CCPC Agenda 01/06/2011 GMPCCPC
AGENDA
DRI -GMP
AMENDMENT
TRANSMITTAL
HEARINGS
JANUARY 6, 2011
AGENDA
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, JANUARY 6,
2011, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING,
COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA:
NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM.
INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR
GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON
AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE
WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS
MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE
RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED
TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE
APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE
PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC
WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE
AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
IF APPLICABLE.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED
A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE
MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS
MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON
WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY
3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - December 2, 2010, December 7`' (EAR Adoption)
6. BCC REPORT - RECAPS —
7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
A. PUDZ - 2007 -AR -11381 Marsilea Villas, LLC, represented by Tim Hancock of Davidson Engineering, is
requesting a rezone from an Agricultural zoning district (A) and an Agricultural zoning district with a
Special Treatment Overlay to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district with
removal of the Special Treatment Overlay for a project known as Marsilea Villas RPUD to allow
development of up to 27 Single - Family dwelling units. The subject property, consisting of 10.25 acres, is
located west of Livingston Road surrounded by Royal Palm International Academy just north of
Imperial Golf Estates, Unit 5 in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
[Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner]
1
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Note: This Item is being Continued to the January 20, 2011 meeting for re- advertisement.
Petition: BD- 2008 -AR -13142 Paul Schneller, represented by Jeff Rogers of Turrell, Hall & Associates,
Inc., requesting a 105 -foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20 -foot limit as provided in Section
5.03.06 of the LDC to allow a 125 -foot dock facility to accommodate one vessel. Subject property is
located at 39 West Pelican Street, legally described as Lot 81, Isles of Capri No. 1, Section 31, Township
51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion to VA- PL2010 -739) [Coordinator: Nancy
Gundlach, Principal Planner]
B. Note: This Item is being Continued to the January 20, 2011 meeting as a Companion item to 9A.
Petition: VA- PL2010 -739, A Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida,
relating to a variance from Land Development Code Section 5.03.06 E.5 to permit a reduced side yard
(riparian) setback from 7.5 feet to 0 feet on property located at 39 West Pelican Street in Section 31,
Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County. Florida. [Companion to BD- 2008 -AR- 131421
[Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner]
C. Petition: CP- 2006 -111 a petition requesting amendments to the Conservation and Coastal
Management Element, Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series of the
Growth Management Plan, to Reconfigure the boundary and size of the Southeast Quadrant of Mixed Use
Activity Center No. 7 (Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard); Increase the maximum
allowable density that may be achieved within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict (URF) portion of a
Project lying in more than one Future Land Use designation through enhanced utilization of eligible
Transferable Development Rights (FDRs); Provide a definitive access provision for a Business Park
located in the URF portion of a Project; and, Allow for Native Vegetation Preservation in the URF portion
of a Project to be shifted to the RFMUD Sending Lands portion of the project when the Required Amount
of Native Vegetation Preservation is proportionally increased in the Sending Lands portion of the Project —
as they relate to proposed Hacienda Lakes Development of Regional Impact (DRI) and Mixed Use Planned
Unit Development (MPUD) Requests. The property is located in Sections 11, 12, 137 14, 23, 24, and 25,
Township 50 South, Range 26 East. and Sections 19 and 30. Township 50 South, Range 27 East,
consisting of ±2,262 acres. [Transmittal Hearing] [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner]
10, OLD BUSINESS
A. Continuation of the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance review and recommendation for approval.
[Coordinator: Robert Wiley]
11. NEW BUSINESS
12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA
14. ADJOURN
12/20/2010 CCPC Agenda /Ray Bellows /jmp
C
AGENDA ITEM 9 -A
AGENDA ITEM 9A
Note: This Item is being Continued to the January 20, 2011 meeting for re- advertisement.
Petition: BD- 2008 -AR -13142 Paul Schneller, represented by Jeff Rogers of Turrell, Hall &
Associates, Inc., requesting a 105 -foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20 -foot limit
as provided in Section 5.03.06 of the LDC to allow a 125 -foot dock facility to accommodate
one vessel. Subject property is located at 39 West Pelican Street, legally described as Lot 81,
Isles of Capri No. 1, Section 31, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
(Companion to VA- PL2010 -739) [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner]
AGENDA ITEM 9 -B
AGENDA ITEM 9B
Note: This Item is being Continued to the January 20, 2011 meeting as a Companion
item to 9A.
Petition: VA- PL2010 -739, A Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier
County, Florida, relating to a variance from Land Development Code Section 5.03.06
E.5 to permit a reduced side yard (riparian) setback from 7.5 feet to 0 feet on
property located at 39 West Pelican Street in Section 31, Township 51 South, Range
26 East, Collier County, Florida. [Companion to BD- 2008 -AR- 131421 [Coordinator:
Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner]
Clerks Office
COLLIER COUNTY
DRI- RELATED
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
AMENDMENT
(TRANSMITTAL HEARINGS)
Petition: CP- 2006 -11
CCPC: January 06, 2011
BCC: February 08, 2011
s
6
•
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BCC - Transmittal of DRI- Related GMP Amendment
CP- 2006 -11 Hacienda Lakes
1) TAB: BCC Advertisements.
2) TAB: CCPC Advertisements.
3) TAB: Executive Summary.
4) TAB: CCPC Staff Report.
5) TAB: EAC Staff Report.
6) TAB: CP- 2006 -11 Resolution.
7) TAB: CP- 2006 -11 Exhibit "A" Text.
8) TAB: CP- 2006 -11 Exhibit "A" Map
9) TAB: CP- 2006 -11 Petition.
DOCUMENT: Transmittal Legal Advertisements
DOCUMENT: Transmittal Legal Advertisements
DOCUMENT: Transmittal BCC Executive Summary
DOCUMENT: CCPC Transmittal Staff Report
DOCUMENT: EAC Transmittal Staff Report
DOCUMENT: Transmittal Resolution
DOCUMENT: Exhibit "A" Text
DOCUMENT: Exhibit "A" Map
DOCUMENT: Transmittal Application/Petition
Co-rivi.-ty
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
December 22, 2010
Collier County Planning Commission (and others)
Comprehensive Planning Section
Land Development Services Department
SUBJECT: CP- 2006 -11 Future Land Use Element Transmittal
Growth Management Plan Amendment - CCPC Advertisement
CCPC Hearing — January 06, 2011
Due to the timing of the Planning Commission meeting advertisement, we are unable to provide
copy of the official affidavit as proof of advertisement at this time. However, as soon as the
official affidavit has been received it will be provided in the binders going to the Board of County
Commissioners for hearing on February 08, 2011.
Growth Management Division
Planning & Regulation
Land Development Services Department
Comprehensive Planning Section
C NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE OF INTENT
TO CONSIDER RESOLUTION
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County Planning Commission on
Thursday, January 6, 2011 at 8:30 A.M. in the Board of County Commissioners chamber, third floor, County
Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples.
The purpose of the hearing is to consider recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to transmit
to the Florida Department of Community Affairs the Transmittal of CP- 2006 -11 Growth Management Plan
amendment to the Future Land Use Element and the Future Land Use Map and Map Series. The resolution
title is as follows:
RESOLUTION NO. 11-
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROPOSING AMEND -
MENTTO THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, ORDINANCE 89 -05, AS
AMENDED, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, AND FUTURE
LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES, AND FURTHERMORE RECOMMENDING TRANSMIT-
TAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS.
❑Petition CP- 2006 -11, a petition requesting amendments to the Conservation and Coastal Management Ele-
ment, Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Mao and Map Series of the Growth Management Plan, to
Reconfigure the boundary and size of the Southeast Quadrant of Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 (Rattlesnake
Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard); Increase the maximum allowable density that may be achieved within
the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict (URF) portion of a Project lying in more than one Future Land Use
designation through enhanced utilization of eligible Transferable Development Rights (TDRs); Provide a definitive
access provision for a Business Park located in the URF portion of a Project; and, Allow for Native Vegetation
Preservation in the URF portion of a Project to be shifted to the RFMUD Sending Lands portion of the project
when the Required Amount of Native Vegetation Preservation is proportionally increased in the Sending Lands
portion of the Project - as they relate to proposed Hacienda Lakes Development of Regional Impact (DRI) and
Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) Requests. The property is located in Sections 11, 12, 13, 14, 23,
24, and 25, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, and Sections 19 and 30, Township 50 South, Range 27 East,
consisting of ±2,262 acres. [Transmittal Hearing] Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
a
� rv�ics r CP- Y008 -11
O
A g
O �
Iswo s r--�
All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposed Growth Management Plan
Amendment will be made available for inspection at the Land Development Services Dept., Comprehensive
Planning Section, 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr., Naples, between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., Monday
through Friday. Furthermore the materials will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's Of-
fice, fourth floor, Collier County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, suite 401 Naples, one week prior
to the scheduled hearing. Any questions pertaining to the documents should be directed to the Comprehen-
sive Planning Section. Written comments filed with the Clerk to the Board's Office prior to Thursday, January
6, 2011, will be read and considered at the public hearing.
If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Collier County Planning Commission with respect
to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of that proceeding, and for such
purpose he 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.
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 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 84112 -5356,
(239) 252 -8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are
available in the Board of County Commissioners Office.
Mark P. Strain, Chairman
Collier County Planning Commission
No.231188470 December 16 2010
Agenda Item 9C
STAFF REPORT
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION,
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION
DATE: JANUARY 06, 2011
RE: PETITION No. CP- 2006 -11, GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT
[TRANSMITTAL HEARING]
AGENT /APPLICANT /OWNERS:
Agent: Dwight H. Nadeau
for Emilio Robau, PE
RWA Consultants, Inc.
6610 Willow Park Drive, Suite 200
Naples, FL 34109
Attorney: Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq.
Goodlette, Yovanovich & Koester, RA
4001 North Tamiami Trail, Suite 300
Naples, FL 34103
Applicant: David Torres
for Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC
12600 Biscayne Court
Naples, FL 34105
Owners: Wilton Land Company, LLC Swamp Buggy Days, Inc.
206 Dudley Road PO Box 990010
Wilton, CT 06897 Naples, FL 34116
Collier County Junior Deputy League, Inc.
PO Box 1833
Naples, FL 34106
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
CP- 2006 -11 pertains to a particular subject property, consisting of approximately 2,262 acres located
east of Collier Boulevard (CR 951), with frontages on Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock
Road Extension (a.k.a., entrance to Swamp Buggy Days PUD's Florida Sports Park), in Sections 11,
12, 13, 14, 23, 24, and 25, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, and Sections 19 and 30, Township 50
South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. The property lies within the Royal Fakapalm Planning
Community.
-1-
Agenda Item 9C
REQUESTED ACTION:
This petition seeks to amend the Conservation and Coastal Management Element, Future Land Use
Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series of the Growth Management Plan, to Reconfigure
the boundary and size of the Southeast Quadrant of Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 (Rattlesnake
Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard); Increase the maximum allowable density that may be
achieved within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict (URF) portion of a Project lying in more than
one Future Land Use designation through enhanced utilization of eligible Transferable Development
Rights (TDRs); Provide a definitive access provision for a Business Park located in the URF portion of
a Project; and, Allow for Native Vegetation Preservation in the URF portion of a Project to be Shifted
to the RFMUD Sending Lands portion of the Project when the Required Amount of Native Vegetation
Preservation is proportionally increased in the Sending Lands portion of the Project — as they relate to
proposed Hacienda Lakes Development of Regional Impact (DRI) and Mixed Use Planned Unit
Development (MPUD) Requests [Transmittal Hearing]
This set of Growth Management Plan amendments is proposed in six parts, as shown in
ATTACHMENT HL -1.
PURPOSE / DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
This petition seeks to amend the FLUE Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 (Rattlesnake Hammock Road
and Collier Boulevard) Map of the FLUE Map Series — along with correlating text changes — to re-
designate acreage from the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict of the Urban Mixed Use District, to
the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict of the Urban Commercial District. That portion of MUAC No.
7 lying within the Hacienda Lakes development area would increase by 9.16 acres via a Subdistrict -
to- Subdistrict redesignation.
• Without adoption of this part of the GMPA, the Hacienda Lakes of Naples project is currently
able to develop 27.5 acres of MUAC No. 7. With the adoption of the GMPA, the Hacienda
Lakes of Naples project would be able to develop MUAC acreage of 36.6.
The specific revisions proposed by this part of the GMP amendment appear as Part Four in Attachment
HL-1.
PROVISION
EXISTING
PROPOSED
Acreage Allowed for Southeast
Quadrant of MUAC No. 7
27.5 acres
36.6 acres
This petition seeks to amend Business Park Subdistrict provisions under the FLUE Urban Mixed Use
District to provide a definitive access provision for a business park located in the Urban Residential
Fringe portion of the proposed Hacienda Lakes development. Such amendment would serve to
validate the usefulness of The Lord's Way as access to a business park that may develop on the north
side of this thoroughfare.
• Without adoption of this part of the GMPA, the Hacienda Lakes of Naples project is currently
unable to develop a business park situated adjacent to a street providing next -to- immediate
egress to and ingress from both Collier Boulevard (CR 951) and the future Benfield Road.
The specific revisions proposed by this part of the GMP amendment appear as Part Five in Attachment
HL-1.
-2-
Agenda Item 9C
PROVISION
EXISTING
PROPOSED
Direct Access for Business Park onto
Arterial Roadway
The Lord's Way does not provide
such access by FLUE provisions
The Lord's Way would provide such
access with new p rovision
This petition seeks to amend Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict provisions under the FLUE Urban
Mixed Use District by introducing a different higher achievable density exclusive to the proposed
Hacienda Lakes development. Overall, maximum density increases from 1.5 dwelling units per acre
to 2.5 per acre are allowed when development rights are transferred from RFMU Sending Lands
within a project under unified control. Maximum achievable density would further "lift ", or increase,
from 2.5 dwelling units per acre to 2.8 with this part of the proposed text amendment.
Companion PUD application materials summarize that without adoption of the GMPA, the
Hacienda Lakes of Naples project is currently able to develop 1,662 dwelling units using all
eligible TDRs and other available density. With the adoption of this part of the GMPA, the
Hacienda Lakes of Naples project would be able to develop up to 1,850 dwelling units using
newly transferable TDRs — for a 187 unit gain — and make use of all available TDRs generated
by the 1,016 acres lying within one mile of the Urban portion of the project. The applicant
further explains, the project area is unique in that the land area within one mile of the URF
boundary, from which TDRs must be generated from for sending into the URF, generates187
more TDR credits than the URF is capable of receiving under current FLUE provisions; and,
that the "lift" will have no measurable impact on the URF's "transitional" nature, nor will it affect
its surrounding lands.
The applicant explains further that by allowing the use of these additional TDRs within the
developable portion of this project, the property owner is actually compensated for losing
development rights instead of hoping they will be compensated in the future; and, that this is a
more effective utilization of those eligible TDRs.
The specific revisions proposed by this part of the GMP amendment appear as Part One in Attachment
HL-1.
PROVISION
EXISTING
PROPOSED
Maximum Residential Density
2.5 DU /acre
2.8 DU /acre
(utilizing TDRs)
- eligible to receive in URF
- eligible to receive in URF with
receiving "lift"
The 06 -11 application seeks to amend Native Vegetation Preservation provisions of the Density
Rating System, Density Blending section under the FLUE Urban Designation to preserve less native
vegetation than is otherwise required in the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict portion of the project
if more native vegetation is preserved in adjacent RFMUD Sending Lands. This arrangement would
preserve two (2) acres of vegetation in areas designated as RFMUD Sending Lands [above the 60%
maximum preservation requirement] for every one (1) acre cleared in the Urban Residential Fringe.
This text change, if approved, would affect lands designated in both the Urban Residential Fringe
Subdistrict and RFMUD Sending Lands developed as projects under unified control.
• Without adoption of the GMPA, the Hacienda Lakes of Naples project would preserve 25% of
native vegetation in the URF, and 60% of native vegetation in RFMUD Sending Lands. With
the adoption of this part of the GMPA, the Hacienda Lakes of Naples project would preserve
-3-
Agenda Item 9C
less than the required amount of native vegetation and habitat in the URF, and proportionally
more of RFMUD Sending Lands acreage.
Under current GMP provisions, the Rural designated portion of the project would demonstrate
compliance with the preservation standard of Rural Fringe Sending Lands — preserving ninety
percent (90 %) of native vegetation present, not to exceed sixty percent (60 %) of the total
project area designated Sending. However, more preserve is offered than the required 60% of
the total project area designated Sending — in return for permission to preserve less native
vegetation present in the Urban portion of the project.
The applicant explains, the proposal to protect higher quality native vegetative communities in
the Rural lands portion of the project [provides these vegetative communities] a greater
opportunity to function naturally as opposed to protecting Urban native vegetative areas that
would be of lesser functional value.
Application materials have previously explained how "the density blending provision in the GMP was,
in part, specifically developed to apply to this property ". One specific blending provision presently
provides the density boost from 1.5 du /ac. to 2.5 du /ac. The current provisions were adopted by the
County with density capped, or limited, to 2.5 du /ac. to satisfy the need for an acceptable transition
balanced between the dense Urban and sparse Rural areas.
The specific revisions proposed by this part of the GMP amendment appear as Part Two in Attachment
HL-1.
PROVISION
EXISTING
PROPOSED
Native Vegetation/ Habitat
25% NV in Urban portion
Under 25% NV — Urban portion
Retention / Preservation
60% NV in Rural portion
100% NV — Rural portion
FLUE
- Required Preservation Area
- Preservation Area with "shift"
This petition seeks to amend Transfer of Development Rights Bonus provisions of the Density Rating
System, Density Bonuses section under the FLUE Urban Designation. This part of the proposed
amendment would "lift' the maximum density increase [of 1.0 DU /ac.] achieved by transferring
development rights from adjacent RFMUD Sending Lands by a greater amount [of 1.3 DU /ac.].
The applicant explains, the proposal [does not ask to increase] the overall number of units
presently allowed, [but to] utilize the additional TDR credits generated from [the] project
Sending Lands within one mile of the Urban Boundary.
The specific revisions proposed by this part of the GMP amendment appear as Part Three in
Attachment HL -1.
PROVISION
EXISTING
PROPOSED
Maximum Use of TDRs
1.0 DU/TDR per acre
1.3 DUs/T'DRs per acre
- eligible to transfer into URF from
- eligible to transfer into URF from
Sending Lands
Sending Lands
within 1 mile
within 1 mile, with "lift"
Lastly, the 06 -11 application seeks to amend Native Vegetation Preservation provisions under the
CCME to preserve more native vegetation than is otherwise required in RFMUD Sending Lands and
preserve less native vegetation than is otherwise required in adjacent lands designated Urban.
-4-
Agenda Item 9C
• The applicant explains there is greater value in preservation of additional Rural Lands rather
than the lands within the Urban Fringe.
The specific revisions proposed by this part of the GMP amendment appear as Part Six in Attachment
H L -1.
PROVISION
EXISTING
PROPOSED
Native Vegetation/ Habitat
25% NV in Urban portion
25% — X = Urban NV
Retention / Preservation
60% NV in Rural portion
60% + 2X =Rural NV
CCME
- Preserved
- Preserved with "shift"
SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING LAND USE ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE
DESIGNATION:
Subject Site:
The subject site is in part, zoned A, Rural Agricultural [approximately 2,133 acres] and lies
undeveloped within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use (RFMU) Sending Lands [zoning] Overlay.
Another 129 acres is zoned Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) for, and developed with,
the Swamp Buggy Days' Florida Sports Park. A portion of this CPUD acreage is used for the Collier
County Junior Deputy League's Camp Discovery.
The land uses that are expressly allowed by the Swamp Buggy Days PUD are:
• Swamp Buggy Race Track and related facilities.
• Stock Car Race Track and related facilities.
• Motocross Race Track and related facilities (including bicycle and motorcycle).
• Target Ranges, including archery.
• Fairgrounds Area for expositions similar to the County Fair, including circuses, carnivals, and
other recreation /entertainment activities.
• Multi- purpose Use Areas (Picnic, Sports Fields, Unpaved Parking, etc.) including picnicking
and playground areas; amateur soccer, softball, and similar outdoor recreational sports and
activities; stadium, training and practice facilities for professional baseball.
• Onsite Roadways.
• Related Structures to house offices (including administrative offices and supportive service
facilities as Permitted Principal Uses and Structures), ticketing (including concessions,
ticketing, bleachers, and other spectator- related facilities as Permitted Accessory Uses and
Structures), exhibition activities (including exhibition hall /convention center), spectator and
user conveniences and facilities management.
The Future Land Use Map designates [approximately 1,637 acres] of the subject site as Rural Fringe
Mixed Use District (RFMUD) Sending Lands, Belle Meade Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA)
Overlay.
The present RFMUD Sending Lands designation currently allows: participation in the Transfer of
Development Rights (TDR) program; agricultural uses consistent with the Florida Right to Farm Act;
habitat preservation and conservation; single - family residences at a 1 dwelling unit per 40 acres or
legally nonconforming parcel density; non - residential uses (e.g. passive recreation, essential services,
sports and recreation camps, oil and gas exploration, development and production); and limited
accessory commercial uses.
-5-
Agenda Item 9C
Another [approximately 588 acre] portion of the subject site is designated as the Urban Residential
Fringe Subdistrict.
The land uses that are generally allowed by the Urban Residential Fringe (URF) Subdistrict
designation include a variety of residential and non - residential land uses, including mixed -use
development via PUDs. Residential development in the URF is typified by a "transitional" density
between the County's Urban designated area and the Agricultural/Rural area of a maximum of up to
1.5 units per gross acre, or up to 2.5 units per gross acre via the transfer of one dwelling unit per acre
from lands designated Rural Fringe Mixed Use District ( RFMUD) Sending Lands. Certain industrial
and commercial uses may also be allowed, including:
• Essential services;
• Parks, open space and recreational uses;
• Water - dependent and water - related uses;
• Child care centers;
• Community facilities, and their co- location with other public facilities;
• Safety service facilities;
• Utility and communication facilities;
• Earth mining, oil extraction, and related processing;
• Agriculture;
• Travel trailer and recreational vehicle (TTR\O parks;
• Commercial uses per criteria identified for certain Subdistricts or other FLUE policies, including
hotels and motels;
• Certain accessory commercial uses;
• Industrial uses per criteria identified for certain Districts, Subdistricts or other FLUE policies;
• Business Park uses per criteria identified for certain Districts and Subdistricts; and,
• Research and Technology Park uses per criteria identified for certain Districts and Subdistricts.
An approximately 37 acre area is designated as the southeast quadrant of Mixed Use Activity Center
No. 7 (Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard) within the Urban Commercial District. The
land uses that are generally allowed by the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict designation include
concentrations of commercial uses in mixed -use settings, designed and developed at a human - scale,
pedestrian- oriented and interconnected with abutting properties, and allowing:
• Commercial uses;
• Residential uses;
• Institutional uses;
• Hotel and motel uses at a maximum density of up to 26 units per acre; and,
• Community facilities,
Residential density in MUAC No. 7 mixed -use developments is the same as that allowed by the Urban
Residential Fringe (URF) Subdistrict — a maximum of up to 1.5 units per gross acre, or up to 2.5 units
per gross acre via the transfer of one dwelling unit per acre from RFMUD Sending Lands. If density is
to be distributed outside the Activity Center boundary, then certain stipulations apply, as follows:
■ Thirty percent (30 %) of Activity Center - accumulated density must be located within the Activity
Center [in this instance, it is 37 southeast quadrant acres applied to the 1.5 units per gross
acre (for 55.5 units'Activity Center - accumulated density); or, 37 acres applied to the 2.5 units
per gross acre via the transfer of one dwelling unit per acre from RFMUD Sending Lands (for
92.5 units' Activity Center - accumulated density).] This allocation works out to 17 residential
-6-
Agenda Item 9C
units located within the Activity Center of 55 accumulated (with the 1.5 factor) or, 28 residential
units located within the Activity Center of 92 accumulated (with the 2.5 factor).
With regard to the subject property's proximity to the Physicians Regional Medical Center — Collier
Boulevard facility, certain GMP and LDC provisions allow for additional special land uses that include:
■ Support medical facilities, such as physicians' offices, medical clinics, medical treatment,
research and rehabilitative centers, and pharmacies located within one - quarter mile of the
medical center.
Surrounding Lands:
The 2,262 acre subject site is an unusually- shaped area, appearing somewhat like the State of
Louisiana with irregular edges. Describing its surrounding lands may be best accomplished with a
virtual walk - around.
Beginning our description with land lying adjacently to the north, or at the 12 o'clock position, is the
Willow Run commercial extraction operation (including quarry excavation lakes, concrete plant and
asphalt plant activities) zoned A, Rural Agricultural district with a Provisional Use (PU); Red Cockaded
Woodpecker (RCW) mitigation area. The current Future Land Use designation is predominantly
Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict (URF), along with areas of Rural Fringe Mixed Use District
(RFMUD) Sending Lands, Belle Meade Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) Overlay. Further
north lies the San Marino RPUD.
Located generally north, northeast, at the 1 o'clock position, are rural residential uses and equestrian
facilities in the area where Benfield Road, Barton Gilba Drive and Stable Way have their terminal
ends. This area is zoned A, Rural Agricultural. The current Future Land Use Designation is Rural
Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) Sending Lands, Belle Meade Natural Resource Protection Area
(NRPA) Overlay.
Located generally northeast and east, at the 2 and 3 o'clock positions, is undeveloped land zoned A,
Rural Agricultural. The current Future Land Use Designation is Rural Fringe Mixed Use District
(RFMUD) Sending Lands, Belle Meade Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) Overlay. Further
east lie Picayune Strand State Forest lands.
Located generally southeast, at the 4 o'clock position, is a citrus growing operation, with on -site sales
facilities on Sabal Palm Road, zoned A, Rural Agricultural district with a Conditional Use (CU). The
subject property surrounds some lands in this area; these properties include State of Florida owned
lands and a few privately owned parcels.
Located generally south, southeast, at the 5 o'clock position, are undeveloped lands, zoned A, Rural
Agricultural. The current Future Land Use Designation is Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD)
Sending Lands, Belle Meade Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) Overlay.
Located generally south, along a lengthy meandering southerly border, are multiple designations.
North of Sabal Palm Road, at the 6 o'clock position, is an area of low- density residential
development, zoned A, Rural Agricultural. The current Future Land Use Designation is Rural Fringe
Mixed Use District (RFMUD) Sending Lands, Belle Meade Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA)
Overlay. Located across Sabal Palm Road, south, at the 6 o'clock position, and south, southwest, at
the 7 o'clock position, is the Veronawalk Mixed -Use Planned Unit Development, zoned as part of the
Winding Cypress DRI. The current Future Land Use Designation is Urban Residential Fringe
Subdistrict (URF).
-7-
Agenda Item 9C
Located generally southwest, at the 8 o'clock position, is an area of multi - family residential
development zoned as the Rockedge RPUD; FPL Easement; and, the main N -S canal abutting CR
951. North of John's Road is the "Kountree Kampin" RV Resort, zoned Travel Trailer and
Recreational Vehicle Campground (TTRVC); and, the Physicians Regional Medical Center, zoned
PUD. The current Future Land Use Designation is Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict (URF).
Across Collier Boulevard (CR 951) near its intersection with Rattlesnake Hammock Road, is an area
of partially developed land zoned Sierra Meadows PUD containing an office building and Edison
Village PUD. The current Future Land Use Designation is Urban Mixed Use District and SW quadrant
of the Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 (Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard).
Located generally west, at the 9 o'clock position, north of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and east of
CR 951, is an area of undeveloped land zoned for the Hammock Park Commerce Center CPUD, the
McMullen MPUD, the Good Turn Center MPUD and other CR 951- fronting parcels zoned for C -3
through C -5 commercial uses, and tracts zoned A, Rural agricultural; and, FPL Easement. The
current Future Land Use Designations are Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict (URF) and NE
quadrant of the Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 (Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard);
and, the main N -S canal abutting CR 951.
Across Collier Boulevard (CR 951), is the Naples Lakes Village Center commercial development, part
of Naples Lakes Country Club MPUD. The current Future Land Use Designations are Urban Mixed
Use District and NW quadrant of the Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 (Rattlesnake Hammock Road
and Collier Boulevard).
Located generally northwest, at the 10 o'clock position, is a place of worship with community
services, zoned First Assembly Ministries Education and Rehabilitation Campus MPUD. Across
Collier Boulevard (CR 951) near its intersection with The Lord's Way, is the [Lely Area Stormwater
Improvement Project] LASIP Conservation Area PUD; further north lie the Homes of Islandia and
Naples National Golf Club PUDs. The current Future Land Use Designation is Urban Mixed Use
District
Located generally north, northwest, at the 11 o'clock position, is undeveloped land fronting CR 951
zoned A, Rural Agricultural, as part of the commercial extraction operation lying to the north. The
current Future Land Use Designation is Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict (URF).
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Appropriateness of Changes:
The practicalities of the petitioner's proposed amendments are established, in part, through an
evaluation of relevant and appropriate data for population growth, commercial inventory, infrastructure
development and other considerations in the surrounding geographic area.
Certain amendments introduce new provisions allowing for the use of TDRs in manners exclusive to
the subject property. Residential development is currently planned and limited to certain transitional
densities, achievable with TDRs transferred into the Urban Fringe. The appropriateness of changing
the FLUE and CCME for allowing additional TDRS to be used for residential development is
addressed herein.
Agenda Item 9C
Other amendments introduce an additional amount of commercial and office development, uses and
activities to an expanded Mixed Use Activity Center on the subject property. Commercial
development is currently planned and limited to certain acreages and floor areas based on the
allocation and spatial arrangement of Activity Centers throughout the planning area. The
appropriateness of expanding the site for additional commercial and office development is addressed
herein.
Certain amendments offer to preserve native vegetation and habitat in Sending Lands in a
proportional substitution for preserving less native vegetation and habitat in the Urban portion of the
project. Preservation of these Sending Lands is a requirement under other provisions of the GMP
from which TDR program benefits are derived. The appropriateness of changing the FLUE and
CCME to derive dual benefits from preserving a portion of the same land area is addressed herein.
Still other amendments introduce new provisions allowing another means of vehicular access to a
Business Park proposed at a certain location inside the project. The appropriateness of allowing The
Lord's Way for both residential and nonresidential traffic is addressed herein.
Commercial Development:
The Mixed Use Activity Center concept is designed to concentrate almost all new commercial zoning
in locations where traffic impacts can readily be accommodated, to avoid strip and disorganized
patterns of commercial development, and to create focal points within the community.
A trend toward commercial development is evident in the area adjacent to the Mixed Use Activity
Center proposed by CP- 2006 -11 for expansion. This development is evidenced within the original
MUAC No. 7 and in areas where the MUAC has previously expanded.
Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7's nearest activity center neighbors are MUAC No. 9 (1 -75 and Collier
Boulevard and Davis Boulevard) located approximately 3.1 miles directly north on CR951 [as an
Interchange Activity Center], and MUAC No. 18 (US 41 and Collier Boulevard) located approximately
3.4 miles directly south on CR951. MUAC No. 6 (Davis Boulevard and Santa Barbara Boulevard)
lies northwest, separated from MUAC No. 7 by approximately four (4) road miles.
Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7's nearest non - activity center, non - residential neighbor is the Collier
Regional Medical Center facilities located immediately south — both inside and outside the MUAC
boundaries. The next nearest non - residential neighbor is the College Park office complex located
approximately 0.9 miles directly west on Rattlesnake Hammock Road.
Generally, Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 has no competing general commercial land uses closer
than 3.1 miles.
The need for an additional 9.16 acres of commercially developable land via a MUAC expansion is
evaluated within a "Study Area" described in the Market and Needs Evaluation submitted with this
petition [extending two and one -half (2.5) radial miles from the center point of Mixed Use Activity
Center No. 7], including the following approved projects:
Located within Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 are a number of Planned Unit Developments and
commercially zoned properties, as follows:
❖ North of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and east of CR 951 — the Northeast Quadrant -- is an
approximately 64.5 acre (gross) area of undeveloped land zoned for the Hammock Park
Commerce Center CPUD, the McMullen MPUD, the Good Turn Center MPUD and other CR
9011
Agenda Item 9C
951 - fronting parcels zoned for C -3 through C -5 commercial uses. This quadrant has more
than 445,000 developable sq. ft. on 56.5 acres (net) available for Mixed Use Activity Center
Uses.
❖ North of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and west of CR 951 — the Northwest Quadrant — is an
approximately 39.9 acre (gross) area of land zoned, and part of, Naples Lakes Country Club
MPUD developed with the Naples Lakes Village [shopping] Center. This quadrant has
approximately 75,865 sq. ft. developed of 260,000 developable sq. ft. on 15.3 acres (net)
available for Mixed Use Activity Center Uses.
❖ South of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and west of CR 951 — the Southwest Quadrant -- is an
approximately 38.9 acre (gross) area of land zoned Sierra Meadows PUD, a commercial node
adjacent to Lely Resort project. This quadrant has approximately 3,900 sq. ft. developed on
30.1 acres (net) available for Mixed Use Activity Center Uses.
❖ South of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and east of CR 951 — the Southeast Quadrant — is an
approximately 41.4 acre (gross) area of land zoned and developed as the Collier Regional
Medical Center. Undeveloped land and the commercial component of the Hacienda Lakes
project proposed for expansion also comprise this quadrant. This quadrant has approximately
35.0 acres (net) available for Mixed Use Activity Center Uses.
South of the Southwest Quadrant of MUAC No. 7, fronting CR 951 -- is an approximately 5.7 acre
area of land zoned and developed as the Edison Village PUD. The (7,100 sq. ft.) 21St Century
Oncology and (6,700 sq. ft.) Anchor Health Urgent Care professional and medical facilities are
located here.
The above - listed sites are located within the project's Study Area, and currently provide approximately
93,520 sq. ft. of commercial use opportunities. Source: March, 2008 Planned Unit Development (PUD) Master List
(prepared and maintained by the Collier County Transportation Planning Section) and the Collier County Interactive Growth Model
(CIGM).
Residential Demand Analysis:
An assessment of the area establishes that residential land uses may be allowed at a maximum
density of 1.5 units per gross acre, or up to 2.5 units per gross acre via the transfer of up to one
dwelling unit per acre from lands designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands, with
the exception of a site specific property comprising 55 acres located within the Urban Residential
Fringe to include a density bonus of up to 6.0 additional units per gross acre for affordable home
ownership for low and moderate income residents.
A further assessment of approved developments within this area revealed that the developments
included large amounts of environmentally sensitive lands. As a result, the residential components of
these developments have been concentrated on smaller tracts of land within the development
resulting in net densities greater than the maximum allowable gross density of 1.5 du /ac. The
following PUD's are examples of this type of development:
1. Forest Glen of Naples is a 614 -acre PUD approved for 1.26 units per acre or 799 dwelling units.
Due to environmentally sensitive land within the project, the 799 residential units are
concentrated within Tract "R" of the development comprising 170 acres that equate to 4.7 units
per acre net density. [Section 2, Township 50 South, Range 26 East.]
-10-
Agenda Item 9C
2. San Marino is a 235 -acre PUD approved for 1.5 units per acre or 352 dwelling units. However,
the total 352 dwelling units are to be constructed on a 21 acre site within the PUD equating to
a net residential density of 16.77 dwelling units per acre. [Section 11, Township 50 South,
Range 26 East.]
3. Winding Cypress is a 1,928 -acre PUD approved for 1.2 units per acre or 2,300 dwelling units
for the overall development. The residential component of this PUD will comprise 2,300
dwelling units being developed on 448 acres equating to 5.14 dwelling units per acre net.
[Sections 24, 34, & 35, Township 50 South, Range 26 East.]
The Hacienda Lakes of Naples project is being proposed as a 2,262 acre DRI /PUD planned for 0.78
units per acre or 1,760 dwelling units. However, the 1,760 units are to be constructed on
approximately 652 acres equating to 2.8 units per acre net density.
In addition to these examples of developments with higher net densities, certain projects are approved
in the Urban Residential Fringe that allow greater intensities than the typical 1.5 du /ac. scenario.
First Assembly Ministries Education & Rehabilitation Campus is a 79.1 -acre PUD. First
Assembly is approved for a mixture of land uses for religious, community social services and
residential uses in a campus -type setting, including: 1800 seat auditorium, 600 seat chapel,
300 student school, 450 child /adult care facility, 400 bed care unit facility, 120 travel trailer or
park model lots, adult living facility for 400 group housing units, and 57 multi - family units along
with numerous inside and outside recreational facilities and accessory uses. [Section 14,
Township 50 South, Range 26 East.]
2. The Swamp Buggy Days' Florida Sports Park is a 129 -acre PUD. The Swamp Buggy PUD is
approved for intense outdoor sports and recreational activities, including swamp buggy races
and a gun shooting range [on portion of subject property].
3. Growth Management Plan Amendment CP- 2002 -1 was approved (site of the McMullen PUD)
to expand the northeast quadrant of Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7. The area added
comprises approximately 18.5 acres and is immediately contiguous to the eastern limit of the
original activity center boundary. The approved uses are limited to: "personal indoor self -
storage facilities offices for various contractor /builder construction trade specialists inclusive of
the offices of related professional disciplines and services, warehouse space for various
contractor /builder construction trade occupants and related businesses including but not
limited to lumber and other building materials dealers, paint, glass, and wallpaper stores,
garden supply stores as accessory uses only." [Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26
East.]
4. The Urban Designation allows for support medical facilities (such as physicians' offices,
medical clinics, treatment, research and rehabilitative centers, and pharmacies provided the
dominate use is medically related) to locate within '/4 mile of existing or approved hospitals or
medical centers which offer primary and urgent care treatment for all types of injuries and
traumas. Accordingly, the surrounding lands within one - quarter mile of a hospital can
potentially be zoned and developed with support medical uses [affecting a portion of subject
property].
5. Rezone application PUDZ- 2003 -AR -4674 was approved in May 2004 to permit up to 260,000
square feet of hospital and related uses. Pursuant to the aforementioned provision, the site
was also approved for 80,000 square feet of medical office and related uses. The entire
property is known as the Collier Regional Medical Center. This property is located on the east
-11-
Agenda Item 9C
side of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) adjacently south of Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7.
[Section 23, Township 50 South, Range 26 East.]
Comprehensive Plan Amendment — Statutory Data and Analysis Requirement
Chapter 9J -5, Florida Administrative Code, "Minimum Criteria for Review of Local
Government Comprehensive Plans and Plan Amendments, Evaluation and Appraisal
Reports, Land Development Regulations and Determinations of Compliance" sets forth
the minimum data and analysis requirement for comprehensive plan amendments.
More specifically, Section 9J -5.005 "General Requirements" delineates criteria for plan
amendments in sub - section 9J -5.005 (2) "Data and Analysis Requirements."
Sub - section 9J- 5.005(2) states in part that "All goals, objectives, standards, findings and
conclusions within the comprehensive plan and its support documents, and within plan
amendments and its support documents, shall be based upon relevant and appropriate
data and analysis applicable to each element. To be based upon data means to react to
it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on
that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue...
the Department will review each comprehensive plan [amendment] for the purpose of
determining whether the plan [amendment] is based on data and analyses described in
this Chapter and whether data were collected and applied in a professionally acceptable
manner."
It is incumbent upon all applicants requesting comprehensive plan amendments to
provide supporting data and analyses in conjunction with any relevant support
documents. It is not the responsibility of Collier County staff to generate data and
analysis for the applicant, rather it is staff's responsibility to review and analyze the
petitioner's data and analysis for accuracy, applicability, professional acceptability,
sound methodology, etc. Any outstanding deficiencies or other issues with respect to
data and analyses that may remain at the time of any requisite public hearing are the
responsibility of the applicant. An evaluation of the adequacy of the data and analysis
for the subject plan amendment is set forth herein.
In preparation for Growth Management Plan amendment petitions, Collier County
was provided the October 2009 Florida Senate Interim Report 2010 -107 entitled
"POPULATION NEED AS A CRITERIA FOR CHANGES TO A LOCAL GOVERNMENT'S
FUTURE LAND USE MAP." In addition to the Interim Report, a draft rule to amend the
Florida Administrative Code was provided.
The Interim Report identified a primary issue of a "Needs Assessment" in determining
whether a comprehensive plan amendment as submitted by a local government
provides more land than is needed to accommodate anticipated population growth.
Population growth is utilized in the context of projected population during the 5 and 10
year planning time horizons
The genesis for the Interim Report was a land use decision in Marion County where the
Governor and Cabinet upheld a decision of an administrative law judge (AU) that a
proposed comprehensive plan amendment would, if adopted, allow more than five
times the residential units needed in Marion County's 10 year planning horizon. The
finding of the AU was that the applicant's methodology was not professionally
-12-
Agenda Item 9C
acceptable because it did not demonstrate the need within the adopted planning time
horizon.
The Report identified several proposed comprehensive plan amendments that were
found not in compliance based upon needs criteria, that is, because need was not
demonstrated by the applicant. However, the Report also identifies some instances
where comprehensive plan amendments were found in compliance despite failing to
meet the needs assessment criteria; more about this later in this summary. One
amendment highlighted in the Report not meeting the needs assessment involved the
re- designation of land for industrial development in Putnam County; another such
amendment was for the creation of the Clear Springs Sector Plan that re- designated
17,000+ acres to allow uses that included over 11,000 dwelling units, 6.8 million square
feet of Research /Corporate Park /Commercial, and 21.8 million square feet of Industrial
uses.
The needs analysis is a useful planning tool to ascertain whether a proposed plan
amendment will result in a local government's over - allocation of land in a specific land
use category. One of the biggest problems identified with the over - allocation of certain
land uses is urban sprawl, which causes increased infrastructure costs, a depleted urban
core, and the premature development of agricultural lands and natural areas.
The needs analysis explained in the Interim Report includes a market factor, planning
time horizon, and population projections. As previously noted, the planning horizon
for Collier County is presently out to 10 years (2020). The County utilizes medium
range population projections as provided annually by the University of Florida's Bureau
of Economic and Business Research. The market factor is a numerical tool used to
determine the amount of land use supply needed to accommodate anticipated growth.
The Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) uses a market factor of 1.25, or
25 percent greater than the anticipated need of land use supply necessary for the
population projected in the [10 year] planning time horizon. The additional 25% is
designed to allow for market flexibility.
Market factor is calculated by dividing the supply of land use by the demand for that
land use. The supply could be dwelling unit capacity (all built units plus all units
allowed based on existing zoning and future land use designation), commercial capacity
(all built commercial square feet plus all commercial square feet allowed based on
existing zoning and future land use designation [land converted to building square
feet]), or industrial capacity (all built industrial square feet plus all industrial square feet
allowed based on existing zoning and future land use designation [land converted to
building square feet]). The demand could be dwelling unit demand, commercial square
feet demand, or industrial square feet demand — all based upon population projections
within the 10 -year planning horizon.
Below are fictitious examples of commercial market factors for three different GMP
amendments within three different geographic areas, all at the 10 -year planning
horizon:
1) supply of 1.25 million SF /demand for 1 million SF = market factor of 1.25 (supply
= 125% of demand)
2) supply of 950,000 SF /demand for 800,000 SF = market factor of 1.19 (supply
-13-
Agenda Item 9C
= 119% of demand)
3) supply of 1.5 million SF /demand for 1 million SF = market factor of 1.50 (supply
= 150% of demand)
In the above examples, based on market factor considerations only, there is a
demonstrated need for the first two amendments as the market factor is at or below
1.25, but there is no demonstrated need for the third amendment as the market factor
exceeds the recommended 1.25.
The Interim Report also notes that the numerical needs assessment (market factor),
while a significant factor in determining need, is not the only consideration. Case law
indicates commercial or industrial land use need may also be demonstrated by other
factors such as suitability of the property for change, locational criteria, and community
desires. In the Report's Findings and /or Conclusions section, it states:
The needs assessment is a fundamental part of land use planning. Specifically, the
numerical needs assessment is a useful tool to determine whether the amendment will
cause an area to become over - allocated or exacerbate existing over - allocation. It is also
a key indicator of urban sprawl. However, the numerical needs assessment is only one
factor to consider when conducting a needs assessment. It is also important to consider
other policy factors such as job creation potential, urban infill, form of development, or
the promotion of development in areas where it is most efficient for the local
government to promote growth."
When the numerical needs assessment exceeds the 1.25 market factor, the above
additional factors should be addressed, with specificity, in the proposed GMP
amendment petition as part of the data and analysis. The local government can then
consider whether the overall needs assessment for a certain land use supersedes the
numerical needs assessment and, if so, would need to cite with specificity the polity
factors that were relied upon in making that determination. During the Transmittal
stage, DCA would make a determination in its Objections, Recommendations and
Comments Report as to whether the policy factors articulated provide the rational
nexus to exceed the 1.25 market factor; during the Adoption stage, DCA would do that
as part of its determination of compliance with state law.
As a point of emphasis, the provisions of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J -5, Florida
Administrative Code require that appropriate data and analysis be provided to demonstrate an
allocation of additional commercial acreage is needed.
Commercial Demand Analysis:
The firm of Real Estate Research Consultants, Inc. conducted the Market and Needs Evaluation,
which analyzed market conditions within the South Naples and Royal Fakapalm Planning
Communities. This analysis provided an overall context for assessing the basic goods and services
requirements of the emerging population within the County's easternmost urban area and exurban
fringe. The residential figures utilized in the study are as follows:
• Growth in the eastern fringe of urban Collier County is projected to increase the population of
the Planning Communities during the period 2010 to 2030. This area is projected to grow 36.5
percent from 12,447 persons in 2010, to 15,409 persons in 2015, to 17,000 persons in 2030 —
an increase of approximately 4,550 persons, according to June, 2010 estimates provided by
-14-
Agenda Item 9C
the County's Comprehensive Planning Section. [An ambitious development schedule
indicates about 4,000 of these 4,550 persons will have the opportunity to reside in the
Hacienda Lakes of Naples project by 2020.] It is questionable whether there will be 4,000
persons in this development, even at buildout, based on the persons per household, and
occupancy /vacancy rates from the 2000 Census.
The Research Consultants' Evaluation has faults, particularly in its attempt to dismiss the relevance
of, or contribution from, existing and potential commercial lands within the same market area, claiming
"[w]e see only a limited relevance for competing lands in the context of this analysis" and "other lands
that might also be available to accommodate opportunities generated by the population of Hacienda
Lakes are of no material importance in evaluating development options ". Comprehensive Planning
staff respectfully disagrees with these assertions — which effectually separate the Evaluation further
from its geographical setting and market realities — and considers characteristics of the surrounding
market area to be wholly relevant and appropriate.
To the extent that the analysis provided by the Evaluation is made insubstantial by these claims, the
data provided has been useful in staff's evaluation of this part of the proposed GMP amendment,
especially for extrapolating a more - accurate analysis.
Collier Interactive Growth Model
The East of County Road 951 Infrastructure and Services Horizon Study was a two phase planning
effort to assess the County's ability to accommodate growth within the County east of Collier
Boulevard (CR 951). Included in the second phase of the study was the development of a Collier
County Interactive Growth Model (CIGM). The Board adopted the CIGM as a planning tool at its
advertised public hearing in February 2009. This model was developed to assist in projecting
population and its spatial distribution over time to build -out in all areas lying east of CR 951. The
interactive growth model is also utilized to approximate the timing and location of commercial and
industrial centers, school facilities, parks and recreational facilities, fire stations, etc. The commercial
sub -model is designed to project the demand for neighborhood, community and regional centers that
include retail and other commercial uses. This sub -model helps to spatially allocate the optimal
locations for these commercial centers required as functions of time and population, and as a result of
disposable incomes of the population. The CIGM could not be fully utilized in evaluating the Hacienda
Lakes of Naples project proposal, as approximately one -half of the area studied lies west of Collier
Boulevard (CR 951).
Guidelines for Commercial Development used in the CIGM remain relevant, however, as bases for
further computations, as categorized below:
• Number of Persons per Neighborhood Center: 13,110
• Number of Persons per Community Center: 34,464
• Number of Persons per Regional Center: 157,324
• Number of Acres per Neighborhood Center: 11
• Number of Acres per Community Center: 28
• Number of Acres per Regional Center: 100
• Square Feet Building Area per Neighborhood Center: 110,734 (8.45 sq. ft. per Capita)
• Square Feet Building Area per Community Center: 257,668 (7.48 sq. ft. per Capita)
• Square Feet Building Area per Regional Center: 1,000,000 (6.36 sq. ft. per Capita)
-15-
Agenda Item 9C
The above floor area figures are the average sizes of Neighborhood, Community and Regional
Centers in existence (built) in Collier County. This means some Centers are larger, and some smaller,
than these countywide averages; that is, there is a range in size of each type of Center. Each type of
Center is classified based upon size as well as uses.
Based on the population thresholds provided by the Real Estate Research Consultants' Market and
Needs Evaluation extrapolated by the CIGM Guidelines, staff has developed commercial analysis for
petition CP- 2006 -11 as follows (with the referenced map attached and made part of this Staff Report):
• Existing and Potential Commercial sq. ft.
Within the petition's defined Study Area, there are 93,522 sq. ft. of existing commercial
development and 794,440 sq. ft. of potential commercial development (vacant land designated
as commercial & vacant land zoned commercial). A total supply of existing and potential
commercial space within the Study Area is 887,962 sq. ft.
• Population
Based on the CIGM, the total population in the Study Area are /will be: 2010 — 14,069 persons;
2015 — 17,416 persons; and, 2030 — 19,204 persons.
• Square Footage Demand for a Community Center
The total existing /projected population within the Study Area translates into an
existing /projected demand for commercial space within the Study Area as follows: 2010 —
14,069 persons yields demand for 105,236 sq. ft.; 2015 - 17,416 persons yields demand for
130,272 sq. ft.; and, 2030 — 19,204 persons yields demand for 143,645 sq. ft.
• Square Footage Demand for a Regional Center
The total existing /projected population within the Study Area translates into an
existing /projected demand for commercial space within the Study Area as follows: 2010 -
14,069 persons yields demand for 89,478 sq. ft.; 2015 - 17,416 persons yields demand for
110,766 sq. ft.; and, 2030 — 19,204 persons in 2030 translate to 122,138 sq. ft. demand for
commercial space.
Data Sources.•
The CIGM analysis for this petition utilised (1) the 2007 Commercial Inventory prepared by the Collier County
Comprehensive Planning Department; (2) present GRIP designations that allow commercial honing (3) population projections
prepared by the applicants consultant. There is a minor discrepancy between the CIGM population projections and those
prepared by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research at the University of Florida (BEBR).
Environmental Impacts:
The environmental report submitted by Passarella and Associates with a companion petition [as
Exhibit "M" in PUDZ materials] was updated in August 2009. This report states that the vegetation
surveys and habitat mapping were done in 2003, 2005, 2007 and 2009. The substantive review of
this document was done by the Stormwater and Environmental Services Section and a staff report
was brought before the Environmental Advisory Council for their review. The environmental report
confirms the environmental characteristics of native vegetation and habitat reported at the time the
Rural Fringe Mixed Use District was established.
Stormwater and Environmental Planning Section — Staff Remarks
Stormwater and Environmental Planning Section review staff has reviewed the above referenced
amendments to the FLUE and CCME, and their review comments are provided below.
-16-
Agenda Item 9C
Future Land Use Element
Density Rating System
d. Density Blending
Stormwater and Environmental Planning Section staff recommends replacing the word "mitigation"
with either "preservation" or "retention" since the requirement in the GMP is a native vegetation
retention requirement and not a mitigation requirement. Similarly, replace the words "mitigated for"
with the word "shifted" in the same paragraph.
The applicant is proposing to be able to shift the native vegetation retention requirement from the
Urban designated portion of a project to the portion of a project designated NRPA Sending lands, if
the maximum native vegetation retention requirement within the Sending lands portion of the project is
met. In keeping with the intent of the GMP to retain as much native vegetation as possible within
Sending lands, Stormwater and Environmental Planning Section staff recommends allowing the native
vegetation retention requirement to be shifted from the Urban designated portion of a project to the
portion of a project designated Sending lands and not just NRPA Sending lands as proposed by the
applicant.
Proposed changes with regard to archeological sites will not be reviewed by Stormwater and
Environmental Planning Section staff, but [from within] the Zoning Services Section.
[Stephen Lenberger, Senior Environmental Specialist
Stormwater and Environmental Planning Section]
Traffic Capacity/Traffic Circulation Analysis:
The traffic study submitted by Tindale- Oliver and Associates is dated August 2010. The substantive
review of this document was done by the Transportation Planning Section, and their review comments
are provided below. Although these comments primarily address aspects of the proposed companion
Hacienda Lakes Development of Regional Impact (DRI) and Mixed Use Planned Unit Development
(MPUD) requests, they are included here in supplement, as shown in ATTACHMENT HL -3.
Historical and Archaeological Impacts:
The historical and archaeological report submitted by the Archaeological and Historical Conservancy,
Inc. dates to August 2009. This report states that archaeological resources have been identified as
present on the 2,262 acre subject property, based on reference to the Collier County Index of
Historic /Archaeological Maps, and the sites are identified on County Historical and Archaeological
Probability Maps. Application materials illustrate the location and arrangement of these sites on
Exhibit "O ". These sites are predominantly hammock formations and are protected as such. They are
not located in areas of the subject property where actual development is proposed. Provisions
proposed by parts of CP- 2006 -11 require that these sites be preserved and cannot be mitigated for.
Public Facilities Impact:
The Hacienda Lakes project, if developed as proposed by these amendments, is expected to result in
increased impacts upon certain Category A public facilities besides roads (evaluated separately), but
these impacts will not be "significant' (generating potential for increased Countywide population
-17-
Agenda Item 9C
greater than 2% of the population projections for Parks and Recreation, Solid Waste Disposal, Potable
Water, Wastewater Treatment and Stormwater Management facilities, as defined in Policy 1.2 of the
CIE and other applicable GMP Elements). For potable water and wastewater treatment services, the
proposed development will demand (as net increases) more than 660,650 gallons per day and
414,250 gallons per day, respectively. Utilizing the level of service standards identified in the CIE, the
proposed uses will not result in a significant impact on Category A public facilities.
The demand for potable water and wastewater treatment was calculated based on the development of
the 1,760 residential units, 375,000 sq. ft. commercial space, 75,000 sq. ft. office space and a 135
room hotel. Absent from the petitioner's impact analysis are other proposed land uses such as a
business park with 140,000 sq. ft. use area, specialty residential and medical uses proximate to the
Medical Center, and up to two (2) schools.
Petition materials indicate the property is located within the Urban Designated area and adjacent
Rural Fringe Sending Lands, proximate to more than adequate existing or planned public facilities.
The project will not result in a failing LOS of a public facility, except as residential development
approaches buildout and inadequate Community Park facilities will be evidenced.
It should be noted that the applicant's public facilities impact analysis used residential figures varying
persons per household (PPH) numbers of 2.0, 2.05 and 2.5 depending on the specific facility or
service analyzed. The County has adopted the PPH figure of 2.39 in this location. However,
occupancy /vacancy rates must also be accounted for. The public facilities impact analysis may
necessitate re- calculating and adjustments based on this figure, providing different results.
2008 Legislation - HB 697:
This legislation, which pertains to energy conservation and efficiency, went into effect on July 1, 2008.
Some key phrases in the legislation include: "discouragement of urban sprawl'; "greenhouse gas
reduction strategies "; "transportation strategies to address reduction in greenhouse gas emissions
from the transportation sector." Among other things, House Bill 697 requires certain amendments to
the Growth Management Plan (Future Land Use Element and map, Housing Element, Transportation
Element, Conservation and Coastal Management Element) which would be initiated by Collier County.
However, in the interim (and perhaps beyond), each GMP amendment petition should include data
and analysis to demonstrate how it discourages urban sprawl and reduces greenhouse gas
emissions. The Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) reviews GMP amendments for
compliance with this legislation.
This application has been reviewed for adequacy of data and analysis to demonstrate how the project
would discourage or not contribute to urban sprawl, and reduce or not elevate greenhouse gas
emissions.
Especially because the 06 -11 application predicates a mixed use development of regional impact, the
HB 697 response affords an excellent opportunity to include plans for committing to sustainable, or
.green" construction techniques and building designs; establishing commercial recycling programs;
providing dedicated parking area(s) to park -n -ride or ride -share vehicles; providing bus stop(s);
providing electric vehicle preferred parking and charging stations; committing that service stations
dispense more than one alternative fuel; providing pedestrian and bicycle paths interconnecting with
neighboring communities, extra bike racks and public seating areas, and community -wide bike share
programs; or other energy - conserving ideas.
-18-
Agenda Item 9C
The applicant explains the project will provide opportunities for public schools within the boundaries of
the project, and a mix of land uses that provides for a livelwork community. Residences will be
developed to provide for multiple types of ownership and housing options to serve diverse household
incomes.
Companion Development of Regional Impact (DRI) application materials address HB 697 energy efficiency
measures, and they appear here in part, to reflect developer commitments.
• Project preserves some 1,543 acres of land while limiting development footprint to about 700
acres;
• The most - intense land uses are oriented adjacent to existing development;
• Mix of residential uses, medical and commercial uses, an existing attraction, and a centrally -
located elementary school;
• A jobs -to- housing balance, reducing automobile trips and minimizing vehicle miles traveled;
• Neighborhoods developed with a multi -modal street system, promoting alternative modes of
transportation and reducing GHG emissions;
• Energy conservation features, incorporating a bicycle and pedestrian system connecting all
land uses, bike racks and storage facilities in recreational, commercial and multi - family areas,
select energy- efficient indoor and outdoor building features, prohibition of covenants or deed
restrictions that would hamper or prevent energy conservation, vegetative choices and
landscape design features that reduce need for water and maintenance, energy efficient
lighting in public areas, and others.
The connection of this legislation with the actual project design is stronger in the proposed companion
Hacienda Lakes Development of Regional Impact (DRI) and Mixed Use Planned Unit Development
(MPUD) requests. Staff reserves the bulk of its evaluation of HB 697 related issues to the review of
these development proposals.
Other Considerations:
The County's ability to manage growth in accordance with its adopted Growth Management Plan is
tested by requests to expand or allow commercial development outside Neighborhood Centers, Mixed
Use Activity Centers and other planned locations. These planned locations are purposely sized,
spatially arranged and separated to encourage and support a healthy business environment County-
wide and, discourage and avoid over commercialization and strip development.
The petitioner's argument is premised on the unusual idea that regional medical facilities should be
discounted from calculations for uses and acres in Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 because they are
not typical commercial uses. This premise is faulted however, as numerous non - retail uses are found
and encouraged in Mixed Use Activity Centers generally — and none are discounted elsewhere.
Acquiescing to this idea would compensate the petitioner for MUAC acreage used for land uses other
than those in the plans of the Hacienda Lakes of Naples project.
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM) SYNOPSIS:
A Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) was [duly advertised, noticed and] held on Thursday,
September 30, 2010, 5:15 p.m. at Edison College Campus Auditorium B -101, located at 7007 Lely
Cultural Parkway, Naples. Approximately twenty -eight people other than the applicant's team and
County staff attended. Dwight Nadeau, AICP, the applicant's agent provided a full description of the
-19-
Agenda Item 9C
proposed amendments, including developed areas and preserved areas, roads involved and
Proposed accesses, and the residential density and commercial and office use intensity. Developing
the subject property would incorporate the Swamp Buggy Days and Junior Deputy sites at their
present locations.
Mr. Nadeau explained the GMPA Transmittal process to the group in attendance indicating how if
these GMPAs were approved in Transmittal, subsequent GMPA Adoption processes would be
required along with the DRI and PUD rezone procedures. The rezone would also be preceded by the
holding of another Neighborhood Information Meeting and set of public hearings.
The part of this GMPA relating to Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 would allow the development of
additional commercial and professional office space on these approximately 37 acres.
Mr. Nadeau provided an overview of the County's Transfer of Development Rights program, and how
certain limitations leave the development of the project site with un -used, or surplus TDRs. The part
of this GMPA relating to the TDR program would allow more TDRs to be shifted to the urban part of
the property for increased density there.
Questions generated during the subsequent discussion focused on the nature of the proposed
development, traffic and localized road conditions. One person asked about the Swamp Buggy facility
and the potential for compatibility issues with nearby residential land uses. The applicant's team
explained how the proposed Business Park would serve as a transition to buffer noise and other
impacts between the facility and residential land uses. Land uses allowed at the Swamp Buggy
facility will remain the same, where redevelopment into a business park or school site is not planned.
Another attendee asked for clarification regarding main vehicular access to the new development.
The team explained that The Lord's Way and Rattlesnake Hammock Road would be
extended /improved to serve as the main access points with CR 951. A right -of -way corridor is being
reserved at this time for the eventual development of, and connection to, Benfield Road. Their
development plans do not include the actual construction of Benfield Road.
An attendee asked about the nature of the residential development. The applicant indicated a variety
of single - family and multi - family housing options are planned, without age or income restrictions.
Another attendee asked for clarification regarding plans for the area located east of the Verona Walk
community. The team explained that this area is to be part of the larger preserve acreage. Except for
the Benfield Road corridor, these lands are protected from development in perpetuity. In order to
derive certain benefits from the TDR program, these preserve lands are conveyed to a public agency
responsible for restoration and maintenance.
No one in attendance expressed opposition to the project. No major issues or contentions were
raised or discussed. No statements of commitment were made by the agent, applicant or developer.
The meeting was completed by 6:15 p.m.
[Synopsis prepared by C. Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner]
-20-
Agenda Item 9C
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
Approximately 493.2 acres [with the potential to produce 394.5 TDRs] lie east, beyond 1 mile of the
URF boundary, and are identified as an "Area not qualified for Sending" TDR credits into the URF.
(This acreage however, is qualified for sending TDR credits into other receiving areas of the County.]
PART ONE of SIX: This part of CP- 2006 -11 lifts the FLUE's 2.5 unit - per -acre maximum achievable
density to 2.8 units per acre to use all qualifying TDRs within the Hacienda Lakes project.
The property's present designation as Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict currently
allows residential land uses at a maximum density of 1.5 units per gross acre or via
Transfer of Development Rights program up to 2.5 units per gross acre for a maximum
of 1.662 dwelling units.
The Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict is designed to provide a clear transition
between the Urban Residential Subdistrict on the west side of CR 951 and the
Agricultural /Rural lands to the east as envisioned when the Urban Residential Fringe
Subdistrict was established in 1989.
Because of this amendment, there are no significant impacts to public facilities, as
defined in the CIE, with respect to Potable Water, Wastewater Treatment, Stormwater
Management, Solid Waste Disposal, Parks and Recreation facilities.
PROVISION
EXISTING
PROPOSED
REMARKS
Maximum Residential
2.5 DU /acre
2.8 DU /acre
Just 507.8 ac would be
Density (utilizing TDRs)
- eligible to receive in URF
- eligible to receive in URF
developed residentially
Retention / Preservation
- Required Preservation
with receiving "lift"
• 432.4 in rsdntl tracts
FLUE
Area
- Preservation Area with
. 36.6 MUAC residential
shift"
• 38.8 in residential/
medical uses tract
PART TWO of SIX: This part of CP- 2006 -11 shifts a portion of the FLUE's native vegetation
preservation from Urban lands to RFMUD Sending Lands to protect the highest quality wetlands and
habitat within the Hacienda Lakes project.
PROVISION
EXISTING
PROPOSED
REMARKS
Native Vegetation/
25% NV in Urban portion
Under 25% NV — Urban
. 25% of Urban Preserve
Habitat
60% NV in Rural portion
portion
is 72.4 ac. of 289.7 NV
Retention / Preservation
- Required Preservation
100% NV — Rural portion
. 60% of Rural Preserve
FLUE
Area
- Preservation Area with
is 847.2 ac. of 1,412 NV
shift"
PART THREE of SIX: This part of CP- 2006 -11 lifts the FLUE's 1.0 unit - per -acre maximum transferred
TDR density to 1.3 units per acre to use all qualifying TDRs within the Hacienda Lakes project
PROVISION
EXISTING
PROPOSED
REMARKS
Maximum Use of TDRs
1.0 DU/TDR per acre
1.3 DUs/TDRs per acre
Overall Density would be
- eligible to transfer into
- eligible to transfer into
0.78 DUs /acre (gross)
URF from Sending Lands
URF from Sending Lands
within 1 mile
within 1 mile, with "lift"
-21-
Agenda Item 9C
PART FOUR of SIX: This part of CP- 2006 -11 expands the size of the Southeast quadrant of Mixed
Use Activity Center No. 7 by 9.16 acres to develop commercial uses otherwise ceded by the
development of non - commercial, professional medical uses in this quadrant.
The magnitude of this project (approximately 37 gross acres; 28 net acres) is similar to a
Community Center commercial development at the upper limits of size — and
approximately one - quarter of a Regional Center commercial development of average
size.
The Market Area studied has 93,522 sq. ft. commercial floor area, on approximately 17.6
acres described as existing or "developed ".
Located within Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 are a number of Planned Unit
Developments and commercially zoned properties, totaling approximately 713,962 sq. ft.
commercial floor area and more than 136 acres — developed and undeveloped.
Approval of this expansion to MUAC No. 7, along with residential development and other
proposed land uses for the Hacienda Lakes project, will require intersection
improvements at more than one intersection with Collier Boulevard among various road
improvements.
Based upon total existing commercial inventory in the market study area, additional need
for commercial uses to serve the surrounding market area cannot be ascertained. There
is an excess of commercial development and commercially developable property in the
market area.
PROVISION
EXISTING
PROPOSED
REMARKS
Direct Access for Business
The Lord's Way does not
The Lord's Way would
Supply of 887,962 sq. ft. /
Acreage Allowed for
27.5 acres
36.6 acres
Demand for 143,645 sq.
Southeast Quadrant of
FLUE provisions
new provision
ft. = Market factor of 6.18
MUAC No. 7
(Supply = 618 % of
Demand)
PART FIVE of SIX: This part of CP- 2006 -11 allows The Lord's Way to serve as access to a Business
Park as well as to predominantly residential areas within the Hacienda Lakes project.
Approval of Business Park access via The Lord's Way may require eventual various
road improvements and intersection improvements at the intersection with Collier
Boulevard.
PROVISION
EXISTING
PROPOSED
REMARKS
Direct Access for Business
The Lord's Way does not
The Lord's Way would
Provides additional
Park onto Arterial
provide such access by
provide such access with
benefits for access to both
Roadway
FLUE provisions
new provision
Collier Boulevard and the
future Benfield Road
PART SIX of SIX: This part of CP- 2006 -11 shifts a portion of the CCME's native vegetation
preservation from Urban lands to RFMUD Sending Lands to protect the highest quality wetlands and
habitat within the Hacienda Lakes project.
-22-
Agenda Item 9C
Certain amendments will result with deriving additional benefits from preserving native
vegetation and habitat, whose preservation is already a requirement under other
provisions of the GMP, from which benefits will also be derived based on the 2:1
preservation factor guaranteed in the "shift" from the Urban designated portion of the
project.
PROVISION
EXISTING
PROPOSED
REMARKS
Native Vegetation/
25% NV in Urban portion
25 %— X = Urban NV
• Urban Preserve would
Habitat
60% NV in Rural portion
60% + 2X =Rural NV
be 47.2 ac.
Retention / Preservation
- Preserved
- Preserved with "shift"
• Rural Preserve would
CCME
be 1,342 ac.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION:
The Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) heard the proposed amendment at their December 1,
2010 hearing. EAC considerations were limited to the parts of CP- 2006 -11 with environmental
significance (parts 1, 2, 3 & 6). These four aspects of the Hacienda Lakes of Naples proposal may be
simplified into just two paired changes — one pair of amendments would allow all eligible TDRs
generated from adjacent RFMUD Sending Lands to be used in the Urban portion of the project for a
greater maximum density (the "lift'j; while the other pair of amendments would allow less native
vegetation preservation in the Urban portion of the project if a proportionally greater amount is
preserved in RFMUD Sending Lands (the "shift"].
EAC members discussed the nature of the 187 additional TDRs that would be used to increase the
density above the existing 2.5 residential units per acre, and staffs recommendation to limit further
participation in the TDR program in some manner. The applicant's agent argued how no such
restrictions should be placed on TDR use that would inhibit full participation in the TDR program.
Speakers present agreed with the idea to make full use of TDR program.
Members discussed the proposal to relax preservation /retention requirements with the intent to
preserve the higher quality habitat on the large property while not preserving lower quality habitat —
regardless of location. The applicant's agent explained how approximately 25 acres of Urban
preserve lands would equate to approximately 50 acres of additional preservation in the Rural portion
of the project. EAC members reached consensus that the better habitat on the subject property
would be preserved.
Members also discussed how subsequent zoning activity would include the redemption and use of
TDRs severed and transferred from adjacent RFMUD Sending Lands.
EAC members recognized that no objections were raised by NIM attendees. The EAC recommended
to the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners to transmit CP- 2006 -11,
without staff's recommendations but with one EAC stipulation, to the DCA on a 3 -0 vote. The
recommended stipulation requires that all Transferable Development Rights be severed from all
Sending Lands to be preserved — whether the TDRs are utilized in the development of the Hacienda
Lakes of Naples project or they are held until used elsewhere in the County through the TDR
program.
The EAC also provided direction for modifying the GMP provisions, as proposed by CP- 2006 -11.
Members recommended that the FLUE and CCME language should not identify or include reference
to the Hacienda Lakes Development of Regional Impact (DRI) and Mixed Use Planned Unit
Development (MPUD) by name. Staff concurred, and explained that FLUE and CCME provisions
-23-
Agenda item 9C
being prepared for recommendation to the CCPC were drafted with the same idea for removing or
modifying the applicant's proposed provisions in this manner.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:
The Office of the County Attorney review of this Staff Report is underway. No observations or
comments on legal aspects of CP- 2006 -11 were provided at the time of this printing that would
preclude the CCPC from making a recommendation the BCC on the proposed GMP amendments.
[REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
-24-
Agenda Item 9C
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
In consideration of the reviews and analyses provided within this Report, staff recommends that the
Planning Commission forward Petition CP- 2006 -11 to the Board of County Commissioners
corresponding with the individual parts of the proposal as shown in the figure below.
PROVISION
EXISTING
PROPOSED
REMARKS
RECOMMENDATION
Just 507.8 ac
Maximum
2.5 DU /acre
2.8 DU /acre
would be
To Transmit
Residential Density
- eligible to receive
- eligible to receive
developed
with Modification
(utilizing TDRs)
in URF
in URF with
residentially
receiving "lift"
• 432.4 in
residential tracts
• 36.6 MUAC
residential
• 38.8 in residential/
medical uses tract
Native Vegetation/
25% NV in Urban
Under 25% NV —
• 25% of Urban
Habitat
portion
Urban portion
Preserve is 72.4
To Transmit
Retention /
60% NV in Rural
100% NV — Rural
ac. of 289.7 NV
with Modification
Preservation
portion
I portion
• 60% of Rural
FLUE
- Required
- Preservation Area
Preserve is
Preservation Area
with "shift"
847.2 ac. of
1,412 NV
1.0 DU/TDR per
1.3 DUs/TDRs per
Maximum Use of
acre
acre
Overall Density
To Transmit
TDRs
- eligible to transfer
- eligible to transfer
would be 0.78
with Modification
into URF from
into URF from
DUs /acre (gross)
Sending Lands
Sending Lands
within 1 mile
within 1 mile, with
"lift"
Supply of 887,962
Acreage Allowed
27.5 acres
36.6 acres
sq. ft. / Demand for
NOT
for Southeast
143,645 sq. ft. =
TO
Quadrant of MUAC
Market factor of
TRANSMIT
No. 7
6.18
(Supply = 618
of Demand)
Provides additional
Direct Access for
The Lord's Way
The Lord's Way
benefits for access
To Transmit
Business Park onto
does not provide
would provide such
to both Collier
Selected
Arterial Roadway
such access by FLUE
access with new
Boulevard and the
Alternative
provisions
provision
future Benfield
Road
Native Vegetation/
25% NV in Urban
25 %— X = Urban
• Urban Preserve
To Transmit
Habitat
portion
NV
would be 47.2
with Modification
Retention /
60% NV in Rural
60% + 2X =Rural
ac.
Preservation
portion
NV
• Rural Preserve
CCME
- Preserved
- Preserved with
would be 1,342
"shift"
ac.
Staff recommends that consideration for transmittal include an understanding that the following
requirements /conditions be placed on the companion PUD rezone:
-25-
Agenda Item 9C
■ The Base TDR Credits, Early Entry TDR Bonus Credits, Environmental Restoration and
Maintenance Bonus TDR Credits, and Conveyance TDR Bonus Credits shall be severed and
redeemed from all Sending Lands to be preserved within one mile of the Urban Residential
Fringe prior to issuance of the first residential Development Order in the Hacienda Lakes of
Naples MPUD.
■ A conservation easement be attached /applied to all Sending Lands to be preserved beyond
one mile of the Urban Residential Fringe prior to final approval of the first Site Development
Plan (SDP) for the Hacienda Lakes of Naples project.
Staff - recommended modifications to this set of Growth Management Plan amendments shows the FLUE
and CCME language proposed in six parts, as shown in ATTACHMENT HL -2.
Closing Remarks:
Issues raised by the Transportation Planning review staff are of concern but do not affect CP- 2006 -11
directly. These issues will be thoroughly addressed in the evaluations of the companion Hacienda
Lakes Development of Regional Impact (DRI) and Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD)
requests.
Still other issues surrounding CP- 2006 -11 are more appropriate to be considered during review of the
companion DR[ or PUD rezone processes, and will be addressed at that time.
[REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
-26-
PREPARED BY:
Corby Schmi t, AICP, Principal Planner Date
Comprehensive Planning Section
NWOMWIE
David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager Date
Comprehensive Planning Section
I Z-
Michael Bosi, AICP, Director Date
Comprehensive Planning Section
*am D. Lorenz, Jr.--,"P.E., Irector Date
0
Land Development Services Department
APPROVED BY:
Nicktasalanguida, Deputy' Ad—m$i9frat 6f' Date
Growth Management Services Di ion — Planning and Regulation
PETITION NO.: CP-2006-11
Staff Report for the January 6, 2011 CCPC Meeting.
NOTE: This petition has been advertised for the February 22, 2011 BCC Meeting.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION:
Mark P. Strain, Chairman
Agenda Item 9C
ATTACHMENT HL -1
The Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC proposed Growth Management Plan amendments — CP- 2006 -11 —
are shown below in single strike- through /single underline format, in six parts, as follows:
PART ONE of SIX:
Future Land Use Element
[Insert new language — FLUE Page 29]
I. URBAN DESIGNATION
A. Urban Mixed Use District
2. Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict:
The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide transitional densities between the Urban Designated Area
and the Agricultural /Rural Area and comprises approximately 5,500 acres and 5% of the Urban Mixed
Use District. Residential land uses may be allowed at a maximum density of 1.5 units per gross acre,
exclusive of density bonus that may be achieved via CCME Policy 6.2.5 (6) b.1., or higher through the
use of the following:
a. Up to 2.5 units per gross acre via the transfer of up to one 1.0 dwelling unit (transferable
development right) per acre from lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary and
designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending, except in the case of the Hacienda
Lakes PUD /DRI, which may achieve a maximum density of up to 2.80 units per -gross acre via
the transfer of up to 1.30 dwelling units (transferable development rights) per acre from lands
designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending: and,
b. In the case of properties specifically identified below, a density bonus of up to 6.0 additional
units per gross acre may be requested for projects providing affordable - workforce housing
(home ownership only) for low and moderate income residents of Collier County, pursuant to
Section 2.06.00 of the Land Development Code, or its successor ordinance, except as
provided for in paragraph "c° below. Within the Urban Residential Fringe, rezone requests are
not subject to the density rating system, except as specifically provided in c. below, but are
subject to the following conditions:
PART TWO of SIX:
URBAN DESIGNATION
[insert new language — FLUE Pages 51 — 53]
B. DENSITY RATING SYSTEM
5. Density Blending:
This provision is intended to encourage unified plans of development and to preserve wetlands,
wildlife habitat, and other natural features that exist within properties that straddle the Urban Mixed
Use and Rural Fringe Mixed Use Districts or that straddle Receiving and Neutral Lands within the
Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. In the case of such properties, which were in existence and under
unified control (owned, or under contract to purchase, by the applicant(s)) as of June 19, 2002, the
allowable gross density for such properties in aggregate may be distributed throughout the project,
regardless of whether or not the density allowable for a portion of the project exceeds that which is
otherwise permitted, when the following conditions are met:
-1-
Agenda Item 9C
2. Density Blending Conditions and Limitations for Properties Straddling the Urban Residential
Fringe Sub - District and Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending lands:
(a) The project must straddle the Urban Residential Fringe Sub - District and the Rural
Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands;
(b) The project in aggregate must be a minimum of 400 acres;
(c) At least 25% of the project must be located within the Urban Residential Fringe Sub -
District. The project must extend central water and sewer (from the urban designated
portion of the project) to serve the entire project, unless alternative interim sewer and
water provisions are authorized by Collier County;
(d) The Project is currently zoned or will be zoned PUD;
(e) The density to be shifted to the Sending Lands from the Urban Residential Fringe is to
be located on impacted or disturbed lands, or it is demonstrated that the development
on the site is to be located so as to preserve and protect the highest quality native
vegetation and /or habitat on -site and to maximize the connectivity of such native
vegetation and /or wildlife habitat with adjacent preservation and /or habitat areas;
(f) Native vegetation shall be preserved as follows:
a. The Urban portion of the project shall comply with the native vegetation
requirements identified in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element
(for Urban designated lands), or in the case of projects where the native
vegetation requirement for the Sending Lands portion of the project is the
maximum required 60 percent of the Sending Land area, in order to promote
greater preservation of the highest quality wetlands and listed species habitat,
the required native vegetation for the Urban portion of the project may be
shifted by providing native vegetation preservation in the Sending Lands portion
of the proiect exceeding the 60% maximum preservation requirement as set
forth in b. below. The ratio for such native vegetation preservation shall be two
acres of Sending Lands (exceeding the 60% maximum preservation
requirement) for each acre below the required amount of native vegetation for
the Urban portion of the project. Significant Archeological Sites identified by the
State of Florida Division of Historic Resources shall be preserved and cannot be
mitigated for.
b. For those lands within the project designated as Sending, the native vegetation
preservation requirement shall be 90% of the native vegetation, not to exceed
60% of the total project area designated as Sending.
C. Wetland areas that are impacted through the development process, but which
result in enhanced wetland function, including habitat and /or flowways, shall be
considered as part of the native vegetation requirement set forth in this
provision and shall not be considered as impacted areas. These wetland areas
and /or flowways may be used for water storage provided that the water
discharged in these areas is pre- treated.
(g) Permitted uses for density blending under this provision include residential
development and associated amenities, including golf courses meeting the criteria for
golf courses within the Neutral area. This provision is not intended to eliminate any
uses permitted within the applicable underlying land use designation.
-2-
Agenda Item 9C
PART THREE of SIX:
B. DENSITY RATING SYSTEM:
[insert new language — FLUE Pages 47 -50]
2. Density Bonuses
Consistency with the following characteristics may add to the base density. Density bonuses
are discretionary, not entitlements, and are dependent upon meeting the criteria for each
bonus provision and compatibility with surrounding properties, as well as the rezone criteria in
the Land Development Code.
Transfer of Development Rights Bonus
To encourage preservation /conservation of natural resources, density transfers are permitted
as follows:
(c) From Sending Lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary into lands
designated Urban Residential Fringe, at a maximum density increase of one (1) unit
per gross acre, except for the Hacienda Lakes PUD /DRI, which may transfer TDRs
from Sending Lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary into lands
designated Urban Residential Fringe, at a maximum density increase of 1.30 units per
gross acre.
PART FOUR of SIX:
I URBAN DESIGNATION
[amend language — FLUE Pages 56 -57]
C. Urban Commercial Subdistrict
1. Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict
2. The allowable land uses for a Master Planned Activity Center shall be the same as for
other designated Activity Centers; however, a Master Planned Activity Center
encompassing the majority of the property in two or more quadrants shall be afforded
the flexibility to redistribute a part or all of the allocation from one quadrant to another,
to the extent of the unified control. The maximum amount of commercial uses allowed
at Activity Center # 3 (Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard) is 40 acres per quadrant
for a total of 160 acres maximum in the entire Activity Center; the balance of the land
area shall be limited to non - commercial uses as allowed in Mixed Use Activity Centers.
The maximum amount of commercial uses allowed at Activity Center #7 (Rattlesnake
Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard) is 40 acres per quadrant, except that the
northeast quadrant may have a total of 59 acres and the southeast quadrant may have
a total of 50, for a total of 47-9 189 acres maximum in the entire Activity Center; the
balance of the land area shall be limited to non - commercial uses as allowed in Mixed
Use Activity Centers.
Note: The Activity Center #7 inset map within the FLUE is to be amended to reflect the
proposed boundary change. It is not the intent of this amendment request to modify the
Future Land Use Map to depict the boundary change.
-3-
Agenda Item 9C
PART FIVE of SIX:
I URBAN DESIGNATION
[insert new language — FLUE Pages 31 -32]
A. Urban Mixed Use District
4. Business Park Subdistrict
The Business Park Subdistrict is intended to provide for a mix of industrial uses and non - industrial
uses, designed in an attractive park -like environment with low structural density where building
coverage ranges between 25% to 45% and where landscaped areas provide for buffering and
enjoyment by the employees and patrons of the park. Business Parks shall be allowed as a
Subdistrict in the Urban -Mixed Use District, Urban Commercial District and Urban Industrial District
and may include the general uses allowed within each District, the specific uses set forth below, and
shall comply with the following general conditions:
* ** * ** * * ** * ** UNAFFECTED PROVISIONS ARE SKIPPED * ** * * ** * ** ** *
h. When located in a District other than the Urban Industrial District, the Business Park must have
direct access to a road classified as an arterial in the Transportation Element.
[Alternative amendment language 1] The Lords Way shall be considered direct access to Collier
Boulevard (CR 951) for Business Parks within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict.
[Alternative amendment language 2] Direct access is defined as a driveway and /or local roadway
connection to the arterial road, provided the portion of the local roadway intended to provide
access to the Business Park is not within a residential neighborhood and does not service a
predominantly residential area.
PART SIX of SIX:
Conservation and Coastal Management Element
[insert new language — CCME Pages 18 -21]
GOAL 6:
OBJECTIVE 6.1:
Policy 6.1.1:
For the County's Urban Designated Area, Estates Designated Area, Conservation Designated Area,
and Agricultural /Rural Mixed Use District, Rural - Industrial District and Rural - Settlement Area District
as designated on the FLUM, native vegetation shall be preserved through the application of the
following preservation and vegetation retention standards and criteria, unless the development occurs
within the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) where the ACSC standards referenced in the Future
Land Use Element shall apply. Notwithstanding the ACSC requirements, this policy shall apply to all
non - agricultural development except for single - family dwelling units situated on individual parcels that
are not located within a watershed management conservation area identified in a Watershed
Management Plan developed pursuant to policies supporting Objective 2.1 of this Element.
-4-
Agenda Item 9C
The following standards and criteria shall apply to the vegetation retention requirements referenced
above.
* ** * ** * * ** * ** UNAFFECTED PROVISIONS ARE SKIPPED * ** * * ** * ** ** *
14. In order to promote greater preservation of the highest quality wetlands and listed species
habitat the required native vegetation for the Urban portion of the project may be shifted by
providing native vegetation preservation in the Sending Lands portion of the project exceeding
the 60% maximum preservation requirement for projects that:
(a) Are under unified control:
(b) Straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending
designations;
(c) Meet the maximum required 60 percent preservation requirement for the Sending
Lands portion of the project.
The preservation ratio shall be two acres of Sending Lands (exceeding the 60% maximum
preservation requirement) for each acre below the required amount of native vegetation for the Urban
portion of the project. Significant Archeological Sites identified by the State of Florida Division of
Historic Resources shall be preserved and cannot be mitigated for.
[END OF HL -1 GMP AMENDMENT ENTRIES]
-5-
Coastal High Hazard
Non - Coastal High Hazard Area
Area
Residential and Mixed
Less than 2.5 acres 10%
Less than 5 acres. 10%
Use Development
Equal to or greater
Equal to or greater than 5 acres
than 2.5 acres 25%
and less than 20 acres. 15%
Equal to or
greater than 20 ac. 25%
Golf Course
35%
35%
Commercial and
Less than 5 acres. 10%
Less than 5 acres. 10%
Industrial
Equal to or greater
Equal to or
Development
than 5 acres. 15%
greater than 5 acres. 15%
Industrial
50 %, not to exceed 25%
50 %, not to exceed 25% of the
Development (Rural-
of the project site.
project site.
Industrial District only)
The following standards and criteria shall apply to the vegetation retention requirements referenced
above.
* ** * ** * * ** * ** UNAFFECTED PROVISIONS ARE SKIPPED * ** * * ** * ** ** *
14. In order to promote greater preservation of the highest quality wetlands and listed species
habitat the required native vegetation for the Urban portion of the project may be shifted by
providing native vegetation preservation in the Sending Lands portion of the project exceeding
the 60% maximum preservation requirement for projects that:
(a) Are under unified control:
(b) Straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending
designations;
(c) Meet the maximum required 60 percent preservation requirement for the Sending
Lands portion of the project.
The preservation ratio shall be two acres of Sending Lands (exceeding the 60% maximum
preservation requirement) for each acre below the required amount of native vegetation for the Urban
portion of the project. Significant Archeological Sites identified by the State of Florida Division of
Historic Resources shall be preserved and cannot be mitigated for.
[END OF HL -1 GMP AMENDMENT ENTRIES]
-5-
Agenda Item 9C
ATTACHMENT HL -2
Staff - recommended modifications to The Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC proposed Growth
Management Plan amendments — CF 2006 -11 — are shown below in double strike - through /double
underline format, as follows:
These modifications are generally recommended for proper format, use of code language, succinctness,
and clarity, except for Part Four -of -Six provisions related to the proposed expansion of Mixed Use
Activity Center No. 7. (Note. single underline text is added, and single ftfike Mrough text is deleted, as
proposed by petitioner, • double underline text is added, and double text is deleted, as
proposed by staff.)
PART ONE of SIX:
Future Land Use Element
I. URBAN DESIGNATION
A. Urban Mixed Use District
2. Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict:
[Insert new language — FLUE Page 29]
The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide transitional densities between the Urban Designated Area
and the Agricultural /Rural Area and comprises approximately 5,500 acres and 5% of the Urban Mixed
Use District. Residential land uses may be allowed at a maximum density of 1.5 units per gross acre
exclusive of density bonus that may be achieved via CCME Policy 6.2.5 (6) b.1., or higher through the
use of the following:
a. Up to 2.5 units per gross acre via the transfer of up to one (1.OLdwelling unit (transferable
development right) per acre from lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary and
designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands, except in the case of t4a
properties that straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural
Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands designations, and meet the other Density Blending criteria
provided for in subsection 5.2 of the Density Rating System, which may achieve a maximum
density of up to 2.80 units per gross acre via the transfer of up to 1.30 dwelling units
(transferable development rights) per acre from lands designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use
District Sending L nd d
b. In the case of properties specifically identified below, a density bonus of up to 6.0 additional
units per gross acre may be requested for projects providing affordable- workforce housing
(home ownership only) for low and moderate income residents of Collier County, pursuant to
Section 2.06.00 of the Land Development Code, or its successor ordinance, except as
provided for in paragraph "c" below. Within the Urban Residential Fringe, rezone requests are
not subject to the density rating system, except as specifically provided in c. below, but are
subject to the following conditions:
- 1 -
Agenda Item 9C
PART TWO of SIX:
URBAN DESIGNATION
[Insert new language — FLUE Pages 51 — 53]
B. DENSITY RATING SYSTEM
5. Density Blending:
This provision is intended to encourage unified plans of development and to preserve wetlands,
wildlife habitat, and other natural features that exist within properties that straddle the Urban Mixed
Use and Rural Fringe Mixed Use Districts or that straddle Receiving and Neutral Lands within the
Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. In the case of such properties, which were in existence and under
unified control (owned, or under contract to purchase, by the applicant(s)) as of June 19, 2002, the
allowable gross density for such properties in aggregate may be distributed throughout the project,
regardless of whether or not the density allowable for a portion of the project exceeds that which is
otherwise permitted, when the following conditions are met:
2. Density Blending Conditions and Limitations for Properties Straddling the Urban Residential
Fringe Sub - District and Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending lands:
(a) The project must straddle the Urban Residential Fringe Sub - District and the Rural
Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands;
(b) The project in aggregate must be a minimum of 400 acres;
(c) At least 25% of the project must be located within the Urban Residential Fringe Sub -
District. The project must extend central water and € wastewater treatment
facilities (from the urban designated portion of the project) to serve the entire project,
unless alternative interim water and wastewater treatment provisions are
authorized by Collier County;
(d) The Project is currently zoned or will be zoned PUD;
(e) The density to be shifted to the Sending Lands from the Urban Residential Fringe is to
be located on impacted or disturbed lands, or it is demonstrated that the development
on the site is to be located so as to preserve and protect the highest quality native
vegetation and /or habitat on -site and to maximize the connectivity of such native
vegetation and /or wildlife habitat with adjacent preservation and /or habitat areas;
(f) Native vegetation shall be preserved as follows:
a. The Urban portion of the project shall comply with the native vegetation
requirements identified in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element
(for Urban designated lands), or in the case of projects where the native
vegetation requirement for the Sending Lands portion of the project is the
maximum required 60 percent of the total Sending Land area, in order to
promote greater preservation of the highest quality wetlands and listed species
habitat, the required native vegetation for the Urban portion of the project may
be shifted by providing native vegetation preservation in the Sending Lands
portion of the project exceeding the 60% maximum preservation requirement as
set forth in subsection "b "= below. The ratio for such native vegetation
preservation shall be two acres of Sending Lands (exceeding the 60%
maximum preservation requirement) for each acre below the required amount
of native vegetation for the Urban portion of the proiect. Significant
Archeological Sites identified by the State of Florida Division of Historic
Resources shall be preserved and cannot be mitigated for.
-2-
Agenda Item 9C
b. For those lands within the project designated as Sending, the native vegetation
preservation requirement shall be 90% of the native vegetation, not to exceed
60% of the total project area designated as Sending.
C. Wetland areas that are impacted through the development process, but which
result in enhanced wetland function, including habitat and /or flowways, shall be
considered as part of the native vegetation requirement set forth in this
provision and shall not be considered as impacted areas. These wetland areas
and /or flowways may be used for water storage provided that the water
discharged in these areas is pre- treated.
(g) Permitted uses for density blending under this provision include residential
development and associated amenities, including golf courses meeting the criteria for
golf courses within the Neutral area. This provision is not intended to eliminate any
uses permitted within the applicable underlying land use designation.
PART THREE of SIX:
B. DENSITY RATING SYSTEM:
[Insert new language — FLUE Pages 47 -50]
2. Density Bonuses
Consistency with the following characteristics may add to the base density. Density bonuses
are discretionary, not entitlements, and are dependent upon meeting the criteria for each
bonus provision and compatibility with surrounding properties, as well as the rezone criteria in
the Land Development Code.
Transfer of Development Rights Bonus
To encourage preservation /conservation of natural resources, density transfers are permitted
as follows:
(c) From Sending Lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary into lands
designated Urban Residential Fringe, at a maximum density increase of one (1) unit
per gross acre, except for properties that straddle the
Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands designatiom
and meet the other Density Blending criteria provided for in subsection 5.2 of the
Density Rating System. which may transfer TDRs from Sending Lands located within
one mile of the Urban Boundary into lands designated Urban Residential Fringe, at a
maximum density increase of 1.30 units per gross acre.
PART FOUR of SIX:
I URBAN DESIGNATION
[amend language — FLUE Pages 56 -57]
C. Urban Commercial Subdistrict
1. Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict
2. The allowable land uses for a Master Planned Activity Center shall be the same as for
other designated Activity Centers; however, a Master Planned Activity Center
encompassing the majority of the property in two or more quadrants shall be afforded
-3-
Agenda Item 9C
the flexibility to redistribute a part or all of the allocation from one quadrant to another,
to the extent of the unified control. The maximum amount of commercial uses allowed
at Activity Center # 3 (Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard) is 40 acres per quadrant
for a total of 160 acres maximum in the entire Activity Center; the balance of the land
area shall be limited to non - commercial uses as allowed in Mixed Use Activity Centers.
The maximum amount of commercial uses allowed at Activity Center #7 (Rattlesnake
Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard) is 40 acres per quadrant, except that the
northeast quadrant may have a total of 59 acres
ate, for a total of 4-7-9 449 acres maximum in the entire Activity Center; the
balance of the land area shall be limited to non - commercial uses as allowed in Mixed
Use Activity Centers.
PART FIVE of SIX:
I URBAN DESIGNATION
[Insert new language — FLUE Pages 31 -321
A. Urban Mixed Use District
4. Business Park Subdistrict
The Business Park Subdistrict is intended to provide for a mix of industrial uses and non - industrial
uses, designed in an attractive park -like environment with low structural density where building
coverage ranges between 25% to 45% and where landscaped areas provide for buffering and
enjoyment by the employees and patrons of the park. Business Parks shall be allowed as a
Subdistrict in the Urban -Mixed Use District, Urban Commercial District and Urban Industrial District
and may include the general uses allowed within each District, the specific uses set forth below, and
shall comply with the following general conditions:
* ** * ** * * ** *** UNAFFECTED PROVISIONS ARE SKIPPED * ** * * ** * ** ** *
h. When located in a District other than the Urban Industrial District, the Business Park must have
direct access to a road classified as an arterial in the Transportation Element.
[Altemative amendment language 11
fFor Business Parks within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict. access
to Collier Boulevard (CR 951) via The Lords Way shall_be consid r irect access to an arterial
road.
-4-
Agenda Item 9C
PART SIX of SIX:
Conservation and Coastal Management Element
[Insert new language — CCME Pages 18 -21 ]
GOAL 6:
OBJECTIVE 6.1:
Policy 6.1.1:
For the County's Urban Designated Area, Estates Designated Area, Conservation Designated Area,
and Agricultural /Rural Mixed Use District, Rural - Industrial District and Rural - Settlement Area District
as designated on the FLUM, native vegetation shall be preserved through the application of the
following preservation and vegetation retention standards and criteria, unless the development occurs
within the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) where the ACSC standards referenced in the Future
Land Use Element shall apply. Notwithstanding the ACSC requirements, this policy shall apply to all
non - agricultural development except for single - family dwelling units situated on individual parcels that
are not located within a watershed management conservation area identified in a Watershed
Management Plan developed pursuant to policies supporting Objective 2.1 of this Element.
The following standards and criteria shall apply to the vegetation retention requirements referenced
above.
* ** * ** * * ** * ** UNAFFECTED PROVISIONS ARE SKIPPED * ** * * ** * ** ** *
114. In order to promote -greater preservation of the highest quality wetlands and listed species
habitat the required native vegetation for the Urban portion of the project may be shifted by
providing native vegetation preservation in the Sending Lands portion of the project exceeding
the 60% maximum preservation requirement for projects that:
(a) Are under unified control;
(b) Straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands
designations;
-5-
Coastal High Hazard
Non - Coastal High Hazard Area
Area
Residential and Mixed
Less than 2.5 acres 10%
Less than 5 acres. 10%
Use Development
Equal to or greater
Equal to or greater than 5 acres
than 2.5 acres 25%
and less than 20 acres. 15%
Equal to or
greater than 20 ac. 25%
Golf Course
35%
35%
Commercial and
Less than 5 acres. 10%
Less than 5 acres. 10%
Industrial
Equal to or greater
Equal to or
Development
than 5 acres. 15%
greater than 5 acres. 15%
Industrial
50 %, not to exceed 25%
50 %, not to exceed 25% of the
Development (Rural-
of the project site.
project site.
Industrial District only)
The following standards and criteria shall apply to the vegetation retention requirements referenced
above.
* ** * ** * * ** * ** UNAFFECTED PROVISIONS ARE SKIPPED * ** * * ** * ** ** *
114. In order to promote -greater preservation of the highest quality wetlands and listed species
habitat the required native vegetation for the Urban portion of the project may be shifted by
providing native vegetation preservation in the Sending Lands portion of the project exceeding
the 60% maximum preservation requirement for projects that:
(a) Are under unified control;
(b) Straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands
designations;
-5-
Agenda Item 9C
(c) Meet the maximum required 60 percent preservation requirement for the Sending
Lands portion of the project.
The preservation ratio shall be two acres of Sending Lands (exceeding the 60% maximum
preservation requirement) for each acre below the required amount of native vegetation for the Urban
portion of the project Significant Archeological Sites identified by the State of Florida Division of
Historic Resources shall be preserved and cannot be mitigated for.
[END OF HL -2 GMP AMENDMENT ENTRIES]
�w
li•�
Agenda Item 9C
ATTACHMENT HL -3
Transportation Planning Section — Staff Remarks
The Collier County Transportation Planning Section review staff would reject CP- 2006 -11 based on
the present proposal; and provide the following comments:
Traffic Study Comments:
A. Appendix is not attached to Traffic Study, no CD is found with appendix (same for DRI).
B. Does not include analysis of future Benfield, future Rattlesnake Hammock Extension, The
Lords Way, Sabal Palm, etc. The analysis is not consistent with LRTP, in that these
roadways are not shown in the TIS. (see next comment)
C. (Staff note: No TIS review fees are required.)
D. The traffic study, dated 7/2/10 in the PUD and GMPA, is not consistent with the Question
21 responses dated 7/23/10 in the DRI. All of these documents MUST be consistent with
one another. (See also DRI - specific comments in the DRI response)
E. No mention of the East Central TCMA is made in this traffic study. However, significant
impacts on many of the TCMAs are noted. Please revise the analysis to include review of
TCMA impacts.
F. Table 1- Reconcile all trip generation outputs with the accompanying DRI and PUDZ.
Additionally, reconcile the proposed development rights (units /square footage /Uses)
between all three documents.
G. Analysis of the E +C network requires revision of the Collier Boulevard link from Golden
Gate Blvd to 1 -75. Construction is not anticipated to be funded until 2013 (not 2010 as
shown). Also - Collier Boulevard improvements due in 2010 (From Davis Blvd to US-41)
are complete, as are Santa Barbara Blvd Extension improvements. Please include these
as `existing' segments in the revised traffic study.
H. Tables 2a, 2b, and 2c- Comments are withheld at this time until the trip generation and
proposed land uses are reconciled. Upon reconciliation of the trip generation outputs
between the DRI, PUD, and GMPA, staff anticipates re- calculation of the internal capture
and pass -by rates to accurately reflect the final scenario.
1. Page 13,second paragraph; the growth rate proposed does not match the DRI and PUD
application(s). Please reconcile all documents.
J. Table 5- Why were some of the historical growth rates omitted? These rates can be
established using previous AUIR documentation. Previous years are available and should
be employed.
K. Staff disagrees that buildout of all commercial square footage and residential units will
occur by 2019. Analysis of this buildout date attempts to sever the development from its
respective responsibility towards the future Benfield Road corridor, as well as other
improvements demonstrated as 'needs' in the LRTP. The study must analyze the [internal]
growth rate of the project, and must discuss any phasing that will be proposed. With
consideration for the study that has been presented, Staff requires revision of the buildout
dates to better approximate a more feasible buildout date on a less aggressive schedule.
This revision necessitates direct comparison to the actual buildout rates experienced by
nearby comparable developments such as Lely, Fiddlers Creek, and possibly Verona Walk.
L. Table 6- Show two additional columns demonstrating the [PM Peak Hr, peak direction]
remaining capacity both with- and without- the project. Calculation should focus on the
revised build -out year as per the previous comment (K).
M. Page 16 and Tables 7a,7b, 7c; Tables 8a, 8b; Tables 9a and 9b- Staff recommends at this
time that all detailed synchro analyses for intersection capacity be omitted from
-1-
Agenda Item 9C
resubmittals until the future roadway network that is analyzed complies with both the LRTP
and the County's or FDOT's scheduled improvement plans.
N. Page 16/17, CR -951 at US-41 is anticipated to become a failing intersection. Also- Any
analysis of potential future improvements must first comply with the county's existing or
ongoing plans. Please incorporate the corridor improvement plans for Collier Boulevard
from the vicinity of Golden Gate Main Canal at CR -951 South to Davis Boulevard in this
traffic study (lane configurations must be adhered to, no reduction to through -lane capacity
will be considered).
O. A new signalized intersection North of Lords Way on CR -951 shall not be permitted.
Please remove this from the analysis and adjust Lords Way intersection to assume future
signalization, if warrants are met.
2. Mitigation
A. Policy 5.1 mitigation is not appropriately discussed in the proposed GMP amendment. All
mitigation pertaining to policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth
Management Plan must be listed in the GMP amendment, the PUD, and the DRI
applications alike. All proposed mitigation must be consistent throughout the three
submittals, with the only exception being those items that may be required solely for
approval of the GMPA in order to allow commencement of either the DRI and /or the PUD
applications as subsequent approvals to the GMPA.
3. Pedestrian and Transit Facilities
A. A pedestrian facilities map is required in the Growth Management Plan Amendment
Application, just as in the accompanying DRI and PUDZ applications.
B. A transit master plan must be developed for this application that is consistent with the
PUDZ and DRI applications (as amended).
Hacienda Lakes DRI Review Comments
The applicant has not satisfactorily answered companion DRI item Question 21. Although a
corridor is shown for Benfield Road that is consistent with the County's corridor study results, the
County does not feel that the corridor is adequately protected so as to allow for future
development as a parallel reliever to CR 951. At the time of the initial corridor study, the potential
alignment(s) of Benfield Road that were established only a cursory alignment, pending further
detailed analyses. The Developer has contributed a significant amount of assistance toward the
establishment of the potential future alignment(s) through demonstration of the wetland /preserve
limits. These newly established boundaries effectively update the alignment(s) proposed by the
County's preliminary study, by identifying the incompatibility of the County's conceptual
alignment(s) in contrast to the Developer's newly identified preserve boundary.
In essence, the additional information from the Developer that has come to light demonstrates that
the corridor alignments shown in the County study are infeasible within the boundaries of this
development.
As a result of recognizing the refinement in the available data, the County has requested revision
of the Benfield alignment to a more palatable Westerly alignment (in Rev. 5); to be determined at
the Developers discretion, but inclusive of minimum roadway design and engineering criteria.
However, the Developer's insistence on considering only the conceptual alignment shown in the
County's study is in stark contrast to the Developer's responsibility to maintain a contiguous
preserve area.
cm
-2-
Agenda Item 9C
Furthermore, the Developer states that the roadway "will be designed and permitted, for the most
part, by the County." The County does not agree, as the County is unable to accept such a
financial burden that would be indigenous to the applicant's proposed terms. The network
demand for this corridor is not identified sooner than 2030 in the LRTP, yet the applicant's
proposed increase in density is anticipated to accelerate the demand for this parallel - relief
roadway. This accelerated demand is not accommodated by the Developer in a manner that the
County considers to be `financially feasible', in light of the additional information the Developer has
provided.
As such, the County continues to insist that a less impactful alternative alignment must be shown
by the Developer in an effort to maintain financial feasibility of the proposed roadway corridor. Re-
alignment of the proposed corridor is warranted in order to achieve compliance with requirements
being stated by the multiple environmental reviewing agencies.
Further negotiation and discussion with regard to mitigation and proportionate share are
anticipated.
2. The companion DRI item Question 21 is insufficiently answered. The pedestrian facilities that are
proposed are no greater than what is required by the current LDC, and serve to provide no
significant benefit to the non - motorized public. Additionally, the internal design and site planning
of this development creates unnecessary segregation of land uses, such that the residential area
is not considered to be a reasonable distance from commercial areas in order to promote
pedestrian movement.
Furthermore, proposed transit amenities are wholly inadequate to serve a development of this size
and make -up. The introduction of a single proposed bus stop that is greater than one mile from
the nearest residential area cannot be considered a reasonable attempt at employing the Transit
network in this area.
3. With comments 1 and 2 stated, Transportation Planning Section review staff do not feel that this
development attempts to address the requirements of House Bill 697 adequately.
Staff recommends the following in an effort to address the reduction of VMT's that are
necessitated by HB 697:
A. Relocation of the Benfield corridor top a westerly alignment as previously suggested. The
arrangement of this roadway further to the West will result in fewer VMT within the
development.
B. Revision of the development layout to reduce segregation of land uses within the
development; with the intent to create demand for non - vehicular movement of the population
throughout the development.
C. Creation of comprehensive pedestrian infrastructure facilitating non - vehicular modes of
transportation.
D. Expansion of the transit facilities to better integrate with the different nodes of this
development.
-3-
Agenda Item 9C
TIS Review Comments„
1. With respect to the 2019 proportionate share analyses of intersections such as SR -951 @ US-41,
the County reminds the applicant that State roadways are not allowed to adopt a minimum LOS of
"E °. Table 2 of the applicant's response indicated that three movements at this intersection reach
LOS "E" in 2019 (inclusive of the project). However, the analysis does not clarify the extent to
which the development causes these degradations in LOS. Staff recommends demonstrating the
2019 buildout with, and without, the project for instances where the County is seeking
proportionate share commitments from the Developer for any improvements (such as the example
given above).
2. No other significant rejection comments are noted by staff at this time regarding the Traffic Impact
Study /Q21 response. However, staff reserves the right to add future commentary based on any
changes effected by forthcoming negotiations and discussions intended to finalize mitigation
provisions. Some of these improvements, as they become further defined and as the
proportionate share is assigned, may necessitate revisions within the TIS analyses.
-4-
EAC Meeting: December 1, 2010
Item VII.A
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MEETING OF December 1, 2010
1. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT:
Petition No.: CP- 2006 -11
Petition Name: Amendments to the Conservation and Coastal Management Element, Future Land
Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series of the Growth
Management Plan, to Reconfigure the boundary and size of the Southeast
Quadrant of Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 (Rattlesnake Hammock Road and
Collier Boulevard); Increase the maximum allowable density that may be achieved
within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict (URF) portion of a Project lying in
more than one Future Land Use designation through enhanced utilization of
eligible Transferable Development Rights (TDRs); Provide a definitive access
provision for a Business Park located in the URF portion of a Project; and, Allow
for Native Vegetation Preservation in the URF portion of a Project to be Shifted to
the RFMUD Sending Lands portion of the Project when the Required Amount of
Native Vegetation Preservation is proportionally increased in the Sending Lands
portion of the Project — as they relate to proposed Hacienda Lakes Development
of Regional Impact (DRI) and Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD)
Requests [Transmittal Hearing]
Petitioner: David Torres, for Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC
The subject property consists of approximately 2,262 acres located east of Collier Boulevard (CR 951),
with frontages on Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock Road Extension (a.k.a., entrance to
Swamp Buggy Days PUD's Florida Sports Park), in Sections 11, 12, 13, 14, 23, 24, and 25, Township
50 South, Range 26 East, and Sections 19 and 30, Township 50 South,, Range 27 East, Collier County,
Florida. The property lies within the Royal Fakapalm Planning Community.
II. DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING PROPERTIES:
Subject Site:
The subject site is in part, zoned A, Rural Agricultural [approximately 2,133 acres] and lies
undeveloped within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use (RFMU) Sending Lands [zoning] Overlay.
Another 129 acres is zoned Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) for, and developed with,
the Swamp Buggy Days' Florida Sports Park. A portion of this CPUD acreage is used for the Collier
County Junior Deputy League's Camp Discovery.
- 1 -
EAC Meeting: December 1, 2010
The land uses that are expressly allowed by the Swamp Buggy Days PUD are:
• Swamp Buggy Race Track and related facilities.
• Stock Car Race Track and related facilities.
• Motocross Race Track and related facilities (including bicycle and motorcycle).
• Target Ranges, including archery.
• Fairgrounds Area for expositions similar to the County Fair, including circuses, carnivals, and
other recreation /entertainment activities.
• Multi- purpose Use Areas (Picnic, Sports Fields, Unpaved Parking, etc.) including picnicking and
playground areas; amateur soccer, softball, and similar outdoor recreational sports and
activities; stadium, training and practice facilities for professional baseball.
• Onsite Roadways.
• Related Structures to house offices (including administrative offices and supportive service
facilities as Permitted Principal Uses and Structures), ticketing (including concessions,
ticketing, bleachers, and other spectator - related facilities as Permitted Accessory Uses and
Structures), exhibition activities (including exhibition hall /convention center), spectator and user
conveniences and facilities management.
The Future Land Use Map designates [approximately 1,637 acres] of the subject site as Rural Fringe
Mixed Use District (RFMUD) Sending Lands, Belle Meade Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA)
Overlay.
The present RFMUD Sending Lands designation would allow: participation in the Transfer of
Development Rights (TDR) program; agricultural uses consistent with the Florida Right to Farm Act;
habitat preservation and conservation; single - family residences at a 1 dwelling unit per 40 acres or
legally nonconforming parcel density; non - residential uses (e.g. passive recreation, essential services,
sports and recreation camps, oil and gas exploration, development and production); and limited
accessory commercial uses.
Another [approximately 588 acre] portion of the subject site is designated as the Urban Residential
Fringe Subdistrict.
The land uses that are generally allowed by the Urban Residential Fringe (URF) Subdistrict
designation include a variety of residential and non- residential land uses, including mixed -use
development via PUDs. Residential development in the URF is typified by a "transitional" density
between the County's Urban designated area and the Agricultural /Rural area of a maximum of up to
1.5 units per gross acre, or up to 2.5 units per gross acre via the transfer of one dwelling unit per acre
from lands designated Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) Sending Lands. Certain industrial
and commercial uses may also be allowed, including:
• Essential services;
• Parks, open space and recreational uses;
• Water- dependent and water - related uses;
• Child care centers;
• Community facilities, and their co- location with other public facilities;
• Safety service facilities;
• Utility and communication facilities;
• Earth mining, oil extraction, and related processing;
• Agriculture;
• Travel trailer and recreational vehicle (TTRV) parks;
• Commercial uses per criteria identified for certain Subdistricts or other FLUE policies, including
hotels and motels;
-2-
EAC Meeting: December 1, 2010
• Certain accessory commercial uses;
• Industrial uses per criteria identified for certain Districts, Subdistricts or other FLUE policies;
• Business Park uses per criteria identified for certain Districts and Subdistricts; and,
• Research and Technology Park uses per criteria identified for certain Districts and Subdistricts.
An approximately 37 acre area is designated as the southeast quadrant of Mixed Use Activity Center
No. 7 (Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard) within the Urban Commercial District. The
land uses that are generally allowed by the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict designation include
concentrations of commercial uses in mixed -use settings, designed and developed at a human - scale,
pedestrian- oriented and interconnected with abutting properties, and allowing:
• Commercial uses;
• Residential uses;
• Institutional uses;
• Hotel and motel uses at a maximum density of up to 26 units per acre; and,
• Community facilities,
Residential density in MUAC No. 7 mixed -use developments is the same as that allowed by the Urban
Residential Fringe (URF) Subdistrict — a maximum of up to 1.5 units per gross acre, or up to 2.5 units
per gross acre via the transfer of one dwelling unit per acre from RFMUD Sending Lands. If density is
to be distributed outside the Activity Center boundary, then certain stipulations apply, as follows:
Thirty percent (30 %) of Activity Center - accumulated density must be located within the Activity
Center [in this instance, it is 37 southeast quadrant acres applied to the 1.5 units per gross acre
(for 55.5 units'Activity Center - accumulated density); or, 37 acres applied to the 2.5 units per
gross acre via the transfer of one dwelling unit per acre from RFMUD Sending Lands (for 92.5
units' Activity Center - accumulated density). This allocation works out to 17 residential units
located within the Activity Center of 55 accumulated (with the 1.5 factor) or, 28 residential units
located within the Activity Center of 92 accumulated (with the 2.5 factor).
With regard to the subject property's proximity to the Physicians Regional Medical Center — Collier
Boulevard facility, certain GMP and LDC provisions allow for additional special land uses that include:
Support medical facilities, such as physicians' offices, medical clinics, medical treatment,
research and rehabilitative centers, and pharmacies located within one - quarter mile of the
medical center.
Surroundinq Lands:
The 2,262 acre subject site is an unusually- shaped area, appearing somewhat like the State of
Louisiana with irregular edges. Describing its surrounding lands may be best accomplished with a
virtual walk- around.
Beginning our description with land lying adjacently to the north, or at the 12 o'clock position, is the
Willow Run commercial extraction operation (including quarry excavation lakes, concrete plant and
asphalt plant activities) zoned A, Rural Agricultural district with a Provisional Use (PU); Red Cockaded
Woodpecker (RCW) mitigation area. The current Future Land Use designation is predominantly Urban
Residential Fringe Subdistrict (URF), along with areas of Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD)
Sending Lands, Belle Meade Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) Overlay. Further north lies the
San Marino RPUD.
-3-
EAC Meeting: December 1, 2010
Located generally north, northeast, at the 1 o'clock position, are rural residential uses and equestrian
facilities in the area where Benfield Road, Barton Gilba Drive and Stable Way have their terminal ends.
This area is zoned A, Rural Agricultural. The current Future Land Use Designation is Rural Fringe
Mixed Use District (RFMUD) Sending Lands, Belle Meade Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA)
Overlay.
Located generally northeast and east, at the 2 and 3 o'clock positions, is undeveloped land zoned A,
Rural Agricultural. The current Future Land Use Designation is Rural Fringe Mixed Use District
(RFMUD) Sending Lands, Belle Meade Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) Overlay. Further
east lie Picayune Strand State Forest lands.
Located generally southeast, at the 4 o'clock position, is a citrus growing operation, with on -site sales
facilities on Sabal Palm Road, zoned A, Rural Agricultural district with a Conditional Use (CU). The
subject property surrounds some lands in this area; these properties include State of Florida owned
lands and a few privately owned parcels.
Located generally south, southeast, at the 5 o'clock position, are undeveloped lands, zoned A, Rural
Agricultural. The current Future Land Use Designation is Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD)
Sending Lands, Belle Meade Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) Overlay.
Located generally south, along a lengthy meandering southerly border, are multiple designations.
North of Sabal Palm Road, at the 6 o'clock position, is an area of low- density residential development,
zoned A, Rural Agricultural. The current Future Land Use Designation is Rural Fringe Mixed Use
District (RFMUD) Sending Lands, Belle Meade Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) Overlay.
Located across Sabal Palm Road, south, at the 6 o'clock position, and south, southwest, at the 7
o'clock position, is the Veronawalk Mixed -Use Planned Unit Development, zoned as part of the
Winding Cypress DRI. The current Future Land Use Designation is Urban Residential Fringe
Subdistrict (URF).
Located generally southwest, at the 8 o'clock position, is an area of multi - family residential
development zoned as the Rockedge RPUD; FPL Easement; and, the main N -S canal abutting CR
951. North of John's Road is the "Kountree Kampin" RV Resort, zoned Travel Trailer and Recreational
Vehicle Campground (TTRVC); and, the Physicians Regional Medical Center, zoned PUD. The
current Future Land Use Designation is Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict (URF).
Across Collier Boulevard (CR 951) near its intersection with Rattlesnake Hammock Road, is an area of
partially developed land zoned Sierra Meadows PUD containing an office building and Edison Village
PUD. The current Future Land Use Designation is Urban Mixed Use District and SW quadrant of the
Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 (Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard).
Located generally west, at the 9 o'clock position, north of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and east of CR
951, is an area of undeveloped land zoned for the Hammock Park Commerce Center CPUD, the
McMullen MPUD, the Good Turn Center MPUD and other CR 951 - fronting parcels zoned for C -3
through C -5 commercial uses, and tracts zoned A, Rural agricultural; and, FPL Easement. The current
Future Land Use Designations are Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict (URF) and NE quadrant of the
Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 (Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard); and, the main
N -S canal abutting CR 951.
Across Collier Boulevard (CR 951), is the Naples Lakes Village Center commercial development, part
of Naples Lakes Country Club MPUD. The current Future Land Use Designations are Urban Mixed
Use District and NW quadrant of the Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 (Rattlesnake Hammock Road
and Collier Boulevard).
WIR
EAC Meeting: December 1, 2010
Located generally northwest, at the 10 o'clock position, is a place of worship with community services,
zoned First Assembly Ministries Education and Rehabilitation Campus MPUD. Across Collier
Boulevard (CR 951) near its intersection with The Lord's Way, is the [Lely Area Stormwater
Improvement Project] LASIP Conservation Area PUD; further north lie the Homes of Islandia and
Naples National Golf Club PUDs. The current Future Land Use Designation is Urban Mixed Use
District
Located generally north, northwest, at the 11 o'clock position, is undeveloped land fronting CR 951
zoned A, Rural Agricultural, as part of the commercial extraction operation lying to the north. The
current Future Land Use Designation is Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict (URF).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This petition seeks to amend the FLUE Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 (Rattlesnake Hammock Road
and Collier Boulevard) Map of the FLUE Map Series — along with correlating text changes — to re-
designate acreage from the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict of the Urban Mixed Use District, to
the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict of the Urban Commercial District.
This petition seeks to amend Business Park Subdistrict provisions under the FLUE Urban Mixed Use
District to provide a definitive access provision for a business park located in the Urban Residential
Fringe portion of the proposed Hacienda Lakes development.
This petition seeks to amend Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict provisions under the FLUE Urban
Mixed Use District in order to exclude the subject property from the density bonuses achieved with
certain provisions of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) by introducing a
higher achievable density exclusive to the proposed Hacienda Lakes development.
This petition seeks to amend Native Vegetation Preservation provisions of the Density Rating System,
Density Blending section under the FLUE Urban Designation in order to preserve less native
vegetation than is otherwise required in the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict portion of the project if
more vegetation that is native is preserved in adjacent RFMUD Sending Lands.
This petition seeks to amend Transfer of Development Rights Bonus provisions of the Density Rating
System, Density Bonuses section under the FLUE Urban Designation in order to exclude the subject
property from a maximum density increase that can be achieved through the transfer of development
rights from adjacent RFMUD Sending Lands by introducing a higher density increase exclusive to the
proposed Hacienda Lakes development.
This petition seeks to amend Native Vegetation Preservation provisions under the CCME in order to
preserve more native vegetation than is otherwise required in RFMUD Sending Lands when less
native vegetation is preserved in adjacent lands designated Urban.
Please note that not all aspects of the CP- 2006 -11 petition relate to the purposes and duties of the
Environmental Advisory Council involving County environmental resources management. The issues
of expanding the Mixed Use Activity Center and crafting a Business Park access provision are not
addressed in this Report.
-5-
EAC Meeting: December 1, 2010
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS
The 06 -11 application seeks to amend Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict provisions under the FLUE
Urban Mixed Use District in order to exclude the subject property from the density bonuses achieved
with certain provisions of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) by introducing
a higher achievable density exclusive to the proposed Hacienda Lakes development. Overall,
maximum density increases from 1.5 dwelling units per acre to 2.5 per acre are allowed when
development rights are transferred from RFMU Sending Lands within a project under unified control.
Maximum achievable density would further "lift', or increase, from 2.5 dwelling units per acre to 2.8 per
acre with this text amendment.
Companion FUD application matei°ials summarize that without adoption of the GMPA, the
Hacienda Lakes project would be able to develop 1,662 dwelling units using all eligible TDRs
and other currently - available density. With the adoption of this part of the GMPA, the Hacienda
Lakes project would be able to develop up to 1,850 dwelling units using newly qualifying TDRs
— for a 187 unit gain — making use of all available TDRs generated by the 1,016 acres lying
within one mile of the Urban portion of the project. The applicant further explains, the project
area is unique in that the land area within one mile of the URF boundary, from which TDRs
must be generated from for sending into the URF, generates187 more TDR credits than the
URF is capable of receiving under current FLUE provisions; and, that the `lift' will have no
measurable impact on the URF's transitional" nature, nor will it affect its surrounding lands.
Certain amendments will result with introducing new provisions that would allow for the use and
manipulation of TDR density in manners unique to the subject property, where residential development
is now limited to certain transitional densities, and consequently affects a larger planning area.
The applicant explains, that by allowing the use of additional TDRs within the developable
portion of this project, the property owner is actually compensated for losing development
rights instead of hoping they will be compensated in the future; and, this is a more effective
utilization of those eligible TDRs.
The 06 -11 application seeks to amend Native Vegetation Preservation provisions of the Density Rating
System, Density Blending section under the FLUE Urban Designation in order to preserve less native
vegetation than is otherwise required in the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict portion of the project if
more native vegetation is preserved in adjacent RFMUD Sending Lands. Existing native vegetation
required to be in the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict could be removed [not satisfying the 25%
preservation standard] if more vegetation is preserved in adjacent areas designated RFMU Sending
Lands within a project under unified control. Any such mitigation would preserve two (2) acres of
vegetation in areas designated as RFMUD Sending Lands [above the 60% maximum preservation
requirement] for every one (1) acre cleared in the Urban residential Fringe. This text change, if
approved, would affect lands designated in both the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict and RFMUD
Sending Lands developed as projects under unified control.
Without adoption of the GMPA, the Hacienda Lakes project would preserve 25% of native vegetation in
the URF, and 60% of native vegetation in RFMUD Sending Lands. With the adoption of this part of the
GMPA, the Hacienda Lakes project would preserve less than the required amount of native vegetation
and habitat in the URF, and proportionally more of RFMUD Sending Lands acreage.
Under current GMP provisions, the Rural designated portion of the project would demonstrate
compliance with the preservation standard of Rural Fringe Sending Lands — preserving ninety percent
(90 %) of native vegetation present, not to exceed sixty percent (60 %) of the total project area
iOV
EAC Meeting: December 1, 2010
designated Sending. However, more preserve is offered than the required 60% of the total project area
designated Sending — in return for permission to preserve less native vegetation present in the Urban
portion of the project.
The applicant explains, the proposal to protect higher quality native vegetative communities in
the Rural lands portion of the project [provides them] a greater opportunity to function naturally
as opposed to protecting Urban native vegetative areas that would be of lesser functional
value.
FLUE Section 5, Subsection 2(f), Density Blending for Properties Straddling the URF and RFMUD
Sending Lands refers to CCME Policy 6.1.1 for the Urban portion of the project, requiring that twenty -
five percent (25 %) of native vegetation present be preserved.
However, less preservation is offered in the Urban portion of the project than the 25% of the native
vegetation present required by this Policy, in return for preserving more native vegetation in the Rural
portion of the project.
Certain amendments will eventually result with deriving additional benefits from preserving native
vegetation and habitat, whose preservation is already a requirement under other provisions of the
GMP, from which benefits may already be derived.
Application materials have previously explained how "the density blending provision in the GMP was,
in part, specifically developed to apply to this property". One specific blending provision presently
provides the density boost from 1.5 du /ac. to 2.5 du /ac. Nevertheless, the County is being asked to
confer additional "lift" — and effectively consent to double dipping into the density pool. The current
provisions were adopted by the County with density capped, or limited, to 2.5 du /ac. to satisfy the need
for an acceptable transition balanced between the dense Urban and sparse Rural areas.
The requested "lift" from 2.5 to 2.8 du /ac. would be awarded for preserving lands that are already
required to be preserved by current FLUE provisions in order to obtain the Environmental Restoration
and Maintenance" TDR Bonus for the Sending Lands portion of the project, which will be pursued
according to the companion rezoning materials.
Comprehensive Planning staff has concerns about the appropriateness of changing the FLUE and
CCME to derive new benefits and pass over existing benefits — and have drafted conditions that avoid
superfluous development rights. These conditions appear below, in the Recommendations section of
this Staff Report.
The 06 -11 application seeks to amend Transfer of Development Rights Bonus provisions of the
Density Rating System, Density Bonuses section under the FLUE Urban Designation in order to
exclude the subject property from a maximum density increase that can be achieved through the
transfer of development rights from adjacent RFMUD Sending Lands by introducing a higher density
increase exclusive to the proposed Hacienda Lakes development.
The applicant explains, the proposal [does not ask to increase] the overall number of units
presently allowed, [but to] utilize the additional TDR credits generated from [the] project
Sending Lands within one mile of the Urban Boundary.
The 06 -11 application seeks to amend Native Vegetation Preservation provisions under the CCME in
order to preserve more native vegetation than is otherwise required in RFMUD Sending Lands in order
to preserve less native vegetation than is otherwise required in adjacent lands designated Urban.
-7-
EAC Meeting: December 1, 2010
The applicant explains, there is greater value in preservation of additional Rural Lands rather
than the lands within the Urban Fringe.
General Assessment Observations & Remarks:
A detailed evaluation of the subject plan amendment was conducted by the Collier County Parks
and Recreation Department review staff and they comment, the "PR" (Passive Recreation) tract
identified in companion MPUD rezone materials appears to include the area for the Junior Deputy
[League]. Advise [further] how the recreational open space requirements of LDC will be met.
The applicant explains, the project will provide ancillary recreational and social spaces [in
addition to Junior Deputy and Preserve areas] within the residential portions of the
development, in the form of clubhouse space and outdoor recreational opportunities such as,
but not limited to swimming pools, tennis courts, playgrounds and green spaces.
2008 Legislation - HB 697:
This legislation, which pertains to energy conservation and efficiency, went into effect on July 1,
2008. The Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) reviews GMP amendments for
compliance with this legislation.
This application has been reviewed for adequacy of data and analysis to demonstrate how it
would discourage or not contribute to urban sprawl, and reduce or not elevate greenhouse gas
emissions.
Especially because the 06 -11 application predicates a mixed use development of regional
impact, the HB 697 response affords an excellent opportunity to include plans for: committing to
sustainable, or "green" construction techniques and building designs; establishing commercial
recycling programs; providing dedicated parking area(s) to park -n -ride or ride -share vehicles;
providing bus stop(s); providing electric vehicle preferred parking and charging stations;
committing that service stations dispense more than one alternative fuel; providing pedestrian
and bicycle paths interconnecting with neighboring communities, extra bike racks and public
seating areas, and community -wide bike share programs; or other energy - conserving ideas.
The applicant explains, the project will provide opportunities for public schools within the
boundaries of the project, and a mix of land uses that provides for a live /work community.
Residences will be developed to provide for multiple types of ownership and housing
options to serve diverse household incomes.
Companion Development of Regional Impact (DRO application materials address HB 697
energy efficiency measures, and they appear here in part, to reflect developer
commitments.
• Project preserves some 1,543 acres of land while limiting development footprint to
about 700 acres;
• The most - intense land uses are oriented adjacent to existing development;
• Mix of residential uses, medical and commercial uses, an existing attraction, and a
centrally - located elementary school;
• A jobs -to- housing balance, reducing automobile trips and minimizing vehicle miles
traveled;
EAC Meeting: December 1, 2010
Neighborhoods developed with a multi -modal street system, promoting alternative
modes of transportation and reducing GHG emissions;
Energy conservation features, incorporating a bicycle and pedestrian system connecting
all land uses, bike racks and storage facilities in recreational, commercial and multi-
family areas, select energy- efficient indoor and outdoor building features, prohibition of
covenants or deed restrictions that would hamper or prevent energy conservation,
vegetative choices and landscape design features that reduce need for water and
maintenance, energy efficient lighting in public areas, and others.
IV. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY:
Background and Considerations:
The following is a summary of the background of the "Rural Fringe Mixed Use District'.
Originally adopted as the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District on June 19, 2002 this special land use area
is generally located between the coastal Urban area and Golden Gate Estates — the rural fringe area of
the County. Due to legal challenges, the original amendments did not become effective until July 22,
2003.
GMP Future Land Use Element (FLUE) provisions for the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, in part, read
as follows:
The Rural Fringe. Mixed Use District provides a transition between the Urban and Estates
Designated lands and between the Urban and Agricultural /Rural and Conservation
designated lands farther to the east. The Rural Fringe Mixed Use District employs a
balanced approach, including both regulations and incentives, to protect natural resources
and private property rights, providing for large areas of open space, and allowing, in
designated areas, appropriate types, density and intensity of development. The Rural
Fringe Mixed Use District allows for a mixture of urban and rural levels of service, including
limited extension of central water and sewer, schools, recreational facilities, commercial
uses and essential services deemed necessary to serve the residents of the District. In
order to preserve existing natural resources, including habitat for listed species, to retain a
rural, pastoral, or park -like appearance from the major public rights -of -way within this area,
and to protect private property rights, the following innovative planning and development
techniques are required and/or encouraged within the District.
Transfer of Development Rights (TDR), and Sending, Neutral, and Receiving Designations:
The primary purpose of the TDR program within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District is to
establish an equitable method of protecting and conserving the most valuable
environmental lands, including large connected wetland systems and significant areas of
habitat for listed species, while allowing property owners of such lands to recoup lost value
and development potential through an economically viable process of transferring such
rights to other more suitable lands. Within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, residential
density may be transferred from lands designated as Sending Lands to lands designated
as Receiving Lands on the Future Land Use Map, subject to the provisions below.
Residential density may not be transferred either from or into areas designated as Neutral
Lands through the TDR program.
Receiving Lands are areas of lesser environmental value; accordingly, they have the least
restrictive protection standards and broadest list of permitted uses. Residential density is
EAC Meeting: December 1, 2010
allowed at 1 DU /5 acres; for parcels equal to or larger than 40 acres, this density may be
increased via TDRs to a maximum of 1 DU /acre.
Neutral Lands have an intermediate level of environmental protection standards. Permitted
uses are virtually the same as prior to the June 22, 1999 Final Order. Residential density is
allowed at 1 DU /5 acres. These lands are "neutral" to the TDR program - they are not
eligible to send or receive dwelling unit rights. For parcels equal to or larger than 40 acres,
clustering is allowed.
Sending Lands are areas of higher environmental value; accordingly, they have more
restrictive protection standards and a more restrictive list of permitted uses. Residential
density is limited to 1 DU /40 acres, or pre- existing parcel size of less than 40 acres if
created prior to June 22, 1999. Residential density may be transferred at a ratio of 1 DU /5
acres, or pre- existing parcel size of less than 5 acres if created prior to June 22, 1999 and
lawfully existing; however, this will be reviewed further to determine if it is appropriate to
have a variable ratio dependent upon a given parcel's value and/or proximity to the Urban
area. Once development rights have been transferred (TDRs used), allowable land uses
are further restricted - agricultural uses are allowed to continue but cannot be intensified.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Data and Analysis Requirements:
Chapter 9J -5, Florida Administrative Code, "Minimum Criteria for Review of Local Government
Comprehensive Plans and Plan Amendments, Evaluation and Appraisal Reports, Land Development
Regulations and Determinations of Compliance" sets forth the minimum data and analysis requirement
for comprehensive plan amendments. More specifically, Section 9J -5.005 "General Requirements"
delineates criteria for plan amendments in sub - section 9J -5.005 (2) "Data and Analysis Requirements."
Sub - section 9J- 5.005(2) states, in part, "All goals, objectives, standards, findings and conclusions
within the comprehensive plan and its support documents, and within plan amendments and its support
documents, shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and analysis applicable to each
element. To be based upon data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent
necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan
or plan amendment at issue ... the Department will review each comprehensive plan [amendment] for
the purpose of determining whether the plan [amendment] is based on data and analyses described in
this Chapter and whether data were collected and applied in a professionally acceptable manner."
Data and analysis was prepared and submitted to support the proposal to develop approximately 719
acres straddling Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict Rural Fringe Mixed Use District lands, while
preserving approximately 1,543 acres. Vegetation mapping was conducted in 2002, 2003 and 2009.
Listed species surveys were conducted in 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2009. Red - Cockaded Woodpecker
surveys were conducted in 2003, 2004 and 2009.
The Passarella & Associates, Inc. Ecological Consulting firm's untitled report prepared for the
Hacienda Lakes project verifies the existence of wetland areas and upland habitat, native vegetation
and exotic and nuisance vegetation, presence and potential presence of listed species, archaeological
sites, and recreational business activities on the subject property.
[This Report is labeled as "Exhibit M" in CP- 2006 -11 application materials, with
summarizing statements found on pages 24 and 25. Please note that mapping
prepared for this exhibit is labeled primarily for the companion Hacienda Lakes DRI
application and do not fit into the order of 06 -11 GMPA exhibits.]
_10-
EAC Meeting: December 1, 2010
In a summary the report concludes, in part, "The [Hacienda Lakes] site plan has been designed to
minimize impacts to the listed species... identified on the property, minimizes impacts to the higher
quality wetland and upland habitat on the eastern portion of the site ". "The on -site preserves have
been designed to connect to off -site preserves and the Picayune Strand State Forest... to retain
connectivity of wildlife habitat."
Environmental Impacts:
➢ The original Rural Fringe Mixed Use District designations were based upon landscape scale
analysis. Since then, proposals for re- designation have relied on site - specific environmental
findings in order to demonstrate different property characteristics.
➢ Data and analysis is provided in an effort to demonstrate that the Sending Lands designated
areas will benefit from the shift of preservation efforts from the Urban Residential Fringe, and is
supported by Environmental review staff.
Under regular circumstances, the entire Sending Lands portion of the project area would demonstrate
compliance with the preservation standard of Rural Fringe Sending Lands — preserving 90% of native
vegetation present, up to 60% of the site. This percentage would amount to approximately 982 acres if
no additional preservation were proposed bringing the Sending Lands total to 1,484 acres.
[These preservation calculations are summarized in the Table appearing on page 41 of
42 of "Exhibit F, List of Developer Commitments.]
Evaluation of the data and analysis for the subject plan amendment was conducted by the Collier
County Stormwater and Environmental Planning Section staff, with recommendations provided below:
Future Land Use Element
Density Rating System
d. Density Blending
The applicant is proposing to be able to shift the native vegetation retention requirement from the
Urban designated portion of a project to the portion of a project designated Sending Lands, if the
maximum native vegetation retention requirement within the Sending lands portion is met. In keeping
with the intent of the GMP to retain as much native vegetation as possible within Sending lands,
Stormwater and Environmental Planning Section staff recommends allowing the native vegetation
retention requirement to be shifted from the Urban designated portion of a project to the portion of a
project designated Sending lands.
(Stephen Lenberger, Senior Environmental Specialist
Stormwater and Environmental Planning Section]
- 11 -
EAC Meeting: December 1, 2010
Neighborhood Information Meeting Synopsis:
A Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) was [duly advertised, noticed and] held on Thursday,
September 30, 2010, 5:15 p.m. at Edison College Campus Auditorium B -101, located at 7007 Lely
Cultural Parkway, Naples. Approximately twenty -eight people other than the applicant's team and
County staff attended. Dwight Nadeau, AICP, the applicant's agent provided a full description of the
proposed amendments, including developed areas and preserved areas, roads involved and proposed
accesses, and the residential density and commercial and office use intensity. Developing the subject
property would incorporate the Swamp Buggy Days and Junior Deputy sites at their present locations.
Mr. Nadeau explained the GMPA Transmittal process to the group in attendance indicating how if these
GMPAs were approved in Transmittal, subsequent GMPA Adoption process' would be required along
with the DRI and PUD rezone procedures. The rezone would also be preceded by the holding of
another Neighborhood Information Meeting and set of public hearings.
The part of this GMPA relating to Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 would allow the development of
additional commercial and professional office space on these approximately 37 acres.
Mr. Nadeau provided an overview of the County's Transfer of Development Rights program, and how
certain limitations leave the development of the site with un -used TDRs. The part of this GMPA
relating to the TDR program would allow more TDRs to be shifted to the urban part of the property for
increased density there.
Questions generated during the subsequent discussion focused on the nature. of the proposed
development, traffic and localized road conditions. One person asked about the Swamp Buggy facility
and the potential for compatibility issues with nearby residential land uses. The applicant's team
explained how the proposed Business Park would serve as a transition to buffer noise and other
impacts between the facility and residential land uses. Land uses allowed at the Swamp Buggy facility
will remain the same, where redevelopment into a business park or school site is not planned.
Another attendee asked for clarification regarding main vehicular access to the new development. The
team explained that The Lord's Way and Rattlesnake Hammock Road would be extended /improved to
serve as the main access points with CR 951. A right -of -way corridor is being reserved at this time for
the eventual development of, and connection to, Benfield Road. Their development plans do not
include the actual construction of Benfield Road.
An attendee asked about the nature of the residential development. The applicant indicated a variety
of single - family and multi - family housing options are planned, without age or income restrictions.
Another attendee asked for clarification regarding plans for the area located east of the Verona Walk
community. The team explained that this area is to be part of the larger preserve acreage. Except for
the Benfield Road corridor, these lands are protected from development in perpetuity. In order to
derive certain benefits from the TDR program, these preserve lands are conveyed to a public agency
responsible for restoration and maintenance.
No one in attendance expressed opposition to the project. No major issues or contentions were raised
or discussed. No statements of commitment were made by the agent, applicant or developer.
The meeting was completed by 6:15 p.m.
[Synopsis prepared by C. Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner]
-12-
EAC Meeting: December 1, 2010
V. MAJOR ISSUES:
These are proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element and Conservation and Coastal
Management Element as specifically allowed by Florida Statutes. For those properties that are re-
designated, and for properties affected by GMP text changes, they will be subject to all GMP
requirements and limitations of the new designations, including requirements of the Future Land Use
Element and Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME).
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS:
In view of the reviews and analyses provided within this Report, staff recommends that the Collier
County Environmental Advisory Council forward Petition CP- 2006 -11 to the Board of County
Commissioners with a recommendation to transmit to the Florida Department of Community Affairs
with the following requirements /recommended conditions, as follows:
Approximately 493.2 acres lie east, beyond 1 mile of the URF boundary, and are identified as an "Area
not qualified for Sending" TDR credits into the URF [This acreage however, is qualified for sending
TDR credits into other receiving areas of the County.] If any of these "not qualified" acres are
preserved in order to lift the URF receiving capacity to 2.8 units /acre, then they should not be able to
produce further TDR benefits. Preliminary calculations show that from 326 to 468 additional acres of
RFMUD Sending Lands will be preserved above and beyond the 1,016 acres required for obtaining the
"Environmental Restoration and Maintenance" TDR Bonus. The acres associated with providing lift to
the URF receiving capacity should however, be required to (1) meet the same preservation standards
as lands qualifying for the TDR program — as a provision to be added to the GMPA or as an condition
to be applied to the PUD. Such a requirement ensures that all lands preserved as part of the Hacienda
Lakes subject property will be subject to, and meet, the same restoration and maintenance standards.
In addition, the acres associated with providing lift to the URF receiving capacity should however, be
required to (2) surrender further participation in the TDR program insofar as severing credits from said
acres — as a provision to be added to the GMPA or as an condition to be applied to the PUD Such a
requirement ensures that all lands preserved as part of the Hacienda Lakes subject property will
provide density enhancements, one time, and precludes double- dipping into the density pool.
With such requirements and conditions, CP- 2006 -11 would remain consistent with other components
and provisions of the GMP.
Other issues surrounding CP- 2006 -11 are not environmental in nature, and will be addressed by the
CCPC or are more appropriate to be considered during review of the companion PUD rezone process,
and will be addressed at that time.
-13-
EAC Meeting: December 1, 2010
PREPARED BY:
Corby Sch dt, AICP, Principal Planner
Comprehen jive Planning Section
I
REVIEWED';BY:
i
David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager
Comprehensive Planning Section
, �-
Stephen Lenberger, Senior Environmental Specialist
Stormwater and Environmental Planning Section
t
Gerald Kurtz, P.E., Stormwater Manager
Stormwater and Environmental Planning Section
X111
iliam D. Loren ijr., : P.E., Director
Land Development Services Department
APPROVED BY:
t
fJNick Casalanguida, Deputy Adrniivistrator
Growth Management Services Division -;
— Planning and Regulation
1:iSCNMIDT Corby114 November 10 DRAFT 06 -11 EAC Staff Report - TransmittaLdocx
WEE
15 r 1c)
Date
Date
Date
Date
rt- / - ---_, t:'gC-
Date
Date.
RESOLUTION NO. 11-
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS PROPOSING AMENDMENT TO THE
COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN,
ORDINANCE 89 -05, AS AMENDED, SPECIFICALLY
AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, AND
FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES, AND
FURTHERMORE RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF
THE AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS.
WHEREAS, Collier County, pursuant to Section 1 .31'61, et. seq.; Florida Statutes, the
Florida Local Government Comprehensive Plannin and Development Regulation Act, was
required to prepare and adopt a comprehensive and
WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of missioners adopted the Collier
County Growth Management Plan on January 10, 1989; a
WHEREAS, the Local Government Comprehensive ing and Land Development
ELI]
Future Land Use Element, i ing the Future Land Use Map and Map Series,
and
WHEREAS-, the Collier County Planning Commission has considered the proposed
amendment to the Growth Management Plan pursuant to the authority granted to it by Section
163.3174, Florida Statutes, and has recommended approval of said amendment to the Board of
County Commissioners; and
WHEREAS, upon receipt of Collier County's proposed Growth Management Plan
amendment, various State agencies and the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) have ninety
(90) days to review the proposed amendment and DCA must transmit, in writing, to Collier
Words underlined are additions; Words stFUsk through are deletions 1
County, its comments along with any objections and any recommendations for modification, within
said ninety (90) days pursuant to Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes; and
WHEREAS, Collier County, upon receipt of the written comments from DCA must adopt,
adopt with changes or not adopt the proposed Growth Management Plan amendment, within sixty
(60) days of such receipt pursuant to Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes; and
WHEREAS, the DCA, within forty-five (45) days of receipt of °,,Collier County's adopted
Plan amendment is in
The Board of County Commiss'wners hereby'NIMproves the proposed Growth
Management Plan amendment, attached., hereto as Exhibit A"M incorporated by reference
herein, for the purpose
required State eval
State determination of
Development Regulaiic
for Review of Local Go
THIS RESOLL
12011.
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK; +
the Department of Community Affairs thereby initiating the
i Management Plan amendment, prior to final adoption and
NOW—' Government Comprehensive Planning and Land
id Rule 9 , Florida Administrative Code, Minimum Criteria
rehensive Plans and Determination of Compliance.
after motion; second and majority vote this day of
Approved as to form and legal sufficiency:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
FRED W. COYLE, CHAIRMAN
Words underlined are additions; Words StFUGk through are deletions 2
v
0
Heidi Ashton - Cicko, Assistant County Attorney,
and Land Planning Chief
CP-
Words underlined are additions; Words StFUGk through are deletions
tslrransmittal
Exhibit A
This set of Growth Management Plan amendments is proposed in six parts, as follows:
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
URBAN DESIGNATION
A. Urban Mixed Use District
2. Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict:
CP- 2006 -11
[Insert new language — FLUE Page 29]
The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide transitional densities between the Urban Designated Area
and the Agricultural /Rural Area and comprises approximately 5,500 acres and 5% of the Urban Mixed
Use District. Residential land uses may be allowed at a maximum density of 1.5 units per gross acre,
exclusive of density bonus that may be achieved via CCME Policy 6.2.5 (6) b 1 , or higher through the
use of the following:
a. Up to 2.5 units per gross acre via the transfer of up to one 1.0 dwelling unit (transferable
development right) per acre from lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary and
designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending, except in the case of the Hacienda
Lakes PUD /DRI, which may achieve a maximum density of up to 2.80 units per gross acre via
the transfer of up to 1.30 dwelling units (transferable development rights) per acre from lands
designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending; and
b. In the case of properties specifically identified below, a density bonus of up to 6.0 additional
units per gross acre may be requested for projects providing affordable- workforce housing
(home ownership only) for low and moderate income residents of Collier County, pursuant to
Section 2.06.00 of the Land Development Code, or its successor ordinance, except as
provided for in paragraph "c" below. Within the Urban Residential Fringe, rezone requests are
not subject to the density rating system, except as specifically provided in c. below, but are
subject to the following conditions:
* ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * **
URBAN DESIGNATION
B. DENSITY RATING SYSTEM
[insert new language — FLUE Pages 51 — 53]
5. Density Blending:
This provision is intended to encourage unified plans of development and to preserve wetlands,
wildlife habitat, and other natural features that exist within properties that straddle the Urban Mixed
Use and Rural Fringe Mixed Use Districts or that straddle Receiving and Neutral Lands within the
Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. In the case of such properties, which were in existence and under
unified control (owned, or under contract to purchase, by the applicant(s)) as of June 19, 2002, the
allowable gross density for such properties in aggregate may be distributed throughout the project,
regardless of whether or not the density allowable for a portion of the project exceeds that which is
otherwise permitted, when the following conditions are met:
- 1 -
Words underlined are added; words strUsk- t#r-9ugh are deleted.
Row of asterisks * **
( * ** * ** ) denotes break in text.
CP- 2006 -11
2. Density Blending Conditions and Limitations for Properties Straddling the Urban Residential
Fringe Sub - District and Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending lands:
(a) The project must straddle the Urban Residential Fringe Sub - District and the Rural
Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands;
(b) The project in aggregate must be a minimum of 400 acres;
(c) At least 25% of the project must be located within the Urban Residential Fringe Sub -
District. The project must extend central water and sewer (from the urban designated
portion of the project) to serve the entire project, unless alternative interim sewer and
water provisions are authorized by Collier County;
(d) The Project is currently zoned or will be zoned PUD;
(e) The density to be shifted to the Sending Lands from the Urban Residential Fringe is to
be located on impacted or disturbed lands, or it is demonstrated that the development
on the site is to be located so as to preserve and protect the highest quality native
vegetation and /or habitat on -site and to maximize the connectivity of such native
vegetation and /or wildlife habitat with adjacent preservation and /or habitat areas;
(f) Native vegetation shall be preserved as follows:
a. The Urban portion of the project shall comply with the native vegetation
requirements identified in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element
(for Urban designated lands), or in the case of projects where the native
vegetation requirement for the Sending Lands portion of the project is the
maximum required 60 percent of the Sending Land area in order to promote
greater preservation of the highest quality wetlands and listed species habitat,
the required native vegetation for the Urban portion of the project may be
shifted by providing native vegetation preservation in the Sending Lands portion
of the project exceeding the 60% maximum preservation requirement as set
forth in b below. The ratio for such native vegetation preservation shall be two
acres of Sending Lands (exceeding the 60% maximum preservation
requirement) for each acre below the required amount of native vegetation for
the Urban portion of the project Significant Archeological Sites identified by the
State of Florida Division of Historic Resource shall be preserved and cannot be
mitigated for.
b. For those lands within the project designated as Sending, the native vegetation
preservation requirement shall be 90% of the native vegetation, not to exceed
60% of the total project area designated as Sending.
C. Wetland areas that are impacted through the development process, but which
result in enhanced wetland function, including habitat and /or flowways, shall be
considered as part of the native vegetation requirement set forth in this
provision and shall not be considered as impacted areas. These wetland areas
and /or flowways may be used for water storage provided that the water
discharged in these areas is pre- treated.
(g) Permitted uses for density blending under this provision include residential
development and associated amenities, including golf courses meeting the criteria for
golf courses within the Neutral area. This provision is not intended to eliminate any
uses permitted within the applicable underlying land use designation.
-2-
Words underlined are added; words stFUGk through are deleted.
Row of asterisks ( * ** * ** * ** ) denotes break in text.
CP- 2006 -11
* ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * **
DENSITY RATING SYSTEM:
2. Density Bonuses
[insert new language — FLUE Pages 47 -50]
Consistency with the following characteristics may add to the base density. Density bonuses
are discretionary, not entitlements, and are dependent upon meeting the criteria for each
bonus provision and compatibility with surrounding properties, as well as the rezone criteria in
the Land Development Code.
Transfer of Development Rights Bonus
To encourage preservation /conservation of natural resources, density transfers are permitted
as follows:
(c) From Sending Lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary into lands
designated Urban Residential Fringe, at a maximum density increase of one (1) unit
per gross acre, except for the Hacienda Lakes PUD /DRI which may transfer TDR_s
from Sending Lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary into lands
designated Urban Residential Fringe at a maximum density increase of 1.30 units per
gross acre.
* ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * **
URBAN DESIGNATION
C. Urban Commercial Subdistrict
Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict
[amend language — FLUE Pages 56 -57]
2. The allowable land uses for a Master Planned Activity Center shall be the same as for
other designated Activity Centers; however, a Master Planned Activity Center
encompassing the majority of the property in two or more quadrants shall be afforded
the flexibility to redistribute a part or all of the allocation from one quadrant to another,
to the extent of the unified control. The maximum amount of commercial uses allowed
at Activity Center # 3 (Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard) is 40 acres per quadrant
for a total of 160 acres maximum in the entire Activity Center; the balance of the land
area shall be limited to non - commercial uses as allowed in Mixed Use Activity Centers.
The maximum amount of commercial uses allowed at Activity Center #7 (Rattlesnake
Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard) is 40 acres per quadrant, except that the
northeast quadrant may have a total of 59 acres and the southeast quadrant may have
a total of 50, for a total of 4-79 189 acres maximum in the entire Activity Center; the
balance of the land area shall be limited to non - commercial uses as allowed in Mixed
Use Activity Centers.
NOTE: The Activity Center #7 inset map within the FLUE is to be amended to reflect the
proposed boundary change. It is not the intent of this amendment request to modify the
Countywide Future Land Use Map to depict the boundary change.
-3-
Words underlined are added; words ugh are deleted.
Row of asterisks ( * ** * ** * ** ) denotes break in text.
CP- 2006 -11
* ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * **
URBAN DESIGNATION
[insert new language —FLUE Pages 31 -32]
A. Urban Mixed Use District
4. Business Park Subdistrict
The Business Park Subdistrict is intended to provide for a mix of industrial uses and non - industrial
uses, designed in an attractive park -like environment with low structural density where building
coverage ranges between 25% to 45% and where landscaped areas provide for buffering and
enjoyment by the employees and patrons of the park. Business Parks shall be allowed as a
Subdistrict in the Urban -Mixed Use District, Urban Commercial District and Urban Industrial District
and may include the general uses allowed within each District, the specific uses set forth below, and
shall comply with the following general conditions:
* ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * **
h. When located in a District other than the Urban Industrial District, the Business Park must have
direct access to a road classified as an arterial in the Transportation Element.
[Alternative amendment language 1] The Lords Way shall be considered direct access to Collier
Boulevard (CR 951) for Business Parks within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict.
[Alternative amendment language 2] Direct access is defined as a driveway and /or local roadway
connection to the arterial road provided the portion of the local roadway intended to provide
access to the Business Park is not within a residential neighborhood and does not service a
predominantly residential area.
* ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * **
CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
[insert new language — CCME Pages 18 -211
GOAL 6:
OBJECTIVE 6.1:
Policy 6.1.1:
For the County's Urban Designated Area, Estates Designated Area, Conservation Designated Area,
and Agricultural /Rural Mixed Use District, Rural - Industrial District and Rural- Settlement Area District
as designated on the FLUM, native vegetation shall be preserved through the application of the
following preservation and vegetation retention standards and criteria, unless the development occurs
within the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) where the ACSC standards referenced in the Future
Land Use Element shall apply. Notwithstanding the ACSC requirements, this policy shall apply to all
non - agricultural development except for single - family dwelling units situated on individual parcels that
are not located within a watershed management conservation area identified in a Watershed
Management Plan developed pursuant to policies supporting Objective 2.1 of this Element.
Words underlined are added; words tF Gk thF9ugh are deleted.
Row of asterisks ( ` * ** * ** ) denotes break in text.
CP- 2006 -11
The following standards and criteria shall apply to the vegetation retention requirements referenced
above.
* ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * **
14. In order to promote greater preservation of the highest quality wetlands and listed species
habitat the required native vegetation for the Urban portion of the project may be shifted by
providing native vegetation preservation in the Sending Lands portion of the project exceeding
the 60% maximum preservation requirement for projects that:
(a) Are under unified control:
(b) Straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending
designations:
(c) Meet the maximum required 60 percent preservation requirement for the Sending
Lands portion of the project.
The preservation ratio shall be two acres of Sending Lands (exceeding the 60% maximum
Preservation requirement) for each acre below the required amount of native vegetation for the Urban
portion of the protect. Significant Archeological Sites identified by the State of Florida Division of
Historic Resource shall be preserved and cannot be mitigated for
G:WES Planning ServbeslComprehensive=IVIP PLANNING GMP DATAIComp Plan Amendments12006 Cycle PetitionslCP- 2006 -11 FLUE -CCME Hacienda Lakes of
NapleslCP -06 -11 ExhibitA 10 Dec 10.docx
-5-
Words underlined are added; words StFUGk are deleted.
Row of asterisks * **
( * ** * ** ) denotes break in text.
Coastal High Hazard
Area
Non - Coastal High Hazard Area
Residential and Mixed
Less than 2.5 acres 10%
Less than 5 acres. 10%
Use Development
Equal to or greater
Equal to or greater than 5 acres
than 2.5 acres 25%
and less than 20 acres. 15%
Equal to or
greater than 20 ac. 25%
Golf Course
35%
35%
Commercial and
Less than 5 acres. 10%
Less than 5 acres. 10%
Industrial
Equal to or greater
Equal to or
Development
than 5 acres. 15%
greater than 5 acres. 15%
Industrial
50 %, not to exceed 25%
50 %, not to exceed 25% of the
Development (Rural-
of the project site.
project site.
Industrial District only)
The following standards and criteria shall apply to the vegetation retention requirements referenced
above.
* ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * **
14. In order to promote greater preservation of the highest quality wetlands and listed species
habitat the required native vegetation for the Urban portion of the project may be shifted by
providing native vegetation preservation in the Sending Lands portion of the project exceeding
the 60% maximum preservation requirement for projects that:
(a) Are under unified control:
(b) Straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending
designations:
(c) Meet the maximum required 60 percent preservation requirement for the Sending
Lands portion of the project.
The preservation ratio shall be two acres of Sending Lands (exceeding the 60% maximum
Preservation requirement) for each acre below the required amount of native vegetation for the Urban
portion of the protect. Significant Archeological Sites identified by the State of Florida Division of
Historic Resource shall be preserved and cannot be mitigated for
G:WES Planning ServbeslComprehensive=IVIP PLANNING GMP DATAIComp Plan Amendments12006 Cycle PetitionslCP- 2006 -11 FLUE -CCME Hacienda Lakes of
NapleslCP -06 -11 ExhibitA 10 Dec 10.docx
-5-
Words underlined are added; words StFUGk are deleted.
Row of asterisks * **
( * ** * ** ) denotes break in text.
0
0
0
c�
n U
U
� -
z
O
m
w
W
a
Z 6
W n
U x
�
~ a " cro
= x O
F z
O
U z
Q �
a
a
3 r
t m
w
E
e
pw p�
U U U �z ab
d
e<
p �
a�
1
tlm 1
1
i
„ 1
1
- -I 1
1
1
1 "
1 I
I
I
v
s
p
a
5
Q
w
m
�o
W N
a
p'
erg:
a-
.id
5
p
a�
g - -1—
I IM
1 ti
4
ff
1 I �
1 ,
' ' 8
a
aa'
a
l i e � Ati
k
e
a
p= U
CL
� r
� r
tl
=3
a�
_s
iL
e
r
i
k
0
o
N
�
5
O
>
�
M
z
O
� N
W
d
in z
W
J
�
�
5 F
o
0 O
W
Q W N
3e
IL
a
&�
Q
w
m
�o
W N
a
p'
erg:
a-
.id
5
p
a�
g - -1—
I IM
1 ti
4
ff
1 I �
1 ,
' ' 8
a
aa'
a
l i e � Ati
k
e
a
p= U
CL
� r
� r
tl
=3
a�
_s
iL
e
r
i
k
Hacienda Lakes
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
GMP Application
CCPC Review Materials
GMP Amendment
Application Form
DIAfATNcKW ,,,.
(,ONSI'IIiNG Fig=nng
1 V 1 IL � SunRVin¢
CONSULTANT TEAM
Mr. Emilio Robau, P.E.
RWA, Inc.
6610 Willow Park Drive, Suite 200
Naples, Florida, 34109
(239) 597 -0575 Office
(239) 597 -0578 Fax
Mr. Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq.
Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A.
4001 Tamiami Trail North, # 300
Naples, Florida 34103
(239) 435 -3535 ext 256 Office
(239) 435 -1218 Fax
Mr. Kenneth C. Passarella
Passarella and Associates, Inc.
13620 Metropolis Avenue
Suite 200
Fort Myers, Florida 33912
(239) 274 -0067 Ext. 15 Office
(239) 274 -0069 Fax
Mr., Robert Mulhere, AICP, President/CEO
Mulhere & Associates
P.O. Box 1367
Marco Island, Florida
(239) 825 -9373 Office/Mobile
Mr. Owen Beitsch
Real Estate Research Consultants, Inc.
14 East Washington Street
Suite 500
Orlando, Florida 32801
(800) 767 -5635 Office
(407) 839 -6197 Fax
Mr. Brian Barnes, Senior Scientist
Water Resource Solutions, a Division of ENTRIX, Inc.
1388 Colonial Boulevard
Fort Myers, FL 33907
239) 574 -1919 Ext. 7004 Office
(239) 574 -8106 Fax
Mr. Richard S Tomasello, P.E.
Tomasello Consulting Engineers, Inc.
5906 Center Street
Jupiter, FL 33458 -3973
(561) 575 -3910 Office
(561) 744 -1865 Fax
Mr. William E. Oliver, Senior Vice President
Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc.
1000 N. Ashley Drive
Suite 100
Tampa, FL 33602
(813) 224 -8862 Office
(813) 226 -2106 Fax
Dr. Robert Carr
Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Inc.
Suite 107
Davie, FL 33314
(954) 792 -9776 Office
(954) 792 -9954 Fax
APPLICATION FOR A REQUEST TO AMEND
THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPLICATION NUMBER DATE RECEIVED
PRE - APPLICATION CONFERENCE DATE
DATE SUFFICIENT
This application, with all required supplemental data and information, must be completed and
accompanied by the appropriate fee, and returned to the Comprehensive Planning Department,
Suite 400, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104. 239 - 252 -2400 (Fax 239 - 252 - 2946).
The application must be reviewed by staff for sufficiency within 30 calendar days following the filing
deadline before it will be processed and advertised for public hearing. The applicant will be notified
in writing, of the sufficiency determination. If insufficient, the applicant will have 30 days to remedy the
deficiencies. For additional information on the processing of the application, see Resolution 97 -431 as
amended by Resolution 98 -18 (both attached). If you have any questions, please contact the
Comprehensive Planning Section at 239 - 252 -2400.
SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
I. GENERAL INFOMRATION
A. Name of Applicant David Torres
Company Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC
Address 12600 Biscayne Court
City Naples State Florida Zip Code 34105
Phone Number: 904 - 762 -4454 Fax Number 877 - 357 -8271
B. Name of Agent * Dwight Nadeau. AICP
• THIS WILL BE THE PERSON CONTACTED FOR ALL BUSINESS RELATED TO THE PETITION.
Company RWA, INC
Address 6610 Willow Park Drive, Suite 200
City Naples State Florida Zip Code 34109
Phone Number 239 - 597 -0575 Fax Number 239 - 597 -0578
Name of Agent Mr. Richard Yovanovich
• THIS WILL BE THE PERSON CONTACTED FOR ALL BUSINESS RELATED TO THE PETITION.
Company Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A
Address 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300
City Naples State Florida Zip Code 34103
Phone Number 239 - 435 -3535 Ext 256 Fax Number 239 - 435 -1218
C. Name of Owner (s) of Record Wilton land Company, I.I.C.
Address 206 Dudley Road
City: Wilton State: Connecticut Zip Code 06897
Phone Number Fax Number
D. Name, Address and Qualifications of additional planners, architects, engineers,
environmental consultants and other professionals providing information contained
in this application.
Name of Planning Consultant /Lobbyist: Robert Mulhere, AICP
Company: Mulhere & Associates, Inc.
Mailing Address P.O. Box 1367 Email: rimulhere@qmail.com
City: Marco Island State: Florida Zip Code 06897
Phone Number 239 - 825 -9373 Fax Number
Name of lawyer: Mr. Richard Yovanovich, Esquire
Company: Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester,P.A.
Mailing Address 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300
City: Naples State: Florida Zip Code 34103
Phone Number 239 - 435 -3535 ext 256 Fax Number 239 - 435 -1218
Name of Transportation Engineer: Mr. Bill Oliver
Company: Tindale- Oliver & Associates Inc.
Mailing Address 1000 N. Ashley Drive, Suite 100
City: Tampa State: Florida Zip Code 33602
Phone Number 813- 224 -8862 Fax Number 813- 226 -2106
Name of Environmental Consultant: Ken Passarella & Cheryl Roloh
Company: Passarella and Associates, Inc .
Mailing Address 9110 College Pointe Court
City: Fort Myers State: Florida Zip Code 33919
Phone Number 239 - 274 -0067 Fax Number 239 - 274 -0069
Name of Hydro - Geologist Consultant: Mr. Brian Barnes
Company: Water Resource Solutions, a Division of ENTRIX
Mailing Address 428 Pine Island Road SW
City: Cape Coral State: Florida Zip Code 33991
Phone Number: 239 -574 -1919 ext 7004 Fax Number: 239 -574 -8106
Name of Economist: Mr. Owen Beitsch
Company: Real Estate Research Consultants, Inc
Mailing Address 14 East Washington Street
City: Orlando State: Florida Zip Code 32801
Phone Number: 800 - 767 -5635 Fax Number: 407 - 839 -6197
Name of Archaeologist: Mr. Bob Carr
Company: Archaeological and Historical Conservancy Inc
Mailing Address 4800 SW 64th Avenue, Suite 107
City: Davie State: Florida Zip Code 33314
Phone Number: 954 - 792 -9776 Fax Number: 954 - 792 -9954
Name of Flood -Plain Consultant: Mr. Dick Tomasello
Company: Tomasello Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Mailing Address 5906 Center Street
City: Jupiter State: Florida -Zip Code 33458
Phone Number: 561- 575 -3910 Fax Number: 561- 744 -1865
Name of Professional Engineer: Mr. Emilio Robau
Company: RWA, Inc.
Mailing Address 6610 Willow Park Drive
City: Naples State: Florida Zip Code 34109
Phone Number: 239 -597 -0575 Fax Number: 239 -597 -0578
Name of Professional Land Surveyor: Mr. Michael Ward
Company: RWA, Inc.
Mailing Address 6610 Willow Park Drive
City: Naples State: Florida Zip Code 34109
Phone Number: 239 - 597 -0575 Fax Number: 239 - 597 -0578
See Attached Additional List
Disclosure of Interest Information:
A. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, Tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in
common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage
of such interest. (Use additional sheets if necessary).
Name and Address
Percentage of Ownership
B. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the
percentage of stock owned by each.
Name and Address
Percentage of Stock
Swamp Buggy Days Inc. 100% of 00417240000
Kim Charles Hornback, President
Tom Cannon, Robert Swift, Randy Johns
Chuck McMahon (Members of the Board of Director)
Collier County Junior Deputy League Inc. 100% of 00418400409
Wayne Arnold, President
John R. Wood, Vice President
William Poteet, Petra Jones, Victoria Freeman
Paul Lindabury (Directors)
C. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the
percentage of interest.
Name and Address Percentage of Interest
D. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the
general and /or limited partners.
Name and Address Percentage of Ownership
Wilton Land Company, LLC.
George P. Bauer Revocable Trust - 99%
Carol Bauer is the beneficiary of such trust
Carol B Bauer Revocable Trust - 1%
Georae Bauer is the beneficiary of such trust
If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee,
or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, including the officers,
stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners.
Name and Address
Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC
Jennifer Toll
Duncan Toll Revocable Trust
Jennifer Toll is the beneficiary of such trust
Officers
David E. Torres, Manager & President
Date of Contract: 01/26/10
Percentage of Ownership
99%
1%
F. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or
officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust.
Name and Address
G. Date subject property acquired (Wilton Land Company, 01/26/10 Jr Deputy League
12/27/95, Swamp Buggy Days 10/14/82) leased ( ): Term of lease yrs. /mos.
If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate date of option:-01/26/10 and date
option terminates: 01/26/15 or anticipated closing: 11/15/2012 .
H. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to
the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility
of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form.
III. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:
A. LEGAL DESCRIPTION A TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE STATE OF
FLORIDA, COUNTY OF COLLIER, LYING IN SECTION 11 THROUGH 14 AND 23 THROUGH
25, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST AND SECTION 19 AND 30, TOWNSHIP 50
SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING FURTHER BOUND AND
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 30; THENCE S.89 °10'42 "W.
ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION FOR 2835.68 FEET TO THE SOUTH QUARTER
CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE S.89 °11'14 "W. ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE FOR
2906.24 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 25; THENCE S.89 °09'39 "W.
ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION FOR 2693.18 FEET TO THE SOUTH QUARTER
CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE S.89 °11'01 "W. ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE FOR
2693.80 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE N.00 °13'35 "W.
ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION FOR 2636.34 FEET TO THE WEST QUARTER
CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE N.00 °14'15 "W. ALONG SAID WEST LINE FOR 2637.01
FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE N.87 °07'13 "E. ALONG A
LINE COMMON TO SAID SECTION 24 AND 25 FOR 1704.07 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST
QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 24; THENCE N.01 °08'02 "E.
ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 684.58 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.87 °12'28 "E. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID
FRACTION FOR 340.01 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST
HALF OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE
N.01 °04' 11 "E. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 2052.01 FEET TO THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION AND AN INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH
LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE S.87 °28'21 "W. ALONG
SAID NORTH LINE FOR 2025.64 FEET TO THE QUARTER CORNER COMMON TO SAID
SECTIONS 23 AND 24; THENCE S.89 °01'58 "W. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 23 FOR 1328.51 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID
SECTION; THENCE S.01 °18'52 "W. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 679.65
FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE S.89 °22'00 "W. ALONG
THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 663.28 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.01 °14'38 "E. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR
675.75 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION AND AN INTERSECTION
WITH THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 23; THENCE
S.89 001'58 "W. ALONG SAID NORTH LINE FOR 664.25 FEET; THENCE CONTINUE
S.89 001'58 "W. ALONG SAID LINE FOR 627.16 FEET; THENCE N.01 °01'15 "E. FOR 1699.99
FEET; THENCE S.89 001'58 "W. FOR 701.42 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST
LINE OF A 170 FOOT WIDE FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY EASEMENT;
THENCE S.01 001'15 "W. ALONG SAID EAST LINE FOR 68.31 FEET; THENCE S.89 °01'58 "W.
FOR 1232.97 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST LINE OF LANDS DESCRIBED IN
OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 21, AT PAGE 183 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF SAID COLLIER
COUNTY; THENCE N.00 °51'54 "E. ALONG SAID EAST LINE FOR 956.27 FEET TO AN
INTERSECTION WITH A LINE 30.00 FEET SOUTH OF AND PARALLEL WITH (AS
MEASURED ON A PERPENDICULAR) THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 14; THENCE
N.87 °37'31 "E. ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE FOR 1237.00 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION
5
WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY EASEMENT;
THENCE N.01 001'15 "E. ALONG SAID EAST LINE FOR 30.05 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 14; THENCE N.87 °37'31 "E. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID
FRACTION FOR 1337.24 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 14; THENCE N.00 °48'00 "E. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID
FRACTION FOR 2683.32 TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE EAST HALF OF THE EAST
HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE
S.87 031'38 "W. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 334.19 FEET TO THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.00 °48'11 "E. ALONG THE WEST
LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 1341.38 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID
FRACTION AND AN INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST
QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE 5.87 °28'42 "W.
ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE FOR 1002.41 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID
FRACTION AND AN INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID FLORIDA POWER
AND LIGHT COMPANY EASEMENT; THENCE N.00 °48'45 "E. ALONG SAID WEST AND EAST
LINE FOR 335.13 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE
SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE
5.87 027'58 "W. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 1236.32 FEET TO AN
INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL
RECORDS BOOK 21, AT PAGE 183; THENCE N.00 049'30 "E. ALONG SAID EAST LINE FOR
1004.62 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 11;
THENCE N.00 050'27 "E. ALONG SAID EAST LINE FOR 344.07 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION
WITH THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE N.87 028'56 "E. ALONG SAID NORTH
LINE FOR 1235.95 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE
S.00 049'13 "W. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 342.92 FEET TO THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION AND AN INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH
LINE OF SAID SECTION 14; THENCE N.87 025'45 "E. ALONG SAID NORTH LINE FOR 1336.32
FEET TO THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE CONTINUE
N.87 025'45 "E. ALONG SAID NORTH LINE FOR 668.16 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER
OF THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF
SAID SECTION; THENCE 5.00 047'37 "W. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR
671.11 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 14; THENCE
N.87 027'14 "E. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 668.22 FEET TO THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE 5.00 047'14 "W. ALONG THE EAST
LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 671.39 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID
FRACTION; THENCE N.87 028'42 "E. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH HALF OF
THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 14 1336.55 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER
OF SAID FRACTION AND THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 13; THENCE N.87 030'06 "E. ALONG THE
SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 1328.72 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.00 038'50 "E. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR
1345.26 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION AND THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 12;
THENCE N.00 041'44 "E. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 2707.07 FEET TO
THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.87 °40'34 "E. ALONG THE
NORTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 1321.29 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
SAID FRACTION; THENCE 5.00 °36'23 "W. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR
6
2701.30 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION SAID POINT BEING THE
NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 13; THENCE 5.87 °26'11 "W. ALONG THE
NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION FOR 662.90 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE
WEST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID
SECTION; THENCE 5.00 °35'02 "W. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 1345.93
FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE 5.87 °30'06 "W. ALONG
THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 664.36 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
SAID FRACTION AND SAID SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
THE NORTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE 5.00 038'50 "W. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER
FOR 672.63 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE
N.87 032'03 "E. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 665.09 FEET TO THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE 5.00 °35'02 "W. ALONG THE EAST
LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER FOR 672.97 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID
FRACTION; THENCE 5.87 033'59 "W. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR
665.81 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE 5.00 °38'51 "W.
ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER
FOR 1345.10 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE
5.87 037'27 "W. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 667.27 FEET TO THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE 5.00 °42'40 "W. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID
FRACTION FOR 1344.51 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION AND AN
INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 24; THENCE N.87 040'54 "E.
ALONG SAID NORTH LINE FOR 2006.20 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE 5.00 °56'29 "W. ALONG
THE WEST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 1368.25 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.87 034'58 "E. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION
FOR 1343.68 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE
N.00 041'32 "E. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 1365.31 FEET TO THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.87 °41'38 "E. ALONG THE NORTH
LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER FOR 1337.58 FEET
TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE 5.00 °26'32 "W. ALONG THE
EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION FOR 1703.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE
NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE 5.87 °33'18 "W. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID
FRACTION FOR 672.60 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST
HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE
5.00 034'02 "W. ALONG SAID WEST LINE FOR 1022.89 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER
OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.87 028'21 "E. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION
FOR 674.89 FEET TO THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 19; THENCE
5.88 012'42 "E. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER FOR 3093.52 FEET
TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE 5.03 °39'20 "W. ALONG THE
EAST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 2676.74 FEET TO THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF
SAID SECTION; THENCE N.88 °56'10 "W. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR
2940.59 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE S.87 007'20 "W.
ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 25 FOR
2726.50 FEET TO THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE
S.87 007'13 "W. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER FOR 807.16 FEET;
THENCE 5.03 018'31 "E. FOR 1451.00 FEET; THENCE N.88 056'54 "E. FOR 1582.00 FEET;
7
THENCE 5.00 031'35 "E. FOR 1130.61 FEET; THENCE S.89 °15'59 "E. FOR 1823.18 FEET TO THE
EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE N.89 °57'58 "E. ALONG THE NORTH
LINE OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SAID SECTION 30 FOR 2200.53 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER; THENCE 5.00 °37'14 "W. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR
1344.51 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.89 °34'43 "E.
ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 365.01 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST
QUARTER OF THE WEST HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF; THENCE 5.00 °41'48 "W. ALONG THE
WEST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 671.03 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID
FRACTION; THENCE N.89 °23'00 "E. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR
364.14 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.89 °22'35 "E.
FOR 710.09 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF;
THENCE N.00 052'45 "E. FOR 1334.78 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE EAST
HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE EAST
HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF; THENCE 5.89 °46'12 "W. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID
FRACTION FOR 356.23 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE
N.00 049'34 "E. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF
FOR 668.60 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE
N.89 057'58 "E. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SAID SECTION 30 FOR
2497.82 FEET TO THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE S.01 ° 12'08 "W.
ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION FOR 2640.60
FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
101,084,043 SQUARE FEET OR 2,320.6 ACRES +/-
LESS AND EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCELS:
PARCEL "A"
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST
QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF OF
SAID SECTION 30; THENCE 5.00 °59'10 "W. FOR 1329.95 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER
OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF
THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF; THENCE 5.89 °22'35 "W. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE
OF SAID FRACTION FOR 355.05 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION;
THENCE N.00 055'57 "E. FOR 1332.36 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID EAST
HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE EAST
HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF; THENCE N.89 °46'12 "E. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID
FRACTION FOR 356.23 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
473,270 SQUARE FEET OR 10.9 ACRES +/-
PARCEL "B"
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTEROF SAID SECTION 24; THENCE N.87 °28'21 "E. ALONG THE NORTH
LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 1349.77 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID
FRACTION; THENCE S.00 °40' 10 "W. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR
1361.17 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE S.87 °17'48 "W.
ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 1356.51 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.00 °56'29 "E. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID
FRACTION FOR 682.86 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE EAST HALF OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER;
THENCE S.87 023'02 "W. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 338.41 FEET TO
THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.01 °00'20 "E. ALONG THE WEST
LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 683.43 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID
FRACTION; THENCE N.87 °28'21 "E. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR
337.61 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
2,072,100 SQUARE FEET OR 47.6 ACRES +/-
B. GENERAL LOCATION East of Collier Boulevard near the intersection of Raftlesnake
Hammock Road, Collier County Florida.
C. PLANNING COMMUNITY: Royal Fakalpalm D. TAZ: 351
E. SIZE IN ACRES 2262.14 +/- acres (Total Project) F. ZONING A, Rural Agricultural
District, PUD, Swamp Buggy Days A ST Rural Agricultural District with Special Treatment
overlay
G. SURROUNDING LAND USE PATTERN Commercial excavation, institutional rehabilitation and
church, hospital and medical offices agricultural and residential land uses State and private
undeveloped lands.
H. FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION(S) " Urban Designation, Mixed Use District Urban
Residential Fringe Subdistrict; Urban Designation Commercial District Mixed Use Activity
Center #7 Subdistrict; and Agricultural /Rural Designation Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District
IV. TYPE OF REQUEST:
A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN ELEMENT (S) TO BE AMENDED:
Housing Element
Traffic Circulation Sub - Element
Aviation Sub - Element
Sanitary Sewer Sub - Element
Solid Waste Sub - Element
Capital Improvement Element
x Future Land Use Element
Immokalee Master Plan
Recreation /Open Space
Mass Transit Sub - Element
Potable Water Sub - Element
NGWAR Sub - Element
Drainage Sub - Element
X CCME Element
Golden Gate Master Plan
B. AMEND PAGE (S) 29, 50, 52, 53, 56, 57, 77, 78 OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT and PAGE 21
OF THE Conservation and Coastal Management - ELEMENT AS FOLLOWS: (Use- 11 . 00
identify language to be deleted; Use Underline to Identify language to be added). Attach
additional pages if necessary: See Attachment A
C. AMEND FUTURE LAND USE MAP(S) DESIGNATION FROM Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict TO
Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict (increasing the existing Activity Center by 9.16 acres to
recapture acreage presently used in support of the Physician's Regional Medical Center (for
medical uses).
D. AMEND OTHER MAP(S) AND EXHIBITS AS FOLLOWS: (Name & Page #)
E. DESCRIBE ADDITINAL CHANGES REQUESTED:
V. REQUIRED INFORMATION:
NOTE: ALL AERIALS MUST BE AT A SCALE OF NO SMALLER THAN I" =400'. At least one copy reduced to 8-
1 /2 x 1 1 shall be provided of all aerials and /or maps.
A. LAND USE
Exhibit E Provide general location map showing surrounding developments (PUD,
DRI's, existing zoning) with subject property outlined.
Exhibit K Provide most recent aerial of site showing subject boundaries, source, and
date.
Exhibit H Provide a map and summary table of existing land use and zoning within
a radius of 300 feet from boundaries of subject property.
B. FUTURE LAND USE AND DESIGNATION
Exhibit G Provide map of existing Future Land Use Designation (s) of subject property
and adjacent lands, with acreage totals for each land use designation on
the subject property.
C. ENVIRONMENTAL
Exhibit M Provide most recent aerial and summary table of acreage of native
habitats and soils occurring on site. HABITAT IDENTIFICATION MUST BE
CONSISTENT WITH THE FDOT- FLORIDA LAND USE, COVER AND FORMS
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (FLUCCS CODE). NOTE: THIS MAY BE INDICATED
ON SAME AERIAL AS THE LAND USE AERIAL IN "A" ABOVE.
Exhibit M Provide a summary table of Federal (US Fish & Wildlife Service) and State
(Florida Game & Freshwater Fish Commission) listed plant and animal
species known to occur on the site and /or known to inhabit biological
communities similar to the site (e.g. panther or black bear range, avian
rookery, bird migratory route, etc.).
Exhibit O Identify historic and /or archaeological sites on the subject property.
D. GROWTH MANAGEMENT
Reference 9J- 11.006, F.A.C. and Collier County's Capital Improvements Element
Policy 1.1.2 (Copies attached).
1. INSERT "Y" FOR YES OR "N" FOR NO IN RESPONSF Tn THE Fni 1 nwimr-- --
L
N Is the proposed amendment located in an Area of Critical State
Concern? (Reference 9J -1 1.006(1)(a)(5), F.A.C.). IF so, identify area
located in ACSC.
Y Is the proposed amendment directly related to a proposed
Development of Regional Impact pursuant to Chapter 380 F.S. ?
(Reference 9J- 11.006(1)(a)7.a, F.A.C.)
N Is the proposed amendment directly related to a proposed Small Scale
Development Activity pursuant to Subsection 163.3187 (1) (c), F.S. ?
(Reference 9J -1 1.006(l)(a)7.b, F.A.C.)
N Does the proposed amendment
create a significant impact in population which is defined as a potential
increase in County -wide population by more than 5% of population
projections? (Reference Capital Improvement Element Policy 1.1.2). If
yes, indicate mitigation measures being proposed in conjunction with the
proposed amendment.
Y Does the proposed land use cause an increase in density and /or intensity
to the uses permitted in a specific land use designation and district
identified (commercial, industrial, etc.) or is the proposed land use a
new land use designation or district? (Reference Rule 9J- 5.006(5) F.A.C.).
If so, provide data and analysis to support the suitability of land for the
proposed use, and of environmentally sensitive land, ground water and
natural resources. (Reference Rule 9-1-11.007, F.A.C.)
PUBLIC FACILITIES
i . Provide the existing Level of Service Standard (LOS) and document the
impact the proposed change will have on the following public facilities:
Exhibit L Potable Water
Exhibit L Sanitary Sewer
Exhibit N Arterial & Collector Roads; Name specific road and LOS
Exhibit L Drainage
Exhibit L Solid Waste
Exhibit L Parks: Community and Regional
If the proposed amendment involves an increase in residential density, or an
increase in intensity for commercial and /or industrial development that would
cause the LOS for public facilities to fall below the adopted LOS, indicate mitigation
measures being proposed in conjunction with the proposed amendment.
(Reference Capital Improvement Element Objective 1 and Policies)
2. Exhibit I Provide a map showing the location of existing services and public
facilities that will serve the subject property (i.e. water, sewer, fire
protection, police protection, schools and emergency medical services.
3. Exhibit I & J Document proposed services and public facilities, identify provider, and
describe the effect the proposed change will have on schools, fire
protection and emergency medical services.
F. OTHER
Identify the following areas relating to the subject property:
Zone X Flood zone based on Flood Insurance Rate Map data (FIRM).
N/A Location of wellfields and cones of influence, if applicable. (Identified on
11
Collier County Zoning Maps)
N/A Traffic Congestion Boundary, if applicable
N/A Coastal Management Boundary, if applicable
N/A High Noise Contours (65 LDN or higher) surrounding the Naples Airport, if
applicable (identified on Collier County Zoning Maps).
G. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
X $16,700.00 non - refundable filing fee made payable to the Board of County
Commissioners due at time of submittal. (Plus proportionate share of advertising costs)
$9,000.00 non - refundable filing fee for a Small Scale Amendment made
payable to the Board of County Commissioners due at time of submittal.
(Plus proportionate share of advertising costs)
Exhibit D Proof of ownership (copy of deed)
Notarized Letter of Authorization if Agent is not the Owner (See attached form)
X 1 Original and 5 complete, signed applications with all attachments including
maps, at time of submittal. After sufficiency is completed, 25 copies of the
complete application will be required.
* Maps shall include: North arrow, name and location of principal roadways and shall be
at a scale of 1 " =400' or at a scale as determined during the pre - application meeting.
IK
Hacienda Lakes
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description
GMP Application
CCPC Review Materials
I A[A 'Nc
.I \c %iwal iali�n
COAF I'LTIAG Enp-,ing
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF
COLLIER, LYING IN SECTION 11 THROUGH 14 AND 23 THROUGH 25, TOWNSHIP 50
SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST AND SECTION 19 AND 30, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 27
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING FURTHER BOUND AND DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 30; THENCE
S.89 010'42 "W. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION FOR 2835.68 FEET TO THE
SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE S.89 °11'14 "W. ALONG SAID
SOUTH LINE FOR 2906.24 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 25;
THENCE S.89 009'39 "W. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION FOR 2693.18
FEET TO THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE S.89 °11'01 "W.
ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE FOR 2693.80 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
SAID SECTION; THENCE N.00 °13'35 "W. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION
FOR 2636.34 FEET TO THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE
N.00 014'15 "W. ALONG SAID WEST LINE FOR 2637.01 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE N.87 °07'13 "E. ALONG A LINE COMMON TO
SAID SECTION 24 AND 25 FOR 1704.07 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE
EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 24; THENCE N.01 °08'02 "E. ALONG THE
EAST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 684.58 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.87 °12'28 "E. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID
FRACTION FOR 340.01 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE WEST LINE OF THE
EAST HALF OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION;
THENCE N.01 °04' 11 "E. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 2052.01
FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION AND AN INTERSECTION
WITH THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION;
THENCE S.87 °28'21 "W. ALONG SAID NORTH LINE FOR 2025.64 FEET TO THE
QUARTER CORNER COMMON TO SAID SECTIONS 23 AND 24; THENCE S.89 °01'58 "W.
ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 23 FOR
1328.51 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE S.01 018'52 "W. ALONG THE
WEST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 679.65 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST
QUARTER; THENCE S.89 °22'00 "W. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION
FOR 663.28 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE
N.01 014'38 "E. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 675.75 FEET TO THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION AND AN INTERSECTION WITH THE
NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 23; THENCE
S.89 °01'58 "W. ALONG SAID NORTH LINE FOR 664.25 FEET; THENCE CONTINUE
S.89 001'58 "W. ALONG SAID LINE FOR 627.16 FEET; THENCE N.01 °01'15 "E. FOR 1699.99
FEET; THENCE S.89 °01'58 "W. FOR 701.42 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE
EAST LINE OF A 170 FOOT WIDE FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY
EASEMENT; THENCE S.01 °01'15 "W. ALONG SAID EAST LINE FOR 68.31 FEET;
THENCE 5.89 001'58 "W. FOR 1232.97 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST
LINE OF LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 21, AT PAGE 183 OF THE
PUBLIC RECORDS OF SAID COLLIER COUNTY; THENCE N.00 051'54 "E. ALONG SAID
EAST LINE FOR 956.27 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH A LINE 30.00 FEET SOUTH
OF AND PARALLEL WITH (AS MEASURED ON A PERPENDICULAR) THE SOUTH
LINE OF SAID SECTION 14; THENCE N.87 °37'31 "E. ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE
FOR 1237.00 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID FLORIDA
POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY EASEMENT; THENCE N.01 °01'15 "E. ALONG SAID
EAST LINE FOR 30.05 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTH HALF OF
THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 14;
THENCE N.87 °37'31 "E. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 1337.24
FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID
SECTION 14; THENCE N.00 °48'00 "E. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR
2683.32 TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE EAST HALF OF THE EAST HALF OF
THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE 5.87 °31'38 "W.
ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 334.19 FEET TO THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.00 °48'11 "E. ALONG THE
WEST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 1341.38 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
SAID FRACTION AND AN INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION;
THENCE S.87 028'42 "W. ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE FOR 1002.41 FEET TO THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION AND AN INTERSECTION WITH THE
EAST LINE OF SAID FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY EASEMENT; THENCE
N.00 048'45 "E. ALONG SAID WEST AND EAST LINE FOR 335.13 FEET TO THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE S.87 °27'58 "W.
ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 1236.32 FEET TO AN
INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL
RECORDS BOOK 21, AT PAGE 183; THENCE N.00 °49'30 "E. ALONG SAID EAST LINE
FOR 1004.62 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION
11; THENCE N.00 050'27 "E. ALONG SAID EAST LINE FOR 344.07 FEET TO AN
INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF
OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE
N.87 028'56 "E. ALONG SAID NORTH LINE FOR 1235.95 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE 5.00 °49'13 "W. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF
SAID FRACTION FOR 342.92 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION
AND AN INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 14; THENCE
N.87 025'45 "E. ALONG SAID NORTH LINE FOR 1336.32 FEET TO THE NORTH
QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE CONTINUE N.87 °25'45 "E. ALONG
SAID NORTH LINE FOR 668.16 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE WEST
HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID
SECTION; THENCE 5.00 047'37 "W. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR
671.11 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 14; THENCE
N.87 027'14 "E. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 668.22 FEET TO THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE 5.00 °47'14 "W. ALONG THE
EAST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 671.39 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.87 °28'42 "E. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH
HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 14 1336.55 FEET TO THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION AND THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 13;
THENCE N.87 030'06 "E. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 1328.72
FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.00 °38'50 "E.
ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 1345.26 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF SAID FRACTION AND THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE EAST HALF
OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 12; THENCE N.00 °41'44 "E. ALONG
THE WEST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 2707.07 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.87 °40'34 "E. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF
SAID FRACTION FOR 1321.29 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID
FRACTION; THENCE S.00 °36'23 "W. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR
2701.30 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION SAID POINT BEING
THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 13; THENCE S.87 °26'11 "W.
ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION FOR 662.90 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE S.00 °35'02 "W. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF
SAID FRACTION FOR 1345.93 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID
FRACTION; THENCE S.87 °30'06 "W. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION
FOR 664.36 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION AND SAID
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER; THENCE S.00 °38'50 "W. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER FOR
672.63 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE
N.87 032'03 "E. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 665.09 FEET TO THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE S.00 °35'02 "W. ALONG THE EAST
LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER FOR 672.97 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID
FRACTION; THENCE S.87 °33'59 "W. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION
FOR 665.81 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE
S.00 °38'51 "W. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER FOR 1345.10 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID
FRACTION; THENCE S.87 °37'27 "W. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION
FOR 667.27 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE EAST HALF OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE S.00 °42'40 "W.
ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 1344.51 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF SAID FRACTION AND AN INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH LINE OF
SAID SECTION 24; THENCE N.87 °40'54 "E. ALONG SAID NORTH LINE FOR 2006.20
FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE S.00 °56'29 "W. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID
FRACTION FOR 1368.25 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION;
THENCE N.87 034'58 "E. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 1343.68
FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.00 °41'32 "E.
ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 1365.31 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.87 °41'38 "E. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF
THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER FOR 1337.58 FEET TO
THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE S.00 °26'32 "W. ALONG THE
EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION FOR 1703.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER
OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE S.87 °33'18 "W. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF
SAID FRACTION FOR 672.60 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE WEST LINE OF
THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER;
THENCE S.00 034'02 "W. ALONG SAID WEST LINE FOR 1022.89 FEET TO THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.87 °28'21 "E. ALONG THE
SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 674.89 FEET TO THE WEST QUARTER
CORNER OF SAID SECTION 19; THENCE S.88 012'42 "E. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF
THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER FOR 3093.52 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
SAID FRACTION; THENCE S.03 °39'20 "W. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID FRACTION
FOR 2676.74 FEET TO THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE
N.88 056'10 "W. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 2940.59 FEET TO
THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE S.87 °07'20 "W. ALONG THE
NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 25 FOR 2726.50
FEET TO THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE S.87 °07'13 "W.
ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER FOR 807.16 FEET;
THENCE S.03 018'31 "E. FOR 1451.00 FEET; THENCE N.88 °56'54 "E. FOR 1582.00 FEET;
THENCE S.00 031'35 "E. FOR 1130.61 FEET; THENCE S.89 °15'59 "E. FOR 1823.18 FEET TO
THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE N.89 °57'58 "E. ALONG
THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SAID SECTION 30 FOR 2200.53 FEET TO
THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF
THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE S.00 °37'14 "W. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF
SAID FRACTION FOR 1344.51 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID
FRACTION; THENCE N.89 °34'43 "E. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION
FOR 365.01 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE EAST HALF OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE WEST HALF OF THE
SOUTH HALF; THENCE S.00 041'48 "W. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID FRACTION
FOR 671.03 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE
N.89 023'00 "E. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 364.14 FEET TO THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.89 °22'35 "E. FOR 710.09 FEET
TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER
OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF; THENCE
N.00 052'45 "E. FOR 1334.78 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE EAST HALF
OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE EAST
HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF; THENCE S.89 046'12 "W. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF
SAID FRACTION FOR 356.23 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID
FRACTION; THENCE N.00 °49'34 "E. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST HALF OF
THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE EAST HALF
OF THE SOUTH HALF FOR 668.60 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID
FRACTION; THENCE N.89 °57'58 "E. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH HALF
OF SAID SECTION 30 FOR 2497.82 FEET TO THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID
SECTION; THENCE S.01 °12'08 "W. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST
QUARTER OF SAID SECTION FOR 2640.60 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
101,084,043 SQUARE FEET OR 2,320.6 ACRES +/-
LESS AND EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCELS:
PARCEL "A"
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST
QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTH
HALF OF SAID SECTION 30; THENCE S.00 °59'10 "W. FOR 1329.95 FEET TO THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF; THENCE
S.89 022'35 "W. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 355.05 FEET TO
THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.00 055'57 "E. FOR 1332.36
FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST
QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTH
HALF; THENCE N.89 °46'12 "E. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR
356.23 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
473,270 SQUARE FEET OR 10.9 ACRES +/-
PARCEL "B"
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTEROF SAID SECTION 24; THENCE N.87 °28'21 "E. ALONG THE
NORTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 1349.77 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER
OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE S.00 °40'10 "W. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID
FRACTION FOR 1361.17 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION;
THENCE S.87 017'48 "W. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 1356.51
FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.00 056'29 "E.
ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 682.86 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST
QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE S.87 °23'02 "W. ALONG THE
SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 338.41 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.01 °00'20 "E. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID FRACTION
FOR 683.43 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE
N.87 028'21 "E. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 337.61 FEET TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING.
2,072,100 SQUARE FEET OR 47.6 ACRES +/-
REV 6 -24 -10
Pacienda Lakes
Corby Schmidt, P incipal Planner
EXHIBIT B
Legal Documents
GP Application
CCPC R view Materials
K / \i n16C.v".lizatim
t Q:`; cIA_Tlti(� Enpinetring
1 \ 1 Il J SU-PRc
AFFIDA VIT
I David E. Torres. (Manager of Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC.) being
first duly sworn, depose and say that Wilton Land Company, LLC is the owner of the
property described herein and which is the subject matter of the proposed hearing; that
all the answers to the questions in this application, including the disclosure of interest
information, all sketches, data, and other supplementary matter attached to and made a
part of this application, are honest and true to the best of our knowledge and belief. Well
understand that the information requested on this application must be complete and
accurate and that the content of this form, whether computer generated, or County
printed shall not be altered. Public hearings will not be advertised until this application
is deemed complete, and all required information has been submitted.
As contract purchaser via option, I further authorize Dwight Nadeau of RWA, Inc. to act
as my representative in any matters regarding this Petition.
Hacir-a_da Lakes of Naples, LLC
David E. Torres, Manager
Typed or Printed Name of avmer
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
2010, by who is personally known to me or has produced
identification.
day of WAA,� ,
as
Qw���
State of Florida (Signature of Notary Public - State of Florida)
County of Collier
Notary Stamp: 1 ANNA ROSA
MY COMMISSION R DO 599004
7 EXPIRES: October 13,2010
Bonded Rn Noury PUW Uedorwi ters
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
I hereby authorize RWA, I
To serve as my A t in req
property identif dint Apply'
Signed:
David
Hacie
I hereby certify th
correct and co fete to
Signed:
David Torres, NVanager
Hacienda La
LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION
es, LLC.
'LLC.
(Name of Agent — typed or printed)
endAe Collier County Growth Management Plan affecting the
Date: 3 121.2- II D
to mak,p(,the foregoing application, and that the application is true,
STATE OF (Florida)
COUNTY OF (Collier) !�
Sworn to and subscribed before me this C9W day of
By: 14AA -2-'-
(Notary Public)
CHOOySE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:
who is personally known to me,
who has produced
and
did take an Oath
did not take an Oath
3 /zz�l
Date: oy
_hq#k tA_
MY COMMISS
NOTICE — BE AWARE THAT:
, 2010.
_.__. AN14A ROSA
+r.++:arlaN DD 599oo4
aubk ur derwraars
as identification
Florida Statute Section 837.06 — False Official Statements Law states that: "Whoever knowingly
makes a false statement in writing with the intent to mislead a public servant in the performance
of his official duty shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided
by a fine to a maximum of $500.00 and /or maximum of a sixty day jail term."
QA2005 \050150.02.03 Hacienda Lakes MPUD- DRI -ERP \0001 General Cons ultation \000A - Subtask 1.1 General Consultation - PlanninglLegal
Hacienda LaLcs
of Napics
March 17, 2010
George P. Bauer
Manager
Wilton Land Company, LLC
206 Dudley Rd
Wilton, CT 06897
Re: Wilton Land Company lands in Collier County subject to option to purchase by Hacienda Lakes of Naples
Dear Mr. Bauer:
As you are aware, pursuant to the option agreement between Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC (hereinafter
referred to as "Hacienda ") and Wilton Land Company, LLC (hereinafter referred to as "Wilton "), Hacienda has been
authorized to pursue governmental approvals necessary to develop the lands owned by Wilton in Collier County.
The purpose of this letter is to request that Wilton, owner of the lands described in the attached legal
description, confirm that it has authorized Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC represented by David E. Torres as
Manager, to pursue all permitting matters associated with the subject property and any related applications.
Please execute below to confirm the above noted authorization.
Sincer Porres
David 9-1/
Manager, Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC
Agreed to:
r
George . Bauer, Manager
Wilton Land Company, LLC.
State of I-1-
County of r�,TC CkA
George P. Bauer, Manager of Wilton Land Company, LLC, being subscribed and sworn to before me
this _17"�\ day of DD(,.,C -i- 2010
Notary Public
Notary Public CJ-
My of
My commission Expire MARTHA B. MEEHAN
NOTARY PUBLIC
I lY COMMISSiO,y EXPIRES MAR. 31, ?.G',:
Hacienda Lakes
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
GMP Application
CCPC Review Materials
EXHIBIT C
Narrative Statement
CO \S!- C, "I1V J agiwee g
1 \ 1 11 Sum, u,
Hacienda Lakes, LLC
GMP Amendment
EXHIBIT C: NARRATIVE STATEMENT
This amendment is submitted in conjunction with the Hacienda Lakes DRI application ( "Project ").
The Project is located east of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951) near the intersection of Rattlesnake
Hammock Road, within Sections 12, 13, 14, 23, 24, and 25, Township 50 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida and Sections 19 and 30, Township 50 South, Range 27 East, Collier County,
Florida (See Exhibit "E" - Vicinity Map). The Project contains property designated Urban, Mixed
Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Sub - district (625.07 acres) and Rural Fringe Sending Lands
Sub - district (1,637.07 acres). The total acreage of the DRI is 2,262.14 + /- acres. The adjacent
properties include Willow Run Quart' to the north; vacant lands to the east, Hammock Park
Commerce Center, Collier Regional Medical Center, First Assembly Ministries Education and Rehab,
the Rockedge PUD to the west; and Winding Cypress and vacant lands south (See Exhibit "G" -
Future Lands Use Map). The subject property is zoned "A" and "PUD" (see Exhibit "H" - Zoning
and Land Use Map). The subject property includes the existing Swamp Buggy Days PUD. The
property is located within Flood Zone "X" as verified through the National Flood Insurance Program
Flood Insurance Rate Map Number 12021 C061 0G, Panel 610 or 1150.
The DRI application provides for the following:
• maximum 1,760 residential dwelling units;
• maximum of 327,500 +/- square feet of retail (convenience, general and specialty retail), and
70,000 square feet of professional office space, a 135 room hotel, 140,000 square feet of business
park or school, and an elementary school to serve up to 919 students;
Note: The relocation of the Swamp Buggy and Junior Deputy facilities is no longer proposed as
part of this DRI /PUD application.
The DRI includes 1,543.03 +/- acres of preserve, which includes both uplands and wetlands. The
development area is limited to 673.11 +/- acres. The site includes a number of identified
archeological sites, all of which fall within preserve areas.
The project furthers the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District objectives by severing TDRs from 1,016,02
+/- acres of qualified or eligible TDRs (from Sending lands located within one mile of the urban
boundary) Sending Lands, which will be placed under a permanent conservation easement and
ultimately deeded to a public entity (such as the SFWMD or Division of Forestry).
Additionally, there are several GMP amendments accompanying the DRI, proposing the following:
Future Land Use Man (FLUM) Chance:
The amendment proposes to reconfigure the boundary and size of the southeast quadrant of mixed
Activity Center Number 7 by adding +/- 9.16 acres of land located adjacent to and east of the 27.51
acres within the DRI that is presently within the Activity Center. The Collier Regional Medical
Center PUD contains the southernmost 9.16 +/- acres of this quadrant. The hospital related uses
located on those 9.61 +/- acres did not require the Activity Center designation. This land is not being
utilized for Mixed Use Activity Center type uses, such as residential or commercial retail and office
uses. Therefore, the Activity Center boundary is proposed to be reconfigured to increase the present
boundary and increase the southeast quadrant size by +/ -9.16 acres.
Q:\2005 \050150.02.03 Hacienda Lakes MPUD - DRI- ERP\0004 GMP Amendment \Subtask 4.2 GMP Amendment Application Support \Substantive
Review \2010- 07- 19_Revised Narrative_Exhibit_C rjm (clean).docx
Reconfiguring the activity center boundaries to recapture the 9.16 acres of land (within the Collier
Regional Medical Center and Activity Center # 7, and which is not being utilized for typical Activity
Center uses) make very good planning sense and furthers the objective of the FLUE related to mixed
use activity centers.
Moreover, Activity Center # 7 is a designated Mixed Use Activity Center, and as such, the boundaries
of any quadrant may be reconfigured (if a property owner controls a majority of the activity center
land within the respective quadrant). That is the case with respect to this southeast quadrant. As
justification for this reconfiguration, we offer the following supporting data:
At their inception, Activity Centers were created at major intersections, with each quadrant containing
40 acres for a total size of 160 acres. The actual size of many activity centers has been adjusted to
reflect the actual land uses in developed or partially developed activity centers. Activity Center # 7
has not been remapped or updated. However, Activity Center # 7, was actually increased in size
when an additional 19 acres was added ilmnediately adjacent and to the east boundary of the
northeast quadrant (the FLUE provides for a maximum of 40 acres of commercial or mixed use
within each quadrant, except the northeast quadrant, which is 59 acres. The additional 19 acres has
very limited total developable square footage and very and very specific land uses, which are also
limited as to square footage.. The Flue reads as follows [underline added for emphasis]:
The maximum amount of commercial uses allowed at Activity
Center #7 (Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier
Boulevard) is 40 acres per quadrant, except that the northeast
quadrant may have a total of 59 acres, for a total of 179 acres
maximum in the entire Activity Center; the balance of the land
area shall be limited to non - commercial uses as allowed in
Mixed Use Activity Centers. With respect to the +/- 19 acres in
the northeast quadrant of Activity Center #7, said acreage
lying adiacent to the east of the Hammock Park Commerce
Center PUD, commercial development (exclusive of the
allowed "1/4 mile support medical uses ") shall be limited to a
total of 185,000 square feet of the following uses: personal
indoor self - storage facilities — this use shall occupy no greater
than 50% of the total (185,000) building square feet; offices for
various contractor /builder construction trade specialists
inclusive of the offices of related professional disciplines and
services that typically serve those construction businesses or
otherwise assist in facilitating elements of a building and
related infrastructure, including but not limited to architects,
engineers, land surveyors and attorneys — these offices of
related professional disciplines and services shall occupy no
greater than 50% of the total (185,000) building square feet;
warehouse space for various contractor /builder construction
trades occupants; mortgage and land title companies; related
businesses including but not limited to lumber and other
building materials dealers, paint, glass, and wallpaper stores,
garden supply stores — all as accessory uses only, accessory to
offices for various contractor /builder construction trade
Q:12005 \050150.02.03 Hacienda Lakes MPUD- DRI -ERP \0004 GMP Amendment \Subtask 4.2 GMP Amendment Application Support \Substantive
Review\ 2010- 07- 19_Revised_Narrative_Exhibit_C rjm (clean).docx
2
specialists or accessory to warehouse space for various
contractor /builder construction trades occupants; management
associations of various types of buildings or provision of
services to buildings /properties; and fitness centers
The usable size of the overall activity center, when non - commercial uses (pure residential, ROW
(both existing and proposed as part of the Hacienda Village PUD DRI, and the FPL major
transmission line easement) are subtracted is 126.61 acres. For the southeast quadrant, as we propose
to revise the boundary, the usable acres remaining after the FPL easement and all ROW (existing and
proposed are subtracted) is 31.42 acres, but practically speaking, the usable size remains 22.26 acres
when the 9.16 acres of hospital related Collier Medical Center PUD land is subtracted.
In conclusion, by recapturing the 9.16 acres that is not being utilized for activity center type uses
(retail and office or mixed commercial and residential), the quadrants size is restored to 31.42 acres of
lands for Mixed Use Activity Center type uses. This is surely not "oversized ", and will allow for well
planned and designed mixed use activity center, that meets the intent, in terms of both use and size,
for mixed use activity centers set forth in the FLUE, and will serve the project's residents as well as
nearby residents and visitors.
Table I: Activity Center Acreage: Existing and Proposed
AC Acreage
Overall AC
Acreage Used for ROW,
Total
Breakdown
Acreage
FPL Easement, and Pure
Usable for
Residential Acres Are
AC Uses
Subtracted
Overall Activity Center
184.83
58.21
126.62
Southeast Quadrant
41.42
19.16*
22.26
Overall Activity Center Size
with Proposed 9.16 Acre
193.99
58.21
135.78
Reconfiguration
Southeast Quadrant with
Proposed 9.16 Acre
50.58
19.16*
31.42
Reconfiguration
mciudes nospitai acreage.
For the purposes of the public facility impact analysis, the additional 9.16 acres is to allow for
additional Activity Center commercial uses. The total maximum square footage of commnercial
activity center land use requested in the DRI is 397,000 square feet (327,000 square feet of retail and
70,000 square feet of office and a hotel with up to 135 rooms). Note: there is also a proposed
Business Park consisting of up to 140,000 square feet. The Business Park does not require the
Activity Center designation and is not be located with the Activity Center, but is located so as to
buffer future residential development from the existing Swamp Buggy Days PUD uses. The overall
controlling limitation on density and intensity within this DRI/PUD is the maximum trip
generation which cannot exceed 3,328 PM Peak Hour Trips. Using this as the controlling
limitation provides market flexibility while still addressing the maximum allowable overall
density and intensity.
Q\2005\050150.02.03 Hacienda Lakes MPUD- DRI- ERP'0004 GMP Amendment \Subtask 4.2 GMP Amendment Application Support\Substantive
Review', 2010- 07- 19_Revised_Narrative_Exhibit_C rim (clean).docx
3
11
r.--1
I�iiiii� ►iiiiiiiiiiiifiii�i�i�i� : • • • •
�iiiiiiiii�i� --♦��iiii��iiiiiiiiiiii��� / .r►,�� • • • - • • • • • J
�iiiii��♦iiiiiiiiii��/ • •• •• •• • •-• ••
i50 iiiiirliiiiiii�l�
��iiiiiiiiilri�� • • • • -
''�ii�iiiiiiiiiii i�!i! +iiii�ii�
.5� VW,, Oiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii�li
♦f
OWN � * f f
cif OWN WWWWiif•i�f.���
f•�If+f•f �iif �f �� FAR
♦f•iifiiiiif�� �. -�
RATn.ESrwcE ra�ocK_ -,emu
ID
ID
a
86
w►rn�sw4KE Ha�"_°cK EXT. f
X024
ACRES
November 11, 2010 105 PM 0: \2005 \050150.02.03 Hacienda Lakes -IJD -D -FRP \0001 General C-- ftaii —\000A - Sub[ask 1.1 General Consulfalion - Planning \Exbt \050150020JP %ZS.tlwg
CLIENT:
6610 Willow Perk DdM SJ1e 200 HACIENDA LAKES OF NAPLES, L.L.C.
Nq*W FW& 34108 =
DRAWN: H.wJ. 5 -a -lo CoNSULTINQ GvDBo�e�rg FAX: Iz3st i-o ie5 TITLE: ACTIVITY CENTER #7
w.N 5.4.10 i %� t tl A, EXHIBIT 1
HACIENDA LAKES
050150.02.03 1 of 1 051500
LEGEND:
ACTIVITY CENTER #7 (± 184.83 AC)
QUADRANT BOUNDARIES
N.W. QUAD ( ±39.88 AC)
N.E. QUAD ( ±64.56 AC)
S.W. QUAD (±38.97 AC)
S.E. QUAD ( ±41.42 AC)
PROPERTY APPRAISER PARCELS
--
ACTIVITY CENTER LANDS FOR
OFFICE /RETAIL USES (t 127.1 1 AC)
ACTIVITY CENTER LANDS FOR
NUI\J-UUMMFRCIAt-U`5t5 (±25.E39 AC
ACTIVITY CENTER LANDS IN PUBLIC
RIGHT —OF —WAY ( ±22.18 AC)
ACTIVITY CENTER LANDS IN PUBLIC
RIGHT —OF —WAY (±1.64 AC)
®
FPL EASEMENT (±10.52 AC)
HACIENDA LAKES
050150.02.03 1 of 1 051500
Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Amendments:
One of the GMP FLUE amendments seeks to increase the maximum allowable density that may be
achieved within the Urban Residential Fringe (URF) portion of the project. Presently the maximum
allowable base density within the URF is 1.5 units per acre. That number may be increased to 2.5
units per acre with qualified or eligible TDRs (TDRS severed from lands located within the Rural
Fringe Mixed Use District Sending designation located within one mile of the Urban Boundary).
This amendment would allow that 2.5 unit per acre cap to be exceeded within this DRI /PUD by
allowing for greater utilization of eligible TDRs from the project, but with an overall cap on the
increase of 0.30 additional units per acre (for an overall cap of 2.80 gross units per acre for URF
lands within the project).
This minor increase in density is well justified (since it will be located in the urban area where there
are more than adequate public facilities and services) and in no way does it alter or diminish the
intent of the one mile restriction in that the additional TDRs will still be required to come from those
lands. Moreover, it is further limited to additional TDRs within one mile of the urban boundary that
are also generated from lands within the project itself. This really should be a "no brainer" in that it
allows for use of more TDRs by allowing for a 0.30 unit per acre increase in density in the urban area.
This furthers the programs overall objectives of protecting valuable habitat and wetlands,
compensating owners of Sending lands, through a viable and marketable TDR program, for loss of
value associated with the loss of property rights on Sending lands. As to the intent of URF providing
a lower density and intensity buffer between the urban are and the rural area, that policy intent is still
achieved with the project significant buffer units Sending Lands preserve areas stretching across the
entire eastern portion of the project from north to south, buffering the Sending lands and existing and
likely future "public lands" from the project's development area.
As to the amount of requested increased density within the URF Subdistrict, we offer the following.
We have identified a maximum project density without the GMPA of 1662.56 units (See Dwelling
Unit Entitlement Summary and TDR Sending Exhibit below). When TDRs (limited to the Early
Entry and Base TDRs) from the 27.67 acres of sending land reserved for the Benfield Road ROW are
subtracted, that leaves 187.75 "eligible" TDRs that cannot be utilized under the current URF 2.5 unit
per acre maxiinum density limitation. In order to utilize all or a portion of these TDRs, a minor
increase in allowable URF density equating to 0.30 units per acre (from 2.50 to 2.80 units per acre) is
necessary. Also, in order to address staff concerns related to the potential applicability of the
proposed density increase to other lands that straddle the URF and Sending designations, we have
limited the applicability of the proposed amendment to the subject property. The overall gross project
density calculates to 0.78 units per acre.
This proposed amendment will not result in a significant increase in density in the Urban Residential
Fringe, but will allow for the use of all project generated TDRs, furthering that program's objectives
to compensate Sending land owners, and to preserve important Sending lands. It is important to note
that the request is not a typical request for additional density, but rather for a small amount of
additional receiving capacity. The density associated with these eligible TDRs are not new dwelling
units, as they already exist and are accounted for in the GMP.
With the proposed FLUE Amendment allowing for utilization of eligible TDRs but limited to an
additional 0.156 unit per acre density increase (for a total allowable density in URF lands of 2.656
units per acre, the density within the DRI is as follows:
Q:'2005\050150.02.03 Hacienda Lakes MPUD- DRI -ERP \0004 GMP Amendmen('Subtask 4.2 GMP Amendment Application Support \Substantive
Review\ 2010- 07- 19_Revised_Narrative_Exhibit_C rjm (clean).docx
4
Hacienda Lakes DRI /MPUD
Dwelling Unit Entitlement Summary
Acres Calculation Ratio Total Units
Density Calculation with no GMP Amendments
Base Density Calculation (FLUE)
Urban Residential Fringe (URF) Density
excluding
business park acreage
552.1
1.5 per acre
828.15
Urban Residential Fringe TDR lift (receiving
capacity)
552.1
1 per acre
552.10
Activity Center Density
36.67
1.5 per acre
55.01
Activity Center TDR lift (receiving capacity)
36.67
7 1 per acre
36.67
Business Park
36.3
0 per acre
0.00
Business Park TDR lift (receiving capacity)
36.3
1 per acre
36.30
Total Density in Urban Residential Fringe
(Base Density only computed on lands other
than business park)
625.07
1508.23
Sending Lands (FLUE)
Total Sending Area
1637.07
Sending Area to be Developed or within
Benfield ROW
127.82
1 per 40 acres
3.20
Total Density created by Sending Lands
3.20
Density Bonus via Mitigation Activities
(LDC 3.05.07. F.4. b. iii)
Density Bonus via excess Mitigation
Activities
10% bonus to residential
density
151.14
Total Units Without GMP Amendment
1662.56
Q:A2005 \050150.02.03 Hacienda Lakes MPUD - DRI -ERP \0004 GMP Amendment \Subtask 4.2 GMP Amendment Application Support \Substantive
Review\ 2010- 07- 19_Revised_Narrative_Exhibit C rim (clean).docx
June 1. 10/0 3:57 P 0 \2005 \030150 "02.03 Ho;i Lekee MP110- ORI- CRP\0001 Ge�wo! ConauMOlion \006A - SWfoet I.t r:....m coos, l Wj-
PknNnp \[yltl \050130010]PXlt.tivg
DIA INC FEB., 2010 CLIENT
HACIENDA LAKES OF APLES, LLC.
1" = 2soo
CONSULTING Civil Fitginem g 1. t;
i W. T Ti JL Sury & M.S.J. "TLE: HACIENDA LAKES
0610 ,Po� TDR SENDING EXHIBIT
P CM) 7-%75 D.H.N.
FAX =� 597-OM - 77B'"E i 050150.02.03 �,�I, t 1 \,1 1 ; -��at:,. 05015002Q3PJ(
ytN. _
Q:\2005 \050150.02.03 Hacienda Lakes MPUD- DRI -ERP \0004 GMP Amendment \Subtask 4.2 GMP Amendment Application
Review\ 2010- 07- 19_Revised_Narrative_Exhibit_C rim (clean).docx
u
1�
LEGEND:
'
71 QUAunED SENDING
�Ig
1
AREA zr 1016.02 ACRES
11
1-
'
AREA hOT OUALIFIED FOR
IfiE
1
SENDING = 493.23 ACRES
SENFIE D R.O.W. IN RFMUC
VIII
!!
27.6 7 ACRES
w � is
! I
;
DEVELO ENT IN RFMUD =
'
100.15 ACRES
X
I II
�1
5280'
URFS R ESERVE _
I _ _
I - V
1
58.46 RES
0111
m I II
, _
l/ L_1
-- i
1
a RFMUD ESERVE _
uJm
'
1484.57 ACRES
0
i^
it
II
t
lI I
I II
III
i i
11 1
1
1
1
III
I
Ili
1
1
III
1
1
III
III
III
ul
nl
III
SABAL PALM ROAD
'
,n
I
I
i
1
,
i
i
1
1
i
e
/
1
/
1
June 1. 10/0 3:57 P 0 \2005 \030150 "02.03 Ho;i Lekee MP110- ORI- CRP\0001 Ge�wo! ConauMOlion \006A - SWfoet I.t r:....m coos, l Wj-
PknNnp \[yltl \050130010]PXlt.tivg
DIA INC FEB., 2010 CLIENT
HACIENDA LAKES OF APLES, LLC.
1" = 2soo
CONSULTING Civil Fitginem g 1. t;
i W. T Ti JL Sury & M.S.J. "TLE: HACIENDA LAKES
0610 ,Po� TDR SENDING EXHIBIT
P CM) 7-%75 D.H.N.
FAX =� 597-OM - 77B'"E i 050150.02.03 �,�I, t 1 \,1 1 ; -��at:,. 05015002Q3PJ(
ytN. _
Q:\2005 \050150.02.03 Hacienda Lakes MPUD- DRI -ERP \0004 GMP Amendment \Subtask 4.2 GMP Amendment Application
Review\ 2010- 07- 19_Revised_Narrative_Exhibit_C rim (clean).docx
u
Hacienda Lakes DRINPUD
Dwelling Unit Entitlement Summary (Continued)
Density Additions with GMP Amendments
Use of Eligible TDRs within Project boundary up
to a max density of 3 units per acre in URF
Inventory of RFMU lands
Developed Sending Areas within 1 mile without
Benfield ROW
100.15
Developed Sending Areas past 1 mile
0
Undeveloped Sending Areas within 1 mile
1016.02
Undeveloped Sending Areas past 1 mile
493.23
Benfield Rd ROW lands within RFMU
27.67
Total RFMU Sending Lands
1637.07
Calculation of Eligible TDR Sending Area
Generation (within 1 mile)
TDR (undeveloped lands within one
mile only)
Y)
1016.02
1 per 5 acres
203.20
1st TDR Bonus (undeveloped lands within
one mile only)
1016.02
1 P er 5 acres
203.20
2nd TDR Bonus (Restoration and
Maintenance for undeveloped lands within one
1016.02
1 per 5 acres
203.20
mile only)
3rd TDR Bonus (Conveyance for
undeveloped lands within one mile only)
1016.02
1 per 5 acres
203.20
Total
812.82
TDRs used under current GMP rules (see
1 per acre of URF
above)
625.07
excluding business park
625.07
Remaining Qualified TDRs to be used
187.75
1,662.56 units without
GMP
plus 187.75 eligible TDRs
Total Units Allowed Using All Eligible TDRs
i
unused
1850.31
588.77 ac x 1.5 base
density (base density for
Project Maximum Amount of Units at 2.8
URF minus business park)
units per URF acre as requested by GMP
+ 625.07 ac x 1.3 tdr
amendment and including URF land density
receiving capacity (entire
and bonuses allowed
URF acreage) + rural
lands density (3.2 units) +
bonus units (151.14)
1850.08
Applicant Requested Density
1760
Overall Gross Project Density du per acre 2,262.14 0.78
Q:\2005 \050150.02.03 Hacienda Lakes MPUD- DRI- ERP10004 GMP Amendment\Subtask 4.2 GMP Amendment Application Suppoil \Substantive
Review`, 2010- 07- 19_Revised_Narrative_Exhibit_C rjm (clean).docx
Finally, the proposed GMP amendment seeks to amend the Density Rating System, Density Blending,
and CCME Native Preservation Provisions for properties straddling the Urban Residential Fringe
Sub - District and Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands, for the following purposes:
To cross reference, in the Density Rating System under Density Bonuses (TDRs) the previously
discussed increased achievable density in the URF through the utilization of all project generated
eligible TDRs;
To allow mitigation for native vegetation preservation required in the URF portion for projects
straddling the URF and NRPA Sending Lands designations. NRPA Sending Lands contain the
highest quality of native vegetation, including wetlands, uplands, and habitat for listed species. Thus,
a greater emphasis on preservation within these lands is warranted. The proposed amendment
language would allow the mitigation only for projects where the native vegetation required is at the
maximum amount of 60% of the Sending Lands, thus increasing the amount of preservation in the
Sending Lands above the 60% maximum amount required. Moreover, the mitigation requires a ratio
of 2 acres of native vegetation preservation within the NRPA Sending Lands portion of the project for
every acre of required native vegetation below the required amount in the Urban Residential Fringe
Subdistrict portion of the project.
Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses:
The subject property has direct access to Collier Boulevard. The surrounding properties consist of
commercial PUD's, residential PUD's, Collier Regional Medical Center, and undeveloped
Agricultural acreage parcels. Portions of the project along the east are immediately adjacent to the
Picayune Strand. The proposed residential use of the subject property will be compatible with the
existing and future residential uses on surrounding lands. Adequate buffering provisions are set forth
in the County's Land Development Code, and as may be necessary on a site - specific basis, buffer
areas may be increased to enhance compatibility as a result of the site planning and rezoning process.
The majority of the 1,543.03 +/- acres of preserve lands are located along the eastern portion of the
project providing enhanced protection for the conservation lands further to the east. Preservation
lands within the project will significantly increase protection of listed species habitat and wetlands.
This significant attention to natural resource protection both within the project and on adjacent lands
results in a development plan that is compatible with surrounding land uses.
Public Facilities and Services:
Public facilities within the area of the subject property are depicted on Exhibit "I" - Public Facilities
Map. With respect to Public facilities, Exhibit "L" — Public Facilities Impact Analysis is a
spreadsheet which sets forth the impacts on public facilities under the existing and proposed
scenarios. Impacts on Collier Boulevard are addressed in the attached transportation report prepared
by Tindale Oliver and Associates.
With respect to Potable Water, Sanitary Sewer, Stormwater Drainage, Solid Waste, Community and
Regional Parks and Arterial & Collector Roads within the vicinity of the project, the proposed
Amendment will not result in any of these facilities falling below the adopted level of service
established by and in accordance with the Collier County Growth Management Plan and the LDC.
The Collier County Sheriff's Department will provide police protection/law enforcement services.
There is a Sheriff's substation located on East Tamiami Trail which is a shared facility housing
Collier County EMS and an East Naples Fire Department station.
Q:2005 \050150.02.03 Hacienda Lakes MPUD- DRI- ERP',.0004 GMP Amendment \Subtask 4.2 GMP Amendment Application Support`:Substantive
Review\ 2010- 07- 19_Revised_NaiTative_ Exhibit _C rjm (clean).docx
8
The County does not currently have an adopted LOS for educational facilities. Impact fees will cover
the cost of any additional impacts on the public school system resultant from development of this site.
Exhibit "J" — New and Future Public Schools depicts the location of new schools to be built in
Collier County through the year 2022.
Conclusion:
The proposed GMP amendments are appropriate, and further the objectives of the CCME by
incentivizing greater preservation and restoration of native vegetation, including wetlands and
uplands, as well as encouraging preservation and restoration of additional habitat suitable for listed
species. The proposed GMP amendments restore the usable acreage in the southeast quadrant of
Activity Center Number 7. This allows for an appropriate amount of cotmnercial and office
development, proximate and within this DR] as well as other existing and proposed development,
providing employment, shopping, dining and other consumer needs for the market area.
Prepared by: Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, Mulhere and Associates, LLC. Date: 07/19/10
Q:\2005 \050150.02.03 Hacienda Lakes MPUD- DRI -ERP \0004 GMP Amendment \Subtask 4.2 GMP Amendment Application Support \Substantive
Reviem, \2010- 07- 19_Revised Narrative Exhibit_C tjm (clean).docx
Q
Hacienda Lakes
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
GMP Application
CCPC Review Materials
ATTACHMENT A
GMP Language & MAP
CP'dSl'. LI[V En�inn q
1'L 1 IL J S -"in
Attachment "A"
Proposed GMP Amendment Language
Future Land Use Element
I. URBAN DESIGNATION
A. Urban Mixed Use District
2. Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict:
FLUE Page 29
The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide transitional densities between the Urban
Designated Area and the Agricultural /Rural Area and comprises approximately 5,500
acres and 5% of the Urban Mixed Use District. Residential land uses may be allowed at a
maximum density of 1.5 units per gross acre, exclusive of density bonus that may be
achieved via CCME Policy 6.2.5 (6) b.I., or hijzher through the use of the following:
a. Up to 2.5 units per gross acre via the transfer of up to one 1.0 dwelling unit
(transferable development_Lightiper acre from lands located within one mile of the Urban
Boundary and designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending, except in the case
of the Hacienda Lakes PUD /DRI, which may achieve a maximum density of up to 2.80
units per gross acre via the transfer of up to 1.30 dwelling units (transferable
development rights) per acre from lands designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District
Sending; and,
b. In the case of properties specifically identified below, a density bonus of up to 6.0
additional units per gross acre may be requested for projects providing affordable -
workforce housing (home ownership only) for low and moderate income residents of
Collier County, pursuant to Section 2.06.00 of the Land Development Code, or its
successor ordinance, except as provided for in paragraph "c" below. Within the Urban
Residential Fringe, rezone requests are not subject to the density rating system, except as
specifically provided in c. below, but are subject to the following conditions:
Hacienda Lakes GMPA
CP- 2006 -11 — Attachment A (rev2)
Page 2 of 11
FLUE Pages 51 -53
I. URBAN DESIGNATION
B. DENSITY RATING SYSTEM
5. Density Blending:
This provision is intended to encourage unified plans of development and to preserve
wetlands, wildlife habitat, and other natural features that exist within properties that
straddle the Urban Mixed Use and Rural Fringe Mixed Use Districts or that straddle
Receiving and Neutral Lands within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. In the case of
such properties, which were in existence and under unified control (owned, or under
contract to purchase, by the applicant(s)) as of June 19, 2002, the allowable gross density
for such properties in aggregate may be distributed throughout the project, regardless of
whether or not the density allowable for a portion of the project exceeds that which is
otherwise permitted, when the following conditions are met:
2. Density Blending Conditions and Limitations for Properties Straddling the Urban
Residential Fringe Sub - District and Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending
lands:
(a) The project must straddle the Urban Residential Fringe Sub - District and
the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands;
(b) The project in aggregate must be a minimum of 400 acres;
(c) At least 25% of the project must be located within the Urban Residential
Fringe Sub - District. The project must extend central water and sewer
(from the urban designated portion of the project) to serve the entire
project, unless alternative interim sewer and water provisions are
authorized by Collier County;
(d) The Project is currently zoned or will be zoned PUD;
(e) The density to be shifted to the Sending Lands from the Urban Residential
Fringe is to be located on impacted or disturbed lands, or it is
demonstrated that the development on the site is to be located so as to
preserve and protect the highest quality native vegetation and /or habitat
on -site and to maximize the connectivity of such native vegetation and /or
wildlife habitat with adjacent preservation and /or habitat areas;
(f) Native vegetation shall be preserved as follows:
a. The Urban portion of the project shall comply with the native
vegetation requirements identified in the Conservation and Coastal
Management Element (for Urban designated lands), or in the case
of projects where the native vegetation requirement for the
Sending Lands portion of the project is the maximum required 60
percent of the Sending Land area, in order to promote jZreater
gtpaek thfatigh and underlined language represents deletions and additions.
Hacienda Lakes GMPA
CP- 2006 -11 — Attachment A (rev2)
Page 3 of 11
preservation of the highest quality wetlands and listed species
habitat the required native vegetation for the Urban portion of the
project may be shifted by providing native vegetation preservation
in the Sending Lands portion of the project exceeding the 60%
maximum preservation requirement as set forth in b. below. The
ratio for such native vegetation preservation shall be two acres of
Sending Lands (exceeding the 60% maximum preservation
requirement) for each acre below the required amount of native
vegetation for the Urban portion of the project. Significant
Archeological Sites identified by the State of Florida Division of
Historic Resource shall be preserved and cannot be mitigated for.
b. For those lands within the project designated as Sending, the native
vegetation preservation requirement shall be 90% of the native
vegetation, not to exceed 60% of the total project area designated
as Sending.
C. Wetland areas that are impacted through the development process,
but which result in enhanced wetland function, including habitat
and /or flowways, shall be considered as part of the native
vegetation requirement set forth in this provision and shall not be
considered as impacted areas. These wetland areas and /or
flowways may be used for water storage provided that the water
discharged in these areas is pre - treated.
(g) Permitted uses for density blending under this provision include
residential development and associated amenities, including golf courses
meeting the criteria for golf courses within the Neutral area. This
provision is not intended to eliminate any uses permitted within the
applicable underlying land use designation.
Stfue-lexgh and underlined language represents deletions and additions.
Hacienda Lakes GMPA
CP- 2006 -11 — Attachment A (rev2)
Page 4 of 11
FLUE Pages 47 -50
B. DENSITY RATING SYSTEM:
2. Density Bonuses
Consistency with the following characteristics may add to the base density.
Density bonuses are discretionary, not entitlements, and are dependent upon
meeting the criteria for each bonus provision and compatibility with surrounding
properties, as well as the rezone criteria in the Land Development Code.
f. Transfer of Development Rights Bonus
To encourage preservation/conservation of natural resources, density transfers
are permitted as follows:
(c) From Sending Lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary into
lands designated Urban Residential Fringe, at a maximum density increase
of one (1) unit per gross acre, except for the Hacienda Lakes PUD /DRI,
which may transfer TDRs from Sending Lands located within one mile of
the Urban Boundary into lands designated Urban Residential Fringe, at a
maximum density increase of 1.30 units per gross acre.
.............. ............................... a a 0 a 0 M ............ 0 a 0 K 1
FLUE Pages 47 -50
I URBAN DESIGNATION
C. Urban Commercial Subdistrict
1. Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict
2. The allowable land uses for a Master Planned Activity Center shall be the
same as for other designated Activity Centers; however, a Master Planned
Activity Center encompassing the majority of the property in two or more
quadrants shall be afforded the flexibility to redistribute a part or all of the
allocation from one quadrant to another, to the extent of the unified
control. The maximum amount of commercial uses allowed at Activity
Center # 3 (Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard) is 40 acres per
quadrant for a total of 160 acres maximum in the entire Activity Center;
the balance of the land area shall be limited to non - commercial uses as
allowed in Mixed Use Activity Centers. The maximum amount of
commercial uses allowed at Activity Center #7 (Rattlesnake Hammock
Road and Collier Boulevard) is 40 acres per quadrant, except that the
northeast quadrant may have a total of 59 acres and the southeast quadrant
may have a total of 50, for a total of 4-7-9 189 acres maximum in the entire
Activity Center; the balance of the land area shall be limited to non-
commercial uses as allowed in Mixed Use Activity Centers.
Stnae - tlireogh and underlined language represents deletions and additions.
Hacienda Lakes GMPA
CP- 2006 -1 l — Attachment A (rev2)
Page 5 of 11
Note: The Activity Center #7 inset map within the FLUE is to be amended to
reflect the proposed boundary change. It is not the intent of this amendment
request to modify the Future Land Use Map to depict the boundary change.
FLUE Pages 31 -32
I URBAN DESIGNATION
A. Urban Mixed Use District
4. Business Park Subdistrict
The Business Park Subdistrict is intended to provide for a mix of industrial uses and non-
industrial uses, designed in an attractive park -like environment with low structural
density where building coverage ranges between 25% to 45% and where landscaped
areas provide for buffering and enjoyment by the employees and patrons of the park.
Business Parks shall be allowed as a Subdistrict in the Urban -Mixed Use District, Urban
Commercial District and Urban Industrial District and may include the general uses
allowed within each District, the specific uses set forth below, and shall comply with the
following general conditions:
a. Business Parks shall be permitted to include up to 30% of the total acreage for non-
industrial uses of the type identified in "c" below, and will reserve land within the
industrially designated areas for industrial uses. Similarly, Business Parks shall be
permitted to include up to 30% of the total building square footage for non - industrial
uses of the type identified in Paragraph c below. The percentage and mix of each
category of use shall be determined at the time of zoning in accordance with the
criteria specified in the Land Development Code. The acreage and building square
footage figures and percentages shall be included in the PUD ordinance or rezone
ordinance so as to demonstrate compliance with this requirement.
b. Access to arterial road systems shall be in accordance with the Collier County Access
Control Policy and consistent with Objective 7 and Policy 7.1 of the Transportation
Element.
c. Non - industrial uses may include uses such as certain offices, financial institutions,
retail services, institutional, cultural facilities, medical facilities, hotels /motels at a
density of 26 units per acre, and recreational facilities. Retail Uses shall be limited to
those uses that serve the employees of businesses within the Park or are related to the
products, goods and services that are manufactured, distributed, produced or provided
by businesses in the Park.
d. When the Business Park is located within the Urban Industrial District or includes
industrially zoned land, those uses allowed in the Industrial Zoning District shall be
permitted provided that the total industrial acreage is not greater than the amount
previously zoned or designated industrial. When a Business Park is located in the
Urban Commercial District or Urban Mixed Use District, the industrial uses shall be
limited to light industry such as light manufacturing, processing, and packaging in
fully enclosed buildings; research, design and product development; printing,
lithography and publishing; and similar light industrial uses that are compatible with
Stniek thr-ough and underlined language represents deletions and additions.
Hacienda Lakes GMPA
CP- 2006 -11 — Attachment A (rev2)
Page 6 of 11
non - industrial uses permitted in the district; and, the Planned Unit Development
Ordinance or Rezoning Ordinance for a Business Park project shall list specifically all
permitted uses and development standards consistent with the criteria identified in
this provision.
e. Business Parks must be a minimum of 35 acres in size.
f. Business Parks located within Interstate Activity Center quadrants that permit
Industrial Uses shall also be required to meet the standards as stated under the
Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict for commercial and industrial land uses.
g. Business Parks shall adopt standards for the development of individual building
parcels and general standards for buffering, landscaping, open space, signage,
lighting, screening of outdoor storage, parking and access management.
h. When located in a District other than the Urban Industrial District, the Business Park
must have direct access to a road classified as an arterial in the Transportation
Element.
[Alternative amendment language I] The Lords Way shall be considered direct access
to Collier Boulevard (CR -951) for Business Parks within the Urban Residential
Fringe Subdistrict.
[Alternative amendment language 2] Direct access defined as a driveway and /or
local roadway connection to the arterial road, provided the portion of the local
roadway intended to provide access to the Business Park is not within a residential
neighborhood and does not service a predominantly residential area.
Business Parks are encouraged to utilize PUD zoning.
The maximum additional acreage eligible to be utilized for a Business Park
Subdistrict within the Urban -Mixed Use District is 500 acres, exclusive of open space
and conservation areas.
Stfiiek thfough and underlined language represents deletions and additions.
Hacienda Lakes GMPA
CP- 2006 -11 — Attachment A (rev2)
Page 7 of 11
CCME Pages 18 -21
Conservation and Coastal Management Element
GOAL 6:
OBJECTIVE 6.1:
Policy 6.1.1:
For the County's Urban Designated Area, Estates Designated Area, Conservation
Designated Area, and Agricultural/Rural Mixed Use District, Rural- Industrial District
and Rural - Settlement Area District as designated on the FLUM, native vegetation shall
be preserved through the application of the following preservation and vegetation
retention standards and criteria, unless the development occurs within the Area of Critical
State Concern (ACSC) where the ACSC standards referenced in the Future Land Use
Element shall apply. Notwithstanding the ACSC requirements, this policy shall apply to
all non - agricultural development except for single- family dwelling units situated on
individual parcels that are not located within a watershed management conservation area
identified in a Watershed Management Plan developed pursuant to policies supporting
Objective 2.1 of this Element.
The following standards and criteria shall apply to the vegetation retention requirements
referenced above.
(1) For the purpose of this policy, "native vegetation" is defined as a vegetative
community having 25% or more canopy coverage or highest existing vegetative
strata of native plant species. The vegetation retention requirements specified in
this policy are calculated based on the amount of "native vegetation" that
conforms to this definition.
Stsdek thfough and underlined language represents deletions and additions.
Coastal High Hazard
Area
Non - Coastal High Hazard Area
Residential and Mixed
Less than 2.5 acres 10%
Less than 5 acres. 10%
Use Development
Equal to or greater
Equal to or greater than 5 acres
than 2.5 acres 25%
and less than 20 acres. 15%
Equal to or
greater than 20 ac. 25%
Golf Course
35%
35%
Commercial and
Less than 5 acres. 10%
Less than 5 acres. 10%
Industrial
Equal to or greater
Equal to or
Development
than 5 acres. 15%
greater than 5 acres. 15%
Industrial
50 %, not to exceed 25%
50 %, not to exceed 25% of the
Development (Rural-
of the project site.
project site.
Industrial District only)
The following standards and criteria shall apply to the vegetation retention requirements
referenced above.
(1) For the purpose of this policy, "native vegetation" is defined as a vegetative
community having 25% or more canopy coverage or highest existing vegetative
strata of native plant species. The vegetation retention requirements specified in
this policy are calculated based on the amount of "native vegetation" that
conforms to this definition.
Stsdek thfough and underlined language represents deletions and additions.
Hacienda Lakes GMPA
CP- 2006 -11 — Attachment A (rev2)
Page 8 of 11
(2) The preservation of native vegetation shall include canopy, under -story and
ground cover emphasizing the largest contiguous area possible, which may
include connection to offsite preserves. The purpose for identifying the largest
contiguous area is to provide for a core area that has the greatest potential for
wildlife habitat by reducing the interface between the preserve area and
development which decreases the conflicts from other land uses. Criteria for
determining the dimensional standards of the preserve are to be set out in the
Land Development Code.
(3) Areas that fulfill the native vegetation retention standards and criteria of this
policy shall be set aside as preserve areas. On -site and off -site preserve areas shall
be protected by a permanent conservation mechanism to prohibit further
development, consistent with the requirements of this policy. The type of
permanent conservation mechanism, including conservation easements, required
for a specific development may vary based on preserve area size, type of
development approval, and other factors, as set forth in the County's land
development regulations.
(4) Selection of native vegetation to be retained as preserve areas shall reflect the
following criteria in descending order of priority:
a. Wetland or upland areas known to be utilized by listed species or that
serve as corridors for the movement of wildlife shall be preserved and
protected in order to facilitate the continued use of the site by listed
species or the movement through the site, consistent with the requirements
of Policy 7. 1.1 and 7.1.2 of this element.
b. Xeric Scrub, Dune and Strand, Hardwood Hammocks.
C. Onsite wetlands having functionality scores of at least 0.65 WRAP or 0.7
UMAM, unless permitted for impact pursuant to Policy 6.2.4 of this
Element. WRAP means South Florida Water Management District's
Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedures as described in Technical
Publication Reg 001 (September 1997, as updated August 1999). UMAM
means Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method as described in
Chapter 62 -345, F.A.C.
d. Any upland habitat that serves as a buffer to a wetland area as identified in
Paragraph (4)c. above,
e. Dry Prairie, Pine Flatwoods, and
f. All other native habitats.
(5) The uses allowable within preserve areas are limited to:
a. Passive recreational uses that do not impact the minimum required
vegetation or cause a loss of function to the preserve area. Loss of function
to the preserve area includes a reduction or a change in vegetation within
the preserve and harming any listed species present in the preserve. More
specific standards that implement this policy shall be set forth in the land
development regulations and will address various types of construction
that are compatible with the function of the preserve. The land
development regulations will also provide criteria to define appropriate
passive recreational uses. The criteria will be established to allow for
passive recreational uses such as trails or boardwalks that provide for
and underlined language represents deletions and additions.
Hacienda Lakes GMPA
CP- 2006 -1 I — Attachment A (rev2)
Page 9 of 11
access within the preserves, providing the uses do not reduce the minimum
required vegetation or cause harm to listed species.
b. Receipt of treated stormwater discharge where such use, including
conveyance, treatment and discharge structures, does not result in adverse
impacts the naturally occurring, native vegetation, to include the loss of
the minimum required vegetation and the harm to any listed species
according to the policies associated with Objective 7.1, as determined by
criteria set forth in land development regulations. Discharge to preserves
having wetlands requires treatment that will meet water quality standards
as set forth in Chapter 62 -302. F.A.C. and will conform to the water
quality criteria requirements set forth by the South Florida Water
Management District.
(6) A management plan shall be submitted for preserve areas identified by specific
criteria in the land development regulations to identify actions that must be taken
to ensure that the preserved areas will maintain natural diversity and will function
as proposed. The plan shall include methods to address control and treatment of
invasive exotic species, fire management, stormwater management (if applicable),
and maintenance of permitted facilities. If applicable, a listed species monitoring
program shall be submitted pursuant to Policy 7.1.2 (2) (i). State and federal
management plans consistent with the requirements of the LDC will be accepted.
(7) Until the land development regulations addressed in Policy 6.1.1(11) are
developed, exceptions, by means of mitigation in the form of increased landscape
requirements shall be granted for parcels that cannot reasonably accommodate
both the preservation area and the proposed activity. Criteria for allowing these
exceptions include:
(a) Where site elevations or conditions requires placement of fill thereby
harming or reducing the survivability of the native vegetation in its
existing locations;
(b) Where the existing vegetation required by this policy is located where
proposed site improvements are to be located and such improvements
cannot be relocated as to protect the existing native vegetation;
(c) Where native preservation requirements are not accommodated, the
landscape plan shall re- create a native plant community in all three strata
(ground covers, shrubs and trees), utilizing larger plant materials so as to
more quickly re- create the lost nature vegetation.
(8) Parcels that were legally cleared of native vegetation prior to January 1989 shall
be exempt from this requirement.
(9) Should the amount of wetland vegetation exceed the minimum vegetation
requirements as specified herein, retention of wetland vegetation having
significant habitat or hydrologic value is encouraged. Increased preservation shall
be fostered through incentives including, but not limited to: clustered
development, reduced development standards such as open space, setbacks, and
landscape buffers, to allow for increased areas of preserved wetland vegetation.
Significant habitat or hydrologic value is determined by wetland function, not the
size of the wetland.
and underlined language represents deletions and additions.
Hacienda Lakes GMPA
CP- 2006 -1 1 — Attachment A (rev2)
Page 10 of 11
(10) Within one year of the effective date of these amendments, the County shall adopt
land development regulations that allow for a process whereby a property owner
may submit a petition requesting that all or a portion of the native vegetation
preservation retention requirement to be satisfied by a monetary payment, land
donation that contains native vegetative communities equal to or of a higher
priority as described in Policy 6.1.1 (4) than the land being impacted, or other
appropriate method of compensation to an acceptable land acquisition program, as
required by the land development regulations. The monetary payment shall be
used to purchase and manage native vegetative communities off -site. The land
development regulations shall provide criteria to determine when this alternative
will be considered. The criteria will be based upon the following provisions:
a. The amount, type, rarity and quality of the native vegetation on site;
b. The presence of conservation lands adjoining the site;
C. The presence of listed species and consideration of Federal and State
agency technical assistance;
d. The type of land use proposed, such as, but not limited to, affordable
housing;
e. The size of the preserve required to remain on site is too small to ensure
that the preserve can remain functional; and
f. Right of Way acquisitions for all purposes necessary for roadway
construction, including ancillary drainage facilities, and including utilities
within the right of way acquisition area. The land development regulations
shall include a methodology to establish the monetary value, land
donation, or other appropriate method of compensation to ensure that
native vegetative communities not preserved on -site will be preserved and
appropriately managed off -site.
(11) Right of Way acquisitions by any governmental entity for all purposes necessary
for roadway construction, including ancillary drainage facilities, and including
utilities within the right of way acquisition area, shall be exempt from mitigation
requirements.
(12) Although the primary intent of this Policy is to retain and protect existing native
vegetation, there are situations where the application of the retention requirements
of this Policy is not possible. In these cases, creation or restoration of vegetation
to satisfy all or a portion of the native vegetation retention requirements may be
allowed. Within one year of the effective date of these amendments, the County
shall adopt land development regulations to determine the circumstances for when
creation or restoration is allowed and to specify criteria for creation and
restoration.
(13) The County may grant a deviation to the native vegetation retention requirements
of this Policy, except for the Native Vegetation Retention Requirements Table,
and provisions in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7. Within one year of the effective
date of these amendments, the County shall adopt land development regulations to
set forth the process for obtaining a deviation. The regulations shall allow for the
granting of a deviation by the appropriate review board after a public hearing, and
for the granting of a deviation administratively. The County shall consider the
amount and type of native vegetation and the presence of listed species in
Stf+iek thfeiigk and underlined language represents deletions and additions.
Hacienda Lakes GMPA
CP- 2006 -11 — Attachment A (rev2)
Page 11 of 11
determining whether the granting of a deviation requires a public hearing, or may
be granted administratively.
The County may grant a deviation if:
a. County, Federal or State agencies require that site improvements be
located in areas which result in an inability to meet the provisions of this
Policy, or
b. On or off -site environmental conditions are such that the application of
one or more provisions of this Policy is not possible or will result in a
preserve area of lesser quality, or
C. The strict adherence to these provisions will not allow for the
implementation of other Plan policies that encourage beneficial land uses.
14. In order to promote erg ater preservation of the highest • quality wetlands and listed
species habitat the required native vegetation for the Urban portion of the project
may be shifted by providing native vegetation preservation in the Sending ands_
portion of the project exceeding the 60% maximum preservation requirement for
projects that:
(a) Are under unified control;
(b) Straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use
Sending designations;
(c) Meet the maximum required 60 percent preservation requirement for the
Sending Lands ands portion of the project.
The preservation ratio shall be two acres of Sending Lands (exceeding the 60%
maximum preservation requirement) for each acre below the required amount of native
vegetation for the Urban portion of the project. Significant Archeological Sites identified
by the State of Florida Division of Historic Resource shall be preserved and cannot be
mitigated for,
Stf�uek thfough and underlined language represents deletions and additions.
0 0
I �
n
A
i
n
ACTIVITY CENTER #7
li'1T'fl.ttiYnKl�: 11 nc.uln c...11l. a.....I(. Pfill - ('.I1. Ail
LEGEND
it
ACTIVITY CENTER #7
li'1T'fl.ttiYnKl�: 11 nc.uln c...11l. a.....I(. Pfill - ('.I1. Ail
LEGEND
it
!01
ST PARCEL
L—
i
DIPUD I
PUD
I
I
— — — -
NAPLES LAKES
I
CENTER
COUNTRY CLUB
ST PARCEL
PUD I I
15C
I
I i
__ - -_J
MCMULLEN
I I I
PARCEL
r_ —_ - - -,
I
15E
I I
ST PARCEL I
L___J
I ,sD I
I LL �
I
L_ —____J
i
o°
PUD
NAPLES LAKES
COUNTRY CLUB
=
SEPTEMBER 10,2003
I
ORDINANCE NO.
RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK RD (CR 864)
I
0
a
I
I I
3
�
o
n
I
m
BOUNDARY
PUD
I
SIERRA MFAOOWS AI Vf1 I U U
j PUD
COII IFR RPf,IONAI I
I °o
PUD
SIERRA MEADOWS
I
i
A EXISTING ZONING
SIERRA MEADOWS I
,
B
ACTIVITY CENTER #7
RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD (CR 864) — CR 951
COLLIER COUNTY, FL
A
C
DIPUD I
GOOD TURN
CENTER
PUD I I
A1PUD
HAMMOCK PARK
I
MCMULLEN
COMMERCE CENTER I
TO FLORIDA SPOPS-PAR�
I
AMENDED — DATE
I LL �
ORDINANCE N0. XX —XX
AMENDED —
SEPTEMBER 10,2003
I
ORDINANCE NO.
2003 -44
I
I I
LEGEND
— ACTIVITY CENTER
BOUNDARY
PUD
I
COII IFR RPf,IONAI I
A EXISTING ZONING
TRACT B TRACT C
I I I
LELY CULTURAL PKWY
i
TRACT D
September 29, 2010 3:48 PM Q: \2005 \050150.02.03 Hacienda Lakes MPUD— DRI —ERP \0001 General Consultation \OOOA — Subtask 1.1 General Consultation — Planning \Exbt \05015DO203PX23.dwg
Hacienda Lakes
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
EXHIBIT D
Warranty Deeds
GMP Application
CCPC Review Materials
DII[AINCm ,,�
COVC'I "I'IVG Engm'mg
1 \ ► ►L J SumY ne
INSTR 4393149 OR 4536 PG 732 RECORDED 2/9/2010 11:28 AM PAGES 2
DWIGHT E. BROCK, COLLIER COUNTY CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
DOC @.70 $0.70 REC $18.50
CONS $0.00
This Instrument Prepared By:
Harold J. Webre, Esquire
HAROLD J. WEBRE, P.A.
1804 S. Florida Avenue
Lakeland, FL 33803
QUIT CLAIM DEED
Exhibit D
Copy of Deed
BY THIS QUIT CLAIM DEED, dated this -;2-( day of January, 2010,
GEORGE P. BAUER ( "Grantor "), for and in consideration of the sum of Ten and
NoI100 U.S. Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, hereby
remises, releases and quitclaims all of Grantors' right, title, interest, claim and demand
in the following described real property located in Collier County, Florida to WILTON
LAND COMPANY, LLC, a Florl n- limited.11pbility company ( "Grantee '), whose
post office address is 206 Du
Q6897:
The Southeast Quarter4 CW114) of the N
Northeast Quarter l f)� ec on14,,'
Collier County, Florida.; � - -, —
Parcel
*THE SUBJECT PROPIATY IS NOT THE HO
1 t�
GRANTOR v�
r
IN WITNESS W k�;TC1Mgtorhfl
Deed the day and year firstab
ove�hr�rjtjen c,
Signed, sealed and delivered in
our resence:
Witness 1 — Signature
/
Witness I - Printed Name'
Witness 2�Siggnnature
Wit ess 27- rin ed Nam
rth *4t Quarter (NW 114) of the
awnshlp SkSouth, Range 26 East,
157'
Ivif EA.D V ERTY OF
l�
C ept /and delivered this Quit Claim
4:--�=
George P. Iffiter
* ** OR 4536 PG 733 * **
STATE OF CONNECTICUT {
COUNTY OF ��n-C ,, `rA u
The foregoing Quit Claim Deed was acknowledged before me on this o11 day of
January, 2010, by George P. Bauer, -vvho -'" is personally known to me or
produced as identification.
\ ��LL� O�J
IN, otnry ublic — Signature
Public - Printed Name
I j4it
2
r, comrnlsslon Expkes
JanuM 31, 2014
INSTR 4388118 OR 4531 PG 2872 RECORDED 1/26/2010 4:17 PM PAGES 9
DWIGHT E. BROCK, COLLIER COUNTY CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
Doc @.70 $210,000.00 REC $78.00 INDX $4.00
CONS $30,000,000.00
C
Exhibit D
Copy of Deed
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION
SEMBLER FAMILY PARTNERSHIP #42, Ltd.,
a Florida limited partnership and
TOLL - RATTLESNAKE, LLC, a Florida limited
liability company
Plaintiffs,
VS.
TOLL FL VII LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
a Florida limited partnership, TOLL BROS.,
INC., a Pennsylvania corporation, -O. i
11 LLC, a Florida Limited Iiabili yi-
VISION & FAITH, INC., a Flori�'rporatioi
GEORGE P. BAUER, and MIC EL A.
TAYLOR,
Case No. 08- 2136- CA -HDH
0
Defendants) i /Ir ��.j;� jN,C /
GEORGE P. BAUER and � Ni& FAITH, INC '� ;�,; �r
a Florida corporation,
Counter - claimants,
VS.
TOLL - RATTLESNAKE, LLC, a Florida limited
liability company, SEMBLER FAMILY PARTNERSHIP -`
#42, LTD., a Florida limited partnership and TOLL Ali ✓.
FL 11, LLC, a Florida limited liability company,
L01c1
Counter - defendants. "
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
I, DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk and Comptroller of the above - entitled Court, do
hereby certify that I executed and filed a Certificate of Sale in this action on
JOV) q , 2010, for the real property described herein, and that no objections
OR 4531 PG 2873
to the sale have been filed within the time allowed for filing objections. The real
property as described in Exhibit "A" which is attached hereto and made a part hereof
was sold to:
Wilton Land Company, LLC
206 Dudley Road
Wilton, CT 06897
WITNESS my hand and seal on this Court, on C 2010.
D tGtt QCK, Clerk & CQmptrollei -
�1�} �eisit r
i
=— . Y=
r I� ty -1 rk
z7ild Copies furnished to:
1 n -Louis D. D Agostino, Esq. i
✓ Samuel J. Heller, Esq.
�
Ira William Spivey, l! 1
9463.145111438` \ t
2
OR 4531 PG 2874
EXHIBIT "A"
PARCEL 1:
THE S 1/2 OF THE S 1/2 OF THE SW 114 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS THE WEST 100 FEET.
PARCEL 2:
THE E 1/2 OF THE SW 114 OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 3:
THE SW 114 OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL4:
THE S 1/2 OF THE SW 114 OF THE SE 114 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDAr.___._,_ -
PARCEL 5: '� =--� �1 /.I
THEW 112 OF THE NE 114 OF THE V1G�1 F SECTION 1 HIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. \\
PARCEL 6: / H NGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
THE SW 114 OF THE NW 1/4 q`F S 8" (()� �9flP 59 SO , COUNTY, FLORIDA. r "� ip; } �Jj
} f' ' w I •,
PARCEL 7: i
THE NW 114 OF THE SW 114 0 ) PTION 13, TOWNS1i ?, 50 �yOU F`i` . NGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA.
r �
PARCEL 8:
THE S 112 OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE S 411 ,Fq'NE�19C f�SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLT i>�y C�Zl�f�
PARCEL9:
THE N 1/2 OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE SE 114 OF THE NW 114 OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 10:
THE N 112 OF THE NW 114 OF SW 114 OF SW 1/4 OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE
26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL11:
THE W 112 OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 12:
THE N 1/2 OF THE NW 114 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS THE WEST 100 FEET.
PARCEL 13:
THE N 112 OF THE S 1/2 OF THE NW 114 OF THE NW 114, SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS THE WEST 100 FEET.
3
OR 4531 PG 2875
PARCEL 16:
THE E 112 OF THE EAST 112 OF THE SE 114 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50
SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 17:
THE SW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4, SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 18:
THE SE 114 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA,
PARCEL 19:
THE NE 1/4 OF THE NW 114, SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 20:
THE S 112 OF THESE 114 OF THE NE 114 OF-S Tie `F4,,TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. iL41 7
PARCEL 21: 1 �� M�-�y�
THE NW 114 OF THE NW 1/4 OF/rHENE -V4; SECTION 14, TO
W�VSH�� 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA./ r )4- _�"'�', �� i
PARCEL 22: 1 v� % ";s
THE NE 114 OF THE NE 1140; T ES� �C+p'gE �i
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FL4,)#, 6X,.� --
PARCEL 23:
THE N 112 OF THE SE 1/4 OF T OF SECTION
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. ��_014
�
PARCEL 24: ``�
THE E 112 OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4W "O
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
50 SOUTH, RANGE 26
50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
C�
� SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
PARCEL 26:
THE W 1/2 OF SW 1/4 OF NE 114 OF SE 114 OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 27:
THE E 1/2 OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 28:
ALL THAT PART OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE WEST 114 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 14;
THENCE ALONG THE EAST AND WEST 114 SECTION LINE, NORTH 87 °33'46" EAST 2673.55 FEET
TO THE CENTER OF SAID SECTION 14 AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN
DESCRIBED;
THENCE ALONG THE NORTH AND SOUTH 114 SECTION LINE NORTH 00 °50'21" EAST 1341.85
FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 114 OF THE NORTHEAST 114 OF SAID SECTION
14;
THENCE ALONG SAID LINE NORTH 87 °30'50" EAST 1336.55 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE
OR 4531 PG 2876
OF THE SOUTHWEST 114 OF THE NORTHEAST 114 OF SAID SECTION 14;
THENCE ALONG SAID LINE SOUTH 00 °49'36" WEST 1342.78 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST AND
WEST 114 SECTION LINE;
THENCE LEAVING SAID LINE SOUTH 89 044'17" WEST 134.30 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 04 °42'13" EAST 210.85 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 43 °12'04" WEST 178.18 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 71 °31'36" WEST 145.23 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 77 °18'36' WEST 175.92 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 63 °27'15" WEST 288.67 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 53 °31'25" WEST 74.43 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 41 057'31" WEST 65.80 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 16 °01'06" WEST 80.79 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 11 °26'01" EAST 73.45 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 41'05'47" EAST 146.55 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 21 016'17" EAST 88.09 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 07 051'12" EAST 154.74 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 00 046'36" WEST 794.98 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 45 046'05" EAST 94.58 FEET,—
THENCE NORTH 87 022'18" EAST 342. {R �-:
THENCE NORTH 59 013'22" EAST 15?.$ �
THENCE NORTH 69 °05'26" EAST /f, FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 82 °53'39" EAS� 10 €€�TO THE EAST L11yE OF NORTHWEST 114 OF THE
SOUTHEAST 114 OF SAID SEC, 110 14
THENCE ALONG SAID LINE S1 =49'3 E 251
THENCE LEAVING SAID LINE NO 8 ' 9 WE 7.
THENCE SOUTH 69 °05'26" WEST 1� EET; ' tr--
THENCE SOUTH 59 °13'22" V �r �E/ c ! G"•
THENCE SOUTH 87 °2222" 39.63 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 45 °46'02" WE 9.76 FEET:
THENCE SOUTH 68 °50'21" WEST1113.. 24 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY 129. `.� FT ALONG THE ARC 14�i�IGNIJANGENTIAL CIRCULAR
CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH ING A RAMLJSgA' 0.00 FEET THROUGH A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 67 °1347" AND B 1 RSA GHORQ WHICH BEARS SOUTH
35 °13'27" WEST 121.79 FEET;_;
THENCE SOUTH 01 °36'34° WEST 779.16 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 14;
THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE SOUTH 87 °39'37" WEST 74.85 FEET TO THE POINT ON THE
NORTH AND SOUTH 114 SECTION LINE;
THENCE ALONG SAID LINE NORTH 00 °50'21" EAST 2683.10 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL 29:
THE N 112 OF THE NW 114 OF THE NW 114 OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS THE WEST 100 FEET AND LESS THE NORTH 30 FEET.
PARCEL 30:
THE S 112 OF THE NW 114 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS THE WEST 100 FEET.
ALSO LESS THAT PORTION DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 3241, PAGE 3460, PUBLIC
RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 31:
THE NE 1/4 OF THE NW 114 OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA. LESS THAT PORTION DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 3241, PAGE
3460, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 32:
OR 4531 PG 2877
is 0
THE NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 33:
THE NE 114 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NW 114 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 34:
THE E 112 OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NE 114, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 35:
THE W 112 OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NE 114 OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 36:
THE SW 1/4 OF THE NE 114, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA. - �-�
PARCEL 37:
THE S 112 OF THE NW 114 OF S , TiOj�t'23, TOWNSHIP 50 Sbi4Q; RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS THE }NEST 100-FEE-T, - \_ \
ALSO LESS THAT PORTION
LESS THAT PORTION DESC
RECORDS OF COLLIER C01
PARCEL 38:
THE NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 05``1 t , %,Elr Q--R E 1/4 OF
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLOE
PARCEL 39:
THE N 112 OF THE S 1/2 OF THE1
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLIYA
2192, PAGE 2057, AND
PAGE 3460, PUBLIC
P 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26
?CTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
PARCEL 40:
THE NE 114 OF THE SE 114 OF THE NE 114 OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
PARCEL 41:
THE S 112 OF THE S 112 OF THE SE 114 OF THE NE 114 OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 42:
THE S 112 OF THE N 1/2 OF THE E 1/2 OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE SE 114 OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP
50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 43:
THE NW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NW 114 OF THE SE 114 OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50
SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 44:
THE NW 114 OF THE NW 114 OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 45:
[.9
OR 4531 PG 2878
AMk
THE SE 114 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARGEL46:
THE E 112 OF THE SE 114 OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 47:
THE SW 114 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, AND THE W
112 OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL48:
THE SW 114 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL49:
THE N 1/2 OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF i F , 4-OF
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY „F�ID+4�,' C jl
PARCEL 50:
THE S 1/2 OF THE SE 114 OF Tt F- NEr'' - GF -TtIE SW 1/4 OF
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER CO, NTY,
PARCEL 51:
THE S1 /2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF HE 114 FT E�V
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COO / .
PARCEL 52: ' ,�
THEW 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OFT 1/4 OF THE SW 1
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COU 1 ORIDA.
PARCEL53: �. -rr.:
THE N 112 OF THE NE 114 OF THE SE 114 6F At -9A,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
24, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
-IONS 4, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
24, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
\ '� /�'
4 OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
PARCEL 54:
THE NE 114 OF THE NE 114 AND THE N 112 OF THE NE 114 OF THE SE 114 OF THE NE 1/4, SECTION
24, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 55:
THE NE 114 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 56:
THE SW 1/4 OF THE NW 114 OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 57:
THE EAST 112 OF THE SW 114 OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE SW 114 OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 50
SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 58:
THE W 112 OF THE SE 114 OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
7
OR 4531 PG 2879
PARCEL 59:
THE E 112 OF THE SE 114 OF THE SE 114 OF THE SW 114 OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL60:
THAT PART OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A CONCRETE MONUMENT MARKING THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 25; RUN N 00 °13'20" E, 2722.27 FEET TO A CONCRETE
MONUMENT MARKING THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 25; THENCE N 89 016'34"
W 1822.92 FEET; THENCE. N 00 °33'02" W 1130.79 FEET; THENCE S 88 °5647" W 1582.03 FEET;
THENCE N 03 °18'24" W 1451.30 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 25; THENCE S
87006'54"W 1919.74 FEET TO A CONCRETE MONUMENT MARKING THE NORTHWEST CORNER
OF SAID SECTION 25; THENCE S 00 °13'07" E 2636.89 FEET TO A CONCRETE MONUMENT
MARKING THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 25; THENCE S 00 013'07" E 2636.89
FEET TO A CONCRETE MONUMENT MARKING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 25;
THENCE N 89 °12'25" E 2693.13 FEET TO A CONCRETE MONUMENT MARKING THE SOUTH
QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 25; THENCE N 89 612'25" E 2693.13 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
TOGETHER WITH AN EASEMENT
RECORDS BOOK 759, PAGE 169
PARCEL 61:
THE SW 114 OF SECTION 19, YOV
FLORIDA.
PARCEL 62: 4 ""
THE S 112 OF SECTION 30, TO%r
LESS AND EXCEPT:
WIN
WAY PURL
fIdICIC RECORDS OF
!NSMP 50 OCJ%2AI
i
IP 50 SOUTH, RAO,
THE WEST 112 OF THE NW 1/4 OF THI
30, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 27,
ALSO LESS AND EXCEPT:
DEED RECORDED IN OFFICIAL
(COUNTY, FLORIDA.
�r
COLLIER COUNTY,
LLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
rf/2 OF THE SOUTH 112 OF SECTION
NTY, FLORIDA.
THE WEST 112 OF THE SW 114 OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF SECTION
30, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
ALSO LESS AND EXCEPT:
THE EAST 112 OF THE SW 114 OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE EAST 112 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF SECTION
30, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
ALSO LESS AND EXCEPT:
THE WEST 112 OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE EAST 112 OF THE SOUTH 112 OF SECTION
30, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
ALSO LESS AND EXCEPT:
THE EAST 112 OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE SW 114 OF THE EAST 112 OF THE SOUTH 112 OF SECTION
30, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
ALSO LESS AND EXCEPT:
8
* ** OR 4531 PG 2880 * **
THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NE 114 OF THE SE 114 OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 112 OF SECTION
30, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
ALSO LESS AND EXCEPT:
THE WEST 112 OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE WEST 112 OF THE SOUTH 112 OF SECTION
30, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
ALSO LESS AND EXCEPT:
THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NE 114 OF THE SW 114 OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 112 OF SECTION
30, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
ALSO LESS AND EXCEPT:
THE EAST 112 OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 112 OF SECTION
30, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EA T- TY, FLORIDA.
.{ `'7 - QjIN\
ALSO LESS AND EXCEPT: �THE E 1/ 2 OF THE SE 1/4 OF TF�E N F�HE EAST 112 OPTH&� OUTH 1/2 OF SECTION 30,
TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANG 27 EfER�OUNSY, FLQRID.
�l 1
ALSO LESS AND EXCEPT: 1J i l l �1 �--�`�
THE EAST 112 OF THE NE 114�1QF,, I� it4j� / LE EST >Olt fHE SOUTH 112 OF SECTION
30, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANG 27 EAST, COLLIM OUNTY, WL IDA.
ALSO LESS AND EXCEPT:
THE WEST 112 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE fi. 16F THE SOUTH i/2 OF SECTION
30, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 27i It,
iTY FLORIDA.
Hacienda Lakes
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
G MP Application
CCPC
EXHIBIT E
Vicinity Map
Materials
�T IV "V1iwaliial on
CUtiSI'�L -HAC Engineering
1 \ / IL J S- ving
Hacienda Lakes
Exhibit E - Vicinity Map
0 0.5 1 Miles
"D 1 \ / nINC.
CONStAJANG
1 \ 1 11 1
-Planning -Visualization
Civil Engineering • Surveying & Mapping
Prepared By: rmiones
Printing Date: June 18, 2010
File: T:\ Projects\ 2005 \05_0150.02.03_HaciendaLakes\
GMP \RevO 1 \Hacienda_Vicinity_E.mxd
acienda Lakes
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
CCPC
EXHIBIT F
G
PURPOSELY OMITTED
P Application
'iew Materials
Tj \Iti
plamulg
v
D`A.1i.1w
�ONC('C,ING hp—nng
1 V / 1L ) S—yiq
K �� 1 I �I\C. %�iuliiaom
i'ONSOL,T ttiG Enunwaing
1 \ 1
11 J S—ry inc
0 1,000 2,OOOFeet "DAA [A INC.
mmmmr� Hacienda Lakes CONSULTING
Exhibit G -1 - Existing Future Land Use Map Planning -Visualization %6. �
-Civil Engineering -Surveying & Mapping
N
Prepared By: rmjones
Printing Date: June 18, 2010
File: T:\ Projects\ 2005 \05_0150.02.03_HaciendaLakes\
GMP \Rev01 \Existing_FLUM_G 1. mxd
Hacienda Lakes
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
GMP Application
CCPC Review Materials
EXHIBIT G -2
Proposed Future Land
Use Map
CO V S I' [A I \ 1; Enginsxing
1 \ ► ►l J Surcrvine
rn
U_
O
W
J
0
m
Q'
W
J
J
0
U
Existing Haceinda Lakes
+/ -27.51 Acres
RATTLESNAKE
HAMMOCK EXT.
Collier Regional
Medical Center
+/- 9.16 Acres
Proposed Hacienda Lakes
Additional 9.16 Acres
STATE
LANDS
Legend
Project Boundary
_ Collier Regional Medical Center PUD
Existing Activity Center
= Transfer from Collier Regional Medical Center
Collier County Major Roads
Hacienda Lakes
Activity Center No. 7 - South Quadrant
Exhibit G -2 - Proposed Future Land Use Map
0 1,000 2,000 Feet
N
DAITA IM
< ,)NvSt t i 1\,,
Z \ T IA1 L
• Planning • Visualization
Civil Engineering • Surveying & Mapping
Prepared By:rmjones
Printing Date: June 18, 2010
File: T:\ Projects\ 2005 \05_0150.02.03_HaciendaLakes\
GMP \Rev01 \Proposed_FLUM_G2.mxd
Hacienda Lakes
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
GPAP Application
CCPC R view Materials
EXHIBIT H
Zoning and Land Use Ma
K1 / NcVV1 ,17,,ion
CONS, Ll [` G Emintiring
1 \ 1 ►L ) Su-e ine
,.
—'I
U
SUBJECT PROPERTY
=1L
O
Ji
m
L
WI
J '
J,
O
Hacienda Lakes
Exhibit H - Zoning and Land Use Map
r
Existing Zoning within
500' of Project Boundary
A
CPUD
MPUD
PUD
RPUD
500' BUFFER
STATE
Existing Land Uses within 500' of Project Boundary
USE CODE
LAND USE
00
RESIDENTIAL
01
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
02
MOBILE HOME
04
CONDOMINIUM
07
MISC. RESIDENTIAL
10
VACANT COMMERCIAL
16
COMMUNITY SHOPPING CENTER
18
OFFICE, ONE STORY
21
RESTAURANTS
23
FINANCIAL INSTITIUTIONS
38
GOLF COURSE
40
VACANT INDUSTRIAL
47
MINERAL PROCESSING
48
WAREHOUSING, DISTRIBUTION TERMINALS
60
GRAZING LANDS 1
66
ORCHARD GROVES
67
POULTRY, BEES, TROPICAL FISH, RABBITS
69
ORNAMENTALS, MISC AGRICULTURE
71
CHRUCHES, TEMPLES
73
PRIVATELY OWNED HOSPITALS
82
FOREST, PARKS, RECREATIONAL
86
COUNTIES - OTHER
87
STATE - OTHER
91
UTILITY
94
RIGHT -OF -WAY
95
RIVERS, LAKE, SUBMERGED LANDS
96
SEWEAGE DISPOSAL, WASTE LANDS
97
OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL
99
ACREAGE NOT AGRICULTURE CLASSIFIED
0 2,000 4,000 Feet
4A.,
N
DAVA INC.
C'ONSUI.1-1NO
1%.T 1L 1
• Planning • Visualization
• Civil Engineering • Surveying & Mapping
Prepared By:rmjones
Printing Date: June 18, 2010
File: T: \Projects\ 2005 \05_0150.02.03 HaciendaLakes\
GMP \Rev01 \Hacienda_ Zoning_Land Use_H.mxd
Legend
Layer
CON -ST
RMF -6- GGDCCO
Project Boundary
E
RMF -6GH
O 500' Buffer outside Project Boundary
_ GC
RMF- 6 -SBCO
Collier County Major Roads
1
771 RPUD
ZONES
MH
- RPUD and CFPUD
A
PUD
, RSF -1
A -MHO
E n P
_� RSF -2
A -PU -b
PE
_ j RSF -3
A- PU -c /J
77 RMF -12
RSF -3(1)
A -ST
77 RMF -12(7)
RSF -3- GGDCCO
C -1
RMF- 12(8.9)
RSF -4
C -2
RMF- 12(10)
1 RSF -4(3)
C -3
RMF -I2- GGDCCO
RSF -5
C -4
RMF- I2 -SBCO
l RSF - 5(0.4)
- C -5
RMF -16
RT
- CF
RMF -16(8)
— TTRVC
- CFPUD
RMF -6
- VR
CPUD
RMF -6(3)
CON
RMF -6 (4)
0 2,000 4,000 Feet
4A.,
N
DAVA INC.
C'ONSUI.1-1NO
1%.T 1L 1
• Planning • Visualization
• Civil Engineering • Surveying & Mapping
Prepared By:rmjones
Printing Date: June 18, 2010
File: T: \Projects\ 2005 \05_0150.02.03 HaciendaLakes\
GMP \Rev01 \Hacienda_ Zoning_Land Use_H.mxd
Corby Schmidt,
C!�
CCPC
EXHIBIT I
Public Facilities Map
Lakes
npal Planner
' Application
ew Materials
('p�Spi.l'IAG Dgin—g
1 \ / IL \ Surveying
C
Sta
S
ion 20
0
GREEN 81 VQ
PINE RIDGE RD
0
Golden Gate
Elementary School
(PreK -2)
Golden
Gate • Golden Gate
Elementary
School Community Park
(3
-5)
a Golden Gate Substation
CCEM
Station 5 -50 "
.Golden Terrace
North
+
• Elementary
lSchool
Golden
GOLDEN GATE R v MiddleSchool
Gate
Golden Terrace
• Elementary
South
School
o
Golden Gate Mike
Davis
Golden Gate
Aquatij�7apd Fitness
High School j Elementary
!= i
Complex
School
Calusa Park
Elementary School it
CCEMS ALS Eng 20 ...........
Approximate location of
m existing 12" force main
RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK RD
East Naples Substation I* ;I
Lely Elementary
School
\9-19 imate location of existing rce main to be replaced
ith a 12" force main.
Lely High
School
Parkside o mentary School
Eagles Lake
-' Community Park
Wayside Park
Big Cypress
mentary Sch
•
East Naples FD 20
Existing 20" water main and approximate
location of future 35" water main.
Florida
Ida Sports
l~° Park
Water Treatment Facility
Manatee
Manatee Middle School
CCEMS Station 14 Elementary School
0
Hacienda Lakes
Exhibit I - Public Facilities Map
STATE
LANDS
0 0.5 1 Miles
N
A
0
0
CCEMS Station 17 i
,7 i WILSON BOULEVARD CENTER
Legend
Project Boundary
Public Facilities
C* Sheriff Substation
. Fire Station
EMS Stations
U Parks
Schools
Water Treatment Facility
Collier County Major Roads
"DA / \INC.
CONSULTING
.AL \tr IL 1
Planning -Visualization
Civil Engineering -Surveying & Mapping
Prepared By:rmjones
Printing Date: June 18, 2010
File: T: \Projects\ 2005 \05_0150.02.03 HaciendaLakes\
GMP \Rev01 \Public Facilities I.mxd
Hacienda Lakes
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
GMP Application
CCPC Review Materials
EXHIBIT J
Future Schools Location Map
0)%SI [AIN( Fngia�nng
1 \ / IL ) S—,,ng
CQs
Q5
FUTURE SCHOOLS LOCATION MAP
COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
LFECOUNTY
COLLIER COUNTY
to
LEMENTAR'
PARKLAND PUD ELEMENTARY
COMMITMENT SCHOOL "U"
2025 2026
LEE COUNTY ■
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
COLL*R C
NORTH
CovyTY RD 846 - IMMOK4LEE ROAD
L r
MIDDLE F
"
J I
"
SASAL BAY PUD
COMM ITM ENT
TBD
SOUTH
I
RE a 01 ff JAFJ
iz EAST—SOUTIJ
Ell
Imu
N.T.S.
HENDRY COUNTY
. .
- - S- o - - - - - ' - -
- - - I - - - - - - - - - -
COLLIER COUNTY
STATE RD 29
SITE
TBD rn
WESTCLOK
sTREET—IMMOKALEE
LAKE I�IORD P1
T
R COUNTYRD 846
PLANNING COMMU NITYAPPROXI MATE YEAR
ELEMENTARY EMENTARY "H"
r
2020
47
AVA MARIA
ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL "Q"
2019
VA NDERBIL r REACHROAD
zo i
ELEMENTARY "0"
..4
2028
MIDDLE "GG"
4
)
MIDDLE
SCHOOL "11"
2019
HIGH "HHH"
OIL WELL ROAD
t4.
4j
G CL DEN
C,
(;A rA
Q
0 wwfrBo
C,
G.G.PARKWAY
75
#OAD
0.
DA UfF YARD
o
RATTLE SNAKE HAMMOCK
L r
MIDDLE F
"
J I
"
SASAL BAY PUD
COMM ITM ENT
TBD
SOUTH
I
RE a 01 ff JAFJ
iz EAST—SOUTIJ
Ell
Imu
N.T.S.
HENDRY COUNTY
. .
- - S- o - - - - - ' - -
- - - I - - - - - - - - - -
COLLIER COUNTY
STATE RD 29
SITE
TBD rn
WESTCLOK
sTREET—IMMOKALEE
LAKE I�IORD P1
T
R COUNTYRD 846
-NORTH
I III_II W
ca
fill
SCHOOL P"
SCHOOL "DD]
2023
INTERSTA TERT.75(ALLIGA LEYJ
PLANNING COMMUNITIES
COLLIER COUNTY
FLORIDA
2
Z�
7
7
UNSITED SCHOOLS
HOOL TYPE
PLANNING COMMU NITYAPPROXI MATE YEAR
ELEMENTARY EMENTARY "H"
r
2020
47
AVA MARIA
ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL "Q"
2019
ROYAL FAKAPALM (7)
2023
ELEMENTARY "0"
TF
2028
MIDDLE "GG"
4
)
MIDDLE
SCHOOL "11"
2019
HIGH "HHH"
OIL WELL ROAD
2027
-NORTH
I III_II W
ca
fill
SCHOOL P"
SCHOOL "DD]
2023
INTERSTA TERT.75(ALLIGA LEYJ
PLANNING COMMUNITIES
COLLIER COUNTY
FLORIDA
2
Z�
7
7
UNSITED SCHOOLS
HOOL TYPE
PLANNING COMMU NITYAPPROXI MATE YEAR
ELEMENTARY EMENTARY "H"
ROYAL FAKAPALM (7)
2020
ELEMENTARY "V"
ROYAL FAKAPALM (7)
2023
ELEMENTARY "0"
SOUTH NAPLES (5)
2028
MIDDLE "GG"
RURAL ESTATES (8)
2027
HIGH "HHH"
CORKSCREW (9)
2027
Sc
42
�0' �
nw-
*TBD = TO BE DETERMINED INDICATES SCHOOL SITE IS NOT IN THE
PLAN: 2010-2029
Exhibit J
April 2009
11acienda Lakes
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
GX4P Application
CCPC R view Materials
EXHIBIT K
Aerial Photo of Subject Property
CU�'SUI.,I'(tiG F�mimYnng
1 \ / /L J SuneSinc
Hacienda Lakes
Exhibit K - Aerial Photograph Map
0 0.25 0.5 Miles
a
TDA"CIAINC.
CONSULTING
i%.r Iri. a
• Planning • Visualization
-Civil Engineering Surveying & Mapping
Prepared By:rmjones
Printing Date: June 18, 2010
File: T:\Projects\ 2005 \05_0150.02.03_HaciendaLakes\
GMP \Rev01 \Hacienda Aerial K.mxd
Hacienda Lakes
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
G P Application
CCPC R view Materials
EXHIBIT L
Public Facilities Impact Anal�sis
CONm 1 ;11V6 Eneitxm?
1 \ 1 ►L A Su ecine
Exhibit L
Public Facilities Impact Analysis
Solid Waste
Residential - Multi Family
Commercial
Net Demand & Adequate Capacity
"Impact
Fee
Impact of
Adequate
Development
DRI /PUD
2009 AUIR Adopted
Impact of Additional
DRI /PUD
2009 AUIR Adopted
Additional
Net Increase Resulting
2009 AUIR Inventory of
Capacity /Facility Ties
Phasing
Dwelling
Population
Level of Service Stds.
Density on LOS
Additional
Level of Service Stds.
Conveyed
from the GMP
Existing Facilities or
to Meet Demand
N/A
N/A
(Fiscal Year)
Units
(Assuming 2.0-
(TPY per Capita)
(TPY)
Conveyed Intensity
(TPY per Capita)
Intensity on
Amendment (Tons)
Capacity (Tons)
Under Proposed
person per d.u.)
(sq. ft.)
LOS
Amendment?
2012
50
100
0.59
59.0
27,500
N/A
N/A
59.0
5,467,419
Yes
N/A
N/A
2013
200
400
0.59
236.0
170,000
N/A
N/A
236.0
5,166,610
Yes
N/A
N/A
2014
200
400
0.59
236.0
175,000
N/A
N/A
236.0
4,860,482
Yes
N/A
N/A
2015
275
550
0.59
324.5
175,000
N/A
N/A
324.5
4,549,302
Yes
N/A
N/A
2016
275
550
0.59
324.5
20,000
N/A
N/A
324.5
4,233,348
Yes
N/A
N/A
2017
275
550
0.59 1
324.5
20,000
N/A
N/A
324.5
3,912,546
Yes
N/A
N/A
2018
275
550
0.59 1
324.5
20,000
N/A
N/A
324.5
3,586,822
Yes
N/A
N/A
2019 1
210
420
0.59 1
247.8
20,000
WA-
--N/A
247.8
3,256,101
-Xes --
N/A
N/A
Total
1,760
3,520
1
2,076.8
627,500
2,076.8
Parks - Community
Residential - Multi Family Commercial Net Demand & Adequate Capacity *Impact Fee
Development
DRI /PUD
2009 AUIR Adopted
CIE for Recreationa]Conveyed
DRI /PUD
Impact of
Additional
Net Increase Resulting
2009 AUIR Inventory of
Adequate
Capacity /Facility Ties
Assuming avg. of
1,811 sq.ft. of living
135 -Room Hotel
Phasing
g
Dwelling
g
Population
p
Level of Service Stds.
Facilities LOS
Additional
2009 AUIR Adopted
Conveyed
from the GMP
Existing Capacity
to Meet Demand
space & $1,315.89
($503.22 per
Fiscal Year
( )
Units
(Assuming 2.0-
( g
1.2 acres /1000
($230,000 /Acre)
Intensity
Level of Service Stds.
Intensity on
Amendment (Acre)
(Surplus /(Deficiency))
Under Proposed
impact fee per d.u.
room)
person per d.u.)
populations)
(sq. ft.)
LOS
Amendment?
2012
50
100
0.12
$27,600.0
27,500
N/A
N/A
0.12
57.34
Yes
$65,794.50
-- - - - - --
2013
200
400
0.48
$110,400.0
170,000
N/A
N/A
0.48
48.94
Yes
$263,178.00
$67,934.70
2014
200
400
0.48
$110,400.0
175,000
N/A
N/A
0.48
40.44
Yes
$263,178.00
-- - - - - --
2015
275
550
0.66
$151,800.0
175,000
N/A
N/A
0.66
32.14
Yes
$361,869.75
-- - - - - --
2016
275
550
0.66
$151,800.0
20,000
N/A
N/A
0.66
23.84
Yes
$361,869.75
-- - - - - --
2017
275
1 550
0.66
$151,800.0
20,000
N/A
N/A
0.66
15.34
Yes
$361,869.75
-- - - - - --
2018
275
550
0.66
$151,800.0
20,000
N/A
N/A
0.66
5.94
Yes
$361,869.75
-- - - - - --
2019
210
420
0.50
$115,920.0
20,000
N/A
N/A
0.50
(6.46)
No
$276,336.90
-- - - - - --
Total
1,760
3,520
4.22
$971,520.0
627,500
4.22
$2,315,966.40
$67,934.7
Parks - Regional
Residential - Multi Family
Commercial
Net Demand & Adequate Capacity
"Impact
Fee
Development
DRI /PUD
2009 AUIR Adopted
CIE for Recreational
DRI /PUD
Impact of
Additional
Net Increase Resulting
2009 AUIR Inventory of
Adequate
Capacity /Facility Ties
Assuming avg. of
1,811 sq.ft. of living
135 -Room Hotel
Phasing
g
Dwelling
g
Population
p
Level of Service Stds.
Facilities LOS
Additional
2009 AUIR Adopted
Conveyed
from the GMP
Existing Capacity
to Meet Demand
space & $2,420.51
($1,038.61 per
(Fiscal
Fiscal Year
Units
(Assuming .0-
( g
( 2.9 acres /1000
($230,000 /Acre)
Conveyed Intensity
Level of Service Stds.
Intensity on
Amendment
(Surplus /(Deficiency))
Under Proposed
impact fee per d.u.
room)
person per d.u.)
populations)
(sq. ft.)
LOS
Amendment?
2012
50
100
0.29
$66,700.0
27,500
N/A
N/A
0.29
(17.62)
No
$121,025.50
-- - - - - --
2013
200
1 400
1.16
$266,800.0
170,000
N/A
N/A
1.16
585.3
Yes
$484,102.00
$140,212.35
2014
200
1 400
1.16
$266,800.0
175,000
N/A
N/A
1.16
621.8
Yes
$484,102.00
-- - - - - --
2015
275
1 550
1.60
$366,850.0
175,000
N/A
N/A
1.60
598.4
Yes
$665,640.25
-- - - - - --
2016
275
550
1.60
$366,850.0
20,000
N/A
N/A
1.60
573.6
Yes
$665,640.25
-- - - - - --
2017
275
550
1.60
$366,850.0
20,000
N/A
N/A
1.60
548.4
Yes
$665,640.25
-- - - - - --
2018
275
550
1.60
$366,850.0
20,000
N/A
N/A
1.60
659.6
Yes
$665,640.25
-- - - - - --
2019
210
420
1.22
$280,140.0
20,000
N/A
N/A
1.22
633.8
Yes
$508,307.10
-- - - - - --
Total
1,760
3,520
10.21
$2,347,840.0
627,500
L
10.21
1
$4,260,097.60
$140,212.35
`Note: Impact fees, as adopted by Collier County, will address any additional impacts on public facilities created by the additional density and intensity requested in this GMP amendment.
on
Exhibit L
Public Facilities Impact Analysis
Pn4ahlu Wa4ur
"Note: Impact fees (or user fees), as adopted by Collier County, will address any additional impacts on public facilities created by the additional density and intensity requested in this GMP amendment.
-
-c
1
uE
Avg. Daily
Impact
2009 AUIR
2009 R
Adequate
Capacity/Facility
Assuming avg. of
s
Non - Residential
DRI /PUD
Avg. Daily
Impact of
Avg.
g y
of
Impact of
Avg. Daily
Impact of
Development
P
DRUPUD
2009 AUIR
Impact of
Additional
Demand per
Additional
DRI /PUD
Demand per
Additional
Demand per
Additional
Demand per
a
Additional
Inventory
o
Ties to Meet
1 ,811 s ft. of
4
(Assuming each
( g
Phasing
Dwelling
Population
Adopted Level of
Additional
Conveyed
F.A.C. Stds.,
Conveyed
Additional
F.A.C. Stds.,
Conveyed
Students
F.A.C. Stds.,
Conveyed
Rooms
F.A.C. Stds.,
Conveyed
Net Increase Resulting from the
Existing Facilities
living space 8
340 gpd equals
(Fiscal Year)
Units
(Assuming 2.0-
Service Stds.
Density on
Intensity
Section 64E-
Intensity on
Conveyed
Section 64E-
Intensity on
Section 64E-
Intensity on
Section 64E-
Intensity on
GMP Amendment (GPD)
or Capacity
Demand Under
$3,575 impact fee
$3,5fe impact
person per d.u.)
(GPD per Capita)
LOS (GPD)
6'008
LOS
Intensity (sq. ft.)
6.008 (GPD /ft2)
LOS (GPD)
6.008
LOS (GPD)
6.008
LOS (GPD)
(MGD)
Proposed
per d. u.
fee)
(sq. ft.)
GPD1ft2
(GPD)
GPD /stdnt
GPD /room
Amendment?
2012
50
100
170
17,000
27,500
0.1 1
2.750
--
19,750
15.15
Yes
$178,750.00
$28,915.44
2013
200
400
170
68,000
150,000
0.1 1
15,000
20,000
0.15
3,000
--
--
86,000
14.51
Yes
$715,000.00
$189.264.71
2014
200
400
170
68,000
190,000
0.1
19,000
25,000
0.15
3,750
135
100
13,500
104,250
13.86
Yes
$715,000.00
$381,158.09
2015
275
550
170
93,500
20,000
0.1
2,000
25,000
0.15
3,750
919
14
12,866
112,116
13.22
Yes
$983.125.00
$195.741.76
2016
275
550
170
93,500
20,000
0.1
2,000
--
95,500
12.60
Yes
$983,125.00
$21,029.41
2017
275
550
170
93,500
20,000
0.1
2,000
95,500
11.98
Yes
$983,125.00
$21,029.41
2018
275
550
170
93.500
20,000
0.1
2,000
--
--
--
95,500
11.28
Yes
$983.125.00
$21,029.41
2019
210
420
170
71,400
20,000
0.1
2,000
--
--
73,400
10.36
Yes
$750.750.00
$21,029.41
Total
1760
3520
598,400
467,500
46,750
70,000
10,500
919
12,866
135
13,500 1
682,016 1
1
$6,292,000.00
$879197.65
Sanitary
Sewer
rA
Impact of
Avg. Daily
Impact of
Avg. Daily
Impact of
Avg. Daily Impact of
2009 AUIR Adequate Assuming avg. of
Capacity /Facility
Non - Residential
DRI /PUD
Avg. Daily
Development DRI /PUD
2009 AUIR
Impact of
Additional
Demand per
Additional DRI /PUD
Additional Additional
Demand per
Additional
Demand per
F.A.C. Stds.,
Additional
Demand per Additional
F.A.C. Stds., Net Increase Resulting from the
Inventory of 1,811 sq.ft. of
Ties to Meet
(Assuming each
340 gpd equals
Phasing Dwelling Population
-
Adopted Level of
Additional
Conveyed
F.A.C. Std
Conveyed -
Conveyed
_ _- Conveyed GMP_Amendment (G ?6).. _
Existing Facilities �� _ living space &
$3,4fee) pact
(Fiscal Year) Units (Assuming 2.05
Service Sids.
Density on
intensity
Section 64E'
conveyed
Section 64E-
Intensity on
ec ion 64E-
or(MGD)Ity Proposed $3,49P impact fee
person per d.u.)
(GPD per Capita)
LOS (GPD)
ft.)
6.008
LOS (GPD) Intensity (sq. ft.)
6 ft2)
LOS (GPD)
6.008
LOS (GPD)
6.008 LOS (GPD)
d.u.
(sq.
GPD /ft2
GPD /stdnt
(GPD/room)
Amendment?
2012
50
100
100
10,000
27,500
0.1
2,750
12,750
5.16
Yes
$174,750
$28,268.38
2013
200
400
100
40,000
150,000
0.1
15,000
20,000
0.15
3,000
--
--
58,000
5.01
Yes
$699,000
$185,029.41
2014
200
400
100
40,000
190,000
0.1
19,000
25,000
0.15
3,750
- --
--
135
100
13.500
76,250
4.86
Yes
$699,000
$372,628.68
2015
275
550
100
55,000
20,000
0.1
2,000
25,000
0.15
31750
919
14
12,866
- --
73,616
4.71
Yes
$961,125
$191,361.53
2016
275
550
100
55.000
20,000
0.1
2,000
--
57,000
4.57
Yes
$961,125
$20,558.82
2017
275
550
100
55,000
20,000
0.1
2,000
- --
--
--
--
--
57,000
4.42
Yes
$961,125
$20,558.82
2018
275
550
100
55,000
20,000
0.1
2,000
- --
--
--
- -
57,000
4.25
Yes
$961,125
$20,558.82
2019
210
420
100
42,000
20,000
0.1
2,000
--
--
- - --
- - --
- --
- --
44,000
4.03
Yes
$733,950
$20,558.82
Total
1760
3520.0
352,000
467,500
46,750
70,000
10,500
919
12,866
135
13,500
435,616
$6,151,200
$859,523
Drain age
..
....
-.
,,
..
N
Net Demand
eC
Development
DRI /PUD
Level of Service
Impact of
DRUPUD
Level of
Impact of
DRI /PUD
Level of
Impact of
Level of
Service
Impact of
Level of
Impact of
2009 AUIR
Adequate
Capacity /Facility
Phasing
Dwelling
Population
P
(SFWMD 25 -yr /3-
Additional
Additional
Service
Additional
Additional
Service
Additional
(SFWMD 25-
Additional
Service
Additional
Net Increase Resulting from the
Inventory of
Ties to Meet
N/A
Fiscal Y ar
( )
Units
(Assuming 2.5-
day Storm Event
Density on
Conveyed
(SFWMD 25-
Conveyed
Conveyed
(SFWMD 25-
Conveyed
Students
yr /3 -day
Conveyed
Rooms
(SFWMD 25-
Conveyed
GMP Amendment
Existing Facilities
Demand Under
per d. u.)
Design)
LOS
Intensity
yr /3-day Storm
Intensity on
Intensity (sq. ft.)
yr /3 -day Storm
Intensity on
Storm Event
Intensity on
yr /3 -day Storm
Intensity on
or Capacity
P y
Proposed
P
person
(sq. ft.)
Event Design)
LOS (GPD)
Event Design)
LOS (GPD)
Desi n
LOS (GPD)
Event Design)
LOS (GPD)
Amendment?
N of Sabal Palm,
N of Sabal
N of Sabal
N of Sabal
N of Sabal
N /A: LOS Requires Project to be
0.06 cfs/ac; of
Palm, 0.06
Palm, 0.06
Palm, 0.06
Palm, 0.06
Meet SFWMD /Collier
Designed WMD/
N/A
Yes
N/A
2012
50
100.0
Sabal Palm 0.04
N/A
27,500
cfs /ac; S of
N/A
--
cfs /ac; S of
N/A
cfs /ac; S of
N/A
- - --
cfs /ac; S of
N/A
County Requirements (25 -yr /3 -day
q
.
cfs /ac
Sabal Palm
Sabal Palm
Sabal Palm
Sabal Palm
Storm Event)
0.04 cfs /ac
0.04 cfs /ac
0.04 cfs /ac
0.04 cfs /ac
N of Sabal Palm,
N of Sabal
N of Sabal
N of Sabal
N of Sabal
N/A'. LOS Requires Project to be
0.06 cfs/ac; of
Palm, 0.06
Palm, 0.06
Palm, 0.06
Palm, 0.06
Designed Meet SFWMD/Collier
N/A
N/A
N/A
2013
200
400.0
Sabal Palm 0. 04
N/A
150,000
cfs /ac; S of
N/A
20,000
cfs /ac; S of
N/A
--
cfs /ac; S of
N/A
- - --
cfs /ac, S of
N/A
County Req uirements (25 -yr /3 -day
q
.
Sabal Palm
Sabal Palm
Sabal Palm
Sabal Palm
Storm Event)
cfs /ac
0.04 cfs /ac
0.04 cfs /ac
0.04 cfs /ac
0.04 cfs /ac
N of Sabal Palm,
N of Sabal
N of Sabal
N of Sabal
N of Sabal
q Project to be
N/A: LOS Re uires
0.06 cfs /ac; S of
Palm, 0.06
Palm, 0.06
Palm, 0.06
Palm, 0.06
D/
Designed Meet SFWMD /Collier
N/A
N/A
N/A
2014
200
400.0
Sabal Palm 0.04
N/A
190,000
cfs /ac; S of
N/A
25,000
cfs /ac; S of
N/A
- --
cfs /ac S of
N/A
135
cfs /ac; S of
N/A
County Requirements (25 -yr /3 -day
q
Sabal Palm
Sabal Palm
Sabal Palm
Sabal Palm
Storm Event)
cfs /ac
0.04 cfs /ac
0.04 cfs /ac
0.04 cfs /ac
0.04 cfs /ac
N of Sabal Palm,
N of Sabal
N of Sabal
N of SabaI
N of Sabal
q to be
N/A: LOS Requires Project
0.06 cfs /ac; S of
Palm, 0.06
Palm, 0.06
Palm, 0.06
Palm, 0.06
D/
Designed Meet SFWMD /Collier
N/A
Yes
N/A
2015
275
550.0
Sabal Palm 0.04
N/A
20,000
cfs /ac; S of
N/A
25,000
cfs /ac; S of
N/A
919
cfs /ac. S of
N/A
- --
cfs /ac; S of
N/A
County Requirements (25- yr /3-day
q
cfs /ac
Sabal Palm
Sabal Palm
Sabal Palm
Sabal Palm
Storm Event)
0.04 cfs /ac
0.04 cfs /ac
0.04 cfs /ac
0.04 cfs /ac
N of Sabal Palm,
N of Sabal
N of Sabal
N of Sabal
N of Sabal
N/A: LOS Requires Project to be
0.06 cfs /ac; S of
Palm, 0.06
Palm, 0.06
Palm, 0.06
Palm, 0.06
Designed Meet SFWMD /Collier
N/A
Yes
N/A
2016
275
550.0
Sabal Palm 0.04
N/A
20.000
cfs /ac; S of
N/A
cfs /ac; S of
N/A
--
cfs /ac, S of
N/A
--
cfs /ac; S of
N/A
uirements (25- yr /3-day
County Requirements
cfs /ac
Sabal Palm
Sabal Palm
Sabal Palm
Sabal Palm
Storm Event)
0.04 cfs /ac
0.04 cfs /ac
0.04 cfs /ac
0.04 cfs /ac
N of Sabal Palm,
N of Sabal
N of Sabal
N of Sabal
N of Sabal
N/A: LOS Requires Project to be
0.06 cfs /ac; S of
Palm, 0.06
Palm, 0.06
Palm, 0.06
Palm, 0.06
Collier
Designed Meet SFWMD/Collier
N/A
Yes
N/A
2017
275
550.0
Sabal Palm 0.04
N/A
20,000
cfs /ac; S of
N/A
cfs /ac; S of
N/A
--
cfs /ac S of
N/A
- --
cfs /ac; S of
N/A
County Req. uirements (25 -yr /3 -day
q
/ac
Sabal Palm
Sabal Palm
Sabal Palm
Sabal Palm
Storm Event)
cfs
0.04 cfs /ac
0.04 cfs /ac
0.04 cfs /ac
0.04 cfs /ac
N of Sabal Palm,
N of Sabal
N of Sabal
N of Sabal
N of Sabal
N /A: LOS Requires Project to be
q j
0.06 cfs /ac; S of
Palm, 0.06
Palm, 0.06
Palm, 0.06
Palm, 0.06
Designed to Meet SFWMD /Collier
N/A
Yes
N/A
2018
275
550.0
Sabal Palm 0.04
N/A
20,000
cfs /ac; S of
N/A
cfs /ac; S of
N/A
--
cfs /ac; S of
N/A
cfs /ac; S of
N/A
Count y Requirements (25- yr /3-day
q
cfs /ac
Sabal Palm
Sabal Palm
Sabal Palm
Sabal Palm
Storm Event)
0.04 cfs /ac
0.04 cfs /ac
0.04 cfs /ac
0.04 cfs /ac
N of Sabal Palm,
N of Sabal
N of Sabal
N of Sabal
N of Sabal
N/A: LOS Requires Project to be
0.06 cfs /ac; S of
Palm, 0.06
Palm, 0.06
Palm, 0.06
Palm, 0.06
Designed to Meet SFWMD /Collier
N/A
Yes
N/A
2019
210
420.0
Sabal Palm 0.04
N/A
20,000
S
N/A
cfs/ac; S
N/A
S
N/A
cfs/ac; Slm
N/A
Count Requirements 25- r /3-da
y q ( y y
m
Sabal Palm
Sabal
m
Sabal Palm
m
Sabal Palm
Sabal
Sabal Palm
Storm Event)
cfs /ac
0.04 cfs /ac
0.04 cfs /ac
0.04 cfs /ac
0.04 cfs /ac
"Note: Impact fees (or user fees), as adopted by Collier County, will address any additional impacts on public facilities created by the additional density and intensity requested in this GMP amendment.
Puhlir qrk. la
Development
Phasing
(Fiscal Year)
Elementary School LOS Analysis
LOS 95% FISH; CSA: E3
Middle School LOS Analysis
LOS 95% FISH; CSA, M2
High School LOS
1Ski'
Analysis
3
Phasing
(Fiscal Year)
__204 -2-
Projected
Enrollment
1134
Total
Elementary
School Students
Cumulative
Elementary
School Students
SF Students
(0.10 per SF)
MFA Students
(0.08 per MFA)
MFC Students
(0.01 per MFC)
Total Middle
School Students
Cumulative
Middle School
Students
LOS/
Utilzation
__ 77.65°lo
Additional DRI
Students
3
LOS with DRI
Students
77,75%
Capacity to meet
demand
Yes
Projected
Enrollment
6333
FISH
Capacity
7487
Single Family
(SF) Units
Multi - Family
Apartment
(MFA) Units
Muti - Family
Condo (MFC)
Units
SF Students
(0.16 per SF)
MFA Students
(0.20 per MFA)
MFC Students
(0.02 per MFC)
SF Students
(0.12 per SF)
MFA Students
(0.09 per MFA)
MFC Students
(0.01 per MFC)
Total High
School Students
Cumulative
High School
Students
$10,755.41
per SF
$3,343.68
per MF
Total
2012
20
6
24
3.20
1.20
0.48
4.88
5
2.00
0.48
0.24
2.72
3
2.40
0.54
0.24
3.18
3
$215,108.20
$100,310.40
$315,418.60
2013
100
20
80
16.00
4.00
1.60
21.60
26
10.00
1.60
0.80
12.40
15
12.00
1.80
0.80
14.60
18
$1,075,541.00
$334,368.00
$1,409,909.00
2014
100
20
80
16.00
4.00
1.60
21.60
48
10.001
1.60
0.80
12.40
28
12.00
1.80
0.80
14.60
32
$1,075,541.00
$334,368.00
$1,409.909.00
2015
100
35
140
16.001
7.00
2.80
25.80
74
10.00
2.80
1.40
14.20
42
12.00
3.15
1.40
16.55
49
$1,075,541.00
$585,144.00
$1,660,685.00
2016
100
35
140
16.001
7.00
2.80
25.80
100
10.00
2.80
1.40
14.20
56
12.00
3.15
1.401
16.55
65
$1,075,541.00
$585,144.00
$1,660,685.00
2017
100
35
140
16.00
7.00
2.80
25.80
125
10.00
2.80
1.40
14.20
70
12.00
3.15
1.40
16.55
82
$1,075,541.00
$585.144.00
$1,660,685.00
2018
100
35
140
16.00
7.00
2.80
25.80
151
10.00
2.80
1.40
14.20
84
12.00
3.15
1.40
16.55
99
$1,075.541.00
$585,144.00
$1,660,685.00
2019
84
25
101
13.441
5.00
2.02
20.46
172
8.40
2.00
1.01
11.41
96
10.08
2.25
1.01
13.34
112
$903,454.44
$421,303.68
$1,324,758.12
TOTAL
704
211
845
112.64
42.20
16.90
171.74
172
70.40
16.88
8.45
95.73
96
84.48
18.99
8.45
111.92
112
$7,571,808.64
$3,530,926.08
$11,102,734.72
Development
Elementary School LOS Analysis
LOS 95% FISH; CSA: E3
Middle School LOS Analysis
LOS 95% FISH; CSA, M2
High School LOS
1Ski'
Analysis
3
Phasing
(Fiscal Year)
__204 -2-
Projected
Enrollment
1134
FISH
Capacity
1287
LOS/
Utilzation
88.11%
Additional DRI
Students
5
LOS with DRI
Students
88-49%
Capacity to meet
demand
Yes
Projected
Enrollment
2290
FISH
Ca a ity
2949
LOS/
Utilzation
__ 77.65°lo
Additional DRI
Students
3
LOS with DRI
Students
77,75%
Capacity to meet
demand
Yes
Projected
Enrollment
6333
FISH
Capacity
7487
LOS/
Utilzation
84.59%
Additional DRI
Students
3
LOS with DRI
Students
84.63%
Capacity to meet
demand
Yes
2013
1149
1287
89.28%
26
91.33%
Yes
2361
2949
80.06%
15
80.57%
Yes
6698
7847
85.36%
18
85.58%
Yes
2014
1124
1287
87.33%
48
91.07%
Yes
2414
2949
81.86%
28
82.79%
Yes
6938
7847
88.42%
32
88.83%
Yes
2015*
1156
2206
52.40%
74
55.75%
Yes
2473
2949
83.86%
42
85.27%
Yes
1 7061
7847
89.98%
49
90.61%
Yes
2016
1202
2206
54.49 %
1 100
59.01%
Yes
2517
2949
85.35%
56
87.25%
Yes
7066
7847
90.05%
65
90.88%
Yes
2017
1239
2206
56.17 %
125
61.85 %
Yes
2650
2949
89.86%
70
92.24%
Yes
7246
7847
92.34%
82
93.39%
Yes
2018
1277
2206
57.89 %
151
64.75%
Yes
2782
2949
94.34%
84
97.20 %
No
7426
7847
94.63 %
99
95.89 %
Yes
2019
13141
22061
59.56%
1 1721
67.35%
1 Yes
29141
29491
98.81%
1 961
102.06%
No
1 76061
7847
96.93%
1121
98.36%
1 Yes
* Proposed Elementary School Facility (919 Students)
WJ
Hacienda Lakes
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
GMP Application
CCPC Review Materials
EXHIBIT M
Environmental Report
& Maps
DIIJAINC plml vi-w'.
t'O. \S1.'L,T�VG Entimnne
1 \ / /L 1 Survec;ne
Exhibit M
Vegetation mapping of the Project site was first conducted by Passarella & Associates,
Inc. (PAI) between January and August 2002 and in March 2003 utilizing the Florida
Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) (Florida Department of
Transportation 1999). Wetland lines were flagged in the field and survey located.
Mapping was based on Level III FLUCFCS with Level IV used to denote hydrologic
conditions and disturbance. "E" codes were used to show levels of exotic invasion (i.e.,
Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) and melaleuca ( Melaleuca quinquenervia)).
In August 2009, PAI conducted fieldwork to update the FLUCFCS map for the Hacienda
Lakes DRI to reflect current conditions due to wildfires that occurred over the past
several years and the spread of invasive exotic plant species, especially melaleuca. The
wetland lines were re- flagged in the field and survey located in August through
December 2009. Verification and approval of the wetland lines by the South Florida
Water Management District (SFWMD) are pending as part of the Project's
Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) application (SFWMD Application No. 100126 -5).
AutoCAD Map 3D 2009 software was used to determine the acreage of each mapping
area, produce summaries, and generate the final FLUCFCS and Wetlands maps (Maps F,
F -1, and F -2).
A total of 64 vegetative associations and land uses (i.e., FLUCFCS codes) were identified
on the Project site. The dominant vegetation type on the site is Pine /Cypress, Disturbed
(FLUCFCS Code 6249). In general, the habitats on the Project site have a high degree of
infestation by melaleuca on the western and central portion of the property. The
melaleuca infestation generally decreases towards the eastern portion of the site.
The following table summarizes the FLUCFCS codes and provides an acreage
breakdown, while a description of each FLUCFCS code follows.
FLUCFCS Codes and Acreages
FLUCFCS
Code
Description
Acreage
Percent
of Total
180
Recreational
79.89
3.5
212
Unimproved Pasture
9.14
0.4
260
Rural Open Land
10.54
0.5
262
Low Pasture, H dric
54.43
2.4
321-9E 1
Palmetto Prairie, Disturbed (0 — 24% Exotics)
27.81
1.2
3219 E2
Palmetto Prairie, Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics)
12.60
0.6
3219 E3
Palmetto Prairie, Disturbed (50 - 75% Exotics)
3.71
0.2
Passarella & Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 1
FLUCFCS
Code
Description
Acreage
Percent
of Total
3219 E4
Palmetto Prairie, Disturbed (76 - 100% Exotics)
5.75
0.3
4119 E1
Pine Flatwoods, Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics)
90.01
4.0
4119 E2
Pine Flatwoods, Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics)
143.78
6.4
4119 E3
Pine Flatwoods, Disturbed (50 - 75% Exotics)
23.49
1.0
4119 E4
Pine Flatwoods, Disturbed (76 - 100% Exotics)
0.35
<0.1
4159 E2
Pine, Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics)
6.77
0.3
4159 E3
Pine, Disturbed (50 - 75% Exotics)
10.78
0.5
4159 E4
Pine, Disturbed (76 - 100% Exotics)
6.47
0.3
4221
Brazilian Pepper, Hydric
1.81
0.1
424
Melaleuca
13.70
0.6
4241
Melaleuca, Hydric
345.07
15.3
4269 E1
Tropical Hardwood Hammock, Disturbed
(0 - 24% Exotics)
0.40
<0.1
4269 E2
4279 E1
Tropical Hardwood Hammock, Disturbed
(25 - 49 % Exotics)
Live Oak, Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics)
2.25
3.89
0.1
0.2
4279 E2
Live Oak, Disturbed (50 - 75% Exotics)
0.29
<0.1
4289 E1
4289 E2
Cabbage Palm, Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics)
Cabbage Palm, Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics)
1.20
19.08
0.1
0.8
4289 E3
Cabbage Palm, Disturbed (50 - 75% Exotics)
3.25
0.1
4349 E1
514
Hardwood- Conifer, Mixed, Disturbed
(0 - 24% Exotics)
Ditch
1.47
3.38
0.1
0.1
6189 E1
Willow, Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics)
10.97
0.5
6189 E2
Willow, Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics)
2.48
0.1
6219 E1
-n
Cypress, Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics)
• -------- : ..0 A [11Z _ do°i Fivnr;t,cl
157.74
27.66
7.0
1.2
6219 E3
Cypress, Disturbed (50 - 75% Exotics)
1.45
0.1
62459 E2
ypress, Drained, Disturbed
% Exotics)
1.32
0.1
62459 E3
6249 El
Pine /Cypress, Drained, Disturbed
(50 - 75% Exotics)
Pine /C ress, Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics)
2.36
289.16
0.1
12.8
6249 E2
Pine /Cypress, Disturbed (25- 49% Exotics)
327.32
14.5
6249 E3
Pine/Cypress, Disturbed (50 - 75% Exotics)
258.23
11.4
6249 E4
Pine/Cypress, Disturbed (76 - 100% Exotics)
27.86
1.2
624B E2
Pine /Cypress, Burned (25 -49% Exotics)
22.90
1.0
624B E3
Pine/Cypress, Burned (50 -75% Exotics)
9.56
0.4
6259 E1
Hydric Pine, Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics)
31.52
1.4
6259 E2
Hydric Pine, Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics)
27.86
1.2
6259 E3
Hydric Pine, Disturbed (50 - 75% Exotics)
63.26
2.8
Passarella & Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 2
FLUCFCS
Code
Description
Acreage
g
Percent
of Total
6259 E4
Hydric Pine, Disturbed (76 - 100% Exotics)
12.00
0.5
625B E3
Hydric Pine, Burned (50 - 75% Exotics)
1.22
0.1
6289 E1
Hydric Cabbage Palm, Disturbed
(0 - 24% Exotics)
2.64
0.1
6289 E2
Hydric Cabbage Palm, Disturbed
(25 - 49% Exotics)
6.94
0.3
6289 E3
Hydric Cabbage Palm, Disturbed
(50 - 75% Exotics)
2.09
0.1
6309 El
Wetland Forested Mixed, Disturbed
(0 - 24% Exotics)
19.90
0.9
r6309 E2
Wetland Forested Mixed, Disturbed
(25 - 49% Exotics)
7.21
0.3
6319 E3
Wetland Shrub, Disturbed (50 - 75% Exotics)
5.83
0.3
641_9E 1
Freshwater Marsh, Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics)
6.82
0.3
6419 E2
Freshwater Marsh, Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics)
10.63
0.5
740
Disturbed Land
3.21
0.1
7401
Disturbed Land, Hydric
18.16
0.8
742
Borrow Area
5.38
0.2
743
Spoil
0.16.
<0.1
747
Berm
0.93
<0.1
814
Road
0.32
<0.1
8146
Un aved Road
4.33
0.2
830
Utilities
1.08
<0.1
8301
Utilities, Hydric
4.82
0.2
832
Powerline Easement
1.24
0.1
8321
Powerline Easement, Hydric
4.27
0.2
Totals
2,262.14
100.0
Recreational (FLUCFCS Code 1801
This area is occupied by the Florida Sports Park with associated parking areas and
facilities.
Uni droved Pasture (FLUCFCS Code 212)
This upland land type identifies areas that are part of an abandoned agricultural field.
The canopy and sub - canopy of this upland habitat are mostly open with scattered slash
pine (Pinus elliottii), cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), and young melaleuca (Melaleuca
quinquenen4a). The ground cover is dominated by bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum), and
smutgrass (Sporobolus indicus) with dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), St.
Augustine grass (Stenotaphrum secundatum), carpetgrass (Axonopus spp.), blackroot
(Pterocaulon virgatum), broomsedge (Andropogon Wrginicus), caesarweed (Urena
lobata), shrubby false buttonweed (Spermacoce verticillata), and love grass (Eragrostis
spp•)
Passarella & Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 3
Rural Open Land (FLUCFCS Code 260)
This upland land type identifies an old agricultural area that includes two old farm
buildings. The canopy vegetation includes slash pine and cabbage palm. Sub - canopy
vegetation is mostly absent with occurrences of cabbage palm, Brazilian pepper (Schinus
terebinthifolius), and melaleuca. The ground cover vegetation is similar to Unimproved
Pasture (FLUCFCS Code 212).
Low Pasture Hydric (FLUCFCS Code 262)
This wetland land type identifies areas that are part of an abandoned agricultural field.
The canopy and sub - canopy of are mostly open with scattered slash pine, cabbage palm,
melaleuca, and cypress (Taxodium spp.). The ground cover is dominated by torpedograss
(Panicum repens), and includes a variety of upland, wetland, and transitional herbaceous
species which vary by season.
Palmetto Prairie Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 3219 El)
The canopy of this upland habitat is absent or may contain scattered slash pine, cabbage
palm, earleaf acacia (Acacia auriculiforinis), and less than 25 percent melaleuca. The
sub - canopy contains saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), and
Brazilian pepper. The ground cover is dominated by saw palmetto and contains varying
combinations of beautybeny (Callicarpa americana), saltbush (Baccharis halimifolia),
staggerbush (Lyonia fruiticosa), hog plum (Prunus umbellata), gallberry (Ilex glabra),
bracken fem (Pteridium aquilinum), wiregrass (Aristida stricta), pennyroyal (Piloblephis
rigida), muscadine grapevine (Vitis rotundifolia), greenbrier (Smilax spp.), poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans), love vine (Cassytha filiformis), and Virginia creeper
(Parthenocissus quinquefolia).
Palmetto Prairie Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 3219 E2)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 3219 E1 with 25 to 49 percent
melaleuca and /or Brazilian pepper in the canopy and /or sub - canopy.
Palmetto Prairie Disturbed (50 - 75% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 3219 E3)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 3219 E1 with 50 to 75 percent
melaleuca and /or Brazilian pepper in the canopy and /or sub - canopy.
Palmetto Prairie Disturbed (76 - 100% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 3219 E4)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 3219 E1 with greater than 75
percent melaleuca and /or Brazilian pepper in the canopy and /or sub - canopy.
Pine Flatwoods Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4119 E1)
The canopy of this upland habitat is dominated by slash pine and may contain scattered
cabbage palm, live oak, earleaf acacia, and less than 25 percent melaleuca. The sub -
canopy consists of slash pine, wax myrtle, with occasional dahoon holly (Ilex casine),
and Brazilian pepper. The ground cover is dominated by saw palmetto with varying
combinations of gallberry, saltbush, muscadine grapevine, greenbrier, love vine, poison
ivy, pennyroyal, bracken fern, and beautyberiy.
Passarella & Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 4
Pine Flatwoods Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4119 E2)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 4119 El with 25 to 49 percent
melaleuca and /or Brazilian pepper in the canopy.
Pine Flatwoods Disturbed (50 - 75% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4119 E3)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 4119 E1 with 50 to 75 percent
melaleuca and /or Brazilian pepper in the canopy.
Pine Flatwoods Disturbed (76 - 100% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4119 E4)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 4119 El with greater than 75
percent melaleuca and /or Brazilian pepper in the canopy.
Pine Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4159 E2)
The canopy of this upland habitat contains slash pine with scattered cabbage palm,
earleaf acacia, and melaleuca. The sub - canopy contains slash pine, cabbage palm,
melaleuca, and Brazilian pepper. Typical ground cover includes cabbage palm,
bahiagrass, wax myrtle, ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), pennyroyal, wild coffee
(Psychotria sp.), greenbrier, muscadine grapevine, love vine, and widely scattered saw
palmetto.
Pine Disturbed (50 - 75% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4159 E3)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 4159 E2 with 50 to 75 percent
melaleuca and/or Brazilian pepper in the canopy.
Pine Disturbed (76 -100% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4159 E4)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 4159 E2 with greater than 75
percent melaleuca and /or Brazilian pepper in the canopy.
Brazilian Pepper Hydric (FLUCFCS Code 4221)
The canopy of this highly disturbed wetland area is dominated by Brazilian pepper and
may contain occasional melaleuca, slash pine and cypress. The sub - canopy is dominated
by Brazilian pepper with wax myrtle and /or saltbush. The ground cover is absent or may
include sparse asiatic pennywort (Centella asiatica), frog -fruit (Plryla nodiflora), dog
fennel, water pennywort (Hydrocotyle umbellata), buttonweed (Diodia virginiana),
and /or mock bishop's weed (Ptilimnium captillaceum).
Melaleuca (FLUCFCS Code 424)
The canopy of this highly disturbed upland area is dominated by melaleuca with widely
scattered slash pine. The sub - canopy consists of melaleuca and Brazilian pepper. Ground
cover is generally sparse and may include saltbush, wiregrass, broomsedge, dog fennel,
myrsine (Rapanea punctata), creeping oxeye (Sphagneticola trilobata), and /or poison
ivy.
Passarella & Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 5
Melaleuca Hydric (FLUCFCS Code 424 1)
This highly disturbed wetland area consists of a canopy dominated by melaleuca and may
contain widely scattered slash pine and /or cypress. The sub - canopy may be sparse or
dense with melaleuca, Brazilian pepper, slash pine, wax myrtle, and saltbush. The
ground cover is often bare ground /leaf litter, or may consist of a combination of
yellow -eyed grass (Xyris spp.), hatpins (Eriocaulon decangulare), rush fuirena (Fuirena
scirpoidea), sawgrass (Cladium janlaicense), blue maidencane (AMphicarpum
nnuhlenbergianum), creeping oxeye, and/or climbing hempvine (Mikania scandens).
Several of the areas identified by this code were previously pine /cypress habitats with
high degrees of melaleuca whose vegetative composition has been altered by wildfires.
Most pine and cypress trees in the canopy were killed by the wildfires, while the
melaleuca trees persisted.
Tropical Hardwood Hammock Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4269 E1)
The canopy of this upland habitat contains live oak (Quercus virgin cus), laurel oak
(Quercus laurifolia), cabbage palm, and scattered slash pine and gumbo limbo (Bursera
simaruba). The sub - canopy typically consists of myrsine, Coco -plum (Chrysobalanus
icaco), cabbage palm, red mulberry (Morus rubra), and Brazilian pepper. The ground
cover includes wild coffee, Boston fern (Nephrolepis exaltata), swamp fern (Blechnuni
serrulatunn), cabbage palm, greenbrier, and scattered saw palmetto.
Tropical Hardwood Hammock Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4269 E2)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 4269 E1 with 25 to 49 percent
melaleuca and /or Brazilian pepper in the canopy and sub - canopy.
Live Oak Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4279 E1)
The canopy of this upland community type contains live oak, laurel oak, and cabbage
palm. The sub - canopy contains wax myrtle and Brazilian pepper. The ground cover
includes saw palmetto, caesarweed, saltbush, poison ivy, greenbrier, and wild coffee.
Live Oak Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4279 E2)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 4279 E1 with 25 to 49 percent
melaleuca and /or Brazilian pepper in the canopy and sub - canopy.
Cabbage Palm Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics) FLUCFCS Code 4289 E1)
The canopy of this upland habitat contains cabbage palm, slash pine, and melaleuca. The
sub - canopy contains cabbage palm, myrsine, and Brazilian pepper. The ground cover
includes wax myrtle, Brazilian pepper, caesarweed, saw palmetto, bahiagrass, and
flatsedge (Cyperus spp.). A few of the areas identified by this code were previously pine
flatwoods whose vegetative composition has been altered by wildfires. Most pine trees
were killed in the wildfires while cabbage palm and melaleuca survived.
Passarella & Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 6
Cabbage Palm, Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4289 E2)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 4289 E1 with 25 to 49 percent
melaleuca and /or Brazilian pepper in the canopy and sub - canopy. A few of the areas
identified by this code were previously pine flatwoods whose vegetative composition has
been altered by wildfires. Most pine trees were killed in the wildfires while cabbage palm
and melaleuca survived.
Cabbage Palm, Disturbed (50 - 75% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4289 E3)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 4289 E1 with 50 to 75 percent
melaleuca and /or Brazilian pepper in the canopy and sub - canopy. A few of the areas
identified by this code were previously pine flatwoods whose vegetative composition has
been altered by wildfires. Most pine trees were killed in the wildfires while cabbage palm
and melaleuca survived.
Hardwood- Conifer Mixed Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4349 E1)
This upland community has a canopy consisting of slash pine, live oak, laurel oak, and
cabbage palm. The sub - canopy contains dahoon holly, wax myrtle, myrsine, Brazilian
pepper, and cabbage palm. The ground cover includes saw palmetto, dog fennel,
caesarweed, and wild coffee.
Ditch FLUCFCS Code 514)
The canopy is typically open. The sub - canopy may contain Brazilian pepper, Carolina
willow (Salix caroliniana), and primrose willow (Ludwigia peruviana). The ground
cover typically consists of paragrass (Urochloa mutica), dotted smartweed (Polygonum
punctatum), pickerelweed (Pontederia cot-data), arrowhead (Sagittaria lancifolia), and
cattail (Typha spp.).
Willow, Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6189 E 0
The canopy and sub - canopy of this wetland habitat is dominated by Carolina willow and
may include buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), primrose willow, and Brazilian
pepper. The ground cover typically consists of sawgrass, fireflag (Thalia geniculata),
arrowhead, pickerelweed, peppervine, paragrass, saltbush, and /or asiatic pennywort.
Willow, Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6189 E2)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 6189 E1 with 25 to 49 percent
exotics in the canopy and sub - canopy.
Cypress, Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6219 E1)
The canopy of this wetland habitat is dominated by cypress and may also include red
maple (Ater rubrum), swamp bay (Persea palustris), cabbage palm, and melaleuca. The
sub - canopy may contain Brazilian pepper, melaleuca, cabbage palm, myrsine, pond apple
(Annona glabra), and buttonbush. The ground cover includes maidencane (Panicum
hemitomon), wax myrtle, rush fuirena, corkwood (Stillingia aquatica), swamp fern,
beakrush (Rhynchospora spp.), and giant leather fern (Acrostichium danaeifoliuni).
Passarella & Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 7
Cypress, Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6219 E2)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 6219 E1 with 25 to 49 percent
melaleuca and /or Brazilian pepper in the canopy and /or sub - canopy.
Cypress, Disturbed (50 - 75% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6219 E3)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 6219 E1 with 50 to 75 percent
melaleuca and /or Brazilian pepper in the canopy and /or sub - canopy.
Pine /Cypress Disturbed and Drained (25 - 49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 62459 E2)
This historically hydric community no longer exhibits signs of hydrology and, therefore,
was mapped as an upland community. The canopy consists of slash pine, cypress,
cabbage palm, and melaleuca. The sub - canopy contains slash pine, cabbage palm, downy
rose myrtle (Rhodomyrtus tomentosa), and Brazilian pepper. The ground cover includes
muscadine grapevine, caesarweed, dog fennel, poison ivy, cabbage palm, and scattered
saw palmetto.
Pine /Cypress, Disturbed and Drained (50 - 75% Exotics) FLUCFCS Code 62459 E3)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 62459 E2 with 50 to 75
percent melaleuca, downy rose myrtle and /or Brazilian pepper in the canopy and /or sub -
canopy.
Pine /Cypress, Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6249 E1)
The canopy of this wetland habitat typically consists of slash pine, cypress, cabbage
palm, and melaleuca. The sub - canopy may contain slash pine, cypress, cabbage palm,
melaleuca, and /or Brazilian pepper. The ground cover consists of a combination of
swamp fern, rush fuirena, corkwood, water pennywort, rosy camphorweed (Pluchea
rosea), and cabbage palm.
Pine /Cypress, Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6249 E2)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 6249 E1 with 25 to 49 percent
melaleuca and /or Brazilian pepper in the canopy and sub - canopy.
Pine /Cypress, Disturbed (50 - 75% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6249 E3)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 6249 E1 with 50 to 75 percent
melaleuca and /or Brazilian pepper in the canopy and /or sub - canopy.
Pine /Cypress, Disturbed (76 - 100% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6249 E4)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 6249 El with greater than 75
percent melaleuca in the canopy.
Pine /Cypress, Burned (25 — 49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 624B E2)
This code identifies areas burned by a wildfire in May 2009. Prior to the wildfire, the
community type was identified as FLUCFCS Code 6249 E2. At the time the FLUCFCS
map was updated, the living vegetative community was not evident due to the recent
damage by the wildfire (i.e., dead pine and cypress trees, no recruiting vegetation);
Passarella & Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 8
therefore, the area was assigned the code and exotic level of the habitat prior to the
wildfire and denoted with a `B'.
Pine /Cypress, Burned (50 — 75% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 624B E3)
This code identifies areas burned by a wildfire in May 2009. Prior to the wildfire, the
community type was identified as FLUCFCS Code 6249 E2. At the time the FLUCFCS
map was updated, the living vegetative community was not evident due to the recent
damage by the wildfire (i.e., dead pine and cypress trees, no recruiting vegetation);
therefore, the area was assigned the code and exotic level of the habitat prior to the
wildfire and denoted with a `B'.
Pine, Hydric, Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6259 El)
The canopy of this wetland habitat consists of slash pine and melaleuca with scattered
cabbage palm and earleaf acacia. The sub - canopy contains slash pine, melaleuca,
myrsine, dahoon holly, cypress, and Brazilian pepper. The ground cover includes
sawgrass, blue maidencane, corkwood, yellow -eyed grass, gulf muhly (Muhlenbergia
capillaris), gulfdune paspalum (Paspalum monostaclryum), and /or rush fuirena.
Pine, Hydric, Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6259 E2)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 6259 El with 25 to 49 percent
melaleuca and /or Brazilian pepper in the canopy and /or sub - canopy.
Pine, Hydric, Disturbed (50 - 75% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6259 E3)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 6259 E1 with 50 to 75 percent
melaleuca and /or Brazilian pepper in the canopy and /or sub - canopy.
Pine, Hydric, Disturbed (76 - 100% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6259 E4)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 6259 E1 with greater than 75
percent melaleuca in the canopy.
Hydric Pine, Burned (50 — 75% Exotics) FLUCFCS Code 625B E3)
This code identifies areas burned by a wildfire in May 2009. Prior to the wildfire, the
community type was identified as FLUCFCS Code 6259 E3. At the time the FLUCFCS
map was updated, the living vegetative community was not evident due to the recent
damage by the wildfire (i.e., dead pine and cypress trees, no recruiting vegetation);
therefore, the area was assigned the code and exotic level of the habitat prior to the
wildfire and denoted with a `B'.
Hydric Cabbage Palm, Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6289 E1)
The canopy of this wetland habitat contains cabbage palm, scattered slash pine, myrsine,
and less than 25 percent melaleuca and /or Brazilian pepper. The sub - canopy consists of
cabbage palm, slash pine, and melaleuca. The ground cover includes cabbage palm,
swamp fern, dog fennel, asiatic pennywort, rush fuirena, yellow -eyed grass, and
occasional saw palmetto.
Passarella & Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 9
Hvdric Cabbage Palm, Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6289 E2)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 6289 E1 with 25 to 49 percent
melaleuca and /or Brazilian pepper in the canopy and sub - canopy.
Hvdric Cabbage Palm, Disturbed (50 - 75% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6289 E3)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 6289 E1 with 50 to 75 percent
melaleuca and /or Brazilian pepper in the canopy and sub - canopy.
Wetland Forested Mixed, Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6309 E1)
The canopy consists of cypress, laurel oak, red maple, cabbage palm, and melaleuca. The
sub - canopy contains pop ash (Fraxinus caroliniana), cabbage palm, myrsine, wax myrtle,
and Brazilian pepper. The ground cover includes swamp fern, sawgrass, greenbrier, and
asiatic pennywort.
Wetland Forested Mixed, Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6309 E2)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 6309 E1 with 25 to 49 percent
melaleuca and /or Brazilian pepper in the canopy and sub - canopy.
Wetland Shrub, Disturbed (50 - 75% Exotics) FLUCFCS Code 6319 E3)
The canopy and sub - canopy of this wetland habitat typically contains Carolina willow,
primrose willow, Brazilian pepper with scattered wax myrtle, buttonbush, cypress, and /or
melaleuca. The ground cover in many areas is dominated by paragrass and /or
torpedograss and may include pepper vine (Ampelopsis arborea), swamp fern, sawgrass,
pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata), arrowhead (Saggitaria lancifolia), fireflag,
maidencane, and asiatic pennywort.
Freshwater Marsh, Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6419 E1)
The canopy is open with widely scattered cypress. The sub - canopy is open with scattered
Brazilian pepper, Carolina willow, and /or primrose willow. The ground cover consists of
pickerelweed, arrowhead, fireflag, spikerush (Eleocharis interstincta), smartweed,
maidencane, and totpedograss.
Freshwater Marsh, Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6419 E2)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 6419 E1 with 25 to 49 percent
melaleuca and /or Brazilian pepper in the canopy and sub - canopy.
Disturbed Land (FLUCFCS Code 740)
The canopy and sub - canopy strata are generally open with scattered cabbage palm,
melaleuca saplings, and Brazilian pepper. The ground cover contains species typical to
disturbed areas including dog fennel, ragweed, caesarweed, creeping oxeye, sweetbroom
(Scoparia dulcis), white beggarticks (Bidens pilosa), sandspur (Cenchrus spp.),
smutgrass, saw palmetto, smutgrass, and bahiagrass.
Passarella & Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 10
Disturbed Land, Hydric (FLUCFCS Code 7401)
The canopy and sub - canopy strata are typically open and may contain scattered wax
myrtle, melaleuca and /or Brazilian pepper. Ground cover vegetation is generally absent,
or may contain torpedograss, blue maidencane, frog- fruit, rosy camphorweed, yellow -
eyed grass, bushy broomsedge (Andropogon glonieratus), and asiatic pennywort.
Borrow Area (FLUCFCS Code 742)
These open water habitats include areas of emergent and littoral vegetation including
cattail and spikerush.
Spoil (FLUCFCS Code 743)
The canopy stratum of this disturbed area is open. The sub - canopy contains Brazilian
pepper. Ground cover vegetation includes dog fennel, creeping oxeye, and Brazilian
pepper.
Berm (FLUCFCS Code 747)
The canopy of this altered area contains scattered slash pine, cabbage palm, Brazilian
pepper and /or melaleuca. The sub - canopy contains Brazilian pepper. The ground cover
includes species typical in upland disturbed areas including dog fennel, ragweed,
caesarweed, white beggar- ticks, and Brazilian pepper.
Road (FLUCFCS Code 814)
This code identifies areas occupied by paved roads.
Unpaved Road (FLUCFCS Code 8146)
This code identifies areas occupied by unpaved roads.
Utilities (FLUCFCS Code 830)
This upland area was cleared for, and is occupied by utilities, specifically Collier
County's South County Water Treatment Plant Well Field. The ground cover includes
smutgrass, bahiagrass, and /or carpetgrass.
Utilities, Hydric (FLUCFCS Code 8301)
This wetland area was cleared for, and is occupied by utilities, specifically Collier
County's South County Water Treatment Plant Well Field. The canopy and sub - canopy
strata are open. The ground cover is absent in some areas or may contain torpedograss,
bahiagrass, carpetgrass, beaksedge, frog - fruit, bushy broomsedge, and rosy
camphorweed.
Powerline Easement (FLUCFCS Code 832)
This area is occupied by Florida Power and Light electrical transmission lines. The
canopy and sub - canopy are open. Ground cover vegetation is absent in some areas or
may consist of bahiagrass, smutgrass, and /or carpetgrass.
Passarella & Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 11
Powerline Easement, Hydric (FLUCFCS Code 8321)
This area is occupied by Florida Power and Light electrical transmission lines and access
road. The canopy and sub - canopy are open. Ground cover vegetation is absent in some
areas or may consist of torpedograss, bahiagrass, blue maidencane, flatsedge, pickerel
weed, frog - fruit, bushy broomsedge, and /or rosy camphorweed.
The Project includes 1,550± acres of upland and wetland preserve areas, including upland
buffers. The majority of the proposed wetland preserve areas consist of cypress, pine -
cypress, and hydric pine habitats ranging in quality based on exotic coverage and water
quality. The uplands proposed for preservation consist mostly of pine flatwoods. Table
12A -2 summarizes the post- development preserve area FLUCFCS codes and provides an
approximate acreage breakdown.
Post - Development Preserve Area FLUCFCS Codes and Acreages
FLUCFCS Code
Description
Approximate
Acreage
310
Dry Prairie
8.8
321
Palmetto Prairie
43.6
411
Pine Flatwoods
173.5
415
Mixed Pine
4.5
426
Tropical Hardwood Hammock
2.6
427
Live Oak
4.2
428
Cabbage Palm
13.9
434
Hardwood /Conifer, Mixed
1.5
514
Ditch
3.1
618
Willow
13.4
621
Cypress
230.7
624
Pine /Cypress /Cabbage Palm
840.5
625
Hydric Pine
99.3
628
Hydric Cabbage Palm
11.7
630
Wetland Forested Mixed
27.6
631
Wetland Shrub
5.8
641
Freshwater Marsh
57.8
742
Borrow Area
0.2
743
Spoil
0.2
747
Berm
0.9
7401
Disturbed Land, Hydric
4.5
8146
Unpaved Road
1.3
PRESERVE AREA TOTAL
1,549.6
Passarella & Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 12
Surveys for listed plant and wildlife species have been conducted on the Project site over
the past several years by Passarella & Associates, Inc. (PAI). Listed species surveys
were conducted on the following dates: September 10, 11, 18, and 19, 2002; October 16,
17, and 18, 2002; November 12, 13, 14, and 15, 2002; June 4, 5, 24, 25, and 26, 2003;
October 10, 11, 17, 19, 25, and 26, 2006; and November 14, 2006.
On August 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, and 25, 2009, PAI conducted an updated listed species
survey for the Project. The 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2009 surveys were performed in
accordance with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC)
guidelines. Survey methodologies used were also consistent with Standardized State -
Listed Animal Survey Procedures for Use in the Review of SWFRPC Projects (Beeves
2006).
Sampling dates, amount of effort expended, and qualitative descriptions of weather
conditions experienced during the survey periods are listed below.
Listed Species Survey Dates, Times, and Weather Conditions
Date
Man Hours
Weather Conditions
On -Site
Partly cloudy, light winds, temperatures in mid
September 10, 2002
24.0
to upper 80s.
September 11, 2002
8.0
Cloudy with light rain showers, calm,
temperatures in mid 80s.
Mostly sunny with an afternoon rain shower,
September 18, 2002
28.0
light winds, temperatures in upper 80s to low
90s.
Mostly sunny, light winds, temperatures in
September 19, 2002
24.0
upper 80s to low 90s.
October 16, 2002
9.0
Mostly sunny, light winds, temperature in upper
80s.
October 17, 2002
21.0
Clear, mostly calm, temperatures in low 80s.
Mostly sunny, light winds, temperatures in low
October 18, 2002
20.0
to mid 80s.
November 12, 2002
16.0
Partly cloudy, light winds, temperature in upper
80s.
November 13, 2002
16.0
Clear skies, windy, temperatures in low 70s.
Partly cloudy, light winds, temperatures in the
November 14, 2002
20.0
lower 80s.
June 4, 2003
24.0
Mostly cloudy with scattered showers, no wind,
temperatures in mid 80s.
June 5, 2003
12.0
Mostly cloudy with rain, no wind, temperatures
in mid 80s.
June 24, 2003
24.0
Mostly cloudy, light winds, temperatures in low
90s.
Passarella & Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 13
Surveys were conducted for wildlife species listed by the FWCC and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service ( USFWS) as endangered, threatened, or species of special concern; and
for plant species listed by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
(FDACS) and USFWS as endangered, threatened, or commercially exploited. The
FWCC publication, "Florida's Endangered Species, Threatened Species and Species of
Special Concern; Official Lists" dated 2009 was used as a reference to identify the status
of listed species in Florida. The USFWS Threatened and Endangered Species Database
System (TESS) was referenced online for the federal status of listed species.
Literature referenced prior to conducting the listed species surveys included the Florida
Atlas of Breeding Sites for Herons and Their Allies (Runde et al. 1991), FWCC Bald
Eagle location maps, and USFWS and FWCC documented listed species locations.
Passarella & Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 14
Mostly sunny, light winds, temperatures in mid
June 25, 2003
18.0
90s.
Temperatures in upper 70s to lower 80s, winds
October 10, 2006
25.5
0 -5 mph, clear, sunny
Temperatures in upper 70s to lower 80s, winds
October 11, 2006
25.5
0 -5 mph, partly cloudy
Temperatures in mid to upper 70s, winds 5 -10
October 17, 2006
24.0
mph, clear, sunny
October 19, 2006
34.0
Temperatures in mid to upper 70s, winds 0 -5
mph, partly cloudy
October 25, 2006
34.0
Temperatures in low to mid 70s, winds 5 -10
mph, clear, sunny
Temperatures in the mid to upper 80s, winds 5-
October 26, 2006
16.0
10 mph, clear, sunny
November 14, 2006
34.0
Temperatures in low to mid 70s, winds 0 -5
mph, partly cloudy skies
August 11, 2009
20.5
Temperatures from the low 80s to low 90s,
winds 0 -5 mph, clear to partly cloudy
Temperatures from mid 80s to low 90s, clear
August 12, 2009
18.0
and calm early with breeze and patchy, light
rain in afternoon
August 13, 2009
10.5
Temperatures from the upper 70s to mid 80s,
winds 0 -5 mph, partly cloudy
Temperatures from low 80s to mid 90s, winds
August 18, 2009
18.0
3 -8 mph, partly cloudy, humid
August 19, 2009
18.0
Temperatures from low 80s to low 90s, winds
0 -5 mph, partly to mostly cloudy
Temperatures in the 80s, winds 3 -5 mph, partly
August 25, 2009
12.0
cloudy
Surveys were conducted for wildlife species listed by the FWCC and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service ( USFWS) as endangered, threatened, or species of special concern; and
for plant species listed by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
(FDACS) and USFWS as endangered, threatened, or commercially exploited. The
FWCC publication, "Florida's Endangered Species, Threatened Species and Species of
Special Concern; Official Lists" dated 2009 was used as a reference to identify the status
of listed species in Florida. The USFWS Threatened and Endangered Species Database
System (TESS) was referenced online for the federal status of listed species.
Literature referenced prior to conducting the listed species surveys included the Florida
Atlas of Breeding Sites for Herons and Their Allies (Runde et al. 1991), FWCC Bald
Eagle location maps, and USFWS and FWCC documented listed species locations.
Passarella & Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 14
The listed species surveys were conducted by qualified ecologists walking parallel belt
transects and meandering transects through suitable habitat to ensure that sufficient visual
coverage of ground and flora was obtained. At regular intervals, the ecologists stopped,
remained quiet, and listened for wildlife vocalizations. Map G -1 shows transect locations
and spacings for the listed species surveys conducted in 2002, 2003, and 2006. The
survey transects walked for the 2009 updated listed species survey are shown on Map G-
2. Surveys were conducted during daylight hours, typically starting after sunrise and
concluding mid- afternoon. At regular intervals, the ecologists stopped, remained quiet,
and listened for wildlife vocalizations. Surveys were conducted with the aid of 8x or l Ox
power binoculars.
The September through November 2002 and June 2003 listed species survey methods
were consistent with FWCC guidelines for completing Section 18.1) of the Application
for Development Approval (FGFWFC 1988). The 2006 and 2009 survey methods were
consistent with the Standardized State - Listed Animal Survey Procedures for Use in the
Review of SWFRPC Projects (Beeves 2006). Consistency with the survey procedures are
summarized below.
In addition to the listed species surveys, red- cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
(RCW) non - nesting season foraging surveys were conducted October through December
of 2003. Nesting season and cavity tree foraging surveys for the RCW were conducted
April through May 2004. The surveys were conducted according to the USFWS
Standard Local Operating Procedures for Endangered Species (SLOPES) for the RCW
(USFWS 2002). Two abandoned RCW cavity trees were identified north of Sabal Palm
Road in the central portion of the project. One RCW was observed during the non -
nesting foraging survey on the northeast portion of the Project site during the 2003 non -
nesting season foraging survey.
In October through December 2009, an updated RCW non - nesting season foraging
survey was conducted according to the USFWS guidelines in the South Florida Survey
Protocol (USFWS 2004). No RCWs or cavities in live pine trees were observed during
the 2009 RCW non - nesting season foraging survey. During the 2009 RCW surveys, no
activity was observed at or around the abandoned cavity trees identified during the 2003-
2004 RCW surveys. One of the old cavity trees was observed to be dead and decaying.
A survey for the Florida bonneted bat (Eumops, loridanus) was conducted on the Project
site in January 2007 following guidance from the FWCC. No Florida bonneted bats were
detected on -site.
A scientific literature investigation was performed prior to the listed species survey to
determine the geographic range and documented occurrences of listed species. Also, the
presence of suitable habitat and consideration of the probability of listed species
occurring within the Project area was investigated. The recommended procedures for
addressing listed species concerns for the Project were used. Steps one and two were
utilized during the listed species survey as outlined in the Standardized State - Listed
Animal Survey Procedures for Use in the Review of SWFRPC Projects.
Passarella & Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 15
Step 1
An accurate map of the habitat types within the Project was prepared (Map F -1). A list of
potential listed species for mapped areas was then generated based on the habitat types
present (Table 12.0 -1).
List of Potential Listed Species That Could Occur on the Project Site
Group
Common Name
Scientific Name
Wading Bird
Wood Stork
Mycteria americana
Florida Sandhill Crane
Grus canadensis pratensis
Roseate Spoonbill
Ajaia ajaja
Little Blue Heron
Egretta caerulea
Snowy Egret
E retta thula
Tri- Colored Heron
E retta tricolor
White This
Eudocimus albus
Limpkin
Aramus guarauna
Large Raptors
Snail Kite
Rostrhamus sociabilis
Bald Eagle
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Aquatic
American Alligator
Alligator mississi iensis
Pine Flatwoods Cavity
Nesting
Red - cockaded Woodpecker
Picoides borealis
Southeastern American
Kestrel
Falco sparverius paulus
Florida bonneted bat
Eumops floridanus
Mammals
Big Cypress Fox Squirrel
Sciurus ni er shermani
Florida Black Bear
Ursus americanus
floridanus
Florida Panther
Puma concolor coryi
Terrestrial Reptiles and
Amphibians
Eastern Indigo Snake
Drymarchon corgis couperi
Gopher Frog
Rana capito
Gopher Tortoise
I Gopherus oly hemus
Step 2
The appropriate survey methodology was used for listed species that have been identified
to be present or potentially present in the habitats on the Project site.
Wading Bird Group
Suitable habitats were surveyed for a minimum of five days. Pedestrian and vehicular
surveys were used to attain complete coverage. Wading birds species and locations
observed were recorded for each day.
Large Raptors Group
Ecologists surveyed the site for signs of snail kites, snail kite activity (e.g., piles of apple
snail shells, white feces stains at perches), and potential nest sites.
Passarella & Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 16
Ecologists surveyed for bald eagles throughout the site, particularly in potential habitats
within 3,000 feet of open water and open wetlands. Pedestrian transects were conducted
to survey for nests. Observations of bald eagles and their flight directions were recorded
on the map. During pedestrian transects, ecologists looked for bald eagle nests and
potential nesting sites. The locations of existing bald eagle nests and territories were
researched prior to conducting the survey.
Aquatic Group
Pedestrian surveys were conducted along ditches and wetland areas for sightings of
American alligators. American alligator nests, droppings, and tracks were also surveyed
for the presence of alligators.
Pine Flatwoods Cavity Nesting Group
Cavity tree and foraging surveys were conducted for the RCW on the Project site. Non -
nesting season foraging surveys were conducted between October and December of 2003
and again in 2009. The nesting season foraging survey and cavity tree survey for the
RCW were conducted during the months of April and May in 2004. For each survey,
pedestrian transects were conducted during the early morning hours for fourteen days.
Transects, observation stations, and observed wildlife were recorded on a map.
Ecologists surveyed for southeastern American kestrels during the month of August
2009, three to four hours following sunrise. Power line poles were surveyed by vehicular
transects at a driving speed of five miles per hour. At regular intervals the vehicle was
stopped to listen for vocalizations by southeastern American kestrels. Both sides of the
road were surveyed, looking for kestrels perched on power lines and for cavities within
the power- line poles. Pedestrian transects were conducted where vehicular access was
limited. Potential nest sites were looked for.
A survey was conducted specifically for the Florida bonneted bat (formerly the Florida
mastiff bat) in January 2007. Determination of presence for Florida bonneted bats was
based on systematic field surveys conducted by qualified ecologists using an acoustic bat
detector. The field survey methodology included an inventory of habitats on the Project
site and identification of preferred Florida bonneted bat habitat types. Field surveys were
conducted for five nights in January 2007. Surveys were conducted each night beginning
at or before sunset. Surveys were not conducted in rain, high winds, or if temperatures
dropped below 55 degrees Fahrenheit. Fixed survey stations were established within 300
feet of potential foraging and roost locations. Potential roost locations included buildings
and structures. Surveys were conducted for a period of approximately one hour near the
building /structure locations to detect roost chatter and calls that may be emitted as bats
leave the roost. If little to no bat activity was detected within one hour of sunset at the
building /structure location, the observation station was relocated to areas that might
provide potential foraging habitat.
Mammal Group
The locations of documented occurrences of the Florida panther and Florida black bear
were researched prior to conducting the survey. Suitable habitats were surveyed by
Passarella & Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 17
pedestrian transects looking for signs of mammals including tracks, scat, tree scratches,
nests and /or den areas. Ecologists surveyed for Big Cypress fox squirrels, including
potential Big Cypress fox squirrel nests and stripping of tree bark. Direct sightings as
well as wildlife sign were recorded on a map.
Terrestrial Reptiles and Amphibians
Suitable habitats were surveyed by pedestrian transects conducted between early and
mid - afternoon. Within potential gopher- tortoise habitats and when a gopher- tortoise
burrow or other sign (i.e., scat) was observed, the transect spacing was narrowed and
transects added to ensure coverage of the habitat.
Listed Wildlife Species Observed
Listed wildlife species identified on the Hacienda Lakes site during the 2002, 2003, 2006,
and 2009 listed species surveys, and during the 2003, 2004, and 2009 RCW surveys, as
well as during other on -site fieldwork (i.e., FLUCFCS mapping, wetland flagging, agency
site visits) conducted for the Project are listed in Table 12.0 -1. Approximate locations of
listed wildlife species observed during the 2002, 2003, and 2006 listed species survey, as
well as during other fieldwork conducted between September 2002 and November 2006,
are shown on Map G -l. Locations of listed wildlife species observed during the 2009
listed species survey, and other fieldwork conducted on the Project site from August 2009
through December 2009, are shown on Map G -2.
Listed Wildlife Species Observed on the Hacienda Lakes Property
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
FWCC
I USFWS
Reptiles
American Alligator
Alli ator mississi iensis
SSC
T(S /A)
Gopher Tortoise (burrow)
Gopherus polyphemus
T
--
Birds
Snowy Egret
Egretta thula
SSC
--
Little Blue Heron
Egretta caerula
SSC
--
Tit- colored Heron
Egretta tricolor
SSC
--
Roseate Spoonbill
A jaia aja'a
SSC
--
White Ibis
Eudocimus albus
SSC
--
Wood Stork
Mycteria americana
E
E
Red - Cockaded Woodpecker
Picoides borealis
T
E
Bald Eagle
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
--
Mammals
Big Cypress Fox Squirrel
Sciurus niger avicennia
T
--
Florida Black Bear
Ursus americanus. loridanus
T
--
Florida Panther (sign)
Puma concolor coryi
E
E
FWCC — Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
USFWS — U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Passarella & Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 18
E — Endangered
T — Threatened
T(S /A) — Threatened due to similarity of appearance
SSC — Species of Special Concern
* Protected under the U.S. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
American Alligator (Alligator ndssissippiensis)
Adult and juvenile American alligators have been observed on the Project site during
FLUCFCS mapping and wetland flagging as well as during the 2006 updated listed
species survey. Most of the American alligators were observed in association with the
ditches located south of Sabal Palm Road in the southwestern portion of the property.
One American alligator was observed in a freshwater marsh habitat in the southern
portion of the site. A juvenile American alligator was observed on a flooded trail in
hydric melaleuca habitat in the central portion of the Project site.
Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus Polyphemus)
One inactive gopher tortoise burrow was observed on the Project site during the 2006
listed species survey. The gopher tortoise burrow was observed in a palmetto prairie
habitat located in the proposed conservation area in the northeast portion of the Project
site. During the 2009 listed species survey, two potentially occupied gopher tortoise
burrows were identified in palmetto prairie habitat located north of Sabal Palm Road and
just south of the state -owned outparcel. At the time of the survey, both burrows were
inundated with water. The gopher- tortoise burrow located during the 2006 survey was
not observed during the 2009 survey and no other burrows were identified in the
northeastern portion of the Project.
Snowy Egret (Egretta thula)
Snowy egrets have been observed foraging on the Project site in association with the
recreational area, low pasture, pine - cypress, and freshwater marsh habitats. No nesting
sites for this species were observed.
Little Blue Heron (Ekretta caerula)
Little blue herons were observed foraging on the Project site in association with low
pasture, ditches, cypress, and pine - cypress habitats. No nesting sites for this species were
observed.
Tri- Colored Heron (Egretta tricolor)
Tri- colored herons have been observed foraging on the Project site in association with
low pasture, ditches, cypress, pine - cypress habitats. No nesting sites for this species were
observed.
Roseate Spoonbill (Aiaia aLaia)
Roseate spoonbills were observed on the Project site in association with ditches pine -
cypress habitats. No nesting sites for this species were observed.
Passarella & Associates. Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 19
White Ibis (Eudocinrus albus)
White ibis were observed on the Project site in association with the recreational area, low
pasture, ditches, cypress, pine - cypress, and freshwater marsh habitats. No nesting sites
for this species were observed.
Wood Stork (Mycteria anericana)
Wood storks have been observed on the Project site in association with ditches and
various wetland habitats. Potential foraging habitat for the wood stork includes wetlands
and other surface water habitats. The Florida Atlas of Breeding Sites for Herons and
Their Allies (Runde et al. 1991) list no bird rookeries on the Project site. According to
the USFWS database the nearest documented wood stork rookery that has been recorded
as active since 1990 is Rookery No. 619161 located approximately 16 miles northeast of
the Project.
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucoceplaalus)
Although the bald eagle is no longer listed as endangered, threatened, or species of
special concern by the FWCC or USFWS, it is still protected under the U.S. Bald and
Golden Eagle Protection Act. Bald eagles have been observed on -site perched in trees
and snags including in the old farm field along the north side of Sabal Palm Road; east of
the Willow Run Quarry; and near the Junior- Deputy lake. No bald eagle nests have been
identified on -site. A review of the FWCC database for bald eagle nests within Collier
County shows no documented bald eagle nests within a one mile radius of the Project
site. The nearest recorded bald eagle nest (CO -015) is located 1.5± miles northeast of the
Project boundary in Section 6, Township 50 South, Range 27 East. Bald eagle nest CO-
015 was reported as being active during the 2008 -2009 nesting season. The next closest
bald eagle nest (CO -037) is located approximately three miles south of the Project
boundary. Nest CO -037 was reported as being active during the 2008 -2009 nesting
season.
Red - Cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
Two abandoned RCW cavity trees were identified in 2004 in pine habitats in the eastern
portion of the Project site just north of Sabal Palm Road. It was noted that the cavity
trees did not have resin wells. One RCW was observed on the northeastern portion of the
property during the RCW nesting season foraging survey in May 2004. During the 2009
RCW non - nesting season foraging survey, no evidence of activity by RCWs at the two
abandoned cavity trees was observed. One of the previously identified cavity trees was
observed to be dead and decaying. No RCWs or cavities in live pine trees were observed
during the 2009 non - nesting season RCW survey.
Big Cypress Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia)
Big cypress fox squirrels have been observed on -site in association with hydric
melaleuca, pine - cypress, and pine habitats, as well as in pine trees in the abandoned farm
field on the north side of Sabal Palm Road.
Passarella & Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 20
Florida Black Bear (Ursus americanus floridanus)
Florida black bear tracks, scat, and scratch marks on trees have been identified on -site.
One Florida black bear was observed on the Project site south of Sabal Palm Road in
November 2009 during the RCW non - nesting season foraging survey.
Florida Panther (Puma concolor coryi)
The Project site is located within the Primary Zone of the USFWS Panther Focus Area
(Kautz et al. 2006). Telemetry points from radio - collared panthers have been recorded
by FWCC on the Project site. The panther telemetry points recorded on -site within the
past five years (from August 2004 to August 2009) are from Florida Panther- Nos. 146,
147, 148, and 156. Most of the telemetry locations are south of Sabal Palm Road. The
telemetry points north of Sabal Palm Road are scattered throughout the central and
eastern portions of the Project. During fieldwork in 2009, Florida panther sign was
documented on -site. Florida panther tracks were identified on Sabal Palm Road leading
south onto the Project site; on a dirt trail on the east side of the Project site (east of the
Sports Park); on a trail east of Willow Run Quarry; and south of the citrus grove located
on Sabal Palm Road. A Florida panther scrape /scratch was identified on a trail in pine -
cypress habitat about one -half mile south of Sabal Palm Road.
Other Listed Wildlife Species That Could Potentially Occur On The Site
Listed wildlife species that were not observed but which have the potential to occur on the
Project site are listed in the table below. Information used in assessing the potential
occurrence of these species included Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida Volume I.
Mammals (Humphrey 1992), Volume I11. Amphibians and Reptiles (Moles 1992), and
Volume V. Birds (Rodgers et al. 1996); and personal experience and knowledge of the
geographic region.
Listed Wildlife That Could Potentially Occur on the Hacienda Lakes Property
Common Name
Scientific Name
Designated Status
Potential Locations
FWCC USFWS
FLUCFCS Code)
Am hibians and Rep tiles
211/260/3219/
Gopher Frog
Rana capito
SSC
_
4119/4279
Eastern Indigo
Drymarchon corals
260/3219/4119/
Snake
cou eri
T
T
4269/42794289/
Eastern Indigo
Drymarchon corais
42891/4349/6219/
Snake
T
T
4249/6259/6309/
(Continued)
couperi
6419/743/832
Birds
Lim kin
Aramus guarauna
SSC
-
514/6419/742
Southeastern
Falco sparverius
T
-
4119/4159/6259
American Kestrel
paulus
Florida Sandhill
Grus canadensis
211/260/262/3219/
Crane
pratensis
T
_
6419/740/7401
Passarella & Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 21
Burrowing Owl Atlrene cunicularia SSC - 211/260
f
Mammals
Florida Bonneted 4119/4289/4349/525 /
Bat Eumops.floridanus E - 530/6249/6259/6289 /
6419
FWCC — Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
USFWS — U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
E — Endangered
T — Threatened
SSC — Species of Special Concern
Gopher Frog (Rana areolata)
The gopher frog could potentially occur within upland Pine Flatwoods, Disturbed
(FLUCFCS Code 4119) habitat on the Project site; however, it is typically only found in
association with populations of gopher tortoise. Gopher tortoise habitat on -site is limited.
Preferred breeding habitat for the gopher frog includes seasonally flooded grassy ponds
and cypress ponds that lack fish populations (Molex 1992). No gopher frogs were
documented on -site.
Eastern Indigo Snake (Dryrnarchon corais couperi)
The Eastern indigo snake could potentially occur within the native upland and wetland
habitats on the Project site. The Eastern indigo snake is far ranging ' and may utilize
activity areas of 125 to 250 acres or more (Molex 1992). The Eastern indigo snake is
typically found in association with populations of gopher tortoise. Gopher tortoise habitat
is limited and no eastern indigo snakes were found on -site.
Limpkin (Aramus guarauna)
Potential foraging habitat for limpkin includes Ditches. The Florida Atlas of Breeding
Sites for Herons and Their Allies (Runde et al. 1991) list no bird rookeries on the Project
site. The nearest recorded site is No. 620022 located approximately 8.5 miles south of
the Project in East Marco Bay near Marco Island in Section 9, Township 52 South, Range
26 East. This colony was last reported occupied by brown pelicans in 1989. No limpkins
were found on -site.
Southeastern American Kestrel (Falco sparverius Paulus)
Potential habitat for Southeastern American kestrel may exist within the pine habitats on
the Project site (FLUCFCS Codes 4119, 4159, and 6259); however, the Project site is at
the southernmost extreme of the known range for this subspecies. Since 1980,
observations of Southeastern American kestrel in Florida have occurred primarily in
sandhill or sandpine scrub areas of north and central Florida (Rodgers et al. 1996). No
Southeastern American kestrels were found on -site.
Florida Sandhill Crane (Gnus canadensis pratensis)
Potential foraging habitat for Florida sandhill crane may exist within the Disturbed Land
(FLUCFCS Code 740); Pasture (FLUCFCS Code 212); Open Rural Land (FLUCFCS
Passarella & Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 22
Code 260) Low Pasture, Hydric (FLUCFCS Code 262); and Freshwater Marshes,
Disturbed (FLUCFCS Code 6419) on the Project. Preferred sandhill crane habitat, such
as prairies and shallow marshes dominated by pickerelweed and maidencane, are limited
on the Project site. No Florida sandhill cranes were observed on -site.
Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia floridana)
Potential burrowing owl habitat exists along the berms in the Pasture (FLUCFCS Code
212) and Rural Open Land (FLUCFCS Code 260) habitat on the Project site. No
burrowing owls were observed on -site.
Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus), formerly known as the Florida mastiff bat
(Eumops Qlaucinus floridanus)
Florida bonneted bats could potentially roost and /or forage within the upland and wetland
habitats on the Project site. The Florida bonneted bat is known to occur in cities and
forested areas on both the east and west coasts of south Florida from Charlotte County to
Palm Beach County (Marks and Marks 2006, Humphrey 1992). A Florida bonneted bat
survey was conducted on the Project site using the Anabat sonar and software equipment
and survey guidelines recommended by Cynthia and George Marks. No Florida
bonneted bats were documented on -site.
Listed Plant Species Observed
Four listed plant species were observed on the Project site. Listed plant species identified
on -site and the habitat types (i.e. FLUCFCS Codes) in which they were found are listed in
the table below.
Listed Plant Species Observed on the Hacienda Lakes Property
FDACS — Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
USFWS — U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
C — Commercially Exploited
E — Endangered
Passarella & Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 23
Desi nated Status
Habitat
Common Name
Scientific Name
(FLUCFCS
FDACS
USFWS
Code)
Butterfly Orchid
Enc clia tam ensis
C
-
6249
Stiff - Leaved Wild
6219/6249/
Pine
Tillandsia fasciculata
E
-
6259/6289
6219/6249/
Giant Airplant
Tillandsia utriculata
E
-
6259/6289
Cyrtopodium
Cowhorn Orchid
E
-
6249
punctatum
FDACS — Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
USFWS — U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
C — Commercially Exploited
E — Endangered
Passarella & Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 23
Other Listed Plant Species that Could Potentially Occur On the Site
Listed plant species that were not observed but which have the potential to occur on the
Project site are listed in the table below. Information used in assessing the potential
occurrence of these species included personal experience and knowledge of the
geographic region.
Listed Plant Species That Could Potentially Occur on the Hacienda Lakes Property
FDACS — Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
USFWS — U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
C — Commercially Exploited
E — Endangered
T — Threatened
The site plan has been designed to minimize impacts to the listed species that have been
identified on the property. The site plan minimizes impacts to the higher- quality wetland
and upland habitat on the eastern portion of the site. The on -site preserves have been
designed to connect to off -site preserves and the Picayune Strand State Forest in order to
retain connectivity of wildlife habitat. Development is proposed to occur mostly within
habitats on the western and central portions of the site which consist of high percentages
of exotics and lack high natural resource value.
Passarella & Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 24
Desi hated Status
Potential
Common Name
Scientific Name
FDACS
USFWS
Location
(FLUCFCS
Code
Bird's nest spleenwort;
Asplenium serratum
E
-
4281
wild birdnest fern
Long strap fern
Carnpyloneurum
E
-
6219
hyllitidus
White - squirrel- banana;
Deeringothamnus
E
E
4119
beautiful pawpaw
pulchellus
Catesby's lily
Lilium catesbaei
T
-
6259
Hand adder's tongue
Ophioglossum
E
-
4289
fern
pahnatuni
Inflated wild pine
Tillandsia balbisiana
T
-
4289
Florida coontie
Zamia floridana
C
-
4119
Simpson's zephyr lily
Zephyranthes
T
-
6259
simpsonii
FDACS — Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
USFWS — U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
C — Commercially Exploited
E — Endangered
T — Threatened
The site plan has been designed to minimize impacts to the listed species that have been
identified on the property. The site plan minimizes impacts to the higher- quality wetland
and upland habitat on the eastern portion of the site. The on -site preserves have been
designed to connect to off -site preserves and the Picayune Strand State Forest in order to
retain connectivity of wildlife habitat. Development is proposed to occur mostly within
habitats on the western and central portions of the site which consist of high percentages
of exotics and lack high natural resource value.
Passarella & Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 24
As discussed above, the Project's minimization of impacts to listed species includes the
preservation and enhancement of wetland and upland habitats on the property. The site
plan design preserves the higher quality wetlands located on the eastern portion of the
site. Additional mitigation lands were purchased and added to the Project's boundary to
offset environmental impacts. These additional lands include approximately 260 acres
south of Sabal Palm Road. On -site preserves were designed to retain connectivity to the
Picayune Strand State Forest to the east and to compliment the permitted conservation
area along Willow Run Quarry's eastern boundary.
The wetland mitigation plan for the Project includes the enhancement and preservation of
1,291± acres of on -site wetlands and 255± acres of on -site uplands. In addition,
approximately 3 acres of South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) "Other
Surface Waters" will be enhanced and preserved.
Enhancement of the wetland and upland preserves will include the hand removal of exotic
and nuisance vegetation such as melaleuca, Brazilian pepper, and cattails. The surface
water management system will be designed to maintain appropriate wetland hydroperiods
within the enhancement areas. The wetland hydroperiods will be maintained to provide
for the natural wet and dry cycles, which provides for foraging for wading birds.
The wetland and upland preserves will be placed in a conservation easement or other
equivalent deed restriction with inspection, enforcement, and approval rights granted to
the SFWMD. It is anticipated that portions of the preserves will be deeded to the state to
compliment the Picayune Strand State Forest.
REFERENCES
Beever, James W. 2006. Standardized State - Listed Animal Survey Procedures for Use in the
Review of SWRPC Projects. First Edition.
Florida Department of Transportation. 1999. Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification
System. Procedure No. 550- 010- 001 -a. Third Edition.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2009. Florida's Endangered Species,
Threatened Species, and Species of Special Concern; Official Lists. Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, Florida.
Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission. 1988. Wildlife Survey Methodology Guidelines
for Section 18.1) of the Application for Development Approval. Florida Game and
Freshwater Fish Commission, Office of Environmental Services.
Passarella & Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 25
Humphrey, S.R. 1992. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. Volume 1. Mammals. University
Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Kautz, R., R. Kawula, T. Hoctor, J. Comiskey, D. Jansen, D. Jennings, J. Kasbohm, F. Mazzotti,
R. McBride, L. Richardson, K. Root. 2006. How much is enough? Landscape -scale
conservation for the Florida panther. Biological Conservation, Volume 130, Issue 1,
Pages 118 -133.
Marks, Cynthia S. and Marks, George E. 2006. Bats of Florida. University Press of Florida,
Gainesville, Florida.
Moler, P.E. 1992. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. Volume III. Amphibians and Reptiles.
University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Rodgers, J.A, H.W. Kale, and H.T. Smith. 1996. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. Volume
V. Birds. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Runde, D.E., J.A., Gore, J.A. Hovis, M.S. Robson, and P.D. Southall. 1991.. Florida Atlas of
Breeding Sites for Herons and Their Allies, Update 1986 -1989. Nongame Wildlife
Program Technical Report No. 10. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission,
Tallahassee, Florida.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Standard Local Operating Procedures for Endangered
Species, Red - Cockaded Woodpeckers.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Revised Recovery Plan for the Red - cockaded
Woodpecker (Picoides borealis). 2 "a revision. Atlanta, Georgia.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Red - Cockaded Woodpecker South Florida Survey
Protocol (adapted from Service 2003).
Passarella & Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 26
Ss
a
x
s
g
E
f
a
"
-r
Nei1
575 6;t r
`., t
is
r -10
LEGEND:
LANDS NOT INCLUDED
IN PROJECT AREA
NOTES
t
F j
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED
THROUGH THE COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY
APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE
OF JANUARY 2009.
PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER RWA, INC.
DRAWING NO.2010 -01 -07 BNDY.DWG
DATED JANUARY 7, 2010.
SURVEYED WETLAND LINES PER BANKS
ENGINEERING, INC. DRAWING NO.PODS
FOR APPROVAL 1 -II- 2010- PN- MOD.DWG DATED
JANUARY 11, 2010.
FLUCFCS LINES ESTIMATED FROM 1' =200'
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS AND LOCATIONS
APPROXIMATED.
FLUCFCS PER FLORIDA LAND USE, COVER
" AND FORMS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
(FLUCFCS) (FOOT 1999).
3 DRAWN BY
it `7(/.C.
DATE
2/4/10
13620 Metropolis
Avenue
REVIEWEDBY
- C.G.R.
13ATE
2/4/10
Suite 200
Fort Myers, Florida
33912
o REVISED
DATE
Phone (239) 274
-0067
UNIMPROVED PASTURE
9.14 Ac.
Fax (239) 274
-0069
PASSARELLA
H �.� .„ & SSOCIATES
FLUCFCS
% OF
CODE
DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
180
RECREATIONAL
79.89 Ac.
3.5%
212
UNIMPROVED PASTURE
9.14 Ac.
0.4%
260
RURAL OPEN LAND
10.54 Ac.±
0.5%
262
LOW PASTURE, HYDRIC
54.43 Ac.±
2.4%
3219E1
PALMETTO PRAIRIE, DISTURBED (0-24% EXOTICS)
27.81 Ac.±
1.2%
3219E2
PALMETTO PRAIRIE, DISTURBED (25 -49% EXOTICS)
12.60 Ac.±
0.6%
3219E3
PALMETTO PRAIRIE, DISTURBED (50 -75% EXOTICS)
3.71 Ac.±
0.2%
3219E4
PALMETTO PRAIRIE, DISTURBED (76 -100% EXOTICS)
5.75 Ac.±
0.3%
4119E1
PINE FLATWOODS, DISTURBED (0-240/. EXOTICS)
90.01 Ac.-
4.0%
4119E2
PINE FLATWOODS, DISTURBED (25-49% EXOTICS)
143.78 Ac.:t
6.4%
4119E3
PINE FLATWOODS, DISTURBED (50-75% EXOTICS)
23.49 Ac.,
1.0%
4119E4
PINE FLATWOODS, DISTURBED (76 -100% EXOTICS)
0.35 Ac.-
0.0%
4159E2
PINE, DISTURBED (25-490/6 EXOTICS)
677 Ac.,
0.3%
4159E3
PINE, DISTURBED (50-75% EXOTICS)
10.78 Ac.t
0.5%
4159E4
PINE, DISTURBED (76 -100% EXOTICS)
6.47 Ac.±
0.3%
4221
BRAZILIAN PEPPER, HYDRIC
1.81 Ac.±
0.1%
424
MELALEUCA
13.70 Ac.±
0.6%
4241
MELALEUCA, HYDRIC
345.07 Ac.±
15.3%
4269E1
TROPICAL HARDWOOD HAMMOCK, DISTURBED (0-24% EXOTICS)
0.40 Ac.-
0.0%
4269E2
TROPICAL HARDWOOD HAMMOCK, DISTURBED (25 -49% EXOTICS)
2.25 Ac.±
0.1%
4279E1
LIVE OAK, DISTURBED (0 -24% EXOTICS)
3.89 Ac.�t
02%
4279E2
LIVE OAK, DISTURBED (25 -49% EXOTICS)
0.29 Ac.±
0.0%
4289E1
CABBAGE PALM, DISTURBED (0 -24% EXOTICS)
1.20 Ac.±
0.1%
4289E2
CABBAGE PALM, DISTURBED (25 -49% EXOTICS)
19.08 Ac.2:
0.8%
4289E3
CABBAGE PALM, DISTURBED (50 -75% EXOTICS)
3.25 Ac.±
0.1%
4349E1
HARDWOOD /CONIFER MIXED, DISTURBED (0-24% EXOTICS)
1.47 Ac.±
0.1%
514
DITCH
3.38 Ac.±
0.1%
6189E1
WILLOW, DISTURBED (0-24% EXOTICS)
10.97 Ac.±
0.5%
6189E2
WILLOW, DISTURBED (25-49% EXOTICS)
2.48 Ac.±
0.1%
6219E1
CYPRESS, DISTURBED (0-24% EXOTICS)
157.74 Ac.,
7.0%
6219E2
CYPRESS, DISTURBED (25 -49% EXOTICS)
27.66 Ac.,
1.2%
6219E3
CYPRESS, DISTURBED (50 -75% EXOTICS)
1.45 Ac.±
0.1%
62459E2
PINE /CYPRESS, DISTURBED AND DRAINED (25 -49% EXOTICS)
1.32 Ac.±
0.1%
62459E3
PINE / CYPRESS, DISTURBED AND DRAINED (50-75% EXOTICS)
2.36 Ac.±
0.1%
6249E1
PINE /CYPRESS, DISTURBED (0-24% EXOTICS)
289.16 Ac. --t
12.8%
6249E2
PINE /CYPRESS, DISTURBED (25-49% EXOTICS)
327.32 Ac.±
14.5%
6249E3
PINE /CYPRESS, DISTURBED (50-75% EXOTICS)
258.23 Ac.*_
11.4%
6249E4
PINE /CYPRESS, DISTURBED (76-100% EXOTICS)
27.86 Ac. *-
1.2%
624BE2
PINE /CYPRESS, BURNED (25-49% EXOTICS)
22.90 Ac.±
1.0%
624BE3
PINE /CYPRESS, BURNED (50-75% EXOTICS)
9.56 Ac.±
0.4%
6259E
HYDRIC PINE, DISTURBED (0-24% EXOTICS)
31.52 Ac.±
1.4%
6259E2
HYDRIC PINE, DISTURBED (25 -490/. EXOTICS)
27.86 Ac. ±
1.2 1,b
6259E3
HYDRIC PINE, DISTURBED (50 -75% EXOTICS)
63.26 Ac.
2.8%
6259E4
HYDRIC PINE, DISTURBED (76 -100% EXOTICS)
12.00 Ac.
0.5%
625BE3
HYDRIC PINE, BURNED (50 -75% EXOTICS)
1.22 Ac.
0.1%
6289E1
HYDRIC CABBAGE PALM, DISTURBED (0 -24% EXOTICS)
2.64 Ac.
0.1%
6289E2
HYDRIC CABBAGE PALM, DISTURBED (25 -49% EXOTICS)
6.94 Ac. ±
0.3%
6289E3
HYDRIC CABBAGE PALM, DISTURBED (50 -75% EXOTICS)
2.09 Ac.
0.1%
6309E1
WETLAND FORESTED MIXED, DISTURBED (0 -24% EXOTICS)
19.90 Ac.
0.9%
6309E2
WETLAND FORESTED MIXED, DISTURBED (25-49% EXOTICS)
7.21 Ac.±
0.3%
6319E3
WETLAND SHRUB, DISTURBED (50 -75% EXOTICS)
5.83 Ac.
0.3%
6419E1
FRESHWATER MARSH, DISTURBED (0 -24% EXOTICS)
6.82 Ac.
0.3%
6419E2
FRESHWATER MARSH, DISTURBED (25-49% EXOTICS)
10.63 Ac.±
0.5%
740
DISTURBED LAND
3.21 Ac.,
0.1%
7401
DISTURBED LAND, HYDRIC
18.16Ac.±
0.8%
742
BORROW AREA
5.38 Ac.-
0.2%
743
SPOIL
0.16 Ac..
0.0%
747
BERM
0.93 Ac.:t
0.0%
814
ROAD
0.32 Ac.±
0.0%
8146
UNPAVED ROAD
4.33 Ac.±
0.2%
830
UTILITIES
1.OBAc.±
0.0%
8301
UTILITIES, HYDRIC
4.82 Ac. ±
0.2%
832
POWERUNE EASEMENT
1.24 Ac.
0.1%
8321
POWERLINE EASEMENT, HYDRIC
4.27 Ac.
0.2%
TOTAL
2262.14 Ac.
100.0%
HACIENDA LAKES
AERIAL WITH FLUCFCS
DRAWING v..
O1MT-F737
SHEET' Vo.
MAP F -1
•y.
4.
�1� 4
ev ,J
YJ
01
8301 S 0
411 4159E31
6 4 3 6249
6249E
-6 G159E3 4241 830 32 411
6249E3
4 6249E4
look-
i
r.
REVISIONS
DATE
DRAWN BY DATE
W.C. 2/4/10
13620 Metropolis Avenue
Suite 200
Fort Myers, Florida 33912
Phone (239) 274-0067
Fax(239)274-0069
GO E
DE SCAPT101
DESIGNED BY DATE
C.G.R. 2/4/10
T Or :L
uD
REVIEWEDBY DATE
K.C.P. 2/4/10
AA6Ac*
3A'.
PASSARELLA
i:..l „KI•t, & SSOCIATES
LEGEND:
LANDS NOT INCLUDED IN PROJECT AREA
NOTES
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGH
THE COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S
OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATEOF JANUARY 2009.
PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER RWA, INC. DRAWING
NO.2010 -01 -07 BNDY.DwG DATED JANUARY 7, 2010.
SURVEYED WETLAND LINES PER BANKS ENGINEERING,
INC. DRAWING NO.PODS FOR APPROVAL 1- II- 2010-PN- MOD.DWG
DATED JANUARY 11, 2010.
FLUCFCS LINES ESTIMATED FROM 1' =200' AERIAL
PHOTOGRAPHS AND LOCATIONS APPROXIMATED.
FLUCFCS PER FLORIDA LAND USE, COVER AND FORMS
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (FLUCFCS) (FOOT 1999).
FLU CF W
•• 'cr
GO E
DE SCAPT101
T Or :L
uD
RE CiCATl C41 -L
AA6Ac*
3A'.
21=
UNN Ph O. ED P - qU HE
D.u:c*
OA'.
260
RUR41 0�e11 L-JID
1AF At *
0A'.
ox
LO.. Pi,STURC.H, DRI C.
MA3 AC*
2A'.
316E 1
P.- LUETTOPR WUE.DI STU TEED p24P.EXGrIG4
27bl :c*
13'.
31662
Pi LUETTOPR WiI!.DI STU WED 12&4P.I11:(3rl C4
1241) Ac *
DA'.
316!3
PA;LYETTOPR WUl .D15TiI REED 00.7g1.C:•:QI G4
3'l AC *
Or.
31664
PALKETTOPR Will .DI 51U REED 1-14- 7610'.!? 071 C4
6.-6 Ac *
0-1r.
4716! 1
All! IL. T't OCO 5.11) I:TURBED 10.30.11! - Oil C4'
goal Ac :k
+JOB'.
411612
Hill! 111.414 000 S.DLTURBED 06.47. E•)D71 C4
113.76 Ac*
6A'•
+110!3
ANC FL T'&0CD 5.1)1STURBED p470. 00011 C i
25AD AC*
la'.
4-111111C41-
PII /EFL 1671- Y0G05.D ISTURBED(. -6.17. EiXM C4
036 AC*
OA1.
+116!2
R11E.D1STUISBED 0?47.E:•:OTICq
6.77 Ac*
03.
+766!3
RIIC.DISTUR6CD ow-,w.e:•701104
1.7B Ac*
Co.
4114
RIIC.DISTURBED (36.1601. a })DTI
6A7 AC*
03.
42^7
BRi3UAI POPPER.R:DRIC
11.81 Fe*
O.T.
401,
U ELALZU G
13.70 At *
Da'.
46147
Nel -.LCU G.N 111 RIG
31647 Ac*
19.
4000! 1
TR CV IC•.L H -RD :. OOD R =UU OO .DI STU R ED 02+1.9 CrI Cr4
DAD Ac *
O.Q.
405W!!
Th COIC•4- M -hD .. OCD H i,UU 00 .Di 51111 KBED OTI Cr4
2'J' 6 Ac *
Q.T.
40=1
LI.E , 5-1 .D I' TUBBED OOV. E:i071 C4
3m *c :t
Or.
4[:612
LI.E 0.1 .D I:TUBSED 01.47. [:•:071 C4f
0-'V it *
00'.
4C OCI
Gbh -a P -W .Di=RECD sm-r.c,cm 0£4
136 Ac*
4.T.
4OW2
Gbh - OL P -LU .DI 511) KBED 0647. C--: OTIC�i
win Ac *
08.
40DE3
Gbh- 0P- LU.DI5111 RBED 0077. C -:OTC
336 Ac*
O.T.
+Ullel
K -RD.. O{D c -mien U 141D. DISTURBED PW.E ^'071 -V4
1411 At*
O.T.
6u
DITCH
3!6 Ac *
O.T.
61901
61LLOOi.. DISTURBED ID2Y. !?:OTIC4
war AC *
DA`.
68gE2
rALLO- DISTURBED 0S 47.E:•:OTIG'j
=ABA -*
O.T.
WlM I
C. PEE S..Dl SW HOED 024•.E (M C4
w-: - +:r¢*
7a'.
WIM2
GPRC 55.015711 HOED 06-40. e.: 071 Cr4
27 A6K*
13'.
ciw3
G RSe 55.01.570 ABED oo - -.w. [•.971 CLF
1A6 K *
O.T.
6'316662
Rile G1PII655.D 15TURBCD AID DR: Ai ED '(347. l FOT G4
0246gl3
Ail! GNRlSS.O I�UROCD F41D OR,-1l ED 06.77. 9.0111 C4
236 ^c *
O.T.
6'SF0.'1
RIIC GPRl55.D 15TURBl6 1021P. EXid11 C4
63F6C2
RIIC G'PRl55.D.5TUR..D 0147. EY.ORC4
327.3 C*
lFA1.
636-R'3
RIIE GIDRCSS.DISTURBED 0476^.I1X071C4
'!m5^_ZK*
114`.
63!6!4
R11E C I)RCSS.DISTURBED (7&7GP.E:•:OTIC74
-277 Ac*
73'.
0 NBC'
811E GIPRCS5.5111 KIIED 00.47.!.X711 C4
=m Ac*
la'.
6946E3
PIIIC G1PRC55.6111 KIIED 00-7Q. E:•:011 C4
g46 Ac *
OA'.
6[60! 1
M DRI CRIIIl.DI 57V REED p3!•.!:• GrlGSI
37AL1 Ac *
lA1•
&SK2
R:DRIGPIIIC.DI57Vfwc. 0547.excric4
2-M At
13'.
62611[3
11f0RICAIIIE.DIG7UREED PD77.EXCrIC4
63364[*
28.
6206!4
MiDRICPIHE.D157UREED j- '&lW.EXCRIC4
L'AO Ac*
OA'•
611066
H'f DRICPIIIE.BUKIIED 1*76'.EXICIrIC4
I= At
O.T.
SSW I
Hi DRI GG�BBi GE P..LU .DI'.IVRBED PW. E,(0TICS4
CAF Ac *
0.11.
40GE2
R 1 DRI G"B.,f2 P,.Li .DI9URBID 0647. !:•?OTIG4
gA► x *
0.91.
OB0[3
M 1 DRI GG•b6. -AE P..W .DI2URBCD IdID7Q. l:!7)TIG4
2Ag Ac *
O.T.
COSE 1
..ETL -IID F 415' STED V 1:*!D. DISTURBED 162+1. e:•:OTICri
1AO At *
OD'.
63DIC2
..ETL IID F (HE STED U F-ED. DISTURBED 0647. C'.X)TIG'J
731 AC *
0.3'.
6310[3
..ETL -11D 2111UB.DI?URBED 0&-.V.! *70TI04
6m AC*
03.
6+7061
ME .'11 ..-TER U -A21 .DI 5TURBED 034'. EXOTIr
63'Ac*
03.
6+1062
IRE 511 .. -TER U - 1191 .61 STUBBED 06.40- .!'•:CPIs r4
IBM At *
DA'.
740
01 STU Rl6:D L -11D
331 Ac t
O.T.
:441
DI' STU RRD L41 D.M'i DRI G
1.1 AC*
0A'.
Na
B 0111104 . RE„
6m.c *
D3'.
743
SPOIL
0.1 c *
DAP.
747
BCHU
OA3 k *
Oa'.
iu
R O•D
03E :c *
DS.
5160
Ull Pk. ED ROAD
4-M .-c
0=.
OD
UTLR! S
l4B K *
4A'•
001
UTLR[ S.RVDRI G
4-M iC *
0.2'.
POA'ERLAIEEAMMENT
134x*
O.T.
1
PONERLII C CA1'211911 T.B01111 G
+= --*
0 .2.
T DIAL
-.74 -c :k
1041.
DRAWING Nn.
HACIENDA LAKES - NORTH 01MTT737
SHEET No.
AERIAL WITH FLUCFCS
MAP F -1 -N
FLUCFCS
DIIAWN nr LAIC
w'c' 2/4/10
% OF
CODE
DESCRIPTION
DATE
TOTAL
180
RECREATIONAL
79.94 Ac
3.5%
212
UNINPROVEDPASTURE
9.14Ac.s
04%
250
RURAL OPEN LAND
10.54 Ac.s
0.5%
262
'r
FLUCFCS
DIIAWN nr LAIC
w'c' 2/4/10
% OF
CODE
DESCRIPTION
DATE
TOTAL
180
RECREATIONAL
79.94 Ac
3.5%
212
UNINPROVEDPASTURE
9.14Ac.s
04%
250
RURAL OPEN LAND
10.54 Ac.s
0.5%
262
LOW PASTURE, HYDRIC
54.43Ac.s
2.4%
3219E1
PALMETTO PRAIRIE, DISTURBED (0-24% EXOTICS)
27.81 Act
12%
3219E2
PALM TTO PRAIRIE, DISTURBED (25.49%EXOTICS)
12.60 Ac.
0.6%
3219E3
PALMETTO PRAIRIE, DISTURBED (5D -75% EXOTICS)
3.71 Ac. ±
02%
3219E4
PALMETTO PRAIRIE, DISTURBED (76 -10D% EXOTICS)
5.75 Ac.±
0.3%
4119E1
PINE FLATWOODS, DISTURBED (0-24% EXOTICS)
90.01 Ac.s
40%
4119E2
PINE FLATWOODS , DISTURBED 0- 49%EXOTICS)
143.78Ac.s
6.4%
4119E3
PINE FLATWOODS ,DISTUF13ED(50- F5%EXOTICS)
23.49 Ac. s
10%
4119E4
PINE FLATWOODS , DISTURBED (76- 10(%EXOTICS)
0.35 Ac. s
00°A
4159E2
PINE, DISTURBED(2549%EXOTICS)
6.77 Ac. s
0.3%
4159E3
PINE, DISTURBE D (50,75% EXOTICS)
10.7BAc.s
05%
4159E4
PINE, DISTURBED (76-100% EXOTICS)
6.47 Ac. s
0.3%
4221
BRAZILIAN PEPPER, HYDRIC
1.81 Ac. s
0.1%
424
MELALEUCA
13.7D Ac. s
0.6%
4241
MELALEUCA, HYDRIC
345- 07 Ac. s
15.3''6
4269E1
TROPICAL HARDWOOD HAMMOCK, DISTURBED (0-24% EXOTICS,
0AD Ac. s
0.0%
4269E2
TROPICAL HARDW OOD HAMMOCK, DISTURBED (25 49%, EXOTICS)
2.25 Ac s
0.1%
4279E1
LIVE OAK, DISTURBED (0-24% EXOTICS)
3.89 Acs
02%
4279E2
LIVE OAK, DISTURBED r45-49% EXOTICS)
0.29 Ac s
0.0%
4289E1
CABBAGE PALM, DISTURBED (0-24% EXOTICS)
12DAct
01%
4289E2
CABBAGE PALM, DISTURBED (25-49%EXOTICS)
19.08 Ac s
08%
428DES
CABBAGE PALM, DISTURBED (50-75%EXOTICS)
325 Ac t
0.1%
4349E1
HARDWOOD /CONIFER MIXED, DISTURBED (0-24% EXOTICS)
1.47 Acs
D 1 %
514
DITCH
333 Acs
0.1%
6189121
WILLOW, DISTURBED (024% EXOTICS)
1097Ac 3
05%
6189E2
WILLOW, DISTURBED (25.49% EXOTICS)
2AB Ac. s
01%
E219E1
CYPRE SS, DISTUF93E D (0.24% EXOTICS)
157,74 Ac,
7.(°i
6219E2
CYPRIE SS, DISTURBED(P849%EXOTICS)
27.66 Ac.
12%
6219E3
CYPRE SS, DISTURBED (50-75% EXOTICS)
1.45 Ac.
0.1%
(2459E2
PINE /CYPRE SS, DISTURBE D AND DRAINED (25 -49% EXOTICS)
1.32 Ac 3
01
62459E3
PINE /CYPRE SS, DISTURBE D AND DRAINED 00.75% EXOTICS)
236 Ac. s
0.1%
6249E1
PINE /CYPRE SS, DISTUFEE D (0.24% EXOTICS)
289.16 Acs
122%
6249E2
PINE/CYPRE SS. DISTURBE D C?549% EXOTICS)
32732 Acs
146%
6249123
PINE /CYPRESS, DISTURBE D(50-75% EXOTICS)
258.23 Acs
114%
6249E4
PINE/ CYPRESS, DISTURBED(7Cr100'kEXOTICS)
27.86 Ac. s
1.21%
6246E2
PINE /CYPFIESS, BURNED (25r49% EXOTICS)
22.9D Ac. s
1.0%
624BM
PINE /CYPRE SS. SUPINE D(30-75%EXOTICS)
9.55 Ac. s
0.4%
6259E1
HYDRIC PINE, DISTURBED (0-24% EXOTICS)
31 MAc.s
1.4%
6259E2
HYDRIC PINE, DISTURBED (25-49% EXOTICS)
27.86 Acs
1.2ia
6159123
HYDRIC PINE, DISTURBED (5D -79% EXOTICS)
63.26 Ac.3
221%
6259E4
HYDRIC PINE, DISTURBED (76- 10)- /. EXOTICS)
12.OD Ac. s
0.6%
6258E3
HYDRIC PINE, BURNED (50-757. EXOTICS)
1.22 Ac.s
0.1%
62WE1
HYDRIC CABBAGE PALM DISTURBED (0.24%EXOTICS)
2.64 Ac. s
01%
(2>89122
HYDRIC CABBAGE PALM DISTURBED (25.49% EXOTICS)
6.94 Ac. s
03%
6289E3
HYDRIC CABBAGE PALM DISTURBED (50.75% EXOTICS)
2.09 Ac. s
0.1 %
6i09Ei
WETLAND FORESTED MD(ED,DISTUF13ED(0-24 %EXOTICS)
19.90 Acs
09%
6109E2
WETLAND FORESTED MIXED, DISTUR13ED (25.49% EXOTICS)
7.21 Ac.s
03%
6319E3
WETLAND SHRUB, DISTURBED (50-75% EXOTICS)
5.83 Ac.s
0.3%
6419E1
FRESHWATER MARSH, DISTUF93ED(0.24 %EXOTICS)
6.132Ac.s
0.3%
6419122
FRESHWATER MARSH, DISTURBED 0549% EXOTICS)
10.63 Ac. ±
0.5%
740
DISTURBED LAND
321 Acs
01%
7401
DISTURBED LAND, HYDRIC
16.16Ac.s
0.8%
742
BORROW AREA
5.39 Ac. s
0.2*/
743
SPOIL
0.16 Ac. s
0.0%
747
BE RM
053 Ac. s
0.0%
614
ROAD
0.32 Ac t
0.00/.
8146
UNPAVED ROAD
4.33 Acs
02%
830
UTILITIES
1.O8 Ac. s
0.0%
83D1
UTILITIES, HYDRIC
4- 62 Ac. s
02%
832
POWERUNEEASEbENT
1.24 Ac. s
0.1%
an
POW ERUNE EASEMENT, HYDRIC
427Ac.s
02%
TOTAL
2262.14Ac.s
1000%
DATE
DIIAWN nr LAIC
w'c' 2/4/10
13620 Metropolis Avenue
DESIGNED BY
DATE
Suite 200
C.G.R.
2/4/10
Fart Myers, Florida 33912
REVIEWED BY
DATE
Phone (239) 2744067
K.C.P.
2/4/10
Fax(239)274-0069
• gyp, . �:
fail'
�'tt 14i;}I�1�IiI�
iigpT�� 1 t IIt. N tp .= 1
�f' tit tl aI'k I ti'
PPASSARELLA
& ssbcIATES
Endogiaa
,h
HACIENDA LAKES - SOUTH
AERIAL WITH FLUCFCS
LEGEND:
LANDS NOT INCLUDED
IN PROJECT AREA
NOTES:
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE
ACQUIRED THROUGH THE COLLIER
COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S
OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE OF
JANUARY 2009.
PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER RWA, INC.
DRAWING NO.2010 -01 -07 BNDY.DWG
DATED JANUARY 7. 2010.
SURVEYED WETLAND LINES PER
BANKS ENGINEERING, INC.
DRAWING NO.PODS FOR APPROVAL
1 -11- 2010- PN- MOD.DWG DATED
JANUARY 11, 2010.
FLUCFCS LINES ESTIMATED FROM
1' =200' AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS AND
LOCATIONS APPROXIMATED.
FLUCFCS PER FLORIDA LAND USE,
COVER AND FORMS CLASSIFICATION
SYSTEM (FLUCFCS) (FOOT 1999).
01M1T737
MAP F -l-S
w�
1 Ak
N NY
k
r f
IF
01 � Ifi i
.v
t G. i;"
n
X � t
♦ F
rl �
a t
3 �4`
{
i
3 DRAWN BY DATE
W.C. 2/4/10 13620 Metropolis Avenue
0 REVIEWED BY DATE Suite 200
C.G.R. 2/4/10 Fort Myers, Florida 33912
REVISED DATI Phone (239) 274 -0067
Q
Fax (239) 274 -0069
x
LEGEND:
SFWMD WETLANDS
® SFWMD 'OTHER SURFACE WATERS'
LANDS NOT INCLUDED IN PROJECT AREA
SFWMD WETLAND AND -OTHER SURFACE
WATERS" NUMBER (TYP)
�\ SURVEYED WETLAND LINE
NOTES:
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED
THROUGH THE COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY
APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE
OF JANUARY 2009.
PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER RWA,INC.
DRAWING NO.2010 -01 -07 BNDY.DWG
DATED JANUARY 7, 2010.
SURVEYED WETLAND LINES PER
BANKS ENGINEERING, INC.
DRAWING NO.PODS FOR APPROVAL
1 -11- 2010- PN- MOD.DWG DATED
JANUARY 11, 2010.
PASSARELLA
ASSOCIATES i
DRAWING o.
HACIENDA LAKES 01MTT737
AERIAL WITH WETLANDS 'HEETNo.
MAP F -2
Hacienda Lakes
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
GMP Application
CCPC Review Materials
EXHIBIT N
Tranportation Report
DIA[A "`
Planning
V- 1inti.
COtiSP L'I!V.; Eginu g
AV IL 1 S Ywv
Hacienda Lakes
Revised Traffic Impact Analysis
Prepared for:
Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC
Prepared by:
Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc.
July 2, 2010
619001 -00.09
COPR
i
Pre, �42er the su er �io�,of:
3 ; No. 31157 *-
WML E. Oliver .P.E.
Of
R s ktion No.: 7 W
�
O ` STATE 4U
ON Sign�tfr�r
Date: /f,IV� 1a ii V
Hacienda Lakes
REVISED TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
Table of Contents
Introduction.................................................................................................................... ............................... l
TrafficGeneration .......................................................................................................... ............................... 1
Traffic Distribution and Assignment ............................................................................. ............................... 5
StudyNetwork Identification .......................................................................................... ..............................9
CommittedRoadway Improvements ............................................................................. ............................... 9
ExistingConditions ......................................................................................................... ..............................9
Background Traffic Growth Estimate .......................................................................... ............................... 12
2019 Operating Conditions .......................................................................................... ............................... 13
List of Figures
Figure 1. Hacienda Lakes Site Location and Study Network ......................................... ..............................2
Figure2. Conceptual Site Plan ........................................................................................ ..............................4
Figure 3. Proposed Driveway Geometry ........................................................................ .............................22
List of Tables
Table 1. Trip Generation Estimate .................................................................................. ..............................3
Table 2a. Internal Capture and Pass -By Capture Estimate - Daily ................................ ............................... 6
Table 2b. Internal Capture and Pass -By Capture Estimate — AM Peak Hour ................ ............................... 7
Table 2c. Internal Capture and Pass -By Capture Estimate — PM Peak Hour ................. ............................... 8
Table 3. Study Network Identification Table ............................................................... ............................... 10
Table4. Existing Conditions ........................................................................................ ............................... 1 1
Table5. Background Growth ......................................................................................... .............................14
Table 6. 2019 Total Conditions Generalized Level of Service Analysis ..................... ............................... 15
Table 7a. Arterial Level of Service Summary ............................................................. ............................... 17
Table 7b. Signalized Intersection Level of Service Summary ..................................... ............................... 18
Table 7c. Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Surnmary ................................. ............................... 19
Tisdale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Traffic Bnpact Sludr
i
Table 8a. Arterial Level of Service Summary — With Improvements Scenario .......... ............................... 19
Table 8b. Signalized Intersection Level of Service Summary — With Improvements Scenario ................. 19
Table 9a. Signalized Intersection Level of Service Summary — project Driveway ..... ............................... 20
Table 9b. Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Summary — project Driveway . ............................... 20
List of Appendices
Appendix A — Methodology Correspondence
Appendix B — Trip Generation Estimate
Appendix C — FSUMTS Plots of Future Background Traffic and Project Traffic Distribution
Appendix D — Committed Improvements
Appendix E — Count Data and Adjustment Factors
Appendix F — Historical AADT Trends
Appendix G — Future Traffic Volume Forecast
Appendix H — Capacity Analysis Worksheets
Appendix 1— Site Access Capacity Analysis Worksheets & Recommended Intersection Geometry
Appendix J — Improvement Timing
Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc.
�1
Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impact Studr
Hacienda Lakes
Revised Traffic Impact Study
Introduction
Hacienda Lakes is a DRI- magnitude mixed -use development proposed for a 2,200 + /- acre site on
the east side of C.R. 951 /Collier Boulevard that extends from south of Sabal Palm Road to north
of Lord's Way in Collier County, Florida (Figure 1). Of the 2,200 acres, only 700 to 750 acres
are considered developable uplands. The development is estimated to build out in approximately
2019, with the major land use components indicated in Table 1. A preliminary site plan of the
proposed development is provided in Figure 2.
This transportation analysis examines one phase of development, for which specific approval is
desired.
A revised traffic study response to Question 21, Transportation, has been prepared and is
undergoing DRI review. This Traffic Impact Study is based on the same transportation analysis,
but is formatted as a traffic impact analysis report. The proposed development generates more
than 100 net new total 2 -way p.m. peak hour trip -ends, and significantly impacts one or more
roadway facilities, and therefore meets Collier County's "Major Study" criteria.
This revised transportation analysis was prepared in response to review agency comments on the
March 21, 2010 study and due to some changes in the proposed land uses. Previous to
undertaking the original report preparation, a transportation methodology meeting was held on
December 21, 2009. Appropriate assumptions, sources of information, and procedures to be
used in the Hacienda Lakes transportation analysis were determined by the review agencies at
this meeting. A summary of the transportation methodology correspondence is provided in
Appendix A.
Throughout this report, the term service capacity has been used to indicate the traffic volume a
road may carry before exceeding an adopted level of service. This term has been used to avoid
the confusion normally encountered in discussing traffic volumes and service volumes.
Traffic Generation
Traffic generated by Hacienda Lakes is estimated in Table 1. The trip generation estimate was
based on fitted -curve equations or average trip generation rates obtained from the Institute of
Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation (8`h edition, 2008), as indicated in Table 1.
Whenever available, the fitted -curve equations were used. If a fitted -curve equation was not
available for a particular land use or time period, then the average rates were used. Hacienda
Lakes is estimated to generate 34,598 daily, and 2,156 a.m. and 3,328 p.m. peak hour trips. The
higher p.m. peak hour trips reflect the inclusion of retail land uses which typically are not active
during the a.m. peak hour.
Tindale - Oliver and Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impact Sreudv
-1-
0`;
9�
RAT p 7P HAMMOCK RD
Santa Barbara Blvd:
Rattlesnake Hammock Rd
to Davis Blvd
6 Lanes Under Construction
N
A
Miles
0 0.5 1 2
GA
Legend
Significantly Impacted Roadway Network
Scheduled Improvements Within Study Area
Scheduled Improvements Outside Study Area
i Approximate Area of Developable Land
i Parcel Lands
Collier Blvd:
Davis Blvd to Golden Gate Canal
Add Lanes 2010
E d: to Collier Blvd
010
i
Davis Blvd:
Santa Barbara Blvd to Radio Rd
4 Lanes 2012
Hacienda Lakes
Project Site
Collier Blvd:
US,41 to Davis Blvd
Say Ma+o ?'/
,�.. ( -_ —_ -- - -- - - -- -- - - -__ - - - -- - -- -- Figure 1
Hacienda Lakes Site Location and Study Network
Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Traffic In7pacl Sludi,
-2-
PINE RIDGE 9
PINE RIDGE RD EXT
a
GREEN BLVD
w
w
'
O
m
0`;
9�
RAT p 7P HAMMOCK RD
Santa Barbara Blvd:
Rattlesnake Hammock Rd
to Davis Blvd
6 Lanes Under Construction
N
A
Miles
0 0.5 1 2
GA
Legend
Significantly Impacted Roadway Network
Scheduled Improvements Within Study Area
Scheduled Improvements Outside Study Area
i Approximate Area of Developable Land
i Parcel Lands
Collier Blvd:
Davis Blvd to Golden Gate Canal
Add Lanes 2010
E d: to Collier Blvd
010
i
Davis Blvd:
Santa Barbara Blvd to Radio Rd
4 Lanes 2012
Hacienda Lakes
Project Site
Collier Blvd:
US,41 to Davis Blvd
Say Ma+o ?'/
,�.. ( -_ —_ -- - -- - - -- -- - - -__ - - - -- - -- -- Figure 1
Hacienda Lakes Site Location and Study Network
Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Traffic In7pacl Sludi,
-2-
w
y
S
0
a
o,
c'
AN
a.
r
n
m
y
r
Table 1
Trip Generation Estimate
Source: ITE Trip Generation, 8th Edition, 2008.
Note 1: School trip generation estimate adjusted for Hacienda Lakes DRI student population
J:- Client 600 - 6991619001 - 00.09- Hacienda Lakes DRIldocsMS Report - Copyl[LOS Tables 2.xls]trip gen
Daily
AM Peak Hour Trips
PM Peak Hour Trips
ITE Land Use, Code, and Size
Trips
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
Residential Condominium [Townhouse
230 (Fitted Curve)
148 du
905
12
59
71
56
27
83
Apartment
220 (Fitted Curve)
354 du
2,269
35
142
177
138
74
212
Single - Family Detached Housing
210 (Fitted Curve)
161 du
1,611
31
91
122
101
60
161
Apartment
220 (Fitted Curve)
134 du
936
14
55
69
59
32
91
Single - Family Detached Housing
210 (Fitted Curve)
244 du
2,362
45
136
181
147
87
234
Apartment
220 (Fitted Curve)
420 du
2,669
42
168
210
162
87
249
Single - Family Detached Housing
210 (Fitted Curve)
299 du
2,848
55
164
219
178
104
282
Shopping Center
820 (Fitted Curve)
327,500 sf
14,683
189
121
310
690
719
1,409
General Office
710 (Average Rate)
20,000 sf
386
46
6
52
5
25
30
Medical Office
720 (Fitted Curve)
50,000 sf
1,830
91
24
115
41
112
153
Business Park
770 (Fitted Curve)
140,000 sf
2,252
167
32
199
47
159
206
Elementary School
520 (Fitted Curve)(')
919 students
1,012
205
167
372
68
70
138
Hotel
310 (Average Rate)
135 rooms
835
36
23
59
42
38
80
Total Gross Trips
34,598
968
1,188
2,156
1,734
1,594
3,328
Internal Capture
-4,978
-101
-101
-202
-244
-242
-486
Total Gross External Trips
29,620
867
1,087
15954
1,490
1,352
2,842
Pass -By Trips [Shopping Center]
-1,861
-33
-33
-66
-148
-148
-296
Total
New External Trips
27,759
834
1,054
1,888
1,342
1,204
2,546
Source: ITE Trip Generation, 8th Edition, 2008.
Note 1: School trip generation estimate adjusted for Hacienda Lakes DRI student population
J:- Client 600 - 6991619001 - 00.09- Hacienda Lakes DRIldocsMS Report - Copyl[LOS Tables 2.xls]trip gen
f�
1-37
L ,x, 1.
x � l
—. �
1 `
i TRLLI
➢t13.,.
wx(l
�' ruxn
a•xoT.v
e . L �.
i
rx ,
{.,rl.� J L F� ,a k•
T {mow YN!(rt Ylb rr
¢Irk r
YY] I � IWdN/l
e Ys (c6p i 1'
ifI r IF1,'1 /1
7+1
r
i�
r.
rUI=
tucT
i.
MI
.owv� t
A
RP
C
P -
Pf -
PR
t -
R
RIMU -
ROW -
"b N
iN
i — '
Two- a+ Up". 1
w AW, 1.
raCu= T% : W.
5
rrw Mr,
Ift ; MA
rear xa*
VIM&
�.0
'.aoarc
0
Figure 2 -0
Conceptual Site Plan
NTS
Tindale- Oliver and Associales, Inc. Hacienda LAes Traffic Impacl Studio
4-
Traffic Distribution and Assignment
Development traffic was distributed and assigned to the study network using a version of the
Collier County MPO Cost - Feasible Plan FSUTMS model currently being used for transportation
planning by the Collier County MPO's consultant. This model is slightly different from the
version used to develop the MPO- adopted cost - feasible transportation plan because it had been
updated by the MPO to reflect recent BEBR mid -range population projections. It was used at
Collier County staff s request, and was provided to Tindale - Oliver & Associates by Collier MPO
staff on January 21, 2010. New traffic analysis zones (TAZ's) were created to represent Hacienda
Lakes, and the TAZ's were coded with appropriate land use data to reflect ITE -based traffic
generation for the development.
As indicated in Table 1, Hacienda Lakes will consist of a mix of mutually- supporting land uses
that provide opportunities for trips generated by one land use component to be satisfied by another.
Therefore, some trips will occur within the site and need not travel on public roads adjacent to the
site. Asa part of evaluating trip distribution, the FSUTMS model provides an estimate of internal
capture between on -site land uses. In addition, during the methodology discussions, application of
internal capture estimating procedures documented by the Institute of Transportation Engineers
was requested. Both methods were compared, and found to be in reasonably close agreement. In
addition, internal capture between residential and the proposed elementary school was assumed as
30 percent. This percentage results conservative when compared against the approximately 35
percent estimated by Collier County School Board (the School Board estimates that 324 students
out of the 919 students to be able to accommodate the proposed elementary school will be
"consumed" by Hacienda Lakes DRI).
A summary of the estimated trip interchanges between on -site land uses is provided in Appendix
B. Overall, the internal capture estimates resulted in PM peak hour external trips being reduced to
approximately 85 percent of the total vehicle trip -end generation reported in Table 1.
During the traffic assignment step, capture of trips from Collier Boulevard (C.R. 95 1) adjacent to
the commercial component of the site was considered. For the p.m. peak hour, the resulting pass -
by capture estimate using ITE procedure is 296 trip -ends, or 148 trips, which would be
approximately 3.6 percent of the future background traffic on Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951),
adhering to the "less than 10 percent" limit agreed to during methodology discussions.
The net result of internal capture and pass -by capture estimates indicates that Hacienda Lakes is
estimated to generate 27,759 net external daily, and 2,546 (1,342 inbound, 1,204 outbound) net
external p.m. peak hour trip -ends. Tables 2a through 2c summarize the internal capture and pass -
by capture estimates.
The distribution and assignment of development trips is summarized in Table 3, and plots of the
FSUTMS model output substantiating the assignment are provided in Appendix C.
Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impact Studs,
-5-
Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes TruJfic Impact Studr
-6-
Table 2a
Internal Capture and Pass -By Capture Estimate
Daily Internal Capture Matrix
Shopping
Residential Center Office Hotel
In
Out In Out In Out In Out
Total
6,800
6,800 7,342 7,341 2,234 2,234 418 417
Residential
In
6,800
��,�n
808
45
0
853
Out
6,800
6611-
61
0
0
661
Shopping
In
7,342
,
661
294
158
1,113
Center
Out
7,341
808
220
138
1,166
Office
In
2,234
"�'�'
0
220
0
220
Out
2,234
45
294
13
352
Hotel
1 n
418
0
138
131
151
Out
4171
41, j
158.
01
158
Total In 16,794
1
Out 16,7921
School Internal Capture: 30% of school trips are assumed to come from Hacienda Lakes
School External Trips: 1012
Internal Capture: 304
Internal Capture =
4,978
Capture Rate =
14.4%
Gross External =
29,620
Pass -by Trips Estimate
Shopping Center
Gross Trips (inbound)
7342
Gross Trips (outbound)
7341
Internal Capture (inbound)
1113
Internal Capture (outbound)
1166
External Trips (inbound)
6229
External Trips (outbound)
6175
External Trips (total)
12404
Pass -By Capture = 25%
Pass -By Trips
1861
Pass -By Trips (inbound)
931
Pass -By Trips (outbound)
931 Net External =
27,759
Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes TruJfic Impact Studr
-6-
Table 2b
Internal Capture and Pass -By Capture Estimate
AM PK Hour Internal Capture Matrix
Shopping
D-
Total In 763
Out 1,021
School Internal Capture: 30% of school trips are assumed to come from Hacienda Lakes
School External Trips: 372
Internal Capture: 112
Pass -by Trips Estimate
Shopping Center
Gross Trips (inbound) 189
Gross Trips (outbound) 121
Internal Capture (inbound) 25
Internal Capture (outbound) 20
External Trips (inbound) 164
External Trips (outbound) 101
External Trips (total) 265
Pass -By Capture = 25%
Pass -By Trips 66
Pass -By Trips (inbound) 33
Pass -By Trips (outbound) 33
Internal Capture = 202
Capture Rate = 9.4%
Gross External = 1,954
Net External = 1
Tindale- Oliver and Associate_. Inc. Hacienda Lakes Trgffic Impact Study
7_
Center
Office Hotel
In
Out In Out
In Out In Out
Total
234
815 189 121
304 62 36 23
Residential
In
Out
234
815
8
9
9
8
0 4
0 8
0 8
0 g
0 0 8
0 0 g
8 8 25
4 8 20
0 4
0 8
0 8
0 R
Shopping
Center
In
Out
In
189
1211
304
Office
Out
In
62
36
Hotel
Out
23
Total In 763
Out 1,021
School Internal Capture: 30% of school trips are assumed to come from Hacienda Lakes
School External Trips: 372
Internal Capture: 112
Pass -by Trips Estimate
Shopping Center
Gross Trips (inbound) 189
Gross Trips (outbound) 121
Internal Capture (inbound) 25
Internal Capture (outbound) 20
External Trips (inbound) 164
External Trips (outbound) 101
External Trips (total) 265
Pass -By Capture = 25%
Pass -By Trips 66
Pass -By Trips (inbound) 33
Pass -By Trips (outbound) 33
Internal Capture = 202
Capture Rate = 9.4%
Gross External = 1,954
Net External = 1
Tindale- Oliver and Associate_. Inc. Hacienda Lakes Trgffic Impact Study
7_
Table 2c
Internal Capture and Pass -By Capture Estimate
PM PK Hour Internal Capture Matrix
Shopping
Residential Center Office Hotel
Gross In Out In Ouf In Out In Out
Total
Trips 841 471 690 719 93 296 42 38
In 841 b 6
Residential 0
92
Out 471 . ;. 62 0a' 0 MW
62
Shopping In 690 20
96
Center Out 719 86 : r -" ' 22 13y 11
121
Office In 93 0 22 0
22
Out 296 6 14 9
21
Hotel In 4 1 0 13 1
14
Out 38 0>
Total In 1,666
Out 1,524
School Internal Capture: 30% of school trips are assumed to come from Hacienda Lakes
School External Trips: 138
Worst Case Scenario Assumtions:
Student -to -staff ratio: 10.62 (obtained from Hillsborough County School Board)
Staff Memebers: 87
Staff Memebers Present (leaving) during the PM Peak Hour: 10%
Staff Memebers Present (leaving) during the PM Peak Hour: 9 (outbound trips)
Student Related Trips:
In: 68
Out: 61 (70 trips - 9 staff trips)
30% Students from Hacienda Lakes
In: 20 (school inbound trips coming from inside Hacienda Lakes)
Out: 18 (school outbound trips staying inside Hacienda Lakes)
Internal Capture =
486
Capture Rate =
14.6%
Gross External =
2,842
Pass -by Trips Estimate
Shopping Center
Gross Trips (inbound) 690
Gross Trips (outbound) 719
Internal Capture (inbound) 96
Internal Capture (outbound) 121
External Trips (inbound) 594
External Trips (outbound) 598
External Trips (total) 1192
Pass -By Capture = 25%
Pass -By Trips 296
Pass -By Trips (inbound) 148
Pass -By Trips (outbound) 148 Net External =
2,546
Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Ti aff c Impact Sitidr
-8-
Study Network Identification
The transportation study network for Hacienda Lakes was identified based on policies adopted
by Collier County. These policies require that all regionally significant roads where traffic from
the development consumes two percent or three percent of the adopted service capacity of the
"existing and committed" road should be included in the study network. The two percent
significant impact threshold applies for the first two road segments as traffic leaves or
approaches the site, and the three percent threshold applies to segments beyond the first two
segments.
The net external p.m. peak hour development trip -ends on individual road segments, estimated as
described above, were divided by roadway service capacities determined and published in
Collier County's "Annual Update and Inventory Report" (AUIR) for roadways, for existing and
committed roads, to identify the transportation study network. This analysis is summarized in
Table 3, and the resulting study network is illustrated in Figure 1. Road segments denoted by
gray shading in Table 3 are on the study network.
Committed Roadway Improvements
Adopted capital programs of Collier County and the FDOT, current at the time of this analysis,
were reviewed and four "committed" road improvement projects (with construction funding
scheduled within three years) was identified for study network roads. These improvements are:
• Collier Blvd.: U.S.41 to Davis Blvd., 6 -lanes under construction.
• Collier Blvd.: Davis Blvd. (S.R.84) to Golden Gate Canal, add lanes, 2010.
• Davis Blvd. (S.R.84): Radio Rd. to Collier Blvd., 6- lanes, 2010.
• Davis Blvd. (SR 84): Santa Barbara Blvd to Radio Rd, 4- lanes, 2012.
• Santa Barbara Blvd.: Rattlesnake Hammock Rd. to Davis Blvd., 6- lanes, under
construction.
Appendix D contains applicable excerpts from Collier County's adopted 2009 Capital
Improvement Program and FDOT Work Program, and their locations are illustrated in Figure 1.
These improvements were considered in the identification of the transportation study network,
estimates of background traffic growth, and the assessment of future roadway operating
conditions.
Existing Conditions
Existing 2009 PM peak hour, peak season directional traffic volumes were obtained from Collier
County's 2009 AUIR for non -SIS roads and by multiplying the 2009 AADT volume estimates
by the K100 and the D factors reported in Table 4 for SIS roads. Existing (2009) roadway
operating conditions on the identified study network are summarized in Table 4. Count data and
adjustments are provided in Appendix E. The source and derivation of study network volumes
and all assumptions used to derive these values are also documented in Appendix E.
Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Tru1fc Impact Studr
-9-
Table 3
Study Network Identification Table
Note 1: This percentage includes Internaly captured hips using the eldernal roadmy net -Ii. Therefore, the resulting wlume is higher that the corresponding to the model mdernal trip assignment.
Tiodale- OliYer mtrl.4.- .mles, Inc.
11 -ie", Lokec Tr'q�c /,.I -I St 6-
Duediornal
Projectvonans
%.fServ.Cap.
SaIsafi m
B�gnficnnt
ESC
Model
Project
(REI
Coruurred
FDOT^
Cnudy
E•C
Sag-.
LOS
Juris.
Road
Mea
Ydune
Project
Tragic
I-.
Length
Std
Clara
Ylm T
Taps
D�atr'ibubon
_
�
Prolact
Project
On
From
Td
Y
Source
brbolm
Outbdr
In
Out
In
Out
M
Out
A
nd
Davis BWd.
U.S 41
Aq-t Rd.
6O
1.00
D
Stale
MC -2
Urban
3,420
co-Cornly MIR
481
1.7%
23
20
0.7%
0.6%
No
W
No
No
Oates BIW.
Mrpal Rd.
Lakewood BlW.
40
0.56
D
Slate
MC -1
Urban
2,080
Chia Canty MIR
525
1.8%
241
221
1.2%
1.1%
No
No
No
No
DdNS BIW.
Lakewood BNd.
County Bam Rd,
4D
1.69
D
SUIe
MCI
Urban
2,430
Cdlier Cornly MIR
879
3.1%
42
37
1.7%
1.5%
W
No
No
No
Davis Blur,
County Sam Rd.
Santa Barbara BWd.
4D
0.76
D
Stale
M C -1
Urban
2,575
Cdlier County MR
839
2.9%
39
35
15%
104%
No
No
M
No
Davis Blur.
Santa Barbara 61W
Radio Rd.
6D
1.7fi
D
State
Ad -1
Lhben
2,940
20090 &LOS Hs,, -k
354
12%
16
14
0.5%
0.5%
W
W
W
W
iv1
kd ,.
O L H
__ e,
Ne
e4
No
Golden Gale Blvd
Cdlier Blv�f.
Wlbm Bhd
4D
5.00
D
County
MC -1
Urban
2,350
Cnlnar Corm, AUIR
394
n4%
19
17
0.8 ".�
07%
Nn
W
W
W
GYCren BIW
Sanl.�Bn�l�.na Rive
Caber Bhd.
2U
2.00
D
County
MC-1
Urban
1.040
Collier Camty AUIR
30
0.1 Y,.
1
0.1%
nit%
Nn
No
W
W
Gomr SW,(C.R.951)
G-, elvn
VatlerNl Beets Rd
BD
1.00
O
Carry
Pit C-1
Urban
2,450
Cdlier County MIP.
.11
2.9%
39
35
1.6%
14%
No
Nn
W
No
GdArl Oats Si '._,.�,,,
Co11iH CeuMy MRR
f 1
•
90
H
94
4t
44%
3.
40•
No
We
Ne
No
Yet
Yes
Yea
Yea
91lsr SNA. R
resit Shinn
tlnr
in3
C
Am-
Urban"
2,3e0
coo*,C MNR
2370
7.
toe
d9« Blvd. f; P-101)
Err Peery.
75 rk1�
40_
1.60
D
CounQr
MCt
Urban
2,tl0
CdMaFC N/M
,3674
1
186
149
SB
8.1
Yes
Yes
Tes
Yaa
-
d8er &vd lC.R. %il
75
Garb BNd
ep
0.38
D
Sfala
Art
Urba1
1.006
Call- Cam MMR
0931
2
325
299
56.0"+
97%
Tee
Vss
dtn9NdtC.R.991j
is BN1e
49r6'e M►y W0.
W
2.20
E
C
MC•1
Urb9rr
3.2T9
Gelber County AYW
9723
17.
434
407
13.
12 :
Yes
YM
Yas
,aui+r Blvd . -961
a Rd.
Meeerlotll IM.
1W
Oft
E
Cd
Art C•1
Urban
370
Cdllee C NNR
$164
4t,4% /
683
471
ITAY.
14
Yto
Yet
Yea
dtku8lYl .RSN)
tMMIIOrr4rpek RA.
U.5.41
60
3.41
6
CnnrNy
A1C -1
Urkvr
3,370
Cdlier CarMyA{RR.
6344
mr.
297
261
_!M
-
Yes
Yea
�NO
Yee
0.b-,
107
96
4.5.
11
Me
.9M ..
486R OrNe
D
916M..A16G7.
-Ut6al
3,J70
Caner County MNR
2703
Yes
WA.
D -
1.576
C~ Cunly a1NR
25M
0.
119
707
&V0
S4•,'
Yse
Y4t
Yes
YI•"
M :'.
Mune+it Or
D
Codn+r Cen"MAR
_
2220
7, T'.
-.
103
_._._.
93
____
4es;
_ _.
Sfi
No
_-
No
_ - -_
Yes
-_
Yca
_..._
8.951
Mains l Dr.
rtmro bland Brdge
4D 2.40
D
Stele llnnl Urban
2.480
Cdlisr Camty l,UlR
1423
5.0%
67
W
2.] °a
24 6
No
No
W
Nu
'rPod ftd.
Davis BlW.
Tamiami TrMEas1
6D
0.80
E
COUnIy
MC -2
Urban
2,580
Colin County MIR
410
1.4%
19
17
0.7%
07%
W
W
No
Nn
LiNngslon Rd.
Golden Gale Pkwy.
Radio Rtl,
BD
1.40
E
Canty
M C -2
Urban
3,760
Culler Canty MR
1481
5.2%
70
63
1.9%
1.7%
No
W
No
W
is Pkwy.
IL.ogaton Rd.
1-75
BD
0.90
E
Camty
M C -1
Ulan
4,370
Cdlier Canty MIR
777
2.7%
35
33
0.8%
0.8%
No
No
No
W
Is Pkwy.
1-75
Santa Barbara BIW.
6D
0.97
E
County
M C -1
Urban
1 3,730
Colier Carly MIR
547
1.9%
25
23
0.7%
0.6 %
W
W
No
No
Ides Gate Pkwy.
Santa Barbara BIW.
Cdder BiW.(C.R.951)
40
2.20
E
County
MC -2
Urban
1,980
Colin Canty MIR
618
1 2.1%1
28
25
1.4%
13%1
W
I M
No
I No
een BWd
Santa Barbara BWO.
Cdlier DWI. (C.R.951)
4D
2.00
D
County
MC -1
Urban
1,040
Collier County MR
421
0.1%1
11
1
0.1%j
0.1%
No
No
No
No
Pule Ridge Rd.
Logan BIW
Cdlier BlW.(C.R.951)
4D
1.9D
D
Camty
MC -1
Urban
2.800
Collin Canty AUR
571
20%
27
24
1.0%
0.9%
No
No
I Nu
I W
ad'a Rd.
Mrport Rd.
LWingston Rd.
I 4D
1 2.01
D Candy
MC -1
Urban 2,180 COBa Canty AUR
1 5221
1.8%1
241
22 1.1%
1.0%1
No
I No
I W
I No
iSt" ..
SoNs
'S C -
,ASS f
: 1,16N ...
..
Y�9:.,
W
11111x1 Rd
Mte _:.:.
Sd. _ .
,-
c-t
r.9l6sr IiMR
5329
K
248
223 12.
.11.3^
Y9s
Yes
Yea
266:.
•,.
_.
Y
Gdtlen Gate Pkwy.
60
1 1.70
1 D I Canty
I M C -1
Urban 1,930 Coss, Canty AL AIR
anla Barbara Blvd. - -
Grwn R"
1082
3.8%
51
48 2.8
2A
No
No
No
W
anla Barbara BMf.
Gdtlen Gate Pkwy.
lRefto Rtl.
BD
1.40
E County
MCA
Urban 3,100 Co•er COUAy MS2
1963
68%
911
82
2.9%
2
f4D
f10
W
W
Pine Ridge ROarl
Logan BlW
Celia &W.
I 4D
I 1.90
I D I Cornly
11 C -1
Uban 2,H00 CO- C unty AUR
571
20%
Z]
24
10%
0.9%
W
W
W
W
F75
Pme Ridge Rd.
Gallen Gets Pkwy.
6F
230
D Stab
Freeway
Urban 5,580 2()09 D&LOS Hend -k
2307
R.0%
107
9G
19%
1.7%
No
W
W
W
-�
9•wF.;.,
-. 1720 2009 OSLO$H
211,11,
:' 6
119
107
2.
NO
Ne
Yes
No
175
Gnlha BlW.
Easid Cdla BNd
4F
1.00
C Slate
Freeway
___
I Trans 2980 20n9 Q&LOS Hannlnnk
831
299
39
_+5
1_i ^ %,
1.2%
W
W
W
Nn
Gwdlelle Frank Rd
Golden Gale Pkwy.
Tamlaml Trait East
8D
2.03
E County
M C -2
Urban 3.500 Collin County �UIR
823
2.9-
39
35
1.1%1
1 0%
W
W
W
W
Tnnunnn T-1 E-1
Four C-"
-E-
Under, 3,4 C xrly AtlR
- -1639
2.0 7o
No
Nn
No
Nn
Tarniami T-1 East
Goodelette Frank Rd.
Davte Bhd.
!!D
OS7
E Ststs
M C -2
Urban 3,850 Cdia Canty MIIR
2472
8.6
715
104
199%
2.7%
W
W
W
Nn
n
Yet
1.
n +_
No
Yes
Yes_
Tamiami Trait Easl
R.111 -dare Hammock Rd
Triangts BIW
SO
4.13
E Slate
MC -1
Unbar 3.500 Caller Canty MIR
778
2.7%
36
33
10%
0.9%
W
W
W
Nn
Tam iami Trad Eaal
Tnargle BNtl.
Cdlier BlW
BD
0.29
E Stale
MC -1
Urban 3,20D Colter Canty MAR
401
14 %
t9
1]
OF%
0.5°",
W
W
W
W
f
Yea
Yes
Yea
-Y es
ami Trait Easl
San Marco Dr.
S.R.29
2U
15.60
C Stale
llnnl
Urban 1,075 Cdda Carry AlrR
105
0.4%
5
5
0.5%
0.5%
W
No
W
W
axd Band Rd,
Rattlesnake Hanmock Rd.
Davis BNtl.
2U
2.03
D C-ty
I MCA
Urban 860 Colier Canty MIR
1 3501
1.2%
16
74
1.9%
1.6%
No
No
No
No
Note 1: This percentage includes Internaly captured hips using the eldernal roadmy net -Ii. Therefore, the resulting wlume is higher that the corresponding to the model mdernal trip assignment.
Tiodale- OliYer mtrl.4.- .mles, Inc.
11 -ie", Lokec Tr'q�c /,.I -I St 6-
Table 4
Existing Conditions
Totals 41.57 87.915 96,519 29.076 50.586
VNd Pk Dir V:SC 0.57
Tirklnle- Olt rer mrd A.s,-inless, hue. - _- _ - llnexnmm 6o&ry I rnprr unpne] orela'
9ery
Ealsu�p Trafic CKaraclens6cs
Rand -Y Segnerd
s C
Ca114d1y
B C
Lalb.
Se 9�a t
LOS
Std
J.H. .
Road
Class
Area
Type
2009
Pk Hr Dn Vol
V SC
Pk Hr
Length
2009
AAOT
K D
Factor Factor
Swree
Peaty
Dir
Pk Hr
PN Dlr
Source
_
TwnNIT
VMT
Pk Hr
Dn
VM9C
D'
I'M' a
it Mr
Oil VNIT
MB ES
SBiWB
NBIF.B
SBlN9
On
From
To
M
Source
lmwrtle
vsv
Davis Blvd,
Radio Rd.
C.R.951
6D
0.71
D
St-
NtC -1
Urban
1,530
Collier Counly AUIR
nla
We
0.57
Collier Counly CS 601
EB
1.113
AUIR
1,113
840
0.73
0.55
1,3871
1.086
575
790
Cdlier BIM. (C.R.951)
Golden Gate Blvd.
Green BIM
4D
2.01 1
D
I County
Nt C -1
Urban
1 2,180
Collier Carnly AUIR
.1.
n/a
0.68
Collier County CS 536
NB
1,817
AUIR
1,817
855
0.83
0.39
5,371
4,382
3.044
3.65
Collier Blvd. (C.R.951)
Green BIM
Golden Gat, Pkwy.
4D
1.03
D
I County
Art C-1
Urban
1 2.360
Cdlier County AUR
We
we
0.61
Collier County CS 525
NB
1550
AUIR
1,550
991
0.66
0.42
21617
2,431
1.049
159
Collier OW. (C.R.951)
Golden Gale Pkwy.
475(N)
4D
1.66
D
I Cranny
Art C -1
Urban
2,450
Collier County AUIR
Na
Na
0462
Collier County CS 607
NB
1,313
AUIR
1,313
805
0.54
0.33
ISIS
4,067
1.168
2018
Collier Blvd. (C.R.951)
475(S)
Dae%Blvd.
6D
0.38
D
Stale
MC -1
Urban
3,000
Cdlier Counly AUR
are
Na
0.57
Collier Cwnty CS 573
NB
2.252
AUR
2,252
1.6991
0.75
0.57
1,501
1,1401
642
CdIer Blvd.(C.R.951)
Davis BIM.
Lards Way Rd.
SO
2.20
E
County
Ad C-1
Urban
3,270
Collier Canty AUIR
We
Na
0.57
Collier Cwnty CS 602
NB
1,894
AUIR
1,894
1,429
0.58
0.44
7,311
7,194
2.413
4,167
Collier Blvd. (C.R.951)
Lord's Way Rd.
Rattlesnake Hammock Rd.
SO
0.92
E
Counly
M C -1
Urban
3.270
Collier County AUIR
We
Na
0.57
Collier Canty CS 602
NB
1,894
AUR
1,894
1,429
0.58
0.44
305
3,008
1,009
1,742
Cdlier Blvd.(C.RA51)
Rattlesnake llammock Rd.
U.S.41
SO
3.41
E
Counly
MC -1
Urban
3,330
Collier County AUIR
We
n/a
0.59
Collier Cwny CS 603
NB
1,658
AUIR
1,858
1.152
0.50
0.35
9,-
11,355
2,815
5,654
S.R.951
U.S41
Wal -Man DrK-y
SO
0.45
D
State
Art C -1
Urban
2.370
Cdlier Cainty AUR
Na
Ma
0.57
Collier Carnly CS 532
NB
1,489
AUIR
1,489
1,123
0.63
0.47
1,17
1.067
421
67
S.R.951
W.1 -Man Driveway
Manatee Rd.
4D
0.63
D
State
Arl C -1
Urban
1,970
Collier Carnly AUIR
Na
Na
0.54
Collier County CS 557
NB
1,560
AUIR
1,560
1,329
0.79
0.67
1,
1241
778
9B
S.R.951
Manatee Rd.
Maireak Dr.
40
3.47
D
State
Udnt
Urban
2,590
Collier County AUIR
Na
n/a
0.54
Cdlier County CS 557
SB
1,392
AUIR
1,186
1,392
0.46
0.54
8.
8,987
2,596
4.83
Redid Rd
Livingston Rd,
Santa Barbara BWd.
4D
2.01
D
County
MC -1
Urban
2,120
Collier County AUR
We
Na
0.63
Collier County CS 688
EB
1,154
AUR
1,154
678
0.54
0.32
3,
4,261
1,263
2.3
Radio Rd.
Santa Barbara Blvd.
S.R.84(Davis Blvd)
4D
1.34
D
Crony
MC -1
Urban
2,100
Cl1ierCwnty AUR
We
Na
Cdlier County CS 685
WB
502
AUR
379
502
0.78
0.24
1,181
2,814
161
67
Rattlesnake Mnck Rtl.
UsAl
Charlemagne BlvL
4D
0.80
D
County
Ad CA
Urban
1,940
Collier County AUR
We
Na
Cdlier Crony CS 516
WB
1,007
AUR
591
1,007
0.30
0.52
1,27
1,5
418
Rattlesnake Muck Rd.
Charlemagne Blvd.
County Bam Rd.
4D
0.40
D
Canty
Ad CA
Urban
1,940
Cdlier Cwny AUIR
Na
Na
Cdlier Crony CS 577
EB
705
AUR
705
554
0.36
0.29
776
10
28
Rattlesnake Hnck Rd.
Count' Bam Rd.
Poly Ave
4D
0.75
D
Canty
M C -1
Urban
2.340
Collier Canty AUIR
Ma
nla
Cdlier Crony CS 534
EB
715
AUR
775
477
0.37
0.20
894
1,755
164
5
Rattlesnake Mnck Rtl.
Polly Ave
C.R.951
6D
1.90
D
County
M C -1
Urban
3,200
Cdlt,r Canty /UlIR
Na
n/a
[0.63
Cdlier CwMy CS 578
EB
419
AUIR
419
403
0.13
0.13
1.56
6,080
104
]
Santa Barbara Blvd.
Radio Rtl.
S.R,84(Davis BIM)
6D
1.05
E
Crony
A�I C -1
Urban
3.250
Collar Canty PUR
Na
Na
7 AEslrnte
SB
950
AJAR
777
950
0.24
0.29
1,81
3,413
292
99
Santa Barbara Extensbn
S.R.84 (Davis Blvd)
Rattlesnke Hammock Rd.
W
2.05
Me
n/a
Na
Na
Na
Na
n/a
Na
Na
n/a
-
nla
Na
Ma
Ma
Na
Na
N.
we
Ma
475
Golden Get. Pkwy.
Colin BWd.
4F
3.30
D
State
Freeway
Urban
3,720
2009 Q &LOS Handbook
34,000
0.0940
FOOT CS 032000
WB
1,790
FOOT CS 03 -2000
7,406
1,790
0.38
0.48
10,547
12.276
2842
5A 90Tamiami
Trail East
Davis Bktl.
Airport Rd.
SO
1.26
E
State
MC -2
Urban
2,750
Cdlix County AUR
n/a
Na
Collier County C5545
EB
1,731
AIAR
1,731
1203
0.63
0.44
3,69
3465
1,373
Tamiami Tra9 East
Airport Rtl.
Rattlesnake Hammock Rd.
SO
1.69
E
State
Art CA
Urban
3,200
Cdr County AUR
n/a
Na
0.59
Cdlier County CS 604
EB
2471
AUR
2,471
1,717
0.77
0.54
7,07
5408
3,25
Tamlaml Trail East
Cdler Blvd,
San Marco Dr.
2U
8.75
C
Stale
MC -1
Urban
1,075
Cdr Cormty AUR
We
Na
0.51
Cdr Cain CS 608
EB
588
AUR
588
565
0.55
0.53
9,39
8,761
2,621
Totals 41.57 87.915 96,519 29.076 50.586
VNd Pk Dir V:SC 0.57
Tirklnle- Olt rer mrd A.s,-inless, hue. - _- _ - llnexnmm 6o&ry I rnprr unpne] orela'
Existing PM peak hour conditions on the study network were identified by comparing the
estimated 2009 PM peak hour, peak season traffic volumes with the AUIR service capacities
documented in Table 3. The resulting conditions are summarized in Table 4.
The study network consists of approximately 41.6 miles of road, carrying 87,915 peak -hour
vehicle -miles of travel. The highest volume to service capacity ratio observed is 0.83, and the
weighted average peak direction volume to service capacity ratio is 0.57, indicating that on
average the road network is slightly over 50 percent full -- and substantial capacity is available in
the network to accommodate additional travel.
Background Traffic Growth Estimate
Year 2019 PM peak hour traffic volumes on the 2012 existing plus committed non -state roadway
network were estimated using the FSUTMS Model for the Collier County MPO provided to the
applicant's consultant on January 21, 2010. Socio- economic data projections corresponding to the
mid -range population projections of the University of Florida's Bureau of Economic and Business
Research for 2019 were provided with the model set.
The Hacienda Lakes traffic volumes and background traffic volumes were identified using the
"select zone" assignment procedures of the FSUTMS model. 2019 daily background AADT
volumes were forecasted by:
(a) subtracting the Hacienda Lakes select -zone traffic volumes from the total traffic
volumes,
(b) interpolating between 2000 validation model volumes and the 2019 volumes to
estimate 2009 model peak season volumes,
(c) determining the annual traffic growth rate from 2009 to 2019 based on the model
volumes above for a "Method A" estimate,
(d) determining the difference in 2019 and 2009 model -based volumes (taking into
consideration the MOCF of 0.85) to be used for a "Method B" estimate,
(e) applying the growth rate and the volume difference to the actual 2009 AADT counts to
create two ( "Method A" and "Method B ") estimates of 2019 AADT,
(f) examining the differences between the Method A and Method B estimates and usually
averaging the two to develop a 2019 background AADT estimate. Averaging was
chosen in most cases because the two methods produced very similar volumes.
For state roads, the annual growth rates obtained by the method described above were compared
against historic trends and the higher of the two was used in the analysis. In addition, in instances
where the resulting annual growth rate was lower than 2 percent a minimum annual growth rate of
2 percent was used. Analysis of the historic trend in traffic counts on state roads are provided in
Appendix F.
Tindale - Oliver and Associates, Ine. Hacienda Lakes Trqf
.fie LrrpaeJ SJrrdr
12
The segment - specific volumes were then reviewed on an area -wide basis by computing the
vehicle -miles of travel on the study network. The model -based travel growth estimates indicate
that an annual VMT growth rate of 36,569 daily vmt per year can be expected, and the Hacienda
Lakes has used an annual VMT growth rate of 42,006 daily vmt per year. The model -based
growth rate also indicates that the 2019 study network vmt will be 1.477 times the 2009 study
network vmt, and the Hacienda Lakes has estimated the 2019 study network vmt will be 1.462
times the 2009 vmt. Thus, the background traffic growth rates used in this analysis are consistent
with those of the BEBR mid -range forecasts, as incorporated into Collier County's travel demand
model. This information is presented and summarized in Table 5.
The resulting overall background traffic annual growth rate on the study network between 2009
and 2019 is 3.9 percent per year.
The obtained annual growth rates were applied to peak hour volumes on non -SIS roads and on SIS
roads resulting background AADT volumes were converted to PM peak -hour, peak season
background traffic volumes using the appropriate "KIoo" (for SIS roads), and "D" factors, as
identified in Table 5. The peak direction of background traffic on each segment was based on
existing traffic flow patterns.
Hacienda Lakes trips on each road segment were identified using a "selected zone" FSUTMS
model traffic assignment procedure, which tracks the trips generated by the group of TAZ's in
which the Hacienda Lakes was isolated. The resulting distribution of external Hacienda Lakes
trips from the model was applied to the ITE -based trip generation estimate to estimate the PM peak
hour Hacienda Lakes traffic. PM peak hour background traffic volumes were added to PM peak
hour project traffic volumes to estimate total traffic volumes for the 2019 PM peak hour.
Background traffic volumes and Hacienda Lakes traffic assignments for 2019 are indicated in
Table 6.
2019 OyeratinE Conditions
2019 operating conditions were screened by comparing the estimated 2019 p.m. peak hour
volumes with the AUIR roadway service capacity volumes. The peak direction of background
traffic on each segment was based on existing traffic flow patterns. P.m. peak hour background
traffic volumes were added to p.m. peak hour development traffic volumes to estimate total traffic
volumes for the 2019 p.m. peak hour. Background traffic volumes and Hacienda Lakes traffic
assignments for 2019 are indicated in Table 6.
The total traffic volumes estimated as described above were compared against the roadway service
volume estimates of Collier County's AUIR to establish a screening of locations where below
standard operating conditions are expected, and where development traffic would meet or exceed
the thresholds of significance. Table 6 provides a summary of estimated 2019 conditions at the
significantly impacted locations. On only three road segments are below level of service standard
conditions expected. On these two segments, and at site access points, more detailed intersection
Tindale- Oliver and Associales, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Tragic Impac! Sludi,
13
#
Table 5
2019 Background Growth
Segrront
- - - -- -- --- - --
Raw Model
Volume
2009
Raw
Model
Volume
Mter-
polated
Annual
Growth
R.He
Adjusted
Annual
Grow[h
Rate"
2009 -2019
AADT
Growth "
2009
MDT (real
count)
2019 AADT
Resulting
Average
Mnue1
Growth
Rate
Historical
Growth
Rate
Used
Annual
Growth
Rnte
Final
IT
Comm-
ents
Segment
Length
(�)
Model -based VMT
(applied MOCF o/
0.55)
AADTIEstlmate hexed
VMT
On
Davis Blvtl. T
From
io Rd.
To
C.R.951
2000
8,780
2079
Method
Am
Methotl
BN.
Average n'
2000
2019
2009
2019
Collier Blvd. (C.R.951)
Collier Blvtl. (C.R.951)
Collier BlW.(C.R.951)
Collier Blvtl.(C.R.951)
Collier Blvd .(C.R.951)
Collier Blvd. (C.R.951)
C011ier Bhd. (C.R.951)
$.8.951
S.R.951
Golden Gate Blvd
Creep Blvtl
Golden Gale Pkwy.
T. -VW
Davis Blvd.
Lord's Way
Rattlesnake Hammock Rtl,
U.S.41
Manatee Driveway
Manatee Rd.
Livingston Rtl.
Santa Barbara Blvd.
U.S 47
Charlem ne Blvd
a
Count Brn Rd
Santa Barbara Blvd.
Radio Rtl.
S.R.84 (Davis Blvd)
Golden Gale P kwy.
Davis BNtl.
Airport Rtl.
Collier Blvd.
Green Blvd
Golden Gate Pkwy.
F75 (N)
Davis Blvd.
LorBSo-k
Ra8lesnake Hammock Rd.
U.S.41
W.LW Drivew
Driveway
Manatee Rd..
Mainsail Dr.
Santa Barbara BNtl.
SR.84 Davis BNtl
( )
Charlemagne BNd.
Count Barn Rd.
Y
Santa Barbara BNd.
C.R.951
S.R.84 (Davis Blvd)
Rattlesnake Hammock Rd,
Colier BNd.
Airport Rd.
Rattlesnake Hammock Rd.
San Marco Dr
21,952
20,781
10,511
32,438
25,821
25,821
23,207
32,527
32,339
29,188
13,764
2,411
18,195
12,277
7,547
2,889
19,872
Na
60,794
40,881
52,867
9,807
39,765
40,421
X335
39,005
73,986
42,973
42,973
48,032
54,587
60,445
55,321
39,743
21,445
28,935
25,098
25,456
22,843
48,970
43,757
67,600
53,976
64,050
22,300
23,457
30,700
28,149
24,008
52,119
33,946
33,946
34.966
42,976
45,652
41,567
28,070
11,427
23,282
18,350
16,030
12,341
33,655
Na
64,018
47,084
55,164
15,725
70%
3.2°h
2.9%
6.2%
402%
2.7%
2.7%
3.7%
2.7%
342%
3.3%
5.2%
58%
2.4%
3.7%
59%
8.5%
4.6%
Na
0.6%
1.5%
1.0%
4.2%
7.0%
3.2%
2.9%
6.2%
4.2%
2.7%
2.7%
3.7%
2.7%
3.2%
3.3%
5.2%
8.8%
2.4%
3.7%
5.9%
8.5%
4.6%
Na
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
4.2%
13,862
8,263
6,958
129747
181587
7,673
7,673
11,106
9,869
12,574
11,691
11,622
8,515
4,805
5,736
8,012
8,927
13,018
Ma
3,045
5,858
5,003
5,589
20,340
26,649
26,649
21,868
41,655
33.201
33,201
28,033
28,617
28,617
22,878
19,178
9,217
22,835
13,261
12,487
8,529
32,997
Na
32,500
30,694
44,146
11,978
34,481
35,087
34,399
3$,528
59,132
42,030
42,030
38,508
36,349
37,890
30,448
29,236
17,298
28,379
18,138
19,830
151787
48,013
n/a
39,000
36,833
52,975
16,986
34,202
34,912
33,607
34,615
60,242
40,874
40,874
39,139
38,486
41,191
34,569
30,800
17,732
27,640
18,997
20,499
17,456
46,015
37,193
35,545
36,552
49,149
17,567
34,342
35,000
34,003
35,072
59,687
41,452
41,452
38,824
37,418
39,541
32,509
30,018
17,515
28,010
18,568
20,165
16,622
47,014
37,193
35,545
36,693
51,062
17,277
6.9%
3.1%
2.8%
60%
4.3%
2.5%
2.5%
3.8%
3.1%
3.8%
4.2%
5.7%
9.0%
2.3%
4.0%
6.1%
9.5%
.2
4.2%
0.9%
2.0%
1.6%
44%
2 0", 6.9%
3.1%
-_ - - -- - 2.8%
_ _ 6.0%
31 "<, 4.3%
_ 2.5%
2.5%
k i 3.8°/,
1.9% 3.1%
1.9% 3.8%
1.2% 4.2%
5.7%
9.0%
2.3%
4.0%
6.1%
9.5%
.2
4.2%
3.1% 3.1%
1.2% 2.0%
14% 2.0%
1.2% 4.4%
34,342
35,000
34,003
35,072
0.71
2.01
1.03
1.66
5,299
37,505
18,194
14,831
23,
69,05
31,811
55,0
74,441
53.564
27,448
36,301
24,38
70,
35,02
58,22
59,687
41,452
41,452
38,824
P39.541
0.38
2.20
0.92
347
0.45
063
3.47
2.01
10,477
48,285
20,192
67,265
12,442
17,318
86,090
23,516
23,697
80,
33,60
139,221
20,
32,
163,16
67,901
15,829
73,042
30,545
95,593
12.878
18,029
79,387
30,351
22,681
91,194
38,13
732,3
16,8
24,911
112,
60,33
S.R.951
Radio Rd.
Radio Rtl.
Rattlesnake Hmck Rd.
Rattlesnake Flnck Rtl.
Hmck Rd.
Santa Bar a Hmck Rd.
Santa Barbara BNd.
Santa Barbara Exl
F75
Tamiami Trail East
7amiami Trail East
Tamami Trail Last
1.34
0.80
2,746
12,373
24,4
19,67
12,351
18,268
23,47
22,408
0.40
0.75
4,174
4,811
8,53
16,22
5,304
9,365
7,42Rattlesnake
15,124
16,622
1.90
4,666
36,891
16,205
31,582
47,014
1.95
17,736
43,7
34,647
49,36
37,193
Nile 6
2.05
0
76,24
0
76,2
42,575
3.30
170,527
189,61
107,250
140,4
36,693
524975
17,277
1.26
8.15
43,784
75,943
67,938
57,80
92,
154,4831
38,674
74,607
97,621
46,23
89,52
140,808
Niles:
(112 Percent Average Annual Growth Rale Mnimum - -ad for Melh- A 21119 IT Estimate
(2) 20032019 AADT Growth = (2019 RMV - 2009 RMV) x MOCF -Collier County MOCF = (Y85 -Used for Method B 2019 AADT Estimate
(3) Melhod A 2019 MDT = 2009 PMT x (1 - [Adjusted Annual Growth Rate x (2019 - 2009)11
(4) Wthod B 2019 AADT = 2009 PMT + (2009 -2019) MDT Growth
(5) Average = (Melhod A 2019 AADT . Method 2 2019 AADT) / 2
(6) Obtained as 2019 RMV % MOCF
!116,111 1,450,930 909,897 1,329,955
Annual Increase in VMT: 36,569 42,006
Ratio of VMT (2009 to 2019): 1.477 r. 1.462
Est/Model Annual Increase Comparison: 1.15
Est/Model Ratio Comparison: 0.99
Model forecasts 36,569 vmt increase per year, we're using 42,006. - Conservative!
Model forecasts 2019 vmt will be 1.477 times 2009 vmt (2009 volumes are based on interpolated 2009 between
2000 and 2019). We're matching that ratio!
Overall growth in travel on the study network is 3.9% per year.
Tindale- Oliver and Associates. Inc.
Hacienda Lakes Traffic Innpacl Study
IJ-
Table 6
2019 Total Conditions Generalized Level of Service Analysis
Roxk.ey Se9mard
I
l
9sry
4Hdn9lraRk CMrxbrWics
3819 VeM Xar
M1MMm
2018 Tool
faMgrand
WC
4WlBew7
ic."
E•C
E-c
LO3
lots
Rwd
Mwa
c-.q
M4wwV
EMk•ra WTralRC
Pro(sm Trelflc
CoOMy
`___
Lernee
I gld
CWs
ikiX
1089 Rk
fH1EB
Hr OkW
SEAM
R
F4cbr
D
Fes1w
Port
Die.
Sp1�
Rro••r
3,dpT
Rol¢81
On
imm
T•
•
•awr8e
Vbl�
NB28
t{E.NM
NE4E
EEEA9
11&EB
881yA
mme
EEA80
-
XB�E
seN'6
NERa
sE
ays Blvd.
Mier B1M.(C R. 951)
Raln Rtl.
('ukfen Gate Bhd.
C R 951
C nBNd
W
00
07'
201
p
D
Stale
Cwmry
M L I
MC -1
] 900
2.iM
2009 OALOS Lpn05oM
c -County AIIR
+ +l
1,61>
600
9.55
O S]
066
EB
fB
M18i
AUIR
J 29)
3.509
8]9
2.J86
18
1,x23
EB
SE
90
61
AI
9p
1973
206]
1502
121J
0671
1.132
0511
Y,
re
IJo
Crier Bkd. (D.R.9$1)
Grtmn BNtl
Ggrtr!n Gate Pkwy.
dD
103
D
County
MC -1
lAban
2,360
Lager Cruay MlR
1,550
991
Na
061
6H
2.8%
3.202
1,9]8
t,2rN
SB
9A
tp5
10R
1369
0.8]8
0.580
M
M
BM.(C (.951)
Pkwy.
475(1)
AD
1fib
D
County
MC -1
fa n
2,450
Cafes Canyy NlR
1,313
-
Na
062
m
MAR
60°.1
Na
3,397
2,106
1,291
sB
tAs
186
2255
145)
0.920
0595
Vas
Ves
M
BM.(C.R.851)
L)5(5)
Daa BM
8D
0.38
D
Slate
MC1
Ulan
3,000
Cater CaiNy M1R
2,252
1,699
Ne
0.57
NB
MAR
43%
Na
5,661
J,221
2434
SB
291
J25
3519
2199
11TJ
0920
BFM.fC.R.951)
Daas Bnq
Lards Way Rd
60
2.20
E
Canty
MC -1
lAban
3.2)0
C- Ca�r4yM
1,890
1,429
rtes
057
M
MAR
2.5%
Na
4,119
2365
1,784
SB
AO]
451
7172
2238
0.818
0.681
V
M
aM.IC (951)
Lords Way Rd.
RaelesrRke Hammock Rd.
6D
0.92
E
Carry
MCt
lAfan
3.2]0
CaFry CaiMy M1R
1,691
1,129
n/e
05)
NB
NJR
2.5%
Na
4149
2,385
1.>BO
NB
583
471
2900
2255
0.902
0690
Vas
N1
M
aM.(G.R.951)
RMN!armke Hammack Rd.
0591
bD
341
E
Carly
MC -t
UOae
3.330
ofa r:a�Ny MAR
1,858
1.152
Ne
059
tR
AUR
3.8%
3.891
2,296
1$95
F6
291
261
258)
1856
O.7n
OS67
1
U.S01
Wa4k@d Driveway
6D
OAS
D
Slae
MC t
Urpan
2,3'rtl
Calker Carnly M/R
1409
1,123
Na
057
m
MAR
J.1%
Na
3,415
194)
1,488
FH
10)
96
2051
1561
a-
t
Wal -Mnd Drilewe
1%G Rd.
4D
0.83
D
MC!
1,9M
Crier GOUay M1R
1,590
1,329
Na
051
NB
NJIR
3.B%
Na
J.993
2,155
1,836
NB
119
t0]
22>5
1913
1155
09%
Ves
Ves
Ves
51
Mvnlra Rd.
Mak ®ai pr
4D
34)
D
State
Uix
llNan
2.590
CMcr Cn�rily NlR
1188
1392
Na
0.51
SB
AIIIR
4]%
Na
3.863
1.685
1.9]8
NB
103
93
t]9B
20)1
0.890
0�0
V¢s
Vn
rb
Rd.
LAVgslan Rd.
Saaa BSOam BkM
4D
2.01
D
Cowry
MC-1
llrDan
2,120
Char CaiMy AIIR
1150
6)e
Na
083
EB
MAR
5)%
Na
2.96)
1,906
1,061
EB
105
90
1911
1155
awl
Rd.
K'MR
s- B-BM.
SRQa(Davis 8kd)
4D
1.34
D
Cdit
MC -1
1-
]100
1 --yMIR
3n
502
Na
057
WB
AUR
8B%
1,674
]20
951
F9
M
>i
fi4
791
1018
0.371
0485
Ves
M
M
snake -k Rd.
USA1
Clalema9ro BNd.
40
080
D
Cly
MCI
lkl+an
1910
CMi+r Cw AUR
591
1,007
O.o
WB
MAR
23%
Na
1,960
725
1,235
224
201
919
1936
4M
0.489
0.)40
Yes
Van
W
M
srWe Heck Rd.
Clalemaao BW
Caaly Bam Rd.
4D
OAO
D
Carty
MC.1
lAUan
1,910
CMkr -yAUR
]OS
550
Na
058
EB
1044
Na
1,i3
9B)
m
EB
249
22J
1235
0.63)
0515
Nd
M
slrelm Hnck Rd.
Canty Ban Rd.
Santa Bafaara BlM.
4D
075
D
Caudy
MC -t
IALan
2.-
CNla CaiMy M1R
715
471
N
081
EB
MlR
6.1%
Na
1.925
1.155
770
EB
285
255
1400
1025
0.615
0430
nake HmcF Rd.
SaAa Barbera Bled.
CR951
6D
1.90
D
C.Ay
MC -1
u-
3,200
CoPoier County MIR
419
403
Na
0.51
EB
M1R
95%
1,602
817
785
EB
566
509
1385
1291
0.433
UAM
Ves
kb
Dkr
Bedlam BlM.
Redo Rd.
S.R BA 1DdM BWI
6D
105
E
Couty
MC -1
IAEan
3.250
Calker County M1R
Tn
950
Na
055
sB
AUR
4.Z%
Na
2461
1107
1,351
M
125
140
12M
1490
0.3)9
OA60
Baf9ira Enemion
SR8010asis BN07
RaaMreke Mamma:k Rd.
60
205
E
Couny
MC -1
Uben
3350
Maunetl same as W¢NOas
Na
00956
0.55
n/a
Nn
37.193
3.558
1,600
!,956
M
170
199
17)9
2155
051)
067+3
Cofer BIM.
dF
3.30
O
sere
Fietway
t-,
3.)20
2009D6LOSHa�M000k
1,406
t,nl0
00940
a.
WB
FDOTCS032000
3.1%
42575
4,002
1)61
2241
EB
119
107
12348
0505
0631
nd Teal Easl
Davis [8W.
'ryM Rd
60
126
E
stare
MC -2
UOai
2)50
CMerCwr4y N1R
1]31
1.203
n/a
059
EB
AIAR
2.0%
Na
3,521
2.077
IM
EB
109
niTmi Earl
Mporl Rd.
RMksnake Hammak Rd.
fiD
1.69
E
Gala
MC1
IAbM
3.Xp
CdSer County MAR
2 ,4)t
1]!)
Na
059
EB
MAR
2.0%
Na
5.025
2.965
2,060
EB
188
151
3133
2211
0979
0691
Ves
Ve
Nn
M
amaniTmi East
CNk'a BkM.
San 6bmo Dr.
2U
8.15
C
519e
MC -t
lADen
1,075
Crier CaiNy Al1R
508
565
Na
0.51
EB
MAR
4.4%
Na
1. 663
918
815
EB
67
fi0
915
875
0.851
0814
Ves
M
Ito
tls Way Rd.
Ccb'er BNd.(C.R.951)
staf Carer BNd.(CR951)
N
050
E
Casey
MC -1
LMan
)90
2009O6LOSHmgMxi
8
7
00000
051
EB
TOA 7MC
Na
1,697
153
82
71
EB
40
B
116
79
0.159
01011
Yes
W
W
sb
ke Hammak Rd.
CdY'er Bktl. (C (951)
--C-- . IG.R.95t)
4D
025
E
Caa1y
Me -1
IAban
1,760
2009 O8L05 Hantlbook
2
6
00900
052
EB
TOA EsRnal¢
Na
2.317
211
110
101
WB
1163
1186
1273
128)
0.]23
0.731
Ves
M
eb
Issnake Hammock Rd.
Crier Bkd.(CR951)
easlNFkrlWS9als Park Rd.
2U
025
E
Co
MC.1 I
Uban I
]90 I
2009 OSLOSHBrMIwM
2
6
0.0900
052
EB
TOAEaRnMe
2,317
211
110
101
WB
1163
1188
6M
SOJ
OB%
0637
Ves
W
sa,
Tindale- Oliver and A- ciates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impacl Study
IS-
capacity analyses were undertaken to identify improvements that would restore the adopted level
of service standards. These intersections are:
On these three segments, and at site access points, more detailed intersection capacity analyses
were undertaken to identify improvements that would restore the adopted level of service
standards. These intersections are:
• Collier Boulevard (C.R.951) at Golden Gate Boulevard West
• Collier Boulevard (C.R.951) at Pine Ridge Road
• Collier Boulevard (C.R.951) at Green Boulevard
• Collier Boulevard (S.R.951) at Interstate 75 Ramps (North)
• Collier Boulevard (S.R.951) at Interstate 75 Ramps (South)
• Collier Boulevard (S.R.951) at Davis Boulevard
• Collier Boulevard (C.R. 95 1) at Northern Site Access (A.M. and P.M. peak hour analysis)
• Collier Boulevard (C.R. 95 1) at The Lord's Way (A.M. and P.M. peak hour analysis)
• Collier Boulevard (C.R. 95 1) at Rattlesnake Hammock Road (A.M. and P.M. peak hour
analysis)
• Collier Boulevard (S.R.951) at Wal -Mart Supercenter Driveway
• Collier Boulevard (S.R.951) at Manatee Road
In addition to these intersections and pursuant to FDOT request, the following intersections were
also analyzed:
• Collier Boulevard (C.R.951) at Golden Gate Parkway
• Tamiami Trail (U.S.41) at Rattlesnake Hammock Road
• Tamiami Trail East (U.S.41) at San Marco Road (C.R.92)
Intersection turning movement volume forecasts are included in Appendix G.
Levels of service were calculated using the following methodologies:
Signalized Arterials Synchro (2000 HCM Procedures)
Signalized Intersections Synchro (2000 HCM Procedures)
Unsignalized Intersections Highway Capacity Software (2000 HCM
Procedures)
Capacity analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix H. Table 7 summarizes the results of the
capacity analysis. As shown in Tables 7 A, B, and C at the following intersections improvements
will be required to achieve adopted performance standards:
• Collier Boulevard (C.R.951) at Pine Ridge Road
• Collier Boulevard (C.R.951) at Golden Gate Parkway
• Collier Boulevard (S.R.951) at Interstate 75 Ramps (South)
Tindale- Oliver and Associales, h7c. Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impact Study
- 16- Hacienda Lakes o/ Naples, LLC
• Collier Boulevard (S.R.951) at Davis Boulevard
Table 7a
Arterial Level of Service Analysis Summary
Roadway
Average
Level of
Speed
Direction
[mph)
Service
On
From
To
Collier Blvd
Golden Gate Blvd.
Green Blvd.
20.6
D
NB
Collier Blvd
1-75(S)
Davis Blvd.
6.7
F
NB
S.R. 951
Wal -Mart Driveway
Manatee Rd.
43.2
A
NB
At these intersections the following improvements are required:
Collier Boulevard (C.R.951) at Pine Ridge Road
• Widen the northbound and southbound approaches in the intersection vicinit to 3 lanes in each
direction.
Collier Boulevard (C.R.951) at Golden Gate Parkway
• Construct an additional (for a total of two) northbound -to- westbound left rn lane on Collier
Boulevard.
Collier Boulevard (S.R.951) at 1 -75 Ramps (South)
• Reduce the number of southbound through lanes from 4 to 3,
• Lengthen the outside right turn lane at the Collier Boulevard/Davis Boulevard intersection
approximately 650 feet (from E +C turn lane end to I -75 eastbound off ramps),
• By reducing the number of southbound through lanes and lengthening the southbound right
turn lane at the Collier Boulevard/Davis Boulevard intersection, it will be possible to provide
two receiving lanes for the eastbound right turn movement at the Collier Boulevard/1-75 South
Ramps intersection, enabling this movement to operate as free flow.
Collier Boulevard (S.R.951) at Davis Boulevard
• Construct an eastbound -to- southbound right turn lane on Davis Boulevard.
Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impact Sludi,
-17- Hacien a Lakes of Naples, LLC
Table 7b
Signalized Intersections Level of Service Analysis Summary
Tindale- Oliver and Associates, h7c. Hacienda Lakes Traf /ic hnpacl Studs
-18- Hacienda Lakes ol Naples, LLC
Movement
Time
Intersection
Measure
Overall
Period
EEL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WEIR
NBL
NET
NBR
SBL
SET
SBR
Collier Blvd
V/C
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.93
n/a
0.26
n/a
0.77
0.89
0.95
0.30
n/a
n/a
at
PM
Peak
Delay
n/a
n/a
n/a
76.2
n/a
48.9
n/a
22.6
26.0
65.3
6.5
n/a
35.9
Golden Gate
Hour
[sec]
Blvd
LOS
n/a
n/a
n/a
E
n/a
D
n/a
C
C
E
A
n/a
D
Collier Blvd
V/C
0.98
1.16
0.34
0.69
1.06
n/a
1.08
1.3
0.52
1.05
1.05
0.19
n/a
PM
Peak
D[ ela]
67.1
136.4
36.3
63.3
128.4
n/a
114.1
172.2
26.7
172.6
79.8
15.4
103.8
Pat ne
Hour
LOS
E
F
D
E
F
n/a
F
F
C
F
E
B
F
Ridge Rd
V/C
0.95
n/a
0.25
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.78
0.95
n/a
n/a
0.70
0.16
n/a
Collier Blvd
at
PM
Peak
Delay
71.0
n/a
34.2
n/a
n/a
n/a
37.2
16.8
n/a
n/a
10.1
1.1
22.9
Green Blvd
Hour
[sec]
LOS
E
n/a
C
n/a
n/a
n/a
D
B
n/a
n/a
B
A
C
Collier Blvd
V/C
1.23
n/a
0.98
n/a
n/a
n/a
1.31
0.53
n/a
n/a
1.02
1.02
n/a
at
PM
Peak
Delay
161.9
n/a
87.3
n/a
n/a
n/a
159.6
6.1
n/a
n/a
80.4
97.7
97.4
Golden Gate
Hour
[sec]
Pkwy
LOS
F
n/a
F
n/a
n/a
n/a
F
A
n/a
n/a
F
F
F
Collier Blvd
V/C
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.89
n/a
0.28
0.93
0.46
n/a
n/a
0.86
0.11
n/a
at
PM
Peak
Delay
n/a
n/a
n/a
75.4
n/a
45.7
8.4
3.1
n/a
n/a
31.6
15.1
16.8
I-75 North
Hour
[sec)
LOS
n/a
n/a
n/a
E
n/a
D
A
A
n/a
n/a
C
B
B
Ramps
Collier Blvd
V/C
0.17
n/a
1.35
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1.18
0.25
1.30
0.44
n/a
n/a
PM
Delay
27.8
n/a
203.1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
107.3
23.3
261.5
1.7
n/a
100.8
at
Peak
1 -75 South
Hour
[sec)
Ramps
LOS
C
n/a
F
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
F
C
F
A
n/a
F
V/C
0.94
1.20
n/a
0.47
0.47
0.85
1.22
0.87
0.14
0.67
1.05
0.53
n/a
Collier Blvd
PM
D[ elaj
150.9
n/a
61.6
58.6
75.4
174.1
17.7
10.6
66.4
55.4
24.6
58.4
at
Peak
Davis Blvd
Hour
57.3
LOS
E
F
n/a
E
E
E
F
B
B
E
E
C
E
Collier Blvd
V/C
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.44
n/a
0.05
n/a
0.58
0.11
0.58
0.38
n/a
n/a
PM
Peak
D[ ela]
n/a
n/a
n/a
58.9
n/a
56.2
n/a
2.1
0.1
55.6
0.4
n/a
5.8
Waat
Hour
Driveway
LOS
n/a
n/a
n/a
E
n/a
E
I n/a
A
A
E
A
n/a
A
V/C
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.80
n/a
0.73
n/a
0.96
0.15
0.97
0.67
n/a
n/a
Collier Blvd
PM
Delay
n/a
n/a
n/a
72.4
n/a
66.6
n/a
40.2
14.9
99.4
18.7
n/a
39.2
at
Peak
Manatee Rd
Hour
[sec]
LOS
n/a
n/a
n/a
E
n/a
E
n/a
D
B
F
B
n/a
D
Tamiami Trail
V/C
0.95
0.95
0.14
0.87
0.93
0.09
0.94
0.72
0.43
0.81
0.97
0.25
n/a
at
PM
Delay
71.2
41.3
19.8
88
51.1
30.7
102.8
60.4
53.7
61.2
78.8
43.1
54.5
Rattlesnake
Peak
Hammock
Hour
[sec]
Rd
LOS
E
D
B
F
D
C
I F
E
D
E
E
D
l D
Tindale- Oliver and Associates, h7c. Hacienda Lakes Traf /ic hnpacl Studs
-18- Hacienda Lakes ol Naples, LLC
Table 7c
Unsignalized Intersections Level of Service Analysis Summary
Note 1: unopposed movement
Table 8 summarizes the results of the "with improvements" capacity analysis.
Table 8a
Arterial Level of Service Analysis Summary
With Improvements Scenario
Roadway
Average
Movement
Time
Level of
Measure
Intersection
Speed
Measure
Direction I
[mph]
Service
i
On
From
To
Period
Period
Collier Blvd
1-75(S)
Davis Blvd.
21.4
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBR
R
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Tamiami Trail
V/C
n/a
note 1
note 1
0.02
0.81
a
0.44
n/a
0.03
n/a
n/a
n/a
at
PM
Peak
D[Sela,
n/a
note 1
note 1
8.5
tnotel
a
23.0
n/a
10.6
n/a
n/a
n/a
San
53.6
Pane
Hour
Hour
LOS
n/a
note 1
note 1
A
E
a
C
n/a
B
n/a
n/a
n/a
Marco Rd
D
Note 1: unopposed movement
Table 8 summarizes the results of the "with improvements" capacity analysis.
Table 8a
Arterial Level of Service Analysis Summary
With Improvements Scenario
Roadway
Average
Movement
Intersection
Level of
Measure
Overall
Speed
Direction I
[mph]
Service
i
On
From
To
Period
Collier Blvd
1-75(S)
Davis Blvd.
21.4
D
NB
Table 8b
Signalized Intersections Level of Service Analysis Summary
With Improvements Scenario
Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impact Study
- 19- Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC
Time
Movement
Intersection
Measure
Overall
Period
EBL
EST
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Collier Blvd
V/C
0.95
0.98
0.29
0.92
0.81
n/a
0.97
0.95
0.62
0.92
0.91
0.19
n/a
PM
Peak
D[ ela1
61.2
72.9
30.8
96.2
69.1
n/a
72.5
40.5
26.9
131.2
50.4
34.0
53.6
Pane
Hour
Ridge Rd
LOS
E
E
C
F
E
n/a
E
D
C
F
D
C
D
Collier Blvd
V/C
0.99
n/a
0.90
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.98
0.59
n/a
n/a
0.86
0.68
Na
PM
Delay
68.7
n/a
61.7
n/a
n/a
n/a
54.1
13.0
n/a
n/a
59.2
96.9
54.9
at
Peak
Golden Gate
Hour
[sec]
Pkwy
LOS
E
n/a
E
n/a
n/a
n/a
D
B
n/a
Na
E
F
D
Collier Blvd
V/C
0.61
n/a
0.51
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.81
0.21
0.63
0.37
n/a
n/a
PM
Delay
62.0
n/a
0.7
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
14.8
15.6
84.5
0.9
n/a
10.7
at
Peak
V75 South
Hour
[sec]
Ramps
LOS
E
n/a
A
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
B
B
F
A
n/a
B
V/C
0.99
0.42
0.65
0.43
0.68
0.81
0.99
0.78
0.13
0.45
0.99
0.50
n/a
Collier Blvd
at
PM
Peak
Delay
67.9
38.8
44.8
60.5
70.3
68.0
86.2
14.8
12.2
69.3
43.5
11.0
0.99
Davis Blvd
Hour
[sec]
LOS
E
D
D
E
E
E
F
B
B
E
D
B
D
Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impact Study
- 19- Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC
The major site access points illustrated on the master site development plan (Figure 2) were also
analyzed. The site will utilize an internal collector road system to collect and distribute traffic
from individual residential enclaves and building sites to the adjacent roadway network. The
project is proposing three connections to Collier Blvd. (C.R. 951), as follows:
• North Project driveway (full connection),
• The Lord's Way (right -in /right- out /left -in connection), and
• Rattlesnake Hammock Road (full connection).
Traffic signals are anticipated to be required at the first and third of these site access intersections.
Table 9 summarizes the results of the capacity analysis and Figure 3 illustrates the recommended
geometry. Worksheets documenting the site access intersection levels of service and
recommended geometry are included in Appendix I.
No other major direct connections to Collier Blvd. are anticipated but a secondary entry point to
the commercial area south of Rattlesnake Hammock Rd may be pursued at a later date. Such entry
is not expected to be used by residents of the development, but would be a convenient entry point
to the shopping areas for travelers on Collier Blvd.
Table 9a
Signalized Intersections Level of Service Analysis Summary
Project Driveway
Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impact S/udr
-20- Hacien a Lakes of Naples, LLC
Movement
Intersection
Measure
Overall
Period
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
V/C
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.76
n/a
0.07
n/a
0.62
0.04
0.53
0.69
n/a
n/a
AM
Peak
Delay
n/a
n/a
n/a
63.2
n/a
46.2
n/a
10.5
8.8
64.6
9.8
n/a
13.7
Hour
[sec]
Collier Blvd
at
LOS
n/a
n/a
n/a
E
n/a
D
n/a
B
A
E
A
n/a
B
V/C
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.67
n/a
0.04
n/a
0.83
0.13
0.65
0.55
n/a
n/a
North Project
Driveway
PM
Peak
Delay
n/a
n/a
n/a
65.5
n/a
52.6
n/a
11.8
11.8
81.2
2.0
n/a
10.7
[sec]
Hour
LOS
n/a
n/a
n/a
E
n/a
D
n/a
B
B
F
A
n/a
B
V/C
0.74
0.65
0.24
0.70
0.73
0.66
0.69
0.59
0.12
0.76
0.78
0.44
n/a
AM
Peak
Delay
60.7
55.1
49.5
61.8
59.4
45.3
62.4
28.8
22.0
75.9
22.8
8.7
36.7
Collier Blvd
Hour
[sec]
at
LOS
E
E
D
E
E
D
E
C
C
E
C
A
D
Rattlesnake
V/C
0.99
0.72
0.21
0.83
0.97
0.99
074
0.99
0.26
0.95
0.60
0.50
n/a
Hammock
Rd
PM
Delay
Peak
86.3
56.2
46.6
68.5
86.2
81.2
62.5
53.0
32.3
103.4
11.5
2.8
53.0
Hour
[sec]
LOS
F
E
D
E
F
F
I E
D
C
F
B
A
D
Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impact S/udr
-20- Hacien a Lakes of Naples, LLC
Table 9b
Unsignalized Intersections Level of Service Analysis Summary
Project Driveway
Intersection
Time
Period
Measure
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
V/C
n/a
n/a
0.13
n/a
n/a
0.25
0.09
note 1
note 1
0.08
note 1
note 1
AM
Peak
Hour
Delay
[sec]
n/a
n/a
18.4
n/a
n/a
16.7
20.1
note 1
note 1
13.4
note 1
note 1
LOS
n/a
n/a
C
n/a
n/a
C
C
note 1
note 1
B
note 1
note 1
Collier Blvd
at
PM
Peak
Hour
V/C
n/a
n/a
0.18
n/a
n/a
0.33
0.09
note 1
note 1
0.21
note 1
note 1
Lord's Way
Delay
[sec]
n/a
n/a
16.4
n/a
n/a
25.9
16.0
note 1
note 1
23.6
note 1
note 1
LOS
I n/a
n#
C
n/a
n/a
D
C
note 1
note 1
C
note 1
note 1
Note 1: unopposed movement
Worksheets that identify when each improvement will be needed are included in Appendix J.
Traffic impact mitigation strategies will be developed following the review of the Traffic Impact
Study, and in coordination with the development order.
Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impact Sludr
- 21 - Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC
Figure 3
Project Driveways Geometry
Intersection
Geometry
NA
N
North Project
Collier Blvd
Driveway
at
North
Driveway
Ut p
Collier Blvd
�
N
Collier Blvd
Lord's way
at
Lord's
Way
Collier Blvd
t
N
Rattlesnake
Collier Blvd
Hammock Rd
at
r
Rattlesnake
Hammock Rd
Collier Blvd
References: Mi Existing Lane
Ill New Lane
Tindale - Oliver and Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes TrafTc Impact Study
- Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC
ienda Lakes
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
GIP Application
CCPC Rview Materials
EXHIBIT O
Areas of Historical /Archelogical
Probability
%.1ol'.
i't)tiSI'Ll!tiG Bp-nne
1 \ 1 ►L > Survevine V
,.
Hacienda Lakes
Exhibit O - Archaeological Map
0 1,000 2,000 Feet
a
- DA'XTAjN
CONSULTING
Z %. T Tl Z
• Planning - Visualization
Civil Engineering • Surveying & Mapping
Prepared By: rmjones
Printing Date: June 18, 2010
File: T:\ Projects\ 2005 \05_0150.02.03_Haciendalakes\
GMP \Rev01 \Hacienda Archaeological_O.mxd
Hacienda Lakes
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
G P Application
CCPC R view Materials
ATTACHMENT P
Resumes
DAVAN'P. ,»,nn
�O \St.'I,TitiG bg-nng
1 V 1 Il Su Y'q
DIX TA INC
Plannin�z Exhibit P
Visualization ReSUrriOS
(.70 N S t_' L.. "I' I N Ci Civil Engineering
JL %. T Vi JL Su,Neyint. & Mapping
Emilio J. Robau, P.E.
Director of Water Resources
Education
University of Florida Experience Summary
8. S. G. F_ . 1 1984 p
Mr. Emilio Robau is one of the founding partners of the firm with over 25 years of
Registration t professional experience. His areas of practice include the management of land
License development and environmental restoration design activities, general civil engineering
design, and environmental permitting with an emphasis on the water resource related
Civil Engineering design elements. Mr. Robau graduated from the University of Florida with a Bachelor of
Ft_ - #42710, 9986 Science degree in Civil Engineering.
Civil Engineering Mr. Robau is experienced in land planning, design and permitting of stormwater
NC -#029031.2003
management, water supply, and wastewater removal systems and related infrastructure.
Professional He is qualified as an expert in the complex federal and state regulatory process necessary
Societies for successful completion of estuarine, freshwater wetland and environmental resource
related permits projects. Mr. Robau is well versed with local regulatory requirements of the
Florida Engineering various political jurisdictions, as well as in the preparation of environmental assessments,
Society: and environmental impact statements, both key elements in the permitting process.
1,986 — Present
National Society of Representative Projects
Professional
Engineers. Lely Main Canal Stormwater improvement Project, Collier County, FL - Engineer of
1986 — Present Record for the design and permitting for the relocation and widening of the Lely Main
Canal, which is the outfall for a very large upstream watershed area. A significant
Professional Engineers modeling effort addressed onsite stormwater issues and included the Harvey Harper
in Private Practice, methodology for water quality contaminants. The Lely Main Canal required the design of
9986 - Present the 9,600 ft. long broad - crested weir to improve upstream drainage in the highly developed
areas of the watershed and prevent downstream saltwater intrusion and dewatering of the
local groundwater aquifer. RWA finalized the conceptual design for the Lely Main canal;
realigned the routing to provide a more natural watercourse; and designed extensive littoral
plantings for water quality enhancement
Griffin Road Filter Marsh, Collier County, FL - Engineer of Record responsible for
providing water quality treatment facilities and replacing a system of ditches and a small
canal that provide for a drainage outfall to the stormwater basin with new regulated
drainage facilities. The project involves construction of a lake and filter marsh that will
improve and provide water quality treatment. The project will also entail constructing a long
broad - crested weir to control stormwater discharges to the Rookery Bay National Estuarine
Research Reserve. This combination of stormwater facilities will replace the existing
uncontrolled discharge to Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve.
Lely Manor North South Canal, Collier County, FL - Engineer of Record responsible for
the design and permitting of a large canal that is a phase of a larger watershed
improvement plan called the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Plan. The project creates
additional water quality treatment for the basin and improves drainage by providing for
outfall improvements that reduce the hydraulic grade line in the upstream portions of the
canal.
IA/ Ai c.
Pl"tnnin�; Exhibit P
Visualization
C'(-) N 5 Ll I - -I' f N C; Civil Engineering Resumes
JL ®. T I1. 1 Surveying R. Mapping
Emilio J. Robau, P.E.
Page 2
Collier County Watershed Management Plan, Collier County, FL - RWA has teamed
with URS Corporation to prepare watershed management plans for Collier County that will
be used to amend the County's Growth Management Plan; promulgate land development
regulations, and specify capital improvement projects, thereby resulting in a net
improvement to the ecological health of the County's natural areas. The plan includes
extensive public hearings, meetings with environmental groups, and research of existing
environmental data to develop a plan that will assist local authorities in managing the
County watersheds. The plan also includes water quality and quantity watershed modeling
and the modeling of ecosystem responses to planned improvements and management
initiatives.
CEMEX, Barron Collier Limerock Mine Collier County, FL - RWA is leading the effort to
secure land use entitlements and obtain state, federal and local environmental permits for
a large limerock mine in Collier County. Mr. Robau provided expert testimony at the
environmental advisory council meeting and planning council meeting outlining the
operational sequencing of the mining operation. Mr. Robau is responsible for the
coordination, design and permitting of the processing plant, turn lanes on Immokalee Road
and the overall mining area. Mr. Robau is the engineer of record for all permitting and local
development order activities.
Marco Island Right Of Way and Drainage Master Plan, Marco Island, FL - RWA was
hired to assist in the development of a master right of way and drainage plan, working with
design consultants to prepare a plan that fully considered private property impacts,
aesthetics, engineering design, safety, and utility elements associated with some 24 miles
of City owned Rights -of -Way. The Master Plan included a full inventory of all water
management system components and the regulatory requirements in place that could be
supplemented to improve water quality and quantity management of stormwater runoff.
The major work components of the Drainage Master Plan included inventory of all drainage
structures and pipes within public rights -of -way and easements; the creation of a hydraulic
model for use in sizing improvements; a public participation program to identify areas of
concern for street flooding, safety hazards, or related pavement deficiencies; and the
development of a 5 -year CIP.
Toll Brothers — Rattlesnake DRI Master Planning & Design – Engineer of Record
responsible for a 2,250 -acre property consisting of 910 acres to be developed. The water
management system is composed of four major basins, three of these basins will discharge
into the wetlands and one basin will discharge into Henderson Creek Canal. RWA utilized
XP -SWMM software to design the stormwater management plan and incorporated regional
sub watershed models
Forest Glen Master - Planned Community; The Ronto Group; Naples, FL – Engineer of
Record responsible for project oversight, including planning, environmental permitting, site
and related infrastructure design, construction document preparation, and construction
administration services.
lnINC C.
Planning
Visualization
(:;O N S Li I_'I' I N Ci Civil Engineering
1%. V V k 1 SurvevinE fi Mapping
Exhibit P
Resumes
Emilio J. Robau; P.E.
Page 3
Sabal Bay Master Planned Community — Engineer of Record responsible for the design
of a 2,300 -acre mixed -use community. The property includes wetland and upland
conservation areas that cover more than 70 percent of the project area and requires the
construction of a portion of the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Plan (LASIP). The
largest component of this plan is the relocation and widening of the Lely Main Canal, which
is the outfall for a very large upstream watershed area. This regional stormwater
management facility also included the design of a 1,600 ft. long broad crested weir to
improve upstream drainage in the highly developed areas of the watershed and more
importantly prevent downstream saltwater intrusion and dewatering of the local
groundwater aquifer. The design also included complex regional, federal, state and local
environmental permitting. Coordination with Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research
Reserve, an adjacent property owner and other non - governmental environmental
organizations was a critical element of the successful permitting of the facility and
associated development. RWA performed the final design utilizing XP SWIMM software.
Vasari Country Club; 375 -Acre Master Planned Single and Multi - Family Residential
Community; Taylor Woodrow Communities, Inc.; Bonita Springs, FL — Engineer -of-
record responsible for overseeing the master planning, environmental permitting,
transportation consulting, land development civil design, construction document
preparation, and contract administration services. Included were design and document
preparation for the potable water and sanitary sewer systems, and drainage master
planning. Traffic operation services included design and construction document
preparation for signing, pavement marking, and channelization. Permitting services
included SF'WMD, COE, ERP, and other local and regional permits, FIT studies, and
impact statements.
Golden Gate Parkway Grade - Separated Overpass (Phase IB); Single -Point Urban
Interchange at Airport- Pulling Road; Collier County Transportation; Naples, FL —
Project engineer responsible for identifying and designing preliminary drainage
requirements. These tasks included completion of a drainage and hydrology analysis,
preliminary review of environmental permitting requirements, and preparation of studies
and statements necessary for environmental permitting application
ln V
INC.
lis nl cation
C'0 N S L! l._'I' l N! G Civil Engineering
JL 1%, T Tl JL Surveying & Mapping
Education
University ofAlaskal
B S /Resource Mgmt
wlemphasis on Urban
Planning —Minor in
Anthropology J 1984
Registration f
License
A.P.A. - 063982
Professional
Societies
Ame+ican Planning
Association
1987 - Present
Florida Chapter
American Planning
Association
1987 - Present
Experience Summary
Exhibit P
Resumes
Dwight H. Nadeau, A.P.A.
Planning Services Manager
Mr. Dwight Nadeau is a professional Planner and Planning Services Manager. He is
responsible for coordination and management of resource allocations for planning tasks
associated with the firm's land planning and development projects. Mr. Nadeau has
over 20 years of planning and community service experience. He holds a Bachelor of
Science degree in Resource Management with emphasis on Urban Planning, and a
minor in Anthropology from the University of Alaska, Fairbanks,
Mr. Nadeau has significant experience in project planning and management; as well as,
comprehensive planning and land use regulation oversight. He has specific expertise in
the successful planning and zoning of monumental projects. Mr. Nadeau played a key
role in the planning and zoning, as well as professional support in the resulting legal
battle over the rural area residential development "clustering" of Twin Eagles Golf and
Country Club. After 12 years, the matter successfully culminated with the setting of a
legal precedent for 'clustering' of residential developments in rural areas, and laid the
foundation for the future development of Eastern Collier County. In addition, Mr.
Nadeau has vast experience with beachfront and waterfront redevelopment, which
includes visioning, conceptual development design, project team coordination, and
public involvement through the administrative review and political processes.
Representative Projects
Olde Marco Inn; Marco Cat, LLC, Marco Island, FL – Project Planner responsible for
site analysis, master planning, and planned unit development rezoning. Established a
local historic designation, resulting in the refurbishment of this historic 1896 structure,
as well as the addition of a 62 -room boutique hotel. Facilitated an archeological survey
that resulted in an archeological dig that found significant tools and debris that further
illustrated the day -to -day life of the lost Caloosa Tribe.
Sancerre; EcoGroup, Naples, FL – Project Planner responsible for site analysis,
master planning, support and representation of a Coastal Construction Control Line
Variance with the City of Naples and the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection. Once home to the historic Tides Inn, this 1.57 -acre beachfront property in
Naples, Florida is now an eight- story, 23 -unit luxury condominium complex.
Vanderbilt Inn Re- Development; TimeMed, Inc., Naples, FL - Project Planner
responsible for redevelopment site analysis, master planning, approval of a zoning
overlay to provide for additional building height beyond existing zoning limits, support
and representation of a Coastal Construction Control Line Variance with Collier County
and the Florida Department of Protection, and played a significant support role in the
resolution of a building moratorium imposed as a result of the proposed redevelopment
project for 4.83 acres of beachfront property. The site is now under construction with a
77 -unit luxury condominium project.
XATA t N, C.
Vtannino Exhibit P
Visualization
CO N S L.i L..`I' I .N Ci Civil Engineerin- Resumes 't 0 i 1 1 Surveying & Mapping
Dwight H.
Nadeau, A.P.A.
Page 2
White Lake
Corporate Park;
120 -acre Industrial
Park; Power Corporation; Naples, FL — Project Planner responsible for research into
additional commercial development opportunities, with focus on the interface of land
uses with the 1 -75 right -of -way corridor. Prepared and submitted the application to
amend the existing planned unit development document, prepared exhibits, attended
board hearings, and provided expert testimony to support the application.
Lake Marion Golf Resort, Phase I and 11; 130 -Acre 450 -Unit Single and Multi - family
Residential Planned Development; Lake Marion Golf Resort, Ltd., Polk County, FL
— Project Planner responsible for due diligence, planning and development zoning. The
project lies within the 47,000 acre vested pre -DRI Poinciana Development, and required
a proposed land plan and PUD modification; construction and operation permit
applications; application for dredge and fill activities on federal wetlands.
Sun City — Fort Myers; 1,200 -Acre Mixed -Use Master Planned Community; WC1
Communities, Inc.; Fort Myers, FL — Project Planner responsible for land
development planning and zoning activities for the Trevisio and Rialto subdivisions of
Sun City - Fort Myers.
Hideout Golf Club; 220 -Acre Master Planned Golf Community, WCI Communities,
Inc.; Fort Myers, FL — Project Planner responsible for the application, support and
acquisition of the Fishing Lake Conditional Use Permit.
White Lake Corporate Park, Phase I1 (fka Phase IV); 2 -Acre Commercial Out -
Parcel within 120 -Acre Master Planned Industrial Park; Power Corporation;
Naples, FL -- Project Planner responsible for land development planning, zoning and
environmental issues, including preliminary and final subdivision platting, and permit
application preparation, support and acquisition.
Summit Place (aka Hibiscus Village); 57 -Acre, 230 -Unit Residential Community;
Waterways Joint Venture IV; Naples, FL — Project Planner responsible for due
diligence, site planning, preliminary sub - division plat, zoning and permitting application,
support and acquisition; PUD zoning amendment application and support,
miscellaneous rezoning support, and environmental permitting.
Golden Gate Fire Station #73; 5 -Acre Main Fire Station, Administrative Office and
Certified Fire Fighter Training Facility; Golden Gate Fire Control District; Naples,
FL — Project Planner responsible for planning and zoning review and site planning.
Tuscany Cove; 77 -Acre, 316 -Unit Residential Villa Community; A.R.M.
Development Corporation of S.W. Florida, Inc.; Naples, FL — Project Planner
responsible for project planning and zoning services, including due diligence;
conceptual site plan, rezoning application and support, public participation, PSP
application and preparation of associated exhibits for the acquisition of appropriate land
planning, zoning and permitting application approvals.
Palmero Cove; 131 -Acre, 524 -Unit Residential Villa Community; Elias Brothers
Corporation; Naples, FL — Project Planner responsible for project planning and zoning
services, including due diligence; conceptual site plan, rezoning application and
support, public participation, and preparation of associated exhibits for the acquisition of
appropriate land planning, zoning and permitting application approvals.
XA/A I 'N. C
Planning Exhibit P
Visualization
C Engineering, O N S LJ 1..., "I' C N Ci Civil Resumes
JL ` T T l JL Surveying & Mapping
Dwight H. Nadeau, A.P.A.
Page 3
Golden Gate Fire Station #72; Existing 3 -Acre Fire Station Site and Related
Infrastructure Improvements; Golden Gate Fire Control District; Naples, FL — Project
Planner responsible for the preliminary site plan, permitting application preparation and
support, and SFWMD ERP and ROW permit application and support.
White Lake Corporate Park Phase 1; 120 -Acre Industrial Park; Power Corporation;
Naples, FL — Project Planner responsible for due diligence, planning and zoning research,
PUD application preparation and support, including preparation of exhibits, and board
hearing attendance.
Lake Marion Golf Resort — Phase III; 130 -Acre 450 -Unit Planned Residential
Development; Lake Marion Golf Resort, Ltd.; Polk County, FL Project Planner
responsible zoning application and support; PUD application and support; traffic impact
statement; Polk County protected species survey; environmental impact statement; site
planning; evaluation of existing wetland jurisdictional limits, and submittal to SFWMD and
COE for jurisdictional determinations.
Collier County Fleet Facility; Collier County Government, Naples, FL — Project Planner
responsible for project planning and zoning services, including due diligence; conceptual
site plan, rezoning application and support, public participation, and preparation of
associated exhibits for the acquisition of appropriate land planning, zoning and permitting
application approvals.
INC Planning Exhibit P
Visualization Resumes
C' C? ti S t_% L..`I' I C, Civil Engineering
1 V `/ T 1 1 Surveying &. Mapping
Michael A. Ward, P.L.S.
Survey Project Manager
Education Experience Summary
Bachetor of Science.
Surveying and Mr. Michael A. Ward, P.L.S. has more than 23 years of experience as a Professional Land
Mapping; Surveyor. Mr. Ward has extensive experience with boundary surveys, topographic
University ofFlofida. surveys, hydrographic design, rights -of -way, construction layout, platting, condominium
1989 documents and project coordination. Mr. Ward's notable project experience includes
surveying for the Southwest Florida International Airport Expansion, Florida Gulf Coast
University Phases I, II, and the Sports Complex and Arena, as well as numerous Florida
Registrations / Department of Transportation (FDOT) survey and construction projects and numerous golf
Licenses course communities throughout Southwest Florida.
Professional Land
Surveyor Representative Projects
FLILS 530111994 Griffin Road Filter Marsh, Collier County, FL — Survey Project Manager responsible for
the surveying and mapping services for the water quality treatment facilities and
Professional replacement a system of ditches and a small canal that provide for a drainage outfall to the
Societies stormwater basin with new regulated drainage facilities. The project involves construction
of a lake and filter marsh that will improve and provide water quality treatment. The project
Florida Surveying and will also entail constructing a long broad - crested weir to control stormwater discharges to
Mapping Society the Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve.
Collier -Lee Chapter of
Florida Surveying and Cape Coral Utility Expansion Project, Lee County, FL — Project Manager for the utility
Mapping expansion project that involves establishing horizontal and vertical control; preparing a
SocietytPresident base map containing the platted road rights -of -way, lot lines, and parcel ownerships; and
1997 -1998 collecting data of the existing improvements and features located inside of and within 10
Board of Directors. feet of the right -of -way's (approximately 117,600 lineal feet) to be used for utility expansion
District 5 /Director design purposes.
2000 -2001
Treeline Boulevard, Lee County, FL — Project Surveyor for right -of -way maps, design
surveys, and parcel acquisition surveys for the 5 -mile stretch of Treeline Boulevard, from
Alico Road to Daniels Parkway.
Humane Society Naples (Naples Municipal Airport), Naples, FL — Principal -in- charge of
surveying services for the new 27,000 sq ft Humane Society Building on 2.72 acres. RWA
survey crews completed a boundary and topographic survey for the Naples Municipal
Airport parcel leased to the Humane Society of Naples. RWA also performed detailed
locations of the existing conditions and are providing the construction staking for the
additions and modifications.
Lely Manor North South Canal, Collier County, FL — Survey Project Manager for the
Lely Manor Outfall West project, a phase of the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project
(LASIP). Scope of services provided includes design survey, network control and base
map, topographic survey, and wetland line location.
Lely Main Canal Filter Marsh & Salinity Control Structure, Collier County, Florida —
Survey Project Manager for the relocation and widening of the Lely Main Canal, the outfall
for a very large upstream watershed area in Collier County, Florida, in conjunction with the
design of the Sabal Bay Master Planned Community.
INC. Exhibit P
IATA Planning Resumes
DViSLUIlization
C 0 N S LJ L'F I N G Civil Engineering
1 `, T T A- JL Surveying & mapping
Michael A. Ward, P.L.S.
Page 2
=mbarq Fiber Optic Lines (Southwest Florida International Airport); Fort Myers, FL —
Droject Manager for RWA, Inc. and teaming partner Earthview LLC to complete contract for
=MBARQ to locate and map all of the underground fiber optic lines within the perimeter of
be newly constructed Southwest Florida International Airport. This project consisted of
orating more than nine miles of buried Fiber Optic lines, and all of the splice boxes and
switch cabinets along the new Terminal Access Road, around the runways, taxiways,
terminals, and the new commercial section of the airport. The purpose of this project was to
create legal descriptions and sketches for granting EMBARQ an easement across airport
property.
Collier Boulevard Widening, Collier County, Florida — Project Manager for the 5.5 -mile
Collier Boulevard six -lane expansion project. The project included control, horizontal,
topographic, and vertical surveys. In addition, this project included three miles of canal
cross sections for the SFWMD 951 Canal.
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Homestead Florida - Project Surveyor for the boundary
and topographic surveys of the entire air base following Hurricane Andrew. The survey
consisted of the location of all improvements, including all hangars, buildings, roadways,
utilities, water management facilities; detailed topographic surveys of the runways,
taxiways and aprons; jurisdictional wetland lines; and coordination with State and Federal
sections of land. Mike also served as the Project Manager /Project Surveyor for the offsite
Mitigation Park consisting of 18 sections of land. This included the Jurisdictional Wetland
Surveys, limited topographic surveys, and Conservation Easements. Additionally, provided
surveying services for the acquisition of the Noise Abatement parcels east of the airport
property, and prepared the reconfigured Noise Overlay Zones.
Naples Municipal Airport; Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc.; Naples, FL — Project
Manager of surveying services for the preparation of an as -built survey for Kimley -Horn for
the newly constructed portion of a taxiway and apron area at the Naples Municipal Airport.
The services consisted of a detailed topographic survey with very small tolerances.
& ASSOCIATES, LLC
PO Box 1367 Marco Island, Florida 34146
Saint Michaels
College, VT / BA /
Political Science /
1977
Florida Gulf Coast
University, FL /
Masters /Public
Administration /
2001
American Institute
of Certified
Planners (AICP)
American
Planners
Association
(APA), #077255
American Institute
of Certified
Planners
1994 - Present
American Planning
Association,
19ag - Present
Florida Chapter
American Planning
Association
1989 — (Elected
Secretary 2005 —
2006)
FAPA Promised
Lands Section
President 2001-
2002
American Society
of Public
Administrators
1994 - Present
Urban Land
Institute
Experience Summary
Exhibit P
Resumes
Robert J. Mulhere,AICP
Mr. Robert J. Mulhere, President and CEO of Mulhere & Associates, has more than 20
years of professional planning and land development experience. His general areas of
practice include urban planning and design, zoning regulations, ordinance writing, conflict
resolution and public facilitation.
Providing planning expertise to clients in both private and public markets, Mr. Mulhere has
honed his skill in the writing and interpretation of local, state and federal zoning regulations,
ordinances and codes. Recognized by the Florida American Planning Association (FAPA)
as a leader in the planning field, particularly in the field of growth management, he received
the FAPA Award of Excellence in 1997 and 2001 and the Award of Merit in 2000. He also
was serving as Collier County's planning consultant during development of the county's
award wining Rural Lands Stewardship Areas program (RLSA), which received many
honors including the 2003 FAPA Award of Excellence.
Mr. Mulhere attended Saint Michaels College in Vermont where he obtained his bachelor's
degree in political science. He also holds a master's degree in public administration from
Florida Gulf Coast University.
Representative Projects
Rural and Agricultural Lands Study, Hendry County, Florida - Principal in Charge for a
study related to rural lands and the agricultural industry in Hendry County. The Plan
included an analysis of existing conditions and the creation of new comprehensive plan
goals, objectives, and policies, as well as a framework for the development of rural areas,
while protecting agriculture and important natural resources.
Rural Area Plans, Highlands and Hendry Counties, Florida - Principal in Charge for a
study that addresses protection of rural character in both Highlands and Hendry Counties.
RWA provided an analysis of existing mechanisms to protect rural lands, creation of an
easily implemented transfer of development rights program, and comprehensive standards
for new developments.
Immokalee Area Master Plan Update /LDC Rewrite and Overlay, Collier County,
Florida - Principal in Charge for an update to the Immokalee Area Master Plan, an LDC
Rewrite, and a Zoning Overlay specific designed for Immokalee. This work was conducted
on behalf of the Immokalee Community Redevelopment Agency in eastern Collier County.
Collier County Professional Planning Services, Collier County Attorney's Office,
Collier County, FL - Planning consultant for the Collier County Department of
Transportation and County Attorney's Office providing services related to Eminent Domain
issues as well as preparing conceptual site plans for curing sites after taking. Projects
included the Right -of -Way taking and curing analysis of Immokalee, Santa Barbara,
Goodlette -Frank and Pine Ridge Roads.
Bonita Beach Road RPD, Bonita Springs, FL - Principal in Charge of preparation,
submitting, and providing supporting professional planning consultation services for a City
of Bonita Springs Comprehensive Plan amendment, with a designation of Moderate
Density Mixed Use Planned Development (Mod. Den. MU /PD).
Bonita Beach Road RPD Annexation and Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA),
Bonita Bay Group, Bonita Springs, FL - Principal -in- Charge responsible for providing
planning reports, required application and related documents required to annex 1290 acres
into City of Bonita Springs and amend the Comprehensive Plan to include the subject
property under the Moderate Density Mixed Use Planned Development designation.
Provided CPA Application Support (CPAs) by coordinating sufficiency responses required
by DCA, RPC and Lee County planning staff and /or City of Bonita Springs staff. Client
representative for all public hearings of the City of Bonita Springs Local Planning Advisory
Board (LPA) and City Council. Provided expert testimony as it related to planning issues
and consistency of the proposed amendment with the City of Bonita Springs
Comprehensive Plan.
Marco Island Marriott Resort, Golf Club and Spa /Madeira Condominium, Marco
Island, FL - Principal -in- Charge of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) re- zoning of a
39 -acre Marco Island site to allow for major hotel expansion and an addition of a
beachfront high -rise residential condominium. Organized public involvement program to
address concerns raised by the community and zoning committee members. Introduced
visualization effects to illustrate how the project would tie in with adjacent projects.
Composite views of the proposed towers and project landscaping using computer
generated digital imagery effectively illustrated the difference between the proposed design
and the allowable building mass of the project before the rezone. This visual interpretation
of the project helped RWA win the support of the community and receive quick rezoning
turnaround.
Exhibit P
Resumes
Collier County RLSA (Rural Stewardship Credit System (RSCS) and Rural Fringe
2006 - N Magazine
Transferable Development Rights (TDR) Programs; Board of County
and the Education
Foundation of Collier
Commissioners; Collier County, FL - Principal -in- charge and project manager
County's Man of
responsible for the oversight of the development of the RLSA and Rural Fringe TDR
Distinction
Programs. This included the process by which landowners may obtain designation as a
Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) and/or a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA). Scope
2001- Award of
included process delineation for obtaining stewardship credits by the property owner
Excellence - Florida
through an application process. The scope encompassed overseeing the implementation
American Planning
of the designation process into a user - friendly database system for use by County staff; as
Association
well as mechanisms for regular maintenance, updates, data backup, and easy public
information access. Appropriate Growth Management Plan (GMP) Goals, Objectives, and
2000 -Award of Merit-
Policies (GOPs), and implementing Land Development Code (LDC) amendment were
Florida American
Planning Association
written to accomplish project objectives: to protect wetlands and habitat for listed species;
enhance the economic viability of agricultural land, and identify land suitable for possible
1997 - Award of
conversion to other uses.
Excellence - Florida
American Planning
Miscellaneous Public Sector Involvement, Collier County, FL - Responsible for
Association
administration and interpretation of the Collier County Comprehensive Plan and the Collier
1997 - Top 30
County Land Development Code. Staff liaison to the Collier County Planning Commission,
Leaders of 2e
the Collier County Environmental Advisory Council, and several other advisory boards,
Century - Marco
committees and subcommittees. in this capacity, Mr. Mulhere directed the development of
island Eagle
numerous zoning overlays and land code amendments, including the Marco Island Zoning
Overlay, the Collier County Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Overlay, The Immokalee
1997 -Marco island
Zoning Overlay, the development of Commercial Architectural standards in Collier County,
Citizen of the Year
as well as comprehensive rewrites of Collier County's sign and landscape codes.
Naples Daily News
Bonita Beach Road RPD Annexation and Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA),
Bonita Bay Group, Bonita Springs, FL - Principal -in- Charge responsible for providing
planning reports, required application and related documents required to annex 1290 acres
into City of Bonita Springs and amend the Comprehensive Plan to include the subject
property under the Moderate Density Mixed Use Planned Development designation.
Provided CPA Application Support (CPAs) by coordinating sufficiency responses required
by DCA, RPC and Lee County planning staff and /or City of Bonita Springs staff. Client
representative for all public hearings of the City of Bonita Springs Local Planning Advisory
Board (LPA) and City Council. Provided expert testimony as it related to planning issues
and consistency of the proposed amendment with the City of Bonita Springs
Comprehensive Plan.
Marco Island Marriott Resort, Golf Club and Spa /Madeira Condominium, Marco
Island, FL - Principal -in- Charge of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) re- zoning of a
39 -acre Marco Island site to allow for major hotel expansion and an addition of a
beachfront high -rise residential condominium. Organized public involvement program to
address concerns raised by the community and zoning committee members. Introduced
visualization effects to illustrate how the project would tie in with adjacent projects.
Composite views of the proposed towers and project landscaping using computer
generated digital imagery effectively illustrated the difference between the proposed design
and the allowable building mass of the project before the rezone. This visual interpretation
of the project helped RWA win the support of the community and receive quick rezoning
turnaround.
Richard Scott Tomasello
5906 Center Street,
Jupiter, Florida 33458
Telephone: (561) 575 -3910 Office
(561) 744 -7264 Home
(561) 744 -1865 Fax
E -mail: Dixietom @aol.com
Professional Certified Professional Engineer, Florida PE #15233
Education MS, 1973, Florida Institute of Technology Exhibit P
Major: Physical Oceanography Resumes
BS, 1970, Florida Atlantic University
Major: Ocean Engineering
Experience
July 1989 to Tomasello Consulting Engineers, Inc. Jupiter, Florida
Present President
Flood study of Mulloch Creek (S2DMM, HEC RAS), Lee County
Flood study of Estero River (S2DMM, HEC RAS) Lee County
FEMA Velocity Zone LOMR Analyses (CHAMP), for several residential and commercial projects in Lee,
Charlotte, Collier, and Pinellas Counties
Flood study of Yellow Fever Creek, East Branch, and Powell Creek (S2DMM, HEC RAS) Lee County
Flood study of Trout, Owl and Otter Creek basins (S2DMM, HECRAS), Lee County
Design storm and long -term hydroperiod /hydropattern analyses for Cloud Grove RLSA project (S2DMM) St.
Lucie / Indian River County, Florida.
Hydroperiod /hydropattern and water budget modeling (S2DMM) for Lemon Grove Mitigation Bank, Martin
County, A.
Wetland water management system for Taylor Creek Restoration at Eckerd Youth Ranch (S2DMM),
Okeechobee, Fl.
Coastal flood analyses for preliminary FIRM, City of Sanibel and Town of Ft Myers Beach, Florida
Exfiltration discharge attenuation system designs for several big box stores (e.g Wal -Mart, Home Depot) and
residential developments, Palm Beach County, Fl.
Water Budget hydroperiod /hydropattern analysis model study for Mirasol Project, Collier and Lee County,
Florida
Regional Hydrologic /hydrogeologic /hydrodynamic model(S2DMM) of South Lee County and Northern Collier
County, Mirasol Project
Six Basin Studies, Cocohatchee, Golden Gate Main Canal -West, Henderson Creek, District 6, Southern
Coastal and Ava Maria Basins, and leading to Collier County FEMA FIRM development (S2DMM).
Regional wetland model simulation (S2DMM) for Arvida's Weston Increment 111, 1185 acre Mitigation Area,
Broward County.
Wetland hydroperiod /hydropattern simulations (S2DMM) for wetland preserve associated with 40 acre
development (Tommy Lee Jones Residence), Wellington, Fl,
2D, H/H and Water Budget (wetland hydroperiod /hydropattern) Modeling Study (S2DMM) of Pal -Mal /Cypress
Creek/Groves Basin, Loxahatchee River watershed, Palm Beach and Martin Counties.
Coastal flood restudy for City of Naples and Collier County (CHAMPS).
Reviewed FEMA Coastal Flood Study Update for Collier County and City of Naples and Marco Island, Appeal
of Proposed FEMA FIRMs
Exhibit P
3 -D Hydrodynamic (EFDC) flushing simulations for Sailfish Point Harbor, Martin Co., FL Resumes
2D, Hydrologic/Hydraulic (H/H) model (SHEET2D) applied to Belle Meade Watershed and finer grid applied to
Winding Cypress project for the predevelopment routings of design storms, Collier County, Fl.
H/H analyses of Bedman Creek Watershed and diversion flowway plans (SHEET2D), for East County Water
Control District, Lee County, FL
2D, Hydrologic/ Hydrodynamic Model (SHEET2D) and water b udget/hyd rope riod/hyd ropattem model
(MASSMOD) for STA2 General Design Report, Model analyses of STA2, ENR, and WCA2A for SFWMD,
Palm Beach & Broward Co., FL
Water Budget Model analysis for Golf Digest using MASSMOD model (Combination of Surface and
Groundwater Routing Model), for WCI Properties and Taylor Woodrow, Palm Beach, Co., FL.
2D, H/H model (SHEET2D) analysis of Pelican Marsh East, WCI Properties, Collier Co., FL
2D, H/H model (SHEET2D) Flood study of Six Mile Cypress Slough, Colonial Interstate Properties, Lee Co.,
FL
2D, H/H model (SHEET2D) for Atlantic Ridge - Hobe Sound Basin Study, for SFWMD, Martin County, FL.
Seepage and Water Budget Analyses using MODFLOW and MASSBAL for Weston Increment III Mitigation
Area, for Arvida Corporation, Broward County, FL.
Storm Water Treatment Area No.2, STA2, 2D Hydraulic Model (SHEET2D) Study for SFWMD, Palm Beach
County, FL
Tomoka River Watershed Study, SWMM Model applied for McKim & Creed, Volusia County, FL
Water Budget Model ( MASSBAL) analysis for C -9W Basin, for Blockbuster, Broward and Dade Counties, FL.
(H/H) analysis and nonpoint source pollution loading model (NPS) evaluation of B -19 Watershed, for the Board
of County Commissioners, Volusia County, FL.
H/H model (SHEET2D) analysis of the Estero River Watershed, for ALICO, Lee County,FL.
H/H consultation for Intelligent Hydro Data Verification for SFWMD Data Management Division
H/H model analysis (HEC1, UNEf, FEMA SURGE) of Lake Istokpoga Watershed, for SFWMD, Polk and
Highlands, Counties, FL.
Hydraulic /Hydrodynamic model (SHEET2D) analysis of Everglades Nutrient Reduction Project, for SFWMD,
Palm Beach County, FL.
2D, H/H model (SHEET2D, UNET) analysis of Saddlebrook Resorts, for Wiregrass Ranch, Inc., Pasco County,
FL.
Nonpoint source pollution loading model (NPS) evaluatton,(19 watersheds) Lee County Stormwater
Management Master Plan, Lee County, FL.
Water budget/hydroperiod/hydropattern model ( MASSBAL) analysis for Six Mile Cypress Watershed, for
Board of County Commissioners, Lee County, FL.
2D, H/H model analysis (SHEET2D) of Red Barn /Snake Pens Watershed, for Lykes Brothers, Glades County,
FL.
H/H model (HEC1, HEC2) analysis for Yellow Fever Creek, East Branch, Daughtrey Creek, and Six Mile
Cypress Slough, for Lee County Stormwater Management Master Plan; Lee County, FL.
H/H model (DWOPER) analysis of Airport Road drainage basin, Collier County, FL.
Hydrographic surveys, permitting, and design for several tidal projects in Palm Beach, Martin and Brevard
Counties, FL. Exhibit P
January 1981 to South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, Florida,
Resumes
July 1989 Supervising Professional Engineer
Developed SFWMD design methodology for exfiltration trench design systems, Developed MBR and
SHEET2D runoff analysis models for use by Surface Water Management Division.
Performed several HJH studies in South Florida river and canal basins using models such as HEC2,
DWOPER, EXTRAN, SHEET2D, MBR.
Performed coastal flood studies in Lee and Collier County, Florida. Both led to new FIRM maps.
Served as technical consultant to the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Coastal Flooding from
hurricanes.
Served Brunswick, GA, Federal District Court as arbitrator for the Brunswick vs FEMA coastal flood study
dispute.
Supervised scientists and engineers in estuarine studies including the Loxahatchee, St. Lucie, and
Caloosahatchee. Supervised permit review and criteria development projects.
October 1978 to AB2MT Consultants, Inc., West Palm Beach, Florida
December 1980 Project Manager (Manager of West Palm Beach office)
Prepared technical outputs for the Palm Beach County 208 Plan. Included modeling and field studies on
runoff quality and quantity.
Residential development canal and marina design for flushing optimization utilizing two - dimensional
hydrodynamic modeling.
April 1976 to Area Planning Board of Palm Beach County, West Palm Beach,
October 1978 Florida Environmental Engineer
Prepared technical outputs for the Palm Beach County 208 Plan.
March 1972 to Gee & Jenson Consulting, Inc. West Palm Beach, Florida
April 1976 Project Engineer, Waterfront Development and Environmental Impact Group.
Performed Flood elevation determinations for Charlotte Harbor, Florida, for two major developers. Study
resulted in the FIRM maps being modified.
EIS's; Dredge fill projects; coastal construction design, permitting, and inspection; sub water inspections of
various underwater structures. (Certified NAUI diver).
Professional American Society of Civil Engineers (Past President - Palm Beach Branch)
Activities
Served on ASCE Task Committee on Drainage Design Problems in Coastal Areas
American Water Resources Association
Palm Beach County Water Resources Task Force
E N T R I X Exhibit P Brian K. Barnes
Down to Earth. Down to Business:- Resumes SENIOR MANAGING HYDROGEOLOGIST
DISCIPLINE/SPECIALTY
• bloater Flow Assessment
• Groundwater Use Permitting
• Well Assessment and
Rehabilitation
EDUCATION
- B.S.. Agronomy, The
Pennsylvania State University
1989
CONTINUING EDUCATION AND
CERTIFICATIONS
• Occupational Safety and Hcalth
Administration 40 -hour
Hazardous Materials Safety
Training and subsequent 8 -hour
annual updates, 1992 -2006
• American Society of Testing
Materials Workshop'Fraining for
Risk -Based Corrective Action,
ASTM Standard E1739 -95,
1997
• Princeton Groundwater, inc.,
The Rentediation Course, 2000
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
• National Groundwater
Association
SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS
Mr. Barnes has managed hydrogeologic investigations in Florida, Delaware and
Maryland for the past 15 years. His experience includes aquifer
characterization studies, well design and construction management,
groundwater flow modeling, water use permitting for potable water, irrigation
and dewatering purposes, and assessment and retnediation of petroleum
contaminated facilities. Mr. Barnes is responsible for the management of
ENTRIX Water Solutions, Inc. branch office (formerly Water Resource
Solutions), including coordination of office staff, design and implementation of
hydrogeologic investigations, preparation of technical reports, and ensuring that
Client's needs are addressed.
RELEVAiNT EXPERIENCE
WATER FLOW ASSESSMENT
Project Manager— Water Flow Assessment, Collier County, Florida
Mr. Barnes was the project manager for conducting hydrogeologic study of
impacts associated with a new surface water flow way adjacent to a cypress
strand to manage environmental impacts and hydroperiod associated with a
500 -acre development in Collier County, Florida. He developed a simulated
groundwater and surface water model using MODFLOW to evaluate water
levels and groundwater flow around a proposed weir.
Project Manager— Dewatering Assessment and Permit Application, Collier
County, Florida
Mr. Barnes was the project manager for conducting hydrogeologic Study of
impacts associated with dewatering at a 1,600 acre TPC golf course
development. He developed a simulated groundwater model using
MODFLOW to evaluate water levels as a result of dewatering. Particle
tracking modeling using MODPATH to assess potential saline water upcoming
and lateral migration were also conducted.
Project Manager— Sewage Treatment Mounding Analysis, Collier County, Florida
Mr. Barnes was the project manager for conducting hydrogeologic study of
impacts associated with loading of sewage treatment ponds. This included
calibration of observed water levels with predicted levels, and loading
simulations with the use of MODFLOW. He also used particle tracking
modeling using MODPATH to assess travel times to potable wells.
Project Manager— Saline Water Intrusion, Confinement and Karst Strata
Assessment, Southwest Florida
Mr. Barnes was the project manager for the design and implementation of
saline water intrusion monitoring projects, and hydrogeologic investigations to
assess potential confining and Karst strata of the shallow surficial aquifer at
numerous sites in southwest Florida.
GROUNDWATER USE PERMITTING
Project Manager— Emergency Dewatering Permit, Florida Gulf Coast University,
Lee County, Florida
Mr. Barnes was the project manager for an emergency water use permit for
dewatering for Florida Gulf Coast University. He developed a simulated
groundwater and surface water model using MODFLOW to assess pumpage
and recharge impacts.
Sarnes_Bnan_Master zo'.003,8jtjooc Page t of
4., E N T R 1 X Exhibit P
Resumes Arian K. Barnes
Down to Earth. Down to Business:-
Project Manager— Master Dewatering Permit, Florida Gulf Coast University, Lee County, Florida
Mr. Barnes was the project manager for a master dewatering permit application for future construction at Florida
Gulf Coast University. He also conducted an assessment of drawdown impacts and wetland protection during
dewatering withdrawals.
Project Manager— Water Use Permitting, Southwest Florida
Mr. Barnes was the project manager for water supply development and water use permitting at over 100
residential, golf course and /or mining facilities in southwest Florida. He evaluated the potential impacts
associated with proposed withdrawals (from surficial, intermediate, and Floridan aquifer systems) with respect to
existing water users, wetlands, and saline water.
WELL ASSESSMENT AND REHABILITATION
Project Manager— Well Rehabilitation, Pelican Bay Development, Lee County, Florida
Mr. Barnes was the project manager for well rehabilitation and subsequent well yield testing at a 400 -acre
development in Lee County, Florida. The project included the rehabilitation of six wells and testing to assess the
subsequent productivity of the wells.
Ya9@
Bames Bean Masier_201003191t;.Doc Z Z
Dt
Robert S. Carr
Education
Exhibit P
Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Inc. Resumes
4800 S.W 64th Ave, Suite 107 Davie, FL 33314
Phone: 954- 792 -9776 Fax: 954 -792 -9954
Email: archlgclnbellsouth.net Web: www.flarchaeology.com
August 1976 Florida State University. Tallahassee, Florida.
• M.S. Degree in Anthropology
August 1972 Florida State University. Tallahassee, Florida.
• B.A. Degree in Anthropology
1970-1971 University of Miami. Coral Gables, Florida.
• Course Work
June 1968 Miami -Dade Junior College. Miami, Florida.
• A.A. Degree
Professional Experience
1999 — Present Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Inc.
• Executive Director
1996- 1999 Dade County Historic Preservation Division
• Director
1994-1995 Dade County Division of Historic Preservation
• Acting Director
1978- 1999 Dade County Division of Historic Preservation
• County Archaeologist
1980- 1981 Florida Archaeological Council
• President
1980- 1983 The Florida Anthropologist
• Editor
March 1977 U.S. Park Service, SE Archaeological Center, Tallahassee, Florida.
• Archaeologist
1973- 1976 Division of Archives History and Records Mgmt, Tallahassee, Florida.
• Contract Archaeologist
Representative Projects (Principal Investigator)
1999-2003 Archaeological assessment and data analysis of Miami Circle (8DA12)
2000-2001 Archaeological investigation of Okeechobee Battlefield. Boundary
Page I of 3
Exhibit P
Resumes
Robert S. Carr —page 2
1992 and 2006 Preachers Cave, Eleuthera, Bahamas
1991 -2002 Ortona Canal and Earthworks, Glades County
2000-2001 Long Lakes (Broward County) archaeological investigations
1985- 1991 Archaeological Survey of Broward County
1979- 1981 Archaeological Survey of Miami -Dade County
1974 Archaeological Survey of Lake Okeechobee
Selected Reports and Publications
Regional Archaeological Surveys
2003 Carr, Robert S., Alison Elgart- Berry, Victor Longo, Jeff Ransom Archaeological Survey of Palm
Beach County, Florida. AHC Technical Report 9419.
1998 Carr, Robert S., David Allerton and Ivan Rodriguez An Assessment of the Archaeological and
Historic Resources of the Florida Keys, Monroe County. AHC Technical Report 94.
1995 Carr, Robert S., James Pepe, W.S. Steele and Linda Jester Archaeological Survey of Martin
County, Florida. ANC Technical Report 4124
1991 An Archaeological Survey of Broward County, Florida: Phase I. ANC Technical Report #34
1990 Carr, Robert S. and Patricia Fay An Archaeological Survey of the Lower Keys, Monroe County,
Florida. AHC Technical Report 419.
1981 Dade County Historic Survey Final Report: The Archaeological Survey. Historic Preservation
Division. Metro -Dade Office of Community and Economic Development.
1978 An Archaeological Survey of the Big Cypress National Preserve, Preliminary Report. National
Park Service, Southeastern Archaeological Center, Tallahassee Florida. (Co- author).
1975 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of the City of Apalachicola. Report on file with Division
of Archives, History and Records Management, Tallahassee, Florida.
1974 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of Lake Okeechobee. Division of Archives, History and
Records Management, Bureau! of Historic Sites and Properties. Miscellaneous Project Report Series A'o. 22,
Tallahassee, Florida.
Historical Archaeology (Seminole)
2002 Carr, Robert S., Lance, M., Steele, W.S. An Archaeological Assessment and Boundary
Determination of the Okeechobee Battlefield, Okeechobee County, Florida (Grant No. GA2255 -00 -001),
AHC Technical Report 4346.
1996 Archaeological and Historical Elements for the Management of Snake Warriors
Island, Broward County, Florida. AHC Technical Report #139.
Page 2of3
Exhibit P
Robert S. Carr —page 3 Resumes
1996 Carr, Robert S., and W.S. Steele Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of Atsena Otie
Levy County, Florida. AHC Technical Report 4151
1995 Carr, Robert S. and W.S. Steele An Archaeological Survey of Brighton Seminole
Reservation, Glades County Florida. AHC Technical Report 9116
1995 Carr, Robert S., Linda Jester and James Pepe Phase II Archaeological Excavations of the
Riverbend # 12 Site, 8PB7984, Palm Beach County, Florida. AHC Technical Report 9112.
1981 The Brickell Store and Seminole Indian Trade. The Florida Anthropologist. 34:180 -199.
Regional Synthesis / Methodology
2003 "The Archaeology of Everglades Tree Islands" In Tree Islands of the Everglades. Edited by Fred
H. Sklar and A. Van Der Valk.
1984 Prehistoric Man in Southern Florida. in Environments of South Florida — Present and Past. Edited
by Patrick Gleason. Memoir 2 (revised). Miami Geological Society. (Co- author /Senior author)
1974 "Aerial Photos Aid Archaeologists." Popular Archaeology, Vol. 3, No. 6 -7, p. 45.
Bahamian Archaeological and Historical Assessments
2006 Carr, Robert S., Jane Day, Jeff Ransom, William Schaffer, and John Beriault An Archaeological
and Historical Assessment of Preacher's Cave, Eleuthera, Bahamas. AHC Bahamas Technical Report #4.
2003 Carr, Robert S., Alison Elgart -Berry, Victor Longo, Jeff Ransom Archaeological Survey of Palm
Beach County, Florida. AHC Technical Report #419.
2003 Lance, Mark and Robert Carr
Interim Report on Archaeological Investigations at New Plymouth Green Turtle Cay, Abaco, The
Bahamas. AHC Bahamas Technical Report 43.
1993 Carr, Robert S., Jane Day, and Sandra Norman Archaeological Investigations at Preacher's Cave
North Eleuthera, Bahamas Phase 11. Bahamas AHC Technical Report #2, May 1993.
1991 An Archaeological Survey of Spanish Wells and North Eleuthera, Bahamas. Bahamas ANC
Technical Report 91.
1982 An Effigy Ceramic Bottle From Green Turtle Cay Abaco. The Florida
Anthropologist. 35:200 -202. (Co- author /Senior Author).
Professional Affiliations
Society for American Archaeology
Society for Historic Archaeology
Florida Anthropological Society
South Florida Historical Association
Florida Archaeological Council
Page 3 of 3
Hacienda Lakes
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
GMP Application
CCPC Review Materials
ATTACHMENT Q
Market and Needs Evaluation
DIIIAIN
Planning
Yuatliza,tm
1 \ 1 U Survrying
`tl L
C O N S U l T A N I S
MEMORANDUM
TO: Collier County Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Owen Beitsch, PhD, AICP, CRE
DATE: September 23, 2010
RE: Market and Needs Evaluation for Hacienda Lakes Prepared in
Conjunction with ADA/DRI Submission(s) and Review(s)
(RERC 29 -115)
Several questions have been raised by the County regarding the market evaluation provided as
part of ADA/DRI and PUD submittals in July of this year. The analysis, which follows, has been
modified from that previously reviewed to address particular comments made by the Collier
County staff.
BASIS OF DEMAND, OVERVIEW
The County's guidelines for rezoning to an Activity Center designation indicate the following,
among others, should be weighed as part of the analytical process.
b. The amount, type and location of existing zoned commercial land, and developed commercial
uses, both within the Mixed Use Activity Center and within two road miles of the Mixed Use
Activity Center.
c. Market demand and service area for the proposed commercial land uses to be used as a guide
to explore the feasibility of the requested land uses.
d. Existing patterns of land use within the Mixed Use Activity Center and within two radial miles.
This memorandum addresses these and several related points, concluding that the market
supports the proposed uses identified in the program and that all function in concert to achieve
balance among a number of planning, community, and financial objectives.
The project as it has been proposed envisions a variety of uses and activities. The primary
focus of Hacienda Lakes is its mix of multi and single family housing, comprised of an estimated
1760 units implemented in several phases. While the non - residential components add richly to
the project, these become viable in large part because of the specific population being created
on site. Certainly, the project's residents may shop or work elsewhere, just as the project's non-
residential components will be available to persons living elsewhere in the County and region.
14 EAST WASHINGTON STREET • SUITE 500 • ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32801 • P 407- 843 -5635 • 800 - 767 -5635 • F 407 - 839 -6197 . WWW.RERCINC.COM
Market and Needs Evaluation for Hacienda Lakes
Page 2 of 16
Nonetheless, the on site residents are an important source of initial and ongoing support for any
of the physical uses that will occur as part of the larger development program.
The decision to include non - residential uses in the project stems from a combination of
regulatory, market, financial, and practical considerations that together speak to their need. In
the current environment, it is advantageous to integrate multiple uses to create a more
satisfying built environment and enhance community sustainability by reducing transportation
demands, balancing work with housing, and managing overall physical growth. As these social
objectives are achieved, the project is itself more desirable to prospective residents such that its
market potential and financial performance are enhanced. In effect, the ultimate mix of uses
draws upon a variety of considerations which together sustain a market position and encourage
demand. Need then includes influences or factors broader than determinations about
incremental space or lands required, or otherwise available, in the local market area.
Specific to demand as one dimension of need, it is not practical to model all possible outcomes
at this stage of planning. As a result, it makes sense to think of demand in terms of a range.
This range sets parameters within which actual performance might rationally be expected by the
developer or others with interests in the proposed program.
Consequently, we have evaluated demand for the commercial, office, business park, and
lodging aspects of this project from a number of different perspectives including project based
demand, share of market, and historical performance, all within the context of locations or
properties that could compete over the proposed planning and development period. Presumably
these different approaches should coalesce around reasonably similar answers before a final
conclusion is reached. Most likely, the answers will not result in single number but will yield a
tight range suggestive of targeted end point Though not identified as such, the different
perspectives or methods of analysis might be viewed collectively as a sensitivity test that
gauges the reasonableness of the overall analysis.
Market analysis needs to be distinguished from needs analysis. The former describes how a
project will respond to specific users while the latter addresses the quantity of underlying land or
the gross inventory of physical space required to serve broad market segments. Need is
invariably higher than demand simply because there must be adequate lands, units, or buildings
to provide locational options, design features, size, and amenities which together will affect cost.
Some businesses will own multiple facilities. There must be adequate lands or inventory to
accommodate mobility and movement. Some housing will be transitional. Some facilities will
age or become obsolescent or possibly non - conforming. Some will simply be removed. This
specific study addressed potential demand. The need for the facilities, such as those described
in this report, will by definition be in excess of any demand that can be documented.
GENERAL MARKET OR SERVICE AREA
Hacienda Lakes, as it is now planned, envisions a variety of uses and activities but the primary
focus remains its mix of multi and single family housing, comprised of an estimated 1,760 units
implemented in several phases. These units are a mix of multi and single family product
directed at the county's growing and affluent population base.
REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Market and Needs Evaluation for Hacienda Lakes
Page 3 of 16
The residential aspects of the project, as described below, will draw from a region far larger than
Collier County itself although the county's own population growth offers some benchmarks for
planning and market testing. Any hotel or lodging components, while benefiting from other
activities nearby, is not necessarily correlated with the particulars of the location or the project.
Similarly, other parts of the planned venture will draw from varied geography or be driven by
conditions or circumstances particular only to the resident population. Retail or commercial uses
proposed for Hacienda Lakes may be among those activities with the most discrete service area
but the analysis, as it is laid out in subsequent sections, is sufficiently conservative that the
population of the project itself demonstrates adequate spending potential to posit need or
demand for such facilities as part of the general land development scheme. Ultimately, the
analysis focuses on its own residential population, not that of any surrounding or competing
areas, to generate support or demand adequate to substantiate the project's non - residential
elements.
- 1
To establish context we have assumed
that the geographical area most
affected by or that will interact with
Hacienda Lakes is comprised of a
radial distance about 2.5 miles from
the intersection of CR951 and
Rattlesnake Hammock Road. This
area is consistent with direction
received from staff and acknowledges
certain external factors should be
considered for their possible
implications.
Within that area, TAZ data prepared by
the MPO suggests there were
approximately 12, 447 people present
in 2010, growing to 15,409 people in
2015. At the 2030 benchmark, these
people will be comprised of about
17,000 households for planning
purposes. The radial analysis includes
each TAZ fully encapsulated in the 2.5
mile distance while excluding those
which are included only marginally.
Altogether, we considered thirteen
TAZ's for inclusion within this discrete
area.
This same area was matched generally
it. . W.A.
�..a..r -,.• to CLARITAS to estimate incomes of
the population in place. While the
CLARITA data does not match the time frame of the TAZ data, it does offer insight into the
earnings and spending potential of this part of Collier County. According to CLARITAS, the area
now has an average household income of about $82,000, growing to more than $90,000 in 20i5.
It is not altogether if the TAZ data prepared by Collier County includes the estimated dwelling
unit counts associated with Hacienda Lakes which, as described later in this memo, will have
incomes much higher than those for the larger area. The four TAZ's most closely associated
with Hacienda L indicate about 1800 units in place by 2030, comparable to the number actually
REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Hacienda Lakes o 025 05Mles
NONE-== DAITA"
Study Area 2.5 Miles from Intersection (1), 1 1'i tP (;
1 \f tl
�PWnning �Vi.wl�mumi
('.rvil Fegiiurnng s-'Yiiic & Mopping
N
Prepared By r Jones
Printing Dale: Sept 22, 2010
File: T:% Projects% 2005 \05_0150.02.03Haaendal-akes\
GM P%Rev02\H avenda_SludyArea_Ac[Clr2.5.mxd
Source' Zoning & PUD (Collier County Government)
W41
253
Q
K �
y
Nam
m ;
F (., 264
r
247
245
252
230 228
251 `
233 l
246 244
i
RATTLESNAKE
HAMMOCK RD
ath
305 303
W
K
W
0
U
41
0 0.25 0.5Miles
Hacienda Lakes
Traffic Analysis Zones
N
360
2.5 MILE BUFFER
FROMINTERSECTtON
ass
5
4
Legend
OProposed Activity Center
OProject Boundary
t
Traffic Analysis Zones
• Rattlesnake Hammock Rd 8 CR 951 Intersection Point
O25 Mile Buffer from Intersection
Collier County Major Roads
!D I / "'
('uNSl L'1IN,,
1 \1 Il IL
• Plunnmg �' iWnaiwtirm
C:rcil Enginc:�rin stsn yirt k NI'Maig
Prepared By. rmjones
Priming Date: Sept 22, 2010
Fite:T:\ Projects\ 2005 105_0150.02.03_11aciendaLakss\
GM P\ Rev02tHac,enda_ActCtr2.5_TAZ. —d
Market and Needs Evaluation for Hacienda Lakes
Page 4 of 16
planned for the project. Whether or not the TAZ data explicitly recognizes Hacienda Lakes, the
ultimate area incomes will be favorably affected by the project's proposed units.
For the most part, the area is significantly undeveloped but might be considered an emerging
area in the County for analytical purposes. As a result, much of the analysis is prospective and
strongly associated with the population and incomes of the project's own housing counts. To the
degree, support accrues to the project's components by realizing capture, visitation, or spending
from any existing population or sources of income, this would be considered favorable to this
analysis as presented.
RESIDENTIAL DEMAND
The residential framework and development program at Hacienda Lakes is fundamental to
providing support for the project's non - residential elements. Given the current downturn in the
housing market, it is appropriate to consider the dynamics of the longer housing market.
According to the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), it is generally agreed that the
current recession began in December 2007. No formal close to the recession has been
announced by NBER, the body generally recognized as the benchmarking authority for the
nation's business cycles, but Spring 2010 is emerging as a likely end point according to many
economists. Whatever the official end date, the decline in economic health well exceeds the 16
month contractions suffered first from 1973 to 1975 and then again from 1981 to 1982. These
earlier downturns constitute the longest recessionary periods since the Great Depression.
Although recent data remains mixed, it does on the whole suggest the steep economic decline
already suffered is modulating leading to some consensus about a passing, if not ending, event.
• Nationally, nonfarm employment edged upwards since December 2009. Preliminary data shows
an increase of 290,000 employees from March 2010 to April 2010. The nation's unemployment
rate dipped to 9.5 (P) in April 2010.
• Even with some continuing loss of jobs, consumer confidence, an important predictor of spending
potential, maintains an upward movement. The Conference Board (CB) reported that its index
which had improved to 53.3 in May, up from 57.7 in April. The index had sagged somewhat after
the first of the year but the most recent measure concludes three straight months of gains. The
steady improvement is evidence of a more strident role for the consumer in rebuilding the nation's
economy.
• The CB's Index of leading economic indicators (LEI) for the U.S. declined 0.1 percent in April,
following a 1.3% gain in March, and a 0.4% rise in February. As of March there had been about
one year of steady increases in this measure prompting CB economist Ken Goldstein to observe,
"These results suggest a recovery that will continue through the summer, although it could lose a
little steam." At the same time, CB's coincident index (CEI), a measure of current economic
activity, has been improving steadily since middle of 2009.
• The results from the CB largely mirror information from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis
(BEA). BEA, in its May 27, 2010 release, reported that gross domestic product GDP Real (GDP)
increased 3.0 % in the first quarter of 2010 after increasing 5.6% in the fourth quarter of 2009.
The increase tracks higher consumer spending, improved exports, and investments made for
private inventory and residential activity.
REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Market and Needs Evaluation for Hacienda Lakes
Page 5 of 16
• Privately owned housing completions in May 2010 were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of
687,000. This is 7.4% below the revised April 2010 estimate of 742,000 units but is 15.4% below
the revised May 2009 rate of 812,000 units. May 2010 building permits, which offer some
perspective of near term future activity, fell about 5.9% below the revised April 2010 figures but
were 4.4% above the numbers for May 2009.
Without suggesting that any part of Florida will rebound from the rescission immediately,
population growth will resume at rates necessitating additional housing from several quarters.
The more recently trends offer the expectation that a recovery is looming and that planning to
take advantage of coming changes is not inappropriate. Without regard to County policy, growth
in population has generally exceeded the BEBR moderate series. From a demand and
economic perspective, it is worthy to consider how recent favorable shifts in various economic
indicators might assure this growth is realized over the likely planning horizon.
In any case, Collier County's population will have reached 518,100 persons by 2035 according
to BEBR's most recent moderate series of projections. This is an increase over the 2010
population of approximately 184,000 people or a minimum increase of about 74,000 resident
households. The current recession notwithstanding, this growth suggests a significant source of
demand from incremental expansion of the area's permanent households. To clear its inventory
of some 1700 units, Hacienda Lakes need capture only about 13.2% of the expected change
through 2015, something of a high penetration rate but not untenable given the slowdown in
planning now being experienced. Applying BEBR's moderate projections through 2035, the
project would have to capture only about 2.3% of the total resident change. Should the resident
population exceed the moderate range, this percentage would decrease accordingly. It is worth
noting that the moderate projection has actually been adjusted upward by about 10,000 people
over that reported only one year before by BEBR, evidence of the conservative nature of this
analysis.
These numbers are only indicative of the many diverse layers of housing demand that will be
realized from within the base of the existing population and experienced in the guise of
relocations for preference, convenience, school
choice, or realignment of family needs. The
existing population also gives rise to housing Estimated Population Growth Naples
demands that occur exclusively from new 700,000
household formations generated as the result of ■Permanent
divorces, new marriages, and returning children. 600,000 p Seasonal Peak M
The projected change in permanent or fulltime
500,000
resident population, however, is only the most
obvious source of potential demand. Demand
400,000
7771
also stems from sources that are not immediately
'
,
evident in terms of their affects on the
300,000
measurable population. Specifically, the area's
effective population, as many indicators
200,000
substantiate, is materially higher than the
2004 2009 2014
reported permanent population and will drive
@Tom Doyle Data Source: Collier Courty Governmert
demand higher. As the permanent segments
have grown, these too are reasonably posited to show increases. The impacts of these non-
REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Market and Needs Evaluation for Hacienda Lakes
Page 6 of 16
resident population counts are obvious in the accompanying graph prepared by Collier County
staff.
Mobility and its impacts are further illustrated in data distributed by Sun Realty of Naples.
Reporting that fewer than 50% of local homes are bought by area residents, the organization
also reports fewer than 10% actually reside in Florida, meaning a substantial number of homes
in the Naples area are occupied as second
homes. Without validating the data as Where Naples Residents Live
altogether correct, the inference, in the context
of other factors, clearly is that the scale of the "?fix Region
market cannot be adequately judged by an ■ Florida
analysis of current and projected resident
population alone. ■Mid Atlantic
Midwest
Among the key drivers of the second or
seasonal phenomenon is the state's tax
structure. Without an income tax, Florida is
especially attractive to high income households,
and Naples has historically been a draw for this
socio- economic group.
■ New England
R Foreign
F Other States
Additional observations regarding the effective population come from these sources:
• The American Community Survey (2006 -2008) indicates that there were an estimated 53,350
units of a total 192,000 housing units in Collier County held exclusively for seasonal and second
home usage. These seasonal units represent about 28% of the total inventory.
As of 2009, there were a reported 75 hotel and motel establishments in Collier County with a
combined room count of 6814 rooms. According to the local Convention and Visitors Bureau,
occupancies swell in the winter and spring months to 70% or more.
• As evidenced by a perusal of the region's tax rolls, a substantial share of the local housing market
is occupied by non - residents, many from overseas as well as elsewhere in the United States that
domicile in Collier County on a seasonal and second home basis. Of 181,292 residential parcels
identified on the 2009 tax rolls, 57,547 were identified as out -of -state or foreign owners.
Whatever factor(s) one applies to the above particular indicators, they are suggestive of higher
population counts and represent a demonstrable interest in this regional location. These
prospective residents could represent some 25 % -35% of the project's households but are not
necessary to maintain an otherwise reasonable market share.
Still, another way of benchmarking data is to consider building permits as a function of the
reported resident population change over some longer period of time so that the pace of
construction activity is moderated. The area market was experiencing significant pressure from
non - resident purchasers well before the onset of the current recession so permits may be
deemed a more reliable indicator of housing trends on average than changes measured in
population. From 2000 -2010, the population changed by about 82,000 people. Over this same
time frame, about 52,000 permits were issued locally. For each person, approximately 0.62
permits were recorded yielding today's inventory. Rather than suggesting merely an overbuilt
REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Market and Needs Evaluation for Hacienda Lakes
Page 7 of 16
situation, if that is the case, the relationships illustrate the general degree to which housing
construction has responded to external influence. Using a more conservative and lower 0.55
relationship, at least some 18,000 housing units would still need to be constructed by 2015 with
an additional 83,000 constructed by 2035. Viewed in terms of market share against these
numbers, Hacienda Lakes would need to capture less than 10% of the housing required by
2015.
On balance, the fundamental demographics support the project's unit count. Its position will
have to be validated by cost and pricing analysis that should not be confused with basic issues
involving growth and general housing demand.
NON - RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, OVERVIEW
As the accompanying table Commercial inventory In service, Collier County
indicates, there has been a Selected years
steady progression of non- 1995 -1998 1995 -2008 1999 -2008 1995.2008 1999 -2008
residential development in Average Average
the Collier County, which
generally matches the Commercial 1,743,030 10,986,605 9,243,575 784,758 924,358
Office/ Banks 627,673 2,667,745 2,040,072 190,553 204,007
increase observed in Industrial 1,241.887 4,112,661 2.870,774 293,762 287,077
residential activity. At least
since 1995, about 1,700,000 Total 3,612,590 17,767,011 14,154,421 1,776,701 1,415,442
square feet (SF) of various
kinds of facilities have been placed into service annually ending upon need and location. The
benchmark dates shown purposely ignore later additions because they may not be occupied
and because they may have not properly matched the pace of actually demand. As of
December 2008, about 14,000,000 SF total were added with about 64% accounted for as
commercial space.
Such numbers have greater meaning in the context of other jurisdictions where there have
presumably been different rates of development and emphasis on the appropriate uses and
forms. Viewed in the aggregate, however, these numbers from areas with varied levels of
economic maturity offer some broader benchmarks by which activity might be measured relative
to residential development or population growth. On an overall basis, it can be rationally
assumed that these markets achieve relative balance in their land use demands over an
extended time, especially if aberrational periods are removed as reference points.
For purposes of multi jurisdictional comparison, our analysis correlates to the total number of
dwelling units, not population, The former offers the certainty that the effective population and its
related needs, spending or demand are captured in the analytical framework whether or not that
population is officially recognized as the resident population. The table below summarizes
selected data by designated land codes from each respective county's tax roll(s). It is a
composite of all development existing within the built environment as of 2000. This period
would overlook the levels of activity occurring since 2005 and now shown to be unsustainable.
Looking at the totals only, it would not be unreasonable to expect each dwelling unit to support a
minimum of 91 SF, potentially as much as an average of 279 SF although there many instances
in more mature settings where the numbers reach beyond 300 SF. The particulars of these
numbers, of course, depend on the actual match to the finally approved and implemented
program which may show some variation.
KUHL =) I A I t Kt_StAKCH CUNSULTANTS, INC.
Market and Needs Evaluation for Hacienda Lakes
Page 8 of 16
Non - residential inventory in service, selected counties, 2000
Total retail and
commercial inventory in
service (SF) per dwelling
unit (DU) as of December,
2000. Includes DOR (land
use) codes 11 -14,
16,29,30
Total office inventory in
service (SF) per dwelling
unit (DU)as of December,
2000. Includes DOR (land
use) codes 17- 29,23 -25
Total industrial inventory in
service (SF) per dwelling
unit (DU)as of December,
2000. Includes DOR (land
use) codes 85,86,87
Total all
Alachua
136.96
76.11
123.01
336.09
Charlotte
91.80
18.49
49.87
160.16
Clay
211.22
40.68
109.44
361.35
Collier
107.23
28.58
69.35
205.16
Dade
131.65
96.32
235.54
463.51
Desoto
83.01
32.85
63.81
179.67
Gadsen
86.83
54.80
267.03
408.65
Glades
43.97
7.09
40.30
91.35
Hardee
78.08
35.40
52.33
165.81
Highlands
82.22
30.30
62.18
174.69
Lake
106.80
42.49
120.42
269.70
Liberty
65.49
21.54
26.00
113.03
Okaloosa
149.62
73.53
117.39
340.54
Okeechobee
136.32
33.67
18.86
188.85
Orange
167.65
142.01
240.68
550.33
Polk
112.71
47.92
217.94
378.56
Seminole
151.98
91.22
170.08
413.28
St. Lucie
99.67
31.54
97.87
229.08
Average
113.51
50.25
115.67
279.43
Low
43.97
7.09
18.86
91.35
High
211.22
142.01
267.03
550.33
Understanding that (1) these many other counties are not by themselves a metric, (2) there are
some overlaps and discrepancies in the codes themselves relative to specific users that might
be actually attracted to the subject property, and (3) within the codes themselves it cannot be
assumed that each county accurately reports the data, the information in aggregate does
identify the level of inventory and activity that is supported at a jurisdictional level, correlated to
some commensurate scale of residential activity.
The overlaps and discrepancies, to the degree they even exist, do not distort the objective or
purpose of the analysis because specific kinds of users do not necessarily match the physical
coding of the use. For example, a physician's office or a place of worship may occupy space
within a property that the DOR code notes is a shopping center. The critical aspect of the
correlation is not the use per se but the generalized level of activity or space in service
compared to the population base supporting it. Over time, the users may change, even if the
DOR codes do not. Taken this way, the collective experience of these several counties
establishes a reference point for the planned program at Hacienda Lakes, explained in more
detail over the next several pages.
REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Market and Needs Evaluation for Hacienda Lakes
Page 9 of 16
Future Retail and Commercial Demands
Each year the Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes its Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE). The
survey that began in 1980 consists of an interview in which consumer units (households
typically) are queried every 3 months over a 12 -month period to track income, tax and
expenditure habits, distinguishing
$3,531
$2,642
$3,091
$4,631
these by size of household,
Average annual expenditures, Consumer Expenditure Survey, 2008
$206
employment status, income and other
$443
Furniture
$863
$573
attributes. The survey effort is
Item
$100,000
and more
$100,000 to $120,000
$119,999
to $150,000 and
$149,000 more
designed to capture different types of
$128
Major appliances
$394
$274
consumer expenditures occurring
Income after taxes
$157379
$105,048
$127,295 $220,261
over a period of time. It is among the
$325
Miscellaneous household equipment
$1,634
$1,341
most detailed reconciliations of
g,erageannual expenditures
$108065
$77.586
$91,590 $124,678
American consumer habits. A part of
Food at home
$5,690
$5,390
$5,755 $5,940
that survey is reproduced here in
Food away from home
$5,611
$4,383
$5,214 $7.071
summary form with the relevant
$5,984
Gasoline and motor oil
$4,208
$3,954
categories of spending or other
Alcoholic beverages
$919
$761
$904 $1,083
information highlighted. Materials not
$4,931
Drugs
$651
$615
highlighted or referenced provide
Housekeeping supplies
$1,165
$1,147
$1,097 $1.238
context but are not a part of any
Laundry and cleaning supplies
Other household products
$212
$702
$199
$735
$236 $208
$600 $747
calculations as discussed.
Postage and stationery
$251
$213
$260 $282
In effect, the CE offers a glimpse of
what families allocate to certain
activities and provides a framework
for projecting what those expenses
are and how they may ultimately
manifest themselves in terms of
supportable demand for physical
facilities. The unit of analysis is the
household. While there remain some
questions at this point what specific
users, restaurants, or other operators
may ultimately be drawn to the
Hacienda Lakes location, the
spending habits of the project's
affluent households are reasonably
determinant.
Household furnishings and equipment
$3,531
$2,642
$3,091
$4,631
Household textiles
$303
$206
$239
$443
Furniture
$863
$573
$727
$1,191
Floor coverings
$104
$93
$82
$128
Major appliances
$394
$274
$362
$515
Small appliances
$232
$156
$208
$325
Miscellaneous household equipment
$1,634
$1,341
$1,474
$2,029
Apparel and services
$3,643
$2.734
$3,122
$4,886
Transportation
$15,674
$13,424
$15,720
Vehicle purchases (net outlay)
$5,450
$4,546
$5.764
$5,984
Gasoline and motor oil
$4,208
$3,954
$4,237
$4.396
Healthcare
$4,471
$4,037
$4,316
$4,931
Drugs
$651
$615
$644
$686
Medical supplies
$198
$171
$167
$244
Entertainment
$5,869
$4,306
$6,363
$6,835
Personal care products and services
$1,196
$947
$1,138
$1.472
Reading
$233
$197
$210
$278
Given the nature of the residential Tobacco products and smoking supplies $258 $322 $244 $217
program and the apparent demand
segments, the larger project is likely Miscellaneous $1,767 $1278 $1,612 $2,277
to be oriented toward the regions' Household expenditures, except cars $41404
highest income families. In 2008, the Household expenditures, including cars $47,238
CE indicates that households with
incomes in excess of $150,000 per year allocated on average about $41,000 of a total $124,000
available for food at home, outside dining, entertainment, personal needs, and miscellaneous
household expenditures. These sums do not include those directed to housing, transportation,
automotive purchases and services, education, insurance, and many other items not of
immediate relevance to this analysis and not shown in the table at all. Nonetheless, these too
REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Market and Needs Evaluation for Hacienda Lakes
Page 10 of 16
might also be purchased or consumed nearby within facilities or buildings just for that purpose.
Medical services would be an example of the latter category of goods or services not counted.
Because of these or similar exclusions, the list of identified consumables, in this context, would
be deemed conservative.
Based on the expected housing count in Hacienda Lakes (1760 units) and its consumption
patterns ($41,000 - $47,000 per household on average), its group of households would
reasonably be expected to allocate some $72,000,000 in total annual spending for a variety of
goods and services that could be located on site and within the project's scope. If automobile
purchases are assumed to be a part of the mix, the total rises to an expected $83,000,000.
Again, the specifics will be a function of the users matched to the site's locational and market
features as building plans are implemented. Presumably, existing residents in the same
geographic area are already adequate served by their choice of commercial of facilities. Should
this population be attracted to any commercial activity at this location, the demand generated by
those potential users would be incremental to these estimates of spending. On balance, it is
reasonable to expect some of the project's residents to pursue commercial opportunities
elsewhere in the region, just as it is plausible to anticipate support from existing residents to the
exclusion of shopping in other parts of the county.
In theoretical terms, data collected by the US Bureau of the Census directly from retailers and
service providers, would reconcile to the reported spending of individual or household
consumers. Although the data and categorization of the information fail to match perfectly to the
CE, they provide yet another means of gauging aggregate expenditure potential. In 2009, the
per capita spending for a more discrete set of items - general retail and food only - was
approximately $11,000, down materially from $12,000 estimated in 2008. At an assumed
household size of 2.5 persons, the total expenditures would be would almost $50,000,000. This
estimate is not income adjusted, does not include some categories identified specifically in the
CE survey, and excludes all auto related expenses, including even gas or oil purchases. Again,
this estimated expenditure reflects only the population of Hacienda Lakes. Existing residents in
the service area potentially add to this sum.
According to Sales & Marketing Management 2002 Survey of Buying Power, Naples
significantly exceeds both the national and state average for retail sales per household, with
$39,583. Florida's average retail sales per household is $32,024, while the U.S. average is
$33,662. Given these much higher numbers, the per capita estimates seem very conservative.
Certainly used as a proxy for supportable spending, the estimated $50,000,000 in consumables
would be substantially more conservative than the sums suggested by the CE survey but
sufficiently close to validate the estimate.
How individual operators or users respond to these spending patterns is subject to extreme
variation depending on size, type, and market position. The Urban Land Institute's (ULI) Dollars
and Cents of Shopping Centers is the definitive source of retail metrics. The data is useful as a
benchmark but it is focused almost exclusively on shopping centers, and much of what functions
as retail may not be in a conventional retailing environment or be of a size below ULI's reporting
thresholds. Given that caveat, it can be assumed in general that sales occurring in appropriate
venues would average from a low of approximately $150 per square foot (SF) to a high of about
$485 per SF with many around $200 per SF. These numbers reflect a blend of retailers,
restaurants and other establishments.
REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Market and Needs Evaluation for Hacienda Lakes
Page 11 of 16
Given a potential $72,000,000 in sales from the project's households, these figures, in
conjunction with sales per SF, suggest that a low of 150,000 SF (sales of $485/SF) up to a high
of 363,000 SF (sales of $200 /SF) might be supported based upon choice of tenants and sales
volume experienced. At an assumed sales projection of $50,000,000, a supportable program
could support an estimated 315,000 per SF (sales of $150 /SF).
If the highest figure (363,000 SF) is optimistic, the lower end of the range (150,000 SF) matches
well to the County's estimated commercial and retail square footage per dwelling unit (1760
units x 107 SF) as these relationships existed in the year 2000, acknowledging the potential for
inconsistencies in the DOR classification. A reminder, we benchmark to this single year to
moderate the rapid spike in all kinds of development which occurred mid decade. Further, the
number is well within a reasonable market share of the actual absorption occurring in the ten yrs
from 1998 -2008 and the annual average achieved during this period.
These benchmarks not withstanding, the most probable number reflects average sales of some
$200 per SF generating a supportable program between the low and the high at about 340,000
SF based on assumed annual sales of $72,000,000 which excludes any considerations or
impacts of auto sales. Including frictional vacancies of 5 %, the number rises to about 357,000
SF, well above the size of the retail facilities contemplated in the current application. The
supportable square footage would be materially higher if auto sales or other activities should
ultimately figure into the mix of operators, and there is no reason to remove such prospective
users until development plans advance. Again, these expenditures depend only on the
population of Hacienda Lakes. Any existing population counts in the general service area could
push these numbers higher but that would suggest spending is being diverted from commercial
outlets already in operation.
Actual absorption of space would be yet another indicator of demand potential although the data
is more generalized and covers an aggressive period of retail inventory expansion. Without
regard to location, about 2,700,000 SF of retail space were absorbed countywide from the end
of 2005 through the end of 2009, according to data prepared by CoStar, an annualized rate of
about 553,000 SF. This is well below the figure suggested by data summarized from the
County's tax rolls, and reported earlier, at some 900,000 SF over a ten year period. Either
reference point, in the context of the physically identifiable market, suggests the project's
proposed commercial program is relatively modest.
Overall, we think the retail and commercial
based on the scale of other elements in the
market which are above 10 %, the planned
time frame presented.
Future Office Demands
components are justified in the proposed project
plan. Even recognizing, current vacancies in the
development program is not unreasonable in the
While the commercial opportunities on site are beneficially and symbiotically associated with the
concentration of nearby housing, the demand for office space is less direct. Nonetheless, for
planning purposes, it is still useful to think of additional office space inventory in terms of
incremental change in either area population or household growth because of their association
with employment changes. Not unlike the commercial uses planned as part of Hacienda Lakes,
need for office uses in the context of the larger development program includes influences or
factors that are broader than considerations of incremental space required or already available
in the local market area.
REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Market and Needs Evaluation for Hacienda Lakes
Page 12 of 16
As the data reported previously illustrates, there are no specific measures that would suggest a
single benchmark for office space. Unlike retail which is commensurate with certain spending
patterns, levels of residential activity, and settlement patterns, the ultimate demand for office
space depends on the area's capacity to function as a major employment center. Absent a level
of mature economic activity, it may be unreasonable to anticipate demand for office space
beyond that associated with basic insurance, financial, medical, or miscellaneous personal
services. Rather than reaching levels of 90 SF - 140 SF per dwelling unit, like Orange, Dade, or
Seminole counties, the more appropriate measure might be a lower 50 SF - 60 SF per dwelling
unit.
Again, these numbers reflect the housing counts and their relationship to inventories in place
during 2000. Because these numbers were realized before the surge in construction activity
leading into the current recession, they are unlikely to misrepresent the relationship between
housing and other kinds of development. At these benchmark figures, some 88,000 SF (50 SF/
unit) to 105,000 SF (60 SF/ unit) of office space might be supported, numbers above those
shown in the proposed development program. Again, even recognizing, current vacancies in the
market which may be near 15 %, the planned development program is not unreasonable in the
time frame presented.
Collier County's actual number in 2000 was 28.50 SF of office space per dwelling unit. If correct,
the number would suggest a low of about 50,000 SF of office space might be supported. In the
context of the reference numbers for other counties, 28.50 SF seems low if the County's wish is
to promote continued economic development and diversification of employment opportunities.
At the very least, this means of estimating demand signals a floor for the proposed program.
Actual absorption of space would be yet another indicator of demand potential although the data
is plausibly discounted since, like the retail data reported, it also covers an aggressive period of
development and construction. Without regard to location, about 1,300,000 SF of office space
were absorbed countywide from the end of 2005 through the end of 2009, an annualized rate of
about 325,000 SF. The project's proposed office inventory represents a very small part of the
physically identifiable office market.
Again, a full occupancy is unlikely to be achieved. Consequently, the inventory built to
accommodate this potential demand would be moderately higher to allow for frictional
vacancies. As with the retail and commercial estimates, the most probable number falls
between the low (50,000 SF) and the high (105,000 SF) at about 75,000 SF, approximately the
figures proposed in the development program. While the analysis acknowledges possible
inconsistencies or overlaps in the original DOR data, the impacts, if any, are addressed in the
thresholds deemed supportable.
Future Hotel Demands
As with the other uses, it is useful to think of the lodging inventory relative to the scale of the
population which is a proxy for the area's strength as a business and tourist destination. Since
the region offers so many beaches and natural features, the relationship between population
and the available inventory is likely to understate the strength of the market and its potential to
support added rooms.
KEAL ESTATE RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Market and Needs Evaluation for Hacienda Lakes
Page 13 of 16
Using the 2000 population of 251,400 persons to establish a benchmark, there was one room
for every 35 -40 persons in Collier County based on data available from the Department of
Business Regulation. As with the retail and office uses described above, these numbers
illustrate conditions before the surge in construction activity leading into the current recession.
These numbers change to one room for approximately 45 -50 persons using an estimated 2008
population of 332,856. Together, the higher and lower population counts suggest a supportable
room count of approximately 120 rooms to 150 rooms at the Hacienda Lakes site, a range
consistent with the 135 rooms contemplated in the proposed development plan.
If the project's other features are themselves supported as the analysis suggests, they will in
turn add to the base of support for the proposed hotel which is envisioned as a limited service
property of the type typically sited proximate interstate interchanges and along major
commercial roads. In 2009, the county's occupancy rate was reported by the CVB to be about
65% indicating some question about the viability of hotels in less supportive locations or
settings. Here, a limited service lodging property is a use which complements the other
proposed non - residential uses, and it functions as still another amenity for Hacienda Lakes. The
lodging use is appropriate given the larger mixed use concept being proposed.
Future Business Park or Industrial Demands
Business park uses are less discrete in terms of their orientation compared to the other
categories of land use proposed for the development program. Normally, these business park
uses are comprised of some combination of office, flex, warehouse, and /or manufacturing
facilities. Flex space is comprised of finishes that balance office and warehouse or distribution
functions. Office spaces most likely to be sited in a business park setting will be class B or C
structures and would not readily compete with the class A facilities contemplated elsewhere in
the larger project.
Not unlike the market for office facilities, there are no specific measures that would suggest a
single appropriate benchmark for industrial or business park needs. As with office space, the
ultimate demand for space that might support industrial, semi - industrial or distribution activities
is highly dependent upon the area's capacity to function as a major employment center. Absent
a level of mature economic activity, it may be unreasonable to anticipate demand for business
park uses that normally flow to a regional commercial hub. Here, the needs are likely to be more
locally oriented although that could change over the project's implementation timetable.
Given the region's higher incomes, the market price for land suited to housing and other forms
of non - residential activity tends to preclude these kinds of uses which are necessary whatever
the state of the economy. Consequently, it can be reasoned that business park or similar uses
are now under represented in Collier County.
Rather than reaching levels of 120 SF - 240 SF per dwelling unit, like Lake, Orange, or Polk
counties, the more appropriate measure might be a lower 70 SF - 90 SF per dwelling unit,
numbers that begin to push beyond the present level but which do not rise to the capability of a
regional distribution center. These numbers suggest a range of 123,000 SF (70 SF/ unit) to
158,000 SF (90 SF/ unit) oriented to business park functions and structures, effectively figures
in keeping with the current program. These numbers reflect conventional warehousing and
semi - industrial characteristics but inevitably some space will shift to activities more compatible
with office needs. Given that the overall program could be deemed light in terms of its
conventional office elements, some of the longer term demands might be satisfied within the
REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Market and Needs Evaluation for Hacienda Lakes
Page 14 of 16
confines of a business park environment. Again, this last observation reflects possible
inconsistencies or overlaps in the original DOR data.
How these business park uses will ultimately adapt to market needs will depend largely on the
way in which the region and location are marketed. Still, they seem to be a reasonable
complement to the balance of the development program.
COMPETING LANDS AND ENTITLEMENTS
As outlined in the County's requirements, we have surveyed nearby properties which might
accommodate some of the uses or activities proposed in the development plan and /or
potentially competing for the demands estimated. A profile of the eleven projects which might
be deemed significant for Concentrations of Competing uses, Hacienda Lakes
this analysis Is shown In Retail and office uses located within two miles of CR951 /Rattlesnake Hammock
the accompanying table. Commercial Developed
Square Commercial
RWA Ordinance Total Commercial Footage Square
ID NAME Comments Number Acreage Acreage Approved Footage
We see only a limited
relevance for competing
lands in the context of this
analysis. For the most
part, the actual
implementation of any use
remains largely
speculative at this stage
of planning. Because
many of these potential
projects will never be
constructed, the project's
residential uses, which
comprise the focus of the
project, may never have
access to the facilities or
services that could be
offered only if these other
projects are built as
envisioned.
COLLIER REGIONAL
Approved for 260K hospital and 80K
32 MCMULLEN PUD
ALF also allowed instead of commercial. 30 -18
1 MEDICAL CENTER
medical office. 80K office already developed.
04 -28
60.00
60,00
340,000 275,946
34/35 PUD (C -5 zoning(
(DRI- 99 -1). Neighborhood commercial
9.24
9.24
Parcel (C-3 zoning) North
12 WINDING CYPRESS
not open to the public
02 -35
1,928.00
15.00
30,000 -
Offlce and commercial uses allowed.
Developed with an Urgent Care and an
15 EDISON VILLAGE
Amsouth Bank. One parcel left
00 -83
7.44
5.66
54,000 25,000'
Developed with a Publlx anchored shopping
NAPLES LAKES COUNTRY
center, Fifth Third Bank, Radiation Therapy
21 CLUB
Office & Southtrust Bank. One parcel left
03 -33
485.02
15.00
110,000 80,000"
25 SIERRA MEADOWS (EX)
Vacant Retail /Office allowed
99-91
90.80
30.20
260,000 -
DRI- 84 -3C; Only listed 30 acres which are the
C3 uses per PUD (which are in the study
area On Rattlesnake Hammock /Grand Lely
27 LELY RESORT
Dr and on CR951 /Grand Lely Dr
07 -72
2,892.50
30.00
300,000 "
HAMMOCK PARK
30 COMMERCE CENTER
Retail /Office allowed.
07 -30
20.23
19.05
160,000 -
Relad /Office allowed. Assisted Living also
31 GOOD TURN CENTER
allowedinstead of commercial.
09 -53
9.50
9.50
100,000 -
' Approximate amount. Did not use county numbers as there has been construction since last County Update.
' Estimated at 10,000sf per acre of developable commercial acreage.
' Based on it being developed as ALF. 3 acres are within 1/4 mile from hospital allowing medical office. Estimated at 30,000sf
Source PUD Ordinances, Collier County PUD list
Of the 1,756,000 SF shown in the table, very little has already been built, adding to the
speculative nature of the plans. Of that which is built, almost two - thirds has a distinct medical
orientation which has not been directly considered in the demand estimates outlined for the
project. For the most part, there are no obvious opportunities that might satisfy a lodging
demand such as proposed in the proposed plan. Locations that might be deemed competitive
for hospitality uses are constrained in their value because of the larger mixed use concept that
supports this particular activity. There are no known or identifiable industrial or business park
uses being contemplated in the area of primary concern.
REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Medical & General Office. No retail allowed.
32 MCMULLEN PUD
ALF also allowed instead of commercial. 30 -18
19.32
19.32 30,000*
Parcel North of Good Turn
34/35 PUD (C -5 zoning(
Two parcels
9.24
9.24
Parcel (C-3 zoning) North
33 of C -5 zoning
9.24
9.24
' Approximate amount. Did not use county numbers as there has been construction since last County Update.
' Estimated at 10,000sf per acre of developable commercial acreage.
' Based on it being developed as ALF. 3 acres are within 1/4 mile from hospital allowing medical office. Estimated at 30,000sf
Source PUD Ordinances, Collier County PUD list
Of the 1,756,000 SF shown in the table, very little has already been built, adding to the
speculative nature of the plans. Of that which is built, almost two - thirds has a distinct medical
orientation which has not been directly considered in the demand estimates outlined for the
project. For the most part, there are no obvious opportunities that might satisfy a lodging
demand such as proposed in the proposed plan. Locations that might be deemed competitive
for hospitality uses are constrained in their value because of the larger mixed use concept that
supports this particular activity. There are no known or identifiable industrial or business park
uses being contemplated in the area of primary concern.
REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Market and Needs Evaluation for Hacienda Lakes
Page 15 of 16
In addition to these properties, we also summarized TAZ data that identified parcels or projects
by zoning or current activity. Since this data was not complied by the planning team
independently, however, we cannot confirm that it is altogether current. That said, with some
Planning Community exceptions, the information found in this
Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ's) 2000 additional level of analysis appears
reasonably consistent with the planning
Bldg. Land team's own field inventory of the area's
Zoning Square Feet Area (acres) most relevant or potentially competitive
A 2,866 0.0 holdings.
C -3 0 1.0 As to these other projects or properties
C-4 1,575 1.5 identified by the planning team or others
CF 2,504 12.5 generally it remains entirely conjectural
1 1,708 0.8 that the approvals attached to these other
PUD 317,553 231.0 sites, their supporting infrastructure, price,
RMF- 12(10) 0 1.5 general availability, physical suitability,
Total 326,206 248.3 market timing, owner's expectations, or
planned programs will be in concert with
the specific programmatic features that will define Hacienda Lakes or satisfy its development
goals. In effect, how and when these nearby lands or parcels could be used is a secondary
consideration in weighing the needs for similar land uses within Hacienda Lakes itself. In the
absence of the project's own supporting non - residential features or activities, the residential
uses are materially handicapped in terms of achieving their market position. This is a constraint
to the project which becomes a further constraint on its currently expected financial
performance.
Because the (1) project's own proposed non - residential uses are supportable or in proportion to
the population and numbers of housing units planned and (2) they add to the mix of activity
deemed desirable to the performance of the larger project, other lands that might also be
available to accommodate opportunities generated by the population of Hacienda Lakes are of
no material importance in evaluating development options. Were they to be sited on other
entitled lands — should they be available as their entitlements suggest -- the project's non-
residential components would not benefit the balance of the development program as it has
been conceived while requiring more frequent and longer trip lengths to achieve the same
objective.
To the degree that alternative sites may be desirable for other uses or purposes, it is evident
that they are dependent upon the population base being created at Hacienda Lakes and
similarly situated residential communities being planned. Stated somewhat differently, these
other sites add little of value to the concept being proposed.
CONCEPT OVERALL, SUMMARY
There are many different considerations or factors to weigh in determining the overall and most
desirable mix of uses to be entitled and developed. Because the project's primary focus is
centered on residential uses, these must be the applicant's principal concern. In that regard, the
evidence seems to indicate that the relative magnitude of population growth and interest in
second or seasonal homes justifies the project's primary land use. While the current state of the
economy seems to mitigate this potential, the longer term data and recent shifts in the economy
point to recovery, suggesting the applicant's plans are reasonably considered now.
REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Market and Needs Evaluation for Hacienda Lakes
Page 16 of 16
Other components of the project have a base of market support, estimated by their relationship
to the total number of units proposed, likely spending, and prior patterns of use and demand
extending over several years. The relative scale of these uses remains consistent with data
drawn from a number of jurisdictions suggesting reasonableness overall in terms of analytical
approach and the conclusions developed from that approach. Any approach has certain
weaknesses but these are controlled in the present case by multiple lines of analysis that reach
similar conclusions. Still, these conclusions are presented in terms of a range, rather than a
single point estimate, to avoid inferences of accuracy greater than those we believe are
possible.
Again, the current state of the economy, though something of a concern, is not a long term
bellwether of the estimates provided. Aside form the expectations of demand, there are broader
community and planning values to consider which largely dictate that any major residential
project also include complementing land uses to enhance the value both to residents and
investors. In that regard, competing projects, though something of an issue, are not the single
consideration for proceeding with the broader concept as proposed.
As for competing properties, there do not appear to be any that can adequately accommodate
the proposed plan's business park activities. Most of these plans remain speculative and
uncertain. If the proposed project is to realize its market position, it cannot be handicapped or
constrained by perceptions of projects that will not occur with some level of certainty.
REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Hacienda Lakes
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
GMP Application
CCPC Review Materials
EXHIBIT R
Transit Master Plan
%
i17
DAVAM"�
CONS[ I.I i \G Endo nng
1 \ 1 IL , S—Yin
m
Hacienda Lakes
Transit Master Plan
Exhibit R
0 500 1,000
Feet
Q
N
DA VA ` A INC.
C'ONSt 1, "1'IN(i
i t V 1L 1
• Planning • Viwalization
Civil Engineering • Surveying & Mapping
Prepared By: rmjones
Printing Date: Sept. 8, 2010
File: T \Projects \2005 \05_0150.02.03_
Hacienda Lakes \General \TransitM P. m xd
Hacienda Lakes
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
GMP Application
CCPC Review Materials
EXHIBIT S
Pedestrian Master Plan
R II I A INC.
Planning
CO V S i.' LT: `G E.pn=ng
1 \ 1 11 i Sumving
Hacienda Lakes
Pedestrian Master Plan
Exhibit S
0 500 1,000
Feet
N
Z< 1 IF 1
• Planning • Visualization
Civil Engineering • Surveying & Mapping
Prepared By:rmjones
Printing Date: June 29, 2010
File: T \Projects \2005 \05_0150.02.03_
HaciendaLakes \General \Ped MP. mxd