When fully implemented, this project will provide reduced flooding potential in portions of East Naples and promote better water quality discharges into the estuaries near Rookery Bay. The conveyance of land in the East Naples area to Collier County will keep the LASIP moving forward through the permitting phase and maintains compliapce with the Growth Management Plan which exists to'meet the demand of our growing population. A map is attached for reference. Additionally, the future construction of a proposed collector roadway between County Barn Road and CR-951 will need to pass through the southern portion of the parcel being purchased. The Real Property Management Department has obtained an Agreement for Sale and Purchase from the owner of the subject property, Janice W. Wardell and Billie D. Martin. The Agreement for Sale and Purchase reflects a purchase price of $75,000.00. The County's Review Appraiser has determined that the purchase price is reasonable based upon recent general increases in residential properties in Collier County. An independent appraisal is not required pursuant to Florida Statute 125.355(b). Pursuant to the Agreement, the County has ninety (90) days from the execution of the Agreement to obtain a report from the County's Pollution Control Department advising of any environmental concerns in order to determine whether the site can be utilized for its intended purpose. If for any reason whatsoever, the County is not satisfied with the results of any environmental report, the County may terminate the Agreement given proper notice. If the County has not terminated the Agreement pursuant to any other provision in the Agreement and decides, prior to closing, to terminate the Agreement, it may do so; however, the County shall incur a one time cost of Five Hundred Five and 08/100 Dollars ($505.08). FISCAL IMPACT: The following are the costs associated with the purchase of the subject site: 1. Purchase Price: $75,000.00 2. Environmental Task I Audit: $1,100. - $1,500. 3. Title Commitment/Policy and miscellaneous costs (recording, etc.): $500. The above funds area available in the Water Management CIP Fund 325 and have ~c.c,-~ ,~.~ ~.J~-, - budgeted for FY 99 in the Lely Canal Project (31101). . ~ ,o./~',, rs,)( ) . J JAN ~ ~ 2~O~t / GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project is being implemented in accordance with commitments made in the County's Growth Management Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending the Board of County Commissioners: 1. Approve the attached Agreement for Sale and Purchase; 2. Authorize its Chairman to execute the Agreement; 3. Waive the requirement for an appraisal pursuant to Florida Statute 125.355(b); and 4. Direct staff to proceed to acquire the subject site and follow all appropriate closing procedures including obtaining the acceptance of the proper conveyance document and approval to record any and all necessary documents (once approved by the County Attorney's Office) to obtain clear title to the property and all other criteria proves satisfactory; and lastly, 6. Approve any and all necessary Budget Amendments to fund said purchase and related expenses. Robert J. Te~}er~', Ream Pro/pe y Sp c'a's II, Real Property Management Department REVIEWED BY: .L ~'¢.q,,. Date: JohnJ-I. Boldt, PE, PSM, Stormwater Management Department Director APPROVED BY-- ' ...... " ¢:-~1 IIs~'~"~g~ ~,-~ministr~t~-~] ~u-~ ~'~s Division JAN 1 1 2'000 PG. PROJECT: Lely Canal PARCEL NO: 202 FOLIO NO: 00409880009 AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE THIS AGREEMF_NT is made and entered into by and between JANICE W. WARDELL, an undivided 3/, interest and BILLIE D. MARTEN, an undivided 1/4 interest (hereinafter referred to as "Seller"), and Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, (hereinafter referred to as "Purchaser"). WITNESSETH WHEREAS, S~ller is the owner of that certain parcel of real property (hereinafter referred to as '"Property"), located in Collier County, State of Florida, and being more padiculady de,scribed in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference. WHEREAS, P-rchaser is desirous of purchasing the Property, subject to the conditions and other agr(;ements hereinafter set forth, and Seller is agreeable to such sale and to such conditions and agreements. NOW, THERE FORE, and for and in consideration of the premises and the respective undertakings of the parties hereinafter set forth and the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00), the receipt and su fficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, it is agreed as follows: I. _A_q, REEMENT 1.01 In consideration of the purchase price and upon the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, Seller shall sell to Purchaser and Purchaser shall purchase from Seller the Property, described in Exhibit "A". II. ~ENT_~F PURCHASE PRICE 2.01 The purchase price (the "Purchase Price") for the Property shall be Seventy Five Thousand and 00/100 dollars ($75,000.00) (U.S. Currency) payable at time of closing. II1. CLOSING 3.01 The Closing (THE "CLOSING DATE", "DATE OF CLOSING", OR "CLOSING") of the transaction shall be held on or before one hundred twenty (120) days following execution of this Agreement by the Purchaser but not later than February 29, 2000, unless extended by mutual written agreement of the parties hereto. The Closing shall be held at the Collier County Attorney's Office, Administration Building, 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida. The procedure to be followed by the parties in connection with the Closing shall be as follows: 3.011 Seller shall convey a marketable title free of any liens, encumbrances, exceptions, or qualifications. Marketable title shall be determined according to applicable title standards adopted by the Florida Bar and in accordance with law. At the Closing, the Seller shall cause to be delivered to the Purchaser the items specified herein and the following documents and instruments duly executed and acknowledged, in recordable form: 3.0111 Warranty Deed in favor of Purchaser conveying title to the Property, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances other than: (a) The lien for current taxes and assessments. (b) Such other easements, restrictions or conditions of record. 3.0112 Combined Purchaser-Seller closing statement. JAN 11 2000 ._ _ 3.0113 A "Gap," Tax Proration, Owner's and Non-Foreign Affidavit," as required by Section 1445 of the Internal Revenue Code and as required by the title insurance underwriter in order to insure the "gap" and issue the policy contemplated by the title insurance commitment. 3.0115 A W-9 Form, "Request for Taxpayer Identification and Certification" as required by the Internal Revenue Service. 3.012 At the Closing, the Purchaser, or its assignee, shall cause to be delivered to the Seller the following: 3.0121 A negotiable instrument (County Warrant) in an amount equal to the Purchase Pdce. No funds shall be disbursed to Seller until the Title Company verifies that the state of the title to the Property has not changed adversely since the date of the last endorsement to the commitment, referenced in Section 4.011 thereto, and the Title Company is irrevocably committed to pay the Purchase Price to Seller and to issue the Owner's title policy to Purchaser in accordance with the commitment immediately after the recording of the deed. 3.0122 Funds payable to the Seller representing the cash payment due at Closing in accordance with Article III hereof, shall be subject to adjustment for prorations as hereinafter set forth. 3.02 Each party shall be responsible for payment of its own attorney's fees. Seller, at its sole cost and expense, shall pay at Closing all documentary stamp taxes due relating to the recording of the Warranty Deed, in accordance with Chapter 201.01, Florida Statutes, and the cost of recording any instruments necessary to clear Seller's title to the Property. The cost of the Owner's Form B Title Policy, issued pursuant to the Commitment provided for in Section 4.011 below, shall be paid by Purchaser. The cost of the title commitment shall also be paid by Purchaser. 3.03 Purchaser shall pay for the cost of recording the Warranty Deed. Real P~-operty taxes shall be prorated based on the current year's tax with due allowance made for maximum ahowable discount, homestead and any other applicable exemptions and paid by Seller. If Closing occurs at a date which the current year's millage is not fixed, taxes will be prorated based upon such prior year's millage. IV. REQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS 4.01 Upon execution of this Agreement by both parties or at such other time as specified within this Article, Purchaser and/or Seller, as the case may be, shall perform the following within the times stated, which shall be conditions precedent to the Closing; 4.011 Within fifteen (15) days after the date hereof, Purchaser shall obtain as evidence of title an ALTA Commitment for an Owner's Title Insurance Policy (ALTA Form B-1970) covering the Property, toga=her with hard copies of all exceptions shown thereon. Purchaser shall have thirty (30) days, following receipt of the title insurance commitment, to notify Seller in writing of any objection to title other than liens evidencing monetary obligations, if any, which obligations shall be paid at closing. If the title commitment contains exceptions that make the title unmarketable, Purchaser shall deliver to the Seller written notice of its intention to waive the applicable contingencies or to terminate this Agreement. 4.012 If Purchaser shall fail to advise the Seller in writing of any such objections in Seller's title in the manner herein required by this Agreement, the title shall be deemed acceptable. Upon notification of Purchaser's objection to title, Seller shall have thirty (30) days to remedy any defects in order to convey good and marketable title, except for liens or monetary obligations which will be satisfied at Closing. Seller, at its sole expense, shall use its best efforts to make such title good and marketable. In the event Seller is unable to cure said JAN 1 ! 2000 objections within said time period, Purchaser, by providing wdtten notice to Seller within seven (7) days after expiration of said thirty (30) day period, may accept title as it then is, waiving any objection; or Purchaser may terminate the Agreement. A failure by Purchaser to give such written notice of termination within the time period provided herein shall be deemed an election by Purchaser to accept the exceptions to title as shown in the title commitment. 4.013 Purchaser shall have the option, at its own expense, to obtain a current survey of the Property prepared by a surveyor licensed by the State of Florida. No adjustments to the Purchase Price shall be made based upon any change to the total acreage referenced in Exhibit "A", if any. Seller agrees to furnish any existing surveys of the Property, if any, to Purchaser within thirty (30) days of execution of this Agreement. V. INSPECTION PERIOD 5.01 Purchaser shall have one hundred and twenty (120) days from the date of this Agreement, ("Inspection Period"), to determine through appropriate investigation that: 1. Soil tests and engineering studies indicate that the Property can be developed without any abnormal demucking, soil stabilization or foundations. 2. There are no abnormal drainage or environmental requirements to the development of the Property. 3. The Property is in compliance with all applicable State and Federal environmental laws and the Property is free from any pollution or contamination. 4. The Prope~y can bc utilized for its intende, d purpose. 5.02 If Purchaser is not satisfied, for any reason whatsoever, with the results of any investigation, Purchaser shall deliver to Seller prior to the expiration of the Inspection Period, written notice of its intention to waive the applicable contingencies or to terminate this Agreement. If Purchaser fails to notify the Seller in writing of its specific objections as provided herein within the Inspection Period, it shall be deemed that the Purchaser is satisfied with the results of its investigations and the contingencies of this Article VI shall be deemed waived. In the event Purchaser elects to terminate this Agreement because of the right of inspection, Purchaser shall deliver to Seller copies of all engineering reports and environmental and soil testing results commissioned by Purchaser with respect to the Property. 5.03 Purchaser and its agents, employees and servants shall, at their own risk and expense, have the right to go upon the Property for the purpose of surveying and conducting site analyses, soil borings and all other necessary investigation. Purchaser shall, in performing such tests, use due care and shall indemnify Seller on account of any loss or damages occasioned thereby and against any claim made against Seller as a result of Purchaser's entry. Seller shall be notified by Purchaser no less than twenty four (24) hours prior to said inspection of the Property. VI. INSPECTION 6.01 Seller acknowledges tha{ the Purchaser, or its authorized agents, shall have the right to inspect the Property at any time prior to the Closing. VII. POSSESSION 7.01 Purchaser shall be entitled to full possession of the Property at Closing. VIII. PRORATIONS 8.01 Ad valorem taxes next due and payable, after closing on the Property, shall be prorated at Closing based upon the gross amount of 1999 taxes, and shall be_ paid by Seller. I JAN 11 2000 IX. TERMINATION AND REMEDIES 9.01 If Seller shall have failed to perform any of the covenants and/or agreements contained herein which are to be performed by Seller, within ten (10) days of written notification of such failure, Purchaser may, at its option, terminate this Agreement by giving written notice of termination to Seller. Purchaser shall have the right to seek and enforce all rights and remedies available at law or in equity to a contract vendee, including the fight to seek specific performance of this Agreement. 9.02 If the Purchaser has not terminated this Agreement pursuant to any of the provisions authorizing such termination, and Purchaser fails to close the transaction contemplated hereby or otherwise fails to perform any of the terms, covenants and conditions of this Agreement as required on the part of Purchaser to be performed, provided Seller is not in default, then as Seller's sole remedy, Seller shall have the right to terminate and cancel this Agreement by giving written notice; thereof to Purchaser, whereupon one percent (1%) of the purchase price shall be paid to Seller as liquidated damages which shall be Seller's sole and exclusive remedy, and neither party shall have any further liability or obligation to the other except as set forth in paragraph 12.01, (Real Estate Brokers), hereof. The parties acknowledge and agree that Seller's actual damages in the event of Purchaser's default are uncertain in amount and difficult to ascertain, and that said amount of liquidated damages was reasonably determined by mutual agreement betwE;en the parties, and said sum was not intended to be a penalty in nature. 9.03 Should any litigation or other action be commenced between the parties conc~;rning the Property or this Agreement, the party prevailing in such !itigation or other action shall be entitled, in addition to such relief as may be granted, to a reasonable sum for its attorney's fees, paralegal charges and all fees and costs for appellate proceedings in such litigation or other action; which sum may be determined by the court or in a separate action brought for that purpose. 9.04 The parties acknowledge that the remedies described herein and in the other p~ovis~ons of this Agreemer~t provide mutually satisfactory and sufficient remedies to each of the parties, and take into account the peculiar risks a~d expenses of each of the parties. X. SEL!-ER'S AND PURCHASER'S REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES 10.01 Seller and Purchaser represent and warrant the following: 10.011 Seller and Purchaser have full right and authority to enter into and to execute this Agreement and to undertake all actions and to perform all tasks required of each hereunder. Seller is not presently the subject of a pending, threatened or contemplated bankruptcy proceeding. 10.012 Seller has full right, power, and authority to own and operate the Property, and to execute, deliver, and perform its obligations under this Agreement and the instruments executed in connection herewith, and to consummate the transaction contemplated hereby. All necessary authorizations and approvals have been obtained authorizing Seller and Purchaser to execute and consummate the transaction contemplated hereby. At Closing, certified copies of such approvals shall be delivered to Purchaser and/or Seller, if necessary. 10.013 The warranties set forth in this paragraph shall be true on the date of this Agreement and as of the date of Closing. Purchaser's acceptance of a deed to the said Property shall not be deemed to be full performance and discharge of every agreement and obligation on the part of the Seller to be performed pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 10.014 Seller represents that it has no knowledge of any actions, suits, claims, proceedings, litigation or investigations pending or threatened against Seller, at law, equity or in arbitration before or by any federal, state, municipal or other JAN f f 2000 governmental instrumentality that relate to this agreement or any other property that could, if continued, adversely affect Seller's ability to sell the Property to Purchaser according to the terms of this Agreement. 10.015 No party or person other than Purchaser has any right or option to acquire the Property or any portion thereof. 10.016 Until the date fixed for Closing, so long as this Agreement remains in force and ~;ffect, Seller shall not encumber or convey any portion of the Property or any dghts therein, nor enter into any agreements granting any person or entity any rights with respect to the Property or any part thereof, without first obtaining the written consent of Purchaser to such conveyance, encumbrance, or agreement which consent may be withheld by Purchaser for any reason whatsoever. 10.017 Seller represents that there are no incinerators, septic tanks or cesspools ,on the Property; all waste, if any, is discharged into a public sanitary sewer sys!em; Seller represents that they have (it has) no knowledge that any pollutants are or have been discharged from the Property, directly or indirectly into any body of water. Seller represents the Property has not been used for the produ,ction, handling, storage, transportation, manufacture or disposal of hazardou.'~ or toxic substances or wastes, as such terms are defined in applicable laws and regulations, or any other activity that would have toxic results, and no such hazardous or toxic substances are currently used in connection with the operation of the Property, and there is no proceeding or inquiry b~.t any authority with respect thereto. Seller represents that they have (it has) no knowledge that there is ground water contamination on the Property or potential of ground water contamination from neighboring properties. Seller represems no storage tanks fo~ gasoline or any other substa~-ces are or were located on the Property at any time during or prior to Seller's ownership thereof. Seller represents none of the Property has been used as a sanitary landfill. 10.018 Seller has no knowledge that the Property and Seller's operations concerning the Property are in ~'iolation of any applicable Federal, State or local statute, law or regulation, or of ar~y notice fi'om any governmental body has been served upon Seller claiming any violation of any law, ordinance, code or regulation or requiring or calling attention to the need for any work, repairs, construction, alterations or installation on or in connection with the Property in order to comply with any laws, ordinances, codes or regulation with which Seller has not complied. 10.019 There are no unrecorded restrictions, easements or rights of way (other than existing zoning regulations) that restdct or affect the use of the Property, and there are no maintenance, construction, advertising, management, leasing, employment, service or other contracts affecting the Property. 10.020 Seller has no knowledge that there are any suits, actions or arbitration, bond issuances or proposals therefor, proposals for public improvement assessments, pay-back agreements, paving agreements, road expansion or improvement agreements, utility moratoriums, use moratoriums, improvement moratoriums, administrative or other proceedings or governmental investigations or requirements, formal or informal, existing or pending or threatened which affects the Property or which adversely affects Seller's ability to perform hereunder; nor is there any other charge or expense upon or related to the Property which has not been disclosed to Purchaser in writing prior to the effective date of this Agreement. 10.021 Seller acknowledges and agrees 'that Purchaser is entering into this Agreement based upon Seller's representations stated above and on the understanding that Seller will not cause the zoning or physical condition of the Property to change from its existing state on the effective date of this Agreement up to and including the Date of Closing. Therefore, Seller agrees not to enter into any contracts or agreements pertaining to or affecting the Property and not to do any act or omit to perform any act which would change JAN 11 2000 the zoning or physical condition of the Property or the governmental ordinances or laws governing same. Seller also agrees to notify Purchaser promptly of any change in the facts contained in the foregoing representations and of any notice or proposed change in the zoning, or any other action or notice, that may be proposed or promulgated by any third parties or any governmental authorities having jurisdiction of the development of the property which may restrict or change any other condition of the Property. 10.022 At the Closing, Seller shall deliver to Purchaser a statement (hereinafter called the "Closing Representative Statement") reasserting the foregoing representations as of the Date of Closing, which provisions shall survive the Closing. 10.023 Seller represents, warrants and agrees to indemnify, reimburse, defend and hold Purchaser harmless from any and all costs (including attorney's fees) asserted against, imposed on or incurred by Purchaser, directly or indirectly, pursuant to or in connection with the application of any federal, state, local or common law relating to pollution or protection of the environment which shall be in accordance with, but not limited to, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. Section 9601, et seq., ("CERCLA" or "Superfund"), which was amended and upgraded by the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act of 1986 ("SARA"), including any amendments or successor in function to these acts. This provision and the rights of Purchaser, hereunder, shall survive Closing and are not deemed satisfied by conveyance of title. 10.024 Any loss and/or damage to the Property between the date of this Agreement and the date of Closing shall be Seller's sole risk and expense. XI. NOTICES 11.01 Any notice, request, demand, instruction or other communication to be given to either party hereunder shall be in writing, sent by registered, or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: if to Purchaser: Real Property Management Department Administration Building 3301 Tamiami Trail East Naplus, Florida 34112 With a copy to: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney Administration Building 3301 Tamiami Trail East Naples, Florida 34112 If to Seller: Janice W. Wardell 3939 East Highway 80 Suite 300 Mesquite, TX 75150 Billie D. Marten 3880 Skyway Drive Naples, FL 34102 11.02 The addressees and addresses for the purpose of this Article may be changed by either party by giving written notice of such change to the other party in the manner provided herein. For the purpose of changing such addresses or addressees only, unless and until such written notice is received, the last addressee and respective address stated herein shall be deemed to continue in effect for all purposes. Xll. REALESTATE BROKERS 12.01 Any and all brokerage commissions or fees shall be the sole responsibility of the Seller. Seller shall indemnify Purchaser and hold Purchaser harmless from and against any claim or liability for commission or fees to any broker or any other person or party claiming to have been engaged by Seller as a real estate broker, salesman or representative, in connection with this Agreement. Seller agrees to pay any and all commissions or fees at closing pursuant to the terms of a separate agreement, if any. Xlll. MISCELLANEOUS 13.01 This Agreement may be executed in any manner of counterparts which together shall constitute the agreement of the parties. 13.02 This Agreement and the terms and provisions hereof shall be effective as of the date this Agreement is executed by both parties and shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, personal representatives, successors, successor trustee, and assignees whenever the context so requires or admits. 13.03 Any amendment to this Agreement shall not bind any of the parties hereof unless such amendment is in writing and executed and dated by Purchaser and Seller. Any amendment to this Agreement shall be binding upon Purchaser and Seller as soon as it has been executed by both parties. 13.04 Captions and section headings contained in this Agreement are for co. nven!ence and reference only; in no way do they define, describe, ext, end or limit the ,~;cope or intent of this Agreement or any provisions hereof. 13.05 All ~,erms and words used in this Agreement, regardless of the number and gender in which used, shall be deemed to include any other gender or number as the context or the use thereof may require. 13.06 No waive~ of ~,ny provlsion of this Agreement shall be effective unless it is in writing sigfled by the party against whom it is asserted, and any waiver oi' any provision of this Agreement shall be applicable only to the specific instance to which it is related and shall not be deemed to be a continuing or future waiver as to such provision or a waiver as to any other provision. 13.07 If any date specified in this Agreement falls on a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the date to which such reference is made shall be extended to the next succeeding business day. 13.08 Seller is aware of and understands that the "offer" to purchase represented by this Agreement is subject to acceptance and approval by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida. 13.09 If the Seller holds the Property in the form of a partnership, limited partnership, corporation, trust or any form of representative capacity whatsoever for others, Seller shall make a written public disclosure, according to Chapter 286, Florida Statutes, under oath, of the name and address of every person having a beneficial interest in the Property before Property held in such capacity is conveyed to Collier County. (If the corporation is registered with the Federal Securities Exchange Commission or registered pursuant to Chapter 517, Florida Statutes, whose stock is for sale to the general public, it is hereby exempt from the provisions of Chapter 286, Florida Statutes.) 13.10 This Agreement is governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida. XlV. ENTIRE AGREEMENT 14.01 This Agreement and the exhibits attached hereto contain the entire ~ ^~~o~ ZTU~. agreement between the parties, and no promise, representation, warranty or/ N°"-~-~-'~L~L JAN 11 2000 covenant not included in this Agreement or any such referenced agreements has been or is being relied upon by either party. No modification or amendment of this Agreement shall be of any force or effect unless made in writing and executed and dated by both Purchaser and Seller. Time is of the essence of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the padies hereto set forth their hands seals. Dated Project/Acquisition Approved by BCC: AS TO PURCHASER: DATED: ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA , Deputy Clerk BY: PAMELA S. MAC'KIE, Chairwoman AS TO SELLER: DATED: WITNESSES: (Signature) //~ (Printed~a~e) . (Signature) (Printed Name) WITNESSES: L-~/(Sigr~ature) (Printed Name) (Signature) '~ (Printed Name) 3939 East Highway 80 '~'~'/~0 3~"??~/ Suite 300 Mesquite, TX 75150 BILLIE D. MARTEN, an undivided ¼ interest 3880 Skyway Drive Naples, FL 34012 Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Robert Zacha~;' Assistant County Attorney JAN 11 2000 PG. // PROJECT: Lely Canal PARCEL: 202 FOLIO: 00409880009 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION (NOT A SURVEY) The Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 9, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. JAN 11 ZOOO ~Z EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTE AND APPROVE WORK ORDER NO. PB-99-4 FOR PROFESSIONAL BUILDING SYSTEMS TO CLEAR AND GRUB THE SOUTH RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD FROM CR 951 TO 25TM STREET (PART OF THE GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD FOUR LANE IMPROVEMENT, FROM CR 951 TO WILSON BOULEVARD). COLLIER COUNTY PROJECT # 63041. OBJECTIVE: Obtain Board approval and execution of Work Order No. PB-99-4 with Professional Building Systems, Inc. under the terms of our Annual Contract for General Contractors Services Agreement Contract # 97-2763. CONSIDERATIONS: The PWED In-house design staff is preparing the construction drawings for the Golden Gate Boulevard Four Lane Improvement Project. In order to maintain the project schedule, The County is proposing to begin clearing and grubbing activity in January 2000 so that the utilities within the existing rights-of-way can be relocated in advance of the project bidding scheduled for February 2, 2000. Actual road construction work is expected to start in May 22, 2000 immediately after Big Cypress Elementary School breaks for the summer vacation. A scope of services, which includes fees and schedule, is attached. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds in the amount of $51,360.00 are available in Impact Fees District 8, funding source - Impact fees. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: This project is consistent with the Capital Improvement Element of the Growth Management Plan. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners approve the clearing and grubbing work by Professional Building Systems, Inc. in the amount of $53,696.00, authorizing Public Works Engineering Director to execute Work Order No. PB-99-4. JAN 1 1 2000 P~;. I SUBMITTED BY: A. Nyankadau Korti, Project Manager Public Works Engineering Department REVIEWED BY: ~1, ~/ector~~ Purchasing Department ~/~eff Bibby, P.E., Director, / Public Works Enginee~g D/~ment E~d~,a~d J. Kant,~p~ ~ector Transportation ~m ~,es Department ~ /~ APPROVED ~~,~ ~ Ed~~dmi-ni;trat~r - - Public Works Division Date:~q cc: Project File (#63041) Richard J. Hellriegel, P.E., SR Project Manager JAN 1! 2000 GENERAL CONTR/~CTORS 9 51 4395.Corporate Square * Naples, FL 34104 · Phone: 941/643-6527 * Fax: 941/643-2767 November 19, 1999 Mr. Nyankadau Korti Public Works Engineering Department Building "D" 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 RE: Golden Gate Boulevard Clearing And Grubbing Mr. Korti, Professional Building Systems, Inc. is pleased to submit for your review this revised construction services proposal for the above referenced project. This proposal is in the amount of THIRTY SIX THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED AND 00/00 DOLLARS ($36,800.00). Our proposal is based on the Drawings referred to as the Golden Gate Boulevard Four Lane Improvements From CR. 951 To Wilson Boulevard dated 11/30/98, and the following Exhibits: Alternate #1 Remove all sidewalks in the Right Of Way Alternate #2 Supply and Install Silt Fence $8,000.00 $1.60 per Lineal Foot Exhibit A: Clearing and Grubbing Scope. 1. Overview, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 2. Scope Of Services, 2.1Task 1, sub 2.1.1, 2.1.2 2.2 Task 2, sub 2.2.1, 2.2.2 Clarification: 2.3 Task 3: Sm-vey is offered as an Alternate. Exhibit B: Scope of Work. We hope this proposal meets your approval, and we appreciate your consideration of our firm. JAN 11 2000 GEN ERP, L CONTRACTORS 4395 Corporate Square · Naples, FL 34104 * Phone: 941/643-6527 * Fax: 941/643-2767 November 23, 1999 Mr. Nyankadau Korti Public Works Engineering Department Building "D" 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 RE: Golden Gate Boulevard Clearing And Grubbing Clarification: Work Order # PB-99-4 states that the Silt Fence price in our proposal dated November 19,1999 was amended from a lineal foot price to a lump sum of $14,560.00. We hereby amend our proposal to provide a maximum of 9,100 lineal feet of Silt Fence for the lump sum of $14,560.00. PROFESSIONAL BUILDING SYSTEMS JAN 11 2000 CLEARING AND GRUBBING SCOPE GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD FOUR LANE IMPROVEMENTS FROM CR. 951 TO WILSON BOULEVARD COLLIER COUNTY PROJECT NO. 63041 1. OVERVIEW 1.1 Professional Building Systems, Inc. has been requested to render General Contractor services to Collier County Public Works Engineering Department (Client) for the Golden Gate Boulevard clearing and grubbing. 1.2 The project includes approximately five (5) miles of roadway construction, from C.R. 951 to Wilson Boulevard. The project will be constructed in two phases. Phase I Construction will begin from CR 951 to 25t~ Street. Phase II construction will begin from 25t~ Street to 2'~ Street. 1.3 The scope of this work includes approximate 2 miles of cleating and grubbing within the south half of the fights-of-way. 1.4 This work Authorization will be administered under the current Agreement for General Contractor Services. 2. SCOPE OF SERVICES 2.1 TASKI: GATHER INFORMATION AND PREPARE COST ESTIMATE 2.1.1 Professional Bldg. System, Inc. will review existing plan and profile sheets provided by the Client and perform a site visit to determine the scope of the work. 2.1.2 Professional Bldg. System, Inc. will prepare a cost estimate and submit it to the Collier County Public Works Engineering staff to gain input and goals to discuss the budget associated with the work. 2.2 TASK 2: CLEARING AND GRUBBING 2.2.1 The scope of this work includes furnishing of labor, material and Equipment to clear and grub all vegetation only on the south side of Golden Gate Boulevard from CR~ 951 to 25~ Street SW. The width of this work area is best described as everything south &the existing pavement to the existing rights-of-way line plus an JAN 1 1 2000 additional 15' to 25' of rights-of-way acquired by the County to conform limits as set forth in the plan / profile sheets. 2.2.2 In addition to this major clearing and grubbing, there are ten (10) additional isolated pockets to be cleared only (no grubbing) for the installation of FPL poles. These pockets are located on both sides of the newly acquired fights-of-way between CR. 951 and Wilson Boulevard. These pockets are noted by station and described as width and depth of clearing as follows: STATION LOCATION DIMENSION From 72+19 to 72+34 North 15' x 25' From 158+08 to 158+16 South 15' x 25' From 185+96 to 186+11 South 15' x 25' From 225+58 to 225+73 South 15' x 25' From 233+83 to 233+98 South 15' x 25' From 250+49 to 250+64 South 15' x 25' From 261+90 to 262+05 South 15' x 25' From 265+17 to 265+32 South 15' x 25' From 280+28 to 280+43 South 15' x 55' From 282+13 to 282+28 South 15' x 65' Upon receipt of Notification To Proceed, the contractor shall substantially complete work within 45 days. JAN 1 1 2O0O _PG. ~ :_~_ .... Professional Building Systems, Inc. Golden Gate Boulevard Clearing And Grubbing Naples, Florida EXHIBIT B SCOPE OF WORK General Conditions include costs associated with direct job overhead, such as: project management, supervision, insurance fees, first aid, temporary telephones, toilets and storage, as well as signs, clean up, dump fees, traffic control and miscellaneous job expenses. Clearing includes clearing of the south side of the 15 to 25 foot ROW easement along Golden Gate Boulevard. All vegetation will be removed from the work area, including trees and undergrowth. Grubbing includes the removal of roots and low vegetation. The work area will be scraped, raked and left in a rough grade condition. Clarifications: All work will stop at the Big Cypress Elementary School west property line fence and recommence on the east side of the Cypress Canal. All other fences that remain in the Right of Way at the time that work begins will be removed and discarded as part of this scope of work Replacement of the fencing is not a part of this scope of work Driveway removal, or repair is not included in this scope of work. All survey and layout and stake limits are by others. Exclusions: Permits, permit applications and fees. Replacement offences, driveways or walkways. Street repairs. Removal of Silt Fence. Surveying services. JAN I 1 2000 WORK ORDER # ,PB-99-4 Annual Contract for General Contractor Services Dated March 28, 1998 (Contract #9?-2763) This Work Order is for General Contractor services for work known as fTitlg) Gol~tgn Gal~ Bogdevard Four I.an~ lmpro~vem~nl (Reason for prpjecfl To pcrf'orm clearin~ and grubbine scrvic~:s Thc work is specified in the proposal dated November 19, 1999, which is attached hereto and made a part of this Work Order. In accordance with the Terms and Conditions ot' the Agreement referenced above. Work Order # PB-99-4 is assigned to: Professional B.ilding Systems Inc. (Firm Name) ,Scope of W0rkl see the attached Scope of Work Schedule of Work: Complete work within 4.~ Calendar days from receipt of the Notice to Proceed authorizing slarl etr work (.'ompensat. ion: In accordance with Article Five of the Agrcemenl. the County will compensate the Firm in nccordnncc with 11~c .cgotialcd l.mp sum amo.nl of 360.00, as provided in the attached proposal. Sec attached schedule of fees. Any change within monetary aulhority of this Work Order made subsequent 1o final department approval will bc considered an additional service and charged according to Schedule "A" of' thc Agreement. PREPARED BY: AUTHORIZED BY: APPROVED BY: A. Ny~d(a~Jau Korl~., Pr~ Date r u b I)4,.~W 9yk s En g'il~eer ~6 Edward J. Kan~ircctor Date Public WorksE~e' ' ~erin~ Department Jeff Bibby, PE., Director Public Works Engineering Department Date Approvcd as to Form anti Legal Sufficiency: Assistant County A~ey ATTEST: (Corporate Secretary) By: . Robert Jollnson. ,ll"rea, Jdent ACCEPTED BY: ,· / z [ q Date: professional Building Systems, lac, /Signature JAN ! !2000 / EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPROVE WORK ORDER FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER TELEMETRY CONSULTING SERVICES, PROJECTS 70124, 73922 AND 74033. OBJECTIVE: That the Board of County Commissioners, as the Ex-Officio Governing Board of the Collier County Water Sewer District, approve a work order for technical assistance to develop a comprehensive telemetry system for remote monitoring and control of water, sewer and reclaimed water facilities. CONSIDERATIONS: On February 9, 1999, agenda item 16(B)(8), the Board directed staff to work with consultants to develop a new program to meet the growing needs for telemetric monitoring and control of our water system. Primary objectives will be to maximize cost competitiveness and improve reliability. Emphasis will be placed on a system which will reduce dependence on outside support, simplify demands placed on operations staff, reduce maintenance burden, increase availability of outside support and supply, and can be integrated with a fault-tolerant communications network. The Wastewater Department has independent, but parallel, needs for telemetric monitoring and control of its remote facilities. The Public Works Division recommends consolidating the telemetry needs of our water system with the needs of our sewer and reclaimed water systems for the purposes of the proposed engineering work order. The proposed work order will assess the operational needs of both the Water and Wastewater remote facilities. Based on the findings, the consultant will evaluate the technical feasibility of various alternatives. A copy of the proposed work order is attached. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds in the amount of $41,167 are currently available to be divided equally among projects 70124 (Water), 73922 (Sewers) and 74033 (Reclaimed Water). Source of funds is User Fees. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATIONS: That the Board of County Commissions, as ex-officio the Governing Board of the Collier County Water Sewer District, approve and authorize the Public Works Engineering Director to execute Work Order TBE-FT-00-01 to Tampa Bay Engineering, Inc., for telemetry consulting services. JAN 1 1 2000 Executive Summary Approve Work Order for Water and Wastewater Telemetry Page 2 SUBMITTED BY: ~~ DATE: Karl W. Boyer, Senior Project Manager (_./JeffBibby, P.E., PWED Director DATE: REVIEWED BY: Faul Mattausch, Water Director REVIEWED BY: eatham, Wastewater Director APPROVED ~trator Attachment: Work Order TBE-FT-00-01 DATE: lol-I?..fq DATE'~~/~ q JAN I I 2000 WORK ORDER ti TBE-FT-00-01 Agreement for Fixed Term Professional Engineering Services Dated December 8, 1998 (Contract #98-2835) This Work Order is for professional engineering services for work known as (Title) Collier County Utilities Telemetry Consulting Services (Reason for Project) To perform a comprehensive assessment of the existing telemetry systems and needs of both the Water and Wastewater Department The work is specified in the e-mail proposal dated December 7, 1999, which is attached hereto and made a part of this Work Order. In accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Agreement referenced above, Work Order # TBE-FT-00-01 is assigned to Tampa Bay Engineering. Scope of Work: Task 1 - Field Inspection Task 2 - Interview Owner's Personnel Task 3 - Develop and Evaluate Alternatives Task 4 - Prepare Needs Assessment Report Task 5 - Project Management & QA/QC Schedule of Work: Complete draft report within 49 calendar days from receipt of the Notice to Proceed authorizing start of work. Compensation: In accordance with Article Five of the Agreement, the County will compensate the Firm in accordance with the negotiated lump sum amount indicated in the schedule below (if a task is time and material, so indicate and use the established hourly rate(s) as enumerated in Schedule "A" of the Agreement). Task i - Field Inspection $ 7,188 Lump Sum Task 2 - Interview Owner's Personnel $ 7,673 Lump Sum Task 3 - Develop and Evaluate Alternatives $ 9,614 Lump Sum Task 4 - Prepare Needs Assessment Report $12,017 Lump Sum Task 5-Project Management & QA/QC $ 4,675 Lump Sum TOTAL FEE $41,167 Any change within monetary authority of this Work Order made subsequent to final department approval will be considered an additional service and charged according to Schedule "A" of the Agreement. PREPARED BY: AUTHORIZED BY: AUTHORIZED BY: Date Date Date APPROVED BY: Jeff Bibby, PWED Director Date Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency:~.~c.f~. Assistant County Attor ATTEST: (Corporat~cretary) /~ C~aig B~. Snyder,-C-~O Tampa Bay Engineering, Inc. ACCEPTED BY: Date: Robert G. Brown, PE, Vice President Tampa Bay Engineering, Inc. -- AG£NDA £ I JAN 1 12000 lpG. CERT~ICATE I, KATHY A. BEYER, Secretary of Tampa Bay Engineering, Inc. (the Corporation) hereby certify that a meeting duly held on July 1, 1999, at which all of the Directors were present, the following resolutions were unanimously adopted. RESOLVED THAT, the President, namely PATRICK L. BEYER, or any Senior Vice President namely ROBERT G. BROWN and RICHARD T. DOYLE or Executive Vice President namely SAM MILITELLO or any Vice President, namely, LANCE D. LAIRSCEY, CRAIG D. SNYDER and NICHOLAS M. ZEMBILLAS, may execute contracts on behalf of the Corporation, and RESOLVED FURTHER THAT, the President, the Executive Vice President, the Senior Vice Presidents and the Vice Presidents named above along with the Secretary, namely KATHY A. BEYER, may attest to the signature(s) of the person(s) authorized to execute (sign) contracts on behalf of the Corporation. SIGNED AND SEALED at Clearwater, Florida this 1st day of July, 1999. (seal) JAN 11 2000 __PG._ '~ SCOPE OF WORK COLLIER COUNT L' UTILITIES TELEMETRY CONSULTING SERVICES Background and Purpose Collier County Water-Sewer District (OWNER) provides water, wastewater, and reclaimed water service. Supply, treatment, and distribution of potable water is under the Water Department. Collection, treatment, and disposal of wastewater, as well as distribution of reclaimed water, is under the jurisdiction of the Wastewater Department. The water department has two major functional areas (Water Plants and Water Distribution) and operates the following major facilities: · North County Regional Water Treatment Plant · South County Regional Water Treatment Plant 27 freshwater wells and 10 brackish wells · 4 remote pump/storage facilities (Manatee, Goodland, Capri, and Carica) The wastewater department has three major functional areas (Wastewater Plants, Wastewater Collections, and Wastewater Reuse) and operates the following major facilities: · Pelican Bay WRY · South County WRF · North County WRF · 580 lift stations (20 master stations) · Reuse system The current telemetry for all communications for both the water and wastewater departments is a mixture of telephonic, wireless, and hardwired data communication. Some of the equipment was installed some time ago, whereas other equipment is relatively new. A report was prepared in August of 1997 by PAMC Anvic Inc., which presented results of an investigation and recommendations for a system Wide Area Network for the Water Department. This report presented several recommendations for upgrades to the existing system to correct existing deficiencies. These recommendations have not been implemented to date, and will be reviewed and incorporated into this project as appropriate. The OWNER has recently standardized it's office computer software to use Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office (Word and Excel). All software and hardware recommended for use in the telemetry system should be compatible with this software to the extent possible. The purpose of this project is to perform a comprehensive assessment of the existing telemetry system and the needs of both the water and wastewater departments. The existing system will then be evaluated with regard to its capability to meet those needs, where deficiencies exist, develop alternative solutions to replace or upgrade the existing system in order to meet each department's needs. This will be accomplished by interviewing key personnel in each department, performing a field inspection of the major components of the existing system, and developing alternative solutions with associated budget-level costs. This work will be accomplished by Tampa Bay Engineering, Inc. (CONSULTANT), with assistance from its specialty sub consultants, Don Rice, PE, and Engineering Design Technologies Corp. The following tasks will be performed under this Scope of Work: C:\windows\TEMP\Collier2.doc A [aDA I ~0.~ JAN 1 1 2000 PG._ .~.. Task 1 - Field Inspection CONSULTANT will inspect the existing telemetry and SCADA system at each of the major facilities except within the water and wastewater plants for both the water and wastewater departments and assess the condition and functionality of each major component. Components will be assessed based on: · Physical condition (mst, wear and tear, and general physical condition); · Individual functionality; · Suitability for use in the overall telemetry system; · Obsolescence; and · Maintainability (availability of parts and service). Components to be inspected will include RTU's, end devices, telemetry cabinetry, radios, computer systems, and other related equipment. Task 2 -Interview OWNER's Personnel Interviews will be conducted with key OWNER personnel to determine the following: · Management and operations personnel vision for new/upgraded telemetry system · Existing telemetry system shortcomings (software and hardware) · Management needs and concerns · Existing day-to-day operating problems · Regulatory concerns · Degree of integration of functional areas (water, wastewater, and reclaimed water) desired · Data use by each functional area · Reporting and historical trending · Perceived future needs Interviews will be conducted with appropriate senior management, supervisory, and operations personnel. The goal of the interviews will be to determine overall management philosophy for the telemetry system, current practices and problems, and goals for the future. At the conclusion of the field inspection and personnel interviews, a meeting will be held with the key OWNER personnel to discuss the findings and alternatives to be developed. Task 3 - Develop and Evaluate Alternative Solutions Based on the results of Tasks 1 and 2, a list of existing deficiencies requiring correction and a list of goals and objectives for the new/upgraded system will be prepared. Alternative solutions to correct the deficiencies and meet as many of the goals and objectives as possible will be prepared. Alternatives will be developed based on existing technology and equipment readily available from vendors currently active in the Southwest Florida area. A high priority will be placed on equipment with non-proprietary software or hardware. Budget level costs for each alternative will be developed, and alternatives will be evaluated based on such factors as cost, ability to meet all goals and objectives, reliability, expandability, maintainability, ease of use, compatibility with the OWNER's standard software for office applications, and other factors. Task 4 - Prepare Needs Assessment Report Information collected and developed in the first three tasks will be assembled into a draft Needs Assessment report which will be submitted to the OWNER for review. After review by the OWNER's personnel, CONSULTANT will attend a review meeting to discuss OWNER comments. A final report will then be prepared after all agreed changes and corrections have been made. C:\windows\TEMP\Collier2.doc OWNER Responsibilities · Designate one individual as Project Manager who will be point of contact for CONSULTANT and who will have responsibility to make decisions on behalf of the OWNER. OWNER Project Manager will also be responsible for facilitating site visits, data collection, and personnel interviews. · Allow CONSULTANT access to all facilities during normal business hours for site inspections. · Provide list of key individuals for CONSULTANT to interview under Task 2. Make individuals available on contiguous days over a two-week period for interviews. · Provide all relevant existing information on existing system and system components. · Provide all relevant planning information regarding future expansions, master plans, etc. Budget The manhours and costs for this Scope of Work are presented in Table 1. All work will be performed on a lump sum basis. Invoices shall be presented monthly, based on percent complete for each task. Schedule The work will be completed in accordance with the following schedule: Task 1. Field Inspection 2. Personnel Interviews 3. Develop & Evaluate Alternatives 4. Submit Draft Report Calendar Days after NTP 21 21 35 49 C:\windows\TEMP\Collier2.doc . I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REQUEST APPROVAL TO USE FUNDS FROM THE SOLID WASTE TIRE GRANT TO PROVIDE SAFETY PLAY SURFACES AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN COLLIER COUNTY. OBJECTIVE: To obtain approval from the Board of County Commissioners to use State Solid Waste Tire Grant funds to replace current surfaces at various locations with a recycled tire overlay safety surface. The locations include public high schools, a vocational school, county park and nursery. CONSIDERATION: These projects will provide a safety surface for existing play structures by using tires collected and recycled in Florida. The Waste Tire Grant allows counties to buy materials made from recycled tires in order to promote the benefits of recycling and to "close the loop" by buying recycled products. The project will include signs noting the sponsors of the projects, and that the grant made it possible to use this unique safety material. The signs also serve as important educational tool that identifies the Solid Waste Department's mission to educate the public on the benefits of community participation in the proper disposal of tires, the benefits of recycling and the innovations and benefits that result by using recycled materials. The projects were chosen based primarily on the need for a safe surface for children to play on. The projects should be completed by May 2000. These projects are consistent with the use of Solid Waste Tire Grant funds as outlined in the Board's acceptance of the Recycling & Education, Waste Tire and Litter Prevention Grants. The projects chosen are as follows: Aaron Lutz Community Park Naples High School Child Development Play area Barron Collier High School Child Development Play area Lorenzo Walker Child Development Play area Fun Time Nursery FISCAL 1MPACT: Funds are available in the 1999-00 Solid Waste Tire Grant. The overall cost of the projects will not exceed $90,000.00. Work includes a concrete slab as a foundation with a recycled tire and synthetic tire overlay. Preliminary site preparation and excavation work as well as project management will be performed by the facilities management team for each site. JAN 1 I 2000 PG. ! GROVCYH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners approves using State Waste Tire Grant funds for a recycled tire safety surface at all of the locations listed. SUBMITTED BY: Join B. Uay6r, Rec~'~lingflUoordinator Solid Waste Management Department Date: APPROVED ~'"- Ed Ilschn~r,'Public-W~rks Administrator Date: JAN 1 ! 2000 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OBTAIN APPROVAL TO ADD E. B. SIMMONDS AS A SECONDARY CONTRACTOR FOR CONTRACTUAL SERVICES FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION ON BID #98-2821. OBJECTIVE: Add a secondary contractor for contractual services for traffic signal installation in order to maintain public highway safety. CONSIDERATIONS: 1. Mid-Continent Electric, Inc. is the primary contractor for contractual services for traffic signals. The primary contractor has not always been available to commence or comply with work orders on a timely basis. 2. E.B. Simmonds has recently acquired the state certification necessary to install traffic signals and has agreed to charge the same pricing as the primary contractor for Contract Service Type I for Bid #98-2821. 3. In order to maintain public highway safety, Staff recommends that the Board approve the addition of E. B. Simmonds as a secondary contractor for Contract Service Type I on Bid #98-2821. 4. Staff further recommends that all work orders be offered to the primary contractor first, and if the primary contractor fails to acknowledge receipt of the work order within seven (7) calendar days, or begin work within fourteen (14) calendar days, the work orders may be reassigned to the secondary contractor at the discretion of Staff. 5. E.B. Simmonds currently has a contract for the street lighting maintenance under the same bid and Staff recommends that such contract be amended to include contractual services for traffic signal installation. FISCAL IMPACT: There will be no additional fiscal impact from the original bid award. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners approve the addition of E. B. Simmonds as a secondary contractor for Contract Service Type I on Bid #98- 2821, and authorize the chairperson to sign the referenced contract amendment to include contractual services for traffic signal installation. SUBMITTED BY: ~)c~ /~, T~~_~at~.onsMana er Dale ~5-~athon, ~ a~5~' g Edward, J. Kant, B//'E.,~nsportation Services Director Stephen Y~urchasing/GS Director APPROVED BY~ Ed Ilschner, Public Works Administrator DATE: Iq.- 7..~ -c3c~ DATE: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AWARD BD #99-3004 FOR THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) CREW CAB FLAT BED DUMP TRUCK. OBJECTIVE: To obtain Board approval for the purchase of one (1) crew cab flat bed dump truck for the maintenance of County roads. CONSIDERATIONS: The Road and Bridge Section requires a crew cab flat bed dump truck for' the transportation of work crews to maintain, repair, and construct County Roads. Bid #99-3004 was posted on November 1, 1999, and 50 inquiries were sent to prospective bidders. The Purchasing Department received five (5) bids, and they were opened on November 17, 1999. Staff has reviewed the bids and determined that the three (3) lowest bids could not provide the vehicle per the specifications, and was deemed non-responsive. Staff recommends award of Bid #99-3004 to Wallace International as the lowest qualified responsive bidder. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds in the amount of $45,275.00 for the purchase of the crew cab flat bed dmnp truck are budgeted in Road and Bridge Fund (101). GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None RECOMMENDATION: That the Board award Bid #99-3004 for the purchase of one (1), crew cab flat bed dump truck to Wallace International. SUBMITTED BY: narry~rY, R°A~,, B/~5~dent .... REVIEWED BY: Edward J. Kan~E;'T~ansponation Se~ices Director . , ~ ,/  ~, Purchasing/G8 Director APPROVED B~ Ed Ilschner, Public Works Administrator DATE: . l£/~o/qq DATE: x'' 5' z z -2~ -'; DATE: \"[-"~'~-q ~ JAN I ! 2000 PG. c~ ~ _ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AWARD BID #9%3012 FOR THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) SINGLE DRUM VIBRATORY ROLLER. OBJECTIVE: To obtain Board approval for the purchase of one (1) single drum vibratory roller for the maintenance of County roads CONSIDERATIONS: The Road and Bridge Section requires a single drum vibratory roller to roll the limerock roads and shoulders of roadways within the County-maintained road system. The existing equipment is 12 years old and in poor condition. Bid #99-3012 was posted on November 9, 1999, and 29 inquiries were sent to prospective bidders. The Purchasing Department received six (6) bids, and they were opened on November 24, 1999. Staff has reviewed the bids and recommends award of Bid #99-3012 to Lindner Industrial Machinery as the lowest qualified responsive bidder. FISCAI, IMPACT: Funds in the amount of $69,250.00 for the purchase of the single drum vibratory roller are budgeted in Road and Bridge Fund (101). GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None RECOMMENDATION: That the Board award Bid #99-3012 for the purchase of one (1) single drum vibratory roller to Lindner Industrial Machinery. SUBMITTED BY: .ffa,.~ ~r~'et4~ c, ri/~'/S..S.~.pmS'n'''//'~e Larry. Henry, Road ~ ~3 tendent REVIEWED BY: "1,, "', ' ~ C.-~_/'f Edward J. Kant?Z"'" ransbonation Services Director REVIEWED BY: ~~_/.,~ C,~. ~'~/~ Ste!2.1~ Y.ff_.a-rr :~1, Purchasin~GS Director ^mPROW , _ Ed Ilschner"Tbublic-Wor[s Xd~im'Tstr~at-or DATE: tg[~O/eq DATE: / 2. - z 2- --'5'/5' DATE: DATE: //,,2-,~2J'~ ~;~' :-; U JAN 1 12000 ~o,~ t JAN ! 1~0~ I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AWARD BID #99-3003 FOR THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1), 5-CUBIC YARD DUMP TRUCK. OBJECTIVE: To obtain Board approval for the purchase of one (1), 5-cubic yard dump truck for the maintenance of County roads. CONSIDERATIONS: The Road and Bridge Section requires a 5-cubic yard dump truck for the' transportation of work crews to maintain, repair, and construct County Roads. Bid #99-3003 was posted on November 1, 1999, and 43 inquiries were sent to prospective bidders. The Purchasing Department received five (5) bids, and they were opened on November 17, 1999. Staff has reviewed the bids and determined that the low bid could not provide the vehicle per the specifications, and was deemed non-responsive. Staff recommends award of Bid #99-3003 to Wallace International as the lowest qualified responsive bidder. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds in the amount of $40,330.00 for the purchase of the 5-cubic yard dump truck are budgeted in Road and Bridge Fund (101). GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None RECOMMENDATION: That the Board award Bid #99-3003 for the purchase of one (1), 5-cubic yard damp truck to Wallace International. SUBMITTED BY: .~a,vW '~'~ { ../' Ualx}sJtenry, Ro ad 8~-,Bridgp/up/g~~ndent Edward J. Kant, P.E:v~r~Ponation Services Director Step~ Y. C~ell, Purchasin~GS Director PP.OV DB Ed Ilschner, Public Works Administrator DATE: DATE:/2'~?-', .o. lc, JAN 1 I 20 0 PG. t EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPROVE A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TIt~ COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECUTE A HIGHWAY BEAUTIFICATION GRANT APPLICATION AND ATTENDANT AGREEMENTS WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR U.S. 41 NORTH LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS. OBJECTIVE: Board adoption of a Resolution for the U.S. 41 North (Seagate Drive to Gulf Park Drive) landscaping project, therein authorizing the County Administrator to process and execute a beautification grant application and related agreements with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). CONSIDERATIONS: As authorized and directed by the Board on 23 November 1999 [Agenda Item 16(B) 10], staff is proceeding with final design activities for landscape improvements along East U.S. 41 North between Seagate Drive and Gulf Park Drive. A standard form grant application will be submitted to the Florida Highway Beautification Council (FHBC) by staff prior to the 1 February 2000 closing date. Following the favorable award of grants during July 2000, Collier County will need to enter into grant and maintenance agreements with FDOT. Chapter 14-40 of the Florida Administrative Code requires the Board passage of a Resolution approving tke grant application and authorizing the Count5' Administrator to execute agreements and documents associated with the grant request. The attached Resolution fulfills this state requirement. ,~."x,-~FISCAL IMPACT: There is no direct fiscal impact associated with this staff report. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached Resolution for the U.S. 41 North landscaping project, and direct the Board Chairman to execute same. SUBMITTED BY: ~-~' ~"7 ~ C /~ Peter S. Hayden E.I., Project Manager II Public Works Engineering Department ~t~f?Bibby, P.E., Direct0~r P~i ~~ing Department APPROVED Ed Ilschner, Administrator Public Works Division Date: /'~,'/~~ / NO.~_~~ JAN ! ! 2000 PG._ ~ _ RESOLUTION NO. 00- A RESOLUTION OF TIlE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AUTItORIZING 'FILE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO APPLY FOR A HIGHWAY BEAUTIFICATION COUNCIL GRANT FROM THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR MEDIAN AND ROADSIDE LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS ALONG U.S. 41 NORTH, FROM SEAGATE DRIVE TO GULF PARK DRIVE; AND, PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE THEREOF. WHEREAS, the median and roadside areas within the State of Florida Department of Transportation, U.S. 41 North, right-of-way between Seagate Drive to Gulf Park Drive are capable of receiving and sustaining landscape beautification improvements; and, WHEREAS, on November 23, 1999 pursuant to Agenda Item 16(B)10, thc Board of County Commissioners approved a project sequence and timing plan for implementing landscape beautification improvements along U.S. 41 North between Seagate Drive aod Gulf Park Drive (approximately 2.0 miles); and, WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioocrs and the County Administrator desire that Collier County commence construction U.S. 41 North landscape beautification improvements during Fiscal Year 2001 subsequent to closure of the July 2000 grant award cycle by the State of Florida Highway Beautification Council; and, WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners intend, through thc adoption of this Resolution, to authorize thc County Administrator to apply for a Highway Beautification Grant for U.S. 41 North laodscape improvements through the Florida Department of Transportatmn. NOW, 'IHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY I'ItE BOARD OF COL~NFY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: Section I. The Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, hereby direct and authorize the County Administrator to prepare and submit the necessary grant application and support documentation to the State of Florida Highway Beautification Council for U.S. 41 North landscape improvements in accord with proccdJ~eS set forth under Florida Statute ;4-40. Section 2. Thc Clerk to thc Board of County Commissioner is hereby directed to forward a certified copy of this Resolution to thc Florida Department of Transportation Barrow, Florida, as part of the ttighway Beautification Council Grant applicatmn submittal. Section 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida at regular meeting assembled this day of January, 2000. ATTEST: Dwight E. Brock, Clerk By: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: Approved as to form and le~t sufficiency: Assistant Count>, Attorney JAN 1 1 2000 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPROVE SETTLEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT DISPUTE WITH PRESERVATION SERVICES, INC., FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT PROCESS TANKS REPAIRS, CONTRACT 96-2524, AND RELATED WORK ORDER AMENDMENT WITH AGNOLI BARBER & BRUNDAGE, PROJECT 70023 OBJECTIVE: That the Board of County Commissioners, as Ex-Officio the Governing Board of the Collier County Water-Sewer District, approve a mutually agreed closing settlement of the construction contract dispute with Preservation Services, Inc., and an amendment to a related engineering services work order with Agnoli Barber & Brundage (ABB), for the South County Regional Water Treatment Plant (SCRWTP) Process Tanks Repairs project. CONSIDERATION: The Board awarded the subject construction project to Preservation Services, Inc., on May 14, 1996, item 16 (B)(9), to repair and permanently seal leaking cracks in three concrete water process tanks at the SCRWTP. The original contract required the contractor to complete all work prior to peak water demand season 1996 (October 1996). The contractor did not meet that schedule and was required by contract to demobilize that year and to remobilize in summer of 1997 to complete the work. The contractor remobilized in 1997 and attempted to complete the work, but two of the three tanks still exhibit cracks on the outside of the tanks. The tanks have continued to be used by the County since late December 1996. A dispute has arisen regarding maintenance and repairs to the remaining cracks in the tanks. The contractor contends that the project was substantially completed in December 1996 and that the tanks have been used by the County since that date. In order to resolve this dispute, however, the contractor has agreed to a settlement in the amount of $24,149.83 which is approximately one half of the balance remaining on the contract (i.e. $46,192.15) in exchange for relinquishment of any warranties related to the cracks in the tanks. The subcontractors' warranties related to painting work will remain in effect. Staff recommends that the Board approve a settlement authorizing the Public Works Engineering Director to execute, following review by the County Attorney's Office, any memorializing documents related thereto. We have obtained assurance in writing by our structural engineer, Kris Jain, Inc., that the tanks have structural integrity and with periodic cosmetic maintenance, they are in no danger of imminent collapse or failure. Because the life of this project has extended beyond the original completion date, our engineering consultant, ABB, rendered additional services on the County's behalf in the amount of $11,973.00, to arrive at this mutually agreed settlement. Staff recommends approval of an amendment to work order ABB-FT96-3 for compensation for these services. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds in the amount of $11,973.00 are available in the remaining balance of project 70023. There will be no fiscal impact to the construction contract related to the settlement agreement, as the settlement amount of $24,149.83 is available in project 7~0023. The source of funds is User Fees. n0 JAN 1 2000 , Executive Summary Approve Settlement Agreement and Work Order Amendment Page 2 - SCRWTP GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None RECOMMENDATIONS: That the Board of County Commissioners, as Ex-Officio the Governing Board of the Collier County Water-Sewer District, approve a settlement agreement with Preservation Services Inc., (Contract 96-2524), authorize the Public Works Engineering Department Director to execute any related memorializing documents and approve an amendment to work order ABB-FT96-3 with ABB for related engineering services for the SCRWTP Process Tanks Repair project, Project 70023. SUBMITTED BY: Peter Schalt, PMP, Project Manager Public Works Engineering Department Date: (~-~ichael Pettit, Assistant County Attomey County Attorney's Office ~/f;ufbfl~cibwb Yo2 ~ 'n g~2~jj D ep ar tm ent Paul Mattausch, Water Director Public Works Division APPROVED B~~~~2~~ Date: Ed Ilschner, Administrator Public Works Division NO. JAN 1 ! 2000 WORK ORDER # ABB-FT96-3 AMENDMENT #3 Agreement for Fixed Term Professional Engineering Services Dated September 26, 1995 (Contract #95-2422) This Work Order is for professional engineering services for work known Title: SCRWTP PROCESS TANKS POST-TENSIONING & REPAIRS The work is specified in the proposal dated December 22, 1999, which is attached hereto and made a part of this amended Work Order. In accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the A~eement referenced above, Work Order # ABB-FT96-3 is assigned to Agnoli, Barber & Brundage. Inc. Scope of Work: See attached letter dated December 22, 1999. Schedule of Work: Complete work within 60 days from receipt of the Notice to Proceed authorizing start of work. Compensation: In accordance with Article Five of the A~eement, the County will compensate the Firm in accordance with the negotiated time and material, not to exceed amount indicated in the schedule below: Task: Detailed Observation, Contract Administration & Settlement Assistance Time & Materials Not To Exceed $ I 1,973.00 Total $11,973.00 Any change within monetary authority of this Work Order made subsequent to final department approval will be considered an additional service and charged according to Schedule "A" of the Agreement. Peter Schalt, PMP, PWED Project Manager Date REVIEWED BY: JeffBibby, P.E., PWED Director Date JAN 1 1 20OO Work Order ABB-FT96-3 Amendment 3 Page 2 of 2 ATTEST: Dwight E. Brock, Clerk BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Collier County, Florida By: Deputy Clerk By: Chairman Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: ~'~ Assistant CoUnty Attorne~) Date: ATTEST: (Corporate Secretary) By: Signature Print Name (or) witnesses (2) Signature Print Name A~o~oli. Barber & Brunda~e, Inc Contractor Type Name and Title Signature Print Name JAN fl 2000 .~._ ,4- December 22, 1999 Mr. Pete Schalt, PI~P Collier County Public Works Engineering Department 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Bldg. D Naples, FL 34112 Re.' South County Water Treatment Plant ABB PN 6912-1/5337 Dear Pete: Pursuant to your request, we propose to render the following professional services with regard to miscellaneous tank repairs at the South Collier County Water Treatment Plant. Task 1. Detailed Observation, Contract Administration, and Settlement Assistance The above services are to be completed within 60 days of receipt of the Notification to Proceed. Charges will be made on a time and material basis, not to exceed Eleven Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy-three Dollars ($11,973.00). Should you have any questions regarding this please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, President ( / DWB/yo 12-288Y9.LTR ,%l,iin ()t'~]cc: 741}0 'l'.m~iaini l'r.ul N. ~,~:izc 200. N,ti,lc~. l-i, ,;~d,~ .-14 i4)N EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) TRACTOR/MOWER COMBINATION ON MADISON COUNTY, FLORIDA BID. OBJECTIVE: To obtain Board approval for the purchase of one (1) tractor/mower combination for the maintenance of County road rights-of-way. CONSIDERATIONS: The Road and Bridge Section requires a tractor/mower combination to mow County-maintained rights-of-way. The purchase of the equipment was approved by the Board in the FY 99-2000 budget request. The tractor/mower combination can be purchased from Creel Ford Tractor Company for $70,999.00 by piggy-backing onto a bid obtained by Madison County, Florida, on November 3, 1999. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds in the amount of $70,999.00 for the purchase of the tractor/mower combination are budgeted in Road and Bridge Fund (101). GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None RECOMMENDATION: That the Board approve the purchase of one (1) tractor/mower combination from Creel Ford Tractor Company based on a bid obtained by Madison County, Florida. SUBMITTED BY: ~ar,~ $7/~ . ,/ J ~nr y, Road,~NxB ri dg~Sgper~ndent Edward J. Kant, P~.~ansportation Services Director Stephen Y. Cmell, Purchasin~GS Director APPRO~D BY:~ Ed Ilschner, Public Works Administrator DATE: DATE: / ~- :-'z--: ~' ( EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AWARD A CONTRACT TO NATIVE CREATIONS INC., TO REMOVE EXOTIC VEGETATION AT SOUTH COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY, BID 99-2985, PROJECT 73916. OBJECTIVE: That the Board of County Commissioners, as the Ex-Officio Governing Board of the Collier County Water Sewer District, award a contract to eliminate exotic plant species and restore the natural plant communities at the South County Water Reclamation Facility (SCWRF) as mandated by Collier County Land Development Code. CONSIDERATIONS: A requirement of the approved Site Development Plan for the SCWRF is that all exotic vegetation be removed from the entire site and the site be maintained free of invasive exotic vegetation in perpetuity. This is a multi-year contract that will provide for the initial removal and disposal of all exotic vegetation with follow up maintenance of the site for five years. On October 6, 1999, sealed bids were opened for this project. Invitations to bid were sent to 83 contractors. Eight bid packages were received and are tabled below: Bidder Native Creations Inc. Forestry Resources Vegetation Management Inc. Aquatic Plant Management Inc. Rick Richards Inc. Aquagenix Land-Water Technologies Inc. Native Technologies Inc. Manning & Associates Florida Environmental Inc. Alnount $ 58,400.00 $ 83,237.44 $111,360.00 $118,8OO.00 $124,225.00 $147,608.00 $175,000.00 $ 209,004.00 The bid tabulations are attached. The lowest bid was received from Native Creations Inc., in the amount of $58,400. The low bidder has satisfactorily performed similar work for the County. Staff has reviewed the qualifications of the low bidder and recommends awarding Bid 99-2985 to Native Creations Inc. Additional funds for Construction Management Fees in the amount of $16,560 are needed for design, permitting, engineering and inspection services for this project. i/(',-:FISCAL IMPACT: A budget amendment in the amount of $74,960, will be required to transfer funds from Wastewater Capital reserves to project 73916 to fund this work. Funding source is User Fees Executive Summary Award Bid 99-2985 Page 2 GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATIONS: That the Board of County Commissions, as ex-officio the Governing Board of the Collier County Water Sewer District, approve the necessary budget amendment and award a contract to Native Creations, Inc., per Bid 99-2985. Alicia Abbott, PWED Project Manager II REVIEWED BY: c..jefft~ibby' P.E., PWED Director REVIEWED BY: ' Stel~heh Y. Carn~ll, Purchas~ng Director DATE: REVIEWED BY: heatham, Wastewater Director DATE: REVIEWED Ed Ilschner, Public Works Administrator ~aa 1 JAN f ! 2000 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPROVE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH LAW GIBB GROUP, INC., ARDAMAN AND ASSOCIATES, ASC GEOSCIENCES, AND FORGE ENGINEERING FOR THE FIXED TERM MATERIAL TESTING SERVICES (RFP #99- 2962). OBJECTIVE: That the Board of County Commissioners, approve a negotiated Professional Services Agreement with Law Gibb Group, Inc., Ardaman and Associates, ASC Geosciences, and Forge Engineering, to perform construction engineering inspection services pursuant to RFP 99-2962. CONSIDERATION: On November 2, 1999 as Agenda Item 16(B)(3), the Board approved the selection of Law Gibb Group, Inc., Ardaman and Associates, ASC Geosciences, and Forge Engineering, for providing material testing services on an as needed basis and authorized staff to negotiate a professional services agreement. Staff has negotiated the fees with the consultants Law Gibb Group, Inc., Ardaman and Associates, ASC Geosciences, and Forge Engineering. (~c~').FISCAL 1MPACT: Funding for material testing services shall be provided by each user division, ~ac-~ed ~yy ~ work order and purchase order funded by the using agency. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: This action will continue to improve staff ability to implement the Growth Management Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners, approve the Fixed Term Material Testing Services Agreement with Law Gibb Group, Inc., Ardaman and Associates, ASC Geosciences, and Forge Engineering RFP 99-2962 and authorize the Chairman to execute the Agreement, aRer review by the County Attorney and Risk Management Department. ~.,.~y C.' Ad~mnes Minor, P.E., Senior Project Manager Public Works Engineering Department 'Jeff Bibby, P.E., DirectoC¢ Public Works Engineering Department Sterne Car~ell, ~)irector -- ' -- Purchasing Department APPROVED BY: Public Works Division Date: 73//~ ~/~ ~ -- AGtr A I £ !. P,._ t .1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPROVE A LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND NTC DEVELOPMENT, LTD. FOR USE OF COUNTY-OWNED PROPERTY. ~[I.~Z~J3~: Approval of a Lease Agreement between Collier County ("County") and NTC Development, Ltd. for use of County-owned property which is located adjacent to thc Carlton Lakes PUD, Tract "C". CONSIDERATION: NTC Development, Ltd. ("NTC") has requested use of approximately fourteen thousand square feet of vacant County-owned property located in Section 19, Township 48, Range 26, which is located north of the intersection of Immokalee Road and the future Livingston Road. This site is a portion of the old Pelican Bay Improvement District well field and is an active well field. NTC shall utilize a portion of the property for placement of a mobile trailer to be used as a residential sales center for the approved PUD known as Carlton Lakes. The mobile unit and all improvements shall be placed in a location, which shall be approved by staff, that will not interfere with the well field on that site. Pursuant to Florida Statute 125.38, a Legal Notice ("Notice") was advertised in the Naples Daily News on December 20 and December 27, 1999. The Notice was advertised once (1) a week for two (2) consecutive weeks. A copy of the Notice and the Affidavit of Publication are on file in the Real Property Management Department. The conditions outlined in the Notice included the following requirements: a three (3) year lease term; a provision granting Collier County the right to terminate the Lease by providing a thirty (30) day written notice; a minimum annual rent of Eight Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($8,400.00) plus applicable sales tax; improvements placed on the subject property by the tenant are to be removed by the tenant at the termination of the Lease; the tenant shall provide the required insurance policy to the Collier County Risk Management Department; all required permits must be obtained in order to install a mobile office unit and tenant must conform to any and all County codes relating to improvements made upon the property; the tenant shall be required to pay all costs associated with the publication of the advertisement; and the tenant shall enter into a Lease Agreement with Collier County addressing related provisions concerning the leasing of County- owned property. According to the only sealed bid, provided by NTC, which is on file in the Real Property Management Department, the term requested shall commence on January 15, 2000 and shall terminate January 14, 2003. NTC has offered to pay an annual rental of Eight Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($8,400.00). The Lease contains a statement whereby the County does not guarantee that the property may be zoned for the intended use and that the Lessee accepts the property in as is condition. The Lessee shall be required to obtain all necessary permits in order to utilize the property as intended. This Executive Summary is being submitted to the Board at this time at the request of the Lessee so that the Board may approve the intended use so that the modular unit can be ordered. It is requested that the Board of County Commissioners approve this Lease and authorize its Chairperson to execute the Lease Agreement at a later date, to be forwarded by memorandum, following final review by the Office of the County Attorney. The Lease shall be reviewed by the Wastewater Administrator and the Risk Management Department. provide final review for content and legal sufficiency. Department Director, the Public Works The Office of the County Attorney shall FISCAL IMPACT: The annual rent of Eight Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($8,400.00) shall be deposited into the following account: Fund: 408 Cost Center: 233312 Project: 362180 (Water / Sewer Operating) (Treatment / Immokalee Road WWTP ) (Lease Land) GROWTH MANAGEMENT: None RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners approve NTC Development Ltd.'s request to utilize the subject property, authorize staff to finalize the Lease Agreement with NTC Development Ltd., approve the Lease Agreement and authorize its Chairperson to execute same following final review by the Office of the County Attorney. SUBMITTED BYL~:~ )(.x_c ~ a-£ (._. /5~ ~~" DATE: /& - ~ ~; Michael H. Dowling, Specii~li.~t III, R_~al Property Management D--e~-pa~e~ REVIEWED BY: p~h Che~-j~'a't'~r~ J atham, Director, Wastewater Department DATE: APPROVED BY:~DATE: Ed Ilschner, Administrator, Public Works Division 2000 I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE LIBRARY DIRECTOR TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE WRITTEN AGREEMENTS TO PURCHASE INTERNET ON-LINE DATABASE SUBSCRIPTIONS. OBJECTIVE: negotiate and tions. Obtain approval of Board for the resolution authorizing the Library Director to execute written agreements to purchase internet on-line database subscrip- CONSIDERATIONS: Many publishers of electronic data bases for libraries require a signed agreement detailing acceptable uses of the electronic products. They will not accept a signed purchase order instead of the written agreement. These agreements generally concern how the products are used by the public and and copyright issues. Currently, the Library sends these agreements to the County Attorney's Office for legal suffi- ciency review, and then to the Board with an Executive Summary. The Library will continue to increase purchases of on-line databases as the products become available. The format provides the best access to information for the greater number of Library Users. The majority of on-line database vendors permit off-site usage of their products by reg- istered Library Users. "-" All purchase orders issued for on-line databases and their accompanying license agreements _e subject to the Library having enough funds to purchase the subscription. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds for electronic resources are a regularly budgeted line item in the Library budget. As with any materials or equipment, sufficient funds must be available to obtain a purchase order. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this resolution authorizing the Director of the County Library to negotiate and execute written agreements to purchase internet on-line database subscriptions, subject to sufficient funds available for the purchase, and authorization of the Chairwoman to sign the resolution Mhrityn Ma(,{hes, Askistant Library Director Reviewed an..d ,--% ,3~x~.-co k c~-x~q Appr°ved bY Johannes, ~Directo}-- ,,,~.~, :viewed ami I _ ~ ~pproved by: !!~,~ ~_ ,~ . Thomas W. Olliff, ~ic Services Administrator DATE: DATE: Oi{q [ oo DATE: No. .g: ! 2 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 I? 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 32 33 34 35 36 37 39 4O 41 42 43 45 46 47 48 49 5O 51 RESOLUTION NO. 00 - A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING DIRECTOR OF THE COUNTY LIBRARY TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE WRITTEN AGREEMENTS TO PURCHASE INTERNET ON-LINE DATABASE SUBSCRIPTIONS, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS WHEREAS, The County's Library more and more frequently subscribes to on-line databases from unrelated vendors; and WHEREAS, because of intellectual property issues and contractual restrictions on purchasers of these types of databases, vendors will not sell these subscriptions by means of purchase orders; and WHEREAS, The Director of the County's Library has requested this delegation of authority, which conforms with the County's Purchasing Policy; and WHEREAS, the Board accepts and approves the Director's request. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: 1. The Director of the County's Library is hereby authorized to negotiate and execute Agreements to purchase subscriptions to on-line databases subject to the following: A. Each Agreement shall purchase only on-line database(s). Non-mandatory ancillary items or services shall not be purchased by any such Agreement if the item or service is then available for purchase by the County Library from another vendor at a lower total price, all cost factors being considered. B. "On-line database" is a large collection of data organized especially for rapid research and available to "subscribers" via the Internet. Library related on-line databases generally list bibliographical information and abstract such information and/or contain full-text of the information. Some such databases comprise "full-image" of the information. Database subscriptions are purchased from budgets and budgetary object codes that are exempt from generally applicable bidding requirements, such as for instance the Library purchasing library books. C. No such purchase Agreement shall commit the County to expend more than $25,000 and no such Agreement shall be subdivided in any manner to avoid this $25,000 limitation. D. Sufficient unencumbered funds to cover all of the County's purchase price obligations under the Agreement must be in the Library's budget upon execution of the Agreement on behalf of the County. No. I~'~ 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 15 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2'/ 28 29 30 31 32 33 3,4 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 E. If the term of the respective purchase Agreement extends beyond the then current fiscal year, the County's obligation regarding any subsequent fiscal year (or any part thereof) shall be subject to further budgetary approval by the Board. F. The County Attorney or an Assistant County Attorney must approve each purchase Agreement as to form and legal sufficiency. G. - If the County's "Purchasing Policy" should be revised to conflict with this delegation, this delegation shall supercede all such conflicts until this Resolution is repealed or the authorization herein delegated is otherwise modified by express action by the Board; e.g., this delegation of authorization shall not be deemed to be amended by inference or implication. 2. This Resolution shall apply to the current Director and each successor to that Office. THIS RESOLUTION adopted after motion, second and majority vote favoring adoption. DATED: ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: Deputy Clerk By: PAMELA S. MAC'KIE, Chairwoman Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: Thomas C. Palmer Assistant County Attorney h:tcp/Res./Delegation to Library Director 1-04-00 Pg. ~5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPROVE THE FINAL RANKING OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FIRMS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF MASTER OLAN FOR NORTH NAPLES REGIONAL PARK REQUEST-FOR-PROPOSAL, 99-2947. Objective: That the Board of County Commissioners approve the final ranking of the Landscape Architect Firms as recommended by the RFP Selection Committee, and authorize staff to negotiate a Professional Services Agreement with the number one ranked firm, Bellomo Herbert and Company, for professional landscape architecture design services for the implementation of a master plan for North Naples Regional Park pursuant to RFP #99-2947. Consideration: On June 1, 1999, request for proposal were distributed by the Purchasing Department to 86 architectural firms. 34 firms requested the full proposal package. 8 firms returned proposals on or before the established deadline of July 16, 1999. The Consultant Selection Committee was empowered by the County Administrator on May 21, 1999 and ranked the respondents after presentations as follows: 1. Bellomo Herbert and Company 2. Wilson Miller, Inc. 3. Herbert Halback, Inc. The Consultant Selection Committee ranked Bellomo Herbert and Company higher because of their vast experience with park design projects, their peer review process, as well as a demonstrated understanding of the environmental issues associated with this project. A copy of the Ranking Matrix and the Summary of Significant Factors Forms are attached. This agenda item was schering'led to be presented to the Board on December 14t~. Prior to that meeting, an award protest was received from the second-ranked firm. A copy of the protest and the Purchasing Director's decision are enclosed. '""~.rowth Management: None Fiscal Impact: There is no fiscal impact at this time. Recommendation: That the Board of County Commissioners approve the short list as recommended by the RFP Selection Committee for the Implementation of Master Plan for North Naples Regional Park RFP and authorize staff to begin negotiations with Bellomo Herbert and Company. Prepared by: Date: Reviewed and Approved by: James Fitzek, Operations Manager Department of Parks and Recreation .' / tl YZd M'arl~'l~a~ey, Dir~Cior ~ Department of Parks and Wecreation Reviewed and Approved by: Steve Carhell, Direotor Department of Purchasing Reviewed and ~ Approved by:~ ~3~c~~~ Thomas W. Olliff, Admi~ator Division of Public Serviu'"b~ Date: Date: \.,,~.~ ,c~ JAN ! 1 2§00 I 12/~/1999 9~1732~844 PURCHASING Wil nMiiler PAGE December 1, 1999 O .C - ! F:£$ Mr. Steve Carnell Purchasing Director Collier County Purchasing 3301 E. Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 RE: PROTEST "OFFICE LOCATION AND RESPONSIVENESS' CRITERIA AND EV,~LUATION FOR RFP #99-2947 -- IMPLEMENTATION OF A MASTER PLAN FOR NORTH NAPLES REGIONAL PARK Dear Mr. Carnell: In accordance with section XVIII.D of Collier County Resolution 95-353, Wi]sonMiller, Inc. ~s submitting the formal protest described herein regarding RFP # 99-2947 -- Implementation of a Master Plan for North Naples Regional Park. The enclosed information fully responds to the County's request for information regarding WilsonMiller's protest of the County's selection of BeIIomo Herbert and Company to provide the services for the above-referenced RFP. We have reviewed the information you have made available to us and believe that the County will recognize that inconsistent policy application and mathematical errors led to an incorrect final ranking. The following information includes the results of our analysis of this decision, supported by information that we obtained from County documents, including the original RFP, scoring sheets, and audio [apes of Selection Committee sessions. Requested information follows: 1. Name and address of County agency affected and the bid number and title. Collier County Parks & Recreation Department 3300 Santa Barbara Boulevard Napes, FL 34116 RFP # 99-2947 -- Implementation of a Master Plan for North Naples Regional Park 2. The name and address of the protesting party. WilsonMiller. Inc. 3200 Bailey Lane, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34105-8507 2000 12/38/1559 8~:21 $417328844 PURCHASING PAGE 82 Wilso'nMiller RFP#99-2947 Collier County Purchasing Page 2 3. Statement of disputed issues of material fact, The County made arbitrary policy decisions and failed to follow and/or apply the County's stated guidelines consistently relative to the evaluation and ranking of firms for the stated RFP. Specifically, the County failed to correctly use the "Office location and responsiveness" evaluation criterion as demonstrated by: A. Ignoring published guidelines to give "proposer with all key personnel in Collier County $ points" for office location and responsiveness. B. An incorrect final ranking by Murdo Smith for the oral presentation rating WilsonMiller 3r° with his numerical scores tallying a clear 2~° position. C. Failure to consider office location throughout both phases (technical proposal and oral presentation) of the evaluation process D. Failure to notify shortlisted firms of a change in the evaluation criteria and associated points. 4. A concise statement of the ultimate facts alleged and of any relevant rules, regulations, statutes, and constitutional provisions entitling the protesting party to relief. Failure to follow and/or apply consistent guidelines -- The RFP #99-2947 included a Section titled Evaluation And Selection Procedure, and a Section titled Evaluation of Proposals which collectively set forth the process, criteria and guidelines to be used for the selection process. The seven criteria and associated points set forth in the RFP were used during the evaluation of the technical submittal leading to the shortlist, but were not followed during the Selection Committee interviews for final consultant selection A different set of criteria were used by the County to evaluate the presentations without notification to the shortlisted firms. This change in evaluation criteria resulted in the final rankings that were forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners. Criteria #4 in the Request for Proposal specifically awards 5 points based on the office location of the proposer's key staff. WilsonMiller is the only prime consultant of the three shortlisted firms with a Collier County office and with all key staff- located in Cotlier County. Due to the very close scoring on the evaluation between the first- ranked firm and WilsonMiller, the failure to include this criteria in the final ranking changed the outcome of recommended contract award (see item #6), The average score earned by the first ranked firm. Bellomo Herbert, was 90.2. The average raw score of WilsonMiller was 87.0, Clearly 5 points would have resutted ~n a reversal of the first place ranking. Supplemental facts include: · Changes from the original evaluation criteria were not published, only a letter issued elaborating on topics the Selection Committee wanted emphasized during the oral presentation. · Office tocation was either ignored or inconsistently applied by several Committee members in the techmcal evaluation process as demonstrated by Agenda Item JAN I 1 2000 121381199~ 89:21 9417328844 PURCHASING PAGE 83 WtTsdnMiller RFP~99-2947 Collier County Purchasing Page 3 their ranking of all firms, local or out-of-town, the same. In many instances an Orlando prime firm and WilsonMiller were given identical scores for office location and responsiveness -- RFP clearly states "proposer with all key personnel located in Collier County will receive five (5) points." SCORING SUMMARY. FROM_TECHNICAL.EVALUATION FOR OFFICE LOCATION AND RESPONSIVENESS !:',/ Bellomo Herbert WilsonMiller Evaluator 4 4 T.K. 5 4 J.D., 4 4 M.R. 5 5 M.S. 5 5 W,F. No standards were given or applied to ensure consistent allocation of points for both the technical and oral evaluation phases -- the technical evaluation ranking, which included points for location, albeit incorrectly applied, was not additive to the oral presentation evaluation to determine final ranking, thereby eliminating any advantage to the firm with all key personnel located in Collier County. WilsonMiller was ranked first based on the technical evaluation, even with location points awarded to non-local firms equal to or greater than WilsonMiller. Arbitrary policy decisions - the Selection Committee members agreed to reduce the office !ocation weigt3t as evidenced by the introductory statements made during the first Selection Committee meeting. · A clear intent to reduce or eliminate office location criterion appears to have been made by the Selection Committee as demonstrated through a "Services Selection Committee Meeting" dialogue by a Committee member with the Purchasing Department on tape, in e-mail as well as by voting actions. Executive Summary of Final Rankings submitted to the Board of County Commissioners for final selection is incomplete and misleading The slight difference of 3.2 points between the first place (Bellomo Herbert and Company) and second place (WilsonMiller) firms is clear upon examination of the Committee's oral presentation worksheets, as is the elimination of any consideration for office location. However, these were not provided to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) for their consideration in deciding the final selection. The Ranking Matrix Form submitted to the BCC for final award only indicates points awarded for the number of place rankings by each Committee member, suggesting a wide separation between the firms. Although ranked :~ by this method,'WilsonMiller's minor difference between 1 and 2"~ place is not apparent. In addition, the scoring sheet of one Committee member incorrectly showed WilsonMilter ranked as third when the point total clearly shows second, which error was repeated in the BCC summary. For a contractj~ ,hi~gend. JAN 1 1 2000 WilsdnMiller RFP#99-2947 Collier County Purchasing Page 4 magnitude, full information on the merits of each finalist's proposal should be provided to and considered by the BCC as should the criteda used. No reference was made to the technical rankings that led to the shortlist. No indication was given that the published criteria had been changed by the Selection Committee. A demand for the relief to which the protesting party deems himseff entitled. A. General Policy and Procedures - o Collier County should employ consistent scoring criteria throughout the full consultant evaluation process. · Collier County should place an appropriate value on the location of the prime consultant, Selection of well-qualified local firms provides many advantages to Collier County and the Public. Among the advantages are intimate knowledge of local conditions and needs, ease and efficiency of communications, and the positive impact to our local economy through support of local business. Virtually, all counties and cities in which WilsonMiller competes for work outside of Collier County give a specific advantage to qualified locally-based firms. Enterprise Florida uses and economic earnings multiplier of 1.8625 times revenue to estimate the positive impact of revenues retained in the local economy Assuming a $700,000 contract, this equates to $1,303,750 of economic value B. RFP #99-2947 Should Be Re-ranked Usinq The Published Criteria - Collier County should either (1) re-rank this selection using the published criteria including points for local presence for both the technical and oral portions of tills proposal, or (2) rely upon [he technical phase rankings with appropriate adjustment for office location. Suct~ other information as the protesting party deems to be material to the issue. A Application of consistent evaluation criteria may have significantly changed the final point spread ~n the technical evaluation phase Cons,stendy applying a "5" ranking for WitsonMiller (based in Collier County) and a generous "4" ranking for Bellomo Herbert (Orlando) redistributes the results in a 6-point advantage to WilsonMilller, not the 2.5-point spread (WilsonMiller - 35. Bellomo Herbert - 32.5) submitted by the Selection Committee. Fudhermore. if consistent criteria were then applied to the oral presentation evaluation, the final outcome may have been reversed. 13. WilsonMiller submits that the "prime consultant' should be the primary basis for evaluating office location This was not the case. A random survey of other Collier County-issued Requests for Proposals demonstrates an inconsistency for consideration of local presence, ranging from 2% to 20% At that, thisNor~h Naples Regional Park RFP is at the Iow end of the continuum in this respect. 12/30/1~g D~:21 ~41732004~ PURCN~5IN~ P~6E 05 WilsdnMiller RFP#99-2947 Collier County Purchasing Page 5 Proposal Name Local ::' Preference RFP # Score as a % of Total Score Implementation of a Master Plan for North Naples Regional Park Fixed Term Land Surveying & Photogrametnc Services Design & implementation of 30'* Parallel Sewer Force Main Fixed Term Professional Engineering Services Grade Separation Study Architectura~ Services for Design of a Golf Course Facility Engineering Services for Implementation of Master Plan for South Naples Community Park Construction Engineerrng Inspecbon Services for Immokatee Road Annual Contract for Transportation Planning Consultant Design 8, Permitting of Livingston Road from Golden Gate Parkway to Vanderbilt Beach Road Fixed Term Professional Landscape Architectural Services Construction Engineering & Inspection Services. Livingston Road Annual Contract for Traffic Engineering Consultant Services Consultant Services for Development of Regional Impact Process Airport Authority Cor~sultin9 Serwces 99-2947 5 99-2981 10. 98-2790 16 98-2835 2 99-301D 5 99-2916 5 97-2745 20 99-2996 5 98-2902 5 98-2904 15 98-2777 5 98-2849 5 98-2803 2 98-2856 5 99-2911 14 Our primary purpose is to compel the Board of County Commissioners to establish a defined and consistent policy on local preference, It is also important that the Commissioners see how closely the two shortlisted firms were actually ranked, without consistent consideration of location Studies have shown quantifiable advantages to agencies from hiring local consultants. When two firms are nearly equally matched by all other measures, location of the prime consultant's office within the County should offer enough value to swing the selection to the local firm, This thinking was expressed in the rules for the submittal, but the criteria not followed resulting in a significant contract being recommended to a non local firm. Sincerely, WilsonMill~ Inc. Alan D. Reynolds, AICP /~" President & CEO ~' cc Tom Olliff. Administrator, Division of Public Services JAN 1 I 2000 | 89:21 B~17328~44 PU~C~SING P~5 ~ COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION PURCHASING DEPARTMENT December 29 1999 Mr. Alan D. Reynolds, AICP President & CEO Wilson, Miller Inc. 3200 Bailey Lane, Suite 200 Naples, FI. 34105-8507 GENERAL SERVICES BI. IX3. 3301 E. TAMIAMI TRAIL NAPLES, FLORfDA 34112 (941) 774-8425 FAX: (941) 732-0844 Re: * Protest Decision, Award of RFP 99-2947, Implementation of a Master Plan for North Naples Regional Park Dear Mr. Reynolds: This office has reviewed and considered your protest of the short list recommendation for the referenced project award. This effort has included a careful analysis of the published RFP document (in particular, the language addressing the evaluation and selection processes) and the evaluation forms. Also, discussions have been conducted with the selection committee members concerning the selection process. SUMMARY OF AND FINDINGS REGARDING EACH ISSUES: The following is a summary of the primary Issues alleged in the protest (in bold) and findings regarding each: 1) The selection committee failed to apply the published evaluation criteria in the oral presentation phase of the evaluation process. Page 18, paragraph 4 of the RFP stales that the committee will evaluate the proposals based on the published evaluation criteria. Said criteria were In fact employed in the initial evaluation (of the written proposals). Paragraph 6 of the same section states that the Committee may schedule presentations from the top-ranked firms as determined in the initial evaluation. The same paragraph also states that "the final recommendation will be decided based on review of scores and consensus of committee". As stated tn the referenced paragraph, the final recommendation of the committee is "by consensus". 1213811999 89:21 9417328844 PURCHASING PAGE 87 Mr. Alan D. Reynolds December 29, 1999 Page 2 Nowhere in the RFP is the use of alternative scoring criteria in the subsequent evaluation (I.e., post-presentation) expressly sanctioned or prohibited. However, it can be argued that the phrase "review of scores" at the very least implies the use of the published criteria. · Subsequent to the initial evaluation, the committee distributed a notice formally announcing the "shortlisted" firms and inviting them to make presentations to the committee on October 28th. Included in the announcement was a list of topics for each firm to address in their presentation. In turn, the presenting firms were evaluated on the basis of -each of the topic areas in the presentation. 2) The Office Location criterion was not properly applied in the scoring of Wilson Miller's and Bellomo Herbert's proposals respectively. Contrary to the assedions of the protest, Joe Delate gave Wilson Miller a "5" rather than a "4" for this criterion in the initial review. With regard to the scores assigned to Wilson Miller by Maria Ramsey and Tom Kuck respectively, Ms. Ramsey has indicated that her score was based on the fact that a portion of Wilson Miller's subconsulting team (the electrical engineering firm) was not located in Collier County. Mr. Kuck indicated that his score of "4" was an error and should have been a "5". The Committee members, in general, gave Bellomo Herbert high scores on this criterion based on the strong local presence and planned involvement of thdr subconsulting team, particularly Smallwood Landscaping. 3) The final rankings submitted by Murdo Smith varied from the actual order of his raw scores for the shortllsted firms. In the presentation phase, rankings were tallied by assigning three points for every 1st place vote, two points for every 2''~ place and one point for every 3rd place vote. Review of that tallying process indicates that Mr. Smith's rankings were in fact incorrectly tallied. However, as the following indicates, the error did not affect the outcome of the rankings: 1213811999 C9:21 9417328844 PURCHASING PAGE 88 Mr. Alan D. Reynolds December 29, 1999 Page 3 Name of Firm Actual Ranking points (Rank) Corrected Ranking Points (Rank~ Bellomo-Herbert 15 (1) 15 (1) Wilson-Miller 9 (2) 10 (2) Herbert-Halback 6 (3) 5 (3) 4) The committee added the respective rankings of each member to determine the apparent order of the firms rather than the raw scores of each member. Raw scores are used to establish an order among the proposing firms within each individual committee member. Rankings are then compiled to reflect each individual's preferred order. Use of raw scores can display the difference between firms more accurately than rankings. Conversely, they can also create statistical anomalies and outcomes that are counter to the collective will of the committee. 5) Selection committee recommendations are ultimately reached via consensus reached In a public forum (pre-announced selection committee meetings). Regardless of which compiling method is used, recommendations are ultimately a group effort achieved in a setting open for public view. The respective weights applied for the location criterion vary greatly from RFP to RFP. While this office has not specifically verified the weights represented for location in each of the RFPs referenced in the protest, such variation in scores is not inconsistent with the Consultants Competitive Negotiation Act nor the policy of the Board of County Commissioners. With regard to the latter, the Board on March 9, 1999 endorsed a recommendation from County staff to continue to weigh the location criterion on a "project-by- project basis", taking into consideration the applicability of location to the needs of each project (see enclosed executive summary). The "5" point weight assigned for the office Location/responsiveness criterion was published in the RFP and not formally questioned by any firm during the publication period. i A gend~ It. em '~ I 12/3~/1999 ~B:21 9417328844 PURCHASING PAGE Mr. Alan D. Reynolds December 29, 1999 Page 4 REQUESTED REMEDIES: The protest seeks to have the published criteria applied to both phases and to have an appropriate value (presumably greater than the published value) assigned to the office location/responsiveness criterion. Given that the published criteda establish a value for office location, it is not possible to achieve both objectives at this point in the process (i.e. if the value of the office location criterion is altered after the fact, then the published value is not being adhered to). This office has carefully considered the merits of the protest and the actions of the selection committee. Arguments can clearly be made on behalf of both positions. While it does not appear that the committee violated any expressed laws or policies, this office concurs in this instance with the protester's argument regarding the use of the published criteria as the preferred framework for evaluation tn both phases. In light of this, the scores and rankings of the committee were re-considered under each of the scenarios: The scores from the presentation phase were extrapolated back to the published criteria (each member's corrected score for Office Location and the Ability to Complete within Budget were carried forward from the initial evaluation) and the firms re-ranked based on each committee member's individual rankings (see spreadsheet'#l enclosed). The same extrapolation process was applied to the presentation scores and the firms re-ranked by adding each committee member's aggregate raw scores. (see spreadsheet #1 enclosed) The Selection Committee was re-convened and asked to re-score the presentation phase using the published evaluation criteria (see spreadsheet #2 enclosed). In each instance, the proposal from Bellomo-Herbert received the highest score/ranking. Also, pursuant to re-scoring/ranking the proposals, the selection committee also agreed by consensus to recommend Bellomo-Herbert as the top- - ranked firm. JAN ! 1 2000 I 1~/3DI1999 ~:21 9~17328844 PU~CH~SIN~ ~E 18 Mr. Alan D. Reynolds December 29, 1999 Page 5 PRO TEST DECISION Therefore, In consideration of the information presented in the protest and herein, it is the decision of this office to proceed forward with the (reconsidered) selection committee recommendation to rank the shortlisted firms as follows: 1) Bellomo-Herbert 2) Wilson-Miller 3) Herbert-Halback This item has been tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Board of County-Commissioners on Tuesday, January 11, 2000. Under Section XVIII.F of County Resolution 97-435, this decision is considered final and conclusive unless the protester files a subsequent objection with this office not later than two working days from receipt of the decision. Separate and apart from this protest matter, this office remains willing to continue discussions with you and other consulltants regarding the County's consultant selection process in general. Sincerely, Steve Carne I, Purchasing/General Services Director Enclosures EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING THE SELECTION OF CONSULTANTS. OBJECTIVE: To enhance and clarify the County's processes for selecting and negotiating contracts for professional services subject to Section 287.055, F.S., other'wise known as "The Consultant's Competitive Negotiation Act". CONSIDERATIONS: On December 8, 1998, the Board of County Commissioners awarded the annual engineering services agreement to seven firms. Pursuant to making that award, the Board directed staff to provide follow up information concerning the competitive selection of consultants under the aforementioned law. Prior to and concurrent with that discussion, staff has been developing policies and procedures concerning issues raised both in and apart from the December 8t~ discussion for consideration herein. The primary issues to be referenced in this presentation include the following: · Consideration of the consultant's work Iocation in the se(ection process. · Interaction between consultants and county officials at various stages of the selection (and negotiation) process(es). tmplementing uniform procedures for administering the selection procefs (e.g.; appointing committee members, developing the RFP, providin~r'l~u~"~c notice of and access to selection committee proceedings and scoring/ranking the proposals received). With regard to the first issue, staff has reviewed the distribution of all pertinent consultant contract awards over the past three years and noted more than 71% of the dollars expended have been paid to firms located in Collier County. Additionally, nearly 95% of the dollars expended under term agreements for these professional services have been paid to '"In County" firms. Based on this information, it does not appear that the local consulting firms are receiving a disproportionately Iow share of the County's business. Therefore, staff does not advocate adopting any type of local preference policy. Rather, it is staff's ~ recommendation that location continue to be considered on a project-by-project basis, specific to the needs of the job. In other words, the criterion for location would be weighted more heavily for projects wherein a local presence is required or clearly advantageous and less heavily when location is not as significant. Direction regarding the application of this concept would be addressed by administrative procedure. 12/38/19~ ~:21 ]417328844 PURCHASING PAGE 12 Concerning the interaction between consultants and County staff/officials, both consultant and staff members alike have raised questions regarding when they are permitted/not permitted to contact the other during the selection prOcess. Accordingly, staff is drafting a policy to provide direction in this matter. Upon concurrence from the Board, staff will submit the proposed policy under a future Board agenda. The primary components of the policy include the following: Encouraging open contact between consultants and County representatives (i.e., staff and elected officials) prior and subsequent to the issuance of a Request for Proposals. Protecting the fairness, openess and competitive nature of the process by limiting contact between consultsnts and County representatives durin9 the publication, evaluation and award phases to specific individuals with direct responsibility for the acquisition process. With regard to the third issue, st~-ff h~s developed and is presently implementing updated administrative procedures applicable to all staff members participatin.c in the selection and negotiation processes. FISCAL IMPACT: No direct expense would result from this action. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: N/A. RECOMMENDATION: That The Bc~rd of County Commissioners accept the staff report regarding the consultant selection process, concur with staff's plan to address the issue of consultant location as described herein and direct staff to return to the Board with the actual Consultant/County Representative Interaction policy for subsequent Board consideration. SUBMITTED BY: Date: Steve Carnell. Purchasing/General Services Director REVIEWED BY: Leo Ochs. Support Services Administrator Date: 12/~B/1BBB ~B;21 B417~2~8~ PU~CM~SIM~ P~GE 1~ Z I.- 0 12138/1999 09:21 9417328844 PURCHASING RFP 99-2497 COMPILATION OF SCORES RESCORING/RERANKING: Evaluator Firm Name T. Kuck J, Delate M. Ramsey M. Smith B. Flynn Approach 25 pts. Expertise 20 pts. Prey. Perf. 20 pts. Loc./Resp. 5 pts. On Time 15 pts. Budget 15 pts. Total 100 pts. Ranking Bellomo Herbert 23 lg 19 4 14 14 93 1 Herbert Halbeck 21 17 19 3 14 13 87 3 Wilson Miller 22 18 19 5 14 14 92 2 Bellomo Herbert 24 18 19 4 15 14 94 1 Herbert H~ilbeck 21 15 19 2 12 13 82 3 Wilson Miller 23 19 17 5 14 14 92 2 Bellomo Herbert 25 20 18 4 13 14 94 1 Herbert Ha[beck 18 18 15 3 13 10 77 3 Wilson Miller 22 20 17 4 13 12 88 2 5 3 5 18 16 18 14 14 14 24 20 23 14 14 14 19 17 18 94 Bellomo Herbert Herbert Halbeck Wilson Miller Bellomo Herbert 25 20 20 5 10 10 90 1 Herbert Halbeck 15 18 19 4 10 10 76 3 Wilson Mtller 20 20 18 4 10 10 82' 2 ScoFes Bellomo Herbert 121 95 95 22 66 63 465 1 Herbert Halbeck 95 84 89 15 63 62 406 3 Wilson Miller 110 95 88 23 62 64 446 2 JAN I 1 2000 I 22/38/Z99~ 8~:22 ~4Z732B844 PURCHAS2NG PAGE SPREADSHEET #1 RFP 99-2497 COMPILATION OF SCORES 2ND REVIEW (Oral Preaentetlone): Extrapolated back to orglnsl criteria T. KutS< Firm NRme l_ Appropch ] Expertise of I Previous Designated I Performance on Staff ! Similar ProJe_cts Bellomo Herbert 23.33 18.40 2000 Herbert Helbeck 23.33 17,60 1 B.87 Wilson Miller 24.17 18,40 18.67 J. Delete Bellomo Herbert Herbert HBIbeck Wilson Miller M. Ramsay Bellomo He, bert Herbert Halbeck Wilson Miller 23.33 17.60 17.33 20.83 16.00 17.33 22.50 18.40 16,00 20.83 1600 20,00 18.33 14,40 2000 20,00 16.00 20,00 Bellomo Herbert 23.33 1920 2000 Herbert HBibeck 23.33 18.40 16.67 Wilson Miller 23.33 19,20 18.67 M. Smith Bellomo Herbert 20,83 20,00 20,00 Herbert Halbeck 16.67 16,00 13,30 Wfl$on Miller 20.63 16,00 13.30 B. Flynn IOffice Location & I Complete Responsiveness J on Time I Complete J within Budge! I Total 12.00 91.23 12.00 86,60 13,00 91.24 400 13.50 3.00 12.00 4.00 13.00 4.00 12.50 14.00 86.76 2,00 11.50 13.00 80.66 5.00 12.50 14.00 88,40 4.00 12,50 13.00 66.33 4.00 10.00 13,00 79.73 4 00 12.00 13,00 85,00 500 14.00 14,00 95.53 3 00 13 00 14 00 90 40 5.00 13.50 14,00 93.70 500 12.50 10.00 88.33 300 10.00 1000 6897 5,00 12.50 10.00 77.63 Compiled Bellomo Herbert Raw Herbert Halbeck Scores Wilson Miller 111,65 91.20 97,33 102.49 82,40 87.97 110,83 88.00 86.64 22.00 65.00 63.00 45018 1500 56.50 62.00 406,36 23.00 63.50 64.00 435,97 Compiled Beflomo Herbert By Wilson Miller Rankings Herbert Haibeck t st Place 2nd Piece 3rd Place Total Poinls Rank 4x3=12 lx2 = 2 0 14 1 lx3 = 3 4x2 = 8 0 11 2 0 0 5x1= 5 5 3 i:: Agenda ~.~.'e~ - NC) JAN 1 1 2000 SPREADSHEET #2 RFP 99-2497 COMPILATION OF SCORES RESCORINGIRERANKING: Evaluator Firm Name T. Kuck J. Delate M. Ramsey M. Smith B. Flynn Approach Expertise 25 pis, 20 p~s. Prey, Perf. Loc./Resp. On Time Budget 20 pts. 5 pts. 15 pts. 15 pts. Total 100 pts. Ranking Bellomo Herbed 23 19 19 4 14 14 93 1 He~eA Ha~beck 21 17 19 3 14 13 87 3 Wilson Miller 22 18 19 5 14 14 92 2 Bellomo Herbert 24 18 19 4 15 14 94 1 Herbert Halbeck 21 15 19 2 12 13 82 3 Wilson Miller 23 19 17 5 14 14 92 2 Bellomo Herbert 25 20 18 4 13 14 94 1 Herbert Halbeck 18 18 15 3 13 10 77 3 Wilson Miller 22 20 17 4 13 12 88 '~ Bellomo Herbert 24 18 19 5 14 14 94 , Herbert Halbeck 20 16 17 3 14 14 84 3 Wilson Miller 23 18 18 5 14 14 92 2 Rellomo Herbert 25 20 20 5 10 10 90 1 Herbert Halbeck 15 18 19 4 10 10 76 3 Wilson Miller 20 20 18 4 10 10 82 2 Scores Bellomo Herbert 121 95 95 22 66 63 465 1 Herbert Ha;beck 95 84 89 15 63 62 406 3 Wilson Miller 110 95 88 23 62 64 446 2 No JAN 1 1 ?00,) 12/30tlcjcJCJ 13:21 cj4.1.7328844 PURCHASING PAGE 81 RFP #' RFP TITLE: In31 ~oJOtO~ Co SIGNIFICANT FACTORS PERTAINING TO SHORTLIST FIRMS: Par....~k SIGNIFICANT FACTORS TO RANKING OF TOP THREE FIRMS: ProjeCt Manager P~'r~l'~ir~] Agent Date Date EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPROVAL OF AN AFFIDAVIT CONCERNING AN APPROVED LEASE AGREEMENT WITH BELLSOUTH MOBILITY, INC. OBJECTIVE: Approval of an Affidavit concerning an approved Lease Agreement with BellSouth Mobility, Inc. CONSIDERATION: On December 1, 1998, item 16 D 1, the Board of County Commissioners approved a Tower Option and Lease Agreement with BellSouth Mobility, Inc. ("BellSouth") in order to secure a position on the County-owned communication tower and to utilize a portion of the property in order to accommodate an equipment shelter at the County Barn Facility on County Barn Road, Naples. At this time, BellSouth is requesting that the County execute an Affidavit concerning ownership of the property so that BellSouth may obtain title insurance for their leasehold interest in property. The Affidavit states that the County is the sole owner of the property; there are no contracts for sale of the property; there is no unrecorded mortgage on the property; and, to the County's knowledge, there are no liens, unrecorded easements or assessments against the property. The attached Affidavit has been was reviewed by the Office of the County Attorney. FISCAL IMPACT: None. GROWTH MANAGEMENT: None RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners approve the Affidavit with BellSouth Mobility, Inc. and authorize its Chairwoman to execute same. SUBMITTED BY: ~. t.~-A_L/-.--/~r~ ,~ DATE: / · . pec(ahX~t ~lghchael H. Dowhng, S IIIj-l~eal Property Management Department ~.~., -[ DATE: S andra"'l'~yl~'r, Dir~ctor~-Real Management Department Leo E. Ochs, Jr., Adr~nlhisC'ator, Support Services Division No. //~ ! JAN tl 2000 AFFIDAVIT STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF 3COLLIER I hereby certify that on this day before me, the undersigned notary public authorized in the state and county named above to administer oaths and take acknowledgments, personally appeared ("Affiant"), as the Chairman of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, ("Collier County") ("Landlord") who, being by me first duly sworn, says upon oath as stated below. I. Collier County is the sole owner of the real property in Collier County, Florida, described on attached Exhibit A. 2. Collier County has been in sole possession of the property and there is no other person who has any possessory right in the property except tenants of the building and the tower located on the property, none of which have rights inconsistent with the proposed lease to BellSouth Mobility, Inc. 3. To Collier County's knowledge, there are no unrecorded labor, mechanics' or materialmen's liens against the property, and no material has been furnished or labor performed upon the property which has not been paid in full. All improvements and construction on the property have been completed more than 90 days prior to the date of the affidavit. 4. To Collier County's knowledge, there are no unrecorded easements, liens or assessments for sanitary sewers, paving, or other public utilities against the property. 5. There is no outstanding contract for sale of the property to any other person or unrecorded mortgage existing against the property. 6. This affidavit is given to induce BellSouth Mobility, Inc. to lease the property and to induce Old Republic National Title Insurance Company to issue title insurance on the leasehold interest in the property. Affiant hereby agrees to indemnify, defend, and save harmless BellSouth Mobility, Inc., and the aforenamed title insurance company, and its successors and assigns, from any less, costs, damages, expenses, or attorneys' fees arising by reason of the existence of any unfiled mechanics', laborers', and materialmen's liens, and agrees to properly discharge and dispose of record all claims of liens that may be fried against said property and to pay all court costs and attorneys' fees which may be incurred in connection therewith. ATTEST: DATED:. DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA , Deputy Clerk By:. Approved .~o form a[~leg~.l sufficiency: Thomas PMmer, Assistant County Attorney NO. / JAN 1 1 2000 Exhibit "?' A part of the following described lease parcels: Parcel 1: (O.R.B. 350, Page 289) The North Half (N ½) of the South Half (S ¼) of the North Half (N ½) of the Southeast Quarter (SE ¼) of the Southwest Quarter (SW ~A) of Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, containing 5 acres, more or less. Parcel 2: (O.R.B. 350, Page 290) The South Half (S ½) of the South Half (S ½) of the North Half (N ½) of the Southeast Quarter (SE ¼) of the Southwest Quarter (SW 'A) of Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, CoLher County, Florida, containing 5 acres, more or less. TPA1 ~940564 vl A~NOA ITEM JAN 1 I 2000 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPROVAL OF AN ASSIGNMENT OF LEASE BETWEEN LANDMARK ESTATES AND HOMETOWN LANDMARK LLC. ALAGOLD CORPORATION D/B/A 12~t~,~I~: Approval of an Assignment of Lease between Alagold Corporation doing business as (d/b/a) Landmark Estates and Hometown Landmark LLC. CONSIDERATION: Alagold Corporation d/b/a Landmark Estates entered into a Lease Agreement with Collier County on August 2, 1989 for use of a parcel of land lying near the intersection of U.S. 41 and C.R. 887. The property is used for providing a storage area for boats and recreational vehicles for the residents of Landmark Estates. The Lease term is for ten (10) years commencing August 15, 1989 and is scheduled to terminate on August 14, 1999. The Lease includes one (1) renewal term of ten (10) years. The rent for each ten (10) year term is Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00). Recently, the Lessee has provided Collier County with the required written notice of its intention to renew the Lease as provided for in the Agreement. The Lessee has also provided the required rent of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) for the renewal Lease term. The Lease contains a termination provision for either party to terminate the Lease by providing the other party with sixty (60) day written notice as specified in Article 2 of the Lease. At this time, the Lessee is requesting that the Lease Agreement be assigned to its' successor, Hometown Landmark LLC. The Lease Agreement contains a provision for the Lessee to assign the Lease to another party with written consent of the Lessor. The attached Assignment of Lease has been prepared in order to assign the Lease Agreement dated August 2, 1989 from Alagold Corporation dPo/a Landmark Estates ("Assignor") to Hometown Landmark LLC ,..--("Assignee"). fhe Assignment has been executed by the Assignor and the Assignee and has been reviewed by the Office of the County Attorney. FISCAL IMPACT: None. GROWTH MANAGEMENT: None RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners approve the Assignment of Lease with Alagold Corporation d/b/a Landmark Estates and Hometown Landmark LLC and authorize its Chairwoman to execute same. SUBMITTED BY: ' DATE: / ~ · / G ' ~ Michael H. Dowling, Real Prope~ecial~ Real Property Management Department Sandra'h-I.~aylor, Director, Real Prope~--X'~nagement Department Leo E. Ochs, Jr., Ad port Services Division J. N 1 1 2000 ASSIGNMENT OF LEASE Lease #729 This Assignment of Lease is dated this of . , by and between Alagold Corporation, an Alabama Corporation, clPo/a Landmark Estates, hereinafter referred to as "Assignor", and Hometown Landmark LLC, hereinafter referred to as "Assignee". In consideration of the sum ofTen Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration paid on this day, Assignor hereby assigns all its fights, interest and obligations in that certain Lease Agreement dated August 2, 1989, by and between Assignor as Lessee and the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, as Lessor, to Assignee. Assignee, being Hometown Landmark LLC, does hereby agree to assume all right~, interest and obligations of Lessee under said Lease. IN. WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed th/s Assignment the date first written above. WITNESSES: (Signature) (print or type name) ( S i,~l'C¢~{41~_~_.atu re ) (print or type nme) ASSIGNOR.~ ALAGO. L._~D ~O]~PORATION, an Alabama opol : TITLEk~ WITNESSES: (Signature) (~ ~J (print or t~e n~e) ~fint or ~e n~e) ASSIGNEE: HOMETOWN LAI~MARK LLC By: ~N/~JE~I~, LLC, its managing ~'~'~7~'~~1 ~.~,~L.4' member TITLE: ~ ~ ~' Consented to this day of ATTEST: DATED: DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk , Deputy Clerk BOARD OF COUNTY COM/VIISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: App~form and legal sufficiency: fHeidi F. Asht'6"n, ~,.ssistant County Attome~ A~NOA ,~TEM_ ' JAN 1, z..2000 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPROVE CONTRACT AMENDMENT FOR RFP 98-2856, "CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT (DRI) PROCESS". OBJECTIVE: To approve Exhibit 1, Contract Amendment 98-2856 with Wilson, Miller, Barton & Peek, Inc. for the submittal of the Application for Development Approval (ADA) for the main Government Complex DRI. CONSIDERATIONS: Due to insufficient budgeted funds to complete the DRI process in FY 98-99, staff requested that the DRI process be accomplished in two phases. Phase One, to prepare the Application for Development Approval, and Phase Two, to submit the application for approval and possible mitigation. Phase One is now completed and the application is ready for submission. On February 9, 1999, staff requested and the Board approved Phase 1 of the DRI process. Funds have been budgeted in FY 99-00 for Phase Two, which will complete the DRI process. FISCAL IMPACT: The total not to exceed negotiated fee to be paid to Wilson, Miller, Barton & Peek, Inc. for Phase Two is $195,000 and is budgeted in the County-Wide Capital Improvements Fund. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: This request is consistent with the County's Correctional Facilities Capital Improvement Plan and the Projected Space Assessment Analysis. RECOMMENDATIONS: That the Board approve the Contract Amendment to RFP 98-2856 as addressed in this summary and authorize the Chairman to sign the Amendment after review by the County Attorney's Office. /~ ~ognale,~(~s~ruction Manager 99ep~ment of Facilities management REVIEWED BY.'/ ~~~/~// Skip C~mp, (}~/lVl, ~)ir~c'tor Department of Facilities Management DATE: DATE: Stephen YfiCamell,'Director Purchasing Department Le~-~. Ochs, J~.j Adminis~ator Support Services D~ DATE: DATE: i, lJAN 1 1 2000 EXHIBIT 1 (TO BE DISTRIBUTED PRIOR TO JANUARY 11, 2000) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EPORT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CONCERNING THE SALE AND TRANSFER oF ITEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE COUNTY SURPLUS AUCTION OF NOVEMBER 20, 1999. · OBJECTIVE: To present the results of the recent County property auction to the Board of County Commissioners for ratification. CONSIDERATION: On October 26, 1999, the Board of County Commissioners authorized staff to conduct an auction of specified County-owned assets for the purpose of disposing of these items and generating revenues for the County, The November 20, 1999 auction generated $3,095.00 in actual gross revenues and $2,847.40 in net revenues. The auctioneer's commission is $247.60. This auction primarily included office equipment and was conducted in order to clear out surplus inventory in anticipation of the upcoming vehicle/heavy equipment auction in February, 2000. The breakdown of gross and net revenues between the Board of County Commissioners, Sheriff's Office, Property Appraiser and Tax Collector is as follows: Agency Gross Revenues Net Revenues Board of County Comm. Collier County Sheriff Property Appraiser Tax Collector $947.50 $871.70 $1,860.00 $1,711.20 $160.00 $147.20 $127.50 $117.30 'SCAL IMPACT: Net revenues have been allocated as follows: Department Fund Net Proceeds Purcha sing 001 $871.70 GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners accept and ratify the revenues for the County Auction held on November 20, 1999 pursuant to the itemized sales report attached herein. SUBMITTED BY[ Rhonda L. Tibbetts, Purchasing Agent Date: REVIEWED BY: .;~,a;~, C.~. Stephen Y. Carnell, CSM, Director Purchasing/General Services APPROVED BY: '~'-' ~ ' ~ .... Leo E. Ochs, Jr. Adminbir~or ~ Support Services Division" Date: Date: JAN 1 i 2000 tDate: 11-29-1999 Settlement Seller: 1 Item FIRST COAST AUCTION & REALTY, INC 5562-2 TIMUQUANA RD JACKSONVILLE, FL 32238 (904) 772-0110 FAX (~04) 777-8387 AB 150 AU 286 SALES TAX ~ 26-08-094311-40 COLLIER COUNTY SURPLUS 11-20-99 RON COLLIER COUNTY BOCC 3301 E TAMIAMI TRL NAPLES FL 33962 Description Price Qty Page: Total 1 iA lB 2 3 3A 3B 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 23A 23E 23D 23B 23C 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 Card file Adler copier Printer stand Hanging file 2 pr~nter~ . Prlncer sban~ Magnetic locator 3 power units Misc computer eq 3 boxes mlsc Card file cabinets 11 cash drawers 10 cash drawers Box of phones Safe Boxes of cords/manuals Projector Sharp fax Sharp fax NEC fax Sharp fax Pitney Bowes fax VCR TV PStney Bowes fax E~ec.typew.sta Image maker DEC printer Sharp copier Cannon copier Typewriter Desk Map file Empty case Tectronic system 5 boxes keyboards Cabinet 2 printers Des~je~ prin~er DesK]ec prin~er Desk je~ prin~er Desk ]e~ prin~er 1 1 1 1 Sold with iteml3 1 1 1 1 Sold with item 6 1 1 Sold with item 10 1 1 Sold with item 13 1 1 1 1 Sold with item 18 1 Sold with item 20 Sold with item 20 1 Sold with item 23 1 1 *** Not sold *** *** Not sold *** 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17.50 20,00 5.00 2.50 40.00 2.50 15.00 5.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 17.50 25.00 35.00 5.00 27.50 10.00 5.00 170.00 2.50 17.50 100.00 10.00 10.00 5.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 JAN 1 ! 2000 pg. Date: 11-29-1999 Settlement Seller: 1 Item FIRST COAST AUCTION & REALTY, INC 5562-2 TIMUQUANA RD JACKSONVILLE, FL 32238 (904) 772-0110 FAX (~04) 777-8387 AB 150 AU 286 SALES TAX # 26-08-094311-40 COLLIER COUNTY SURPLUS 11-20-99 RON COLLIER COUNTY BOCC 3301 E TAMIAMI TRL NAPLES FL 33962 Description Page: Price Qty Total 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 5O 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 Desk jet printer Des~ ]et printer Desk ]et printer Lazer printer Lazer printer Lazer printer Lazer printer Lazer printer Lazer printer Lazer printer Lazer printer Lazer printer Lazer printer Lazer printer Lazer printer Lazer printer Lazer printer Lazer printer Lazer printer Printer Printer Lazer printer Lazer printer Chair Chair Chair Chair Printer Printer Printer Printer Printer Printer Printer Printer Typewriter Typewriter Typewriter Typewriter 6 typewriters CPU 1 2.50 1 12.50 1 2.50 1 15.00 1 7'.50 1 5.00 1 30.00 1 10.00 1 15.00 1 15.00 1 10.00 1 7.50 1 15.00 1 2.50 Sold with item 46 Sold with item 46 1 7.50 1 2.50 1 10.00 1 2.50 Sold with item 52 Sold with item 52 Sold with item 52 1 2.50 Sold with item 56 Sold with item 56 Sold with item 56 1 2.50 Sold with item 60 Sold with item 60 Sold with item 60 Sold with item 60 Sold with item 60 Sold with item 60 Sold with item 60 Sold with item 60 Sold with item 60 Sold with item 60 Sold with item 60 *** Not scld *** 1 65.00 JAN 1 1 2000 Date: 11-29-1999 Settlement Seller: 1 Item FIRST COAST AUCTION & REALTY. INC 5562-2 TIMUQUANA RD JACKSONVILLE, FL 32238 (904) 772-0110 FAX (~04) 777-8387 AB 150 AU 286 SALES TAX # 26-08-094311-40 COLLIER COUNTY SURPLUS 11-20-99 RON COLLIER COUNTY BOCC 3301 E TAMIAMI TRL NAPLES FL 33962 Description Price Qty Page: Total 74 75 76 77 78 79 8O 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88A 88 88D 88E 88B 88C 88F 88G 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 3 boxes printers TI printer TI printer TI printer TI printer TI printer TI printer TI printer TI printer TI printer Monitor stand Monitor stand Monitor stand Proj. screen Cpu Table of computers Cpu Cpu Cpu Cpu Cpu Cpu Cpu cases Mail machine Misc.office Post scale Phones Misc office Calculators Mail scale Misc mach parts Misc office PC cases Microfisch Microfisch Microfisch Microfisch Monitors Misc office Misc office Calculator 1 1 Sold with item 74 Sold with item 74 Sold with item 74 Sold with item 74 Sold with item 74 Sold with item 74 Sold with item 74 Sold with item 74 1 1 Sold with item 85 *** Not sold *** 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 *** Not sold *** 1 1 1 Sold with item 94 1 1 Sold with item 97 1 1 Sold with item 100 Sold with item 100 Sold with item 100 Sold with item 100 Sold with item 100 Sold with item 100 Sold with item 100 55.00 15~00 5.00 7.50 10.00 2.50 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 7.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 7.50 10.00 2.50 10.00 15.00 JAN 1 1 2000 Date: 11-29-1999 Settlement Seller: 1 FIRST COAST AUCTION & REALTY. INC 5562-2 TIMUQUANA RD JACKSONVILLE, FL 32238 (904) 772-0110 FAX (904) 777-8387 AB 150 AU 286 SALES TAX# 26-08-094311-40 COLLIER COUNTY SURPLUS 11-20-99 RON COLLIER COUNTY BOCC 3301 E TAMIAMI TRL NAPLES FL 33962 Page: Item Description Price Qty Total 108 Calculator Sold with item 100 109 Cash regSs. 1 10.00 110 Cash regis 1 10.00 111 Laptop comp 1 35.00 112 - Copier 1 2.50 113 Microfisch 1 2.50 114 Copier Sold with item 113 115 Memograph mach 1 2.50 116 Table typewriters 1 2.50 117 Typewriters 1 2.50 l18A Monitor 1 17.50 118 Monitor 1 27.50 l18B Monitor 1 17.50 119 Monitor 1 15.00 l19A Monitor 1 17.50 l19B Monitor 1 17.50 120 Monitor 1 20.00 121 Monitor 1 7.50 Commission at 8.000% Items: 141 Amount: 1,235.00 98.80 Less adjustments: Net due to seller: -98.80 1,136.20 THANK YOU FOR USING FIRST COAST AUCTION & REALTY, INC. WE APPRECIATE YOUR BUSINESS. IF WE CAN BE ANY FURTHER ASSISTANCE TO YOU OR IF YOU'RE IN NEED OF OUR SERVICES AGAIN, PLEASE DON'T HESITATE TO CALL. JAN 1 1 2000 pg. SDate: 11-29-1999 Settlement Seller: 2 FIRST COAST AUCTION & REALTY, INC 5562-2 TIMUQUANA RD JACKSONVILLE, FL 32238 (904) 772-0110 FAX (~04) 777-8387 AB 150 AU 286 SALES TAX# 26-08-094311-40 COLLIER COUNTY SURPLUS 11-20-99 ED SWOPE COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF Page: Item Description Price Qty Total 200 201 202 203 204 205A 205B 205D 205 205C 206 207 208 209 210 2]_1 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 MONITORS 17.50 2 Group monitors 1 Table monitors 1 Group monitors 1 Monitor ....... 1 CPU 1 CPU 1 Cpu 1 Monitor 1 CPU 1 Monitor 1 Monitor 1 Monitor 1 Printer 1 Printer 1 Printer 1 Printer 1 Printer 1 Printer 1 Printer Sold with item 213 Printer 1 CPU 1 Box printers 1 Box keyboards 1 Box keybeards 1 Box speakers 1 CPU 1 Modem 1 CPU 1 Box cables 1 Box hard drives 1 Printer stand Sold with item 225 2 laptops Sold with item 225 Power adapter 1 Laptop 1 Laptop 1 Laptop 1 Laptop 1 Laptop 1 Laptop 1 Laptop 1 35.00 60.00 10.00 25.00 35.00 5.O0 15.00 15.00 15.00 27.50 15.00 15.00 5.00 15.00 15.00 10.00 2.50 2.50 32.50 10.00 2.50 12.50 15.00 15.00 25.00 5.00 10.00 25.00 2.50 5.00 2.50 35.00 40.00 5.00 60.00 75.00 85.00 80.00 JAN 1 1 2000 pg. ~' Date: 11-29-1999 Settlement Seller: 2 FIRST COAST AUCTION & REALTY, INC 5562-2 TIMUQUANA RD JACKSONVILLE, FL 32238 (904) 772-0110 FAX (~04) 777-8387 AB 150 AU 286 SALES TAX ~ 26-08-094311-40 COLLIER COUNTY SURPLUS 11-20-99 ED SWOPE COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF Page: Item Description Price Qty Total 236 2 ex disc dr 1 237 Laptop 1 238 Laptop 1 239 Laptop 1 240A _Laptop ...... 1 241 Laptop 1 242 Box cords 1 243 Box pinter stands Sold with item 236 244 Printer 1 245 CPU 1 246 Printer 1 248 Power supply 1 249 Power supp±y 1 250A Group CPU'S 1 250B Group CPU'S 1 250 Group CPU'S 1 250C Group CPU'S 1 251A Group CPU'S 1 251C MODEM 1 251 Group CPU'S 1 251B MODEM 1 252 MODEM 1 253 Power supply 1 254 Printer 1 255 Printer 1 256A Xylogic component 1 256 Xylogic component 1 257 Laptop parts 1 258 Keyboards 1 259 Misc computer parts 1 260 Box monitors 1 260A Printer 1 261 Printer 1 261 Printer 1 262 Printer Sold with item 261 263 2 modems Sold with item 261 264 Scanner 1 265 Scanner 1 266 Printer 1 267 Printer 1 268 Printer Sold with item 267 22.50 60.00 17.50 25.00 30.00 85.00 10.00 17.50 15.00 45.00 12.50 20.00 22.50 22.50 50.00 22.50 2.50 2.50 37.50 2.50 2.5( 2.50 7.50 2.50 20.00 25.00 30.00 2.50 7.50 5.00 12.50 2.50 2.50 17.50 12.50 15.00 30.00 ~NO~ ITEM JAN 2000 Pg. ;,/ Date: 11-29-1999 FIRST COAST AUCTION & REALTY, INC 5562-2 TIMUQUANA RD JACKSONVILLE, FL 32238 (904)U772-0110A FAX (~04) 777-8387 AB 150 286 SALES TAX % 26-08-094311-40 COLLIER COUNTY SURPLUS 11-20-99 Settlement ED SWOPE Page: Seller: 2 COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF Item Description Price Qty Total Sold with item 267 1 1 1 1 1 Sold with item 273 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Sold with item 282 *** Not sold *** 269 Printer 270 Printer 271A Power 272 Monitors 272E MONITOR 272D MONITOR 273 Box cables 274 Misc comp parts 275 Box keyboards 276 Box data systems 277 Box printers 278 Box computers 279 Box computers 280 Box printers 281 Box cords 282 Box cords 283 Box comp parts 284 Box comp parts 2'.50 5.00 110.00 17.50 17.50 7.50 Commission at 8.000% 2.50 2.50 25.00 10.00 7.50 22.50 2.50 42.50 Items: 100 Amount: 1,860.00 148.80 Less adjustments: Net due to seller: -148.80 1,711.20 THANK YOU FOR USING FIRST COAST AUCTION & REALTY, INC. WE APPRECIATE YOUR BUSINESS. IF WE CAN BE ANY FURTHER ASSISTANCE TO YOU OR IF YOU'RE IN NEED OF OUR SERVICES AGAIN, PLEASE DON'T HESITATE TO CALL. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPROVAL TO AWARD RFP # 99-2975 DIGITAL COPIERS FOR THE CENTRAL COPIER SYSTEM TO J.M. TODD, INC. OBJECTIVE: To obtain Board approval of staffs selection of firm and award Contract to J.M. Todd for a cost per copy to the Central Copier Customers. CONSIDERATIONS: The Purchasing Department oversees eight large volume Central Copiers throughout the County Complex. The department desires to enter into a contractual relationship with a vendor who is capable of providing an out source cost per copy program to Central Copier System users. The Contract will be awarded to one (1) vendor for a period of five (5) years from the date of award. Ownership of all the copiers will remain with the vendor. All analog copiers in the system now will be eventually replaced with digital copiers/printers which will all have PC connectivity. Two of the copiers will be connected at time of award and the other six (6) at a later date. A selection committee was appointed to review, evaluate and rank proposals from copier machine firms. On August 10, 1999 proposals were sent to twelve (12) firms. On September 10, 1999 proposals were received back from seven (7) firms. The firms were judged on price proposal, operational concepts and plans, proposed equipment, qualifications and experience in providing copier service, location of firm, responsiveness to Ri:P, quality and timeliness of priol' prc~jects, and on-staff support capabilities. Thc top ranked firms are as follows: 1. J.M. Todd, Inc. 2. Xerox 3. Alpha Omega Business Systems Demonstrations of Digital Copiers were presented to the Selection Committee by the top ranked firms. After much deliberation by the Selection Committee, J.M. Todd was selected This was based on their equipment's ease of connectivity to the IT network, unlimited items at no cost to the County, ie: training, connecting future copiers to network, and price per copy. AGENDA I I E IWL,-.-- .o. h% D3,q JAN 1 I 2000 Executive Summary RFP #99-2975 Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are appropriated in the operating budgets of the respective using agencies. It is anticipated that approximately $30,000 will be spent during FY 99/00 under this contract. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None RECOMMENDATIONS: That the Board of County Commissioners award RFP #99-2975 Digital Copiers to J.M. Todd Inc. and authorize the Chairman to sign the Agreement upon preview by the County Attorney's Office. PREPARED BY: Anne Cardenas, Mail Center Supervisor Purchasing Department Steve Y. (~arriell, l~irector Purchasing Department REVIEWED BY: Leo E. Ochs, Jr., Adutpiistrator Support Services Divfsion DATE.~ 3~ ] DATE: 1 JAN 1 2000 P~. ~ APPROVAL OF BUDGET AMENDMENTS BCC Agenda of 1/11/00 Gas Tax Reserves (Fund 313) Budget Amendment g00-082 Capital General Improvements $7,196 Reserves Reserves for Capital Outlay (7,196) Total: -0- Explanation: Funds are needed for a change order with Better Roads for material changes due to design revisions. Raise signal control box per Transportation for the Shadowlawn-Davis Intersection improvements. Natural Resources Grants (Fund 117) Budget Amendment #00-084 ()d:cr C,mtractual Scrvices $5,000 Revenue DNR Reef Grant (5,000) Total: -0- kxplanatiom Staff badgeted $25,000 as grant revenues in the Artifical Reel' cost center based on past grant awards. The actual award is $5,000 less than anticipated. Additional funds are not requested. This budget amendment simply reflects actual revenues to be received. Road and Bridge (Fund 101) Budget Amendment #00-095 Operating Expenses Data Processing Equipment $2,000 3,000 Reserves Reserve for Contingencies (5,000) Fotal: -0- Explanation: Funds are needed for a scanner for CARE items, a digital camera for various NTMP/roadway/traffic/landscaping projects, a TV/VCR for BCC meetings and safety training purposes, and a replacement computer for CAD operator transferred from PWED, who's computer was slated for replacement this FY by that department. Purchase has been reviewed/approved by IT staff. AGENDA ITEM No. /~, ~' (.~) JAN 11 2000 Pg.., i Capital Autos and Trucks Road and Bridge (Fund 101) Budget Amendment g00-096 $6,500 Reserves Reserve for Contingencies (6,500) Total: -0- Explanation: Funds are needed to purchase the appropriate bed for a replacement vehicle for Landscape Operations. When the budget for the replacement vehicle was prepared, the truck bed was inadvertently omitted. The truck has been received, but is unusable because of the lack of the truck bed. AGENDA ITEM JAN 1 ! 2000 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REQUEST BOARD APPROVAL TO AWARD BID NUMBER 99-2993, EC-135 HELICOPTER, TO METRO AVIATION INC. AND TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING COMMERCIAL PAPER LOAN FINANCING OBJECTIVE: To have the Board award Bid Number 99-2993 to Metro Aviation Inc. and approve a resolution authorizing a commercial paper loan as the financing mechanism for the helicopter acquisition. CONSIDERATIONS: On October 4, 1999, bid invitations were sent to twenty-three prospective vendors for the purchase of a twin engine turbine helicopter to replace the present county's helicopter A-Star 350 B-2. At the bid opening on November 10, 1999, three bids were received. The bid tabulation table is attached. Each vendor was asked in the bid invitation to list the base price of the helicopter and then itemize each individual piece of equipment necessary for Collier County to operate in the EMS role. Each item was carefully examined as to the necessary equipment cost and weight and balance limitations. The three bids received were for an EC 135 helicopter. Metro Aviation Inc. submitted the lowest bid. Included in the bid invitation was a requirement to quote a trade-in dollar amount for the present helicopter. Metro Aviation Inc. offered $695,000. The only stipulation to this offer is that delivery takes place on or before April 30, 2000. The new helicopter is expected to be placed in service in Collier County on March 31, 2000. A financing mechanism to ensure the acquisition of this larger, twin engine helicopter for EMS life flight operations is necessary. The proposed financing allows the helicopter to be purchased during the month of January 2000 which preserves the negotiated price. The proposed financing arrangement is short-term in nature and will be replaced by permanent financing later in the fiscal year. Securing interim financing is necessary, as the helicopter available from Metro Aviation Inc. is a remaining 1999 model in which other jurisdictions have expressed interest. This financing arrangement was reviewed and approved unanimously by the Finance Committee and the Board's Financial Advisor. FISCAL IMPACT: The purchase of the helicopter will cost $3,309,035. After subtracting the $695,000 trade-in value of the existing helicopter the net amount to finance amounts to $2,614,035. A loan in an amount not to exceed $2,700,000 that shall be repaid with funds derived from a covenant to budget and appropriate legally available non-ad valorem revenues. The purchase of a replacement helicopter was approved in the FY 2000 budget with $253,600 budgeted in the Countywide CIP Fund (301) for lease/purchase payments. The estimated average annual debt service on the Commercial Paper Loan, assuming a ten-year amortization is $326,700. Debt service on this loan will be .... -'-- ~'-- Commercial Paper Debt Service Fund (299). No. JAN I 1 2000 GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners: o Prepared By: Michael Smykowski, OMB Director Reviewed By: ~I'~r~ _C~f-~, Date: Ste~ell, D~rector Purchasing/General Services Reviewed By: I~i~/ Date: Diane B. Fla~[g, Chief Emergency Services Department Reviewed By:/,~,~.a ~~ Date: . -es L. Mitchell, CIA, CFE, CBA Dirg~tor of F,~inance/'and Accounting Approved Y/Mi~h'ael A. McNees, Interim County Administrator Award Bid Number 99-2993 to Metro Aviation Inc. for the purchase of a new EC 135 helicopter. Approve the trade-in of the County's A-Star 350-B2 helicopter on or before April 30, 2000 to Metro Aviation Inc. in the amount of $695,000. Adopt the attached Resolution authorizing a loan in an amount not to exceed $2,700,000 from the Commercial Paper Program as the funding source for the EMS helicopter acquisition. Approve necessary budget amendments to effect the purchase of the helicopter. AGENDA ITEM No. JAN 1 1 2000 Pg., ,~ Bid fP39-2993 Purchase of EC 135 Helicopter Project: Purchase of EC 135 Helicopter Bid 99-2993 Bid Opening 11/10/1999 Project Mgr: Mark Kennedy DESCRIPTION Metro Aviation Heli-Dyne :.American ~ Systems Eurocopter I. BASIC HELICOPTER :i One (1) new EC 135 Helicopter equipped with $2,565,000.0G no Bid $2,764,580.0(] Turbomeca or Pratt & Whitney enl~ines~ AEC standard .: '. : · configuration to include Bleed Air Heating~ Avionics . : Compartment and Mast Moment System .:. ll. OPTIONAL EOUIPMENT Dual Controls with Covers (AEC) $25~661.00 Fact installed Incl in base Three Color Paint Scheme $11~500.00 $1%750.00 $11~500.00 ECS Air Conditioning-Vapor Cycle~ Transmission $51 ~200.00 Fact installed $64~000.00 Drive Compressor ~an of AC mcl m AC Controllable Landing Light $%000.00 $6~446.00 $11 ~250.00 Strobe Light $2~545.00 Fact installed $3~ 181.00 Pitch and Roll CSAS $120~005.00 Fact installed incl in base Tel Tail Lights (Devore) $3~840.00 $57325.00 $4~800.00 Wing Tip Strobes (Whellen) $3~150.00 $3~743.00 $3?938.00 Clamshell Door Windows-Dark Tint $47500.00 $3~813.00 $5~625.00 Sun Shades for Cockpit Roof Windows $2z250.00 NQ $2~363.00 Tinted Pilot/Co-Pilot Windows with Slides $6~500.00 $87570.00 $8~ 125.00 Tinted Sliding Door Windows $2,650.00 $2~781.00 $2,625.00 Heli-Dyne American DESCRIPTION Metro Aviation Systems Eurocopter Tinted Aft Side Door Windows $1 ~890.00 $2~793.00 $2~875.00! Radome $16~667.00 Fact installed $17~487.00 Collective Activated Hourmeter $395.00! $510.00 $494.00 Resue Hoist Mounts $69~094.00 Fact installed $69~094.00 Mid Skids $4~500.00 Fact installed $5~625.00 IlL AVIONICS. INSTRUMENTATION AND , AGI-'NDA ITEM No. /~; ~"(--") JAN 1 1 2001 pg. Bid #99-2993 Purchase of EC 135 Helicopter EHSI System EHSI-40 $46~502:00 $567196.00 $58~382100 KCS-305 Compass System $%13&00 $11,476.00 $1 t~423~00 GNS-430 GPS NAV/COM Price Each $9i250~00 $11~563:00 Price for 2 $18?500,00 $247100.00 ~3~ 125:00 21-4B COM Antenna $1rl6Z00 $962.00 $Ii459.00: C1-122 COM Antenna : : $t83i00 $423.00 C1-205-3 NAV Antenna $958,00 $2~116.00 ~ $17198i00 C 1-1125 NAV Splitter $260,00 $188.00 :$320~00 KR-87 ADF $4~690.00 $% 171.00 $5~863 ~00 KNI-582 RMI $%375.00 $7~838.00 ~ $9f219:00 KT-70 Transponder $5?398.00 $%030.00 $6~74&00 C1-105 Trans Antenna Incl $389.00 $950i00 5550 Turn and Bank $1,492.00 $2~990.00 $1t865.00 KRA-405 Radar Altitude System $15,452i00 $13,946.00 $194315.00 DESCRIPTION Metro AViation Hell-Dyne Ameriean : Systems EuroCOpter S67-2002 RAD Alt Antenna Price Each Price for 2 $2:333,00 $2~021.00 $2~916~00 KA-33 Cooling Fan $540,00 $999.00 ~ $675.00 RDR-2000 Radar Less Indicator $20,678!00 $23,196.00 $25,848.00 CP-466A Control Panel $7~73&00 $87499.00 $9~673,00 AIM510-22H Altitude Indicator $5~248.00 $7~720.00 $6i748i00 TFM-500 FM Transceiver $13,745.00 $13~592.00 $17i181~00 RC-500 Remote Head $5~417.00 $6~813.00 $67771i00 CI-177 Antenna $225~00 $460.00 $281'00 CI-275 Antenna $467,00. $661.00 $584.00 AMS-43 Audio Panels Price Each $5~244~00 $67554i00 Price for 2 $107488.00 $16~636.00 $13,10&00 AA-31-002 Audio Isolate System $Ii110,00 $3~285.00: -~ A iENDA ITEM ELT- 100HM ELT $1 ~225.00 $3 ~468.00 $ ,531 .~ll _ JAN 1 1 2000 pg. 5z __ Bid #99-2993 Purchase of EC 135 Helicopter AEC/MAI Radio Dimmer System $650.00 $57111.00 $813.00 AEC/MAI Radio Master System $3~333.00 $3~471.00 $4~166.00 CIX 100XYGK3-6P ICS Cord Assembly Price Each $208.25 $400.00 Price for 4 $833.00 $1 ~000.00 $1 ?600.00 A/R Circuit Breaker $5?397.00 incl w/avionics $6~746.00 AA34-300 800 mHz Interface $980.00 $2~142.00 $t7225.00 Provisions for Amav System 6 $5,940.00 $14,842.00 $5,664.00 . Heli-Dyne American DESCRIPTION Metro Aviation Systems Eurocopter IV. MEDICAL INTERIOR Option Pricing #1 Attendant Seating: 2 aft facing cabin $36~803.00 $46~966.00 $49~814.00 seats (high back); 1 swivels7 tractable seat (ability to track to bulkhead); stowable third attendant seat Option Pricing #2 Attendant Seating: 1 aft facing seat $4%950.00 $56~400.00 $71~061.00 (left) tractable/swivels - that can also be used as co-pilot. Seat can be swiveled into co-pilot position or swiveled and tracked into attendant position at the head of the stretcher. 1 aft facing (right) tractable/ swivel seat - that can tact to afl wail. Avionics Shelf Modification $3~550.00 Fact installed $4~438.00 Blackout Curtain $17595.00 $3 ~404.00 $3?782:00 External Oxygen Tank $15~600.00 $25 ~417.00 $1%750.00 See Bid Cockpit Notification (light) from flight crew Included Audio system Display· on NAT Charging Outlets Included See Bid Incl in ext power See Bid Cellular Phone Capabilities $850.00 $57426.00 $1~063.00 Gooseneck Light See Bid $794.00 $1 ~231.00 See Bid Lifepak 12 Mount $I~195.00 $3~598.00 $1~494.00 Model 2860D IVAC Mount $250.00 $2~988.00 $313.00 Model 206EL Propaq Mount with printer $750.00 $37598.00 $938.00 Model 300 Autovent mount $495.00 $6~265.00 $313.00 Suction $3~075.00 See Bid $3~844.00 Oxygen Regulator ext Ox Incl in ext Ox Tinted Windows See Bid See Bid lncl in air! amc AGENDA No. /~ ~-~ JAN 1 1 'EM 2000 pg._ ,~- Bid #99-2993 Purchase of EC 135 Helicopter Heli-Dyne American DESCRIPTION Metro Aviation ~ Systems Eurocopter External Power Inlet - shoreline ~ $19~627.00 $17?531.00 Center Stowage Cabinet w/lockable units $5?500.00 $13~443.00 $5~625.00 Removable storage pouches/cabinets $I7800.00 $1~532.00 $2~250.00 Clamshell Door Nets Standard : $1 ~418.00 Standard Dual Litter System See Bid ~ $32~250.00 a. Full Litter System $26~231.00 b. Stowable litter which attaches to equipment box , $27~081.00 mounted to floor Suction System $4~054.00 $7~ 125 zOO High Intensity Interior Lighting Standard $3 ~784.00 Included Positive Locking IV Hooks $750.00 $1 ~458.00 $938.00 See Bid SUMMARY OF SECTION TOTALS OPTION PRICING #1 BASIC HELICOPTER PRICE $2~5657000.00 No Bid $2~764~580.00 Additional from exception $22~908.00 See Bid OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT PRICE $335~347.00 $53~731.00 $212~982.00 AVIONICS/ELECTRICAL/INSTRUMENTATION $197~462.00 $250~741.00 $248~511.00 Additional from exception $21~988.00 MEDICAL INTERIOR $155~183.00 $197~084.00 $198~274.00 see bid TOTAL PROPOSED PRICE WITH NO TRADE IN $3~297~888.00 $550~889.00 $3~477~727.00 LESS TRADE IN ON ONE (1) AS 350 B2 $695~000.00 $700~000.00 TOTAL PROPOSED PRICE WITH TRADE IN $2~602~888.00 $2~777~727.00 AGENDA ITEM No. JAN 1 1 2000 Pg. ~, Bid ~99-2993 Purchase of EC 135 Helicopter DESCRIPTION Systems Euroc°Pter SUMMARY OF SECTION TOTALS , ~ ~ i OPTION PRICING #2 BASIC HELICOPTER PRICE ~ $2i565~000100 No Bid $2~764i580i00 Additional from exceptionI $22i908,00 See Bid ~ OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT PRICE $335i347,00 $537731.00 $212~982!00 AVIONICS/ELECTRICAL/INSTRUMENTATION ' ~ $197~462i00 $250~741.00 $248~5tli00 Additional from exception $21~988,00 MEDICAL INTERIOR $I66~330.00 $206~518.00 $219~521i00 See Bid TOTAL PROPOSED PRICE WITH NO TRADE IN $37309~035.00 $560~323.00 $3~498~974:00 LESS TRADE IN ON ONE (1) AS 350 B2 $695~000.00 $700~000100 TOTAL PROPOSED PRICE WITH TRADE IN $2i6147035i00 ~ $2i798~974!00 Addenda Acknowledged? Yes Yes :yes Buyer: Rhonda Snell ~ Wimess: Ron Precup AGENDA ITEM No. JAN 1 1 2000 pg. 7 RESOLUTIO?~ NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD-OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE BORROWING OF NOT EXCEEDING $2,700,0000 FROM THE POOLED COMMERCIAL PAPER LOAN PROGRAM OF THE FLORIDA LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO THE TERMS OF THE LOAN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COMMISSION AND THE COUNTY IN ORDER TO FINANCE THE ACQUISITION OF A HELICOPTER FOR THE COUNTY'S EMS DEPARTMENT; AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A LOAN NOTE OR NOTES TO EVIDENCE SUCH BORROWING; AGREEING TO SECURE SUCH LOAN NOTE OR NOTES WITH A COVENANT TO BUDGET AND APPROPRIATE LEGALLY AVAILABLE NON-AD VALOREM REVENUES AS PROVIDED IN THE LOAN AGREEMENT; AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF SUCH OTHER DOCUMENTS AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO EFFECT SUCH BORROWING; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA: SECTION 1.DEFINITIONS. Unless the context of use indicates another meaning or intent, the following words and terms as used in this Resolution shall have the following meanings. Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed thereto in the hereinafter defined Loan Agreement. "Act" means, collectively, Part I, Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, Part I, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and all other applicable provisions of law. "Additional Payments" means the payments required to be made by the County pursuant to Sections 5.02(b), 5.02(c), 5.02(d), 5.05 and 6.06(e) of the Loan Agreement. "Board" means the Board of County Commissioners of the County. "Chairman" means the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Board, person as may be duly authorized to act on his or her behalf. ~rid No. JAN 1 1 2000 pg._ ,,o "Clerk" means the Clerk of the Circuit Court for the County, ex-officio Cl~rk of the Board, and such other person as may be duly authorized to act on his or her behalf. "Commission" means the Florida Local Government Finance Commission, and any assigns or successors thereto. "County" means Collier County, Florida, a political subdivision of the State of Florida. "County Administrator" means the County Administrator of the County and such other person as may be duly authorized to act on his or her behalf. "Designated Revenues" means (1) Public Agency Moneys budgeted and appropriated for purposes of payment of the Loan Repayments and any other amounts due under the Loan Agreement, and (2) the proceeds of the Loan pending the application thereof. "Draw Date" has the meaning set forth in the Loan Agreement. "Finance Director" means the Director of Finance and Accounting and such other person as may be duly authorized to act on his or her behalf. "Loan No. A-13-1" means the Loan designated as "Loan No. A-13-1" the proceeds of which are to be used to finance Project A-13. "Loan" means the loan to be made by the Commission to the County from proceeds of the Series A Notes in accordance with the terms of this Resolution and of the Loan Agreement. "Loan Agreement" means the Loan Agreement, dated as of April 12, 1991, between the County and the Commission, as amended and supplemented and as the same may be further amended and supplemented. "Loan Rate" has the meaning set forth in the Loan Agreement. "Loan Repayments" or "Repayments" means the payments of principal and interest at the Loan Rate on the Loan amounts payable by the County pursuant to the provisions of the Loan Agreement and all other payments, including Additional Payments, payable by the County pursuant to the provisions of the Loan Agreement. 2 AGENDA ITEM No. /~; JAN 1 1 2.000 pC. '~ "Non-Ad Valorem Revenues" means all legally available revenue:'of the County derived from any source whatsoever other than ad valorem taxation on real and personal property, which are legally available to make the Loan Repayments required in the Loan Agreement, but only after provision has been made by the County for the payment of services and programs which are for essential public purposes affecting the health, welfare and safety of the inhabitants of the County or which are legally mandated by applicable law. "Program" means the Pooled Commercial Paper Loan Program established by the Commission. "Project A-13" means the costs and expenses relating to the acquisition of a helicopter for the County's EMS Department, as the same may be amended or modified from time to time, all as more particularly described in the plans and specifications on file with the County. "Public Agency Moneys" shall mean the moneys budgeted and appropriated by the County for payment of the Loan Repayments and any other amounts due hereunder from Non-Ad Valorem Revenues pursuant to the County's covenant to budget and appropriate such Non-Ad Valorem Revenues contained in Section 6.04 of the Loan Agreement. "Resolution" means this Resolution, as the same may from time to time be amended, modified or supplemented. "Series A Notes" means the Commission's Pooled Commercial Paper Notes, Series A (Governmental Issue), to be issued from time to time by the Commission. The terms "herein," "hereunder," "hereby," "hereto," "hereof," and any similar terms, shall refer to this Resolution; the term "heretofore" shall mean before the date of adoption of this Resolution; and the term "hereafter" shall mean after the date of adoption of this Resolution. Words importing the masculine gender include every other gender. Words importing the singular number include the plural number, and vice versa. SECTION 2. AUTHORITY FOR RESOLUTION. This Resolution is adopted pursuant to the provisions of the Act. SECTION 3. FINDINGS. It is hereby ascertained, determined and declared that: AGENDA ITEM No.. / ~. ~' ~'/9 3 JAN Pg. = 1 i 20O0 (A) The Commission has been established for the principal purpose of issuing commercial paper notes in order to provide funds to loan to public agencies, such as the County, desiring to finance and refinance the cost of acquiring, constructing and equipping capital improvements and to finance and refinance other governmental needs. (B) In furtherance of the foregoing, the Commission shall issue, from time to time, commercial paper notes to be known as "Florida Local Government Finance Commission Pooled Commercial Paper Notes, Series A (Governmental Issue)" and shall loan the proceeds of such Series A Notes to public agencies, including the County. (C) Pursuant to the authority of the Act, the Commission has agreed to loan, from time to time, to the County such amounts as shall be authorized herein and in the Loan Agreement in order to enable the County to finance, reimburse or refinance the cost of acquisition, construction and equipping of capital improvements. (D) There is presently a need by the county to finance Project A-13 and the most cost-effective means by which to finance Project A-13 is by the use of moneys obtained pursuant to the Program by means of the Loan. (E) The County hereby determines that the provision of funds by the Commission to the County in the form of Loan No. A- 13-1 pursuant to the terms of the Loan Agreement and the financing of Project A-13 will assist in the development and maintenance of the public welfare of the residents of the County, and shall serve a public purpose by improving the health and living conditions, and providing governmental services, facilities and programs and will promote the most efficient and economical development of such services, facilities and programs. (G) Loan No. A-13-1 shall be repaid solely from the Designated Revenues. Such Designated Revenues shall include moneys derived from a covenant to budget and appropriate legally available Non-Ad Valorem Revenues. The ad valorem taxing power of the County will never be necessary or authorized to make the Loan Repayments. SECTION 4. TERMS OF LOANS. The County hereby approves of Loan No. A, 13- 1 in the aggregate amount of not exceeding $2,700,0000 for the purpose of providing the County with sufficient funds to finance Project A-13. The Chairman and the Clerk are hereby authorized to execute, seal and deliver on behalf of the County a Loan Note or Notes with respect to Loan No. A-13-1 and other documents, instruments, agreements and certificates necessary or desirable to effectuate Loan No. A-13-1 as provided in the Loan Agreement. The Loan Note or Notes with respect to Loan No. A-13-1 shall reflect the terms of such Loan and shall be substantially in the form attached to the Loan Agreement as AGENDA ITEM No. /(-,, 4 JAN 1 1 2000 pg. Exhibit I. The Finance Director shall make the Draw Request or Requests with respect to Loan No. A-13-1 in accordance with the terms of the Loan Agreement at such time as shall be determined by the Finance Director as appropriate to finance Project A-13 and is permitted by the Loan Agreement. Loan No. A-13-1 shall mature in accordance with the provisions described in Schedule I attached hereto. Loan No. A-13-1 shall bear interest at the Loan Rate in accordance with the terms of the Loan Agreement. The County further agrees to make all Loan Repayments required of it pursuant to the terms of the Loan Agreement. The Letter of Credit fees for Loan No. A- 13-1 shall be 30 basis points or such other amount as First Union National Bank and the Finance Director shall agree. SECTION 5. AUTHORIZATION OF PROJECT A-13. The County does hereby authorize Project A- 13. SECTION 6.SECURITY FOR TI-[E LOAN. The County's obligation to repay Loan No. A-13-1 will be secured by a pledge of and lien upon the Designated Revenues in accordance with the terms of the Loan Agreement. The obligation of the County to repay Loan No. A- 13-1 shall not be deemed a pledge of the faith and credit or taxing power of the County and such obligation shall not create a lien on any property whatsoever of or in the County other than the Designated Revenues. SECTION 7. GENERAL AUTHORITY. The members of the Board and the officers, attorneys and other agents or employees of the County are hereby authorized to do all acts and things required of them by this Resolution and the Loan Agreement, or desirable or consistent with the requirements of this Resolution and the Loan Agreement, for the full punctual and complete performance of all the terms, covenants and agreements contained in this Resolution and the Loan Agreement, and each member, employee, attorney and officer of the County or its Board is hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver any and all papers and instruments and to do and cause to be done any and all acts and things necessary or proper for carrying out the transactions contemplated by this Resolution and the Loan Agreement. SECTION 8. SEVERABILITY. If any one or more of the covenants, agreements or provisions herein contained shall be held contrary to any express provision of law or contrary to the policy of express law, though not expressly prohibited, or against public policy, or shall for any reason whatsoever be held invalid, then such covenants, agreements or provisions shall be null and void and shall be deemed separable from the remaining covenants, agreements or provisions and shall in no way affect the validity of any of the other provisions hereof. 5 AGENDA ITEM No. JAN 1 1 2000 Pg..., SECTION 9. REPEAL OF INCONSISTENT RESOLUTIONS. All resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby superseded and repealed to the extent of such conflict. SECTION 10. EFFECTIVE DATE. immediately upon its adoption. This Resolution shall take effect DULY ADOPTED this 1 lth day of January, 2000. (SEAL) ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: Chairman Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: County Attorney 6 AGENDA ITEM No. JAN 1 1 tOO0 pg._ BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE JANUARY 11, 2000 FOR BOARD ACTION: 1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED: Clerk of Courts: Submitted for public record, pursuant to Florida Statutes, Chapter 136.06(1), the disbursements for the Board of County Commissioners for the period: A. November 17 - 23, 1999 B. November 24 - 30, 1999 C. December 1 - 14, 1999 3. Districts: Golden Gate Fire Control & Rescue District - Agenda for December 8, 1999 meeting and List of Fire Commission Meeting Dates for 1999/00 Bo Mediterra South Community Development District - Minutes for September 22, 1999 and October 27, 1999 meetings and Budget for year 2000 (incl. in September 22, 1999 minutes) D1. tr~c, -- Mimaes for October 21. Port o£the IslanJs Community lmpro,:ement 'q ' ' 1999 and December 16, 1999 meetings Do Naples Heritage Community Development District - Minutes for July 12, 1999 and November 2, 1999 meetings and Budget for year 2000 (incl. in November 2, 1999 minutes) Eo Cedar Hammock Community Development District - Certification and copies of Resolution 2000-8 and Ordinance No. 99-81 South Florida Water Management District's Five-Year Capital Improvements Plan and Fiscal Year 1998-1999 fiscal Report and FY2000 Budget-In-Brief Minutes: mo Collier County Airport Authority - Agendas for November 8, 1999 and December 13, 1999 meetings and minutes of October 11, 1999 meeting Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee - Agendas for November 12, 1999 and December 10, 1999 meetings and minutes of C ~,,L,.A~E~i~, -~iu~lq November 12, 1999 meetings NO, /& ht JAN 1 1 2OOO / ~ C. Ochopee Fire Control District - Minutes of October 4, 1999 meeting Library Advisory Board - Minutes of September 22, 1999 and October 27, 1999 meetings Environmental Advisory Council - Agendas for November 3, 1999 and December 1, 1999 meetings and minutes of October 13, 1999 meeting Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board - Minutes of September 29, 1999 and October 27, 1999 meeting Collier County Planning Commission - Agendas for November 18, 1999, December 2, 1999 and December 16, 1999 meetings and minutes of October 7, 1999, October 21, 1999, November 4, 1999, November 17, 1999 and November 18, 1999 meetings Ho Rural Lands Oversight Committee - Minutes of October 13, 1999 and November 1, 1999 meetings Pelican Bay MSTBU Advisory Committee - Agenda for December 1, 1999 meeting and minutes of October 28, 1999 and November 3, 1999 meetings J° Historical and Archaeological Preservation Board - Agenda for November 19, 1999 meeting and minutes of October 29, 1999 and November 19, 1999 meetings Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency - Minutes of September 2, 1999 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board - Agenda for October 27, 1999 and minutes of September 22, 1999 meeting Parks and Recreation Advisory Board - Agenda for December 15, 1999 and minutes of November 17, 1999 meeting Bayshore Beautification Advisory Committee - Minutes of November 3, 1999 and November 18, 1999 meetings Oo Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee - Agenda for December 14, 1999 meeting and minutes of November 9, 1999 meeting Po County Government Prod~ctivit3 Committee - Minutes of October 20, 1999 and November 17, 1999 meetings Utility Authority - Minutes of July 26, 1999 meeting Lake Trafford Restoration Task Force - Minutes of October 2 Collier County Community Health Care Ad Hoc Committee - Agenda for December 8, 1999 meeting AGEN~ No. 1999 meeting JAN 1 1 2000 Vo Other City/County Beach Renourishment Advisory Committee - Agendas for November 4, 1999 and December 2, 1999 meetings Radio Road Beautification Advisory Committee - Agenda for January 10, 2000 and minutes of November 8, 1999 meeting Rural Fringe Area Assessment Oversight Committee - Minutes of October 27, 1999 meeting Immokalee Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee - Agenda for November 17, 1999 and minutes of October 20, 1999 meeting Annual Report for fiscal year 1999 for the Lower West Coast Mobile Irrigation Lab n,. /_(,,/-/ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REQUEST TO ACCEPT A 15' WIDE PERMANENT DRAINAGE EASEMENT IN THE PELICAN MARSH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. OBJECTIVE: The Board of County Commissioners accept a 15' permanent drainage easement and recognize the termination of a certain temporary drainage easement that is replaced by the permanent easement. CONSIDERATIONS: This request was brought to the attention of the Office of the County Attorney by Perry Peeples, Esquire, of Annis Mitchell, Cockey, Edwards & Roehn, P.A., as agent for the petitioner, Ericksen/Marsh Partnership, Ltd., the developer, requesting the acceptance of the above-described easement to be conveyed to the County and the Pelican Marsh Community Development District. By accepting this grant of easement, a temporary drainage easement will be extinguished as per Paragraph nine of the plat dedication, recorded in Plat Book 24, Pages 50-51 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, which states that the temporary drainage easements shall be automatically and simultaneously vacated upon replatting or granting of permanent drainage easements. Said permanent easement will be privately maintained by the Pelican Marsh Community Development District, with Collier County having no responsibility for maintenance. A copy of the proposed Grant of Drainage Easement with Exhibit "A" legal description is provided herewith. FISCAL IMPACT: GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The required recording fees will be paid by the applicant. None RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners: l) 2) Approve and accept the grant of the 15' wide permanent drainage easement; and Direct the Clerk to the Board to record the permanent drainage easement documents in the official records. AGENDA ITEM . JAN 11 2000 PREPARED BY: ~')qtg_J~ ]~. ~a2/~_P_.h t' lq,l~rni M. Scuderi -- Assistant County Attorney Date:~7~_ APPROVED BY: d ~ d~~--~Date: David C. Weige'l' ' d.) County Attorney A C.-;-;-;-;-;-;-;-;-~N D A ITEM NO. ~ .lAN I f 2000 This instrument prepared by: C. Perry Peeples, Esq. Annis Mitchell, Cockey, Edwards & Roehn, P.A. 8889 Pelican Bay Boulevard Suite 300 Naples, FL 34108 GRANT OF DRAINAGE EASEMENT THIS indenture made and executed this ~ day of November, 1999, by and between CLERMONT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida not for profit corporation, whose post office address is 6318 Trail Blvd. North, Naples, Florida 34108, hereinafter called GRANTOR and the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF COLLIER COUNTY, and the PELICAN MARSH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, a community development district organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida, whose address is c/o Anthony P. Pires, Jr., Esquire, 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 710, Naples, Florida 34108, hereinafter called GRANTEES. WHEREAS, by acceptance of these Drainage Easements, GRANTEES acknowledge that the Temporary Drainage Easement located on the easterly portion of Parcel D, Unit 6, Pelican Marsh, has terminated pursuant to the dedication language indicated on the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 24, Pages 50-51, Collier County, Florida. WITNESSETH That the GRANTOR for and in consideration of the stun of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration paid by the GRANTEES, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, hereby conveys, grants, bargains and sells unto the GRANTEES their successors and assigns, perpetual, non-exclusive easements, licenses, and privileges to enter upon and to maintain, construct and install water management and drainage facilities, structures and improvement in, on and over the following described lands located in Collier County, Florida, to wit: (See Exhibit "A" attached hereto) TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the easements hereby granted unto said GRANTEES, their successors and assigns. GRANTEES, by acceptance of these easements agree for themselves, their successors and assigns, to in no way interfere with the right of ingress and egress of GRANTOR, its grantees, successors and assigns, or any other party requiring access to the properties over which these easements are granted or to any properties abutting the properties encumbered by these easements. Said easements will be privately maintained by the Pelican Marsh Community Development District, with Collier County having no responsibility for mainte~nance. AC~.NDA ITEM . JAN 11 2000 In the event GRANTEES, their successors or assigns, shall fall to use these easements for the purposes intended, then GR MNTEES, their successors or assigns, shall vacate these easements or relevant parts thereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the GRANTOR has caused these presents to be executed the date and year first above written. Witness: CLERMONT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida not for profit corporation STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing Grant of Drainage Easement was acknowledged before me this 15t:i3 day of November, I O e/~/, by l)fi vid ER ~e.. ie.$ ~ ~J, as President of CLERMONT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida not for profit corporation, on behalf of the corporation. He/She is personally known to me. 8532vl -2- ARY PL~LIC / - Print Name: .~fl IR.k~r'~f 7~, '~ ~:D My Commission Expire~: ~, :q MY C~MISSION ~ CC 816679 1~ i[~ EXP,RES: ~ 21,~ AGENDA ITEM ,, NO. Ilo ~'1( L~ JAN 11 2000 Pg., q DEDICATIONS S?ATE OF FLORIDA } , } SS -* COUNTY OF COLLIER ) ~J~NOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT, WCN COMMUNITIES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION THE OWNERS OF THE LANDS DESCRIBED HEREON, HAVE CAUSED THIS PLAT ENTITLED PE~CAN MARSH UNIT SIX TO BE MADE AND HEREBY DEDICATE OR RESERVE THE FOLLOWING, 1. WCN COMMUNITIES, INC.. A FLORIDA CORPORATION IT'S SUCCESSORS AND ~SSIGNS. RESERVES ALL OF TRACT A TOGETHER WITH ALL ROADS, STREETS, BOULEVARDS, LANDSCAPING AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS NOW OR HEREAFTER CONTAINED THEREIN. FOR THE PURPOSES OF INGRESS AND EGRESS, ROAD CONSTRUCTION, RECONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, REPAIR AND LANDSCAPING. ALL ROADS, STREETS, BOULEVARDS. LANDSCAPING AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS NOW OR HEREAFTER LOCATED WITHIN TRACT A SHALL BE AVAILABLE FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS. THEIR GUESTS AND INVITEES. WITHIN THE PELICAN MARSH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR USE BY THE PUBLIC-AT-LARGE. COLLIER COUNTY SHALL HAVE NO MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY WITHIN TRACT A. TO COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT ALL WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES CONSTRUCTED WITHIN TRACT"A"UPON ACCEPTANCE OF THE IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED BY THE APPLICABLE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. TO COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT ALL COUNTY UTILITY EASEMENTS. INDICATED (C.U.E.). WITH NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTENANCE. WCN COMMUNITIES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION AGREES FOR ITSELF. IT'S SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS THAT IT WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COST OF ANY AND ALL REPAIRS, REPLACEMENT, MAINTENANCE OR RESTORATION OF THE EASEMENT AREA- TO FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT. UNITED TELEPHONE SERVICES, ANY CABLE TELEVISION PROVIDER OR ANY OTHER UTILITY SERVICES PROVIDER THE SHARED USE OF ALL TRACTS AND EASEMENTS LABELED U.E. AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT AS A UTILITY EASEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THEIR RESPECTIVE FACILITIES, PROVIDED ALL USES BY SUCH UTILITY PROVIDERS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO AND NOT INCONS STENT WITH USE BY COLLIER COUNTY OR THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEW ~ DISTRICT AS A C.U.E. AGENDA rTEM. x' TO ANY CABLEVISION PROVIDER, ITS SUCCESSORS, ASSIGNS AND NO.~~ SUBSIDIARIES - A NON-EXCLUSiVE UTILITY EASEMENT (U.E.) AS INDICATED ON' THE PLAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF JAN 11 2000 CONSTRUCTION. INSTALLATION. MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF CABLE TEVEVISION FACILITIES AND SERVICES. NO CONSTRUCTION pg. INSTALLATION, MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF CABLE TELEVISIO~ FACILITIES AND SERVICES SHALL INTERFERE WITH WATER, SEWER TELEPHONE FACILITIES AND SERVICES OF FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT, UNITED TELEPHONE SERVICES OR ANY OTHER UTILITY PROVIDER. IN THE EVENT SAID CABLE COMPANY DAMAGES THE FACILITIES OF ANOTHER PUBLIC UTILITY, IT SHALL BE SOLEY RESPONSIBILE FOR SAID DAMAGES. TO COLLIER COUNTY, IT'S FRANCHISEES AND THE NORTH NAPLES FIRE DISTRICT AN ACCESS EASEMENT OVER AND ACROSS TRACT A FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF PERMITTING EMERGENCY AND OTHER SERVICE VEHICLES TO GAIN ACCESS TO ALL EXISTING AND FUTURE TRACTS AND LOTS WITHIN THE PELICAN MARSH SUBDIVISION. 7. WCN COMMUNITIES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION IT'S SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, RESERVES ALL DRAINAGE EASEMENTS (D.E.) AS DRAINAGE. MAINTENAN AND ACCESS EASEMENTS WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTENANCE THEREOF. TO COLLIER COUNTY, ALL DRAINAGE EASEMENTS WITH NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTENANCE THEREOF· TO COLLIER COUNTY. ALL TEMPORARY DRAINAGE EASEMENTS WITH NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTENANCE THEREOF. SAID TEMPORARY DRAINAGE EASEMENTS TO BE AUTOMATICALLY AND SIMULTANEOUSLY VACATED UPON REPLATTING OR GRANTING OF PERMANENT DRAINAGE EASEMENTS. 10. WCN COMMUNITIES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION IT'S SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. RESERVES ALL TEMPORARY DRAINAGE EASEMENTS WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTENANCE THEREOF· SAID TEMPORARY DRAINAGE EASEMENTS TO BE AUTOMATICALLY AND SIMULTANEOUSLY VACATED UPON REPLATTINO OR GRANTING OF PERMANENT DRAINAGE EASEMENTS. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PETITION V-99-23, ROBERT W. HERRMANN, REPRESENTING JOSEPH E. D'JAMOOS, REQUESTING A 7.5-FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 7.5- FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK TO 0 FEET AND A 10-FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 25-FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK TO 15 FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 325 SEDGWICK COURT, FURTHER DESCRIBED AS LOT 57, PELICAN BAY UNIT 10, IN SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. OBJECTIVE: The petitioner requests a 7.5-foot variance from the required 7.5-foot side yard setback to 0 feet, along the west property line to allow for construction of a garage addition and a 10-foot variance from the required 25-foot rear yard setback to 15 feet for a bedroom addition. CONSIDERATIONS: The petitioner wishes to construct additions to the existing house. The house is adjacent to a lake to the north and a landscape buffer to the west, at the points of proposed encroachment. Staff believes that these factors ameliorate the proposed encroachments. A phone call was receiw,.~d from the neighbor to the east who had no objection. A letter was received from the Administrator of Design Review for Bay Colony Shores who had no objection. FISCAL IMPACT: Since the subject property is a platted lot with infrastructure to support a single family home, approval of this petition would have no additional fiscal impact on the County. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Since the use of the lot is single family residentia~ and within the parameters of the Density Rating System, the use of the property proposed for the variance is consistent with the Future L~,nd Uso E ement of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. HISTORIC/ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT: Staff's analysis indicates that the petitioners' property is not located within an area of historical and archaeological probability as referenced on the official Collier County Probability Map. Therefore, an Historical/Archaeological Survey and Assessment or waiver is not required. A~A ITEM JAN 11 2000 PLANNING SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Because the rear yard is adjacent to a lake/drainage easement and the side yard is adjacent to a landscape buffer, Planning Services Department staff recommended approval of the variance. EAC RECOMMENDATION: The Collier County Environmental Advisory Council did not hear this petition. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Collier County Planning Commission reviewed this petition on December 2, 1999. By a unanimous vote, the CCPC forwarded Petition V-99-23 to the Board of Zoning Appeals with a recommendation of approval. PREPARED BY: / FRF--tD~I~ISCHL, SENIOR PLANNER CURRENT PLANNING REVkwED BY: RO"N-AL[~ F.'"N~I~(~',5~ C P CURRENT PLANNING MANAGER DATE DATE RO~ERE, AICP PLANNING SERVICES DIRECTOR DATE APPROVED BY: VIN . CAUTERO, AICP ~ DATE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ADMINIST~TOR executive summaryN-99-23 2000 MEMORANDUM TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: FRED REISCHL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DATE: NOVEMBER 8, 1999 SUBJECT: PETITION V-99-23 AGENT/APPLICANT: OWNER: AGENT: Joseph E. D'Jamoos 4201 Gulfshore Boulevard North Naples, FL 34102 Robert W. Herrmann 1100 6th Avenue South, Suite 225 Naples, FL 34102 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests a 7.5-foot variance from the required 7.5-foot side yard setback to 0 feet, along the west property line to allow for construction of a garage addition and a 10-foot variance from the required 25-foot rear yard setback to 15 feet for a bedroom addition. AGENDA ITEM .j7 JAN 11 2000 i PR. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is located at 325 neighborhood of the Pelican Bay PUD. Sedgwick Court, within the Bay Colony PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petitioner wishes to construct an addition to the garage along the west property line, adjacent to the Bay Colony landscape buffer; and a bedroom addition along the north property line adjacent to a drainage easement SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: Subject: Surrounding: North - East - South - West - Single family home and pool; zoned PUD Lake, drainage easement Single family house on Lot 58; zoned PUD Single family house on Lot 56; zoned PUD Bay Colony landscape buffer HISTORIC/ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT: Staff's analysis indicates that the petitioner's property is not located within an area of historical and archaeological probability as referenced on the official Collier County Probability Map. Therefore, an Historical/Archaeological Survey and Assessment or waiver is not required. EVALUATION FOR IMPACTS TO TRANSPORTATION, INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENVIRONMENT: Approval of this variance request will have no effect on infrastructure, transportation or the environment. ANALYSIS: Section 2.7.5 of the Land Development Code grants the authority to the Board of Zoning Appeals to grant variances. The Planning Commission is advisory to the BZA and utilizes the provisions of Section 2.7.5.6.1 through 2.7.5.6.8, which are general guidelines to be used to assist the Commission in making a determination. Responses to the items in Section 2.7.5.6 are as follows: AGENDA I~ JAN 11 2000 P~,. ao Are there special conditions and circumstances existing, which are peculiar to the location, size and characteristics of the land, structure or building involved? Yes. The house is adjacent to a lake to the north and a landscape buffer to the west, at the points of proposed encroachment. Are there special conditions and circumstances, which do not result from the action of the applicant such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property, which is the subject of the variance request? No. The petitioner wishes to construct additions to the existing house. Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Land Development Code work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant? No. The petitioner has a house and pool on the property. Will the variance, if granted, be the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure and which promote standards of health, safety and welfare? A reasonable use of the land currently exists. However, the requested variance will be for a proposed encroachment that is adjacent to a lake and a landscape buffer. Will granting the variance requested confer on the petitioner any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district? Yes, this variance will allow the petitioner to have a smaller rear and side yard than would be permitted for a similar lot in the Pelican Bay PUD. JAN 11 2000 Will granting the variance be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this Land Development Code, and not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare? No, granting of this variance will reduce the amount of the required yard and required open space, which will not be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the LDC. However, approval of this request will not be detrimental to the public welfare. Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves, lakes, golf courses, etc.? Yes. The rear yard is adjacent to a lake/drainage easement and a landscape buffer. Staff believes that these factors ameliorate the proposed encroachments. Wi!i grar~ting the variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? Approval of this variance will not affect or change the requirements of the Growth Management Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Because the rear yard is adjacent to a lake/drainage easement and the side yard is adjacent to a landscape buffer, staff recommends that the CCPC forward Petition V-99- 23 to the BZA with a recommendation for approval. AGEI~A ITE JAN 11 2000 Pg. 7 PREPARE~)Y: R'(~ ~'A"L"~ ."'1~ N O~ ~ICP CURRENT PLANNING MANAGER DATE DATE PLANNING SERVICES DIRECTOR DATE VINCENT A. CAUTERO, AICP, ADMINISTRATOR D/~T-E COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Petition Number: V-99-23 Collier County Planning Commission: RUSSELL A. BUDD, CHAIRMAN I A GENOA ITEM J,.h I1 2000 VARIANCE PETITION (VARIANCE FROM SETBACK (S) REQUIRED FOR A PARTI~~.I~I~J,~F~ Petition No. Date Petition Receive' ~ Commission District: ~ Planner Assigned: ABOVE TO BE CO.M'PLETED BY STAFF GENERAL INFORMATION: Petitioner's Name: Jn~eph E_ D'.Iamnn~ 9,~:i6oner's Address:-4~or-~t~at~d-tXh~-~b~ Nap!es, Flari.% Telephone: 290-7900 Agent's Name: ~nhert W. Rerrmann Agent's Address: ~ inn/~th ~. ....... qc,,,~-h q2,,;~-~ OOl[ 'NTn~l~, 1~ 2A 1 nO Telephone: 4~ 95~ COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING SERVICES/CURRENT PLANNING 2800 N. HORSESHOE DRIVE - NAPLES, FL 34104 PHONE (941) 403-2400/FAX (941) 643-6968 Application for Variance Petition - 8/98 Pag I o~ ~/~ ITEl~ JAN 2000 Complete the following for all Association(s) affiliated with this petition. (Provide additional sheets if necessary.) Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address 8700 Bay Colony Dr Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address Name of Master Association: Mailing Address 625 ! Pe~c~_ BW Bh,d Name of Civic Association: Mailing Address PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal Description of Subject Property: Su,k!Msion: Bay Colony Corp__-,__,,-_iW _~,~sociation Naples FL 34 !02 City- State, Zip City PeLic~__-_ Bay Fo-nd_a_tion Cirv Pelican Bay P.B. 15 Ba'~' Colonv ShoresUni: 10 Lot (s) 57 State, Zip State FL-Zip- 34108 City - State, Zip Block (s) Property I.D. # 66674378050 Section 33 TWP. 48 Range 25 Metes & Bounds Description: See Survey Attached. Application for Variance Petition - 8/98 Page 2 of 8 AGENDA ITEM 2000 ! va. Address of Subject Property: (If different from Petitioner's address) 325 Sedwick Court, Naples, FL 34108 Current Zoning and Land use of Subject Parcel: Land use is -residential-single family. p.U.D Adjacent Zoning & Land Use: ZONING E ~' LAND USE single famil¥-residemial single family-resideni:kd single family-residential single family-residential Minimum Yard Requirements for Subject Property.: Front: 30feet Side: 7 5 feet Comer Lot: Yes [] No Waterfxont Lot: Yes [~ No Rear: 25 feet Application for Variance Petition - 8/98 Pag~ _ AC:~.NDA flea 3 ot~' JAN 11 2000 Nature of Petition Provide a detailed explanation of the request including what structures are existing and what is proposed: the amount of encroachment proposed using numbers, i.e. reduce front setback from 25' to 18'; when property owner purchased property; when existing principal structure was built (include building permit number (s) if possible); why encroachment is necessary; how existing encroachment came to be; etc. Existing residence at 325 Se~wick Court in Bay Colony Development, Naples, Florida, built Approximately April of 1990. The Application for Variance is requesting a portion of a new one car garage addition encroach Into the 7.5 feet setback, with the corner of the structure touching the property line. The adjacent area long the entire west side of the residence is the landscape buffer to the south entrance and guardhouse for Bay Colony and will remain so, indefinitely (see attached survey for dimensions and location. Also beiD~_r~_ques~ed is ~n additio~i for a ~cw bedroom on the guest suite, which does not have a bedroom presently, only a sitting room with pull-out sofa accommodations (this area to be converted and used as a family-member permanent residence. This area is approximately 9.9 to 12.6 feet by ';'" f,-e* in ~i~e ?' '- . , n:> ex~',:nsion will become a r, uffer for the residence to both traffic and noise and headli~t protrusion into the rear of the residence and provide privacy for the pool area, allowin~ the owners and their ~uest to be protected from visual observation of continued traffic Passing adjacent to their property,. The projection of the addition will extend to the setback of the pool screen to the north and extend the existing west building wall without protruding into the side yard setback (see attached civil/survey plan). Application for Variance Petition - 8/98 Page 4 of Air. ID A ITF_M 2000 Please note that staff and the Collier County Planning Commission shall be guided in their recommendation to the Board of zoning appeals, and that the Board of zoning appeals shall be guided in its detenmna~ion to approve or deny. a variance petition by the below listed criteria (1-8). Please address thin criteria using additional pages if necessa~'.) .' I. Are there special conditions and circumntancos existing which are peculiar to the location, size and characteristics of the land, structure or building involved. Adjacent to entry - buffer zone. -The residence is positioned on the en of a cul-de- sac with this home being the only structure within the cul-de-sac Adjacent to the west & south is the south entrance gate of Bay Colony, surrounded by a 50' land- ' scape buffer, which is densely planted with trees, shrubs and ground cover. 2 Are there special conditions and circumstances which do not result from .the action of the applicant such as pre- existing conditions relative to the property which is the subject of the variance request. The existing Bay Colony entrance being adjacent to the residence creates a noise factor and headlight penetration into the back of the home. 3. Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of thi~ zoning code work unneces&al'y and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties on the applicant. Noise. Will the variance, if granted, be the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure and which promote standards of health, safety or welfare. Yes. The variance request is the minimal required to add a single car garage and the bedroom is of minimal alimet dons to accommodate the required usage. The garage encroachment is a small triangular form, and the bedroom is proposed to extend to only the limits of the pool enclosure setback. Application for Variance Petition - 8/98 Page: of 8 A~A I1 '~/7~ JAN 11 2000 5. Will granting the variance requested confer on the petitioner any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district. The petitioner is not aware of any special privileges which would be bestowed in non-compliance with existing zoning. 6. Will granting the variance be in harmony with the intent and purpose of this zoning code, and not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. The granting would be in harmony with existing intents of zoning and would not be injurous To ei_th~? any_ne_jghbor or detrimental to the landscape buff-er of the Bay Colon~' Entrance. 7. Are there nararal conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves, lakes, golf course, etc. As buffers and visual barriers to this property, are the landscape buffer to the west retention Lake to the north, one neighbor to the east (opposite side of home fi.om additions request), And the cul-de-sac and no neighbor to the south. 8. Will granting the variance be consistent with the growth management plan. The granting appears not to be in any way detrimental to the growth management plan. Application for Variance Petition - 8/98 Page .AGE. N~A ITFJ~ ~ /7~ . °f~A!~ I~ 2000 VARIANCE PETITION APPLICATION SUBM1TYAL CHECKLIST TI-HS COMPLETED CIqECKIST IS TO BE SUBMITFED WITH APPLICATION PACKET! REQUIREMENTS # or m QuI O COPIES l.Completed Application 15 15 2.Completed Owner/Agent Affidavit, Notarized 1 1 1 1 4.Survey of property, showing the encroachment (measured in feet) 5. Site Plan depicting the following: a) Ali property boundaries & dimensions b) All e~.-isting and proposed structures (labeled as sach) c) North arrow date and scale of drawing d) Required setbacks & proposed setbacks 6. Location map depicting major streets in area for reference 15 15 7.Application fee, checks shall be made payable to Collier Check 2871, 8/16/99 County. Board of Commissioners -- $425.00 8.Other Requirements - - As the authorized ~_nt for this petition. I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand t!)gt failure to ir)elude all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing of this %ppikafit/Ageht Sigmitdr~ - / · i Application for Variance Petition - 8/98 Page 7 ot 8 AGENDA ITt. 2000 Pre-application Meeting Notes: Meeting was held, in attendance were Ron Nino Collier County staff; Joe D'Jamoos, owner; and Robert Herrmann,' architect. Plans were reviewed of existing residence indicating location of the property, setbacks required to the structure, and proposed additions. The new appendages are to be: 1) one single car addition to the southwest of the existing two car garage; and 2) guest bedroom added to the northwest corner of the guest suite within the existing residence. A letter from Elizabeth Whaley of WCI (see attached) was received and a description of the house and its surrounding usage were expressed. Mr. Nino commented that he understood the request and did not foresee any concerns regarding the encroachments being requested. He also stated he did not anticipate any problems from the staff and he would expect a favorable recommendation for allowing the additions requested. JAN 1I 2000 WCI Watermark Communities lac. July 22. 1999 - page 1 of 2 Robert W. Hernnann AIA, NCARB herrmann doverspike and associates, inc. architecture and interior design 1100 Sixth Avenue South Naples, FI. ~4102 ph (941) 261-7440 fx 649-7420 Re: Setback Questions Homesite 5'7, "_Bay~," Pelican Bay Unit Ten 325 Sedgwick Co-~ Naples, FL 34'105 Dear Bot~: This is a follow-up to our telephone conversation with Mr. D'Jamoos, today regarding additions he migh[ 'want to make to the a~,ov¢. ,mfererlc~ property. ~%"ksh I c, ould have been tfiore en~;o,:r~gi,:g, but pe~aps the infonmation here will I~elp. As discussed, the minimum standarcls in the Pelican Bay P.U.D. document for Group 1, single family cietached dwellings are: 30,0 10,0 25.0 15.0 feet setback from front lot line. measured to the wall of the sU~cture fee: setback from side lot lines, measured to the wall of a one-sto~, structure feet ~etb~¢& :'ror~ side lot lines, measured to the wall bt' a two-story structure feet set~ac~ from mar lot line, measured to the wall of the principal structure feet sett~acg from rear lot line, measured to pool screen enclosure. The Collier County standards for RSF3 [residential s~ngle family 3 dwellings per acre] are the ~ame as the above minimums in the ia.U.D., except ~e county standards do allow a setbac~ from rear lot line to pool screen enclosure of 10 feet. Unfortunately, that does not help with his desire to acid a room to the rear of the existing guest suite at t~e left rear (norU~west) end of the house. My records show homes~te 57 is a total of 17,707 square feet or 0.4 acre, Footprint of existing home is ~hown on construction plans at 10~' - 6' wide by 76' - 8' deep; the pool deck extends 15' beyond the ~ight rear column of the covered terrace and 15' beyond the rear wall of the guest suite. Remember, these ciimensions are from plans. You need to verify from accurate surveyed a~-10uilt dimensions from a sketc~ of survey of existing re, dance ancl screen enclosed lap pool From the~e file plans, It does appear that there is room just tO left of garage to .~ueeze in a third garage space, a~'~cl still rnaintaio the minimum 30' frorrt and 7.5' side setDack. If he dec~des to go up over either t~e garage at front left, the guest suite at rear left. or the library at front dght - then the second story etement will need to observe a minimum side setback of ten feet (109. I do have a file set of construction plans wi~ floor plan dimensions, and roof plan (not truss plan) that you are welcome to borrow and copy if it will help with you concept planning. " 4 24301 ~al~=n Cen~er Drive · Bonita,Springs, F!or~da34134 · (94i) 947-2600 ' wcicommu: AGENDA JAN I? 2000 ~tJe$ :'om Pg.. /7 July 22, 199g - page 2 of 2, Robert W. Herrrnann AiA,, NCA~B henTnann dovempike ancl associates, inc.., arcflitecture and ir~or c~esign $~ Oue~lio~= Home. ire ~7, "Bay Colony Shote~,' Pelican Bay Unit Ten 325 Sedgwick Coul% Naple~, FL 3410~ Accomling to t~e Unit Ten Plat (Bay Colony Shores), the lancL~cape buffer between s~te 57's left side lot line and Bay Colony Drive is about 30 feet wide, then there is a lake at rear of home. Because of this, we would have no aestl~eti¢ objection to a variance to the above minimum standards in order to allow a room acldition at rear of guest suite. However, it is my understanding Mat our design review committee [Bay Colony New Construction Committee] does not have the authority to grant such a variance on behalf of WCI since it requires a vadance to both the Pelican Bay P.U.D., and to Cour~ty standards. Ron Nino. Senior Planner at Collier County (telephone 403-2400, fax 643-6968) is the 'axpe~l" on Pelican Bay. You may want to ask his advice as.to how to (or whether to) proceed to request such a variance. He will be able to visualize your questions easier, if you can fax him a quick concept site plan showing existing and proposed. Be sure to include relation of lot to Bay Colony Ddve and the take, sa it will be cJea¢ ~at the proposed addition wouk;I not impact views from a neighoodng residence - nor would it appreciably affect views from Bay Colony Ddve towa~ the Bay Colony Shores neighborllood. Pages attached to this letter are from my file set of plans for the residence. The site plan was drawn at a scale of 1' ~ 10' and I have reduced it ~0% or more on our copier, so donl try to scale, but ~oe.~ §iv~ you ar, e~ii~ated r~!ation of house To lot. Let me know if you want to bo~'ow the clr~wings or if you have othe~ questio~s~ideas to discuss; my clirect telept~one line is 498-8545. I feel sure we can devise a good solution, and of course, I am glad to help where I can. Sincerely, El[zabett~ 5. Whaley Administrator of Design Review cc: PD, ~E, AFM, L Y$, KT, M- and R-files PB10BC57 Jo~epl~ E. D'Jamoos 13356 Rosewood L.ar~ Naples, FL 34119 AGENDA ITEM JAN 11 2000 L. D ' Jamoos W~/L Joseph E. D'Jamoos and Theresa being first duly s~orn, depose and say that we./I am/are the owners of the property described herein and which is the subject matter of the proposed hearing; that all the answers to the questions in this application, including the disclosure of interest inforrnatfon, aH sketches, data, and other supplementary matter attached to and made a part of this application, are honest and true to the bert of our ]mowledge and belief. We/! understand that the information requested on this application muet be complete and accurate and that the content of this form, whether computer generated or County printed shall not be altered. Public hearings will not be advert~ed until this application is deemed complete, and ail required information haz been submitted. As property owner We. ff further authorize Robert lterr~n as our/my representative in any matters regarding this Petition. to act (~i~u~e o. f Property Owner Typed or Printed Name of Owner Typed or Printed Name of Owner Appl{~atioa for Va~ian~ P~tltknt - ~ (Print, Type. or Stamp Name of Notary Public) JOSEPH D'IAMoOS THERESA L D'J~OOS 13356 Rosewo~ ~. Napl~, Fl 34119-8519 !i 2000 Oak II ¢D"I ggg MapQue~t.com, ---.-,_,~Om~ LOft ', Inc.; ~J~'1909 GDT, Inc. JAN ~I 2000 RESOLUTION NO. 2000- RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER V-99-23, FOR A VARIANCE ON PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance No. 91-102) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of variances; and WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals, being the duly elected constituted Board of the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a 7.5-foot variance fi.om the required side yard setback of 7.5 feet to 0 feet and a 10-foot variance from the required 25-foot rear yard :,2tbac~ to iJ ;cc: ~.' y.~own o:~ t',',e ~tta,:hed plo~ plan, i ~'mi.,;! 'A". ii, ~,. "Pi. ID" Zonc lor thc property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Section 2.7.5 of the Zoning Regulations of said Land Development Code for the ,.mincorporated area of Collier County; and lhrHEREAS, all interested parties have been given oppommity to be heard by this Board in public meeting assembled, and the Board having considered all matters presented; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS of Collier Count)', Florida. that: The Petition V-99-23 filed by Robert W. Hermann, representing Joseph E. D'Jamoos, with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Lot 57, Pelican Bay, Unit 10, as recorded in Plat Book 15, Pages 64-67 of the Official Records of Collier County, Florida. be and the same hereby is approved for a 7.5-foot variance fi.om the required side yard setback of 7.5 feet :o 0 feet and a 10-foot variance from thc required 25-foot tear yard setback *o 15 feet as shown on the attached plot plan, Exhibit 'A", of the "PUD" Zoning District wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions: This variance is for the encroachment shown in Exhibit "A" only. Any other encroachment shall require a separate variance. -3.- JA! 2000 Pi. BE IT RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number V-99~23 be recorded in the minutes of this Board. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this day of ,2000. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: Ma~ S. S~uderi Assistant County Attorney g/admin: RESOLU'rlON/V-99-23/FR/ts CHAIRMAN -2- lAN !1 2000 EXHIBIT JAN 11 2000 "A" -- P~.. ~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PETITION: CU-99-28, MR. JEFF L. DAVIDSON REPRESENTING TTT, INC., REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE "1" OF THE AGRICULTURE ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR AN EARTHMINING OPERATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF RED DEER ROAD AND APPROXIMATELY 2,000 FEET NORTH OF IMMOKALEE ROAD (CR-846), IN SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 47 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. OBJECTIVE: The applicant is seeking to obtain conditional use approval to allow for an earthmining operation on an undeveloped 10-acre parcel. CONSIDERATIONS: The petitioner seeks conditional use approval to allow for an earthmining operation on the subject site that is zoned for agricultural uses. The property is primarily a fallow farm field and contains no wetland preserve areas. It should be noted that a portion of the site has been excavated pursuant to an excavation pemfit not to exceed 4,000 cubic yards. A con&tional use is now required to expand the excavation beyond that limit. The earth mining operation is planned to be conducted in one phase and will include littoral zone plantings and a perimeter buffer. The conceptual land use plan also indicates that the proposed earth mining operation is only accessed from Immokalee Road via Red Deer Road that is currentlY a private local road. It should be noted that there are no interconnection points to the adjacent properties. In addition, the conceptual site plan indicates that the excavation will create a 4- acre lake that will be incorporated into a future residential development for two dwellings at the end of the excavation process. The traffic impact review indicates that the proposed earth mining operation will generate approximately 23 truck trips per weekday. Based on this information, the site-generated trips will not exceed the significance test standard (5 percent of the level of service "C" design volume) on Immokalee Road (CR-846) or on any local road. Therefore, this petition is consistent with Policy 5.1 and 5.2 of the Traffic Circulation Element (TCE). _PRO_/CONS: The pro/cons that are listed below contains a summary of the evaluation of the criteria that are specifically noted in Section 2.7.4.4 of the Land Development Code. This requires staff evaluation and comment, and used as the basis for a recommendation for approval or denial by the Collier County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. PROS The surrounding lands to the north, south & east are fallow farm fields. JAN tl ~uUu · The project's ingress/egress is fi.om a private road that is currently maintained by the property owner. · The proposed use is typically one that does not generate significant glare or odor effects. In addition, the excavation will create a 4-acre lake for future home sites. · A nearby land use to the west (across Friendship Lane) is an ~ operation that is similar to the proposed conditional use. · Due to the small size of the site, the earth mining operation will be completed in one phase that will limit the mining impacts. CONS: · During the life of the earth mining operation, there will be noise and dust resulting from the operation of heavy equipment that may impact the residential property to the west. · The excavation process may generate additional truck traffic on Immokalee Road that inherently crc~,:tcs a pot¢-~tiai ~'o~ traffic ~ccidems. FISCAL IMPACT: This co;:ditional ttse pctitim~, by an~! of itself ~x. ill have no fiscal impact on the County. However, if~his request meets its objective, a portion of the subject land will be further developed. The ~nere fact that new development has been approved will result in future fiscal impact on County public facilities. The County collects impact fees prior to the issuance of building permits to help offset the impacts of each new development on public facilities. These impact fees are used to fired projects in the Capital Improvement Element needed to maintain adopted levels of service for public facilities. In the event that impact fee collections are inadequate to maintain adopted levels of service, the County must provide supplemental funds from other revenue sources in order to build needed facilities. The Impact Fee Coordinator has determined that the following impact fee will be applicable to this earth-mining project. Based on the transportation impact fee calculation, an earth-mining operation that generates 23 truck trips per day for 5 years will be assessed a transportation impact fee of $4,010.05. Finally additional revenue is generated by application of ad valorem tax rates. The revenue that will be generated depends on the value of the improvements. At this point in time staff has not developed a method to arrive at a reasonable estimate of tax revenue based on ad valorem tax rates. Nevertheless, it should be appreciated that not withstanding the fiscal impact relationship, development takes place in an environment of concurrency management. When level of service requirements fall below adopted standards, a mechanism is in place to bring about a cessation of building activities. Certain LOS standards apply countywide and would therefore bring about a countywide concurrency determination versus roads that may have local geographic concurrency implications. A~ t~F~- JAN ~1 2000 GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The subject property lies within the Agricultural/Rural and Agricultural Residential Sub-district as designated within the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). This land use classification provides for those areas that are remote from the existing development pattern lack public facilities and services or are in agricultural production. The maximum density in this area is 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres, while a limited selection of non-residential uses and agricultural uses are also permitted. Among those uses allowed in the FLUE is earth mining. Therefore, the proposed conditional use application is consistent with the GMP. PLANNING SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning Services staff has referred this petition to all appropriate County Agencies for their review and recommendation. Based upon their analysis and planning review, staff recommends approval of Petition CU-99-28 subject to the conditions of approval and landscape buffer requirements that have been incorporated into the resolution of adoption. ENX'IRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: Since this 1 O-acre site is currently cleared, this petition is not required to be reviewed by the by the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC). In addition, the Community Development Services Environmental Review staff determined that this petition is consistent with the applicable environmental requirements of the Land Development Code. Their conditions of approval have been incorporated into the resolution of adoption. This includes the requirement that the all-exotic vegetation shall be removed from the entire site and that the property owner shall be responsible for annual exotic removal. Lastly, the subject site is located outside a Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) and therefore is not subject to those regulations. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Collier County Planning Conu-nission heard this petition on December 16, 1999. They unanimously recommend bv an 8 to 0 vote to forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a reccm~nendation of approval subject to staff stipulations contained in the resolution of adoption. The Planning Commissioners determined that the proposed earthmining operation is compatible with the surrounding area. Since staff has not received any correspondence for or against this petition and no one spoke in opposition to this petition during the public hearing; this petition has been placed on the Summary Agenda. JA~-~ t 1 2000 PREPARED BY: RAY BELLOWS, PRINCIPAL PLANNER CU~NT PLANNING SECTION ~ ~C--~, ~GER CUR~NT PLANNING SECTION PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT VINCEN-f :-\. CAUTERO, .\ICP, ADM1NISTRAFOR COMMUNITY DEV. AND ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS. EX SUMMARY/CU-99-28/RVB/rb DATE DATE \2. t-1.55 DATE ~o,/?,8 MEMORANDUM AGENDA ITEM 7-E TO: FROM: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DATE: RE: NOVEMBER 29, 1999 PETITION NO: CU-99-28, EARTH MINING OWNER/AGENT: Agent: Jeff L. Davidson Davidson Engineering Inc. 1720 J&C Boulevard Naples, Florida 34109 O,amer: TTT, Inc. P.O. Box 8312 Naples, Florida 34101 REQUESTED ACTION: To obtain conditional use "1" of the "A" Rural Agricultural zoning district per Section 2.2.2.3 (1) of the Collier County Land Development Code allowing for an earth mining operation. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject site is located on the north side of Red Deer Lane in Sections 24, Township 47 South, Range 27 East. (See iljustration on the following page) PURP_OSEfDESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petitioner seeks conditional use approval to allow for an earth mining operation on a vacant ten (10) acre parcel that is zoned for agricultural uses. The property is primarily a fallow farm field and contains no wetland preserve areas. However, a portion of the site has been excavated pursuant to an excavation permit. A conditional use is now required to expand the excavation. The earth mining operation is planned to be conducted in one phase and will include littoral zone plantings and a perimeter buffer. The conceptual land use plan also indicates that the proposed earth mining operation is only accessed from Immokalee Road via Red Deer Lane that is currently a private local road. It should be noted that there are no interconnection points to the adjacent properties. $ 8$D 26' 2~' 6629~ 5O .v 8~D ' $0' GG$ ! CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN EXHIBIT "C" In addition, the conceptual site plan indicates that the excavation will create a 4 acre lake that will be incorporated into a future residential development at the end of the excavation. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: Existing Conditions:' The site is ,undeveloped and has been extensively impacted from prior farming activities. The 1 O-acre site is zoned Agriculture. Surrounding: North - Fallow Farm Field; Zoned: Agriculture. East - Fallow Farm Field; Zoned: Agriculture. South - Fallow Farm Field; Zoned: Agriculture. West - Mobile Home; Zoned: Agriculture. GROWTH ,MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: This petition has been reviewed by the appropriate staff for compliance with the applicable elements of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The Land Development Code establishes a procedure that may result in approving a development order for an earth mining operation in the agricultural zoning district. Consistency relationships with applicable elements of the GMP are as follows: Future Land ['se Element; The subject property lies within the Agricultural/Rural and Agricultural Residential Sub-district as designated within the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). This land use classification provides for those areas that are remote from the existing development pattern, lack public facilities and services or are in agricultural production. The maximum density in this area is 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres, while a limited selection of non- residential ~ses a:',d a.,.~icultura! uses are also permitted. Among those uses allox~ ed in the [:,*.[.rE i.s canh mining. Therefore, the proposed conditional use application is consistent with the GMP. Traffic Circulation Element: The traffic impact review indicates that the proposed earth mining operation will generate approximately 23 trips per weekday. Based on this information, the site generated trips will not exceed the significance test standard (5 percent of the level of service "C" design volume) on Immokalee Road (CR-846) or on any local road. Therefore, this petition is consistent with Policy 5.1 and 5.2 of the Traffic Circulation Element (TCE). Other Applicable Elements: Staff review indicates that this petition has been designed to account for the necessary, relationships dictated by the GMP. Mitigation measures and stipulations have been develop: .~d (where appropriate) to ensure consistency with the GMP during the permitting process. Development permitted by the approval of this petition will be subject to a concurrency review under the provisions of Section 3.15 of the Collier County Land Development Code, Adequate Public Facilities, at the earliest or the next to occur of either final SDP approval, final plat approval, or building permit applicable to this development. Therefore, this petition is consistent with the goals and policies of the GMP. Staff has concluded that no level of service standards will be adversely affected by this amendment. Appropriate mitigation measures and stipulations will assure that the County's interests are maintained. HISTORI C/ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT: Staffs analysis indicates that the petitioner's property is located outside an area of historical and archaeological probability as referenced on the official Collier County Probability Map. As a result, no Historical/Archaeological Survey and Assessment is required. In addition, Pursuant to Section 2.2.25.8.1 of the Land Development Code, the resolution shall include the following: If, during the course of site clearing, excavation or other construction activity a historic or archaeological artifact is found, all development within lhe minimum area necessary to protect the discovery shall be immediately stopped and the Collier County Code Enforcement Department contacted. EVALUATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL, TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE: The appropriate staff responsible has reviewed the subject petition for oversight related to the above referenced areas of critical concern. This primarily includes a review by the Community Development environmental and engineering staff, and the Transportation Services Division staff. The Transportation Division staff has recommended approval of the facility subject to the applicant providing the appropriate turn lanes on Immokalee Road. Since this 10-acre site is currently cleared, this petition is not required to be reviewed by the by the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC). In addition, the Community Development Services Environmental Review staff determined that this petition is consistent with the applicable environmental requirements of the Land Development Code. Their conditions of approval have been incorporated into the resolution of adoption. This includes the requiremem that the all-exotic vegetation shall be removed from thc entire site and that the property owner shall be responsible for annual exotic removal. Lastly, the subject site is located outside a Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) and therefore is not subject to those regulations. CRITERIA EVALUATION: The Curt-tnt Planning Sta?f has coordinated a comprehensive evaluation of this land use pctition based on the criteria contained in Section 2.7.4 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). This evaluation is intended to provide an objective, comprehensive overview of the impacts of the proposed land use change, be they positive or negative, culminating in a staff recommendation based on that comprehensive overview. The below listed criteria are specifically noted in Section 2.7.4 of the Land Development Code thus requiring staff evaluation and comment. This criteria shall be used as the basis for recommendation of approval or denial by the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners. Each of the potential or considerations identified during the staff review are listed under each of the criterion noted below, and are categorized as either "pro" or "con" as the case rr ay be, in the professional opinion of staff. Staff review of each of the criterion is followed by a summary conclusion culminating in a determination of compliance, non-compliance, or compliance with mitigation. a. Consistency with this code and Growth Management Plan. Pro: As noted above in the Fu{ure Land Use Element review, the requested mining use is consistent with the applicable elements of the GMP and the applicable provisions of the LDC. Con: Not applicable in view of the consistency evaluation with the GMP & LDC. Summaw Conclusion (Findings): This petition is consistent with the FLUE to the Collier County GMP. The proposed use is authorized in the Agriculture/Residential Sub-district designated areas and is permitted in the Agriculture district as a conditional use. Ingress and egress to .property and proposed structures thereon with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe. Pro: The projects proposed ingress and egress is from Red Deer Lane via Friendship Lane which are private roads that are maintained by the petitioner. It should be noted that Friendship Lane connects with Immokalee Road that is classified as a 2-lane arterial road in the project area. Since there is adequate frontage for the required turn lanes, this access will not adversely impact traffic flow. Con: The proposed earth mining use will add truck traffic on Immokalee Road that may create potential for traffic accidents. Summary Conclusion: The ingress/egress to the property should operate adequately and with an acceptable level of safety while the required turn lane improvements should improve traffic flow on Irnmokalec Road. The effect the conditional use would have on neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor effects; Pro: (i! The proposed use is typically one that does not generate signific3nt glare or odor cl'lbcts. In addition, thc excavation will create a 4 acre lake for future home sites allowing for the construction of two (2) dwellings. (ii) Noise resulting from the operation of heavy equipment should not be a problem since the subject site is located in an isolated area adjacent to fallow farm fields. (iii) Since there is one other earth mining operation in the area, the proposed conditional use (if approved) will not set a president for mining in the area. In addition, a portion of the site has previously been excavated. (See Photo #1) Con: During the life of the earth mining operation, there will be noise and dust resulting from the operation of heavy excavation equipment that may impact the residential property to the west. Summary. Conclusion (Findings): The proposed operation will generate noise from the extraction process and from truck traffic. However, the applicant will maintain the private roads, which will be a benefit to the adjacent property owners. In addition, perimeter buffers will ameliorate the effects of the operation on the residential dwelling to the west. d. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district. Pro: (i) Due to the small size of the site, the earth mining operation will be completed in one phase to limit mining impacts. Furthermore, the extraction area is adjacent to vacant agricultural land on three sides with a mobile home approximately 200 feet to the west. (See Photo #2) (ii) There is one Other approved earth mining operation in the vicinity, therefore, this petition is compatible with development trends in the project area. Con: The proposed use may generate short periods of truck traffic on Immokalee Road that inherently creates a potential for traffic accidents. In addition, during the life of the operation, there will be noise and dust fi.om the operation of heavy machinery. Summary. Conclusion (Findings): The noise generated by the extraction process is unavoidable in an area of rapid growth and development. Rural areas with a less dense population are the preferred locations for these uses. Once developed, the 10 acre site will allow two single-family dwellings that are also compatible with adjacent agriculture land uses. Therefore, it is staff's finding that the proposed use is compatible with the adjacent properties and other properties in the district. Photo #1. View of existing excavation on site. Photo #2. View west of the subject site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) fo~ ,vard Petition CU-99-28 to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of approval subject to the conditions of approval contained in the Resolution of Adoption. PREPARED BY: NT PLANNING SECTI(JN RONALD F. NINO, AICP, MANAGER CURRENT PLANNING SECTION R~RE, AICP, DIRECTOR PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT VINCENT A. CAUTERO, AICP, ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNITY DEV. AND ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS. Staff Report for December 16, 1999 CCPC meeting. COLLIER. COUNTY PLA.N%ING COMMISSION: RUSSELL A. BUDD, CHAIRMAN DATE DATE DATE DATE STAFF REPORT/CU-99-28/RVB/rb APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR: la! ~t,T ~ 6 'I,399 Petition N'o.:C U 9 9 - 2 8 · Date Petition Received: UUL~k2~I2oW L/ I~L~/ Commission District: Planner Assigned: Rim/q~it~- ............... ABOVE TO BE COMPLETED BY STAFF General Information Name of Applicant(s) Apphcant's Nlaihng Address __ City Naples Applicant's Telephone P.O. Box 8312 State 643-4649 .Name of A_oent Jeff L. Davidson, P.E. Agent's Mailing Address FI Zip 34101 Fax # 643-2596 Firm Davidson Engineering, Inc. City Naples 1720 J & C Boulevard, Suite 3 Agent's Telephone # 941 597 3916 Zip 34109 State FI Fax # 597 5195 COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING SERVICES/CURRENT PLANNING 2800 N. HORSESHOE DRIVE - NAPLES, FL 34104 PHONE (941) 403-2400/FAX (941) 643-6968 APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONDITIONAL USE - F~/~l Disclosure of Interest Information; If the property is owned fee simple by an [NDIVff)UAL, tenancy by the entirety., tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest. (Use additional sheets if necessary). Name and Address Percentage of Ow-nership If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholder~ and the percentage of stock owned by each. Name, Address and Orifice Tim P. Maloney, Pres 3830 1st Av S.W. Naples .Tg_n e~Y Migli_azz__o 970 9th St S.W. Tim J. Maloney 3888 Parkview Ln Naples Percentage of Stock 33.3 33.3 33.3 Co If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest. Name and Address Percentage of Interest APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONDmONAL USE - ~ do If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSIT[P, list the name of the general md/or limited panners. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individu.--~!:, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Parmership, list the names of the contract purch::: below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership Date of Contract: If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust. Name and Address NA Date subject property acquired {~) leased ( ): MaY 7, 1999 Term of lease yr./m~,s. If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate date of option: terminates: NA and date option , or anticipated closing date Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public heating, it is the APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONDFrlONAL USE-~ responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. Detailed legal description of the property_ covered by the' application: (If space is inadequate, attach on separate page.) If request involves change to more than one zoning district, include separate legal description for property involved in each district. Applicant shall submit four (4) copies of a recent survey (completed within the last six months, maximum I" to 400' scale) if required to do so at the pre-apphcation meeting. NOTE: The applicant is responsible for supplying the correct legal descriptio~ Ff questions arise concerning the legal description, an engineer's certification or sealed survey may be required. Section: 24 Township: 47 $ Range: 27 E Lot: Block: Subdivision: Plat Book Page #: Property I.D.#: Metes & Bounds Description: See attached deed Size of property: 663'+- ft. X 635%- ft. =Total Sq. Ft. Acres Address/general location of subject property; Redbird Lane north of Immokalee Road just east of Corkscrew Sanctuary !0.0+- 3 d j ~c_e_. t_zotdo~a_ ltd. lan&ns~ Zoning Land use N A Fallow Farm $ A Fallow Farm E A Fallow Farm W A Mobile Home APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONDITIONAL USE - &~[ PAGE 4 OF l' pg. /x'~' . Does property owner own contiguous property to the subject property? If so, give complete legal description of entire contiguous property. (If space is inadequate, attach on separate page). NO S ecti on: Township: Ran ge: Lot: Block: Subdivision: Plat Book Page #: Property I.D.#: Metes & Bounds Description: Type of Conditional Use: This application is requesting conditional uae # the Ag district for cr~£ oF uss) Earth Mining Present Use of the Property: Earth mining on a fallow farm field of Evaluation Criteria: Provide a narrative statement describing this request for conditional use. NOTE: Pursuant to Section 2.7.4. of the Collier County Land Development Code, staff's recommendation to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission's recommendation to the Board of Zoning Appeals shall be based upon a finding that the granting of the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and that the specific requirements governing the individual conditional use, if any, have been met, and that further, satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning the following matters, where applicable. Please provide detailed response to each of the criterion listed below. Specify how and why the request is consistent with each. (Attach additional pages as may be necessa~'). Describe how the project is consistent with the Collier County Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan (include information on how the request is consistent APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONDI'YIO~IAL USE -tid98 PAGE with the applicable section or portions of the future land clement): The project is consistent with the Land Development Code ,, in that earth mining is a permitted conditional use under sec 2.2.2.3. use Also the rural Ioacation and relatively Iow intensity of use are consistent with with both the growth management plan and future land use element. Describe the existing or planned means of ingress and egress to the property. ?r,d proposed structure thereon with particular reference to automotive and pedestrtan safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fi~,' or catastrophe: The proposed means of ingress and egress is via existing Friendship Lane and Redbird Lane. The roads have been maintained by the owners in conjunction with existing excavation operations on the property _ making__safer ingress to surroundin_g__p~o_P__e_rti_es dudng a potential emergency. Describe the effect the conditional use will have u, neighboring properties in relai, iu,, noise, glare, economic impact and odor: The pro{ect will have a positive impact on surrounding properties due to the maintenance of Redbird Lane and --¢~[eWd~h-~E~n~--in conjunction to the h~ifilifig operation. Th&Te will be typical noise due to the excavation and hauling operation but ouly during normal operating hours. Describe the site's and the proposed use's compatibility with adjacent properties and other properties in the district: The site will ultimately be used as homesites for two homes. The excavation operation will only be conducted temporarily untill completion. APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONDITIONAL USE -~ PAGt e. Please provide any additional information which you may feel is relevant to this request. 10. 11. Deed Restrictions: The County is legally precluded fi-om ~mforcing deed restrictions, however, many communities have adopted such restrictions. You may wish to contact the civic or property, owners association in the area for which this use is being requested in order to ascertain whether or not the request is affected by existing deed restrictions. Previous land use petitions on the subject property.: To your knowledge, has a public hearing been held on this property within the last year? If so, what was the nature of that hearing? No Additional Submittal requirements: In addition to this completed application, the following must be submitted in order for your application to be deemed sufficient, unless otherwise waived during the preapplication meeting. a. A copy of the pre-application meeting notes; Eleven (11) copies of a 24" x 36" conceptual site plan [and one reduced 87:" x I l" copy of site plan], drawn to a maximum scale of I inch equals 400 feet, depicting the following [Additional copies of the plan may be requested ucon completion of staff evaluation for distribution to the Board and various advisory boafcis such as the Environmental Advisory Board CEA.B), or CCPC]; · alt extsting and proposed structures and the dimensions thereof, · provisions for existing and/or proposed ingress and egress (including pedesman ingress and egress to the site and the structure(s) on site), ,~[~PLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONDrrlONAL USE -~ all existing and/or proposed parking and loading area~ [include matrix indicating required and provided parking and loading, including required parking for the disabled], 11 * locations ofsolid waste (rcfuse) containers and service function areas, required yards, open space and preserve areas, · proposed locations for utilities (as well as location of existing utility services to the site), · proposed and/or existing landscaping and buffering as may be required by the Cotmty, location of all signs and lighting including a narrative statement as to the type, character, and dimensions (such as height, area, etc.); An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), as required by Section 3.8. of the Land Development Code (LDC). Whether or not an ElS is required, two copies of a recent aerial photograph, (taken within the previous twelve months), minimum scale of one inch equals 400 feet, shall be submitted. Said aerial shall identi~ plant and/or wildlife habitats and their boundaries. Such identification shall be consistent with Florida Depaxunent of Transportation Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System. Statemeqt of utility provisiov, s (xvith all required attachments and sketches); A Traffic Impact Statement (TIS). unless waived at the pre-application meeting; A historical and archeological survey or waiver application if property is located within an area of historical or archaeological probability (as identified at pre- a??!ica~3cn rpcetmg); Any additional requirements as may be applicable to specific conditional uses and identified during the pre-application meeting, including but not limited to any required state or federal permits. A[~PLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONDITIONAL USE. PAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT STATELM[g.~ A TIS is required unless waived at the pre-application meeting. The TIS required may be either a major or minor as determined at the pre-application meeting. Please note the following with regard to TIS submittals: MINOR TIS: Generally required for conditional use (and rezone) requests for property less than I0 acres in size, although based on the intensity, or unique character ora petition, a major TIS rnay be required for petition of ten acres or less. MAJOR TIS: Required for all other conditional use (and rezone) requests. A minor TIS shall include the follmving: Trip Generation: Annual Average Dally Traffic (at buildout) Peak Hour (AADT) Peak Season Daily Traffic Peak }tom Tap Assignment: Within Radius of Development Irfftuence (Pd3I) Existing Traffic: Within AADT Volumes PSDT Volumes Level of Service (LOS) Impact of the proposed use on affected major thoroughfares, including any anticipated changes in level of service (LOS) Any proposed improvements (to the site or the external right-of-way) such as providing or eliminating an ingressJegress point, or providing mm or decel lanes or other improvements. Descr/be any proposal to rmtigate the negative impacts on the transportation system. For Rezones Only: State how this request is consistent with the applicable policies of the Tm ffi. c Circulation Element (TCE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP), including policies 1.3, 1.4, 4.4, 5. I, 5.2, 7.2 and 7.3. A Major TIS shall address all of the items listed above (for a Minor TIS, and shah also include an annly~ of the following: 3. 4. 5. 6. Intersection Analysis Background Traffic Future Traffic Through Traffic Planned/Proposed Roadway Improvements Proposed Schedule (Phasing) of Development APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONDITIONAL USE - ~ PAGE 9 TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT (TIS) STANDARDS: The tbllowing standards shall be used in preparing a TIS for submittal in conjunction with a conditional use or rezone petition: Trip Generation: Provide the total traffic generated by the project for each link within the project's Radius of Development Influence (1%12)I) in conformance with the acceptable traffic engineering principles. The rates published in the latest edition of the Institute :,.r Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Report shall be used unless documentation by the petitioner or the County justifies the use of alternative rates. Trip Assignment: Provide a map depicting the assignment to the network, of those trips generated by the proposed project. The assignment shall be made to all links within the RDI. Both annual average and peak seasonal traffic should be depicted. Existing Traffic: Provide a map depicting the current traffic conditions on all links within the RDI. The AADT, PSDI, and LOS shall be depicted for all links within the RDI. Level of Service CLOS&.' The LOS of a roadway shall be expressed in terms of the applicable Collier Ce~n~ General!zed Daily Service Volumes as se~ forth in the TCE of the GMP. Radius of Development Influence OtDI): The TIS shall cover the least of the following two areas: an area as set forth below; or, the area in which traffic assignments from the proposed ptoject on the major thoroughfares exceeds one percent of the LOS "C". Land Use Distance Residential 5 Miles or as required by DRI Other (commercial, industrial, institutional, etc.) 0 - 49, 999 Sq. Ft. 50,000 - 99, 999 Sq. Ft. 100,000 - 199, 999 Sq. Ft. 200,000 - 39,c, 999 Sq. Ft. 400,000 & up 2 Miles 3 Miles 4 Miles 5 Miles 5 Miles In describing the RDI the TIS shall provide the measurement in road miles from the proposed project rather than a geometric radius. APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONDITIONAL USE -~ o o Intersection Analysis; An intersection analysis is required for all intersections within the RDI where the sum of the peak-hour critica! lane volume is projected to exceed. !,200 Vehicles Per Hour CVPH). Background Traffic: The effects of previously approved but undeveloped or partially developed projects xvhich may affect major thoroughfares within the RDI of the proposed project shall be provided. This information shall be depicted on a map or, alternatively, in a listing of hose projects and their respective characteristics. Future Traffic: An estimate of the effects of traditional increases in traffic resulting from potential development shall be provided. Potential development is that which may be developed maximally under the effective Future Land Use Element {FLUE) and the Collier County Land Development Code. This estimate shall be for the projected development areas within the projects RDI. A map or list of such lands with potential traffic impact calculations shall be provided. Through Traffic: At a rain/mum, increases in through traffic shall be addressed through the year 2015. The me~odology used to derive the estimates shall be provided. It may b,z desirable to include any additional documentation and backup data to support the estimation as well. 10. 11. Planned/Proposed Roadway Improvements: All proposed or planned roadway improvements located within the RDI should be identified. A description of the funding commitments shall also be included. Project Phasing: When a project phasing schedule is dependent upon proposed roadway improvements, a phasing schedule may be included as part of the TIS. If the traffic impac:s of a project are mitigated through a phasing schedule, such a phasing schedule may be made a condition of any approval. TIS FORM RVB/R.IM 10/17,'97 APPLICATIOfq FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR CO~DITIOI~AL USE - 6/9~ PAGE I 1 /7,8 JAN 11 2723 Waiver Request CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST THIS COMPLETED CHECKLIST IS TO BE SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION PACKET! R EQ UIREMENTS # r oT COPIES REQUIRED REQUIRErl 1. Completed Application ...... 1! XX 2. Copy of Deed(s) and list identifying Owner(si and ali ~ 1 Partners if a Corporation XX 3. Completed Owner/Agent Affidavits~ Notarized 1 XX 4. Pre-application notes/minUtes 1'1 XX 5. Conceptual Site Plans 11 XX 6. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) - ~ 4 Waiver RE ~quest 7. Aerial Photograph - (with habitat areas identified) t 4 XX 8. iT-0-~mple--i~ed~ l;~-~ovisio'ns Statement (with required.I 4 attachments and sketches) XX 9. '~Fraffic Impact Statement- (TIS) 4 Tdp Gene~ttion fist. io. His m-~c~ Application Waiver R~quest I11. Copies of State and/or Federal Permits 4 XX 1'2. 'Architectural Rendering of P~oposed Structure(s) 4 XX 13. Application Fee, Check"shall be made payable to " - Collier County Board of Commissioners XX 14. Other Requ'irements'- As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that ali of the information indicated on this cheeidiat is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay~~ APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONDITIOeiAL USE -6/911 0 am/are the owners of the property~ described herein and which is the subject matter of the proposed hearing; that all the answers to the que~stions in this application, including the disclosure of interest inforrnatio., all sketches, data, and other supplementary matter attached to and made a part of this application, are honest and true to the best of our knowledge and belief. understand that the information requested on this application must be complete and accurate and that the content of this form, whether computer generated or Count.' printed shall not be altered. Public hearings will not be advertised untd this application is deemed complete, and all required information has been submitted. As property owner We/I further authorize as our/my representative in any matters regarding this Petition. to act Signature of Propers.' Owner Typed or Printed Name of Owner Thejoregoin£ instrument ~xtci~owledged before me this '7 day. of ~$~:? ~ . ,o m, ~3_x~fi'~-~ ~ as identification. if / ' State of Florida (S~'nat~e ~clV'otary Public--~ateo/' County of Collier Florida) / Lavon C. McKoy MY COMMISSION ~ CC6997~9 EXP!~E~ December Z 2001 ~D TH~J ~ F~N II~UI~aNC.~ (Print, TyPe, 'or'Stamp Co~nm~ssi[n~d Name of Notary' Public) APPLICATION FOR PIISLIC IIF. AR~'qG ~ CONDITIONAL USE ~ I/~tl PAGE 15 0 . RESOLUTION 2000- A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF EARTHM1NING CONDITIONAL USE "1" IN THE "A" RURAL AGRICULTURE ZONING DISTRICT PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.2.2.3. OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 47 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 67-1246, Laws of Florida, and Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on Collier County the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance No. 91-102) which includes a Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance establishing regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of Conditional [.sas: and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, being the duly appointed and constituted planning board for the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of Conditional Use 'T' of Section 2 2.2.3. in a,~ "A" P. ural Avoriculture Zone fbr eavthv,~ining on the property here;nailer d.~,cribcd, and has found as a matter of fact (Exhibit "A") that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Subsection 2.7.4.4 of the Land envelopment Code for the Collier County Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board in a public meeting assembled and the Board having considered all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS of Collier County, Florida that: The petition filed by Mr. Jeff L. Davidson P.E. of Davidson Engineenng, Inc., representing TTT. Inc., with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Exhibit "B" which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein be and the same is hereby approved for Conditional Use "1" of Section 2.2.2.3. of the "A" Rural Agriculture Zoning District for earthmining in accordance with the Conceptual Master Plan (Exhibit "C") and subject to the following conditions: Exhibit "D" which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Board. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this day of ,2000. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk BY: , CHAIRMAN Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: Marjo~e M. Student Assistant County Attorney g:adn n, RFS©LL ~ [ON,L'U-99-28zRB/ts -2- FINDING OF FACT BY COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION FOR CU-99-28 The following facts are found: Section 2.2.2.3.1 of the Land Development Code authorized the conditional use. o Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood because of: Ac C o Consistency yit/k~ Land Development Code and Growth Management P~Y~fY ? ~ No Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and ~in case of fire or catastrophe: Adequa~,~ngr~ & egress ~/ No Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise, g~c or odor effects: Q___~ N~t or Affect mitigated by Affect cannot be mitigated Compatibility with adjacent properties and other Property in the ' ' : Compatible ~~ districtNo Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, with stipulations,~(~2p~attached) (should not) be recommended for DATE: EXHIBIT "A" g/admin/FINDING OF FACT C}{AIRMAN/CU-99-28/P~B/im FINDING OF FACT BY COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION FOR CU-99-28 The following facts are found: Section 2.2.2.3.1 of the Land Development Code authorized the conditional use. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood because of: ao Consistency with the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan: Yes v/~ No B o Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe: Adequate ingress & egress Yes ~ No C o Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor effects: ~" No affect or Affect mitigated by Affect cannot be mitigated Do Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district: Compatible use within district Yes ~ No Based on the above findings, stipulations, (copy attached) approval this c ondi t i ona l_~_~ld~wi t h ( should not~b~eco~ed~r MEMBER: ~f~(~~ ~: g/adrmn/FINDING OF FACT MEMBER/CU-99-28/RB/im FINDING OF FACT BY COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION · FOR CU-99-28 The following facts are found: Section 2.2.2.3.1 of the Land Development Code authorized the conditional use. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood because of: Ao Consistency with the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan: Yes No Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe: A~equate ~ngzess & egress Yes ~.~/ No Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor effects: No affect or Affect mitigated by Affect cannot be mitigated Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district: Compatible use within district Yes ~//, No Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, with stipulations, (copy attached) (should not) be recommended for approval DATE· ~ ,, / · . _ ~ ,~,',~9~ MEMBER: ~. t ~~ g/adrrnn/'FINDING OF FACT MEMBER/CU-99-28/RB/im FINDING OF FACT BY COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION FOR CU-99-28 The following facts are found: Section 2.2.2.3.1 of the Land Development Code authorized the conditional use. o Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood because of: Consistency with the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan: Yes _~ No Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe: Adequate ingress & e~ress Yes ¥ No C o Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor effects: V/ No affect or Affect mitigated by Affect cannot be mitigated D o Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district: Compatible use within district Yes v/ No Based on tLe above findings, ~s~ditional use should, with stipulations, (copy attached)~sho~not) be recommended for approval g/admin/FINDING OF FACT MEMBER./CU-99-28/RB/im FINDING OF FACT BY COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION ° FOR CU-99-28 The following facts are found: Section 2.2.2.3.1 of the Land Development Code authorized the conditional use. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood because of: ao Consistency with the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan: Yes // No Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe: Adequate ingress & egress Yes ~/ No Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor effects: No affect or Affect mitigated by Affect cannot be mitigated D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district: Compatible use within district Yes ~ No Based on the above findings, t~~tional use should, with stipulations, (copy attached)((should'~ot) be recommended for approval . g/adnmn/'FINDING OF FACT MEMBEP,/CU-99-28/RB/im FINDING OF FACT BY COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION · FOR CU-99-28 The following facts are found: Section 2.2.2.3.1 of the Land Development Code authorized the conditional use. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood because of: ao Consistency with thL~nd Development Code and Growth Management~a~: Yes No Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control~and access in case of fire or catastrophe: Adequate ingress &.~gress Yes F No Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare/economic or odor effects: ~/ No affect or Affect mitigated by Affect cannot be mitigated Do Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district? Compatible use w/i thin district Yes ~ No Based on the above findings, this conditional use should/~ith stipulations, (copy attaqhed) (~6s~~ be recommen~d/for approval .~f~/$ {7 t~6~ z( , ~/ g/adrnin/FINDING OF FACT MEMBER/CU-99-28/RB/im FINDING OF FACT BY COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION FOR CU-99-28 The following facts are found: Section 2.2.2.3.1 of the Land Development Code authorized the conditional use. o Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood because of: no Consistency with the Land Development Code and Growth Management~lan: Yes~ No m o Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe: Adequ&~e ingress. & egress Yes X~J No C o Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise, g~are, economic or odor effects: ~ No affect or Affect mitigated by Affect cannot be mitigated Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district: Compatible-~s? within district Yes" No stipulatior~s~ (cop_y_ approval Based on the abo%e findings, this conditional use should, with attached) (should not)/~e reco~~ for g/adrmn/FINDING OF FACT MEMBER/CU-99-28/RB/im FINDING OF FACT BY COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION FOR CU-99-28 The following facts are found: Section 2.2.2.3.1 of the Land Development Code authorized the conditional use. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood because of: Ao Consistency with the Land Development Code and Growth Management ~an: Yes No Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe: Adequate ingress & ~ss Yes L/No C o Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise, gl~r~x economic or odor effects: L/No affect or Affect mitigated by Affect cannot be mitigated Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district: Compatible us~ w/ithin district Yes ~' No Based on the above findings, thi~s-/~itional use should, with stipulations, (copy attached)~c~~not) be r~ded for approval ~ DATE: /,,2 --/b-- ~ ~ MEMBER: ~/adrmn/FFNDrNG OF FACT 545MBKR/CU-99-28/RB/im LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 AND THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4, LESS THE SOUTH 30 FEET THEREOF RESERVED FOR ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 47 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. Subject to restrictions, reservations and easements common to the subdivision, and taxes subsequent to 1998. Granuors warrant and represent that uhis property was unimproved, vacant, nonhomes~ead land at the time they acquired it, and it has so r~mained throughout their ownership. EXHIBIT "B" ZONE Z~NG~I = I~ LF PR O? 0 ~UD £A KU 5O ~'NG DRN,~WAY ,¥ 89D 50' 66.3 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN EXI4TRIT "C" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL a) The Current Planning Manager may approve minor changes in the location, siting, or height of buildings, structures, and improvements authorized by the conditional use. Expansion of uses identified and approved within this conditional use application, or major changes to the site plan submitted as part of this application, shall require the submittal of a new conditional use application, and shall comply with all applicable County Ordinances in effect at the time of submittal, including Division 3.3, Site Development Plan Review of the Collier County Land Development Code. b) An appropriate portion of native vegetation shall be retained on site as required in Section 3.9.5.5.4 of the Collier County Land Development Code. c) Prior to Final Site Development Plan approval a note on the plan shall indicate that all cxotic vegetation as defined in Section 3.9.6.4.1 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) be removed fi.om the entire site. In addition, the property owner shall be responsible for subsequent annual exotic removal per Section 3.9.6.6.5. Of the LDC. d) The required turn lanes on CR-846 as required and approved by the 'Transportation Services Department shall be in place prior to the start of construction. EXHIBIT "D" EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PETITION SNR-99-05, ROBERT T. STROOT, REPRESENTING CROSSPOINTE DEVELOPMENT, INC., REQUESTING A STREET NAME CHANGE FROM COMMONS PLACE WEST AND COMMONS PLACE EAST TO CROSSPOINTE DRIVE, LOCATED IN THE RIVERCHASE COMMONS SUBDIVISION, IN SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST. OBJECTIVE: The Petitioner requests a street name change from Commons Place West and Commons Place East to Crosspointe Drive within the Riverchase Commons Subdivision of the Collier Tract 22 PUD. CONSIDERATIONS: The Petitioner is requesting the change because the "Current street, Crosspointe Drive, is being removed and relocated to Commons Place per Riverchase Commons approval (Plat #32, Pages 20-21." The Petitioner has met the requirements for requesting a street name change. The name does not duplicate an existing street name. Of the 5 owners of property abutting the street in question, 4, or 85 percent, have granted their approval of the change. FISCAL IMPACT: None: as yet, no street signs are in place. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The renaming of the street will have no impact on the Growth Management Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve Petition SNR 99- 05, changing the name of Commons Place West and Commons Place East to Crosspointe Drive. AGENDA ITEM JAN 11 2000 2 COM II Ok~$ P LA,¢ £ ? GCT NO I N 3 ~ION$ PL,A~F. I'A~T 222 ~ 2O 87 ~3 .,47 NO. 6. 7 SUBDIVISION RIVERCHASE SHOPPING CENTER FIRST ADDITION RIVERCHASE COMMONS P.B. PG. 32 36-37 32 20-21 NO. j',~' ' I 2000 PREPARED BY: CURRENT PLANNING R?~WED BY: /I~N~L5 "~'." ~ICP, OURRENT PLANNING MANAGER "\i i~ J~MULHERE, I~OBERT . AICP, PLANNING SERVICES DIRECTOR DATE DATE vINT~UT~RO, AICP, ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES SNR-99-05 AG~kDA .~, J.~,N 11 2000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 RESOLUTION NO. 2000- RESOLUTION RENAMING COMMONS PLACE WEST AND COMMONS PLACE EAST TO CROSSPOINTE DRIVE, WHICH STREET IS LOCATED IN RIVERCHASE COMMONS SUBDIVISION, LOCATED IN SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. 12 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners is authorized pursuant to authority of ~3 Chapter 336.05, Florida Statutes, to name or rename streets and roads, except for certain state ~4 roads; and z5 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has been requested to confirm the ~ 6 renaming of Commons Place West and Commons Place East to Crosspointe Drive. This street is ~ located in Section 22, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, Riverchase ~s Commons Subdivision, according to the plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book 32, Pages 20 through ~ 9 21, of the Official Records of Collier County, Florida; 2 ~ W3-tEREAS, there appears to be no street in Collier County with this name or any si milar 2 ~ sounding name; and 22 WHEREAS, it is necessary for identification purposes to confinn the name of this street, 23 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY 24 COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA: 2 5 The name of this street is hereby changed fi.om Commons Place West and Commons 2 6 Place East to Crosspointe Drive and is confirmed as such. 2 ? BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the Public Records of 28 Collier County, Florida, and noted upon the maps of the street and zoning atlases of Collier 29 County, and notations made on the referenced Plat. 30 This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. ~ z Done this day of ,2000. 32 33 ATTEST: 34 25 36 37 38 DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk 39 40 4 ~ Approved as to Form and Legal 42 Sufficiency: 43 45 Marni Sc~-deri 4 6 Assistant County Attorney 4'7 48 g/admln/SNR-99-O5;RGits 49 BOARD OF COUNTY coMMissIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: ,CHAIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PETITION VAC 99-016 TO VACATE A 5' WIDE PORTION OF THE EXISTING 20' WIDE DRAINAGE EASEMENT ALONG THE WEST AND SOUTH SIDES OF "PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES". LOCATED IN SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST. OBJECTIVE: To adopt a Resolution to vacate the above-described 5' wide portion of the existing 20' wide Drainage Easement. CONSIDERATIONS: Petition VAC 99-016 has been received by the Planning Services Department from Karen K. Bishop from PMS, Inc. of Naples, as agent for the petitioners, Pebblebrooke Lakes Limited Partnership, and others, requesting the vacation of the easterly 5' of the existing 20' wide Drainage Easement on Lots 7 through 23 and the northerly 5' of the existing 20' wide Drainage Easement on Lots 23 through 41, according to the plat of "Pebblebrooke Lakes", as recorded in Plat Book 30, Pages 4 through 12;. and the vacation of the easterly 5' of the existing 20' wide Drainage Easement on Tract C-1 and on Lots 83 through 110, according to the plat of "Pebblebrooke Lakes Phase 3", as recorded in Plat Book 31, Pages 81 through 84. The original design required the drainage easement to be 20' wide. The berm will now be located along the property line and shared by Pebblebrooke Lakes and the proposed developments to the south and west, thereby requiring only a 15' wide drainage easement. Letters of no objection have been received from all pertinent agencies. Zoning is P.U.D.. FISCAL IMPACT: Planning Services has collected a $1,000 "Petition to Vacate" fee from the petitioners which covers the County's cost of advertising, recording and processing the Petition. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None PLANNING SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners: 1. Adopt the Resolution for Petition VAC 99-016 for the vacation of the above-described 5' wide portion of the existing 20' wide Drainage Easement; and 2. Authorize the execution of the Resolution by its Chairman and direct the Clerk to the Board to record a certified copy of the Resolution in the Official Records; and 3. Request the Clerk to the Board to make appropriate marginal notes on the recorded plats. REVIEWED BY: REVIEWED BY: PREPARED BY: ~, ~.~,_ ~ _~-'~/G-~- DATE: Rick Gfigg, P.S.M. Pl~ing ~emices KuCk P.E, p~~e;~ AICP es~pa~en~ ~PRO~D BY: ~ DATE: vincent A. CaUter°, ~cP, Adminis[rator Co~umty Development & Enhromen~l Semces DATE: JAN 11 2000 i m~SOLrrnoN NO. ~O~-- 2 3 RESOLUTION FOR PETITION VAC 99-016 TO VACATE THE EASTERLY 4 OF THE EXISTING 20' WIDE DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON LOTS 7 THROUGH 5 23 AND THE NORTHERLY 5' OF THE EXISTING 20' WIDE DRAINAGE 6 EASEMENT ON LOTS 23 THROUGH 41, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF 7 "PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES", AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 30, PAGES 4 $ THROUGH 12; AND TO VACATE THE EASTERLY 5' OF THE EXISTING 20' 9 WIDE DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON TRACT C-I AND ON LOTS 83 THROUGH 10 110, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF "PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES PHASE 3", I 1 AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 31, PAGES $1 THROUGH 84. 12 13 WHEREAS, lcmrnumt to Section 177.101, Florida S~atutes, Karen K. Bisho~ from PM,S, Inc. of Naples, as 14 agent for the petitioners, Pebblebmoke Lakem Limited Parmer~hip, and other, does heruby request the v~mIion of 15 lhe easterly $' of the ~g 20' wide Drainage ~ on Lots 7 through 23 and the northerly $' of the exi~ng 16 20' wide Dra~ ~t on Lots 23 {brough 41, according to the plat of "Pebblebrooke !-~k~', as recorded in 17___--Plat Book 30, Pages 4 through 12; and tl~ vacation of the eagerly S' of the_existing 20' wide Drainage ~t l$ on Tract C-I and on Lots 83 through 110, according to the plat of "Pebblebrooke Lak~ Phase 3", as recorded in 19 Plat Book 31, Pages 81 through 84; and 20 WHEREAS, the Board has this day held a public hearing to consider vacating Smd S' wide pomon of the 21 existing 20' wide Drmnage Easement, as mom fully described below, and nouce of Smd public hearing to vacate 22 was given as lX~lUired by law; and 23 WHEREAS, the granting of the vamtion will not adversely affect the owne~hip or right of convenient 24 acc~ of other progerty ovams. 25 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMM]SSIO~ OF 26 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the follOWing be and is hereby vacated: 27 See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein. 28 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Clerk to the Board is her~uy directed to record a certified copy 29 of this Resolution in the Of Qcial Records of Collier County, Honda, and to make proper notation of this vacation 30 on the recorded plats as r~ferenced above. 31 This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote favormg same. 32 DATED: 33 ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 34 DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 35 36 'BY: 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Assistant County Au. orney PAMELA S. MAC'KIE, Chairwoman A C.-~ A ITEM JAN 11 2000 Pg. 1 ~ ~ I d ::2~ 24 25 26 I~1 27 2B 29 I ~0 I 2000 /,'l x, ii i! - - ~i ~ ..... J -q ~ I~ I: I l '[ ~l~ I' , ' - 10 ~jl reACT R ~ ;.c-- '"i' '~t' q I; '-- '~ tt ' ~ rTZ tT~ 77~ I. ~' ~' L - -:- ~ -[- - - t , ~ _'L: d 12 ~1 I ~----~'~---:~' II !~ I [ IlI [I I I : I h Z k~ i : ::::~,, I ~1, ?79 II 796 ~1. H 770 I I I ~t' ' ' tt: Il /:' : _L__~ ~ 18~ II 192 d ~1~ 166 II ' ' ~ i~ -- -- ~1 I~ I I I I ~ i il I l: i~ t~s ', t~o ~i, :'Il t~,i~ ~ d Il Il ]i l[ Il; I Il lJ .l ,l~~-. 21 Il I Ii i, il I ~', I 187 ~ll I Il Il ii' I.[ Ill 188 [I ,ii 162 61 ~%. i. il ,I ~ ~[t ~l Ill / ~23 24 25 26 II 27 28 29 I ~30 II II ~ J ~ '~Aw VA~ 99-016 BBLS SURVEYORS & MAPPERS INC. 1502-A RAIL HEAD BLVD. NAPI J~S, FLORIDA 34110 TEL. 941-59%1315 FAX 941-597-5207 LEGAL DESCRIPTION DRAINAGE EASEMENT MODIFICATION (LOT 7 THROUGH LOT 41) (TO BE REMOVED) THE EASTERLY 5 FEET OF THE WESTERLY 20 FEET OF LOTS 7, 8, 9, 10,11,12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 AND 23, AND THE NORTI-m'RLY 5 FEET OF THE SOUTHERLY 20 ~ OF LOTS 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 AND 41 OF PEBBI.R-:RROOKE LAKES, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 30, AT PAGES 4 THROUGH 12 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLOR/DA, BEING MORE PARTICUIJdtLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMlgNCE AT THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 7; THENCE N.88°32'28"E., ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 7, A DISTANCE OF 15.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCRL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE CONTINUE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE N. sg°32'28"E., A DISTANCE OF 5.00 FEET; THENCE S.01°26'41"E., A DISTANCE OF 1223.38 ~; THENCE S.89°093 I"E., A DISTANCE OF 1403.72 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 41; THENCE S.00°50'29"W., ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 5.00 F'RI~.T; THENCE N.89°09'3 I"W., A DISTANCE OF 1408.53 ~; THENCE N.01°26'41"W., A DISTANCE OF 1228.18 FF~.T TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. BEARINGS REFER TO PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 30 AT PAGES 4 THROUGH 12 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLI JJRR COUNTY, ]~ORIDA. .... THIS PROPERTYIS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESERVATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS OF RECO~ -S.TEP~ E. BERRY;' STAN~F FLOR/DA (LS #5296) BBI-q-SUR.VE OY ~"~ MAPPERS INC. 0-,B #6753) (SEE ATTACHED SKETCH REVDE92799) AGENDA I'rE~ JAN 11 2000 --i ~ACT £-2 BACKWATER COURT TRACT ~ "~,1¥j VAC 99-016 BBLS SURVEYORS & MAPPERS INC. 1502-A RAIL HEAD BLVD. NAPLES, FLORIDA 34110 TEL. 941-597-1315 FAX 941-597-5207 ~ ~A~n 81~n~ 4cf 5 VA~ 99-016 LEGAL DESCRIPTION DRAINAGE EASEMENT MODIFICATION (TRACT C-l, LOTS 83 TltROUGH 110) (TO REMOVEO) A PORTION OF PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES PHASE 3, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 31 AT PAGES 81 THROUGH 84 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF TRACT C-1 OF SAID PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES PHASE 3; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT C-1 S.89°10'56"E., A DISTANCE OF 15.01 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE CONTINUE ALONG SIAD NORTHERLY LINE S.89°10'56"E., A DISTANCE OF 5.00 FEET; THENCE S.01°26'41"E., A DISTANCE OF 1283.45 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF LOT 110 OF SAID PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES PHASE 3; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE S.88°32'28"W., A DISTANCE OF 5.00 FEET; THENCE N.01 °26'41"W., A DISTANCE OF 1283.64 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. BERGS REFER TO PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES PHASE 3, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 31 AT PAGES 81 THROUGH 84 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESERVATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. STEPHENE. BERRY, STA~..~O~ FLORIDA #5296) BBLS SURVEYORS &'MAPPER3 INC. (LB//6753) 9529REVDE. SAM PROOFED 5/27/99 SEB (SEE ATTACHED SKETCH 9529REVDE) AGENDA JAN 11 2000 Pa. /o ~ ,, II~ ~' · ,-~~-~~~~~ /11" 11:1~~' Ill LOT ~0 ~' ,,o ......, ,, _ ~ ~;~* I 2000 PETITION A~lachment FORM FOR VACATION OF PLATS or OF PLATS OF SUBDIVIDED LAND PORTI()NS Date Receivcd:_._~~9 Petition #:. V/:Tt~ _~q- O $t~/~O Petitioner: Pebblebrooke Lakes Limited Partnership Add rt~: .~$~. E.a.~.l_....D..r. iY.e..LS_ujlg..'.!.D_'.7 ..... City/State: Melbourne. Florida Telephone: Zip (:ode: 92904 AL, eat: Karen K. Bishop - PMS, Inc. Of Naples Address: 2335 'Famiami Trail NorJh; City/State: Naples, Florida Telephone: Zip Code: {941 }435-90S0 34103 Address of Subject Propert~v: I.ocatinn: Section *..7 Tnwn.~hip 48N Range 26E Legal Description: Lnt See Attached Bloek~ Unit Reason for Request: Vacating of Drainage Easements Current Zoning: .. PUl) .Does this affect density? ...]mmokalee Road just west of CR 951 Subdivision: Plat Book i hereby authorizq Agent altpvq/~o r~reseq~ me for this~aetition: gignalure ~)f ! etitioner / I /~, ~ l'ebblebrnoke Lakes L. d~.' {~) / a Florida Limited Partnership Yes x l'age(s). No Date BY: Saundr?' Associates. Inc. its General Partner Kenneth P. Sanl~¢l'y. Jr, Vice Pr~sjdent Print Name (Title) Please see "Policy. and-PrO~c~lure forthe Va~al~oh and AhnulmCmtb£Pgat~t~s~fll~ni Of rmm~ :~ .~:-~ , Subdividml Land" for 1he list of supportive materials which must aeeompany this petition, amd deliver or mail to:. Community Development & Environmental Services Division Planning Services Department 2800 North Horseshoe Dr. Naples, Florida 34104 (l~ If applicant is a land trust, indicate the name of beneficiaries. (2) if applicant is a corporation other than a public corporation, indicate the name of olTicer~, and major stockholders. (3) If applicant is a partnership, limited parlnership or other business entily, indicate the name of principals. (4) last all other owners. A ~-tachmcnt Page I ot'4 AGENDA I' ./.?.L. JAN 11 2000 PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP LOTS AFFECTED BY DRAINAGE EASEMENT VACATION AT PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES Phase 1 Lots 7, 10, 12, 13, 19, 20, 21, 26, 27, 32, 34, 35, 36, 38, & 39 Phase 3 Lots 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101,102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 & Tract C-1 & Attachment "B' PETITION FORM FOR VACATION OF PLATS OR PORTIONS OF PLATS OF SUBDIVIDED LAND Date Received: ~-~-~ Petition#: ~/~ ~-~t~.~ Petitioner: Noble Communities Address: 2403 Trade ~nter WaLvl 06 City/State: Naples. Florida Telephone: Zip Code: 34109 Agent: Karen K. Bishop - PM$, Inc. Of NI~pI~ Address: 2335 Tamiami Trail North: Suite 408 City/State: Naples. Florida Telephone: Zip Code: f941~435-9080 34103 Address of Subject Property: Location: Section 27 Township 48S Range 26E Legal Description: Lot See Attached Block Unit Reason for Request: Vacating of Drainage E~emcng$ Current Zoning: PUD Does this affect density?. I hereby a~e to represent me for this petition: Signa~tioner John Bru~er Print Name lmmokalee Road _iust west of CR 951 Subdivision: Plat Book Page(s). Yes X No Date (Title) Please see "Policy and Procedure for the Vacation and Annulment of Plats or Portions of Plats of Subdivided Land" for the list of supportive materials which must accompany this petition, and deliver or mail to: Community Development & Environmental Services Division Planning Services Department 2800 North Horseshoe Dr. Naples, Florida 34104 (1') If applicant is a land trust, indicate the name of beneficiaries. (2) If applicant is a corporation other than a public corporation, indicate the name of officers and major stockholders. (3) If applicant is a partnership, limited partnership or other business entity, indicate the name of principals. (4) List all other owners. Attachment "B" Page I of 4 AGE. N~A IT~ 11 2000 NOBLE COMMUNITIES LOTS AFFECTED BY DRAINAGE EASEMENT VACATION AT PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES Phase 1 Lots 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 25, 33, & 37 JAN 11 201)1) Attachment "B' PETITION FORM FOR VACATION OF PLATS OR PORTIONS OF PLATS OF SUBDIVIDED LAND Date Received: q. ~.~ -~ Petition#: ~¥~. Petitioner:. Beazer Homes Address: 11994 Fairway Lakes Drive City/State: Fort Myg~, Florida Telephone: Zip Code: 35913 Agent: Karen K. Bishop - PMS, Inc. Of Naples Address: 233~ Tamiami Trail North; Suite 408 City/State: Naples. Florida Telephone: Zip Code: (941)43~-9080 34103 Address of Subject Property: Location: Section 27 Township 48S Legal Description: Lot See Attached Block Reason for Request: Current Zoning: Signahl~ of P, ~titioner Print Name Range 26E Unit Vacating of Drainage Easements 'UD Does this affect density? t above to represent me for this petition: lmmokale~ Road just we~t of CR 9~1 Subdivision: Plat Book Page(s) Yes X No Date (Title) Please see "Policy and Procedure for the Vacation and Annulment of Plats or Portions of Plats of Subdivided Land" for the list of supportive materials which must accompany this petition, and deliver or mail to: Community Development & Environmental Services Division Planning Services Department 2800 North Horseshoe Dr. Naples, Florida 34104 (I) If applicant is a land trust, indicate the name of beneficiaries. (2) If applicant is a corporation other than a public corporation, indicate the name of officers and major stockholders. (3) If applicant is a partnership, limited partnership or other business entity, indicate the name of principals. (4) List all other owners. Attachment "B' Page I of 4 J.-,N 11 2000 BEAZER HOMES LOTS AFFECTED BY DRAINAGE EASEMENT VACATION AT PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES Phase 1 Lots 8, 9, 11, 28, 29, 30, 31, & 40 AGE~A ITEM ~,. /?~ JAN 11 2000 Attachment "B' PETITION FORM FOR VACATION OF PLATS OR PORTIONS OF PLATS OF SUBDIVIDED LAND Date Received: ~- Zq-~ Petition#: ~/~ ~ -~/~.~ Petitioner: Breakwater Custom Homes Address: 1750 J&C Boulevard: Unit 5 City/State: Naples. Florida Telephone: Zip Code: 34109 Agent: Karen K. Bishop - PMS. Inc. Of Naples Address: 2335 Tamiami Trail North: Suite 408 City/State: Naples. Florida Telephone: Zip Code: (941)43~-9080 34103 Address of Subject Property: Location: Section 27 Township 45S Range 26E Legal Description: Lot See Attached Block Unit Reason for Request: Vacating of Drainage Easemgg~t$ Current Zoning: PUD Does this affect density?. I hereby authorize Agent above to represent me for this petition: Yes X No lmmokalee Road just west 0f CR 951 Subdivision: Plat Book Signature of Petitioner Date Rick Cox Print Name (Title) Page(s) Please see "Policy and Procedure for the Vacation and Annulment of Plats or Portions of Plats of Subdivided Land" for the list of supportive materials which must accompany this petition, and deliver or mail to: Community Development & Environmental Services Division PLanning Services Department 2800 North Horseshoe Dr. Naples, Florida 34104 (1) If applicant is a land trust, indicate the name of beneficiaries. (2) If applicant is a corporation other than a public corporation, indicate the name of officers and major stockholders. (3) If applicant is a partnership, limited partnership or other business entity, indicate the name of principals. (4) List all other owners. Attachment "B' Page I of 4 AGENDA IT JAN 11 2000 BREAKWATER CUSTOM HOMES LOTS AFFECTED BY DRAINAGE EASEMENT VACATION AT PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES Phase 1 Lot 41 A~,~× iTEM JAN 11 2000 PETITION Attachment "B' FORM FOR VACATION OF PLATS OR PORTIONS OF PLATS OF SUBDIVIDED LAND Date Received: Petitioner: Frank and/or Ann Abenanti Address: 223 Burnt Pine Drive City/State: Naple~, Florida Telephone: Zip Code: 34119 Agent: Karen K. Bishop - PMS. Inc. Of Naples Address: 2335 Tamiami Trail North: Suite 408 City/State: Naple~, Florida Telephone: Zip Code: (941)435-9080 34103 Address of Subject Property: Location: Section 27 Township 48S Range 26E Legal Description: Lot #22 Block Unit Reason for Request: Vacating of Drainage Easement~ Current Zoning: PIED Does this affect density?. I hereby/~authorize Agent, above to repressnt me for this petition: ~(g~ature of Petitioner Imm0kalee Road just west of CR 951 Subdivision: Plat Book Page(s) Yes X No Frank and/or Ann Abenanti Print Name (Title) Please see "Policy and Procedure for the Vacation and Annulment of Plats or Portions of Plats of Subdivided Land" for the list of supportive materials which must accompany this petition, and deliver or mail to: Community Development & Environmental Services Division Planning Services Department 2800 North Horseshoe Dr. Naples, Florida 34104 (1') If applicant is a land trust, indicate the name of beneficiaries. (2) If applicant is a corporation other than a public corporation, indicate the name of officers and major stockholders. (3) If applicant is a partnership, limited partnership or other business entity, indicate the name of principals. (4) List ali other owners. Attachment "B" Page I of 4 AGENDA I', JAN 11 2000 Pg. /~ Attachment "B' PETITION FORM FOR VACATION OF PLATS OR PORTIONS OF PLATS OF SUBDIVIDED LAND Date Received: ~-2~-.~ Petition #: N//~' ~- ~/~:~ Petitioner: Karen K. Bishop Address: 2335 Tamiami Trail N.: Suitg 40~ City/State: Naples. Plol~da Telephone: f9411435-9080 Zip Code: 34103 Agent: Karen K. Bishop - PMS. Inc. Of Naplo$ Address: 2335 Tamiami Trail North: Suite 408 City/State: Naples. Florida Telephone: (941~4~$-9050 Zip Code: 34103 Address of Subject Property: Location: Section ~7 Township 48S Range 201~ Legal Description: Lot #23 Block Unit Reason for Request: Vacating of Drainage Easements Current Zoning: PI.~D Does this affect density? I hereby ~uthorize Ag~_~bove to represent me for this petition: Immokalee Road _iust west of C~R 951 Subdivision: Plat Book Page(s) Yes ~ No Karen K. Bishop Print Name (Title) Please see "Policy and Procedure for the Vacation and Annulment of Plats or Portions of Plats of Subdivided Land" for the list of supportive materials which must accompany this petition, and deliver or mail to: Community Development & Environmental Services Division Planning Services Department 2800 North Horseshoe Dr. Naples, Florida 34104 (1) If applicant is a land trust, indicate the name of beneficiaries. (2) If applicant is a corporation other than a public corporation, indicate the name of officers and major stockholders. (3) If applicant is a partnership, limited partnership or other business entity, indicate the name of principals. _ (4) List all other owners. Attachment "B' Page 1 of 4 JAN 11 2000 Attachment "B' PETITION FORM FOR VACATION OF PLATS OR PORTIONS OF PLATS OF SUBDIVIDED LAND Date Received: (~_ ~_ a~ Petition #: ~ ~-' t~ [ Petitioner: Frank and/or Maria Tiric0 Address: 231 Burnt Pine Drivg City/State: Naples. Fl0rid~ Zip Code: ~4119 Agent: Karen K. Bishop - PMS. Inc. Of Naples Address: 2335 Tamiami Trail N0rgh; Suite 401~ City/State: Naples. Florida Telephone: (94D435-9080 Zip Code: 94103 Address of Subject Property: Location: Section 27 Township 485 Range 26E Legal Description: Lot #24 Block Unit Reason for Request: Vacating of Drainage ]~a.~cments Current Zoning: pUD Does this affect density?. I hereby~~~ge~/abo~ent me for this petition: Signature of Petitioner Immokalee Road j#st west of (~R 951 Subdivision: Plat Book Page(s) Yes X No Date Frank and/or Maria TjI~0 Print Name (Title) Please see "Policy and Procedure for the Vacation and Annulment of Plats or portions of Plats of Subdivided Land" for the list of supportive materials which must accompany this petition, and deliver or mail to: Community Development & Environmental Services Division Planning Services Department 2800 North Horseshoe Dr. Naples, Florida 34104 (1) If applicant is a land trust, indicate the name of beneficiaries. (2) If applicant is a corporation other than a public corporation, indicate the name of officers and major stockholders. (3) If applicant is a partnership, limited partnership or other business entity, indicate the name of principals. (4) List all other owners. Attachment "B" Page I of 4 JAN 11 2000 Official Receipt- Collier County CDPR1103 - Official Receipt Board of County Commissioners ITrans Number IDate IPOst Date I Payment Slip Nbr 157485 09/30/1999 2:19:05 PM 09/30/1999 MS 60226 KENCO DEVELOPMENT, INC. New or Exist: N Payor* KENCO DEV Fee Information Fee Code Description GL Account Amount! Waived 12PVAC PETITION TO VACATE 11313890032910000000 $470.00 12PVAC PETITION TO VACATE 11313890032910000000 $530.00 Total $1000.00 Payments :Payment Code Account/Check Number Amount CHECK 1115 $530.00 . CHECK 1093 $470.00 Memo: VAC-99-016 - Pebblebrooke Lakes (k. bishop - PMS) Check #1093 - $470.00 Check #1115 - $530.00 Total Cash I $0'00 I Total Non-Cash $1000.00 Total Paid I $1000.001 Cashier/location: FROLOFF_E / 1 User: KENDALL_M Collier County Board of County Commissioners CD-Plus for Windows 95/NT Printed:09/30/1! .../?' III I1,U'II.M'I,I It,! rls Illltlll.tl it tl:OJl/i~IllT !. #JCl, C%Ill .,IIILll IT, 11111 I I itERI~Y CER~ II~t ~ ~is da)' be~orc ~ an o~ficgr a-ly q~li.~d eD talc COLr~TY OF COE/.I~ AG£,%DA I .i THiS IND~HFU&E. ~ I,~,L~ J2_ &')' nE ~rch . 2~$ i~'~ Drive, Sui~ D, Merooame. Florida 32904. GRANTOR. and .1,~w f_ beth and htt~_ hrtis, husband and ~ife, Tenants eX the ',VITNESSETH: i That saki GF, ANFOR, tm' ~ in cOnsJda'atian of' the sum OIr TI~ AND NOfi00 DOW.ARS (Si0.00), and ~ pod an~ rabble conskS~rax~on lo,said ORANTORin ~ paid I~ said LOt 37. 0, sho~m ~n the pla~' of P~BS'[ESR'O0KE LAKES, recorded jn Phi 8ook 30. Pages 4 through lZ, ~ncTustve, of the Publk Record~ of Col]let Ceunt~, Florida. PROr'~TY ID NUM~: ORA~' TAX ID NUMBE~ 66262005285 a~_i u ~ ~ ~ for ~e carre~ year: amin$ a~ usc mta~i~ion~ hpmod by pvenueen~ ~ ~ions and easemems common m the suixliv{sion: and ouu~ndinc oil ga~ ami miw~l iau~es~ of ma~d. if any. said Gl~q'r'OR does h~y t%dly wan'ant tk ride ~o~:aid la,-,d, ired will ~fc~l thc amc apb'd:t hwlbJ claims of ali I~rsons whOmSeevc, r. GRA~rrOR and GRANTEE arc urcl fo~ singular ~r pk,'al as ~ r~quk~. IN WITHE~ WHEREOF. ORANTOR has kmunto m GRANTOR'S hand and ~d ~ of de dm fu~ above ~mnt lOmae~ P. Sau~dry. St, as t:~ °Prestee,t t HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day before me. ~n oirf~er duly q~mlif}~{ to m,~ ~Zrewimipm:ms. ptnotally ~ {~o~d{ P. Saundr/. $:.. {~:sondlv_k,to,,m_to ~ produced type oFid.-ndf]ca:ioe provkkd) a.~ v_,ho (d.~/d~ ncm.) u.ke ~ ~ ,nd ~bo ~e...,'uze. d r..~ foregoing insw~t ~ ac~ged before me dmt hc execu~d de samc. My C6m'rnissiOn ExPire, 2444988 011: .521' PG: 0847 Allen EL Brown a~ C..ieanet~ 9r~n, husband and'wife, Ta~ants ~ t~ Cn:Irety. wi~~: Lot 32, as sh~ ~ t~ Plat of PEBBLg~ LR~ES, recor~d in Plat Book Pages I though 12, inclusive, of PROPI~R'I~ ID NUMBI~a.: 66262005201 GRANTEES' TAX ID NrUMgER: Su~je~ ~ real ~ taxes fo(' (he current year: zoning and tea: re~'ictions imtxxed by ~ovemmenml authuritlr, ret~riCr~ and e~emen~ common ~o ~he subdivision: aM outsmndir~ oil. gas s~d mincral in'a~ of re:or& i~ any. ./ An~ ~aid GRANTOR does hereby fully w~l~aat ~he ~ ~.~id land, and will def~n~ ~e ~u~e ~0nst me GRAb'TOR ar-~ GRANTEE zrc ~ fc~ si,~u 'iar ~r pl~'~i = co:ncxt rt~ire;. IN ~ WHEREOF. GRANTOR has ha~umo set GRANTOR'$ hand and seal as of abe date tr~st above write.. I 'HER~.BY'CERTfF¥ that off Ibis ~ ~¢ore me, an c~W~ du{y qu~litrTed'm ~ tM ty~ of id~fir~agon provkfixl) and w~ (d~did .~1 ~ an ~m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~omg. l!/t {t I by; Kenneth P Saund~, S~ ,,ii ~s~eng ~ ~ry ASsociates, ,,,,~IL; ._. ~- . · . ~,-~... ~. . , ~ ..... ~~:L~etted Partaership On behalf .... ~"~ ~in~ Na~ cf ~o~. Pu~!~ My Commission Expires lnc.l JAN 11 2000 pg. ~ Pebbl~brookc L~ Lknked Pannership Kena~l~ P..c~un-dr,/~fr;, President/' ~ STAT~ OF H. ORIDA COUN~ OF COT Y Kenn~h p. ~. Sr., (~a~v known ~0 ~w~ p~ t~ ~ of ~F~n p~ ~ who (d;~ t~e M ~ ~ w~ ~ the lo.Jig ~mt and ~o~ ~ ~ ~ he ~ ~ ~e. ~ Pr~ '1 .o.,/F'_D 'r-' JAN 11 2000 Tha~ said GRANTOR, for and in comklera~ou of ~e sum ofTEN AND NO/lO0 DOLL~RS ($10.00), and other good aad valuable consideration ~ said GRANTOR in ha.nd paM by ~id be~ h Colfier County. Ftort~ m-wit Lot 25, as sho~n in the Plat of PEBBLEBR00KE LAKES, recorded tn Plat Book 30, Pages4 thrOugh 22, inclusive, of the Public Records of Collter'£ouflty,-Flerfaa. PRO?~,RI~' lO NUt, GFr, R: And said CIRANTOR dc~ hereby fully win-ant the title to saki la~i, ~ will defend the sa.m~ %gainst de, GEAJqTOR u~d GRA~ are used for sin~u~ or pimal as oon~t ze~p~. WITNESS WHEREOF, GRANTOR has hereunto set GRANTOR'S ha~ taxi seal a~ of ~*- d~ first above ~4ae~ (corporate seal) b'TATE OF FLOlUDA COUNTY OF COIJ.~ER Not~y Public. Stnze of Fl0rld~ Prinmd Name of Not,vy Public JAN ii 21 STAT~ OF FLO~DA COUNTY OF COLLIER t IgI~R~Y CERTIFY i{~ ~ ~ ~' ~f~ w~, ~~.~.~ f P~N~OfN~ - _ ....................... '" 2342562 01~: H38 PG: 0322 **.t ':.. W~' D~. ~ ~ ~Ji~ C~. ~ ~c Lut 2~. as shown in the Plat of PE~8~EBRO0~ LA~S, recorded in Plat B~ok 3Q, P.ges 4 through 22, inclusive, of the Public ~cords of Collier Florida. PROPERTY ID NUMEi~ 001947~1004 ,, G~' TAX ID J..~,,4 11 2001 I~-,tl 11t1,I W~ ~le ~nittes, Inc., a Florida cor~racJon . ~O,~t ~ ~OR, ~r ~d ~ ~n~n~on ~ ~e ~ ~ ~ ~ NO/~ Lots 14, 15, 1~,17, IR and 160, as s~ tn t~ Plat of Pebblebrooke Likes, ~ce~d In Pl~t Book ~0, ~ages 4 through ~, Inclusive, of the ~bllc ~rds of ~11~er ~un~, Flort~. S6262994888 J 6G~G299490I / 66962006~8 PROP~~~ 66262~Z0 / 66262~6 / 6626200~62 PebblebtookeLtt~Lim~ceclP~p, a F1 Limited Parthersh B~ 5a~p~Auo~c~,]ac., C-ea~?U~e~ o a F1 COrpOration ~: .un */, , . '' -- J JAN 11 2000 JAN 11 2000 .I That ~ GRAI~OR. for ~ in corsidera~n of t.be sm,a of TEN/~iD NO/100 ~~, ~ G~'S ~ ~ u~ ~. ~ ~ll~ d~ ~. s~m. lyi~ ~ GRA~'POR an~ GRANTEE am used ~or singuhr or plurd as con~xt requiru. GRANTOR has be~uu~o set GRANTOR'$ ba~d and seeJ as of ~e dam lest ~Name of Wimeu ~2 gl'ATE OF FLORIDA '- 1 HEP. E~Y C:ERTI~ that oct this day befm~ me, an officer duly quaJifled ~o lake m:j::eowb,,d~e,,.:M, af3, perso~lly appeared Keaneth P. Sau~lry, Sr.. ¢oerseral[,~knc~m ~o me/who produced EO0 !.'.lt! It! S JZO! ! off~ address is 2S~ "2oat Drive. Suit~ D, ~ibour~ ~orlch whe~c po~off~c~M"~xi~ 2403 TraCe Center Nay, That sdd GILM~EOR, for ~.'ld i. consideArlon of the ~um of 'I'~N AND NO/100 DOI.I_A~ (SMOG. ~nd c~her good ~d y'4~ble con.acleratio~ to Aid G .r,A:NT..OI'~ hs h~,,t .[~aid .by,, ~d tots l. 5, 6, 7, 21, 26. 27. 32, 127, 129, ~. 1~6, 1~7, 13i~, 1't3, 146, 14% I autho~ r~om ~d e~me~ ~on ~ t~ ~Mo~ md ~tm~in$ o~ ~ ~d ~ tz~d Nazge-o[ W~}I ' ' ~J N~un~ of Wimps #2 Pebblebmoke Lak~ IJmltcd Parmer~p (Corporate Seal) STATE OF ELORID^ COUNTY OF Prepared By and mum to: Robert TV. Wattwood, Esq. O'Brieu, l/Jemenschnelder, Ka~eili~ & LemonJdLs, P.A. 168~ TV. Hibiscus Blvd. Mdbourue, FL 32901 239?' OR: 2484 PG:. 0371 HC~OI~DI~D in OHICI~ ~CORDS Of[ COLLIIR COUNW, ~ 11/24/98 at 12:04PN DWIGHT ~. BROCK, CLHE Retn: HOLLAND & HIGH? ? 0 80! 1526 ORLANDO ~L 32802 1526 I0.50. .70 G~;NERAL WARRANTY DEED P. SAUNDRY, SR. AND KENNETH P. SAUNDRY, JR~ tenants in common, (hereina~er called the Grantor), to KENCO DEVELOPMENT, INC., a Florida corporation, whose post office address is 225 Enst Drive, Suite D, Melbourne, Florida 32904 (hcreina~er called the Grantee): (Whenever used herein thc terms "Grantor" and "Grantee" include all thc parties to this instrument and thc heirs, legal representatives and assigns of individuals, and the successors and assigns of corporations.) WITNESSETH: That thc Grantor, for and in cousideration of thc sum of $10.00 and other valuable considerations, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, hereby grants, bargaln-% sells, aliens, r~zises releases, conveys and confiu'ms unto the Grantee, all that certain land situate in Collier County, Florida, viz: All of that certain property described in the Warranty Deed dated February 3, 1997 and recorded in Official Re~'rds Book 2279, Page 1915, Public Records of Collier County, Florida: LF_~S AND EXCEPT Tracts R-1 and R-2, Pebblebrook Lakes, according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 30, Page 4, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. TOGETHER. with all tenements, hcrcditaments and appurtenance thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the same in fee simple forever. AND the Grantor hereby covenants with said Grantee that the Grantor is lawfully seized of said land in fee simple; that the Grantor has good right and lawful authority to sell and convey said land; that the Grantor hereby fully warrants the title to said land and will defend the same against the lawful claim of all persons whomsoever;, and that said land is free of all encumbrances, except taxes for the year. 1998 and subsequent years, and subject to zoning, restrictions, prohi'oitious, and other requirements imposed by governmental authority; dedications, resirictions and matters appearing on the pht of Pebblebrook Lakes or otherwise common to the subdivision; and public utility easements of record; this reference to said restrictions shall not operate to reim,nose the same. The property described herein is vacant and is not now, nor has it ever been the constitutional homestead of the Grantors, nor is it contiguous to any homestead of the Grantors. o:kirive~zaundry\pebble\warranty.gen ~.C~ :r~3A ITE, M IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the mid Gr'~mtor h~ here~mto set its hand ~md seal the day and y~ f'~t above- written. Signed, sealed and delivered in tl~ p~ence of: Print N~ (.~ ' ~t N~ K~NNETH ?. SAUNDRY, SR. U ' ' ' STATE OF FLORIDA cot~,rn, o~ ~.~ //~'~ The foregoing/nstrument has been acknowledged before me this / ~ day of pgh/~///~ ~", 1998, by Kenneth P. Saundry, Sr., who/s personally known to me or who has produced as ident//ieation- -' ~y Commi~ion expires:, STATE OF COU~TYOF (~!;C~ ' /q by Kenneth P. Saundry, Jr., who is ~p. ersonally known to me or who has produced as identification. Print Name:. v My Commission expires:. o:~driveLsaunch'y\pebble~warranty, gcn 2 2145144 OR: 22'/9 PO: 1915 14.54 Ill:II,I, $ I~¢'111 P.O1/14 WARRAb'TY DEED G£ORGE Il. ~ER~R, · ,,,-rrled Per'On, and GEORGE W. ~ · ,,,in'{ed pem~, m Tenants in Common. GRANTOR, and X~ P. SAUN])RY, SR., and ~ P. SAUNDRY, JR., u Tenants in Common, whose Melbourne,, Florida 32904. That u~d GRANTOR, for m~d in conddmv~m ofd~ ~ of~ ~D N~I~ ~L~ (~ 10.~ ~d o~ g~ ~d ~ble ~ld~ti~ ~ ~ ~R ~ ~ ~d ~ ~ to t~ s~d G~ ~ G~s he~ ~d m~ fo~, ~ following ~ I~ ~ ~g ~d ~g in Oll~ ~un~. ~ ~wit: SEK ATTACHED EXHrBIT 'A" not the homeJten_a_ of the Grantors, and is in fnet P~o~ny i.D. Number:. 00193840009 Cn'~t~s) $.5. Number(s): Subjcx;t to n~ estate rexes for 1997 zo~itt~ and use ~",~ imposed by {ovemmental aothor{~y. And said GRANTOR does hereby fully wan~nt the title to ~aid land. and will defend the same apinst ~he lawful claims of all pe~ons whomsoever. GRANTOR ~nd GP. ANTEE arc us~! for or plural as context XN WITIq'ESS ~'IEI;t.EOFt GRANTOR has hereunto ret Gnmt~s band and ~ day and year f'u~t alx~v¢ wdum. Signe~, seale~ a~d dcliv~'~l in our pcesence: Pfint~ Name of ~m~ ' GEORGE~H. WERNER AGEI~A 1918 .~?6.67 FEET TO Ti IF. POINT OF KF. VF. RSF- CUP. VATURE OF A CURVE TO TIIF- RIGHT. ilA¥1NG: A RADIUS .OF I SO.00 FEET. A CENTRAL ANGI..F. OF 54~59'J $'. A CllOI~D BEAKING OF N. I [~}~22"E. AND A Ci lORD L~.NGT!! OF 1~.21 FEET: TIIEN('E. AI.ONG Tile ARC OF SAID C-tJKV~ AN AR, C LENGT~! OF 172.77 FEET TO THE POi:'~I' OF REVI-'R~E C'URVATUKE OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT. I=IAVIN~: A RADIUS OF 175.00 FEET..A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 62~071 I". A CIlORD B -~ARII~R'~ OF N. 14~$4"J4'E. AN~ A C'HORD LENGTH OF I tO.SS I~ET: THENCE ALONG TIlE ARC: OF SAID CURVE. AN ARC I..~NGTH OF I ~9.73 FEET TO Tllfi POINT OF REYF. R.gE ('URVATURE (ke A C~IRVE. TO THE RIGIIT. IIAVING: A RADIUS OF 250.00 FEET. A CENTRAl.. ANGLE OF IT I'Y'3'~". A CHORD I~F. ARING OF N.0~50"14"W. AND A ('1 lORD ~! OF 7.~.17 F~-T; TIII:.NCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAJD CURVE. AN ARC [.F. Nb-'TH OF 75.46 FEET TO THE POINT OF TANGENCY OF SAID CUKVE: THENCE N.00"4~JS'E.. A DISTANCE OF 10[.72 FEET TO A POINT ON SAID SOtlTIIEKLY RIGHT-OF-WAY UN~ THENCE S. S9o I 0'~'F_... ALON~ SAID $OUTHF. RLy RIGltT,.OF-WAy LINF~ A DL~TI'ANCE OF SO.00 FEET TO THE~ iiEARINGS SI IOWN i lERE(}N R~.i-'I~R TO AN A.~SU'MEO fIF. ARING OF S.Oie2r4 I'1:.. ALONG TI IE EAS'TER~y LINE OF TI IE NOR'Fl[EAST I/4 OF SECTION 27. TOWNSlilP 4~ SOU'TI I. RANGE 26 'EAST. COLt.lEK COUNTV. PLORIDA. THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECTTO EASEMENTS. RESEKVATIONS OK RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. 13KETT A. BISHOp~'A'I~.{,IF 01/22~7 FLORJDA LS. #4760 Exl~:LblC #A" Page 3 of I2 pages '"' · "" ' ':~ .~;- .;'7.": :.:'~. Exhibit "A" Page & of 12 (-~L ((L~ OR: 2279 PG: 13RE-I'i' A. BISI lOP I)ROH~SIONAI. LAND SIJR Vi-:YOR 1494g OI.D 4 I..SUITE 4 NAPI.I£$. FI.ORIDA 341 l(I 'i'i-].. 94 I-$97-1315 F^X 94 I-$q7-5207 I'i!A$£ 3 PEBBI.EBROOKE I,AK£S I.EGAI. I)ESCRIFrlON A PAR( "E,L OF LAND LCR.'A'r~D IN 11 Il; NOR'Il i -F.A.gT I/4 OF $1-:("I'ION 27. TOWN~i lip 4~ 5OUTI !. RANGE :26 FAST. COI.LII".R COUNTY. FIX)RIDA. BF, JNG MORE PARTICLII,ARI.Y I)F..SCRIBF3) AS FOI.LOW.g' COMM~'WCING AT T/IE SOUTI I EA~q' CORNER OF TI IE NOR'FI IEAST I/4 O'~' SECTION 27. TORWSllIP 48 SOUTII. RANGE 26 EA.%"T. COI,L1ER COUNTY. FI.ORII)A: TllENCE N $~'09'3 I',V.. ALONGTIIE SOUTItEKLY LINE OF SAID NOR'TI IF_.AST 1/4. ,'% DI.g';TANCE. OF !00.0~ -FEET TO A POINT ON TIlE WESTERLY RIGi lT.,OF-WAY LINE OF C.R. 951./% 100.00 FOOT RIGI IT.OF-WAY: TIlENCE N.01"2S'4 I'W., ALONG SAID WES'rERLY RIGIlT.~DF-,.vAY LIN[ A DISTANCE OF 2.<77.9~ FEET TO TIlE INTERSECTION OF SAID WESTERLY RIGI~FJ'.OF-WAY LINE AND TIlE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY I.INI-'. OF C.R.. S46. A 100.00 FOOT RIGIIT. OF-WAY: T~IENCE N.Sg'I0'S6"W.. ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE. A DISTANCE OF 1378.97 FEET TO TIlE POINT OF BE~IMNI~; OF THE PARCEL OF LAND liEREIN DE. SCRIBED: TI IENCE S,O0"4g'35'W.. A DISTANCE OF 10~.72 FEET TO TIlE POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO Tile I.EF'r. I lAVING: A RADIUS OF 250.00 FEET. A CENTRAl. ANGLE OF I 7'1737'. A CHORD BEARING OF S.07"50'!4'E. AND A CI lORD LENGT! I OF 75. I? FEET: TI IEN~. ALONG THE ARC OF SAIl) CURVF, AN ARC LENGTH OF ?5.46 FEET TO '~IE POINT OF RE%'EIL~iE CUR VATURE OF A CUR VE TO TI IE RIGI I'r. i lAVING: A RADIUS OF 175.00 FEET. A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 62"0T11'. A CHORD BEARING OF S. 14e34'34"w. AND A CHORD LENGTH OF II0.SS FEET: THENCE ,%I.ONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVF~ AN ARC LENGTH OF I ~.7.t FEET TO '!'I IE POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO TIlE LEFT. IIAVING: A RADIUS OF i ~0.00 FEET. A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 54"f9'35'. A cIIORD BEARING OF S. Ir'Og72Z'g; AND A C/lORD LENG'TII OF 166.21 FEET; THENCE ALONG TIlE ARC OF SAID CURVF~ AN ARC I..~NGTH OF 1'72.77 FEET TO TIlE POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO TIlE RIGIIT. llAVING: A RADIUS OF S.~$.OO FEET. A CEFtl'RAL ANGLE OF 56'26'i0'. A CtlORD BEARING OF S. 18'$1'39'W. AND A CHORD LENGTll OF 524.~,4 FEET:THENCE ALONG TI IE ARC OF SAID CURVE. AN ARC LF. NGTI I OF 546.67 FEET TO 'n IE POINT OF TANGENCY OF SAID CURVE: THENCE S.47'04'44'W. A DISTANCE OF 179.65 FEET TO TIlE POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE I.EFT. I lAVING: A RADIUS OF 220.00 FEET. A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 45"40'12'. & CHORD BEARING OF S.24~'I4'~$'q,V, AND A CHORD LENGTH OF 170.?$ I:EET; THENCE ALONG TI-IE ARC OF SAID CURVF.. AN ARC LENGTH OF 175.36 FEET TO TI IE END OF SAID CURVE: THENCE S.8~32'28'W.. A DISTANCE OF 669. ~5 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WF.S'rERI.Y LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST 1/4: TI IENCE N.0 !*26'4 i'W. ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE.. A DISTANCE OF 1324.63 FEET TO A POINT ON SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF°WAY LINE: THENCE S.[g" ! 0.56'F.... ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY R[GI IT-OF-WAY LINE. A DL~;TANCE OF 1162.'76 FEET TO lrllE _I'OINT OF BEGINNING, PARCEL CONTAINS .10. I I ACRES. MORE OR LESS. AGENDA ITEM, JAN I 1 20,30 :.%.:} ~b,~e 5 o~' ~2 p~ges BEAJ~ING$ SHOW~ HEREON REI:'ER TO AN A~SUMI=r~ BEARING OF $.01'"~'4 I'E. ALONG THE ~¥ I..INE OF THE NOI~'I'I-IEAS'T I/4 OF S£CTIOH 2'/. TOWNSHIP 45 SOUTH, I~J~l~ 26 FAST. COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA. TI, tIS PROPE. ELT¥ IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS. RESEI~VA'I'XONS OR REb'T~CT/ON$ OF RECORD, I97.2 · ! AC-,SN, DA Page 7 ol~ 12 pages 22 9 1923 IIRIH'I' A. BIStiOi" PROi:E.S$IONAI. LAND 14J~4~q Ol.D 4 I. SUFI'E 4 NAPLES. FLORIDA 34110 TF.i.. q4 I-5~7-1] FAX 94 PIIASE 4 PEBBI.EBROOKE LA KI~.~; I.I-'.GAI. I)I'~SCR Ilq'lON A PARCEL OF L.AND LOCATI=D IN 11 IE NORTI lEA.TI' I/4 OF SE{'I'ION 27. TOWN.~IliP 4t soLrrl I. RANGE 26 I-~AST. COLIJI'~R COUNTY. FLORIDA. BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCK/BED AS FOI.LOWS: COMMENCING AT T! IE SOU'TNEA.Vr CORNER OF Ti.rE NORTI [EAST !/4 OF SECTION 27. TOWNSIIIP 48 SOUTIL RANGE 26 EAST. COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA; TI IENCE N.19e~T3 I"~¥.. ALONG TI IE SOUTilERLY LINE OF SAID NORTliEAST I/4. A DISTANCE OF !00.08 FEET TO A POINTON TIlE V/EST -~Y RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF C.R. 951. A 100.00 FOOT K/GIlT-OF-WAY; TIIENCE N.OI.2g'4 I'W.. ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGI IT-OF-W/~Y LINE. A DISTANCE OF 1057.g4 FEET TO TIlE POINT OF BEGINNING_ OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED: THENCE S. 88:t ri e"w.. A DISTANCE OF 620.00 FEET; TI IENCE N.01.28'4 I"W.. A DIS]~ANCI-~ OF 89.O? FEE'F TO TI II'.' POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT. I lAVING: A RADIUS OF 55.00 FEET. A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 43'20'31 ". A CHORD DEARING OF N.2_teO$'56'W. AND A C! lORD LENGTH OF 40.62 FEET: Ti IENCE ALONG Ti IE ARC OF SAIl} CURVE. AN AR(' I.ENG'T1 ! OF 4 !.61 FEET TO TI ! E POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO TI IE RIG/IT. [lAViNG: A RADIUS OF 165.00 FEET. A CENTRAL ANGLE OF '72e04'29-. A CilORD BEARING OF N.OR°46'57'W. AND A C! lORD I.ENG'TI I OF 194.14 F~.ET; TIIENCE ALONG TI IE ARC OF SAID CURVE. AN AR(' I.E.N(;T~ i OF 207..';6 FEL-'T TO THE POINT OF REVER.cAi CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT. HAVING: A RADIUS OF 40.00 FEET. A CENTRAL ANGLE OF I07'1 ?'00'. A CIIORD BEARING OF N.26"2 r i2'w. AND A CHORD LENGTH OF 64.40 FEET: TIIENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE. AN ARC LENGTH OF 74.85 FEET TO THE POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO TIlE RIGHT. IlAVING: A RADIUS OF 165.00 FEET. A CENTRAL ANGLE OF i.';3'31'3T'. A CHORD BEARING OF N.03'i 1'.~4'W. AND A CHORD LENGTH OF 321.23 FEET; THENCE ALONG TI IE ARC OF SAID CURVE. AN ARC LENGTH Of: 44~. [3 FEET TO T! IE POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO Tile LEFT. HAVING: A RADIUS OF 40.00 FEET. A CENTRAL ANGLE OF $5eg 1'42', A CIlORD BF. ARING OF N.46°03'04'E. AND A CHORD LENGTI I OF 36.96 FEET: THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, AN ARC LENGTH OF ~)~.42 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE TO THE RIGI IT. IIAVING: A RADIU~ OF ! $$ OO IF. ET. A CENTRAl. ANGLE OF 23e?Y47-. A CHORD BEARING OF S.t,4'25'Sl"E. AND A CHORD LENGTIi OF 75.65 FEET: THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE. AN - ARC LENGTH OF ?6. Iq FEET TO TI IE POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT. llAVING.- A RADIUS OF ~;0.00 FEET. A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 16.26.'57'. A CHORD BEARING OF S.f,o~51'2rE. AND A CtlORO LENGTI! OF 1.51 FEET; TIIENCE ALONG TIlE ,ARC OF SAID CURVF.. AN ARC LENGTH OF 8.61 FEET TO TIlE POINT OF TANGENC¥ OF SAID CURV~ TIIENCE S.89°04.'~'E.. A DISTANCE OF $8~. 15 FEET TO A POINT ON SAID WE. STERLY K/GIlT-OF-WAY LINE: T! IENCE S.0 le'2,8'~ll'E.. ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT. OF-WAY LINE. A DISTANCE OF 688.45 FEET TO THE J~OINTOF BEGINNINg. PARCEL CONTAINS i I..~2 ACRE,5. MORE OR LESS, 2000 BEAR{NOS SHOWN HEREON REFER TO AJV ASSUMED BEAJ~O OF $.0{"2{'4{"F_. A/,ONG THE EASTERLY i/NE OF ~ NOi~ {/4 OF SECTION 2'7. TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, ltAHGE 16 EAST. COLLtEK COUNTY. FLORIDA, 'r~I; PI~OPERTY IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, KESEK;~^T{ONS OR im. EST{UCrION$ O£ KECORD. Ex;bib:LC 'A*' Pa~;e 9 . 12 pages OR: 2279 BRb-I'I' A. BISHOP PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR 14848 OI.D 4 I. SUI'tl:. 4 NAPI J:.~;. I:i.OI'UDA 34! I0 '11".!.. 94 I.$97-1.~ FAX 94 I-$97-$207 A PORTION OF PRESERVE (PIIASE 3 & 4) PEBBI.EBROOKE I,A K F.~; I.I:'(iAI. I)I~.'iCI<II"I'ION A PARCEl. OF LAND LOCATI:I) IN '1~ IE NORTI IEA~T 1/4 OF SECTION 27. I'OWNSIllP 411 SOUTIL RANGE 26 EAST. COLLIER COU~FY. FLORIDA. BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRII3ED AS POI.LOWS: COMMENCING Al' TI IE SOU'II lEAST CORNER OF Ti-IE NORTI lEAST I/4 OF SECTION 27. TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH. RANGE 26 EAST. COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA; TI IENCE N.89'O99 I"W_ ALONG THE SOUTll/~RLY LINE OF SA/D NORTIfEAST I/l. A DISTANCE OF 100.0g FEET TO A POINT ON TIlE WESTERLY RIGtlT-OF-WAY LINE OF C.R. 9~ I. A100.00 FOOT RIGtiT-OF-WAY: THENCE N.01'25'4! "W.. ALONG SAIl} %',/F_STF. RLY RIGI IT-OF-WAY LINE. A DISTANCE OF 257?.95 FEET TO TIlE INTERSECTION OF SAID WESTERLY P,.IGIfT.OF-WA'~'LINE AND THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF. WAY LINE OF C.R. 846. A 100.00 FOOT RIG! FF.,OF-WAY: TIIENCE N.$9°10'.~6'W.. ALONG SAID SO{ITIIERI.Y RIGIlT-OF-WAY LINE. A DISTANCE OF 9112.77 FEET TO T! IE PQINT OF, BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED: THENCE S,00'49'04'W.. A DISTANCll OF .<0.00 FE.E~I~ TIIENCE S..~4*14'54'W~ A DISTANCE OF 13.47 FEET: TI IENCE S.53'~46'!0'W.. A DISTANCE OF $7.76 FEET: THI~NCE S. I $'lg'Oa'"d/. A DISTANCE OF .~ 1.02 FEET: Tt IENCi-. S.67"2.~'17'W.. A DISTANCE OF.~ I._~! FEET: THENCE S.62e36'I2'AV.. A DISTANCE OF .18.70 FEET: TIIENCE S.09"IF$7'W. A DISTANCE. OF 59 46 FEET'. THENCE S.27~12'$8'W.. A DISTANCE OF 49.20 FEET: THENCE S. 14e23'~9'E.. A DISTANCE OF 324.92 FEET= TIIENCE S.77~Y05'E.. A DISTANCE OF 47.29 FEET: THENCE S.00*00'00'E.. A DISTANCE OF 295.81 FEET: THENCE S.90~00'00°!-... A DISTANCE OF 44.75 FEET: TIIENCE A DISTANCE OF 18.07 FEET: THENCE S.44eO4'I,I-E~ A D/STANCE OF 3~.~.1 -FEET:THENCE A DISTANCE OF 17:!.91 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE TO TIlE RIGHT. HAVING: A RADIUS OF 185.00 FEET. A CE~RAI. ANGIJ!. OF 66'18'20'. A C~lORf) B-EARING OF N..~0e3TOI'E. AND A CIIORD LENGTH OF ~.02.34 FEET'. TIIENCE ALONG TItE ARC OF SAID CURVE. AN ARC LENGTH OF 214.09 FEET TO A POhN'T ON A CURVE TO T~ IE RIG! fT. IIAVING: A RADIUS OF 40.00 FEET. A CENTRAL ANGLE OF .~5'0 i'.l!'. A O lORD BEARING OF S. 46e03'O4-W. AND A C! lORD LF,,NGTI ! OF 36.96 FEET: T! IENCE AI,ONG TI IE ARC OF SAID CURVF~ AN ARC LENGTI ! OF .11.42 FEET TO THE POINT OF REVERSE- CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO TIlE LEFT. IIAVING: A RADIUS OF 165.00 Fi:ET. A CENTRAl, ANGLE OF I.s3*] 1'37'. A C! lORD BEARING OF S.O.1°11'$4'E. AND A CIIORJ) LENGT! I OF 321.23 FI~-i': THI~NCE ALONG Tile ARC OF SAID CURVE. AN ARC LENCml OF 442.13 FEET TO TIlE POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE RIGIIT. HAVING: A RADIUS OF 40.00 FEET. A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10r'13~)0'. A CHORD BEARING OF S.26e21'i2'E. AND A CIIORD LENGTH OF 64.40 FEET: THENCE. ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE. AN ARC LENGTH OF 74.g$ FEET TO THE POINT OF REVERSE CIJRVATURE OF A CURVE.TO THE LEFT. IIAVING: A KADIU$ OF 165.00 FEET, A CENTRAl, ANGLE OF 72'o4~9'. A OIORD B-FARING OF S.08°46'57"E. AND A CHORD LENGTH OF 194,14 FELT;THENCE ALONG TIlE ARC OF SAID CURVi:., AN ARC Lt:,NCTI~ OF 207.56 FEET TO 'I~F~E POINT OF REVERIE CURVATURE OFA CURVE TO TltE RIGHT. HAVING: A RADIUS OF 55.00 FEET. A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 4J*20'3 !', A CIIORD BEARING OF S.23e08'.s6'E. AND A CI lORD LENGTI I OF 40.62 FEET; TI IENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE. AN ARC LENGTH OF 41.61 FEET TO T! [E POINT OF TANGENCY OF SAID CURVF.~ THENCE S,OI*28'41'E.. A DI,~rANCE OF 89.07 FEET: T[I -F~,NCE S.811eJ 1'Ig'W.. A DISTANCE __Il__ I I __ [[ _ 2_ [ PG: 1 27 tIF !74. I.~ f:l..'k-r TO A II)IN'tON ^ ('I.~RVI[ TO !~i1~ i4l(;lll~ IIA%'IN(J: A RAI)II]~ ('lin I'RAI. AN(;I.I[ Of 5(/.l~,2r. A ('1 lORD BI[ARI~(; O!; SJ~I~?(,~. ANI) 12137 I:FJ[T: TI IEN('E Al.ON(; '~ fi? AR(' (}1: SAIl ) ('1 }RVI?. AN AR(' I~N(;111 OF 1.I~ 77 I'O!~1' OF COAIIR)UNI) ('l :ILVA~JIt{[ Oi; A ('t IItVl[ TO 311l[ RJ(H ~. IIAVIN(i: A RAt)ILIS Gl: 65.~ I~b~. ~5.71 R{iz'r: TI iI[N('I[ AI,()N(; TIII~ AR(' ()F RAIl) ('{ qtVlL AN ARC IJ[N(;'FI I OF 57.57 FIU;~ TO Till[ IRO.2~ FE~: TIll[Nlq[ At.ONG Till[ ARt' ()1:~:~111 ('Fi[VI~. AN AR(' I.I?N(~'II ()!: I~(I ~,~r OF TAN(;I(N('? OF SAIl) CUR~,~: TI ENO[ ~. 7T]YJ I~V.. A DIS rAg(Il OF I ~. I I I-1]~ TO POlar oF (~IRVA~ ~RE OF A (~RVI[ 1'O ~ II[ RI(;I i'r. IIAVIN(i- A RAI)IU~ OF I I~ ~) FIU~. A · [ )~ FI~I['F, 'fl II[N('I[ Al,lIN(; 'fl II[ AR('( )i: RAIl ) ('( IRVI(. AN AlU' I.I~N( iTl I II)lEi' OF 'I'AN(;I[N('Y (Il: ~AII) ('11J[VIL 'IIlI(N('I~ N.,I~,IY~I'W. A I)i~TAN('I~ UF 1~.52 I:I~i?F'R) TIIH (~AI, AN(;I.R OF 7~7~'. A ('1 Il)RI) ~ARIN(; (IF N. ! D'~'(XI%V. AND A (q Il)RI) i.I(N(~I OF 171,7 FEI{Y. TIll{NO( Al.tiN(; 'FIE AR(' OF ~Allt ('1 ~Rt'IL AN AR(' I.l[N(rgl (IF I~1) UF SAIl) (~R~; 1'111~N('1{ SI~.I~8~V.. A I)ISTAN('I[ OF 261.20 R~I~ TO A ~)I~ ON A (~R~ TO TIlE RI(;II~. llAVINC; A RAI)IUg OF 142.~ I']?1~. A ('I?~AI, ANt;I J[ (W 2~4'12~ A (liORI) IIEARINC; [)F N. 17'1 l'irlL AND A CI lORD I.I~N(;TI I OF (,9.(~ FI{i~. 'ri IEN('E ALONG 'ri IE ARC' OF (~RVI[ TO ~ !1[ I.EFF. I IAVIN(;: A ~DIU~ OF 2~l.(X) FEI[T, A ('E~AL ANGLE OF 13~)~ A ('110RI) UEARIN(; OF N.2,1'J~I'I[ ANI) A ('110Ri) i.EN~I! OF 46.~ ~[~'~ ~iEN('I[ AI.ONG ~lfi ARC' OF 5AIl) CURVIL AN ARC I,I~NG'Iq ! OF 47.(~7 FI[I?~ TO ~i~ Polar OF REVF~ (:UEVATURE ('1 Il)RI) UI[ARIN(; OF N.]2~] I'!~. ANI) A ('110RI) I.EN(ffl I OF 1~.74 RUff; TI IEN('E A IX)NG TI ARC OF ~AII) ('[ IRVlL AN AK(' I,I[N([rl I OF i I)I .S,I I:I[[~ TO ~ I[ I~II~F OF ('iJRVI~ I~tENCE N 4~44'1~. A DIgFAN('I( ()!~ 77. I~ iq[b~ TO TIE ~1~' OF (~JRYAllIRE ~ A ('PRVE TO TIE 1.~. IIAVIN(;. A RAI)IU~ OF ~5.(~ F~I~. A CE~RAL AN(;I,~ (IF f(,°26'ln'. A ('lit)RI) ~EARIN(; OF N. ir5 I:lq'i{ ANI) A ('IR)RI) I.EN(~] I OF 562.67 FEi~: AR(' (IF ~AII) fl q[V[L AN AR(' !.1~(~'1 ! OF 5~, o7 F[~E TO ~ IE ~)I~F (~ RI~'i~SI[ ('11RVAT[ IRE OF A El ~RVE TO TIlE RI(;II% IIAVlN(;: A RA/)iUS OF 140.~ FEEt. A (~AL ANGI,E OF 5~49~ A ('fIORD Ill. RING OF N. Iq'U~u'i[ ANI) A ('IIORI) I,EN(~I OF i)~.~ ~: TIENCE AI,ON(J 1'lIE AR(' OF ~AID CURVE. AN ARC I.ENGrl I OF U~.68 FEF~ TO TI IE POI~ OF RI~VE~SE CURVA~RE OF A ('[ ~RVE TO TI IE L~'. I IAVIN(;: A RADIUS OF 2~0.~ R[~. A ~RAI, ANGLE OF ~"~F4r. A ('llORl) B~RING OF N.24'I~9'E AND A CIIORD LENC7rl I OF 1~.36 R[E]~ '~II~N('E ALONG TIE AR(' OF ~AII) ('11RVF, AN AR(' l,fiN(~ i OF 205.~ F~ TO T! IE POI~ t)F TAN~EN('Y OF ~ID ('IJRVI[; TIIENC'E N.~4~5'E.. A I)IS'FAN('J{ (IF 2(~. 10 I:EI~F TO A E)I~ ON KIGI ~:()PWAY i.INI[: ~IEN('R RRq'Iff~'E.. ALONG ~AII) ~(1[ ITllERI.Y RICU ff~F-WAY I,INIL A (IR I,ILSS. CLEARINGS SI IOWN I IEREON REFER 'roi AN A,~SLI~{EO IIF. ARIAK; OF .~.tll"21{',l I'1[. AU)N(? TI IE [-2A$1'I.'-RIoY LINE Gl: T1 IE NORTIIEA~r I/4 OF SE("I'ION 27. TOWN$I lip 48 SO[ITl I. RAN(U-2 26 FAST. ('Ol.l.lt?R COUI,,'TY. FLORIDA. Jills PROPERTY IS $(.111517C1' TO EA,~F. UI~.NT.~. RI:.SI-~RVATION$ OR RF. STRICTION,~ OF RE('ORI). nR~='rr ^. OlSltOj~5?. A',,'E OF rL¢)dibX I..S. · .- ':. ,..'~' · .- . AGEHDA ITEM JAN 11 2000 2088 . OR: 2217 PG: 2386 ~CO~DID la OIIIClU, IICOID$ of COI, LIi~ CO~ffT, 1~ co~s 1250000.00 UC H~ 15.00 DOC-,70 8750.00 ietn: ~LIS ~ HIOI This W~ DEED TFn'.~llN'DF4N'TURE, madethis 15ch dayof. Augusc ,1996, Between GEORGE El. WERNER, a married person, and GEORGE W. WILL, a married person, u Tenuts in Common, GRA_NTOR, and PEBBX.J~BROOK~: ~ LIMrI~D PARTNERSI:ITP, a lqorida fimited partnership, whose post office address is 255 East Drive, Suite 3, Melbourne, Florida 32904, GRANTEE. WITI~SSETH: That said GRANTOR, for and in consideration of the sum ofTEN AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($ I 0.00), and other good and valuable consideration to said GRANTOR in hand paid by said GRANTEE, the receipt and sufficiency whereof is hereby acknowledged, has'granted, bargained and sold to the said GRANTEE, and GRANTEE's heirs and assigns forever, the following descnq~ed land, situate, lying and being in Collier County, Florida, to-wit: SEE ATTACHED E~qTnlT "A' This is not the homestead of the Grnntors, and is in fact vacant land. Property I.D. Number:. 00193840009 Grantee(s) S.S. Number(s): Subject to real estate taxes for 1996 zoning and use restrictions imposed by governmental authority; regu'ictions and easements common to the subdivision; and outstanding oil, gas and mineral interests of record, if any. And said GRANTOR does hereby fully warrant the title to said land, and will defend the same against the lawful claims of ail persons whomsoever. GRANTOR and GRANTEE are used for singular or plural ns context requires. IN wrI'IVESS V~H~REOF, GRANTOR hu hereunto set Grantor's ha~d and seal the day and year first above written. "' Signed, sealed and delivered in our presence: i~'inted Name of Witness #2 PAMEt. A 8. MAC'tOE. P.A. 5551 ~0 OR. ~t201 ~ ;~ FL ~3063 AG6.NDA ITF. M JAN 11 2000 OR: 2217' PG: 2 -89' - Witness #I Wimess #2 Printed Name of Witness #2 STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF C'OLLIF. R I H~REBY CERTIFY that on this day before me, an officer duly qualified to take acknowledgments, personally appem'ed GEORGE H. WERNER, personally known to me or_who produced the type of identification provided and who executed the foregoing instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State la~ afore,~d this day of ~--'['L//_ .~ ,1996. Type of Identification Provided My Commission Expires: N~'tar~ Public State of Florida Printed Name of Notary Public Notary's Commission Number STATE OF COUNTY OF I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day before me, an officer duly qualified to tnke acknowledgments, personally appeared GEORGE W. WILL, personally known to me or who produc~ the type of identification provided and who executed the foregoing instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid this Type of Identification Pwvided My Commission Expires: THIS INSTRUMENT PREPARED BY: Pamela S. lViac'Kie, Esquire Pamela S. MacUle, P.A. 5551 Ridgewood Drive, Suite 201 N~ple~ FL 33963 (94 I) 597-4339 Notsry Pub !.i~97.~ State of Printed Name ofNotao, PubUc Notary's Commission Number .... ~' = - .'.' ::'..- ' JAN -1 1:2000 p~. *** OR: 2217 PG: 2388 *** BRETT A. BISHOP PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR 14848 OLD 41, SUITE 4 NAPLES~ FLORIDA 33963 TEL. 941-597-1315 FAX 941-597-5207 LEGAL DESCRIF~ON A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN TI~ NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 4~ SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLOK1DA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCKIB]~D AS FOLLOWS: CONL%~'~4'C]]~(3 AT THE. SOU'ri-IEAST CORNEP. OF THE NOR, TI-IF_a~-I' !;4 OF SE~ON 2% TO~ 48 SO~ ~GE ~ E~, CO~ CO~, ~ ~ N.8~I~. ~NO ~ SOnY L~ ~ S~ NOK~T 1/4, A DIST~ OF 1~.08 ~ TO A ~ ON ~ BEG~G OF ~ P~ OF ~ ~D~~ ~ CO~ ~ONG S~ SOnY L~ A DI~ OF ~2.~ ~ TO ~ SO~ CO~ OF S~ NOR~T 1/4; ~ N.01~6'41 ~., ~ONG ~ ~S~Y L~ OF S~ NOK~ 1/4, A D~T~ OF i~2~4 ~; ~ N.~2~ AD~ OF 1~.~0 ~ TO A~ ON A ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ A ~ OF I~.~ ~, A ~ ~ OF 7~", A ~O~ B~G OF $.1~ ~ A ~O~ ~ OF 171.07 ~; ~ ~G ~ ~C OF S~ ~ ~ ~C ~ OF I~.27 ~ ~ ~ ~ OF T~ OF ~ ~ TO ~ ~, ~ A.~ OF i I~.~ ~, A ~ ~ OF ~1~~, A ~O~ B~G OF ~.6~;~ ~ A ~O~ ~ OF ~.3~ ~; ~ ~NG ~ ~C OF S~ ~ ~ ~C ~ OF ~.~ ~ TO ~ ~ OF T~ OF ~ ~ ~ S.~4~., A DIST~ OF l~.l I ~ TO ~ ~ OF ~VA~F A ~ ~ ~~, ~ A ~S OF 11~0.~ ~, A ~ ~ OF 0~', A ~O~ B~ OF S.~ ~ A ~O~ ~ OF 1~ ~; ~ ~ ~ ~C OF S~ ~ ~ ~C ~ OF 1~,42 ~ ~ TO ~ ~ OF ~E ~VA~ OF A ~ TO ~ ~, ~O: A ~S OF ~.~ ~, A ~ ~G~ OF ~f3', A ~O~ B~G OF N.~I~ ~ A ~O~ ~ OF ~.71 ~; ~ ~NG ~ ~C OF S~ ~ ~ ~C ~ OF ~7.~7 ~ TO ~ ~ OF CO~ ~VA~ OF A ~ TO ~ ~, ~ A~S OF 13~.~ ~, A ~ ~ OF ~'~S", A ~O~ B~G OF N.3~l~ ~ A ~O~ ~ OF 12~.37 ~; ~ ~ONG ~ ~C OF S~ ~ ~ ~C ~ OF 133.~ ~ TO ~ ~ OF S~ C~ ~ N.88~ 1'19~, A D~T~ OF ~. 16 ~; ~ ~ ~Y ~ OF WAY ~ ~ C~ 9I!;~ S.01~'41 ~., ~NG S~ ~ l'~Y ~ A DIST~ OF I0~7.~ ~ TO ~ ~ O~ BEG~G. P~ ~S ~f14 ~, MO~ OR ~SS. B~GS ~O~ ~ON ~ ~ ~ ~ B~G OF S.01~41~. ~NG ~ ~ ~ OF ~ NOK~ 1/4 OF ~ON ~. ~ PROP~ IS S~ TO ~ ~VA~ONS OK ~~ONS OF BRI=-i-i A. BISHOP, STATE OF FLORIDA L,S. ~M760 ~CO~.~A [W~ JAN 1 1 201 )ISCOUNT EARNED '~' ' 'DUPL:]:cAYE . I ~ · ~31 ~ · 501 ~:~MI~ -~, ~L.~,~,~OU~ ;. . :~ · - *:~ A~OR~.: ~ 1 · 164 3 - ~9~ '4 · 18 cou~ S CO~IER COO~ T~ CO~OR S - 90 40 6 · 87 SCHOOL* ;A~ I COUR~OUSE COMP~ - BUI~ING C-1 - 2- 6060 3 · O~ SCHOOL- LOlL I NAPLES, ~ORIDA ~11249~ · 7DSO .5620 1.19.63 .0495 14.1~141 RATE .~ mo~:!,'p/~/ 66262000060 u='s~J- o~i~,?~PE B B L EB R 00KE LAKES TRACT 4 CITY · 83 OErE.Dm' · 6 5 WATER MST. i · 39 INoEP. SPECIAL · 06 vo~,~ APPR. OEBT. 17-01 NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENTS ' ROADS WATER,~EWER COMM. IMPROVE. GARBAGE ], ?. O ]. COMBINES JAN I1 . TN FEB I OX TN t6.671 16.841 al~COOE~:f ~k I'ESCROWCOOE'~I PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES L'p 255 EAST DR STE 3 MELBOURNE FL 32f104-1032 PAZD - 99/03/29 17.1 RECe , 28539.05 GUY L:~ CARLTON "'TAX"COLLECT' 0000066262000060 0000001701 OOOOO00OO0 OOOOO SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION THIS AREA FOR TAX COLLECTOR'S OFRCE USE ONLY ....... DUPLI'CATE AMOUN[ DUE I . 15,698.931 15,862-461 16,o2s.991 16,1~q.s21 ~ 16,~J ~D 1,118,992/ ;;~ ~;I COLUF-R'COUNTY TAX COUfCTOR 3 · 5923' "* 4,019.75. COUNTY ' ~1 COURTHOUSE COMPLEX- eU~LDIN6 C-1 5 · 9040 6 · 606 · 53 SCHDOL-STAT~ 11 NAPLES. FLORIDA 34112-4997 2.6060 2,916-09 SCNOOL - LOC~Z CITY I · Ax~ 1,118,99~ .?DSO i .5620 .0495. ~OPER~ID~:/ 66~62000086 ."LO=::, ~E~ROOKE LAKE 788 · 89 DEPENDENT 628 · 87 WATER MGT. 1 · 33 ? - 53 INDEP. SPECIAL 5.5.. 39 VOTE, APPR. DEBT. t6,353.05 'NON-AD VALOREM. ASSESSMENTS ROADS WATEPJSEWER COMM. IMPROVE. GARBAGE 16,353 - 05. COMmNEO TOTAL I MI~Cq~'i'I 36 !: ESCROW~DE I SAUNDRY SR, KENNETH P KENNETH P SAUNDRY ~R 201255 EAST DR STE D MELBOURNE FL 32904-1032 PAZD - 99/03/2~ RECe 28537-1 GUY L- CARLTON 0000066262000086 0001635.305 0000000000 00000 SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION T AX '/C/OL~E cTo 11 2QO0 1998 COLLIER -DUPLICATE JNTY NOTICE OF AD VALOREM TAXES AND NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENTS ISCO0~-E~-' q~.~--ZN NO9 13X IN DEC 12X IN JAN I1% IN FEB 10% TN I AMoIINT I~IIF' - 1, lq. oRI l,L~. 2L 611. ~1 112. ~'~'~* :' ~'~ CO~ COU~ T~ CO~R S · qOqO qS · 90 SCHOOL- ~A~ I COU~OUSE COM~- BUI~ING ~1 2 · hObO ~O · ~6 I~L-LG t ~ES, RORIDA ~1124~ C~ · Sb~O ~. 3T WA. RM~. : ~ '~ ~.~qS3 q.30 moEr. sKc~ 3 PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES L P ~ .O~qS .36 v~upR, om. 3 ~SS EAST DR STE 3 ~ R~S : WA~R .. COMM. IMPRO~. ~~~ 66262004684 SS4.62 ~ ? ~,PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES PAID - 99/03/29 113.1 LOT 7 RECe~ ~855~.05,~ GUY ~-~C~A~RL-TON ~-TAX-' COLLECT( 0000066262004684 0000011362 OOOO000000 O000O SEE REVERSE SIDE ~R FURTHER INFORMATION miS AREA FOR TAX COLLECTOR'S OFFICE USE ONLY ' ..... DUPLICATE 1998 COLLIERi COUNTY NOTICE. OF AD VALOREM. TAXES AND NON.-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENTS £SCOUNT EARNED 14% ZN NOV 13% ZN DEC 12% ZN dAN I1% TN FEB /0% TN fl ~MAIIIU'r 1Tlllr I 11q-n~l 1,1.0~P1,1 1.1.1..:11~1 1,1;P.qA/ ~ 1,% 3. 5923 27.93 coum'~ ...................... 5.9040 2.6060 .?OSO .562D 1.1953 .0495 14.6141 D/ 66262004707 u'~PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES LOT 8 NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENTS ROADS WATER.EWER COMM. IMPROVE. GARBAGE '!. I.'~ L =3 COMBINED TOTAl 1 COURTHOUSE COMPLEX- BUILDING C-1 NAPLES, FLORIDA 341124997 i l~~; MILL~DE~I~I q k I?? ESCROW rODE' PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES L P 255 EAST DR STE 201 MELBOURNE FL 329 JAN 11 2000 PAID % 9~/12/1111.401 06 R E C #,,,?.,, . GUY ~'~,:C-ARI.:TON -~ TAX' COLLECTO 0000066262004707 0000011362 0000000000 O000O SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION THIS AREA FOR TAX COLLECTOR'S OFF:Ir, F IIRF flNI Y 1998 COLLIER COUNTY NOTZCI DUPLICATE OF AD VALOREM TAXES AND NON-AD VALOREM AS gESSMENTS mEsseD 7 .~ 7 ? S " ~ VALOR. m T.,A~S,_ ', :,.'.'jij 'i.:,~; ~Y;." :' COLUER COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR 3 · 5923 27 · 93 cou,T,r S COURTHOUSECOMPLEX-BUILOINGC-1 S. 9090 45.90 SCHOOL-STATE 1 2 · 6060 20 - 26 SC#OOL. U)CAL I NAPLES, FLORIDA 341124997 CITY · ~owu~ 7-.775 .7050 S. 46 Oe'ENmn S ~:Mmu;coor~-q~l 31~ ~:ESCqOWCOOiaI~41 · S620 4-37 WATERN~. · ',' ~:,' 1.1953 q-30 moe..s~cw. 3 PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES L P ~:'-'' '- .0495 .36 VOTEaArpR. eEa~. 3 ESS EAST DR STE 3 :,:,.. ,~ :!~ . 14-6141 113-62 20 MELBOURNE FL 32904-1032 ~ Ptgt -.? NON-AD VALORm ASSESSMENTS : ~ ' ROADS WATER~ COMM. IMPROVE. ' ' GARBAGE ~EBBLEBROOKE LAKES PAID ~ 96/12/11 , 110.i GUY :t?j ~:CARI:TON =.i TAX';COL~'~ECT( 1998 COLLZER [SCOUNT EARNED ~ M~ql IPJ? 1TI lit 0000066262004723 0000011362 0000000000 00000 SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION THIS AREA FOR TAX COLLECTOR'S OFHCE USE ONLY DUPLICATE COUNTY4% IN NOTICE. NOV I0F3% AD IN VALOREM. DEC i TAXES AND NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENTS I I I ~ 1R,. rlRI 1.1. n. ;~%1 1.1.'1,. q_ql 1~1.1~. 4P, l .' 1,1, ~MII~'RATE ~ ::, .~'-: ='-TAMOUNT --~,.~'~,~.h~':~,.~ ~d~r,i'-~.~'UlllOR~ ~'.::': ?~ r,:~-, ,-.~ ~;~l~.~':~';~:tPAY IN g.[ FUNDSTO~'~.',~C~',,~;.Le~'~,~.~.-~" --- ADVALOREMTAX~S /: :' I ' " ' ' ? · ??S 3 · 5923 27 · 93 COUNW Si COLU~ COUNTYTAX COLLECTOR S · 9040 45 · 90 SCHOOL-STATE 11 COURTHOUSE COMPLEX - BUILDING C-1 2 · 6060 20 · 26 ~OOL- ~ 1~ NAPLES, FLORIDA 341124997 c~ 7 - '~'~ c · 7050 S · 48 OEFUDENT ~qt >mu. coo~'~'t 'a- I~?~cHowCH~l :~ . S 620 4.37 WATEN NO*. ~J -- -- ~ ~ .....'='~:::"' '1-1953 9-30 mNoe. s~c~ 31 PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES L P "' "'!;' ':":':~'~??~'"~ .0495 .38 VO~N. Oe~. 31 255 EAST DR STE 3 ". · 14.6141 113.62 201 MELBOURNE FL 32904-1032 I ~RATE~2:i I~R NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENTS ROADS - WA~R~ COMM. IMPROVE. GARBAGE COMDINEO TOTAL P,S~'A~t 66262004749 ~aEs¢~PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES LOT 10 PAID - 99/03/29 REC#~,.':T 28552.0. GUY '~-~-'CARL-TON ~ 0000066262004749 0000011362 OOO0000000 00000 SEER~RSESIDE~R~RTHERINFORMA~ON THISAR~FORTAXCOLLECTOR'SOFFICEI 1998 COLLIER )ZSCOUNT EARNED 7,775 · DUPLICATE COUNTY NOTICE. OF AD VALOREM. T,A. XES AND NON?AD VALOREM ASSESSMENTS ~Ml~ ~~OU~~/~A~OR~ ~~:~.PAYJNU~~L~ 3.592:3 5.9040 2.6060 7,77-q .7o50 ~ 6626EDD4765 .EBBLEBROOKE LAKES LOT 11 27.9:3 COUNTY 5 45.90 SCHOOL-STATE 1 20 · 26 SCHOOL-LOCAl. CITY 5.48 · DE~ENDEOT 5 4 · :37 WA~ MOT. 9 · :3 O INOEP. SPEC&AL 3 · :38 VOTER ARPR. OEBT. 3 11:3.62 20 I ROADS WATER/SEWER COMM. IMPROVE. GARBAGE COMBINED TOTAL] COURTHOUSE COMPLEX- BUILDING C-1 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34112-4997 ~M~:cobE-~.~,! :3 6 ~ .~ESCROW CODq;,~,%'t PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES L P 255 EAST DR STE :3 MELBOURNE FL :32904-1032 PAID . 98/12/11 110. REC#?:' 11:30:3.0~::;' GUY ~;~C;AR~TON ,~i.:YTAX':COLLECT 0000066262004765 0000011362 O00000OO00 O00OO S~REVERSE$1DE~R~RTHERIN~RMA~ON ~ISAR~RT~COLLE~OR'SOFFICEUSEONLY 1998 COLLIER Z~COUNT EARNED : 7,77~ DUPLICATE COUNTY NOTICE. OF AD VALOREM TAXES AND NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT~ 4% IN NOV 1:3~. IN DEC 12% IN JAN J1% IN FEB [0% IN I 1. lq.nAm 1.1. n. ~1.1 :~ L1;1,. :lql 1,'t,P. klAI . 1.' · ':.,'I,~~,':i77¢',~.'" ........ VALO.R-~ ~A~q. ~'-~'~;'..;.~':! :.,;: ;':~'?;. ;~i: .~ .' :3 · 592:3 27 · 9:1 coum~r COLLIER COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR S 45 · 90 SCHOOL-STATE 1 20.26 SCHOOL-LOCAL 1 CITY 48 OF.~OENT ~4' :37 WATF.~ MOT. 9 · :3 0 mDEP. SPECL4J. · :38 VOTER ARPR. DEBT. 3 113.62 20 5.9040 2.6060 .7050 .5620 1.1953 .0495 · 14.6'141 YO~I 66262004781 ~ -'~sczw*~4.b E B B L E B R 00 K E LAKES LOT 12 ROADS WATEP~ER COMM. IMPROVE. GARBAGE COMBINED TOTALI COURTHOUSE COMPLEX- BUILDING C-1 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34112-4697 PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES L P 255 EAST DR STE MELBOURNE FL PAID -99/0:3/29 RECt?!;' 28553.0~ GUY 'L~;;CAR~TON JAN 11 2000 L_. pg.~l ~-"T'A"~'~"~ L L E C T ¢ '. 0000066262004781 0000011:3362 OOOO000000 O00OO SEE REVERSE SlOE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION THIS AREA FOR TAX COLLECTOR'S OFFICE USE ONLY 1998 COLLIER ISCOUNT EARNED ~M~ll~ ~11~ 7,775 ?-.775 ..... DuPLicATE ..... COUNTY NOTZCE, OF AD VALOREM. TAXES AND NON.'-A~ VALOREM ASSESSMENTS 3.5923 S.9040 2.6060 .7050 .5620 1.1953 .0495 14.6141 '~Eu~- E~J.' ~.'~.~ I 66262004804 o~".bEBBLEBROOKE LAKES LOT 13 27-93 45-90 20-26 S.48 4-37 9.30 -38 113.62 COUNTY SCHOOL - ITAI~ SCHOOL - DB~NPB~ WATER Mm'. INDEP, ~DE~AL VOTER Al'PR. DEBT. ROADS WATERAEWER COMM. IMPROVE. GARBAGE I !-_~: _ 2 COMBIN~ TOTAL COURTHOUSE COMPLEX- BUILDING C-1 NAPLES, FLORIDA 341124997 ~ _q_~ ~E~CROWCODEt~I ' PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES L P 2SS EAST DR STE 3 MELBOURNE FL 32904-1032 PAID ~ 99/03429 ~., 113.6 REC#/~?,28554.05~ GUY 'L~-~C'ARbTON : NAIIM? 1~ I I~" ~I~Z~v~'~ 7,775 0000066262004804 0000011362 0000000000 00000 SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR FURTHER INFORMA110N THIS AREA FOR TAX COLLECTOR'S OFFICE USE ONLY " DUPLICATE 1998 COLLIER COUNTY NOTICE. OF AD VALOREM TAXES AND NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENTS :SCOUNT EARNED 4X ZN NOV 13X IN DEC 127. IN JAN I sx IN FEB 'lO . ZN M, I I I / 1. lq .~rJSI 1,1, fl. P'LI L1,1,. 1KI 'LI,~. UA1 1,1/ 7=775 3.5923 5.9040 2.6060 .7050 .5620 1.1953 .0495 14.6141 66262004620 -~':'~EBBLEBROOKE LAKES LOT 14 · · 27,-q3 -~ .... ' s 4 S 90 SCHOOL-~I'Al~ 1 20: 26 SCHOOL-LOC~ 1 CITY OEM~IOENT 2~ 9 · 30 INOe. s~ 3 · 38 V~R~.Dm. 3 113.6~ 20 ?~ '~: · NON-AD VALOREM~M~ .~. R~DS WA~ COMM. IM~OVE. GARMGE ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ COMBINED TOT~ COLLIER COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR COURTHOUSE COMPLEX - BUILDING ~1 NAPLES, FLORIOA 34112-4007 PEBBLEBROOKE LA ~S ~.,~A~ 2SS EAST DR STE MELBOURNE FL 32104~032/7~ JAN L1 2000 PAID ~ 99/03/29 ~ ' -~i'~-bi REC#,.C~, 28555. OSS?, ..?; GUY ~::~--c,~ G.A R L,~T.O N 0000066262004820 0000011362 0000000000 00000' SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION THIS AREA FOR TAX COLLECTOR'S OFRCE USE ONLY 1998 COLLIER ISCOUNT EARNED  M~IINT ~IIF' - ~.~'~i~V · 7,77S 3.S923 S.9040 2.6060 DUPLICATE COUNTY NOTICE OF AD VALOREM T.A. XES AND NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENTS] 4~. IN NOV 13% IN DEC 12X IN dAN I1% IN FEB 10% IN , 1 3q.081 ~110.211 111.3SI . 112.481 'AX~L~ 7,77~ .70S0 .... .~ /? · S6EO - ::~,: ~-, · 0495 , , .. '~.?~' , ,,~ 14.6141 6 004646 ~a~EBBLEBROOKE LAKES LOT 1S 4 S. 9 O SCHOOL. ~rATE 20 · 26 S~OOL-~ S. 48 DEPENDENT 4.37 WA~ U~. 9 · 30 mDe. S~C~ · 38 VO~e~. Dm. 113-62 NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENTS ROADS WATER/SEWER COMM. IMPROVE. GARBAGE 2 COMBINED TOTAL COLUER COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR i NAPLES, FLORIDA 341124997 ,?~allz COORS| 36 I",,~ ESCROW COD~ PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES L P 2SS EAST DR STE 3 MELBOURNE FL 32904-103~ PAID - 99/03/2.9 113-6; RECV ~ 28SS6.0S~.? . ~-:-'- GUY L ~ ~CAR~;T. ONI~ r~ TAX~C. OLI"ECTOI 0000066262004846 0000011362 0000000000 00000 S~ REVERSE SIDE ~R ~R~ IN~R~ON ~lS ~ ~R T~ COLLE~OR'S OFFICE USE ONLY DUPLICATE 1998 COLLIER COUNTY NOTICE OF AD VALOREM TAXES AND NON-AD VALOREM ASgESSMENT~ 3, S9~3 ~7 · 93 ~ S COUR~OUSE COMPLY-BUILDING S. qoqo qs. qO S~OOL.~ · Sb~O q. 37 WA. RM~. ' .... ~ .......... ~ ~.~qS3 q-3O mDe. S~ 3 PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES L P R~S COMM. IMPRO~. ~l ~6262004862 '-'-= ~2 commNED,om "m'PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES PAID -. 99/03/29 LOT 16 RECe ' 28557.05 ,,, GUY L~"'~CARbTON -. TAX: COLLECTOI 0000066262004862 0000011362 0000000000 00000 SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION THIS AREA FOR TAX COLLECTOR'S OFFICE USE ONlY DUPLICATE 1998 COLLIER COUNTY NOTICE OF AD VALOREM TAXES AND NON-AD VALOREM AS~ESSMENT~ COLUER COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR 3 · 5923 27 · 93 COU~tT'~ S COURTHOUSE COMPLEX - BUILDING C-1 5.9040 45.90 SC.OOL-STATE 1 2 · 6060 20.26 f~:H~L-I.OCAL I NAPLES, FLORIDA 34112-4997 ClI'Y ~ 7 .~ ."2.?,5 · 7050 5.48 D~NDen 5 ~.:"~M,.tCOD~q ~ :,~i ..... ?~..:~ ...... :.?i 5620 4 37 WATERMm. 2 --- ~ -~ '?~' ~' d' '~?::~'~ 1.1953 9-30 mND~.Sr~Ct,,L 3 PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES L P .- ~ . ~: VOTER APPR. DEBT. ;' '~:;:~ ~i~ .04495 .38 3 255 EAST DR STE 3 .:~-' i 14.61 i 113.62 20 MELBOURNE F'L 32904-t03;:" ROADS WA'TER/~EWER COMM. IMPROVE. GARBAGE ;'~~-~T/i ' 66262004888 '~.~.':, _ L,p COMBmN~o'rOT~ ;'~--u~?"""'~PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES PAID - 99/03/29 113-1 LOT t7 t REC GUY 0000066262004888 0000011362 0000000000 00000 SEE REVERSE SlOE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION THIS AREA FOR TAX COLLECTOR'S OFFICE USE ONLY 1998 COLLIER :SCOUNT EARNED MAIIM? hilt ~v~dlia~tlI~iilie 7~775 DUPLICATE' AD VALOREM TAXES AND NON?AD VALOREM AS~ESSMENT~ 3X cou~T .or Iot 4% IN NOTICE. IN DEC 12X IN dAN IlX IN FEB 10X IN fl 3.5923 S.9040 2.6060 .7050 .5620 1.1953 .0495 14.6141 PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES LOT 18 27.93 ~um~ S 4 S - 9 0 SCHOOL- STATE 1 20 · 26 SCHOOL-LOCAl. 1 CITY WATER MbT. 9 · 30 mOB'. sPt=CmL - 38 VOTER,UPa. DEar. 113.62 NON-ADVALORBIA,~S~MENI~ .: ::. :;i: ROADS WAT~EWBI COMM. IMPROVE. GARBAGE '!. '1.':i _ t. ~ COMBINEO TOTAL PEBBLEBROOKE LAK 255 EAST DR STE MELBOURNE FL 329 COrn m IER COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR COURTHOUSE COMPLEX- BUILDING C-1 NAPLES, FLORIDA 341124997 :~NIL~ CODE~;] ~ ~ IV~ESCROW ~o~1 ~] A C.-L~O A ITEM ] 4- ~ml,~ 32/~'w,?'~ JAN 11 2000 PAID 99/03~29 . REC ?~;'. 28559.05~, . . .':~'_. ~.f ~-' ~ /~ , GUY-~.',-CAR~TON ~...-T-AX.=CO~EECTO 0000066262004901 0000011362 0000000000 00000 SEEREV~SESIDEFORFUITrHERINFOR~TION ~ISAR~FORT~COLLECTOR'SOF~CEUSEONLY ' 1998 COLLIER. COUNTY NOTICE. OF AD VALOREM TAXES AND NON-A.D. VALOREM ASSESSMENT~ I~COUNT EARNED 14% IN NOV 13% IN DEC 12% IN JAN 117. IN FEB 10% *IN M 7'775i 3.5923 5,9040 2.6060 · 7050 .5620 1.1953, .04951 14.6141 66262004927 EBBLEBROOKE LAKES LOT 19 27.93 ~ 5 q 5.90 SCHOOL-STATE 1 20 · 26 S~OOL-LOral. 1 C~ DEPENDENT ~ 9 · 3 0 INOEP. ~C~L 3 · 38 v~.om. 113.62 20 NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSME~ ROAOS WATER~ COMM. IMPROVE. GARBAGE I 1. ~. h P COMBINED TOTAL COLLIER COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR COURTHOUSE COMPLEX- BUILDING C-1 NAPLES, FLORIDA 341124997 ~MKrCOOE~.~;I ~ 6 ~;ESCROW,~Dlslr~ll PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES L P 255 EAST DR STE 3 MELBOURNE FL 32904-1032 PAID - 99/03/29 113.6; GUY L'~:'CARb~TON 0000066262004927 0000011362 OOOOOOOOOO OOOOD SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR FURTHER iNFORMATION THIS AREA FOR TAX COLLECTOR'S OFFICE USE ONLY ~'--' DUPLICATE- 1998 COLLIER ~.SCOUNT ~ EARNED % NiSI lid? 11) I 1 Ir · SESm) 7,~775 COUNTY NOTICE. OF AD VALOREM. TAXE~ AND NON.-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENTS qz IN NOV 13X IN DEC 12Z IN JAN I1X IN FEB /OZ. TN flj 1. '19. rl&l , 1,1, rl. ~%1 1.1.1. %~.~[I ,, 'L'L~. tlR/ ' 3.5923 5.9040 2.6060 .7050 .5620 1.1953 .0495 ~.614~ 27 · 93 4 S · 9 0 trdlOOL. ITATE 20.26 m:~OOL.LOCWU. c~ 5. q 8 DEPENDENT 4 · 37 WATER Mm. 9 · 30 INOEP. IPEC~L · 38 ~.Om. 1,13.62 NON-AD VALOREM A~F.~MENlr~ ROADS WATER/~'WER COMM. IMPROVE. GARBAGE 1.1. ~= L ~_ OOMBINED TOTAL l COLLIER COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR I COURTHOUSE COMPLEX BUILDING C-1 ' I NAPLES, FLORIDA 341124997 ~S :~;~-M~U. COOE"~" I ~!6 I~' ESCROW CODE~n~I 3 PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES L P 3 255 EAST DR STE~ ~ ..... -- 20 MELBOURNE FL 32 JAN 11 2000' REC#~ ' 28561.0~ ....... ,~ _ GUY L:;**"CAR~'TON ',,TAX'~CO~ECTOR 0000066262004943 0000011362 0000000000 00000 SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION THIR anra FOR TA¥ Cfll I i:r, Tnrt'.q firm; u.ql: rode V DUpLICA*TE 1998 COLLIER. COUNTY NOTICE, OF AD VALOREM. TAXES AND NON:-AD VALOREM AS~ESSMENT~ ISCOUNT EARNED14 . i.NOV ~ T.JAN I1% IN FEB /OX IN I~ AMfllllLl~ ~11~ ' I 1. qq_flAI 1.1. n.~1.1 1.1.1..q~1 , 1.1,~.~fl/ ' ' ~ · . 7,7751 3.5923 S.9040 2.6060 .7050 · S6i~0 1.1953 .0495 ~ .: ~::/',::;, ': ~ 14 6141 · ~ ~~ '66262004969 ~e?'a~;~EBBLEBROOKE LAKES LOT 21 27.93 COUNn S 45 - 90 sc.oot- 1 i~O · 26 SCNOOL-tK~U. 1 C~ S · 48 omom S 4 · 37 wA~ 9 · 30 m oe. s~c~ 3 .38 vo~,~, om. 3 113.62 20 NON-AOVALOREMASSESSMENTS!;i, : ~- ROAOS COMM. IMPROVE. GARBAGE 1.1. ':1 _ L :3 COMBINED TOTAL COURTHOUSE COMPLEX - BUILDING C-1 NAPLES, FLORIDA 341124997 ~ ~6 I~ESC~OWCO0~ PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES L P 255 EAST DR STE 3 MELBOURNE FL 32904-1032 PAID - 99/03~29 ..., 113.6 ':::'0000066262004969 0000011362 0000000000 00000 S~REVERSESIOEFOR~RTH~IN~R~ON mlS~RT~CO~OR'SOF~CEUSEON~ DUPLICATE 1998 COLLIER COUNTY NOTICE OF AD VALOREM TAXES AND NON-AD VALOREM AS::ESSMENTS ~ MflliMT ~llr 1. nq. nail 1.1. n. p~ll i,~. q~ll 1,1,~. ~~V~; ~l~ ~~OU~~~O~~ ~~~" rA~IN.U.S:~NDS~'~ ....................................... CO~ COU~ T~ CO~OR 3. Sql3 ~7. q3 co~ S COUR~OUSECOM~-BOlLDIN6~I S. qO~O ~S. qO ~HOOL-~ ~. bO~O ~0. ~ ~OL-~ ~ ~S, RORIDA~1124~7 .SbHO ~.37 wa~ u~. ' ~ ~-:~:4,,,,. ~ ~qS3 q 30 mOEe. S~ 3 ABENANTI, FRANK d. -..' ",.~ ~q.b~ ~3.bH HO NAPLES FL : 4~. ~,.-~ r~ ~ :~ N~N-~ V~OREM ~S~M~ ' . ROAO3 JAN 11 COMM. IN~O~. LOT 22 REC #,:'~j 1123~-O~ 0000066262004985 0000011362 0000000000 00000 SEE REVERSE SlOE FOIl FUIlTHEIl WFOIIMATION THIS AREA FOIl TAX COLLECTOR'S OFFICE U~[ ONLY .......... ' ............. DUP'LTCAYE t99B COLLIER COUNTY NOTICE. O.F. AD VALOREM. T.A. XES AND NON.-A.D. VALOREM IS¢OUNT EARNED 47. IN NOV 1=!7. IN DEC 127. IN JAN I1% IN FEB /07. IN I m 7,775 3. 5923 27'~ 93 .... ~n, ......... 15 5 · 9040 95 ,, 90 ~HOOL- ~A~ COURTHOUSE COMPLEX- BUILDING ~1 E · 6060 20 · ~6 SC#OOL- tOC~U. I KAPLES, FLORIDA 3411~-4~J7 :.*_,,_,_,L~ · ~ - ~ ~*q · 70`50 .5 · 4 8 o~oFxr .5 ~"~:cooE~! 3 6 [~ESCROWAOOLqq~I - .56E0 4 · 3? WATER Mm'. ,.'* :'-i'-;~:~ : :~.~- 1.19.53 9.:30 mo[P. SP[CW. 3 PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES L p ,, ,;."'~-~,'~' .0495 .38 VOTERAPPR. OF.~T. 3 255 EAST DR STE '3 tq.6141 113.6~ 20 MELBOURNE FL 32904-1032 ~MIT. A~I~I~ ~-; NON-AD VALOREM mESSMENTS '*-- ROADS -- i WA1'E~EWER ' COMM. IMPROVE. GARBAGE W,~Er, AI,~~EBBLEBROOKE LAKES .... PAZD - 99/0~/Ei.. 1'1,~.q LOT 23 REC# ~ 18820.0~6C7 O000OM::,e6~OO`5OO?,-.OOOOOllB6e OOOO00000O 00000 ilkgrdlSE SIDE FOR FUIITHER INFORMATION THIS AREA FOR TAX COLLECTOR'S OFACE USE ONLY DUPLICATE 1998 COLLIER COUNTY, NOTICE. OF AD VALOREM, TAXES AND NON?AD VALOREM ISCOU,?' EARNED 4% IN" NOV 13~. IN DEC lEX IN JAN I1% IN FEB lO~. IN I I / AHAIIIUq' l~'il&g]'.:: ; ''-':' 1. lq_riAl, 1,1,1"1_ ~1,1 1.1.1,_:191 1.1;~. UA1 ": '~" ~TAA VALORm TAXr:S. 93 .51.~ll COURTHOUSE COMPLEX- BUILDING C-1 COLUER COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR ' ' :' "7,775 '4. 5923 m'um~ · 9040 NAPLES, FLORIDA 2.6060 · .7050 .5620 1·1953 .049S 14.6141 ~u~"~PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES LOT 24 45.90 SOHOOL- ITATE ED · 26 mmOOL-LOCAL 5 · 48 DEPENDBn 4 · 37 e*~ 9 · 30 INDr:P. SPt-ClAJ. · 38 VOTER APm. Dm. 113.62 NON-AD VALOREM A~E~NENT$ ROADS WATER/SEWER COMM. IMPROVE. GARBAGE COMBINED TOTAL il ':~ MII~CODE ~l _.4 ~ l?J:~ [~CROW CODE~t TIRICO FRANK V It MARIA E04 STANHOPE CIR .~-~n-~,a EOI NAPLES FL 34104~080~'~-" i PAID- 98/11/09 I~ P"~ RECe,'" , 2853,0~',":;7~-'S~, ..... GUY ~:; "':'C'ARL'TON ~..L, TAX'~CO~LECTOI 000006626200`50'23 0000011362 0000000000 00000 SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION THIS AREA FOR TAX COLLECTOR'S OFFICE tJSF rlNI Y 1998 COLLIER .ZSCOUNT EARNED AMAIIM~ hll~ ' - 7,775 DU'PLICATE COUNTY NOTICE. OF AD VALOREM. TAXES AND NON."AD VALOREM ASSESSMENTS · !. lq. hal 1.1. n. ~'1.1 I,'1,1,. ~1.~1 ~MILE;RATE~P~ Fi~,~,~AMOU~,~?~~,-AUTHORITY~#~ - -- ~ ~ ~ ,~PAYIN:U.SZFUNDS.T1)~~4~ :~:.: ', '~ ~ ~ :'? ' ?::~; AD VALOREM T.q,X~ · ..................................... ~ .... COLUER COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR 3.5923 5.9040 2.6060 .7050 .5620 1.1953 .0495 14.6t41 ~~L 662~2005049 *~"~w:~:~.EBBLEBROOKE LAKES LOT 25 27.93 COUNTY 5 45 · 90 SCHOOL-STATE 1 20 · 26 DCHOOL-LOC~ 1 COY -q · 48 DEPENDENT 5 4 · ~7 WATER MGT. 2 9 · 30 mOEr. SKC~L 3 · 38 VOTER ~rPR. DEft. 3 NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENTS 'i ~ :' i ROADS WATER/SEWER COMM. IMPROVE. GARBA6E 113: L_ ;:, COMBINED TOTAl. COURTHOUSE COMPLEX - BUILDING ?71 NAPLES, FLORIDA 341124997 ~M~em~! -~6 ~ ESCROW COD~! V.AUX, JAMES C & JUDY M 132 CYPRESS WAY E NAPLES.FL 34110-9225 PAID ~ 99/03/31 113.1 GUY ~;~,'~ARC?ON ~i'TAX cO~LEcTd · ~-~0000066262005049 0000011362 DOODDOODO0 00000 S~REVERSESIDE~R~R~ERIN~R~ON THISAR~FORT~COL~OR'SO~CEUSEONLY 1998 COLLIER ISCOUNT EARNED A MAItU~ ~llr 7,775 7.77~ !~&~ :~.~/ 62005065 ~ o~m'. ~' 662 :~c'~hEBBLEBROOKE LAKES LOT 26 DUPLICATE COUNTY NOTICE. OF AD VALOREM. TAXES AND NON?AD VALOREM ASSESSMENTS 1. rlQ rial 1.1. n. ;:31.1 1,1.1. _ ':1 I:;i 1.1:'~ _ l.J A/ 1.'I / .... ' coum =' ...... --- ~ ...... ~'1 COMER COUNTYTAX COLLECTOR ........... SCHOOL- LOCAL ' NAPLES, FLORIDA 341124997 2.6060/ 20.26 cOY 1/ . .48 D~NDaT 5 '~¥;NI~'c°'DE ~! 36 I'?? ESCROW COOE 1-19531 9-30 INDEP. SPEClAL3/PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES L P ...p.49.s/ ...,.,3{ SS..]).R' ~RA~,'~ P~R~:. · ' NON-A~ VALOREM ASS~SSM&qTS ' ~ :'. ' ROADS w,~Ew. / ...-,,'t 11 COMM. IMPROVE. GARBAGE ~/ i ' '_'_'4 _ '- 2 COMm..:o'rSTAL p~,. /~ ~- ~ ?' PAID' ~,~ 99/03/29 REC~,, '.',: ,,.. 28563.05 ~uY ~?,?~'C'AR~TON -TAX cOL~£cT~ 0000066262005065 0000011362 0000000000 00000 . SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION THIS AREA FOR TAX COLLECTOR'S OFFICE II,~F ~14L Y · . . DUPLICATE- - 1998 COLLIER COUNTY NOTICE OF AD VALOREM TAXES AND NON-AD VALOREM ASgESSMENT~ r~l lit - · hq.hAl 1,1, n.. pl, I L%I,. qKI %~P. q~ 3.S9~3 ~7.93 co~ S S · 9040 45 · 90 S~OOL-~A~ I COUR~OUSE COMPLY- BUI~ING ~1 ~. 6060 ~0. ~6 S~OOL-~ i ~S, FLORIDA ~1124~ c~ · ~b~ q - 37 WA~M~. 2 ~ 1.19S3 9.30 IND~.8~C~ ~ PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES L · 049S .38 VOid. Dm. : 2SS EAST DR STE 3 14.6141~ 113-62 2~ MELBOURNE FL 3~q04-1032 II I ROADS WA~ COMM. IM~O~. G~E ~~ 6626200S081 11g-~a ~-.~'~bEBBLEBROOKE LAKES PAID ~ 99/03/~9 . 113.6 LOT 27 RECe/~S;~.:~,,, ~8S64.0S::. ~,~ GUY ~:~-~CAR~'~ON ~ TAX 1998 COLLIER SSCOUNT EARNED 7,77S 000006626200S081 0000011362 0000000000 00000 SEE REVERSE SlOE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION THIS AREA FOR TAX COLLECTOR'S OFFICE USE ONLY ........ 'DUPLICATE COUNTY. NOTICE, OF AD VALOREM. T.A. XES AND NONrA.D. VALOREM ASSE~SflENT~ 47. IN NOV 13% IN DEC lEX IN JAN I1X IN FEB lOX IN 4. lcl_nal 1.1. n_;'LI . ~ l.l.l..qql 1.1.~_UA/' 2? · 9] mmn, COLUER COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR 3.S923 S.9040 2.6060 .7050 .S620 1.19S3 .049S 14.6141 ,~o--~ ~!1' 6626200S104 ¥~a,,. "~.;PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES LOT 28 S 4S. 90 SCHOOL-SI'AU '~ 20.26 8CHOOL-LOC~ 1 cn~ S · 48 DEPENDENT S 4 · 37 WATER MGT. 2 9 · 30 INOEP. SPECIAL 3 · 38 vm'e~u~. D~=m'. 3 113.62 i~0 NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENTS · ' ROADS WATER/SEWER COMM. IMPROVE. GARBAGE 1~ n_ ~ L 2 COMBINED TOTAL COURTHOUSE COMPLEX- BUILDING NAPLES, FLORIDA 34112-4997 ~:M~LL'~OO~ 36 I* ~EscRow CODC~ PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES L P ESS EAST DR MELBOURNE FL 3P~O4-r~~'T~M /?/')_ :/,:; 1 1 2000 PAID,~,_,. _.- 98/12/11 r~r..,,.e.'~;'., 11304 · 01~-~--:~ GUY 1.?r;°"CARI~TON"~" ~ TAX". COLEECTOR 000006626~00S104 0000011362 0000000000 00000 SEE REVERSE SlOE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION THIS AREA FOR TAX COLLECTOR'S OFFICE USE ONLY t998 COLLIER £SCOUNT EARNED % I, IAI IM? 'hill:' 7,775 7~775 · ~ ~!i. DUPLICATE COUNTY NOTICE. OF AD VALOREM. TAXES AND NON.-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENTS 1. aq.nAI 1.1. n.~1.1 I.l.'L.~lql ~ ~ 1.1. P.I, IA/ %'1m .,:;~ !'/ .:, ,:.. A, VALOR,F~,,,T..A~Xr=S .', %~72:-.:;:!:P- "' ~- COLUER COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR 3.5923 5.9040 2.6060 .7050 .5620 1.1953 .0495 14.6141 ~PEBBLEBROOKE LAKE~ LOT 29 27.93 coum'Y 5 45 · 90 SCHOOL- STATE 1 20.26 SCHOOL-LOCAL 1 5 ,, 4 8 OB'BIDBR' 5 4.37 WA~..~. 9 · 30 mND~.Sm'ECW. 3 · 38 WOTENAP~. 3 113-62 20 NON-AD YALOREN ASSE~MENT~ · ROADS WATEH~L:I~ COMM. INI'~OVE. 1_ 1_ ~ _ L. ~_ COMBINED TOTAL COURTHOUSE COMPLEX - BUILDING C-1 NAPLES, FLORIDA 341124997 ~MI~COD~'I ~6 I~~~ E~CROW-CODE~J~ . PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES L P 255 EAST DR STE 3 MELBOURNE FL 32904-1032 PAID -, 98/12/11 110-2 RECt ~,-11305.06 ~,~ .... GUY LL~:~CARLTON ~:TAX~;CO~ECTO 0000066262005120 0000011362 0000000000 00000 S~R~RSESIDE~R~HERIN~R~ON ~IS~FORTAXCO~ECTOR'SO~ICEUSEON~ 1998 COLLIER :SCOUNT EARNED MhlINT hlIF ~ 7,775 7~775 . - DUPLICATE COUNTY NOTICE. OF AD VALOREM. TAXES AND NON AD VALOREM ASSESSMENTS 4% IN NOV 13% IN DEC 12% IN JAN I ti IN FEB /0% IN 1, flq. nP, I 1,1.n. P'LI 't,'l,l, ~:~1 . ~"~ "AD VALOREM TAXF,.S . .' -, ' ....... · "-. · 'Coomy · * ~-I COLLIER COUNTYTAX COLLECTOR c om-m.r~ .. tmc ca~ SCHOOL-STATE 'LI . COURTHOUSE COMPLEX- BUILDING C-1 ~:C~CB ~:~C SCHClTYOOL' LOCAL ~'/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34112-4997 · 7050 5 · 48 DEJ~NDENT ~q. MIO. COOE "-t ]6 I ::'~- mROW CODE~':~r~ .5620 4.37 WA~MOT. 1.1953 9.30 INDEP. SP~C~I 31 PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES L P · 0495 .38 VO~AP~.DEST. 31 255 EAST DR SS~E ~ 4-'~'~ 14.6141 113.62 201 MELBOURNE FL ~RATE~.~,.PE~..~- NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSNENT$ ROADS COMM. IMPROVE. GARBAGE 1.1. ~. ~, ~ COMBINED TOTAL .....PAID - 98/12/11 REC::B?? 11306.06 ' GUY ~I~%-~,-'.CARLTON . TAX COLLECTO ~ mo?# ',~'- 66262005146 :'~~EBBLEBROOKE LAKES LOT 30 0000066262005146 0000011362 0000000000 00000 SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION THIS AREA FOR TAX COLLECTOR'S OFFICE USE ONLY DUPLICATE 1998 COLLIER COUNTY NOTICE. OF .AD VALOREM. TAXES AND NONrA~ VALOREM ASgESSMENTS ISCOUNT EARNED 4X IN NOV 137. IN DEC 127. IN JAN I1X IN FEB /0% TN I~ APIhlIHI' nlllr - 1. nq. rlAiI 1,1, rl. pl, II , !,~,. g~ll 'L1,2. ti&l/ · II · ~*~ ...... ~ ............ ~0~'~':~ ..... '~' :' ~'- COLUER COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR · 3-5923 27-93 5 ," ': S · 90401 4S · 90 SCHOOL-SlATE I COURTHOUSE COMPLEX- BUILDING C-1 2 · 60601 20- 21., SCHOOL-LOCAL I NAPLES, FLORIDA 34112-4997 CiTY S · 48 DEPENDENT ..ca ~MlU;'CODE~ ~la I(~,,~E$CHOWCODE~[ WATER MbT. INDEP. SPECIAL 3 :' "'" VOTER APPR. DEBT. 3 20 4.37 9.30 .38 113.62 I I I NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT8 '. . I ROADS I WATER/SEWER { COMM. IMPROVE. I 1_, 1_, ~. _1., _~ COMBINED TOTALJ PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES L P 2S5 EAST DR STE 3 MELBOURNE FL 32904-1032 PAID -, 98/12/11 RECOILS! 11307.06'T,~ GUY ~,~'~:CAR~TON ~j::~xC!OL~ECTOI .70S0 .S620 1.19S3 .B49S 14.6141 ~~ 6626200S162 ..... ~PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES LOT 31 000006626200S162 0000011362 0000000000 00000 SEEREVERSESIOE~R~RTHERIN~R~flON ~ISAR~FORT~CO~C~R'SO~CEUSEONLY DUPLICATE 1998 COLLIER COUNTY NOTICE OF AD VALOREM TAXES AND NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT~ [SCO01;il~'-E~I~'~-'' ~I~.---ZN '-NO~--I 37. TN DEC [2?. IN JAN I17. IN FEB. ~ 7,77S ':'~' ' '"~'VALOREM'TNCES ::J"-- COLUER COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR 3 · 5923 27 · 93 COu~ S COURTHOUSE COMPLEX - BUILDING C-1 S- qgqO qS- 913 sCHool.STATE 1 2 · 6 B 6 n 2 El · 2 6 t~#oom. I.Or~z I NAPLES, FLORIOA 341 ~ 7~77~ .70S0 S. 48 D~aE~ S '??~N~CO~/~il 36 · . s62rl 4.37 eATERM~. · : '~:j~i ' .... 1-19S3 9.3rl ¥O~R. DESI.mNDe'SPEC~ :.: PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES · O49S .36 2SS EAST DR STE ~ ' 14.6141 113.62 2~ MELBOURNE FL '~'~ RATE ,' PER' NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENTS ROADS -~-'- COMM. IMPROVE. GARBAGE ~.~' _,~/~1 6626200S188 ~3.62 CONm#Eo TpTAL ~L~k"~¢~"~";~EBBLEBROOKE LAKES PAID ~ 99/04/29 0000066~62005188 000001136~ 0000000000 00000 REVERSE SiDE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION THIS AREA FOR TAX COLLECTOR'S OFFICE If~l~ fl#l Y DUPLICATE. 1998 COLLIER COUNTY NOTICE OF AD VALOREM TAXES AND NON-AD VALOREM AS;ESSMENTS 5.9040 45 .'90 S~OOL- ~A~ I COUR~OUSE COMPS- BUILDING ~1 ~ · 6060 ~O · ~6 S~OOL- ~ t ~S, ~ORIDA ~1124~ C~ ~u 7,776 · 7050 5 · 48 DEP~D~ 5 ~M~DE-~? ~1 ~k ~ ~CROW~D~ ; - ' · 5620 4.37 WA~MGT. 2 '. ~ :~ ~ 1-19~3 9-30 mD~.Sm~ 3 PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES L P · 0495 -38 VO~R.D~. 3 255 EAST DR STE 3 · ., ,.' 14-6141 113-62 20 MELBOURNE FL 32904-1032 ROADS WAT~ COMM. IMPROVE. G~GE D"c~PEBBLEBROOK[ LAKES PAID - 99/03/09 113.1 LOT 33 RECt?~' 25980. GUY '~?-' CARb~TON ~,~:TAX COLLECT~ 1998 COLLIER (SCOUNT EARNED 7,775 000006626200S201 0000011362 0000000000 00000 SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION THIS AREA FOR TAX COLLECTOR'S OFFICE USE ONLY DUPLICATE COUNTY NOTICE. OF AD VALOREM. TAXES AND NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENTS 4% IN NOV 13% IN DEC 12% IN JAN I1% IN FEB' 0% IN M I I 4. hq_ nAi 't'tn. p'm.I ~ 1.1,1.. 4_ql "I, 1,'P. 42, l ............... ~'" '~'=' ~ ~ · Cou~,, .... · -I COLLIER COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR ~7 - "J..9 "" 3. 5923 _ m4q qn SCHOOL-STATE 13 COURTHOUSE COMPLEX - BUILDING C-1 ~0: ~C SCHOOL-LOCAL ~'l NA s, FLORIDA 34112-4997 CITY I 5.48 DEPENDENT 5l~ MI~CODE ',, I 4.37 wATER i~r. 21 9-30 INDEP. S,C~ 31 PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES L P . .38 VOTERArre. DE~. 31 255 EAST DR STE 3 , 201 MELBO.URNE FL 329[ 5.9040 2.6060 .7050 .5620 1.1953 .0495 14.6141 ~.m~?~J~/ 66262005227 ~:,PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES LOT 34 NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENTS ROADS WATER/SEWER COMM. IMPROVE. GARBAGE '12 '1" ~ - ~ 2 COMBINED TOTAL 113.62 JAN 11 ""nO PAID -. 99/D3/29 REC#~" 28566.05" GUY '~'-'~ CARLTON 0000066262005227 0000011362 0000000000 00000 SEE REVERSE SlOE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION THIS AREA FOR TAX COLLECTOR'S OFFICE USE ONLY DUPLICATE t998 COLLIER COUNTY NOTTCE OF AD VALOREM TAXES AND NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT~ ~MOIINT BUR - I ]q.flSI 110. 211 611. 351 11~. 481 7,775 3 · 5923 27.9] ' ~ "' 5 ~IER COU~T~ CO~0R ~ · q O ~ O R ~. ~ O ~L- ~A~ ~ C0UR~0USE COM~- BUI~ING ~ · ~O~D ~O · ~ ~o~- LO~ ~ NAP~, ~0RIDA ~112~7 C~ ...... ~:?. .5620 4.37 w~,~. - '~'~;~,, 1.1953 9.30 mo~.s~ 3 PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES L P · 0495 .38 V~R. mT. 3 255 EAST DR STE 3 ... 14.6141 113.62 20 MELBOURNE FL 32904-103~ ~ ROADS WA~ ?. CONN. IMPRO~. ~B~E 66268005243 S4.9 m ~P COMBINED~ ~o~/~.~EBBLEBROOKE LAKES PAID - 99/03/29 113.6 LOT 35 RECe ;~_' 2856'7.05',' ? GUY 'L~,~,:~:~ARLTON -,TAX 000006626200.5843 0000011362 00000000013 001300 SEE RErr~E $10E FOR RIIrritER IIFORMATIOI 11fl$ AREA FOIl TAX ~OLLECTOR'$ OFFICE O$E ONLY . .~ DUPLICATe- ..... 1996' COLLIER COUNTY NOTICE. OF AD VALOREM. TAXES AND NON.-AD VALOREM ASgESSMENTS [~COUNT EARNED 4X ZN NOV 13X IN DEC 12Z IN dAN I IZ TN FEB I I I / ~ 7-,77~q ~ Aa VALOamT~ · COLUER COUNTY TAX COLLECI'OR ~. S923 27.93 ..Nn' · 9040 4S · 90 ~c~oot. ~TA'm'E ~URTItOU$E COMPLEX- BUlLOINg ~'1 2.6060 20.26 I 7~775 .7DSO ,S680 1.19S3 .049S 14.6141 66262005269 :'-;:PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES LOT 36 : S.48 4.37 9.30 .38 113.62 f,.CIIOOL - lOCAL CflY DBD'ENDrdIT WATER MGT. INDEP. SPECIAL VOTER APPR. DEBT. NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENTS ROADS WATER/~EWER COMM. IMPROVE. NAPLES, FLORIDA 341124997 "~ ~.ILIJ COOE!a'q =1 I., 3 PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES L P 3 2SS EAST DR 20 MELBOURNE FL JAN 11 2S00 COMBINED TOTN, PAT]) T, 99/O3/i~' RECe,,~,'] , 28S68.O5 GUY :K-~?-'~'~:ARL'TON - TAX'i'COLLECTOR GARBAGE 000006626800S269 0000011362 0000000000 00000 SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION THIS AREA FOR TAX COLLECTOR'S OFFICE USE ONLY 1998 COLLIER ISCOUNT EARNED & M~)I IP, IT 1~1 lit Ssm~ 7,775 mJt4gtE DUPLICATE'- COUNTY NOTICE. OF AD VALOREM. T~XES AND NONrA~ VALOREM ASSESSMENTS 4% IN NOV o~c dAN IlX IN FEB /0% IN I 1. lq.hAl 1.1. n.P%l ' k%~.qgl ,' ~.q~/' '1' ~MI~TE;;.~:~ T..~:~OU~.~., ~¢~¥~%~ &~AUTHOR~ ~= #~ ~.~ ~%~~PAY~N U,S~NDS*T~.~ ~ V~ORm TAXES ~;.'!/~i;/':' ¥ COLLI~ COUNTY T~ COLd. OR 3.5923 S.9040 2.6060 .7050 .5620 1.1953 .0495 14.6141 ~o~ 6626H005285 ~:e~EBBLEBROOKE LAKES LOT 37 27 · 93 COUNTY 45.90 20.26 5.48 4.37 9.30 .38 113.62 5 SCHOOL - STATE SCHOOL - LOCAL 1 CITY DEPENDENT lC WATER MGT. INOEP. SPECIAL ' VOTER At)PR. DEBT.2 NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENTS ROADS WATER/SEWER COMM. IMPROVE. GARBAGE '1_, '1_. ':1. I.. ~ COMBINED TOTAL COURTHOUSE COMPLEX- BUILDING C-1 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34112-4997 ~M~CODE'~I 36 ~CHOWCODE~t PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES L P 255 EAST DR STE 3 MELBOURNE FL 32904-1032. PAID - 99/03/25 113.1 REC~ 15798.08? ' ..... GUY L. CARLTON - TAX;COL, LECTI 0000066262005285 0000011362 0000000000 00000 SEEREVERSESIOEFOR~RTH~IN~R~ON THISAR~FORT~COL~CTOR'SOFFICEUSEON~ 'DUPLICATE' 1998 COLLIER COUNTY NOTICE OF AD VALOREM TAXES AND NON-AD VALOREM AS:ESSMENTS I 7,775 -~ ~ V~Rm T~ . 3. 5923 27.93 cou~ S COLU~COU~T~CO~OR S · 9040 45.90 SCHOOL-~A~ I COU~OUSE COM~- BUI~ING ~1 ~ · hObO ~0 · ~b SCHOOL- ~ ~ N~ES, RORIDA~1124~7 ' .;, · S620 4.37 WA~RM~. 2 ~'" 1.1qS3 9-30 mND~.S~C~ 3 PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES L P ROAOS :~/ % ~. ~ ~ ~ COMBINEO TOT~ p~. 66262005308 - - EBBLEBROO~E LA~5~ PAI~ - qq/O3/H~ ~. LOT 3& R5C~ HGSbq. OS GUY L- CARLTON -' TAX COLLECT 0000066262005308 0000011362 0000000000 00000 SEE REVERSE SlOE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION THIS AREA FOR TAX COLLECTOR'S OFFICE USE ONLY 1998 COLLIER ~ZSCOUNT EARNED 7,775 7,775 ~D~L ' 66262005324 ~SEmU~D~'CPEBBLEBROOKELoT 39 LAKES DUPLICATE COUNTY NOTICE OF AD VALOREM TAXES AND NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENTS 4% IN NOV 132 IN DEC 122 IN JAN 112 IN FEB lOX IN ! _._____q RflUfl __,_q~ ~fl SCHOOL- 2 · 6060 ~0 - ~ SCHOOL- LG i ~S, RORIDA ~1124~ 7050 5.48 o~e~ ~5620 4.37 WA~N~. 1.1953 9.30 mNO~. SKC~ 3 · 0495 -38 VO~S~m..~BT. 14.6141 113-6~ 20i MELBOURNE FL 32904-103~ m mm m mm mm [ ROADS COMM. IMPRO~. ~"GE COMBINED PAID - 99/03/29 113.6 RECe~.'~ ,28570.05~? ~ GUY ~E;~¢:~AR~ON ~:'TAX'~cO~ECTO 0000066262005324 0000011362 0000000000 00000 SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR ~RTHER INFOR~ON ~IS AR~ FOR T~ COL~CTOR'S OFFICE USE ONLY .............. . 1998 COLLIER COUNTY NOTICE. OF AD VALOREM. TAXES AND NON?AD VALOREM ASSESSMENTS ISCOUNT EARNED 4% IN NOV 13% IN. DEC 12% IN JAN I1% IN FEB /0% IN M~ I I I / ~H~II~? nllr 1. lq. hal ~ 1.~.~. P%I 1,1,1,. ~RI 1,%P. ~A/ "%~ ~ 7,775 :;,~ !::: ;?i ~ ..' ~ VALORm TAXES .._~: ~, 7~775 3.5923 5.9040 2.6060 .7050 .5620 1.1953 .0495 14o614~ 66262005340 ~*~PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES LOT 40 27.93 COUNTY 5 45 · 90 SC.DD~-sTATE 1 20 · 26 SCHOOL-lOCAL 1 DEPENDENT ~ 9 · 30 mOE~. S~CML 3 · 38 vo~q~uen, oE~T. 3 113.62 20 I IIIIII I NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT~ ROADS WATER/SEWER COMM. IMPROVE. GARBAGE 4.1, 'q . L, ~ COMBINED TOTALI COLLIER COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR COURTHOUSE COMPLEX- BUILDING C-1 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34112-4997 PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES L P 255 EAST DR STE 3 ... MELBOURNE FL PAID - 99/03/29~ REC#,;" 28571.0~~ GUY 0000066262005340 0000011362 0000000000 00000 SEER~RSESIDEFOR~R~ERINFOR~ON THISAfl~FORTAXCOLLECTOR'SOFFICEUSEONLY s"- OLd ...J¢::~ Orrl I-,1~, OZ Z i-'-H .-IZ COLLIP_,K L:OiJ-N'T¥ OOVF_,RN pUBLIC W .ORK~ DIVISION October 4, i999 3301 F- TAMIAMI TRAIL NAPI.ES. I'LORIDA 34112 (94 !) 732-2575 · VA~: ¢94 m ) 732-2~26 Ms. Pamela/L Eck Project Coordinator PM.g: Inc..of Nal?los 2335 T~_rn._;~.m.,.' Tra;! No.'il! Napl~;i;. Fk),+.!a.,-, *~ n ,t ,,., liE: Pebblcbn)oke Drainage Ea.soment - Phase I & 3 Dear Ms. Pek: This is in resT~mse to your request for a "Letter ol'lq'o Objection" to vacate the 20 fcct drainage ea.sements and 15 feet drainage, eascmc~nL~ on the referenced pmjectand re, pi: .w~...thom wh.b 15 and 12 feet drainage casement~. We have no o~ec~inn tn vm:allng (_h~. 20 J?~-'~...ur~Je draL,~.~ge casements ',dnng the_~nth.and vava pr. ,m'.e...try_lines ,',.~ r._,~Je~_ ic~ing O,~.-c,a, sem.-en,,,.:: m; [ 5 f~t wide. We d~ h~,v.~.r, object Io vaealing the 15 f.'~! wid= ~;ide, lol tmgc,'n¢ll*,a. 'rhc:.;c 15 feet wide eas..cm,~is c,.m~.ain e~:is~;,i~g d,-ainugc fr~ilitiza mad must re, main 15 f~'ct wide,. If you .should have any quostim~s, please advise. Sincerely, John Uoldt, P.E., P.S.M., Director: 8tormwater Management Rick O'rigg, ES.M. County Surveyor John 1 fouldsworth, ,senior Engineer Son Nhm; Planning Mamtgcr JAN 11 2000 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION ENGINEERING REVIEW SERVICES SECTION Planning Services Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 July 26, 1999 Ms. Pamela A. Eck Project Coordinator PMS, Inc. of Naples 2335 Tamiami Trail N. Suite 408 Naples, Florida 34103 Pebblebrooke Lakes Drainage Easement - Phase 1 & 3 Dear Ms. Eck: This is in response to your request for a "Letter of No Objection" to vacate the 20 feet drainage easements and 15 feet drainage easements on the referenced project and replace them with 15 and 12 feet drainage easements. We have no objection to vacating the 20 feet wide drainage easements along the south and west property lines and rededicating the easements as 15 feet wide. We do however, object to vacating the 15 feet wide side lot easements. These 15 feet wide easements contain existing drainage facilities and must remain 15 feet wide. If you should have any questions, please advise. Sincerely, Thomas E. Kuck, P.E. Engineering Review Manager TEK/taa/f:engineering/Tom CC: Rick Grigg, Engineering Prof. Surveyor & Mapper John Houldsworth, Senior Engineer Ron Nino, Planning Manager Phone (941) 403-2400 Fax (941) 643-6968 www.co.collier.fl.us Mr. Ed Kant, P.E. July 22, 1999 Page Two I have no objection to the proposed drainage easement vacations at the Pebblebrooke Lakes development. FOR: ~ COUN PRINTED NAME: Ed I~ TITLE: Director U DATE: ? -~ ~'~ - ~ DEPARTMENT (Signature) JAN 11 2000 2335 Tamiami Trail N. - suite 408 - Naples FL 34103 / (941) 435-9080 x4 - Fax (941) 435-9082 E-mail: pmspame@aol.com Mr. Kenneth P. Saundry, Jr. July 22, 1999 Page Two I have no objection to the proposed drainage easement vacations at the Pebblebrooke Lakes development. PRINT~.NAME, Kei~'~'h j~. Saundry, Jr. I / (Signature) DAte: I I 2335 TaMiami Trail N. - Suite 408 - Naples FL 34 ! 03 / (941 ) 435-9080 x4 - Fax (941 ) 435-9082 E-mail: pms~ e LIST OF ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS FOR PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES SECTION 27 / TOWNSHIP 48S / RANGE 26E School Board of Collier County 3710 Estey Avenue Naples, Florida 34104 Parcel 16 Minanis, Inc. 790 Harbour Drive Naples, Florida 34103 Parcel 12 Domenick Amomso Madeline DeFilippis 22 Croton Lane Manhasset, New York 11030 Parcel 7 ! ! %, t I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PETITION VAC 99-020 TO VACATE THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON THE SOUTH PORTION OF PARCEL D, "PELICAN MARSH UNIT SIX", AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 24, PAGES 50 THROUGH 51, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND TO ACCEPT A DRAINAGE EASEMENT AS A REPLACEMENT EASEMENT ON SAID PARCEL D. LOCATED IN SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST. OBJECTIVE: To adopt a Resolution to vacate thc above-described Drainage Easement and to accept a Drainage Easement as a replacement easement. CONSIDERATIONS: Petition VAC 99-020 has been received by the Planning Services Department from Gary Butler, P.E., of Butler Engineering, Inc., as agent for the petitioner, Ericksen / Marsh Partnership, Ltd., requesting the vacation of the above-described Drainage Easement to accommodate the construction of condominium buildings near the Drainage Easement site. They are also requesting that Collier County accept a Drainage Easement as a replacement easement. A letter of no objection have been received from Stormwater Management. Engineering Review and Planning have no objection. Zoning is P.U.D. FISCAL IMPACT: Planning Services has collected a $1,000 "Petition to Vacate" fee from the petitioner which covers the County's cost of advertising, recording and processing the Petition. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None PLANNING SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners: 1. Adopt the Resolution for Petition VAC 99-020 for the vacation of the above-described Drainage Easement; and 2. Approve and accept the replacement Drainage Easement: and 3. Authorize the execution of the Resolution by its Chairman and direct the Clerk to the Board to record the replacement Drainage Easement documents individually and to record a certified copy of the Resolution in the Official Records; and 4. Request the Clerk to the Board to make appropriate marginal notes on the recorded plat. PREPARED BY: Rick Grigg, P.S.M. Plying ~e~ices ~E~D BY://~ ~ /,~6~a~. KuCk, P.E. ~E~D BY:~~,,~ ~ ~ .... Vincent A. Cautero, MCP, Administrator Communky Development & Enviromenml Se~ices DATE:/Z' //'~' ?~;;} DATE AGENDA ITEM JAN tl 2000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 RESOLUTION NO. ~ RE. SOLUTION FOR PETITION VAC 99-020 TO VACATE THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON THE SOUTH PORTION OF PARCEL D, "PELICAN MARSH UNIT SIX", AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 24, PAGES 50 THROUGH PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND TO ACCEPT A DRAINAGE EASEMENT AS A REPLACEMENT EASEMENT ON SAID PARCEL D. LOCATED IN SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST. 11 WHEREAS, purmnnt to Sec'non 177.101, Florida Statm~ Gn~ But~', P.E., of Butler Engining, lnc., 12 as agent for the peti~oner, Encksen / Ma~h Partnership, Ltd., ~ her~y req~st the vaca~on of the drainage 13 easemem on the south potion of Parcel D, 'Pelican M,m~h Unit Six", as r~cord~l in Plat Book 24, Pages 50 14 thn~ 51, Public R~cords of Collier County, Florida. and to accept a drninn~e en~e~.nt as a n~iacemem 15 easement on Smd Parcel D; and 16 VvI-IEREAS, the Board has th~ day held a public h~ to consider _v~__ ~nS said Drg_ in~- ~ ~ as 17 more fiflly described helow, and no,ce of sa~d public hearing to vacnle was given as required by la~r, i 18 WHEREAS, the granting of the vacanon will not ndve~, affzct the ownership or right of convemem ] 9 a__,'J~,s_ of other p,uverly, owners. 20 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF 21 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the follOWing be and is herel~ vacated: 22 See Exhibit "A~ anached hereto and inccal~rated he.tn. 23 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER 24 COL~rI'Y, FLORIDA, tha! the Dramage Easement, mote particularly d~cribed in Exhibit "B" attached hereto 25 and mcorp~r~ed hereto, is hereby, accepted as the replacement easement for the Drainage F_a~t vacated 26 herein. 27 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Clerk to the Bonnt is hereby ~ to record a cemfied COl~' 28 of this Resolu~on and the replacement draina~ easements mdivi,~.~}y tn the Official Re~ords of Collier County, 29 Honda. and to make proper notation of this vaca~on on the recorded plat as ref~tcra:ed above. 30 This Re~olUUon adopted atler mouon, second and majority vote favoring same. 31 DATED: 32 A 1-1 t:ST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 33 DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 34 35 BY: PAMELA S. MAC'KIE. Chmrwoman 36 37 38 Apprm.ed ~ to form and legal 39 mffiOenc~-: 42 Ma~ Scuden ~ 43 Assistant County Attorney d F_.xhibil 'A" SI~ 1 a~' 1 VAC ~ ,, AGENDA ITE~ AN 1I 2000 / / ~lo~l VAG 99-030 AGENDA ITEM No. /'? /~- JAN 11 2000 Pg. PETITION TO VACATE, ABANDON, DISCONTINUE~ OR CLOSE Public Street A11 eyway Subdivision Plat Dedicated Easement Utility Drainage Maintenance ~Other (explain) Date Received: ~--i-, ._~ ICTqq' Petition No: V~:7~. Petitioner:* Ec;~K~/~sh ~~h~ , ~J, Address: ~5~ ~/ ~i~d, Telephone: ~ City/StaEe:. ~/~ . ~ ' Zip Code:,~ff/o~ Agent: ~ ~ler ' ~W~ ~;n~,.~. ~ Address: ~ ~~ T~m ~m~ ~1 J Telephone ~b~ City/State: ~~ , F~ ~ Zip Code: ~(Oq Address of Subject Property: '~c~ ~ ~e ~ca~ ~n,)qK ~"t+ City/State: ~p(eS / e-~' Zip Code: Location: Sectibn ~ Township ~ ' R~nge Plat Bbok~ ~H , Page(s):. ~, ~ ~-~ ~eason for ~equest: V~L'~. I O~'~(_t~ Current Zoning:_ ~L~ Does this affect density? I Hereby Authorize Agent Above to Represent.~e for this Petition: Yes v~ No g ute of Petitioner. Date'" ~ of Vacation and Annulment" for the list of Please see "Policy and Procedures supportive materials which must accompany this'petition, and deliver or mail to: *(1) (2) (3) (4) (S) Transportation Services Division Collier County Government Complex Bldg. "D" Naples, FL 33962 Telephone: (813) 774-8260 If applicant is a land trust, so indicate and name beneficiaries. If applicant is corporation other than a public corporation, so indicate and name officers and major stockholders. If applicant is a partnership, limited partnership or other business entity, so indicate and name principals. If applicant is an owner, indicate exactly as recorded, and list all other owners, if any. If applicant is a-lessee, attach a copy of lease, and indicate actual owners if not indicated on the lease. RDM:010792:151 AGENDA ITl. .~ JA~i 11 2000 e~. ~ Official Receipt - Collier County Board of County Commissioners CDPR1103 - Official Receipt i-'rrans Number i Date i Post Date Payment Slip Nbr ~ 167454 "11/24/1999 3:39:02 PM 111/25/1999 MS 62920 ERICKSEN/MARSH PARTNERSHIP New or Exist: N Payor · ERICKSEN/MARSH Fee Information Fee Code Descri.ption 12PVAc PETITION TO VACATE GL Account i11313890032910000000 Total Amount Waived $1000.00 $1000.00 Payments ~Pay?e~c_ode Account/Check Number'- Amount i CHECK 2627 $1ooo.oo i Total Cash i $0.00 j Total Non-Cash L $1000.00 i Total Paid { $1000.00 j Memo; VAC-99-020 Check #002627 Cashier/location: FROLOFF E / 1 User: KENDALL M Collier County Board of County Commissioners CD-Plus for Windows 95/NT Printed:l 1 4/1999 3:39:31 PM JAN 11 2000 This instrument prepsred byz Y%vlen M. ~1~. 001 ~1 ~ ~., 0500 · ~cel ~ 0: 00177120101 1892150 OR: 2016 PO: 1032 II lllllll.ll ~ ~ lO.~ fl~ ~ THIS MA__~RAHTYDEKD made this~-~ day of December, 1994, by W~NCOMMUA-&TZES, a corporation existingunder the laws of the State of Florida, and having its principal place of business at 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 500, Naples, Florida 33963, herein called the Grantor, to: ERICKSEN/MAR~H PARTNERSHIP, LTD., a Florida limited partnership, whose Post Office address is: 6318 Trail Boulevard, Naples, Florida 33963, herein called the Grantee, (wherever used herein the terms wOrantor" and 'Grantee" include all the parties to this instrument and the heirs, legal representatives and assigns, assigns of individuals, and the successors and sssigns of corporation). WITN~SSETHs That the Grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of $10.00 and other valuable considerations, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, hereby grants, bargains, sells, aliens, remises, releases, conveys and confirms unto the Grantee, ell that certain land situate in Collier County, Florida, vizl Parcels C and .~ Pelican Marsh Unit Six, according to the ~lat thereof recorded in Plat Book 24, Pages 50 and 51, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. SUBJECT TO s ao Co Do Eo Taxes and assessments for the current year and subsequent year; That certain DECLARATION OF GENERAL COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR PELICAN MARSH recorded in Official Records Book 1891, Pages 1814 through 1865, inclusive, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, as amended; That certain DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS AND PROTECTIVE COVENANTS FOR PARCELS C AND D, PELICAN MARSH UNIT SIX recorded simultaneously herewith; Applicable comgrehensive plans, or elements or portions thereof, land development regulations including zoning and subdivision ordinances, development orders, development permits and other regulations and conditions of all governmental agencies concerning the herein described property; Covenants, conditions, restrictions, easements, limitations and reservations of record. Grantee shall commence construction on the above described property no later than two (2) years after the date of this Warranty Deed. If Grantee fails to comply with the foregoing requirement, Grantor shall have the right, but not the obligation, to repurchase the portion deed. eri tN 11 2000 OR: '2016 PG: 1033 at one hundred percent (100%) of the prorata Purchase Price paid by Grantee for the property, based on a fraction of the denominator of which is the total number of units shown on Grantee's approved site plan and the numerator of which is the number of units not yet commenced by Grantee, less any attorney's fees, transfer fees, recording charges or other charges incurred by Grantor in connection with such repurchase and less the value of all outstanding mortgages, liens, and encumbrances which may exist on the property at the time of repurchase. Grantor's option to repurchase shall extend for ninety (90) calendar days from the date of any default hereunder. Grantor shall deliver a release for this provision upon the commencement of construction. TO~ETHER with all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the same in fee simple forever. AND the Grantor hereby covenants, with said Grantee that the Grantor is lawfully seized of said land in fee simple; that the Grantor has good right and lawful authority to sell and convey said land; that the Grantor hereby fully warrants the title to said land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever; and that said land is free of all encumbrances, except as otherwise noted above. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Grantor has caused these presents to be executed in its name, and its corporate seal to be hereunto affixed, by its proper officer thereunto duly authorized, the day and year first above written. Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of: WCN COMMUNITIES, INC. Print Name STATE OF FLORIDA COUN/~fOF COLLIER B~-6 i s H' · d E~esident (Corporate Seal) The foregoing Warranty Deed was acknowledged before me by Louis H. Hoegsted, Executive Vice President of WCN Corm~unitie~; Inc., a Florida corporation, organized under the laws of the S~aCe of Florida, on behalf of the corporation. He is personally known to me and did not take an oath. WI77~SS my hand and official seal this ~q day of December, I~94. Laurel Y. Sitterly deed. eri 2 2000 11/15/19~9 86:51 941566132? BUTLER Eh~IhF_ERIh~ P~GE BI BUTLER engineering, Jnc. November 15, 1999 Mr. Jotm Boldt, PE, PSM Colli~ County Stormwater Management Depaxtment Build/ng H, Courthouse Complex Naples, Florida 341.12 Subject: Clermont @ Pelican Marsh Dear 3olin, The attached maps delineate a very minor change in the existing lake easement within the limits of the subject SDP. The replacement easement provides for a slight enlazgement of the existing lake. The 20' clear maintenance easement is maintained. Please call with any questions. CeXcly, J. ~ Butler, PE We have no objecton to the proposed vacation. Collier County Stormy ater Management Department TELEPHONE 1223' TRADE CENTER WAY NAPLES, FLORIDA 34.109 (91.1) 566- 3636 FAX (941) 566 - 1327 Emali PBUTLER Z02@AOL.CO~ JAN 11 2000 Ap! Po Fm UT UL ~CI~2I OCfTR] ID1891771280841[49731246906]I FOLIO I691771299941 OWN[R> WCI COHHONIII[S LID PRTNRSHP STRAP 482535 091,O663A35 ORB/PI 2379]/[ 591 ..SALE DATE 112110198] 8 AHT [ 3860900] ACRES [ 32,59] .~. TRS->[48][25][35] EGAL-1 -2 -3 -4 HHSTD-X 180X-X CIU-X UET-X BLD-X WID-X AG-X WH-X 24361 WALDEN CENTER DR BONITA SPRINGS FL 35 48 25 ALL, LESS E 199FT LESS THAT PORTION DESC IN OR ~787 PG 831, LESS THAT PORTION OF WLY 10OFT DESC IN OR 1889 CURRENT-EX-AHT 8 [ 9] HILL-CODE 8 [ 81 ! 133] 8 [ 81 8 [ 8] HILL-RATE 8 [ 9] [14,6236] 8 [ 9] -1997- 8 [ 9] 8 [ 91 --PRELIHINRRY-- 1998 TAX ROLL 34134 4926 RREfl NA CERT-97-URL 1998-PREL]H [ 991LND 8[ 1249254] [ 1283869] L-USE IHP 8[ 9] [ 9] HKT 8[ 1249254] [ 1283866] ASD 8[ 1249254] [ 1283899] TAXABLE 8[ 1249254] [ 1283899] CNTY 8[ S-SL ~[ S-LB 8[ CITY 8[ 4621,81] NSTU 8[ 7235,64] ~HB $[ 3212,26] ISD 8[ ,99] UADP 8[ 837,95] 697.62] 1466,19] 66,35] SITE lNG AIRPORT (1997 TAXES) TOTAL 8[ 18136.23] -CERTIFIED- RD N 8615] RES477 09/09/1998 02:42 PM .lAN !1 2000 PS. Rp] Po Fm UT UL !~FC[~121 OC[TR] [D[i~G67947248t][4973~.249886][ FOLTO STRAP 552?98 A ORB/P[ 2878]/[ 192] SALE DATE [ 17 ] [ 8695 ] 8 AHT [ 8] ACRES [ ,98 ] TRS->[48][25][35] LEGAL-1 -2 -3 -4 [6667947248110YNER> SEUILLE DEUELOPERS, THE 13A35 1867 SEUILLE BLUD #411 NAPLES PELICAN HARSH UNiT NiNE PARCEL A, LESS THE SEUiLLE AT PELICAN HARSH CONDO PH 21 DESC iN OR 2142 PG 859, LESS PH 1 DESC IN --PRELiHiNARY-- 1998 TAX ROLL CURRENT-EX-AHT HHSTD-X 8 [ 9 ] 188~-X 8 [ 8 ] CIU-X 8 [ 8 ] UET-X 8 [ 8 ] I BLD-X '8 [ 9) ! , IJID-X 8 ! 91 t WH-X 8 [ 8 ] HiLL-CODE [ 133] HiLL-RATE [14,6239] -1997- SiTE iNA FL 34169 9896 AREA NA CERT-97-UAL 1998-PRELiH [ 96] LND 8! 1829699] [ 846966! L-USE iHP 8[ 8] [ 9] HKT 8[ 1826966] [ 849666] RSD 8[ 1829699] [ 849969] TAXABLE 8[ 1826996] [ 846969] CNTY 8[ 6782.23] HSTU 8[ 1228,32] S-SL 8[ 16617.88] WHB 8[ 1622,84] S-LB 8[ 4713,89] ]SD 8[ 2151,42] CiTY 8[ ,69] UADP 8[ 97,37] (1997 TAXES) TOTAL 8[ -CERTiFiED- 552766] 26613.86] RES4?7 09/09/1998 04:31 PM AGENDA IT F JAN 11 2000 ! I I 2000