The URL can be used to link to this page

EAC Agenda 06/01/2011 (Item VI-A)Clerks Office Minutes & Records Dept. 4th Floor Administration Building (F) EAC Agenda Item VI -A Attn: Court Reporter /Clerk COLLIER COUNTY DRI- RELATED GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT (ADOPTION) R E[ [ al s a 9 it E r ■ a9 E 9 a0 e • 99 F s 81 F ■ sa E a as [ q H E Colllw County — k Florida Y v awun Y i •m r r i v r Petition: CP- 2006 -11 EAC: June 01, 2011 CCPC : July 21, 2011 BCC: September 13, 2011 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMISSION (EAC) MEETING JUNE 01, 2011 PETITION CP- 2006 -11 HACIENDA LAKES /DRI - RELATED GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS EAC - Adoption of DRI- Related GMP Amendment CP- 2006 -11 Hacienda Lakes June 01, 2011 EAC Agenda 1) TAB: Table of Contents DOCOUMENT: EAC - Table of Contents 2) TAB: EAC Staff Report. 3) TAB: ORC Report 4) TAB: CP- 2006- 11Transmittal Resolution. 5) TAB: CP- 2006 -11 Transmittal Staff Reports. 6) TAB: CP- 2006 -11 Petition. DOCUMENT: EAC "Adoption" Staff Report DOCUMENT: DCA Objections, Recommendations, & Comments Report response DOCUMENT: Transmittal Resolution, Exhibit "A" Text and Exhibit "A" Map DOCUMENT: BCC Executive Summary, CCPC Staff Report Update, CCPC Staff Report, & EAC Staff Report DOCUMENT: Hacienda Lakes Application/Petition CP- 2006 -11 Hacienda Lakes of Naples GMP Amendment — Adoption Hearing AGENDA ITEM No. VI A. Cail�er Coc•�.-nty STAFF REPORT ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 1, 2011 The purpose of this Staff Report is to bring petition CP- 2006 -11 forward to the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) to consider proposed amendments to the Growth Management Plan. The EAC reviewed CP- 2006 -11 previously for Transmittal on December 1, 2010. Collier County held further Transmittal hearings for CP- 2006 -11, the Hacienda Lakes of Naples GMP amendment, on January 20, 2011 (CCPC, Collier County Planning Commission) and, February 8, 2011 (BCC, Board of County Commissioners). Within the EAC binder containing staff documents, you will find the Transmittal EAC Staff Report, Transmittal CCPC Staff Report and BCC Transmittal Executive Summary which provide staff's detailed analysis of this petition. The respective Transmittal recommendations /actions are presented below. CP- 2006 -11 is companion to Hacienda Lakes' Development of Regional Impact (DRI) and Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) requests [DRI- 2006 -AR -10147 and PUDZ- 2006 -AR- 10146]. PROPOSED AMENDMENT PETITION CP- 2006 -11, Amendments to the Conservation and Coastal Management Element, Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Mao and Map Series of the Growth Management Plan, to reconfigure the boundary and increase the 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, 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. Petitioner. David Torres, for Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC. ss CP- 2006 -11 Hacienda Lakes of Naples GMP Amendment — Adoption Hearing AGENDA ITEM No. VI A. TRANSMITTAL ACTIVITIES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Transmit specific portions of the proposed amendment, and not to Transmit the portion proposing expansion of the Mixed Use Activity Center, to DCA — as they appear in "ATTACHMENT HL -2" of the CCPC Transmittal Staff Report. EAC RECOMMENDATION: Transmit to DCA (vote: 310). CCPC RECOMMENDATION: Transmit each of the six parts proposed in petition CP- 2006 -11, including the portion proposing expansion of the Mixed Use Activity Center, to DCA (vote: 9/0) — as they appear in Collier County Resolution 11 -32 Exhibit A. The CCPC also directed that certain requirements /stipulations be met before a recommendation is proffered or action is taken on the Adoption of CP- 2006 -11. These requirements /stipulations appear in the BCC Transmittal Executive Summary. These stipulations are appropriate to include during CCPC Adoption consideration [of CP- 2006 -11] or subsequent Development Order approval. They are not intended to appear within the GMP as part of this proposed amendment, but to make the petitioner aware of the County's concerns and position. BCC ACTION: Transmit to DCA (vote: 5/0), per CCPC recommendation, including the CCPC's six (6) requirements above. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS (DCA) OBJECTIONS RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS (ORC) REPORT: After review of Transmitted GMP amendments, the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) renders an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report. Only Objections can form the basis of a non - compliance determination, unless the adopted amendments vary significantly from those Transmitted. If an Objection is not adequately addressed when Adopted, then the DCA may (presumably will) find the amendment to be "Not in Compliance" with Florida Statutes, and issue a Notice of Intent (NOI) to indicate such noncompliance. The County may respond to the ORC Report in one of four ways at Adoption: 1. not modify the amendment, but provide additional explanation of what the amendment is about, its purpose, what it will achieve [appropriate if we believe DCA simply does not understand /has misunderstood the amendment] and /or provide additional data and analysis to support the amendment; or 2. modify the amendment, so as to address the ORC issue; or, 3. modify the amendment, and provide additional explanation and /or provide additional data and analysis; or, 4. not adopt the amendment. DCA raises no Obiections in their April 21 2011 ORC Report for GMP amendment CP 2006 11. One State agency, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), provides two (2) comments. The entire ORC Report, which includes comments from other State and regional review agencies, is included in the EAC binder containing staff documents. CP- 2006 -11 is companion to the Hacienda Lakes' DRI and MPUD requests and as such, under Florida Administrative Code - Rule 9J -11, is exempt from the twice per year Plan amendment limitation. -2- CP- 2006 -11 Hacienda Lakes of Naples GMP Amendment— Adoption Hearing AGENDA ITEM No. VI A. The ordinance proposed for adoption includes text and map exhibits for this petition; those exhibits (text modified but map unchanged since BCC Transmittal) are located within the EAC binder containing staff documents. ADOPTION ACTIVITIES Subsequent to Transmittal hearings, the review of companion petitions for the DR[ and its associated Development Order raised additional issues. These post - transmittal issues are not environmental in nature. These issues relate to future attendance and traffic at attractions and recreational facilities that may be located in the project and, to incorporating features into the project to further diminish reliance on vehicular trips and demonstrate energy conservation. Revisions to the Development Order document may be necessary to account for any changes made to the companion DRI or PUDZ properly. One issue, concerning the ability to receive TDR density in Business Park acreage in the Urban Designated Area of the project, decidedly needs additional clarity in new FLUE language. These text modifications are made part of the staff recommendation for the Adoption of CP- 2006 -11, as shown [double - underlined] in the FLUE excerpt, shown as modified [by stFike througl4/underrine in Transmittal, below. 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 base density of 1.5 units per gross acre plus any density bonus that may be achieved via CCME Policy 6. .5 (6) b.1., -Gr- and either "a" or "b" below: a. Up to 2-.5 1_0 unit per gross acre via the transfer of up to one L1.01 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 Lands, except in the case of 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 an additional maximum density of up to 1.3 units per gross acre for all lands designated as Urban Residential Fringe via the transfer of up to 1.3 dwelling units (transferable development rights) per acre from lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary and designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands: or, -3- CP- 2006 -11 Hacienda Lakes of Naples GMP Amendment — Adoption Hearing AGENDA ITEM No. VI A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt as modified by the [double - underlined] post - transmittal text changes appearing above regarding the provisions that address receiving TDR density in Business Park acreage in the URF, except for Activity Center expansion. More specifically, staffs recommendation for the individual parts of the proposal are shown in the figure below. PROVISION EXISTING PROPOSED REMARKS RECOMMENDATION Just 507.8 ac would be developed residentially To ADOPT Maximum 2.5 DU /acre 2.8 DU /acre • 432.4 in residential tracts WITH MODIFICATION Providing Additional Residential Density - eligible to receive _eligible to receive in URF with • 36.6 MUAC Clarity for Receiving (utilizing g TDRs ) n URF receiving "lift" residential TDR Density in the • 38.8 in Urban Designated Area residential/ medical uses tract 25% NV in Urban Under 25% NV — . 25% of Urban Native Vegetation/ portion Urban portion Preserve is 71.7 Habitat Retention / 60% NV in Rural 100% NV— Undeveloped Rural ac. of 286.8 NV 60% of Rural To ADOPT Preservation portion - Required portion - Preserve is as Transmitted FLUE Preservation Area Preservation Area 848.4 ac. of with "shift" 1,414 NV 1.0 DU/TDR per 1.3 DUs/TDRs per acre - eligible to transfer acre - eligible to transfer Maximum Use of into URF from into URF from Overall Density To ADOPT TDRs Sending Lands Sending Lands would be 0.78 as Transmitted within 1 mile of within 1 mile of DUs /acre (gross) URF boundary URF boundary, with "lift" Supply of 887,962 sq. ft. / Demand for Acreage Allowed 143,645 sq. ft. = for Southeast Quadrant MUAC 27.5 acres 36.6 acres Market factor of NOT TO ADOPT of 6.18 No. 7 (Supply = 618 % of Demand Provides additional Direct Access for The Lord's Way The Lord's Way benefits for access To ADOPT Business Park onto does not provide would provide such to both Collier Boulevard and the As Transmitted — Conditional Arterial Roadway such access by FLUE provisions access with new future Benfield Recommendation provision Road Native Vegetation/ 25% NV in Urban 25% — X = Urban • Urban Preserve Habitat portion o NV 60% + 2X =Rural would be 40.8 To ADOPT Retention / Preservation 60% NV in Rural portion NV ac. • Rural Preserve as Transmitted COME - Preserved - Preserved with would be 1,395 "shift" ac. -4- CP- 2006 -11 Hacienda Lakes of Naples GMP Amendment— Adoption Hearing AGENDA ITEM No. VI A. Staff's present recommendation however, is conditional. The three companion petitions are inextricably linked. Changing part of one petition's content will likely dictate changes to another petition's content. The same cause and effect relationships exist between the staff recommendations for the three companion petitions. Adoption recommendations are contingent on the outcomes of companion DRI and PUDZ petitions. Additional contingencies are expected to affect each of the components of the Hacienda Lakes proposal with changes during final Adoption considerations. PREPARED BY- pp� I DATE: (0 ADA CORBY SCHIV IDT, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER Comprehensivi I., Planning Section Land Developr ient Services Department Growth Manag ment Division — Planning & Regulation APPROVED BY: Dy1 DATE: MIKE BOSI, AICP, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING MANAGER Comprehensive Planning Section Land Development Services Department Growth Management Division — Planning & Regulation APP , VED BY: J_ DATE: LIAM LORE R±, PE, RECTOR Land Development Services Department Growth Management Division — Planning & Regulation APPROVED BY: f- , -�` DATE: ,+t ANICK CASALARGUIDA, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR Growth Management Division — Planning & Regulation -d -// G: \CDES Planning Services \Comprehensive \COMP PLANNING GMP DATA \Comp Plan Amendments\2006 Cycle Petitions \CP - 2006 -11 FLUE -CCME Hacienda Lakes of Naples\Adoption Staff Reports\CP -06 -11 Adptn Stff Rprt USED for June 01 EAC.docx -5- STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS "Dedicated to making Florida a better place to call home" RICK SCOTT BILLY BUZZETT Govemor Secretary April 21, 2011 The Honorable Fred W. Coyle, Chairman Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, Florida 34112 -5746 Dear Chairman Coyle: The Department has completed its review of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Collier County (DCA No. 11 -D 1), which was received on February 18, 2011. We reviewed the amendment for consistency with Chapter 163, Part Il, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J -5, Florida Administrative Code, and the Collier County comprehensive plan. The Department raises no objections to the proposed amendment and this letter serves as the Department's Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report. We have enclosed a copy of comments from other state and regional agencies. For your assistance, we have attached procedures for transmittal of the adopted comprehensive plan amendment. Please make this letter available for public inspection. If you have any questions about this matter, please contact me at (850) 922 -1800, or Scott Rogers, Planning Analyst, at (850) 922 -1758. Sincerely, 4Z54- Brenda Winningham Regional Planning Administrator BW /sr Enclosure: Review Agency Comments cc: Ken Heatherington, Executive Director, Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council Nick Casalanguida, Deputy Administrator, Growth Management Division/Planning and Regulation, Collier County 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD ♦ TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399 -2100 850 - 488 -8466 (p) ♦ 850 - 921 -0781 (f) ♦ Website: www.dca.state.fl . us ♦ COMMUNITY PLANNING 850488-2356 (p) 850 -488 -3309 (f) ♦ FLORIDA COMMUNITIES TRUST 850 -922 -2207 (p) 850 -921 -1747 (f) ♦ HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 85048&7956 (p) 850- 922 -5623 (I) TRANSMITTAL PROCEDURES The process for adoption of local comprehensive plan amendments is outlined in Section 163.3184, F.S., and Rule 9J- 11.011, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Within ten working days of the date of adoption, the County must submit the following to the Department: Three copies of the adopted comprehensive plan amendment; • copy of the adoption ordinance; • listing of additional changes not previously reviewed; • listing of findings by the local governing body, if any, which were not included in the ordinance; and A statement indicating the relationship of the additional changes to the Department's Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report. The above amendment and documentation are required for the Department to conduct a compliance review, make a compliance determination and issue the appropriate notice of intent. In order to expedite the regional planning council's review of the amendment, and pursuant to Rule 9J- 11.011(5), F.A.C., please provide a copy of the adopted amendment directly to Executive Director of the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council. Please be advised that the Florida legislature amended Section 163.3184(8)(b), F.S., requiring the Department to provide a courtesy information statement regarding the Department's Notice of Intent to citizens who furnish their names and addresses at the local government's plan amendment transmittal (proposed) or adoption hearings. In order to provide this courtesy information statement, local governments are required by the law to furnish to the Department the names and addresses of the citizens requesting this information. This list is to be submitted at the time of transmittal of the adopted plan amendment (a sample Information Sheet is attached for your use). 4 3 ' IW ®R 0 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE Kurt S. Browning Secretary of State DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES March 17, 2011 Mr. Ray Eubanks Department of Community Affairs Bureau of State Planning 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -2100 Re: Historic Preservation Review of the Collier County 11 D -1 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Dear Mr. Eubanks: According to this agency's responsibilities under Section 163, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 9J- 5, Florida Administrative Code, we reviewed the above document to determine if data regarding historic resources were given sufficient consideration in the request to amend the Collier County Comprehensive Plan. We reviewed both proposed text and land use amendments regarding the DRI related amendment for Hacienda Lakes to consider the potential effects of these actions on historic resources. There is a statement regarding no impacts on archaeological resources because none are located within the Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 and that significant identified sites must be preserved and cannot be mitigated. We concur with this information. Thus, our cursory review suggests that the proposed changes should have no adverse effects on historic resources. If you have any questions regarding our comments, please feel free to contact Susan M. Harp of the Division's Compliance Review staff at 850.245.6333. Sincerely, Laura A. Kammerer, Historic Preservationist Supervisor Compliance Review Section Bureau of Historic Preservation PC: Ms. Brenda Winningham 500 S. Bronough Street . Tallahassee, FL 32399 -0250 . http: / /www.flheritage.com O Director's Office O Archaeological Research ✓ Historic Preservation 850.245.6300 • FAX: 245.6436 850245.6444 • FAX: 245.6452 850.245.6333 • FAX: 245.6437 "Suber, Tracy" <Tracy.Suber @fkioe.org> 4 , 03/2812011 09:43 AM Hi Scott — To <Scott.Rogers @dca.state.fl.us> cc < Brenda .Winningham @dca.state.fl.us >, <tayloram @collier. k12.fl.us> bcc Subject Collier 11 -D1 I'm still awaiting a call back from the Collier County School District attorney on this one. However, since comments were'due to you on Friday, I'm writing to let you know I did not identify any state educational facilities related concerns with the proposed amendment. Based on the school impact analysis provided with the package, it appears mitigation is required to address estimated impacts at the elementary school level. However, the amendment package is focused on non - school facility related impacts (transferring density to the site from existing density already allowed by the FLUM through the county's transfer of development rights program and adding additional area to the activity center, etc.), so this does not appear to be the appropriate time to raise school facility concerns. Because mitigation will be required to provided school capacity needed to maintain the adopted level of service standards, I would like to request the opportunity to review the proposed development order when the county provides it to DCA for review. I've written to Dan Trescott to ask him to include me in the review agencies, but thought I'd let you know, too, so you can alert me when you receive it Please let me know if you have any questions Thanks, Tracy Tracy D.Suber Growth Management and Facilities Policy Liaison Office of Educational Facilities Florida Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 1014 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -0400 850 -245 -9312 traa.suber @fldoe.ore htta• / /www.fldoe.org/edfaciU Florida Department of Transportation RICK SCOTT 1 0041 Daniels Parkway OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR Fort Myers, FL 33913 SECRETARY March 25, 2011 MT. Ray Eubanks Regional Planning Administrator Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399 -2100 RE: Collier County 11D-1- Proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment (CP- 2006 -11) for the Hacienda Lakes Development of Regional Impact - FDOT Comments and Recommendations Dear Mr. Eubanks: The Florida Department of Transportation, District 1, has reviewed the Collier County I ID -1, Proposed Growth Management Plan (GMP) Amendment CP- 2006 -11 for the Hacienda Lakes Development of Regional Impact (DRI) in accordance with the requirements of Florida Statutes (F.S.) Section 163 and Chapter 9J -11 of the Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). The transmittal approved by the county commissioners on February 8, 2011 seeks to amend the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and Map Series of the Growth Management Plan and Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) to: 1. Reconfigure the boundary and increase the size of the southeast quadrant of Mixed Used Activity Center No. 7 by 9.16 acres in order to develop a greater intensity of commercial uses. Based upon our discussions with Collier County staff, the department has determined that: • Existing The maximum allowable development that could occur on the subject 9.16 acre parcel under the existing Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict (URF) FLU designation is either approximately 40 residential dwelling units or 90,000 square feet of medical office uses. • Proposed The maximum allowable development that could occur on the 9.16 acre parcel under the proposed Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 FLU designation is approximately 17 residential dwelling units and 90,000 square feet of commercial uses. It should be noted that the impacts of this proposed amendment on the state highway system (SHS) is being evaluated as part of the Hacienda Lakes DRI sufficiency review process. 2. Increase the maximum allowable density that might be achieved within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict (URF) portion of a project located in more than one Future Land Use designation through an enhanced utilization of eligible Transfer Development Rights (TDRs). Calculations of the maximum residential development potential under the existing and proposed conditions are included on pages 5 and 6 of the Exhibit C — Narrative Statement (included as part of the Collier IID -1 GW Application). • Existine As shown in Exhibit C, the Hacienda Lakes DRI could, without the adoption this GMT amendment, currently develop 1,662 dwelling units using all eligible TDRs and other available density. Mr. Ray Eubanks Collier County 11D -1 - FDOT Comments and Recommendations March 25, 2011 Page 2 of 2 • Proposed With the adoption of this amendment, the change in land use would allow up to 1,850 dwelling units* (188 additional units) using newly transferable TDRs from the 1,016 acres lying within one mile of the urban portion of the project. * It should be noted that the Hacienda Lakes DRI residential component, as currently proposed, would be limited to 1,760 dwelling units. 3. Provide a definitive access provision for a business park located in the URF portion of the project. The adoption of this provision does not impact the SHS in the vicinity of the development. 4. Allow for a relocation of native vegetation preservation from the URF portion of the project to the Rural Fringe Mixed Used District (RFMUD). The adoption of this provision does not impact the SHS in the vicinity of the development. Based upon the findings above, the department offers the following comments and recommendations for your consideration. FDOT Comment # 1• While the proposed amendments to the GMP could result in an increase of overall densities and intensities, the amendment does not include policy limiting the allowable amount of development to that specified in the DRI. Table 1 of the Hacienda Lakes Traffic Analysis (revised on July 2, 2010) establishes that the DRI includes 1,760 residential dwelling units, 537,500 square feet of non - residential (retail, office and business park), a 919 student elementary school, and a 135 room hotel. Since the impacts of the GMT amendment are based solely upon the analysis of the DRI, the department recommends that policy be included in the GMP that limits the development to a level based upon the facility analysis that was conducted for the DRI. FDOT Comment # 2: The applicant for the Hacienda Lakes DRI is currently in the process of responding to local agency sufficiency review comments. Since the GMP amendment is based solely upon the analysis of the DRI, the department requests that GMT approval be contingent upon the applicant establishing an approved mitigation plan for all affected state roadway facilities. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at (239) 461 -4300 or lawrence.massey @dot.state.fl.us. LLM1gmb1Ilm Sincerely, Lawrence Massey District 1 Growth Management Coordinator www.dot.state.fl.us s , s I - � L.l" l�J - :�riry ➢ney Ciaarin#tI�_ �nilisse_ �larls�c_ 3ic.n:l�v_ Ls+a a�ar� Sarfacn #a �nur>;ti�c ;Ir 1928 Victoria Ave, Fort Myers, Florida 33901 -3414 (239) 338 -2550 FAX (239) 338 -2560 wv wjwfrpc.org t O March 25, 2011 Mq R 3 0 2011 Mr. D. Ray Eubanks Community Program Administrator Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -2100 Re: Collier County / DCA 11D -1 Dear Mr. Eubanks: C)O&I if OP Staff of the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council reviewed the proposed amendments (DCA 11D -1) to the Collier County Comprehensive Plan. The review was performed .according to the requirements of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act.. The Council will review the proposed amendment at its April 21, 2011 meeting. Council staff has recommended that Council find the requested amendments to be regionally significant and to be conditionally consistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan. A copy of the official staff report explaining the Council staffs recommendation is attached. If Council action differs from the staff recommendation, we will notify you. Sincerely, Florida Regional Planning Council Director KH/DEC Attachment Cc: Nick Casalanguida, Deputy Administrator, Growth Management Division — Planning and Regulation, Collier County LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS COLLIER COUNTY The Council staff has reviewed proposed amendments to the Collier County Comprehensive Plan (DCA 011D -1). These amendments were developed under the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act. A synopsis of the requirements of the Act and Council responsibilities is provided as Attachment I. Comments are provided in Attachment H. Site location maps can be reviewed in Attachment III. , Staff review of the proposed amendments was based on whether they were likely to be of regional concern. This was determined through assessment of the following factors: 1. Location - -in or near a regional resource or regional activity center, such that it impacts the regional resource or facility; on or within one mile of a county boundary; generally applied to sites of five acres or more; size alone is not. necessarily a determinant of regional significance; 2. Magnitude - -equal to or greater than the threshold for a Development of Regional Impact of the same type (a DRI- related amendment is considered regionally significant); and 3. Character - -of a unique type or use, a use of regional significance, or a change in the local comprehensive plan that could be applied throughout the local jurisdiction: updates, editorial revisions, etc. are not regionally significant. A summary of the results of the review follows: Proposed Factors of Regional Significance Amendment Location Magnitude Character Consistent DCA 11D -1 yes yes yes (1) regionally (CP- 2006 -11) significant; and (2) conditionally consistent with SRPP RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve staff comments. Authorize staff to forward comments to the Department of Community Affairs and Collier County. 04/11 Attachment I LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION ACT Local Government Comprehensive Plans The Act requires each municipal and county government to prepare a comprehensive plan that must include at least the following nine elements: 1. Future Land Use Element; 2. Traffic Circulation Element; A local government with all or part of its jurisdiction within the urbanized area of a Metropolitan Planning Organization shall prepare and adopt a transportation element to replace the traffic circulation; mass transit; and ports, aviation, and related facilities elements. [9J- 5.019(1), FAC] 3. General Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, Drainage, and Potable Water and Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Element; 4. Conservation Element; 5. Recreation and Open Space Element; 6. Housing Element; 7. Coastal Management Element for coastal jurisdictions; 8. Intereov rnrnental Coordination Element; and 9. Capital Improvements Element. The local government may add optional elements . (e. g., community design, redevelopment, safety, historical and scenic preservation, and economic). All local governments in Southwest Florida have adopted revised plans: Charlotte County, Punta Gorda Collier County, Everglades City, Marco Island, Naples Glades County, Moore Haven Hendry County, Clewiston, LaBelle Lee County, Bonita Springs, Cape Coral, Fort Myers, Fort Myers Beach, Sanibel Sarasota County, Longboat Key, North Port, Sarasota, Venice Page 1 m Attachment II SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REVIEW 1. Local Government Name: Collier County 2. Amendment Number: DCA 1D -1 3. Did the RPC prepare the Plan Amendment: (YES) (NO) No 4. Date DCA Notified RPC that Amendment Package was Compleee, if Applicable: February 24, 2011 5. Date Amendment Review must be Completed and Transmitted to DCA: March 25, 2011 6. Date the Review was Transmitted to DCA: March 25, 2011 7. Description of the Amendment: The proposed amendments seek to amend the County' Growth Management Plan by changing the Plan's Future Land Use Element (FLUE), Future Land Use Map (FLUM), and Conservation and Coastal Management Element. Specifically, the proposed amendments, if approved, will allow the following actions: a. Reconfigure the boundary and increase the size of the southeast quadrant of the Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 (Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard) The amendment expands the size of the southeast quadrant of the 1 Action 3: Include in planning efforts the recognition of lands with natural capacity, accessibility, previous preparation for urban purposes, and adequate public facilities. Livable Communities Goal 2: Southwest Florida will develop (or redevelop) communities that are livable and offer residents a wide range of housing and employment opportunities. Strategy: Develop livable, integrated communities that offer residents a high quality of life Action 1: Encourage programs that promote infill development in urban areas to maximize the efficient use of existing infrastructure. Action 2: Work with local governments to promote structures and developments that combine commercial and residential uses as a means of providing housing that is affordable and near employment opportunities. Livable Communities Goal 4: Livable communities designed to improve quality of life and to provide for the sustainability of our natural resources. Strategy: Promote through the Council's review roles community design and development principles that protect the Region's natural resources and provide for an improved quality of life. Action 8: Working with all levels of government within Southwest Florida actively plan for lands that have been acquired for natural resource purposes to be maintained and managed to preserve their environmental integrity. Action 9: Insure that opportunities for governmental partnerships and public /private partnerships in preserving wildlife habitats are maximized. Regional Cooperation Goal 5: Effective resource management is maintained across the borders of sovereign public agencies. Strategy: All plans concerning the same resource shall have as objectives the same effective results. Action 7: The SWFRPC will continue to coordinate with the entities of the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force Working Group in their restoration efforts. g. The effects of the Proposed Amendment on Regional Resources or Facilities Identified in the Strategic Regional Policy Plan: The proposed development that would result if this requested amendments are approved is found by the Council staff to be regionally significant because the southeast quadrant of the subject site is located in the Hacienda Lakes DRI and is therefore regionally significant by definition and therefore will have significant impact on the Picayune Strand National Forest located east of the proposed development and Collier Boulevard (CR 951) which have been j. Impacts to significant regional resources and facilities identified in the Strategic Regional Policy Plan, including, but not limited to, impacts on groundwater recharge and the availability of water supply: If approved, this amendment will result in an increase in development on the Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 area and thereby result in more impervious surfaces in the planning area. This action will reduce the groundwater recharge on the subject site and will increase the potable water consumption in the area, but because a portion of the development site is located within the Hacienda Lakes DRI the impacts from the proposed changes will be mitigated. Council staff finds that the requested amendments to Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 will have impacts on regional resources, but those impacts will be mitigated through the DRI review process and the issuance of a DRI Development Order. k. Affordable housing issues and designation of adequate sites for affordable housing: The proposed amendment will not have impacts on affordable housing in the County. The development that would result from the proposed amendment would be located in a part of the County where sufficient affordable housing may not be available due to the current economic situation of southwest Florida. However, because the Hacienda Lakes DRI % -,iIl provide for the mtttga ton of s issue, Council s m s ordnbi will be addressed at the time of the approval of the Hacienda Lakes Development Order. 1. Protection of natural resources of regionally significance identified in the Strategic Regional Policy Plan including, but limited to, protection of spring and groundwater resources, and recharge potential: The development that would result from these amendments will have impacts to regionally significant resources as previously identified in this assessment. However, due to limited magnitude of the changes proposed that specifically relate to Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7, the recharge potential to the areas groundwater resources is found by Council staff not to be significant. There are no springs requiring protection on or near the subject site. m. Compatibility with regional transportation corridors and facilities including, but not limited to, roadways, seaports, airports, public transportation systems, high speed rail facilities, and intermodal facilities: The commercial and residential development and associated access request on The Lord's Way roadway will not result in significant new impacts regional roadways. The transportation impacts from the proposed development due to these amendments will be mitigated through the Hacienda Lakes DRI. There are no seaports in southwest Florida. The proposed amendments will have no significant impacts to the region's airports, public transportation systems, or future high speed rail or intermodal facilities. Attachment III Maps Collier County DCA 11D -1 Proposed Comprehensive Plan Ameadments Site Locations Hacienda Lakes v� Study Area 2.5 Miles from Intersection 0 0.25 0.5 Miles Hacienda Lakes �� T��,�� Traffic Analysis Zones /1 � ,;,., ,/1 , Z t f 1 L 1 •Mamie; •4ia�Pv�nm 0 r i7 I scut r . sa w J m < d ~ w I > L D 2 a VIwLL G"F N� m Z E z w Z a 1 ? = C z ?LLi ool�� 70G t`1 C� iw� m5m L, eW> cwz$Dawz:) 1 w T D= D Z U ~ z - m c, ZDmt] DVfV I O�WF 8,i $ 2 0 = zo5� I NO ws V wFU yZjNQW p ~ 'a`i SOS w Z3 xga 4 Q=¢a & O % OD Q% g �. fLl N� - f I I Iq U U ¢ U U �y < Q cn J J M -J, ,i m D � w I- ccN a a ` 2N Lam' zQ zU Q Ul U V U U Q Q W Q to -F1 to to 1D to N Y d V W �J lD n N v Z !n N ^ lD Ln G Q ICi (7i d' Q W J J rZ J Q C Q w Vv+ }i v L O � V W `� w Z bzN W w m0000 ¢ z ¢ zw z3 zy w LLI U Z z a H `� U W Lil Qceoo J 0 3 t > L a > U > I > r > . O f- w ;- z t= _ p = J Ozzcn tr, 2 a0 ¢z0 CLD QC as 2 NN 11A L � L If t m 0 V Vi w r� a Q C Z Iw- - - -- oi�El N !� ! �I Y 5 '> ! x�g I ez �w I r' �I P5 f _ RESOLUTION NO. 11- 32 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 THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT TO ADD ACREAGE TO THE URBAN MIXED USE ACTIVITY CENTER #7; TO ALLOW ACCESS TO A . BUSINESS PARK SUBDISTRICT THROUGH LORD'S WAY; TO INCREASE DENSITY IN THE URBAN RESIDENTIAL FRINGE SUBDISTRICT AND TO ALLOW FOR THE TRANSFER OF NATIVE VEGETATIVE RETENTION FROM THE URBAN AREA TO THE SENDING AREA AND INCREASE THE 60% CAP ON NATIVE VEGETATION IN THE TOTAL PROJECT AREA DESIGNATED AS SENDING AREAS AND FURTHERMORE RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS. WHEREAS, Collier County, pursuant to Section 163.3161, et. sea., Florida Statutes, the Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, was required to prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners adopted the Collier County Growth Management Plan on January 10, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act of 1985 provides authority for local governments to amend their respective comprehensive plans and outlines certain procedures to amend adopted comprehensive plans pursuant to Sections 163.3184 and 163.3187, Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS, Collier County has prepared plan amendments to the following elements of its Growth Management Plan: Future Land Use Element, including the Future Land Use Map and Map Series, and Conservation and Coastal Management Element; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) on January 20, 2011 considered the proposed amendment to the Growth Management Plan pursuant to the authority granted to it by Section 163.3174, Florida Statutes, and 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 County, its comments along with any objections and /or recommendations for modification, within said ninety (90) days pursuant to Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes; and CP- 2006 -11 GMP Transmittal Resolution per 10 -CMP -00788 1 of 2 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 Growth Management Plan amendment, must review and determine if the Plan amendment is in compliance with the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Act of 1985, the State Comprehensive Plan, the appropriate Regional Policy Plan and Rule 9J -5, Florida Administrative Code, pursuant to Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves the proposed Growth Management Plan amendment, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference herein, for the purpose of transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs thereby initiating the required State evaluation of the Growth Management Plan amendment, prior to final adoption and State determination of compliance with the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act of 1985 and Rule 9J -5, Florida Administrative Code, Minimum Criteria for Review of Local Government Comprehensive Plans and Determination of Compliance. THIS RESOLUTION ADOPTED after motion, second and majority vote this 8th day of February, 2011. ATTEST: DWIGHT l_,.RRQCK, CLERK Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: f N�x t CJ0 H idi Ashton -Cicko Assistant County Attorney Section Chief, Land Use/Transportation BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: FRED W. COYLE, Chairman sty« u� r L4 4410A ;Ounty of COI: kR I H ERESY CERTIFY THAT this b a R'1N of .orrect cony Of a g9C1#Ifm an so in 9oard Minutes and ft00t al 9t,0*0 K '�/�'�ESSa�mVhsn �t!! �s _ +1` CP- 2006 -11 GMP Transmittal Resolution per 10 -CMP -00788 2 of 2 Exhibit A PART ONE of SIX: Future Land Use Element I. 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 base density of 1.5 units per gross acre, plus any density bonus that may be achieved via CCME Policy 6. .5 (6) b.1., of and either "a" or "b" below: a. Up to 2-.5 1_0 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 Lands, except in the case of 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 an additional maximum density of up to 1.3 units per gross acre via the transfer of up to 1.3 dwelling units (transferable development rights) per acre from lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary and designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands: or, in 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 pafagfaph -W below. subjeGt to the following Genditions- Within the Urban Residential Fringe, rezone requests are not subject to the density rating system, except as specifically provided below for the Affordable - workforce Housing Density Bonus. All rezones are encouraged to be in the form of a planned unit development. Proposed development in the Subdistrict shall be fully responsible for all necessary water management improvements, including the routing of all on -site and appropriate off -site water through the project's water management system, and a fair share cost of necessary improvements to the CR 951 canal /out -fall system made necessary by new development in the Subdistrict. -1- Words underlined are added, words stFUGk through are deleted. Row of asterisks ( ** * ** * * ** * ** ** ) denotes breaks in text. CP- 2006 -11 G. Properties eligible for the Affordable - workforce Housing Density Bonus (home ownership only) will be specifically identified herein. The actual number of bonus units per gross acre shall be reviewed and approved in accordance with the conditions and procedures set forth in Section 2.06.00 of the Land Development Code, except that, Section 2.06.03 shall not apply, and the number of dwelling units required to be sold to buyers earning 80% or less of Collier County's median income, as calculated annually by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), shall be at least thirty percent (30 %). The following properties are eligible for an Affordable- workforce Housing Density Bonus (home ownership only) of up to 6.0 additional dwelling units per acre. 1. Property located on the East side of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), approximately... PART TWO of SIX: URBAN DESIGNATION [Insert new language — FLUE Pages 51 — 531 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 seweF wastewater treatment facilities (from the urban designated portion of the project) to serve the entire project, -2- Words underlined are added, words stF►sf# are deleted. Row of asterisks ( ** * ** * * ** * ** ** ) denotes breaks in text. CP- 2006 -11 unless alternative interim sewer -and 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: M 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 proiect 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 subsection (2) 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. In no instance shall less than 10 percent of the required amount of native vegetation be retained in 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. FGF thOSe lands within the pFejerst designated as Sending, the 0 ef the native vegetation, not to ex6eed 0 diSGhaFged in these aFeas is pFe tFeaterl For those lands within the proiect designated as Sendinq. the native veaetation preservation requirement shall be 90% of the native vegetation not to exceed 60% of the total proiect area designated as Sending unless the provisions found in subsection (1) above are met. 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. -3- Words underlined are added, words are deleted. Row of asterisks ( " ` ** " *` ... • *) denotes breaks in text. CP- 2006 -11 (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: 2. Density Bonuses [Insert new language — FLUE Page 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 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 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 1.3 units per gross acre. PART FOUR of SIX: I URBAN DESIGNATION C. Urban Commercial Subdistrict 1. 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 -4- Words underlined are added, words struek-through are deleted. Row of asterisks ( ** *** * *** * ** ** ) denotes breaks in text. CP- 2006 -11 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 49.2 acres, for a total of 479 188.2 acres maximum in the entire Activity Center; FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES [amend in order] Activity Center No. 7 — Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard Mixed Use Activity Center • amend inset map depicting new MUAC boundary, instead of revision to the Future Land Use Element Countywide FLUM. 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: * ** * ** * * ** * ** * * * ** * ** * * ** * ** ** * 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, except that a Business Park in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East may have access to an arterial road via The Lords Way. -5- Words underlined are added, words stfaskedg# are deleted. Row of asterisks ( ** * ** * * ** * ** ** ) denotes breaks in text. CP- 2006 -11 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. 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 proiect may be shifted by providing native vegetation preservation in the Sending Lands portion of the project exceeding the 60% maximum preservation requirement found in Density Blending provisions of the FLUE for projects that: Words underlined are added, words stFuGk trough are deleted. Row of asterisks ( ** *** * * ** * ** ** ) denotes breaks in text. 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. 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 proiect may be shifted by providing native vegetation preservation in the Sending Lands portion of the project exceeding the 60% maximum preservation requirement found in Density Blending provisions of the FLUE for projects that: Words underlined are added, words stFuGk trough are deleted. Row of asterisks ( ** *** * * ** * ** ** ) denotes breaks in text. CP- 2006 -11 a) Are under unified control, b) Straddle the Urban Residential Frinoe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands designations, and, (c) Meet the maximum required 60 percent preservation requirement for the Sending Lands portion of the proiect. 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 proiect. In no instance shall less than 10 percent of the required amount of native vegetation be retained in 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. GACDES Planning ServiceslComprehensivelCOMP PLANNING GMP DATA1Comp Plan Amendments12006 Cycle PetitionMCP- 2006 -11 FLUE -CCME Hacienda Lakes of NapleMExhibitA's\CP -06 -11 BCC Transmittal Exhibit A.docx -7- Words underlined are added, words StFUGk thFaugh. are deleted. Row of asterisks ( ** * ** * *** * ** ** ) denotes breaks in text. a 0 CL O O H a inl W; °r° F' F ' 8 A O 4 as CL CL 1 < H k b m Qa w 6 a �8 a§ i i a ------------- eg a � i i ss 1 i i i i a po ro U4 1 as pu a � a $I� 3� a 1 0 I a� I � 7 CL. 5 4 d �T M 0 3 � DY ! b CT Y # E °o a w o Y lW7'' dde ( /7 Z W J U vi 5 9 z Z � 68 n Q p ® � Q a po ro U4 1 as pu a � a $I� 3� a 1 0 I a� I � 7 CL. 5 4 C CL I P L i' ap F E d 3 DY a6s 6 Y a � 9 C CL I P L i' ap F E TRANSMITTAL BCC EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve Growth Management Plan Amendment Petition CP- 2006 -11, David Torres, for Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for review and objections, recommendations and comments (ORC) response. (Transmittal Hearing) OBJECTIVE: To review the proposed amendment to the Collier County Growth Management Plan and consider approving said proposal for Transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. CONSIDERATIONS: • Chapter 163, F.S., provides for an amendment process for a local government's adopted Growth Management Plan. • Petition CP- 2006 -11 relates to the proposed [eventual and subsequent companion] Hacienda Lakes Development of Regional Impact (DRI) and Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) requests [DRI- 2006 -AR -10147 and PUDZ- 2006 -AR- 10146] and is, under Rule 9J- 11.006(1)(a)7a, FA. C., exempt from the twice per calendar year Plan amendment limitation. • The CCPC, sitting as the "local planning agency" under Chapter 163.3174, F.S., held their Transmittal hearing for this petition on January 20, 2011. • This Transmittal hearing for the last petition filed in 2006 involves amendments to the following Elements of the Plan: • Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and Future Land Use Map Series; and, • Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) Note: Because support materials for this petition are voluminous, and certain exhibits are oversized, the Agenda Central system is not used The entire Executive Summary package, including all support materials, is included in the binders provided to the BCC and is available for review in the Comprehensive Planning Section office, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples. 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: • Increase the size and reconfigure the boundary of the Southeast Quadrant of Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 (Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard) — This part of CP- 2006 -11 expands the size of the Southeast Quadrant of Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 by 9.16 acres in order to develop a greater intensity of commercial uses; • 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) — This two -part portion of CP- 2006 -11 lifts the FLUE's 1.0 unit - per -acre maximum transferred TDR density to 1.3 units per acre and the 2.5 unit - per -acre maximum achievable density to 2.8 units per acre to use all qualifying TDRs within the Hacienda Lakes project; -I - • Provide a definitive access provision for a Business Park located in the URF portion of a project — This part of CP- 2006 -11 allows The Lord's Way to serve as access to a Business Park as well as to [a] predominantly residential area[s] within the Hacienda Lakes 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 — This two - part portion 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. Needs Analysis Included in the CCPC Staff Report and specifically identified in this Executive Summary is an informational summary prepared by Comprehensive Planning staff of the Florida Senate Interim Report 2010 -107, October 2009 titled "Population Need as a Criterion for Changes to a Local Government's Future Land Use Map." The Report identifies the necessity of preparing a needs analysis for any GMP amendment proposing to increase density or use intensity; indicates that such an analysis must be based upon the supply /demand ratio for the proposed use category (residential, commercial or industrial) — a numerical analysis; and, notes that even if the numerical analysis fails to demonstrate need, other factors may be considered. CP- 2006 -11 demonstrates an over - supply, or over - allocation, of developed commercial space and developable commercial land by a factor of six (6). The supply of commercially available acreage exceeds demand by more than six times, even at buildout. Faced with this inability to demonstrate need, the application team presented other factors, including a short history of MUAC No. 7 and the opportunities rising from development of the Collier Regional Medical Center. FISCAL IMPACT: There are no fiscal impacts to Collier County because of this proposal. This proposed amendment is not being considered for adoption at this hearing, and final action is not being taken at this time. If approved for Transmittal, this proposal will subsequently be considered for adoption at hearings to be held later in 2011. The costs incurred to process, review and advertise CP- 2006 -11 for Transmittal are borne by the petitioner via the application fee. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This Executive Summary has been reviewed by the Office of the County Attorney. The County Attorney provided observations and comments on the legal aspects of CP- 2006 -11 planning considerations. These observations and comments were used to update the Staff Report in preparation for January 20 consideration before the CCPC. Other observations and comments on legal aspects of CP- 2006 -11 were provided to the CCPC during their consideration and are reflected in the versions of Resolution Exhibit A provided to the Board. The proposed Growth Management Plan amendment is authorized for consideration by local government, and subject to the procedures established, in Chapter 163, Part Il, Florida Statutes, The Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, and by local WM Resolution No. 97 -431, as amended. A majority vote of the Board is necessary for Transmittal to DCA. [HFAC] GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: 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 parts of the CP- 2006 -11 proposal 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 was evaluated for allowing additional TDRs to be used for residential development. Other parts of the proposal introduce an additional amount of acreage specifically for commercial and office development, uses and activities by increasing the size of the 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 evaluation addressed the appropriateness of expanding the site for additional commercial and office development. Certain parts of the proposal 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 was evaluated. Still other parts of the proposal introduce new provisions allowing another means of vehicular access to a Business Park proposed at a certain location inside the project. The evaluation addressed the appropriateness of allowing The Lord's Way for both residential and nonresidential traffic. Approval of these proposed amendments by the Board of County Commissioners for Transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs will commence the Department's sixty -day (60) review process and ultimately return this amendment to the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners for final Adoption hearings to be held later in 2011. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: The environmental report submitted by Passarella and Associates with [the eventual and subsequent] 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. The applicant is proposing to be able to shift the native vegetation retention requirement from the portion of a project designated Urban to the portion of a project designated NRPA Sending lands, if the -3- 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 NR-PA Sending lands as proposed by the applicant. HISTORICAL /ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT: 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. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION: The Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) heard the proposed amendment at their hearing of December 1, 2010. EAC considerations were limited to the parts of CP- 2006 -11 with environmental significance. The four environmental aspects of the Hacienda Lakes of Naples proposal may be simplified into just two paired changes — one pair of proposals 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 proposals 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 "J. 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 staff's 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 the 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 Night Information Meeting (NIM) attendees. The EAC recommended (vote: 3/0) to approve CP- 2006 -11 for transmittal, without staff's recommendations but with one EAC stipulation, to the DCA. The recommended stipulation requires that all Transferable Development Rights be severed from all Sending Lands to be preserved — whether -4- 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 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. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION FROM CCPC STAFF REPORT: Staff Recommendation: In consideration of the reviews and analyses provided within the Staff Report to the CCPC, staff recommended that the CCPC forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to Transmit/Not Transmit to the Florida Department of Community Affairs corresponding with the individual parts of the proposal as shown in the table following the narrative portion of this Summary. Staff recommended that consideration for Transmittal include an understanding that the following requirements /conditions, or something similar, be placed in the eventual and subsequent companion PUD rezone (to be heard concurrently at the Adoption hearings): • Prior to the issuance of the first residential Development Order in the Hacienda Lakes MPUD, the Base TDR Credits and Early Entry TDR Bonus Credits shall be severed and redeemed from all Sending Lands to be preserved within one mile of the Urban Residential Fringe and the filing of executed Limitation of Development Rights Agreement(s) shall occur for these same lands. • A permanent conservation mechanism, including Limitation of Development Rights Agreement(s), [shall] 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 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 CCPC Staff Report ATTACHMENT HL -2. Note: Staff also prepared text revisions to the petitioner's proposed text to provide clarity, proper format, correct grammar, etc. MIE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPCI RECOMMENDATION: The Collier County Planning Commission held their required Transmittal public hearing on January 20, 2011. The CCPC recommended that the BCC approve each of the six parts proposed in petition CP- 2006 -11 for Transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (vote: 9/0), subject to staff alternative text (reflected in the Resolution Exhibit A). The CCPC also directed the following requirements /stipulations, shall be met before a recommendation is proffered or action is taken on the Adoption of CP- 2006 -11: 1. Prior to, or at the time of Adoption hearing before the CCPC, documentation shall be presented to show and confirm accessibility to those parcels located within project boundaries that may be owned by other parties and otherwise landlocked. 2. Prior to, or at the time of Adoption hearing before the CCPC, cross - sections and other design information for The Lord's Way shall be presented to show and confirm preliminary plans for the types of improvements needed to ensure accessibility to the proposed location for the Business Park by business, semi - industrial and industrial vehicles and traffic. 3. Prior to, or at the time of Adoption hearing before the CCPC, documentation shall be presented to show and confirm accessibility, by easement or other access and development rights, to those parcels comprising the privately owned rights -of -way located within project boundaries, and west of the project boundaries that may be owned by other parties. The CCPC further directed the following requirements /conditions, or something similar, shall be placed in the eventual and subsequent companion PUD rezone and/or in the eventual and subsequent companion DRI, whichever is deemed more appropriate: 1. Prior to the issuance of the first residential Development Order in the Hacienda Lakes MPUD, the Base TDR Credits and Early Entry TDR Bonus Credits shall be severed and redeemed from all Sending Lands to be preserved within one mile of the Urban Residential Fringe and the filing of executed Limitation of Development Rights Agreement(s) shall occur for these same lands. 2. A permanent conservation mechanism, including Limitation of Development Rights Agreement(s), [shall] 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 project. 3. The land uses that are expressly allowed by Ordinance No. 84 -26 for the Swamp Buggy Days "PUD for Recreation and Sports Park" shall be superseded and otherwise incorporated into the Hacienda Lakes PUD and use of the shooting range or "target range" currently on -site shall be discontinued and replaced by an indoor facility for rifles, pistols, shotguns, and any other firearms. The outdoor facility shall cease use or operation no later than the time when any development or construction activity begins to occur within range or trajectory of such target range. The indoor facility shall begin use and operation prior to occupancy permits being issued for habitable buildings located within range or trajectory of said target range. Although all six (6) of the consideration or subsequent proposed amendment, they position. above stipulations are appropriate to include during CCPC Adoption development order approval, and not within the GMP as part of this •e helpful in making the petitioner aware of the County's concerns and Speakers: There was one speaker, who spoke in favor of the petition. The speaker represented The Conservancy of Southwest Florida and endorsed the environmental and preservation aspects proposed in CP- 2006 -11. Additional native vegetation will be preserved and maintained in the project's RFMUD Sending Lands, and every eligible Development Right will be utilized, in furtherance of the County's TDR program. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff is requesting that the BCC provide a motion to Transmit to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) one of the three discussed alternates for CP- 2006 -11. The staff recommendation from the CCPC Staff Report, which supports all requested amendments except the proposed expansion of the Mixed Use Activity Center; 2. The Exhibit A, reflecting the CCPC recommendation, approved by the CCPC and confirmed at their advertised public hearing. The version of Exhibit A is labeled in each page's footer, in part as, proposed by CCPC; or, 3. The Exhibit A that reflects the CCPC recommendation, with additional staff - proposed revisions to provide "housekeeping" measures for the purposes of clarity and proper formatting. This staff alternative version is labeled in each page's footer in part as, revised further post -CCPC. PREPARED BY: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Section Growth Management Division — Planning and Regulation Attachments within Agenda Central: 1) Executive Summary 2) Transmittal Resolution 3) Exhibit `A' Text per CCPC consent 1/20/2011 4) Exhibit `A' Text post consent — further staff recommendation 5) Exhibit `A' Map [Mixed Use Activity Center (MUAC)] - 7- Attachment: Table showing Provosals, Remarks and Staff Recommendations PROVISION EXISTING PROPOSED REMARKS RECOMMENDATION Just 507.8 ac Maximum 2.5 DU /acre 2.8 DU /acre would be To Transmit Residential - eligible to - eligible to receive developed with Modification Density (utilizing receive in URF in URF with residentially TDRs) 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 — ac. of 289.7 NV with Modification Preservation portion Undeveloped Rural • 60% of FLUE - Required portion - Rural Preservation Area Preservation Area Preserve is 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 would be 0.78 with Modification into URF from transfer into URF DUs /acre (gross) Sending Lands from Sending within 1 mile of Lands URF boundary within 1 mile of URF boundary, with "lift" Supply of 887,962 Acreage Allowed 27.5 acres 36.6 acres sq. ft. / Demand NOT for Southeast for 143,645 sq. ft. TO Quadrant of = Market factor of TRANSMIT MUAC 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 to both Collier Selected Arterial Roadway such access by such access with Boulevard and the Alternative FLUE provisions new 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. GACDES Planning Services\GOmprehenswelGUMN NLANNIN(i UMV UAIAIGOmp rian Amenamencsizwo Uyue reaaanswr -cwo -1 rwcuurvi� naucnua �anca v. NapleslCP -06-11 Hacienda Lakes EX SUM Transmittal_rev2.docx i TRANSMITTAL CCPC STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 9A STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION DATE: JANUARY 06, 2011 UPDATED FOR JANUARY 20, 2011 CONSIDERATION 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: GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: 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 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 9A 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 Increase the 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 the 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 proposed to be 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 9A PROVISION EXISTING PROPOSED Direct Access for Business Park onto Arterial Roadway The Lord's Way does not provide such access by FLUE rovisions The Lord's Way would provide such access with new provision 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 ffe1e Agenda Item 9A 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 — Undeveloped Rural FLUE - Required Preservation Area portion - Preservation Area with within 1 mile of URF boundary "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/TDRs per acre - eligible to transfer into URF from - eligible to transfer into URF from Sending Lands Sending Lands within 1 mile of URF boundary within 1 mile of URF boundary, with "lift" -4- Agenda Item 9A 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. • 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 HL-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: Subiect 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 Ordinance No. 84 -26 for the Swamp Buggy Days "PUD for Recreation and Sports Park" 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. -5- Agenda Item 9A 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. 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; • 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: M Agenda Item 9A 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. 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 -7- Agenda Item 9A 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). 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 -8- Agenda Item 9A 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. 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. The compatibility of a Business Park with its surrounding land uses is an issue addressed in consideration of the companion Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) request. 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 has 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: -9- Agenda Item 9A 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 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 95.3 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 of Naples 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: -10- Agenda Item 9A 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.] 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 DR[/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 '/< 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]. IFIR Agenda Item 9A 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 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 S and 10 year planning time horizons -12- Agenda Item 9A 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 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. -13- Agenda Item 9A 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 = 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 policy 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 -14- Agenda Item 9A 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 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 "[Wle 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 staffs 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 -15- Agenda Item 9A • 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) 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 G7GM analysis for this petition utilised.• (1) the 2007 Commercial Inventory prepared by the Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department; (2) present GMP designations that allow commercial .Zoning; (3) population projections prepared by the applicant'r consultant. There is a minor discrepancy between the G7GM 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 IFLOZ Agenda Item 9A 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. 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 -17- Agenda Item 9A 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 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. -18- Agenda Item 9A 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 (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. -?9- Agenda Item 9A 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 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. -20- Agenda Item 9A 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, A/CP, Principal Planner] 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 Rural portion - • 36.6 MUAC residential Preservation Area with • 38.8 in residential/ "shift" 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 — Undeveloped . 60% of Rural Preserve FLUE Area Rural portion - is 847.2 ac. of 1,412 NV Preservation Area with "shift" -21- Agenda Item 9A 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 Acreage Allowed for - eligible to transfer into - eligible to transfer into 0.78 DUs /acre (gross) Southeast Quadrant of URF from Sending Lands URF from Sending Lands ft. = Market factor of 6.18 MUAC No. 7 within 1 mile of URF within 1 mile of URF (Supply = 618 % of boundary boundar , with "lift" Demand) 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 in order to develop a greater intensity of commercial uses. 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 Supply of 887,962 sq. ft. / Acreage Allowed for 27.5 acres 36.6 acres Demand for 143,645 sq. Southeast Quadrant of ft. = Market factor of 6.18 MUAC No. 7 (Supply = 618 % of Demand) -22- Agenda Item 9A 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 [a] predominantly residential area[s] within the Hacienda Lakes project. Approval of Business Park access via The Lord's Way also has the effect of preliminarily endorsing a Business park at the proposed location within the Hacienda Lakes project. Approval of Business Park access via The Lord's Way may contribute to requirements for eventual various road improvements and intersection improvements at the intersection with Collier Boulevard. Particular considerations should be given to minimizing impacts on other land uses along The Lord's Way and other streets from the Business Park and Business Park access. 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 CCME 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. 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 "&7, 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'7. 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 staff's recommendation to limit further participation in the TDR program in some manner. The applicant's agent argued how no such -23- Agenda Item 9A 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 staffs 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 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's review of this Staff Report provided observations and comments on the legal aspects of CP- 2006 -11 planning considerations. These observations and comments were used to update this Staff Report in preparation for January 20 consideration before the CCPC. [REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] -24- Agenda Item 9A 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 — ac- of 289.7 NV with Modification Preservation portion Undeveloped Rural • 60% of Rural FLUE - Required portion - Preserve is Preservation Area Preservation Area 847.2 ac. of with "shift" 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 of within 1 mile of URF boundary URF boundary, 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 a 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 e 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, or something similar, be placed in the companion PUD rezone: -25- Agenda Item 9A [previously recommended language] ■ Prior to the issuance of the first residential Development Order in the Hacienda Lakes MPUD, the Base TDR Credits and Early Entry TDR Bonus Credits shall be severed and redeemed from all Sending Lands to be preserved within one mile of the Urban Residential Fringe and the filing of executed Limitation of Development Rights Agreement(s) (County Form "TDR2 ") shall occur for these same lands. [currently recommended replacement language] A permanent conservation mechanism, including Limitation of Development Rights Agreement(s), [shall] 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 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 DRI or PUD rezone processes, and will be addressed at that time. [REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] -26- - - .,- ` - k ILO 0 i Corby Schmi t, AICP, Principal Planner Date Comprehens ve Planning Section V=wy IATA:4�] David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager Date Comprehensive Planning Section --"�,� Michael Bosi, AICP, Director Date Comprehensive Planning Section m D. Lorenz, J ., P.E., irector Date Land Development Services Department APPROVED BY: Nick Casalanguida, Deput t r Date Growth Management Services DWision — 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 9A 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 LL.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 9A 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 proiect. 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 9A 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 -571 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. WE Agenda Item 9A PART FIVE of SIX: 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. (Alternative amendment language 11 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 21 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 GOAL 6: OBJECTIVE 6.1: [insert new language — CCME Pages 18-21] 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 9A 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 proiect 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; (cc) 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 proiect 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; (cc) 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 9A ATTACHMENT HL -2 Staff - recommended modifications to The Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC proposed Growth Management Plan amendments — CP-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 text is deleted, as proposed by petitioner; double underline text is added, and double #ftke thivegh text is deleted, as proposed by staff.) PART ONE of SIX: Future Land Use Element I. URBAN DESIGNATION [Insert new language — FLUE Page 29] 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 Land except in the case of t 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 located within one mile of the Urban B unda and designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands:, or, +e 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 9A 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 see wastewater treatment f ili i (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 tom! 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 proiect 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 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 project. In no instance shall the amount of native vegetation for the Urban portion of the proiect be fully removed or shifted entirely to Sending Lands Significant Archeological Sites identified by the State of Florida Division of Historic Resources shall be preserved and cannot be mitigated for. Fe- these A-bthmn nrnw-ot -2- Agenda Item 9A 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 proiect area designated as Sending _unless the provisions found in subsection "a" above are met 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 area and /or flowways may be used for water storage provided that the water discharged in these areas is pre- treated. (provision relocated only] (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: 2. Density Bonuses [Insert new language — FLUE Pages 501 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 designations 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 -3- Rif W3 IN. M OW 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 proiect area designated as Sending _unless the provisions found in subsection "a" above are met 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 area and /or flowways may be used for water storage provided that the water discharged in these areas is pre- treated. (provision relocated only] (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: 2. Density Bonuses [Insert new language — FLUE Pages 501 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 designations 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 -3- PART FOUR of SIX: I URBAN DESIGNATION C. Urban Commercial Subdistrict 1. Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict Agenda Item 9A [amend language — FLUE Pages 56 -571 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 rW_,W...8aGt Qbladffi go, for a total of 479 449 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. ...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 §q 49.2, for a total of 47-9 489 188.2 acres maximum in the entire Activity Center; alternate language, if MUAC expansion approved for Transmdtta# PART FIVE of SIX: I URBAN DESIGNATION [Insert new language — FLUE Pages 31 -32] A. Urban Mixed Use District 4. Business Park Subdistrict -4- Agenda Item 9A 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 * ** **** * ** ** * 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, except that a Business Park in Section 14, Township 50 South. Range 26 East may have access to an arterial road via The Lords Way if the design and construction of new roadways and improvements or extensions to existing roadways providing said access are commensurate with standards for accommodating industrial and non - industrial traffic. and consistent_ with other applicable Policies of RiT - i • • I1 -967 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. Mill Agenda Item 9A The following standards and criteria shall apply to the vegetation retention requirements referenced above. * ** * ** * *** * ** UNAFFECTED PROVISIONS ARE SKIPPED * ** * * ** * ** ** * t14)= . 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 proiect may be shifted by providing native vegetation preservation in the Sending Lands portion of the proiect exceeding the 60% maximum preservation requirement found in Density Blending provisions of the FLUE for proiects that: (a) Are under unified control�� (b) Straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending and designations -k, and• (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 proiect. In no instance shall the amount of native vegetation for the Urban portion of the proiect be fully removed, or shifted entirely to Sending Lands. 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) 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 * ** * * ** * ** ** * t14)= . 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 proiect may be shifted by providing native vegetation preservation in the Sending Lands portion of the proiect exceeding the 60% maximum preservation requirement found in Density Blending provisions of the FLUE for proiects that: (a) Are under unified control�� (b) Straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending and designations -k, and• (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 proiect. In no instance shall the amount of native vegetation for the Urban portion of the proiect be fully removed, or shifted entirely to Sending Lands. 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) Agenda Item 9A 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: 1. 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 TCMA's 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. I. 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 9A 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. -2- Agenda Item 9A 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 9A TIS Review Comments 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- 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: GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: 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 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 provision 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 W12 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/TDRs 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 HL-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. sm 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 (TTRV) 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: ADDroDriateness of Chanqes: 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 -9- 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 '/< 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 I 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 2020.1 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 utilized.• (1) the 2007 Commercial Inventory prepared by the Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department; (2) present GMP designations that allow commercial Zoning (3) population projections prepared by the applicant's 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 (BEBRi). 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 Planninq 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 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 (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 extendediimproved 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 "sh ift" • 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 "sh ift" 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 "], 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 staff's 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 Sole 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 SIC 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 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 DRI 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 REVIEWED David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager Date Comprehensive Planning Section Michael Bosi, AICP, Director Date Comprehensive Planning Section -1' -Zcy m D. Lorenz, J `., P.E., rector Date Land Development Services Department Nick Casalanguida, Deput t r Date Growth Management Services D` sion — 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 J1.0) 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 proiects 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 proiect 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 proiect 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. 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. 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 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 Future Land Use Map to depict the boundary change. 11911 PART FIVE of SIX: I URBAN DESIGNATION A. Urban Mixed Use District 4. Business Park Subdistrict Agenda Item 9C [insert new language — FLUE Pages 31 -321 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 11 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 21 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 nei hborhood and does not service a predominantly residential area PART SIX of SIX: Conservation and Coastal Management Element GOAL 6: OBJECTIVE 6.1: [insert new language — CCME Pages 18 -21 ] Policy 6.1.1: For the County's Urban Designated Area, Estates Designated Area, Conservation Designated Area, and AgriculturaURural 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 proiect exceeding the 60% maximum preservation requirement for proiects that: (a) Are under unified control: (b) Straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sendinq designations: (c) Meet the maximum required 60 percent preservation requirement for the Sending T Lands portion of the proiect. 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 proiect 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 proiect exceeding the 60% maximum preservation requirement for proiects that: (a) Are under unified control: (b) Straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sendinq designations: (c) Meet the maximum required 60 percent preservation requirement for the Sending T Lands portion of the proiect. 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 proiect 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 — CP- 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 to *e Mfe text is deleted, as proposed by petitioner, • double underfin text is added, and double 00ke Mrepr4 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 I., 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 Lands, except in the case of the properties that straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands desionationc and meet the other Density Blending criteria provided for in subsection 2 of the Density Rating SyStem which may achieve a maYimi mum 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 ands; 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: Ii! Agenda Item 9C PART TWO of SIX: I. 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 sewer 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 proiect 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: 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 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 transfer TDRs from Sanding Lands located within - - transfer - -� -- w�J rrIN 1111 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 C. Urban Commercial Subdistrict 1. 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 -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 for a total of 47-9 499 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 -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. (Altemative amendment language 11 #For Business Parks within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict access to Collier Boulevard (CR 951) via The Lords Way shall be considered direct access to an arterial ro ^^++ n� .9 F86-t 86 F''F'3ZT9 a7 Tpool as a .•1: .. 69nRA6t0RA tm tai@ riled the pan-Ftion f thR 196@1 ,. @A......, .,a,...ded to .,r y "de -4- PART SIX of SIX: Conservation and Coastal Management Element GOAL 6: OBJECTIVE 6.1: Agenda Item 9C [Insert new language — CCME Pages 18 -21] 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 * ** * * ** * ** ** * L!4). 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 Droiect exceeding the 60% maximum Preservation requirement for Proiects that: (a) Are under unified control: (b) Straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands designations: 111412 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 * ** * * ** * ** ** * L!4). 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 Droiect exceeding the 60% maximum Preservation requirement for Proiects that: (a) Are under unified control: (b) Straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands designations: 111412 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 protect 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] -6 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 7/2110 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 TCMA's 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 SR 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. -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 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 "EA. 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. MIM TRANSMITTAL EAC STAFF REPORT EAC Meeting: December 1, 2010 Item VII.A ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF December 1. 2010 I. 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. 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. -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). 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 PUD application materials 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 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 (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; 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 Ia 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, AI6P, Principal Planner Comprehen ive Planning Section David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager Comprehensive Planning Section Stephen Lenberger, Senior Environmental Specialist Stormwater and Environmental Planning Section Gerald Kurtz, P.E., Stormwater Manager Stormwater and Environmental Planning Section lliam D. Lorenz, Jr., P. E., Director Land Development Services Department APPROVED BY: Nick Casalanguida, Deputy Adn�i 'strator' Growth Management Services Diriision`�� — Planning and Regulation I:ISCNMIDT CorbyII4 November 10 DRAFT 06 -11 EAC Staff Report - Transmittal.docx -14- i5 �0�c 10 Date Date it // A? c; Date Date Date Date Hacienda Lakes aka Toll - Rattlesnake PUD Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner GMP Apphcation EAC Hearing Review Materials Consultant Team 1 \ 1 Il 1 5�prg. CONSULTANT TEAM Mr. Dwight H. Nadeau, AICP RWA, Inc. 6610 Willow Park Drive, Suite 200 Naples, Florida 34109 (239) 597 -0575 Office (239) 597 -0578 Fax 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 Mr. Ronald Weaver, Esquire Stearns, Weaver, Miller, Weissler, Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A. 401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2200 Tampa, Florida 33602 (813) 223 -4800 Office (813) 222 -5089 Fax tn-f +.. `I;Ii1✓' ..,1. x1?,�.. xv .k.89�i�h+&k dnx ... Hacienda Lakes aka Toll- Rattlesnake PUD Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner GMP Application EAC Hearing Review Materials GMP Amendment Application Form 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 8 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 @amail.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 N/A 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. 1007o 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 - I % George 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 Naoles. 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 °1 1'14 "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.89 022'00 "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.89 001'58 "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 °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 S.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 S.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 °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 °28'56 "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 °25'45 "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 S.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 S.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 °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 °30'06 "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.00 041'44 "E. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 2707.07 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.87 040'34 "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 6 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 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 °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 5.87 °33'59 "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 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 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 °34'58 "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 5.87 033'18 "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 °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.03 039'20 "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 5.87 °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 5.87 °07'13 "W. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER FOR 807.16 FEET; THENCE 5.03 °18'31 "E. FOR 1451.00 FEET; THENCE N.88 °56'54 "E. FOR 1582.00 FEET; 7 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.89 057'58 "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 °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 S.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 S.00 059'10 "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 °2235 "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 8 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 Rattlesnake 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-l" 11 . 00 9 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 RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING: OR N Is the proposed amendment located in an Area of Critical State Concern? (Reference 9J- 11.006(1)(a)(5), F.A.C.). IF so, identify area located in ACSC. Y Is the proposed amendment directly related to a proposed Development of Regional Impact pursuant to Chapter 380 F.S. ? (Reference 9J -1 1.006(1)(a)7.a, F.A.C.) N Is the proposed amendment directly related to a proposed Small Scale Development Activity pursuant to Subsection 163.3187 (1) (c), F.S. ? (Reference 9J- 11.006(1)(a)7.b, F.A.C.) 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 9J -1 1.007, F.A.C.) E. PUBLIC FACILITIES 1. 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 LA Location of wellfields and cones of influence, if applicable. (Identified on Collier County Zoning Maps) N/A Traffic Congestion Boundary, if applicable N/A Coastal Management Boundary, if applicable N/A High Noise Contours (65 LDN or higher) surrounding the Naples Airport, if applicable (identified on Collier County Zoning Maps). G. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 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. 12 _m�a�,f dWUNU3Y4e."�, Yakhiml 'iCRUY:u'Wm�'slnk(a�iM(ILY!4�' Ids" WdvIWJ 'r'-0Pra�Lw'JkGYIFw61�kmaMGde'dl - IWYh�IlVJWWgMi &':aiWeAmYVt.vX e¢,:i�.0 mw .vkmra. �.�.ww n+e!.xneYW�Wi, 5.smx+wvu.i:fi n •.. �i�.'.��.w ��u.� u,,.i.�-wsF.,.rwn wx ,a'2< v. ,n. .n::..w:,. Pawawc s..,nm u,ro,aea Marc. .:e�u...0 � �. _,. «;.. n.. �w ..... :..:. ......... . �� Hacienda Lakes aka Toll- Rattlesnake PUD Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner GMP Application EAC Hearing Review Materials EXHIBIT A Legal Description D11 IAN t al5[_ :6 6�cet 1 \ 1 IL 1 Sne!ie 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 °1 1'14 "W. ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE FOR 2906.24 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 25; THENCE 5.89 009'39 "W. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION FOR 2693.18 FEET TO THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE 5.89 °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 5.87 °28'21 "W. ALONG SAID NORTH LINE FOR 2025.64 FEET TO THE QUARTER CORNER COMMON TO SAID SECTIONS 23 AND 24; THENCE 5.89 °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 5.89 °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 5.89 001'58 "W. ALONG SAID NORTH LINE FOR 664.25 FEET; THENCE CONTINUE 5.89 001'58 "W. ALONG SAID LINE FOR 627.16 FEET; THENCE N.01 °01'15 "E. FOR 1699.99 FEET; THENCE 5.89 001'58 "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 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 °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 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 5.87 028'42 "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 5.87 °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 °50'27 "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.87 025'45 "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 °47'37 "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 °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.00 038'50 "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 °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 5.00 036'23 "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 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 °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 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 °33'59 "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 °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 5.00 056'29 "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 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 °34'02 "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 5.88 °12'42 "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.88 056'10 "W. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 2940.59 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE 5.87 °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 5.87 °07'13 "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 °56'54 "E. FOR 1582.00 FEET; THENCE 5.00 031'35 "E. FOR 1130.61 FEET; THENCE 5.89 °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 5.00 041'48 "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 °46'12 "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 °55'57 "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 °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 °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 Hacienda Lakes aka Toll - Rattlesnake PUD Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner GMP Application EAC Hearing Review Materials EXHIBIT B Legal Documents lkm Hacienda LaLc,5 Of NapIC5 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. Sinter Porresj. David Manager, Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC Agreed to: � 1 George . Bauer, Manager Wilton Land Company, LLC. State of _ County of George P. Bauer, Manager of Wilton Land Company, LLC, being subscribed and sworn to before me this dayof [1fY,.t'. X2010 Notary Public Notary Public State of My commission Expires: 1 b MARTHA B. MEEHr' N, NOTARY PVBLTO My COMMISSION EXPIRES MAR. 66 10 Willow Farl< pr., 2 "d poor I Naples, rL 34109 I Tel: 877 -357 -8271 I rax: 877- 357 -5271 AFFIDA VIT 1 David Torres, (Manager of Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC.) being first duly sworn, depose and say that Wilton Land Company, LL C 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. WeII 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 property owner I further authorize RWA, Inc., Mulhere & Associates Coleman YOVan� K esteem tit a� my representative in any matters regarding this Typed or Printed Name of Owner Signature of Property Owner f-��e� e. -4 I" Let' 4_ Typed or printed Name of Owner The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 2011, by who is personally known to me or has produced_ identification. ANNA VICTORIA RASA : MY COMMISSION A EE 000221 EXPIRES: October 13,2014 Balled Thru Notary Public Underwriters State of Florida County of Collier i day of ut , as (Signature of Notary Public - State of Florida) Notary Stamp: AFFIDAVIT I D. Wayne Arnold (President of Collier County Junior Deputies League, Inc.) being first duly sworn, depose and say that Collier County Junior Deputies League Inc is the owner of a portion 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. WeII 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 property owner I further authorize RWA, Inc., Mulhere & Associates Coleman Yovanovich and Koester, P.A., and O. Grady Minor and Associates P.A. to act as my representative in any matters regarding this Petition. 1 `Signature �ofPro,pert Owner D. Wayne Arnold. President Typed or Printed Name of Owner Signature of Property Owner Typed or Printed Name of Owner The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 18th day of January, 2011, by D. Wayne Arnold who is personally known to me or has FTedueed as idestoeaien- State of Florida (Signature of Notary Public - State of Florida) County of Lee Notary Stamp: SHARON UNIPENHOUR 's MY COMMISSION A DD 939534 y' EXPIRES: December 42013 p: Bonded Thru Notary Public Underwriters AFFIDAVIT STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared KIM CHARLES HORNBA CH, who, being first duly sworn by me, deposes and states that: Swamp Byggy, In is the owner of a portion of the property described herein and which is the subject matter of'the proposed hearing; that all the answers to the questions ir. 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 1 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 property owner, Swamp Bu& , Inc., further authorizes RWA, Inc.. Mulhere & Associates. and Coleman Yovanovich and Koester to act as its representative in any matters regarding this Petition. SWAMP BUGGY. INC. s Kim Charles Hornbach As Its: President SWORN TO (or affirmed) and subscribed before me this day of January, 1011, by KIM CHARLES HORNBACH, as President of Swamp Buggy, Inc., who is Personally knovvn to me. DIANE 1. i : *9 MYCOMMI891MODB41611 @RP1N& ApAI 30, 9,411 BMW 7hro No" pudb UnaMAM of'Notary Public - State of Florida) Notary Stamp: Hacienda Lakes aka Toll- Rattlesnake PUD Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner GMP Apphcation EAC Hearing Review Materials EXHIBIT C Narrative Statement �1�1n p pnM iIL t a i t 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 11, 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 Quarry 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 12021C0610G, 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; Maintain the existing Swamp Buggy attraction land use on a parcel consisting of 47.27 +/- acres; and maintain the existing Junior Deputies passive recreation facilities on a 21.62 +/- acre site. The DRI includes 1,544.14 +/- acres of preserve, which includes both uplands and wetlands. The development area is limited to 718 +/- 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 1,023.02 +/- 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) Change: 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- ERPV0004 GMP Amendment \Subtask 4.2 GMP Amendment Application Support \Adoption hearings \2011- 05- 06_Revised_Narrative Exhibit_C_rjm_2.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 immediately 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:\2005 \0501.50.02.03 Hacienda Lakes MPUD- DRI -ER13\0004 GMP Amendment \Subtask 4.2 GMP Amendment Application Support \Adoption Hearings\201 1- 05 -06_ Revised _Narrative_Exhibit_C_rjm_2.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 * Includes hospital 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 commercial 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:A2005 \050150.02.03 Hacienda Lakes MPUD- DRI -ERP \0004 GMP Amendment \Subtask 4.2 GMP Amenchnent Application Support\Adoption Hearings\201 1- 05 -06_ Revised _Nanative_Exhibit_C_rjm_2.docx 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 each acre of land designated URF. 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 1663.85 units (See Dwelling Unit Entitlement Summary and TDR Sending Exhibit below). When TDRs (limited to the Early Entry and Base TDRs) from the 121.79 acres of sending land reserved for development are subtracted, that leaves 193.35 "eligible" TDRs that cannot be utilized under the current URF 2.5 unit per acre maximum 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:A2005 \050150.02.03 Hacienda Lakes MPUD- DRI -ERP \0004 GMP AmendmentASubtask 4.2 GMP Amendment Application Support\Adoption Hearings\201 1- 05 -06_ Revised _Narrative_Exhibit_(_rjm_2.docx 4 Hacienda Lakes DRI /MPUD Dwelling Unit Entitlement Summary Acres I Calculation Ratio Total Units Density Calculation with no GMP Amendments Base Density Calculation (FLUE) Urban Residential Fringe (URF) Density excluding business 553.02 1.5 per acre 829.53 park acreage Urban Residential Fringe TDR lift (receiving 553.02 1 per acre 553.02 capacity) Activity Center Density 36.67 1.5 per acre 55.01 Activity Center TDR lift (receiving capacity) 36.67 1 per acre 36.67 Business Park 35.38 0 per acre 0.00 Business Park TDR lift (receiving capacity) 35.38 1 per acre 35.38 Total Density in Urban Residential Fringe (Base Density only computed on lands other 589.69 than business park) Sending Lands (FLUE) Total Sending Area 1637.07 Sending Area to be Developed or within 120.82 1 per 40 acres 3.02 Benfield ROW Total Density created by Sending Lands Density Bonus via Mitigation Activities (LDC 3.05.07.F.4.b.iii) Density Bonus via excess Mitigation 10% bonus to residential Activities density Total Units Without GMP Amendment I 1 1 1663.89 Q:A2005 \050150.02.03 Hacienda Lakes MPUD - DRI- ERPV0004 GMP Amendment \Subtask 4.2 GMP Amendment Application Support \Adoption Hearings\201 1- 05 -06_ Revised_ Narrative_Exhibit_('_rjm_2.docx E ' 1 LEGEND: Ir ' QUAum SENDING AREA = 1022.04 ACRES AREA NOT QUALIFIED FOR SENDING = 493.23 ACRES EDEVELOPMENT IN RFMUD = 121.79 ACRES f 1 URF PRESERVE E-1 53.06 ACRES 5280' RFMUD PRESERVE / 1491.08 ACRES �I 1 I ` r 1 r fir!'` ` f ;,�• 'J pp�'. ' �s'.: 1 y P SABAL PALM ROAD I 1 .icy tom. IG�; �.. ^50 Pu C.�1005 \050 i5D.G].03 wacnrioo loka. MPUD-DR�- [RF�WO; ien .o. _cn �, ion'�OOOA S�nros. �.� Lrnera+ GOnsu!tot.a� - Ab�nnr� \E.bi \O50 r5a'JJ03 °X,lS.awq "D`AINC. V; 0 , CL','. N': J^ Plazining - HACIENDA LAKES OF NAPLES, LLC. Visualizafion i tsi TA JL Civil E"' & maxim HACIENDA LAKES 010 ft-P Fb ) NW4. b TDR SENDING EXHIBIT m .�p FAX :Y )597 -M 050150.02.03', '. 1 1 0501500203PX Q:\2005 \050150.02.03 Hacienda Lakes MPUD- DRI -ERP \0004 GMP Amendment \Subtask 4.2 GMP Amendment Application Support \Adoption Hearings\2011- 05- 06_Revised Narrative Exhibit_C_rim_2.docx 0 Hacienda Lakes DRI /MPUD Dwelling Unit Entitlement Summary (Continued) Density Additions with GMP Amendments Use of Eligible TDRs within Project boundary up to a max density of 2.8 units per acre in URF Inventory of RFMU lands Developed Sending Areas within 1 mile without 120.82 Benfield ROW Developed Sending Areas past 1 mile 0 Undeveloped Sending Areas within 1 mile 1023.02 Undeveloped Sending Areas past 1 mile 493.00 Total RFMU Sending Lands 1636.84 Calculation of Eligible TDR Sending Area Generation (within 1 mile) Base TDR (undeveloped lands within one 1023.02 1 per 5 acres 204.60 mile only) 1st TDR Bonus (undeveloped lands within 1023.02 1 per 5 acres 204.60 one mile only) 2nd TDR Bonus (Restoration and Maintenance for undeveloped lands within one 1023.02 1 per 5 acres 204.60 mile only) 3rd TDR Bonus (Conveyance for 1023.02 1 per 5 acres 204.60 undeveloped lands within one mile only) Total 818.42 TDRs used under current GMP rules 1 per acre of URF 625.07 excluding business park 625.07 Remaining Qualified TDRs to be used 193.35 1,663.89 units without GMP plus 193.35 eligible TDRs Total Units Allowed Using All Eligible TDRs unused 1857.23 589.69 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 (3.02 units) + bonus units (151.26) 1851.41 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 -ERP \0004 GMP Amendment \Subtask 4.2 GMP Amendment Application Support\Adoption Hearings \2011- 05- 06_Revised Narrative Exhibit_C_rjm_2.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 1,544.14 +/- 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 Sheriffs substation located on East Tamiami Trail which is a shared facility housing Collier County EMS and an East Naples Fire Department station. Q:A2005 \050150.02.03 Hacienda Lakes MPUD- DRI- ERP\0004 GMP Amendment \Subtask 4.2 GMP Amendment Application Support \Adoption Hearings \2011- 05- 06_Revised Nazrative_Exhibit_C rjm_2.docx i 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 commercial and office development, proximate and within this DRI 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. Revision Date: 04/20/11 Q:\2005 \050150.02.03 Hacienda Lakes MPUD- DRI -ERP \0004 GMP Amendment \Subtask 4.2 GMP Amendment Application Support\Adoption Hearings\201 1- 05 -06_ Revised_ Narrative_Exhibit_('_rjm_2.docx M Hacienda Lakes aka Toll- Rattlesnake PUD Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner GMP Application EAC Hearing Review Materials ATTACHMENT A GMP Language KI�I V.. Lam in15C';i;G Fnumt; 1 \ 1 IL 1 Summ 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 base density of 1.5 units per gross acre, plus any density bonus that may be achieved via CCME Policy 6.2.5 (6) b.l ., or and either "a'' or "b" below: a. Up to 15 1.0 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 designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands, except in the case of properties that straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands designations, and meet the other Density Blending criteria provide for in subsection 5.2 of the Density Rating System, which may achieve an additional maximum density of up to 1.3 units per gross acre for all lands designated as Urban Residential Fringe via the transfer of up to 1.3 dwelling units (transferable development rights) per acre from lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary_ and designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands; or 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 " below. Within the Urban Residential Fringe, rezone requests are not subject to the density rating system, except as specifically provided i-n--e. below, but are subjeet to the f ll°wing ° nditions: for the Affordable Housing Density Bonus. All rezones are encouraged to be in the form of a planned unit development. Proposed development in the area Subdistrict shall be fully responsible for all necessary water management improvements including the routing of all on -site and appropriate off -site water through the project's water management system and a fair share cost of necessary_ improvements to the CR 951 canal /out -fall system made necessary by new development in the area Subdistrict. Stpdek thr -aii and underlined language represents deletions and additions proposed by the Applicant and is consistent with the CCPC recommendation and Staff's changes and BCC Transmittal. Double underlined language represents additions proposed by Staff and found to be appropriate by the Applicant. Hacienda Lakes GMPA CP- 2006 -11 — Attachment A (rev 5) Page 2 of 9 a. All rezones are —eneou --aged tee— in ah rn,.,,, of a planned unit development; [provision relocated only, to above paragraph] b. Proposed development in the area shall be fully responsible for- all neeessar-y Nva;er- to the GR 954 eafial/eut fall system made neeessafy by fiew Elevelopment in the area; and, [provision relocated to above paragraph, and the term "area" replaced with "Subdistrict'] e-.--Properties eligible for the Affordable - workforce Housing Density Bonus (home ownership only) will be specifically identified herein. The actual number of bonus units per gross acre shall be reviewed and approved in accordance with the conditions and procedures set forth in Section 2.06.00 of the Land Development Code, except that, Section 2.06.03 shall not apply, and the number of dwelling units required to be sold to buyers earning 80% or less of Collier County's median income, as calculated annually by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), shall be at least thirty percent (30 %). The following properties are eligible for an Affordable - workforce Housing Density Bonus (home ownership only) of up to 6.0 additional dwelling units per acre. Property located on the East side of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), approximately ... Stf+iekthrough and underlined language represents deletions and additions proposed by the Applicant and is consistent with the CCPC recommendation and Staff s changes and additions to the CCPC recommended language. Hacienda Lakes GMPA CP- 2006 -11 — Attachment A (rev 5) Page 3 of 9 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 wastewater treatment facilities (from the urban designated portion of the project) to serve the entire project, unless alternative interim sewef and water and wastewater treatment facilities 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; (fj Native vegetation shall be preserved as follows: 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 Stnask through and underlined language represents deletions and additions proposed by the Applicant and is consistent with the CCPC recommendation and Staff s changes and additions to the CCPC recommended language. Hacienda Lakes GMPA CP- 2006 -11 — Attachment A (rev 5) Page 4 of 9 Sending Lands portion of the project is the maximum required 60 percent of the total Sending Land area, in order to promote greate 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 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 project. In no instance shall less than 10 percent of the required amount of native vegetation be retained in 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. (22,) 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, unless the provisions found in subsection "a" above are met. 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. mommummmmmmumanommmmmmmummmmmenummomemmmmmoommmmmoommmmmmonommmmome Str-uek and underlined language represents deletions and additions proposed by the Applicant and is consistent with the CCPC recommendation and Staff s changes and additions to the CCPC recommended language. Hacienda Lakes GMPA CP- 2006 -11 —Attachment A (rev 5) Page 5 of 9 FLUE Page 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 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 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 1.3 units per gross acre. ............................. a 0 M M M M . ■ .................... \ .. \ .... \ ■ 1 Str-uek through and underlined language represents deletions and additions proposed by the Applicant and is consistent with the CCPC recommendation and Staff s changes and additions to the CCPC recommended language. Hacienda Lakes GMPA CP- 2006 -11 — Attachment A (rev 5) Page 6 of 9 FLUE Page 56 -57 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 49.2 acres, for a total of 4-79 188.2 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. c «...,,.L through and underlined language represents deletions and additions proposed by the Applicant and is consistent with the CCPC recommendation and Staff's changes and additions to the CCPC recommended language. Hacienda Lakes GMPA CP- 2006 -11 — Attachment A (rev 5) Page 7 of 9 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: 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, except that a Business Park in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East may have access to an arterial road via The Lords Way. CCME Pages 18 -21 Conservation and Coastal Management Element GOAL 6: Stnaek thr-eog4 and underlined language represents deletions and additions proposed by the Applicant and is consistent with the CCPC recommendation and Staff s changes and additions to the CCPC recommended language. Hacienda Lakes GMPA CP- 2006 -11 — Attachment A (rev 5) Page 8 of 9 OBJECTIVE 6.1: Policy 6.1.1: For the County's Urban Designated Area, Estates Designated Area, Conservation Designated Area, and AgriculturaURural 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. In order to promote egr 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 Lands portion of the project exceeding the 60% maximum preservation requirement found in the Density Blending provisions of the FLUE for projects that: (a) Are under unified control, (b) Straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending designations, and (c) Meet the maximum required 60 percent preservation requirement for the Sending Lands portion of the project. Stpaek hough and underlined language represents deletions and additions proposed by the Applicant and is consistent with the CCPC recommendation and Staff s changes and additions to the CCPC recommended language. 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. In order to promote egr 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 Lands portion of the project exceeding the 60% maximum preservation requirement found in the Density Blending provisions of the FLUE for projects that: (a) Are under unified control, (b) Straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending designations, and (c) Meet the maximum required 60 percent preservation requirement for the Sending Lands portion of the project. Stpaek hough and underlined language represents deletions and additions proposed by the Applicant and is consistent with the CCPC recommendation and Staff s changes and additions to the CCPC recommended language. Hacienda Lakes GMPA CP- 2006 -11 — Attachment A (rev 5) Page 9 of 9 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. In no instance shall less than 10 percent of the required amount of native vegetation be retained in 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, S.~ e k thr-eugk and underlined language represents deletions and additions proposed by the Applicant and is consistent with the CCPC recommendation and Staffs changes and additions to the CCPC recommended language. Hacienda Lakes aka Toll- Rattlesnake PUD Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner GMP Application EAC Hearing Review Materials EXHIBIT D Warranty Deeds a i11 t tt J, 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. Webrc, 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 � Z day of January, 2010, GEORGE P. BAUER ( "Grantor "), for and in consideration of the sum of Ten and No/100 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 Flori llmitedllabiiity company ( "Grantee), " whose host office address is 206 Duol J .motp�TQ6897: / w. The Southeast Quarter' 1/4) of the Northeast Quarter * 1 /4)9 Vic Collier County, Flor}da. / Parcel *THE SUBJECT PROP 1 IS NOT THE GRANTOR \P IN WITNESS W QP; at( Deed the day and year first abo a ik. r Signed, scaled and delivered in our esence: 2 Witness I — Signature� Witness l - Printed Name Witness 2 — Signature Wit ess 2 - run ed Nam North t Quarter (NW 1/4) of the t,.,Townsh S�South, Range 26 East, �N fit, f , TEAD} R(t ERTY OF 71; tad and delivered this Quitclaim VC George P. lAuer * ** OR 4536 PG 733 * ** STATE OF CONNECTICUT COUNTY OF a n-� `Gt A The foregoing Quit Claim Deed was acknowledged before me on this X day of January, 2010, by George P. Bauer, who is personally known to me or produced as identification. (SEAL) �L DLL 00 otary ublic — Signature -- Public - Printed Name -\ 14P LRCM -=� 2 if C,onxnlssion Eom Januay 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 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 corporaJ O i 11 LLC, a Florida limited liabili y� VISION & FAITH, INC., a Flop poratio� GEORGE P. BAUER, and MIC A. TAYLOR, / l Defendants GEORGE P. BAUER and a Florida corporation, VS. Case No. 08- 2136- CA -HDH ).&A & FAITH, INC ' I ,r : Counter - claimants, fE' C;1i TOLL - RATTLESNAKE, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, SEMBLER FAMILY PARTNERSHIP #42, LTD., a Florida limited partnership and TOLLS ✓. FL 11, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, 4��Obc, Counter-defendants. CERTIFICATE OF TITLE ~� 1, 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 J , 2010, for the real property described herein, and that no objections OR 4531 PG 2873 0 • 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 -)Inv el /-:�e 2010. D I OCK, Clerk & Cwnptmller- '� ty-Glerk J 7,12 7110 Copies furnished to: -.Louis D. DAgostino. Esq. k ✓ Samuel J. Heller, Esq. Ira William Spivey, If 9463-14511 $435 2 OR 4531 PG 2874 • 0 EXHIBIT °A" PARCEL 1: THE S 1/2 OF THE S 112 OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE SW 114 OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS THE WEST 100 FEET. PARCEL 2: THE E 112 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PARCEL 3: THE SW 114 OF THE SW 114 OF THE SW 114 OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PARCEL 4: THE S 1/2 OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PARCEL 5: J'y THE W 112 OF THE NE 114 OF TH VIG�14F SECTION 13;�5HIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORj0 PARCEL 6: '/ THE SW 114 OF THE NW 114 q s 0 P�IR.5,6 O ;H, TNGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PARCEL 7: �,�,, , v THE NW 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 O�SO�TION 13, TOWNSI�50 §OUi NGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. \ �y. PARCEL 6: \ r l THE S 1/2 OF THE NW 114 OF THE S YA ,f�THE��11�19..gMECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, CQ D PARCEL 9: THE N 112 OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE NW 114 OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PARCEL 10: THE N 1/2 OF THE NW 114 OF SW 114 OF SW 1/4 OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PARCEL 11: THE W 1/2 OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE SE 114 OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PARCEL 12: THE N 112 OF THE NW 114 OF THE NW 114 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 112 OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 114, SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS THE WEST 100 FEET. OR 4531 PG 2875 E 0 PARCEL 16: THE E 112 OF THE EAST 112 OF THE SE 114 OF THE NW 114 OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PARCEL 17: THE SW 114 OF THE NW 114 OF THE NE 114, SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PARCEL 1B: THE SE 114 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PARCEL 19: THE NE 114 OF THE NW 114, SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PARCEL 20: THE S 1/2 OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE NE 114 FST-IF _1 JOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA..- PARCEL 21: f THE NW 1!4 OF THE NW 114 OF H ;SECTION 14, TO �ISHIIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. ,� �"�'; PARCEL 22: j7HE NE 114 OF THE NE 114 O�\JE I' EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FL � /�� PARCEL 23: THE N 112 OF THE SE 1/4 OFT 1/4 OF SECTION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.V�� PARCEL24: \ THE E 112 OF THE NW 114 OF THE NE 114 CrfSIS RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, CI ,f 1 OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, PARCEL 26: THE W 112 OF SW 114 OF NE 114 OF SE 114 OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PARCEL 27: THE E 112 OF THE SW 114 OF THE NE 114 OF THE SE 114 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 00 050'21" 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 4 OR 4531 PG 2876 0 • 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 °44'17" WEST 134.30 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 04 °42'13" EAST 210.85 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 43 °12'04" WEST 178.18 FEET; THENCE NORTH 71931'36" 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 °57'31" 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 °46'36" WEST 794.98 FEET; THENCE NORTH 45 046'05" EAST 94.58 F `- THENCE NORTH 87 022'18" EAST 347 �-.'. }� 2 THENCE NORTH 59 013'22" EAST 151 THENCE NORTH 69 °05'26" EAST 1' FEET; THENCE SOUTH 82 053'39" EASV10 . - E-€ TO_THE EAST LI E 0 NORTHWEST 114 OF THE SOUTHEAST 114 OF SAID SEC, 1011 141 THENCE ALONG SAID LINE SOUT ` °4 ' E 1 THENCE LEAVING SAID LINEINO 8 9 WE 7. 4I THENCE SOUTH 69 005'26" Wti:ST 1 .64 E T; �, THENCE SOUTH 59 °13'22" Sf THENCE SOUTH 87 02222" M§T 39.63 FEET; ,7 THENCE SOUTH 45 046'02 "WEB 9.76 FEET: THENCE SOUTH 68 °50'21" WE 24 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY 129. 7!-F ETALONGTHEARC A- ON- TANGENTIAL CIRCULAR CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH ING A RA�,1'10.00 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 67 °13'47" AND 6 GR�A CHORD 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 00 050'21" EAST 2683.10 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 29: THE N 1/2 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 114 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 114 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 114 OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PARCEL 34: THE E 112 OF THE NW 114 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 114 OF THE NE 1/4, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PARCEL 37: ZQ��' ` �, ' THE S 112 OF THE NW 114 OF SE C TNW23, TOWNSHIP 50 Sbt� COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS THE }1tlE§,T X90 -FEET., �r ALSO LESS THAT PORTION Df=S III I I RD LESS THAT PORTION DESC 'IBE I 0 A� D. RECORDS OF COLLIER COU TY FL, RIDA; j PARCEL 38: THE NW 1/4 OF THE SE 114 O %T NE 114 OF SECTIO �OWr' EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLO %SE1L PARCEL 39: � �` THE N 1/2 OF THE S 112 OF THE pI:N>`'$ TIC RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORf AL. �.I-- GE 26 EAST, COLLIER 2192, PAGE 2057, AND PAGE 3460, PUBLIC P 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 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 1/2 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 112 OF THE E 112 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 114 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE SE 114 OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PARCEL 44: THE NW 914 OF THE NW 114 OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PARCEL 45: OR 4531 PG 2878 0 0 THE SE 114 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PARGEL46: THE E 1/2 OF THE SE 114 OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PARCEL 47: THE SW 1/4 OF THE NE 114 OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, AND THE W 112 OF THE SE 114 OF THE NE 114 OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PARCEL 48: THE SW 1/4 OF THE SE 114 OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PARCEL49: THE N 112 OF THE SE 114 OF THE NE 1/4 RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUN'7 PARCEL 50: THE S 112 OF THE SE 1/4 OF T � Np'14 RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER CQUNT/Y, F PARCEL 51: THE S 112 OF THE NE 1/4 OF RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER C SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, SW 114 OF SEGTI N 24, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, PARCEL 52: ' :. THE W 1/2 OF THE NE 114 OF T 1/4 OF THE SW 1 RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COU ,,!", ORIDA. PARCEL 53: ~� ��-€ THE N 1/2 OF THE NE 114 OF THE SE 114 b>~U5 RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. r i., TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, N 24, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, 4 OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, PARCEL 54: THE NE 114 OF THE NE 114 AND THE N 1/2 OF THE NE 114 OF THE SE 114 OF THE NE 114, 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 114 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 114 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PARCEL 58: THE W 112 OF THE SE 1/4 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. OR 4531 PG 2679 0 PARCEL 59: THE E 1/2 OF THE SE 1/4 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 016134" W 1822.92 FEET; THENCE N 00°33'02" W 1130.79 FEET; THENCE S 88 °56'47" W 1582.03 FEET; THENCE N 03 018'24" W 1451.30 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 25; THENCE S 87 °06'54" 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 °1225" E 2693.13 FEET TO A CONCRETE MONUMENT MARKING THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 25; THENCE N B9 °12'25" E 2693.13 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. ,AL , TOGETHER WITH AN EASEMENT RECORDS BOOK 759, PAGE 169 7, . PARCEL 61: ; i THE SW 114 OF SECTION 19, TOVVN$Hl FLORIDA. PARCEL 62: THE S 112 OF SECTION 30, TO" LESS AND EXCEPT:`', THE WEST 112 OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE 30, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 27, ALSO LESS AND EXCEPT: 3R15WAY PURE ' ;r'J,O DEED RECORDED IN OFFICIAL C RECORDS OF cbi eIEhCOUNTY, FLORIDA. e 50 T �E.27�4Sr COLLIER COUNTY, 50 SOUTH, RAI..E„27,! E/} OLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. ! OF THE SOUTH 112 OF SECTION , FLORIDA. THE WEST 112 OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE NW 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 SW 1/4 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 i/4 OF THE SW 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 EAST 1/2 OF THE NW 114 OF THE SW 114 OF THE EAST I/2 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. ALSO LESS AND EXCEPT: * ** OR 4531 PG 2880 * ** go 0 THE EAST 112 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE SE 114 OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. ALSO LESS AND EXCEPT: THE WEST 1/2 OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE WEST 112 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. ALSO LESS AND EXCEPT: THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NE 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 SE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE WEST 112 OF THE SOUTH 112 OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAR EjCQ>J`NTY, FLORIDA. Vit- ALSO LESS AND EXCEPT:' THE E 1/2 OF THE SE 1/4 OF T�E N X14 - OAF-THE EAR �R OUTH 1/2 OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANG 27 Six; j ALSO LESS AND EXCEPT: THE EAST 112 OF THE NE 1/417 30, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RA`iVC 27 EAST, OLDER t ✓. ALSO LESS AND EXCEPT:' 1 THE WEST 112 OF THE NE 1/4 OF „i, OF THE 30, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 2TAVJ,p 9 ,0r-” g SOUTH 1/2 OF SECTION FL IDA. L F THE SOUTH 112 OF SECTION FLORIDA. r ,.�wii n.. :.a: emu. A i:wavruwi.�Na9 tixT�d4:ID�fia4d.Je:�19,k'k JrY.. tbiF. Mxv >e'a�WVFeHY�R2,J��lsed�cnde�bld �. v,dP..�„., .5� Gul. '::.�.0 � x�e��. �p mAe � _.raTY_� n.xIGM1.: .. .�.. ..:. ➢G &.F .... u..� a1 ,.. .�.r ee H'+'.15u.m 3.Hnwd .'kww. � .. _ u . Hacienda Lakes aka Toll- Rattlesnake PUD Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner GMP Application EAC Hearing Review Materials EXHIBIT E Vicinity Map DWA 1 \ 1 Il 1 irrni� 11 PINE RIDGE RD GOLDEN GATE BMW I.. Hacienda Lakes Exhibit E - Vicinity Map 0 0.5 1 Miles N DAVA INC. ( ()NSULTINC; ZIT T JL • 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_Vicinity_E. mxd 0 a a o am m � I � 1 GOLDEN GATE BMW I.. Hacienda Lakes Exhibit E - Vicinity Map 0 0.5 1 Miles N DAVA INC. ( ()NSULTINC; ZIT T JL • 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_Vicinity_E. mxd Hacienda Lakes aka Toll- Rattlesnake PUD Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner GMP Application EAC Hearing Review Materials EXHIBIT G -1 Existing Future Land Use Map D11 [A"" �n�c�.G1sr, :arcce 1 \ I Il 1 Swim C O O 0 1,000 2,000 Feet lacHacienda Lakes DAITA <`ONSCIC.TING 1 ♦ T LL JL Exhibit G -1 - Existing Future Land Use Map .Manning .Visualization -Civil Engineering -Surveying & Mapping N Prepared By: rmiones Printing Dale: June 18, 2010 File: T:\ Projects\ 2005 \05_0150.02.03 HaciendaLakes\ G M P \Rev01 \Exi sling_FL U M_G 1. mxd Hacienda Lakes aka Toll- Rattlesnake PUD Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner GMP Application EAC Hearing Review Materials EXHIBIT G -2 Proposed Future Land Use Map DIVA, 1 � 1 Il l °,wnre rn d U_ D W J m Q' W J J O 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 LJ 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 �A N DIVA INC. CONSULTING 1 t T Tl JL • Planning • Visualization Civil Engineering -Surveying R 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 aka Toll - Rattlesnake PUD Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner GMP Application EAC Hearing Review Materials EXHIBIT H Zoning and Land Use Map `:; C � Hacienda Lakes Exhibit H - Zoning and Land Use Map 0 2,000 4,000 Feet A N DAITA INC. CONSULTING 1 \V VA. JL 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 Hacienda Lakes aka Toll - Rattlesnake PUD Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner GMP Application EAC Hearing Review Materials EXHIBIT I Public Facilities Map s. C Sta S ion 20 >, m 0 GREEN BLVD PINE RIDGE RD 0 Golden Gate Elementary School , (PreK -2) Golden Gate Golden Gate Elementary School Community Park _ (3 -5) Golden Gate Subs ation CCEM Station 5 -50 Golden Terrace North Elementary Golden Gate (School N GATE Middle•School Golden Terrace j Elementary South School Golden Gate Mike Davis High School Elementary School - Golden Gate Aquatic -and Fitness Complex 4 Calusa Park I , Elementary School • CCEMS ALS Eng 20 Approximate location of existing 12" force main o \ RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK RD East Naples Substation Lely Elementary School \9-19& imate location of existing rce main to be replaced ith a 12" force main. Lely High School Parkside mentary School Eagles Lake / Community Park Wayside Park Big Cypress mentary Sch A East Naples FD 20 Existing 20" water main and approximate i location of future 35" water main. IFlorida let,: Sports P Park Water Treatment Facility Manatee Manatee Middle School CCEMS Station 14 Elementary School i l 0 0 Hacienda Lakes Exhibit I - Public Facilities Map STATE LANDS 0 0.5 1 Miles N I CCEMS Station 17 1 WILSON BOULEVARD CENTER Legend Project Boundary Public Facilities C* Sheriff Substation . Fire Station EMS Stations CParks Schools ® Water Treatment Facility - Collier County Maier Roads "DIATA INC. <'O\SUI.-I'INC" %. ..� JL • Planning • Visualization •Civil Engineering •Surveying 8r 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 aka Toll- Rattlesnake PUD Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner GMP Application EAC Hearing Review Materials EXHIBIT J Future Schools Location Map DII FUTURE SCHOOLS LOCATION MAP COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS NJ,S PARKLAND PUD COMMITMENT 2025 LEILCTJn - - - - - - - - - - - - - - COL C lQ Now ■ ■ NORTH WW_ O 215 (P CENTRAL R 6ZRKWA 75 'RADIO ROAD AA TEFFL, , , LEE COUNTY� F COLLIER COUNTY ELEMENTAR� SCHOOL 11' '026 SOUTH 0 WER INA ROAD HENDR Y COUNTY - - - - - - - - - - - COLLIER COUNTY STATE RD 29 SITE H TBD WESTCLOX STREET IMMOKALE LAKE TRAFFORD 2»M r J fR 4 RATTLE SNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD SCHOOL TYPE PLANNING COMMU N I TYAP PROXIMATE j EAST-SOUTH ELEMENTARY "H" r 2020 t a o ELEMENTARY "O" Iw MIDDLE '11" MIDDLE "GG" RURAL ESTATES (8) 2027 HIGH "HHH" SABAL BAY PUD 2027 ELEMENTARY COMMITMENT o TBD SCHOOL "Q" 77� SOUTH 0 WER INA ROAD HENDR Y COUNTY - - - - - - - - - - - COLLIER COUNTY STATE RD 29 SITE H TBD WESTCLOX STREET IMMOKALE LAKE TRAFFORD 2»M -TBD = TO BE DETERMINED INDICATES SCHOOL SITE IS NOT IN THE CAI�ITAL 7 m r UNSITED SCHOOLS SCHOOL TYPE PLANNING COMMU N I TYAP PROXIMATE YEAR ELEMENTARY "H" ROYAL FAKAPALM (7) 2020 t a o ELEMENTARY "O" AV 2028 MIDDLE "GG" RURAL ESTATES (8) 2027 HIGH "HHH" CORKSCREW (9) 2027 ELEMENTARY o SCHOOL "Q" 2019 MIDDLE "IF SCHOOL 2019 011_WEUR0AD, RANDALL BLVD. 18th Ave. NE, r -NORTH dr uk- F_ELEMENT, W,, uj '�EL SCHOOL "I'" MIDDLE SCHOOL "DD" 2023 INTERSTA TERT75(ALLIGA TORALLEY) T iw-. wit. r T it. fftt PLANNING COMMUNITIES I COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA F. -TBD = TO BE DETERMINED INDICATES SCHOOL SITE IS NOT IN THE CAI�ITAL 7 m Exhibit J *T PLAN: 2010-2029 April UNSITED SCHOOLS SCHOOL TYPE PLANNING COMMU N I TYAP PROXIMATE YEAR ELEMENTARY "H" ROYAL FAKAPALM (7) 2020 ELEMENTARY "V" ROYAL FAKAPALM (7)_ 2023 ELEMENTARY "O" SOUTH NAPLES (5) 2028 MIDDLE "GG" RURAL ESTATES (8) 2027 HIGH "HHH" CORKSCREW (9) 2027 Exhibit J *T PLAN: 2010-2029 April Hacienda Lakes aka Toll- Rattlesnake PUD Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner GMP Application EAC Hearing Review Materials EXHIBIT K Aerial Photo of Subject Property w IC Hacienda Lakes Exhibit K - Aerial Photograph Map 0 0.25 0.5 Miles DA / \ / / ,INC. CONSULTING Z V T Tl 31116 • Planning • Visualization Civil Engineering Surveying & Mapping Prepared By:rmjones Printing Dale: June 18, 2010 File: T: \Projects\ 2005 \05_0150.02.03_Hacienda Lakes\ GMP \Rev01 \Hacienda_Aerial_K.mxd Source: Collier County PA (Aerial Flown Jan. 2009) Hacienda Lakes aka Toll - Rattlesnake PUD Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner GMP Application EAC Hearing Review Materials EXHIBIT L Public Facilities Impact Analysis 1 \ 1 IL l inniq Exhibit L Public Facilities Impact Analysis Solid Waste Development DRI /PUD 2009 AUIR Adopted DRI /PUD Impact of Adequate Assuming avg. of Phasing Dwelling Population 2009 AUIR Adopted Impact of Additional Additional 2009 AUIR Adopted Additional Net Increase Resulting 2009 AUIR Inventory of Capacity /Facility Ties 1,811 sq.ft. of living 135 -Room Hotel Fiscal Year ( ) Units (Assuming 2.0- Level of Service Stds. Density on LOS Conveyed Intensity Level of Service Stds. Conveyed from the GMP Existing Facilities or to Meet Demand N/A N/A d.u.) (TPY per Capita) (TPY) (sq. ft.) (TPY per Capita) Intensity on Amendment (Tons) Capacity (Tons) Under Proposed impact fee per d.u. room) person per 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 1 275 1 550 1 0.59 1 324.5 20,000 N/A N/A 324.5 3,912,546 1 Yes N/A N/A 2018 275 1 550 1 0.59 1 324.5 20,000 N/A N/A 324.5 3,586,822 Yes N/A N/A 2019 210 1 420 1 0.59 247.8 20,000 N/A N/A 247.8 3,256,101 Yes N/A N/A El Total 1 1.760 1 3.520 1 2.076.8 627.500 2,076.8 $2,315,966.40 $67,934.7 Parks - Commun Development DRI /PUD 2009 AUIR Adopted DRI /PUD Impact of Adequate Assuming avg. of Phasing Dwelling Population Level of Service Stds. CIE for Recreational Additional 2009 AUIR Adopted Additional Net Increase Resulting 2009 AUIR Inventory of Capacity /Facility Ties 1,811 sq.ft. of living 135 -Room Hotel (Fiscal Year) Units (Assuming 2.0- (1.2 acres /1000 Facilities LOS Conveyed Intensity Level of Service Stds. Conveyed from the GMP Existing Capacity to Meet Demand space & $1,315.89 ($503.22 per person per d.u.) populations) ($230,000 /Acre) (sq ft) Intensity on Amendment (Acre) (Surplus /(Deficiency)) Under Proposed impact fee per d.u. room) 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 1 275 1 550 1 0.66 $151,800.0 20,000 N/A N/A 0.66 15.34 Yes 1 $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 Adequate Development DRI /PUD 2009 AUIR Adopted DRI /PUD Impact of Assuming avg. of CIE for Recreational Additional Net Inc7Resulting 2009 AUIR Inventory of Capacity /Facility Ties 135 -Room Hotel Phasing Dwelling Population Level of Service Stds. Additional 2009 AUIR Adopted 1,811 sq.ft. of living Fiscal Year Units Facilities LOS Conveyed fro Existing Capacity to Meet Demand ($1,038.61 per ( ) (Assuming 2.0- (2.9 acres /1000 Conveyed Intensity Level of Service Stds. space & $2,420.51 ($230,000 /Acre) Intensity on A (Surplus /(Deficiency)) Under Proposed room) person per d.u.) populations) (sq. ft.) impact fee per d.u. 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 200 400 1.16 $266,800.0 170,000 N/A N/A 1.16 585.3 Yes $484,102.00 $140,212.35 2014 200 400 1.16 $266,800.0 175,000 N/A N/A 1.16 621.8 Yes $484,102.00 -- - - - - -- 2015 275 550 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 1 275 1 550 1 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 10.21 $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. Exhibit L Public Facilities Impact Analysis '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. Potable Water Development P DRUPUD 2009 AUIR Impact of DRUPUD Avg. Daily Demand per Impact of DRI /PUD Avg. Daily Impact of Avg. Daily Demand per Impact of P Avg. Daily Demand er Impact of P 2009 AUIR Adequate Assuming avg. of Non - Residential Phasing Dwelling Population Adopted Level of Additional itional Conveyed F.A.C. Additional Conveyed Additional Demand per F.A.C. Stds.. Additional Conveyed Students F.A.C. Stds., Additional Conveyed P F.A.C. Stds., Additional Net Increase Resulting from the Inventory of Capacity /Facility Ties to Meet 1,811 sq.ft. of (Assuming each Fiscal Year ( ) Units (Assuming 2.0- Service Stds. Density on Intensity Section 645- 644 Intensity on Conveyed Section 64E- Intensity n Section 645- Intensity Rooms Section 64E- Conveyed Y GMP Amendment (GPD) Existing Facilities Demand Under living space & 340 gpd equals person per d.u.) (GPD per Capita) LOS (GPD) 6.008 Intensit s ft. Y ( q ) Y 6.008 on 6.008 Intensity on or Capacity $3,575 impact fee P $3,575 impact P (sq. ft.) GPD/ft2 LOS (GPD) 6.008 (GPD /ft2) LOS (GPD) GPD /stdnt LOS (GPD) GPD /room LOS (GPD) (MGD) Proposed pO per d.u. fee) 2012 100 170 17,000 27,500 0.1 2,750 -- 19,750 15.15 Amendment Yes $178,750.00 $28,915.44 2013 400 170 68,000 150,000 0.1 15,000 20,000 0.15 3,000 -- 86,000 14.51 Yes $715,000.00 $189.264.71 2014 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 K275 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 550 170 93,500 20,000 0.1 2,000 95,500 12.60 Yes $983,125.00 $21,029.41 2017 550 170 93,500 20,000 0.1 2,000 95,500 11.98 Yes $983,125.00 $21,029.41 2018 550 170 93,500 20,000 0.1 2,000 95,500 11.28 Yes $983,125.00 $21,029.41 2019 Total 420 170 71,400 20,000 0.1 2,000 73,400 10.36 Yes $750,750.00 $21,029.41 1760 3520 598,400 467,500 46,750 70,000 10,500 919 12,866 135 13,500 682,016 $6,292,000.00 $879197.65 Sanitary Sewer Development DRI /PUD 2009 AUIR Impact of DRUPUD Avg. Daily Demand per Impact of DRUPUD Avg. Daily Impact of Avg. Daily Demand per Impact of Avg. Daily Demand per Impact of 2009 AUIR Adequate Assuming v 9 9 of Non - Residential Phasing Dwelling Population Adopted Level of Additional Additional Conveyed F.A.C. Stds., Additional Conveyed Additional Demand per P F.A.C. Stds., Additional Conveyed Students F.A.C. Stds., Additional Conveyed F.A.C. Stds., Additional Net Increase Resulting from the Inventory ry of Capacity /Facility Ties to Meet 1,811 s .ft. of (Assuming each Fiscal Year ( ) Units (Assuming 2.05 Service Stds. Density on Intensity Section 64E- Intensity on Conveyed Section 645- Intensity on Section 645- Intensity Rooms Section 645- Conveyed GMP Amendment (GPD) Existing Facilities g Demand Under living space & g P 340 d equals 9P q person per d. u.) (GPD per Capita) LOS (GPD) 6.008 Intensity (sq. ft.) 6.008 on 6.008 Intensity on or Capacity $3.495 impact fee $3,495 impact (sq. ft.) GPD/ft2 LOS (GPD) 6.008 (GPD /ft2) LOS (GPD) GPD /stdnt LOS (GPD) GPD /room LOS (GPD) (MGD) Proposed Per d.u. fee) 2012 50 100 100 10,000 27,500 0.1 2,750 12,750 5.16 Amendment? 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 1 190,000 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 3,750 919 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 Total 210 1760 420 3520.0 100 42,000 352,000 20,000 467,500 0.1 2,000 46,750 70,000 10,500 44,000 4.03 Yes $733,950 $20,558.82 919 12,866 135 13,500 435,616 56,151,200 5859,523 Drainage Development DRUPUD Level of Service Impact of DRI /PUD Level of Impact of DRI /PUD Level of Impact of Level of Service Impact of Level of Impact of Adequate Phasing Dwellin 9 Population P SFWMD 25- r /3- Y Additional Additional Service Additional Additional Service Additional ( SFWMD 25- Additional Service Additional 2009 AUIR Capacity/Facility (Fiscal Year) Units (Assuming 2.5- day Storm Event Density on Conveyed (SFWMD 25- Conveyed Conveyed (SFWMD 25- Conveyed Students /3-day Conveyed Rooms (SFWMD 25- Net Increase Resulting from the Inventory of Ties to Meet Conveyed g ry N/A person per d.u.) Design) LOS Intensity yr /3-day Storm Intensity on Intensity (sq ft.) yr /3-day Storm y Intensity n y yr y Storm Event n Storm y yrvent GMP Amendment Existing Facilities Demand Under Intensity o) (sq. ft.) Event Design) LOS (GPD) . Event Design) LOS (GPD) D LOS (GPD) Event Design) LOS (GPD) or Capacity Proposed Design) Amendment? N of Sabal Palm, N of Sabal N of Sabal N of Sabal N of Sabal 0.06 cfs /ac; S of Palm, 0.06 Palm, 0.06 Palm, 0.06 Palm, 0.06 N /A: LOS Requires Project to be 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 Designed to Meet SFWMD/Collier o N/A Yes N/A cfs /ac Sabal Palm Sabal Palm Sabal Palm Sabal Palm County Requirements day 0.04 cfs /ac 0.04 cfs /ac 0.04 cfs /ac 0.04 cfs /ac I Storm Event) N of Sabal Palm, N of Sabal N of Sabal N of Sabal N of Sabal 0.06 cfs /ac; S of Palm, 0.06 Palm, 0.06 Palm, 0.06 Palm, 0.06 N /A: LOS Requires Project to be 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 Designed to Meet SFWMD /Collier N/A N/A N/A cfs /ac Sabal Palm Sabal Palm Sabal Palm Saba[ Palm County Requirements (25- yr /3-day 0.04 cfs /ac 0.04 cfs /ac 0.04 cfs /ac 0.04 cfs /ac Storm Event) N of Sabal Palm, N of Sabal N of Sabal N of Sabal N of Sabal 0.06 cfs /ac; S of Palm, 0.06 Palm, 0.06 Palm, 0.06 Palm, 0.06 NIA: LOS Requires Project to be 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 Designed to Meet SFWMD /Collier N/A N/A N/A cfs /ac Sabal Palm Sabal Palm Sabal Palm Sabal Palm County Requirements (25 -yr /3 -day 0.04 cfs /ac 1 0.04 cfs /ac 0.04 cfs /ac 0.04 cfs /ac Storm Event) N of Sabal Palm, N of Sabal N of Sabal N of Sabal N of Sabal 0.06 cfs /ac; S of Palm, 0.06 Palm, 0.06 Palm, 0.06 Palm, 0.06 N /A: LOS Requires Project to be 2015 275 550.0 Sabal Palm 0.04 N/A 20,000 cfs /ac: S of N/A 25000 , cfs /ac; S of N/A 919 cfs /ac; S of N/A cfs /ac; S of N/A Designed to Meet SFWMD /Collier N/A Yes N/A cfs /ac Sabal Palm Sabal Palm Sabal Palm Sabal Palm County Requirements (25- yr /3-day 0.04 cfs /ac 0.04 cfs /ac 0.04 cfs /ac 0.04 cfs /ac Storm Event) N of Sabal Palm, N of Sabal N of Sabal N of Sabal N of Sabal 0.06 cfs /ac; S of Palm, 0.06 Palm, 0.06 Palm, 0.06 Palm, 0.06 N /A: LOS Requires Project to be 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 Designed to Meet SFWMD /Collier N/A Yes NIA cfs /ac Sabal Palm Sabal Palm Sabal Palm Sabal Palm County Requirements (25- yr /3-day 0.04 cfs /ac 0.04 cfs /ac 0.04 cfs /ac 0.04 cfs /ac Storm Event) N of Sabal Palm, N of Sabal N of Sabal N of Sabal N of Sabal 0.06 cfs /ac; S of Palm, 0.06 Palm, 0.06 Palm, 0.06 Palm, 0.06 N /A: LOS Requires Project to be 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 NIA Designed to Meet SFWMD /Collier N/A Yes N/A cfs /ac Sabal Palm Sabal Palm Sabal Palm Sabal Palm County Requirements (25- yr /3-day 0.04 cfs /ac 1 0.04 cfs /ac 0.04 cfs /ac 0.04 cfs /ac Storm Event) N of Sabal Palm, N of Sabal N of Sabal N of Sabal N of Sabal 0.06 cfs /ac; S of Palm, 0.06 Palm, 0.06 Palm. 0.06 Palm, 0.06 N /A: LOS Requires Project to be 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 Designed to Meet SFWMD /Collier N/A Yes N/A cfs /ac Sabal Palm Sabal Palm Sabal Palm Sabal Palm County Requirements (25- yr /3-day 0.04 cfs /ac 0.04 cfs /ac 0.04 cfs /ac 0.04 cfs /ac Storm Event) N of Sabal Palm, N of Sabal N of Sabal N of Sabal N of Sabal 0.06 cfs /ac; S of Palm. 0.06 Palm, 0.06 Palm, 0.06 Palm, 0.06 N /A: LOS Requires Project to be 2019 210 420.0 Sabal Palm 0.04 N/A 20000 .t. cfs /ac S of N/A cfs /ac:. S of N/A cfs /ac: S of N/A cfs/ac, S of N/A Designed to Meet SFWMD /Collier N/A Yes NIA cfs /ac Sabal Palm Sabal Palm Sabal Palm Sabal Palm County Requirements (25- yr /3-day 0.04 cfs /ac 0.04 cfs /ac 0.04 cfs /ac 0.04 cfs /ac Storm Event) '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. Development Phasing (Fiscal Year) Single Family Multi-Family atme Apartment undo (MFC) Condo (MFC) SF Students MFA Students MFC Students Total Elementary Elemenla Cumulative Elementary Elemenla SF Students MFA Students MFC Students Total Middle Cumulative Middle School SF Students MFA Students MFC Students Total High Cumulative $10,755.41 $3,343.68 (SF) Units MFA Units (MFA) Units (0.16 per SF) (0.20 per MFA) (0.02 per MFC) School Students School Students (0.10 per SF) (0.08 per MFA) (0.01 per MFC) School Students Students (0.12 per SF p ) (0.09 per MFA) (0.01 per MFC) School Students High School per SF per MF Total Students 2012 2013 20 100 6 20 24 80 3.20 16.00 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 2014 100 20 80 16.00 4.00 4.00 1.60 1.60 21.60 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 2015 100 35 140 16.00 7.00 2.80 25.80 48 74 10.00 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 2016 100 35 140 16.00 7.00 2.80 25.80 100 10.00 10.00 2.80 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 2017 100 35 140 16.00 7.00 2.80 25.80 125 10.00 2.80 1.40 14.20 56 12.00 3.15 1.40 16.55 65 $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 1.40 14.20 14.20 70 84 12.00 3.15 1.40 16.55 82 $1,075,541.00 $585,144.00 $1,660,685.00 2019 84 25 101 13.44 5.00 2.02 20.46 172 8.40 2.00 12.00 3.15 1.40 16.55 99 $1,075,541.00 $585,144.00 $1,660,685.00 TOTAL 704 211 8451 112.641 42.20 16.90 171.741 172 70.40 16.88 1.01 8.45 11.41 96 10.08 2.25 1.01 13.34 112 $903,454.44 $421,303.68 $1,324,758.12 95.73 96 84.48 18.99 8.45 111.92 112 $7,571,808.64 $3,530.926.08 $11,102,734.72 ' Proposed Elementary School Facility (919 Students) Hacienda Lakes aka Toll - Rattlesnake PUD Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner GMP Application EAC Hearing Review Materials EXHIBIT M Environmental Report 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 Cade 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 3219 E1 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 E 1 Tropical Hardwood Hammock, Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics) 0.40 <0.1 4269 E2 Tropical Hardwood Hammock, Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics) 2.25 0.1 4279 E 1 Live Oak, Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics) 3.89 0.2 4279 E2 Live Oak, Disturbed (50 - 75% Exotics) 0.29 <0.1 4289 E1 Cabbage Palm, Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics) 1.20 0.1 4289 E2 Cabbage Palm, Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics) 19.08 0.8 4289 E3 Cabbage Palm, Disturbed (50 - 75% Exotics) 3.25 0.1 4349 E 1 Hardwood - Conifer, Mixed, Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics) 1.47 0.1 514 Ditch 3.38 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 Cypress, Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics) 157.74 1 7.0 6219 E2 Cypress, Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics) 27.66 1.2 6219 E3 Cypress, Disturbed (50 - 75% Exotics) 1.45 0.1 62459 E2 Pine /Cypress, Drained, Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics) 1.32 0.1 62459 E3 Pine /Cypress, Drained, Disturbed (50 - 75% Exotics) 2.36 0.1 624_9E 1 Pine /Cypress, Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics) 289.16 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 Description Acrea a g Percent of Total Code 6259 E4 Hydric Pine, Disturbed (76 - 100% Exotics) 12.00 0.5 625B E3 Hydric Pine, Burned (50 - 75% Exotics) 1.22 0.1 Hydric Cabbage Palm, Disturbed 2.64 0.1 6289 E 1 (0 - 24% Exotics) Hydric Cabbage Palm, Disturbed 6.94 0.3 6289 E2 (25 - 49% Exotics) Hydric Cabbage Palm, Disturbed 2.09 0.1 6289 E3 (50 - 75% Exotics) Wetland Forested Mixed, Disturbed 19.90 0.9 6309 E1 (0 - 24% Exotics) Wetland Forested Mixed, Disturbed 7.21 0.3 6309 E2 (25 - 49% Exotics) 6319 E3 Wetland Shrub, Disturbed (50 - 75% Exotics) 5.83 0.3 6419 E 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 Unpaved 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 180) This area is occupied by the Florida Sports Park with associated parking areas and facilities. Unimproved 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 (Axonoptrs spp.), blackroot (Pterocaulon virgatum), broomsedge (Arndropogon virginicus), 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 E1) The canopy of this upland habitat is absent or may contain scattered slash pine, cabbage palm, earleaf acacia (Acacia auriculiformis), 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 beautyberry (Callicarpa americana), saltbush (Baccharis halimifolia), staggerbush (Lyonia fruiticosa), hog plum (Prunus umbellata), gallberry (Ilex glabra), bracken fern (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 E41 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 beautyberry. 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 E1 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 E41 The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 4119 E1 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 422 1) 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 (Phyla nodiflora), dog fennel, water pennywort (Hydrocotyle umbellata), buttonweed (Diodia Wrginiana), 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 4241) 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 jamaicense), blue maidencane (Amphicarpum muhlenbergianum), 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 virginicus), 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 (Mores rubra), and Brazilian pepper. The ground cover includes wild coffee, Boston fern (Nephrolepis exaltata), swamp fern (Blechnum serrulatum), 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 El) 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 peruWana). The ground cover typically consists of paragrass (Urochloa mutica), dotted smartweed (Polygonum punctatum), pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata), arrowhead (Sagittaria lancifolia), and cattail (Typha spp.). Willow Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6189 E1) 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 El) 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 (Pallicum hemitomon), wax myrtle, rush fuirena, corkwood (Stillingia aquatica), swamp fern, beakrush (Rhynchospora spp.), and giant leather fern (Acrostichium danaeifolium). 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 E1 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 Hvdric Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6259 E1) 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 monostachyum), and/or rush fuirena. Pine Hvdric Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics) FLUCFCS Code 6259 E2) The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 6259 E1 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 E 1 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. Hvdric 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'. Hvdric Cabbage Palm Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6289 El 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 Hydric 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. Hydric Cabbage Palm, Disturbed (50 - 75% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6289 E3) The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 6289 El 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 torpedograss. 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, H dy ric (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 glomeratus), 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 9.4 321 Palmetto Prairie 39.9 411 Pine Flatwoods 179.4 415 Mixed Pine 23.2 426 Tropical Hardwood Hammock 2.6 427 Live Oak 4.2 428 Cabbage Palm 3.7 434 Hardwood /Conifer, Mixed 1.5 514 Ditch 0.6 618 Willow 13.4 621 Cypress 224.0 624 Pine /Cypress /Cabbage Palm 882.5 625 Hydric Pine 110.0 628 Hydric Cabbage Palm 11.3 630 Wetland Forested Mixed 18.8 631 Wetland Shrub 0.5 641 Freshwater Marsh 50.5 740 Disturbed Land 0.9 7401 Disturbed Land, Hydric 4.5 742 Borrow Pond 5.1 8146 Unpaved Road 4.0 PRESERVE AREA TOTAL 1,590.0 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 Passarella & Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment Exhibit M Page 12 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 (Beever 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 Passarella & Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment Exhibit M Page 13 Partly cloudy, light winds, temperatures in mid September 10, 2002 24.0 to upper 80s. Cloudy with light rain showers, calm, September 11, 2002 8.0 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. Mostly sunny, light winds, temperature in upper October 16, 2002 9.0 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. Partly cloudy, light winds, temperature in upper November 12, 2002 16.0 80s. November 13, 2002 16.0 Clear skies, windy, temperatures in low 70s. November 14, 2002 20.0 Partly cloudy, light winds, temperatures in the lower 80s. Mostly cloudy with scattered showers, no wind, June 4, 2003 24.0 temperatures in mid 80s. Mostly cloudy with rain, no wind, temperatures June 5, 2003 12.0 in mid 80s. Mostly cloudy, light winds, temperatures in low June 24, 2003 24.0 90s. Mostly sunny, light winds, temperatures in mid June 25, 2003 18.0 90s. Passarella & Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment Exhibit M Page 13 October 10, 2006 25.5 Temperatures in upper 70s to lower 80s, winds 0 -5 mph, clear, sunny October 11, 2006 25.5 Temperatures in upper 70s to lower 80s, winds 0 -5 mph, partly cloudy October 17, 2006 24.0 Temperatures in mid to upper 70s, winds 5 -10 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 October 26, 2006 16.0 Temperatures in the mid to upper 80s, winds 5- 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 August 18, 2009 18.0 Temperatures from low 80s to mid 90s, winds 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 cloud August 25, 2009 12.0 Temperatures in the 80s, winds 3 -5 mph, partly 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. 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 Passarella & Associates. Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment Exhibit M Page 14 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 (Beever 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 floridanus) 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. 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). Passarella & Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment Exhibit M Page 15 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 Egretta thula Tri- Colored Heron Egretta tricolor White Ibis Eudocimus albus Limpkin Aramus guarauna Large Raptors Snail Kite Rostrhamus sociabilis Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucoce haters Aquatic American Alligator Alligator mississippiensis Pine Flatwoods Cavity Nesting Red - cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis Southeastern American Kestrel Falco sparverius paulus Florida bonneted bat Eumo s. loridanus Mammals Big Cypress Fox Squirrel Sciurus ni er shermani Florida Black Bear Ursus americanus oridanus Florida Panther Puma concolor cor yi Terrestrial Reptiles and Amphibians Eastern Indigo Snake Drymarchon corais couperi Gopher Frog Rana capito Gopher Tortoise I Gopherus polyphemus 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. 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 Passarella & Associates. Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment Exhibit M Page 16 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 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. Passarella & Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment Exhibit M Page 17 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 -1. 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 F WCC USFWS Reptiles American Alligator Alligator mississi iensis SSC T(S /A) Gopher Tortoise (burrow) Gopherus polyphemus T -- Birds Snowy Egret Egretta thula SSC -- Little Blue Heron Egretta caerula SSC -- Tri- colored Heron Egretta tricolor SSC -- Roseate Spoonbill A'aia ajaja 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 cor i E E FWCC — Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission USFWS — U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 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 Passarella & Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment Exhibit M Page 18 American Alligator (Allizator mississippiensis) 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 (Egretta 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 aiaia) Roseate spoonbills were observed on the Project site in association with ditches pine - cypress habitats. No nesting sites for this species were observed. White Ibis (Eudocimus 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. Passarella & Associates. Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment Exhibit M Page 19 Wood Stork (Mycteria americana) 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 leucocephalus) 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. 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. Passarella & Associates. Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment Exhibit M Page 20 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 III. Amphibians and Reptiles (Moler 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 I USFWS I (F1r.UCFCS Code) Amphibians and Rep* s Gopher Frog Rana capito SSC - 211/260/3219/ Eastern Indigo Drymarchon corais I 260/3219/4119/ Snake couperi I 4269/42794289/ Eastern Indigo Dr marchon corais 42891/4349/6219 / Snake T T 4249/6259/6309/ (Continued) couper i 6419/743/832 Birds Limpkin Aramus guarauna SSC - 514/6419/742 Southeastern Falco sparverius American Kestrel paulus T _ 4119/4159/6259 Florida Sandhill Grus canadensis T - 211/260/262/3219/ Crane pratensis 6419/740/7401 Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia SSC - 211/260 floridana Mammals Florida Bonneted Eumops. loridarnrs E _ 4119/4289/4349/525 / Bat 530/6249/6259/6289 / Passarella & Associates. Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment Exhibit M Page 21 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 (Moler 1992). No gopher frogs were documented on -site. Eastern Indigo Snake (Drymarchon 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 (Moler 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 (Gros canadensis nratensis Potential foraging habitat for Florida sandhill crane may exist within the Disturbed Land (FLUCFCS Code 740); Pasture (FLUCFCS Code 212); Open Rural Land (FLUCFCS 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. Passarella & Associates. Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment Exhibit M Page 22 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 glaucinus 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 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. Passarella & Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment Exhibit M Page 23 Desi immu aced Status Habitat FDACS USFWS Common Name Scientific Name (FLUCFCS Cole Butterfly Orchid Encyclia tampensis C - 6249 Stiff - Leaved Wild Tillandsia fasciculata E - 6219/6249/ Pine 6259/6289 Giant Airplant Tillandsia utriculata E - 6219/6249/ 6259/6289 Cowhorn Orchid Cyrtopodium E - 6249 punctatum FDACS — Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services USFWS — U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service C — Commercially Exploited E — Endangered 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. Passarella & Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment Exhibit M Page 23 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. 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 1,281± acres of on -site wetlands and 260± acres of on -site uplands. In addition, 46± acres (31± acres of wetlands, 9± acres of uplands, and 5± acres of OSWs), located Passarella & Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment Exhibit M Page 24 Desimna ted Status Potential Common Name Scientific Name FDACS USFWS Location (FLUCFCS Code) Bird's nest spleenwort; Asplenium serratami E - 4281 wild birdnest fern Long strap fern Campyloneurum E _ 6219 phyllitidus 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 palmatum Inflated wild pine Tillandsia balbisiana T - 4289 Florida coontie Zamia floridana C - 4119 Simpson's zephyr lily Zephyranthes T _ 6259 si m sonii 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. 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 1,281± acres of on -site wetlands and 260± acres of on -site uplands. In addition, 46± acres (31± acres of wetlands, 9± acres of uplands, and 5± acres of OSWs), located Passarella & Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment Exhibit M Page 24 within existing easements on the Project site, will be preserved. These 46f acres will not be used as mitigation or placed under conservation easement; however exotic vegetation will be removed from the habitats. 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.D of the Application for Development Approval. Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, Office of Environmental Services. 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. Passarella & Associates. Inc. Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment Exhibit M Page 25 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). 2nd 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 5 z y x r E. 1 l• n FLUCFCS % OF CODE DESCRIPTION TOTAL 180 RECREATIONAL 79.89 Ac..t 3.5% 212 UNIMPROVED PASTURE 9.14 AC. t 0.4% 260 RURAL OPEN LAND 10.54AC.± 0.5% 262 LOW PASTURE, HYDRIC 54.43 Ac. --t 2.4% 3219E1 PALMETTO PRAIRIE, DISTURBED (0-24% EXOTICS) 27.81 Ac.t 12% 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 (0-24 % EXOTICS) 90.01 Ac.--t 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 (25-49% EXOTICS) 6.77AC.± 0.3% 4159E3 PINE, DISTURBED (50 -75 %EXOTICS) 10.78Ac.± 0.5% 4159E4 PINE, DISTURBED (76- 100°,6 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% 4269EI 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.± 0.2% 4279E2 LIVE OAK, DISTURBED (25-49% EXOTICS) 0.29Ac.± 0.0% 4289E1 CABBAGE PALM, DISTURBED (0 -24% EXOTICS) 1.20 AC.± 0.1% 4289E2 CABBAGE PALM, DISTURBED (25 -49% EXOTICS) 19.08 Ac.± 0.8% 4289E3 CABBAGE PALM, DISTURBED (50 -75% EXOTICS) 3.25 Ac.± 0.1% 4349EI HARDWOOD /CONIFER MIXED, DISTURBED (0-24 % EXOTICS) 1.47Ac.± 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. t 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. 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) 9.56Ac.± 0.4% 6259E1 HYDRIC PINE, DISTURBED (0-24% EXOTICS) 31.52 Ac.± 1.4% 6259E2 HYDRIC PINE, DISTURBED (25 -49% EXOTICS) 27.86 Ac.± 1.2% 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% 6289EI 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) 10.63Ac.± 0.5% 740 DISTURBED LAND 3.21 Ac.± 0.1% 7401 DISTURBED LAND, HYDRIC 18.16 Ac.! 0.8% 742 BORROW AREA 5.38 Ac. ± 0.2% 743 SPOIL 0.16Ac.-± 0.0% 747 BERM 0.93Ac.± 0.0% 814 ROAD 0.32 AC.± 0.0% 8146 UNPAVED ROAD 4.33 Ac.± 0.2% 830 UTILITIES 1.08Ac.± 0.0% 8301 UTILITIES, HYDRIC 4.82 Ac. t 02% 832 POWERLINE EASEMENT 1.24 AC.± 0.1% 8321 POWERLINE EASEMENT, HYDRIC 4.27 Ac.± 0.2% TOTAL 2262.14 Ac.! 100.0% k t . LEGEND: + ° LANDS NOT INCLUDED IN PROJECT AREA NOTES: AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED �, p THROUGH THE COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY` APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE r �► -��' ' M ` OF JANUARY 2009. i� PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER RWA, INC. Orr } ,r DRAWING N0.2010 -01 -07 BNDY.DWG DATED JANUARY 7, 2010. �. m ` . SURVEYED WETLAND LINES PER BANKS ENGINEERING, INC. DRAWING NO.Poos f . FOR APPROVAL I -II- 2010- PN- MOD.owc DATED Z JANUARY II, 2010. , `i �i► FLUCFCS LINES ESTIMATED FROM 1' =200' f AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS AND LOCATIONS APPROXIMATED. FLUCFCS PER FLORIDA LAND USE, COVER AND FORMS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (FLUCFCS) (FOOT 1999). YAWN BY DATE W.C. 2/4/10 13620 Metropolis Avenue ygWED BY DATE Suite 200 Fort Myers, Florida 33912 PA S SA _ R E L LA C.C.R 2/4/10 _ .a,n..uiHnt -Assoc-, WISED DATE Phone (239) 274.0067 f 4t e>N, - I AT i HACIENDA LAKES AERIAL WITH FLUCFCS DRAWING Na OIMTT737 XA AD F_7 J: \2001 \OIMTT7J7 \HACIENDA LANES \2010 \DRI \F -I FLUCFCS MAT. DWG TAB_ 17XII -C NORTH MAR IB, 2010 - 0:57AM PLOTTED BY: i �♦ "�.:. • is Y L. 1�am �7� v N YI O N �• O OJ v � G N A x � z x x n O x r }, 0 i q p� p� q °' °1 v U N � ON rn U � t,t � RRtiiiRRRfi1 °B'Ri�RR�0B1/°B'RAARRRi�iRiR R+ w 1} 41 I} ♦ N If r w 1} � 1> � F 1 N , � ► N W O N V r m i m OC 1} � w 1} r 4a 1} � � u If NO OA -Oi m ► � i 1Ru ' rn �- ''a444nn��nn 0 N t, x � z x x n O x r }, 0 i q p� p� q °' °1 «' + -' -' -' ♦ PI w p� pfl� y� {� gg R R gg }}�� gg }}�� pq R 1} w ? O * * * *k* + + + + + + + Ii 1} 1} 1> ffi ffi ffi : � w w ww M� ON a RRtiiiRRRfi1 °B'Ri�RR�0B1/°B'RAARRRi�iRiR R+ w 1} 41 I} ♦ N If r w 1} � 1> � RRRRRRRIi� � M 1} � 1} r I} r �RRRRRRRiiRRfi + w I1 + ♦+ If r+ Aq OC 1} � w 1} r 4a 1} � � u If NO OA -Oi m L �yr�- 1- 1 =,�nii �- ''a444nn��nn AN ri -rr ?a A Pro nnaa ecra a y �1 nAnnngovoovov' ' n n 7 F F 'fi 'fi r r e ! sl JI T A A •1n� C C ♦v av P fi fi fi fi L1 fi i � qT ap � � � i} L> .l i r rl `1 �(Y [Y ll �l 51 .. .- (� n `r O 4 O r. �1 i'r b b J p 4 4 lD EI V O V d Q Yl 15 ♦l 4 Y }fi �y S� t fLf.. A i� I� C C C y � .,-r �,f 1 ,l /y 1 O O a 4 A A A A A A A Q a a lY Ll Ll Al 45 l5 Yv 3 4 O O O O lY 41 tl 45 ll 51 A5 �l ' C q V e V '� O S S y' r r F- 4 4 a T S y�lY C C C O_ 4 C C C :- •- :- •� C: A A 4 4 P 1 8 T a a a A g 9 (} p O Y yr V] �� ♦� ♦`�� c c A A C�1 ��! ��] 4�4,, `�`�, 4��-�1 3 O n n c v v- �1 �1�1 }]r T y y y y y 'I A A A O a } '1 - - ym <Z� ZZ O 4 O P 4 4 P! C C C{ t C rnLa Dy rn v o =v'z °a O P yS P O O O} O O O J* i� • ii "iA p O O O C C C' A A fl A A n n 0 3 H, 0 A i 7 N A O O O a a T A 'QQ ..1 + 'i 1� 1� P* O O O A O O O O fi }yy[J a C t Y it p GI 9 4 ay Q �vCC s a p% P G t + � O O afl�'r i� Y 5' S �mm � n n a 1, AS {�t �1l;m Q. (3y NO 9� p'-0 OD O�n yj1 igiy �,�y (C'1 rn 3 C _ Z tP*A ,►l m O N n v D Z Cn g D C mm z O A iv X it �fifiil nn .Q �i C � �!<il O o 3- -'n N z I'm � D M>" { N o 1 D a D D �A ° e ° Z -9 ZQ A1tAAA III AAAIPAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAXA AA t474A AAAAAA74X'A4itXA AAAAhAAAAAAAA Z R R R IF R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R - o- w :: V Pi o 0 0.• 1 a o 0 0 0 0 o a o a a al a o 0 0 0 o w a+ O a 0- 1} 0 0 'i' �t •i It R 4 4 4 It y 4 y i It 4 It kr k- q Ii :$� y i i 'i 4 1 It i y y to y t' It y 4 1'd 4 i 4 h If I? 4 k$ W It $ 1i �$ 4. 4 D C OC Dn.0 NO OA -Oi m Tali AN am b� K FO1 r 2 D6im O bCC �� Z r ym <Z� ZZ r r 0 rnLa Dy rn v o =v'z °a TnG7 �zO Z $ z 1 0 0 3 H, 0 A y, y O O vrn �vCC Z'��p7 �mm � N NO 9� p'-0 OD O�n O (C'1 rn 3 C _ Z m O N n v D Z Cn g D C mm z O A iv X -x C � �!<il O o 3- -'n N z I'm � D M>" { N o 1 D a D D �A ° e ° Z -9 ZQ o m ONO 1 0 ' z m ° .0 a -4 - r A •° x D 3 N 0O azl D Q 1 J:\2001 \0 n� �m C C 0 0 0 � � O v N O d G N � R, I V VJ J/ sir INC� ai m FLUCPCS MAP.MG TAB: 17XII -C SOUTH MAR 18, 2010 - 8:33AM PLOTTED BT: WILLC SL," ��a3a�a��L�i�gQ �yR�gRKiRj�B�Kl�Rif818RQ3� 1318 a agaag'�(8(8($k3�3§Ng - a� WNO° n o nBES ttl�BfBm'mA��-v osffia$t23 fB�Em$am n o�u�on n N �cc m m m m m m m m m m m m m (mil m A m m m m m W N m N m m OD N T m m m m m m m m m m m A m m m m '` v C C m O O T 'T1 'Tl '9 'O � V -D 'D 'D '.� ."♦: O r -1 -1 'D V V � � 'O '9 'O � '9 � r C , _mmm rbd mm mmm mm IyM, m �� X03 �a CC rD S�0000 000 [5 O SWDWW0OS( mFnCOV V�1 D ?� D amm rtl imp ZZZft�7 t(�)(0'� 00?t�0�5 <i` t,I�t� fl1� f�l;�L�x }b'D fC-f cC�b ��rb� All 00 mC y(A 7°� D�i tnDD V OOb DD 222 ZZ M1i (J7 to tl�OQ OI111f511 ov DbZCC c��v OOOOC rip OZ A O D Or °m m 0Op(pp mm mmm mm cf3 tl� to (l�tp tl�tA (l}_O V v(y-�N O lg, bill to m �m7 m7 �Qj70000 '�p7 I� Zv D ITT D Iblp'I D mm�y D fD� n GA7 - - - lm71 fA Vt ff1 tlJ to t!l U1 C -4 O T r7 c c ; R5 (1'1 fri O O O O � T � � - rD m r �{ � Q OOb W r�t�l�lll lF t'n t5i CD°l� rOr��r CL Quo°° °cC cmOD 2v00��00 m �QVlJl tll plN mmm_m O ol�l r�il o-"U C2c � � oo 'rri -mm 00000000& - oo��o�� ccCCCCOOO 7) Q000n n __ p� - - -- !22,�77 O Qv OOOOZQ31 'p° y�� a` CCCC� c Cm vOfA �A ifi v�yy•S -a, t{��tq 9,�Qh QQ�V100 n m % %mS 1m7 mM mm Ip 'Yt`V �b D �X m �m %O °0000 mmT 1Ti �{O QOC CC yy as tT C Z Z° IT, Q% 0 + �� (� °-1 _� 0 m 8040 0 o a �00TmiK O „+a Q0�,35 -aOB b mmX a v °�ppp00 -1 C S� oo uJ N Via` fi'S'3 00-4 -4 mxxOZZuJ J mmmBBtom $`,gy m �, $ O m 4 ;f= %00 -ImIn 0 888 m m% m Z m O ^9° N.! �-- p =i 00-1 0 X O�tbe mm 09 00 pp O'�ij (_�1p(0�c0� �i�m00� m c�7tf� VJ vJ p%O�pB Xx O =1 - 0 o° 0 V m N Y [D V N V V N O W W !D O W N O S Z,, O Q O [J W O U J N SIN a�'3'�3 fik38m &im"�8(8$''$8t$SF3$'d3$fZi °$$€3f3mi13k3 &3' �53.a�t$�23I23 iYi$ °?�I�°$�JJb� t5!pt �nnnnnnnn nn nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn I+ I+ I+ I+ I+ I+ I+ I+ I+ I+ I+ I+ I+ I+ I+ I+ I+ N 1+ H I+ 1+ 1+ 1+ 1+ 1+ 1+ H W I+ I+ I+ I+ W 1+ I+ 1+ I+ 1+ 1+ I+ I+ I+ I+ I+ I+ l+ I4 14 H 1+ 14 14 1+ 14 l+ I+ 1+ 14 I+ I+ I+ K I+ I+ �na ^3 id"�cdgcEnacB te tg$�t� ""a8r�a ae c IN I -. .Nq in � v a iina N m N � r m rn m N m rn W urn - M U N rn r r m m - N m mrn J5 N _ � r W N - N rn N `) L rn m • • m m rn - N rn > • L TN r m m N N N N fl D • In a rn D rn - rn -0 m N • r N rn i • • N • u N w-p - m r W N r m am m o o r - _ nl rn ,._Dr • � Omvi OO-D D = D c D 6 Z�=1 o�zDZ7 mD�O " D�N< ° Z T 0mm L-0-1 z Z> Z O c O m C 000Ar {ov D n Z o v - v n m m m m° o O Z 7 o n m < r 7 F D G' Z n 1 i 1 L. o n D D z D m o n m o cnzcD m m m o = a.: z D m Dm 710 -u Z c o c) rn c 0 � m r< O; o z 4 m _ -�C/) O- ° i ° � m i D Z D D n M m n m m m D C o �q r °m T10 m 0 C - .� i I, I' I per,; <. r K ` , 2 c i DRAWN BY W.C., F.L. REVIEWED BY C.G.R. � REVISED J 2/9/10 13620 Metropolis Avenue DATE Suite 200 2/9/10 Fort Myers, Florida 33912 DATE Phone (239) 274.0067 Fax (239) 274.0069 N W _ F S 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 Feet uM1 PASSARELLA SSOCIATES � NO NOTES AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGH THE COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE OF JANUARY 2009. COUNTY INFORMATION AND ROADWAY NETWORKS WERE ACQUIRED FROM THE FLORIDA GEOGRAPHIC DATA LIBRARY WEBSITE. SPECIES OBSERVED DURING LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND OTHER FIELDWORK CONDUCTED BETWEEN AUGUST AND DECEMBER 2009. HACIENDA LAKES O1MTT737 AERIAL WITH SURVEY TRANSECTS AND LISTED SPECIES LOCATIONS SHEET No. (2009) MAP G2 LEGEND HACIENDA LAKES 0 FPS, FLORIDA PANTHER (SIGN) APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF WALKED SURVEY TRANSECTS O GT, GOPHER TORTOISE (BURROW) ® AA, AMERICAN ALLIGATOR • LBH, LITTLE BLUE HERON O BB, FLORIDA BLACK BEAR O SE, SNOWY EGRET 13 BBS, FLORIDA BLACK BEAR (SIGN) O TCH, TRI- COLORED HERON O BCFS, BIG CYPRESS FOX SQUIRREL O WI, WHITE IBIS O BCFSN, BIG CYPRESS FOX SQUIRREL NEST 0 WS, WOOD STORK O BE, BALD EAGLE OF 2 c i DRAWN BY W.C., F.L. REVIEWED BY C.G.R. � REVISED J 2/9/10 13620 Metropolis Avenue DATE Suite 200 2/9/10 Fort Myers, Florida 33912 DATE Phone (239) 274.0067 Fax (239) 274.0069 N W _ F S 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 Feet uM1 PASSARELLA SSOCIATES � NO NOTES AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGH THE COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE OF JANUARY 2009. COUNTY INFORMATION AND ROADWAY NETWORKS WERE ACQUIRED FROM THE FLORIDA GEOGRAPHIC DATA LIBRARY WEBSITE. SPECIES OBSERVED DURING LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND OTHER FIELDWORK CONDUCTED BETWEEN AUGUST AND DECEMBER 2009. HACIENDA LAKES O1MTT737 AERIAL WITH SURVEY TRANSECTS AND LISTED SPECIES LOCATIONS SHEET No. (2009) MAP G2 Hacienda Lakes aka Toll- Rattlesnake PUD Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner GMP Application EAC Hearing Review Materials EXHIBIT N Tranportation Report Hacienda Lakes Revised Traffic Impact Analysis Prepared for: Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC Prepared by: Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. April 7, 2011 619001 -00.09 COPR Prepared under the supervision of: William E. Oliver P.E. Registration No.: 31157 Signature: , Date: 04/11/2011 Hacienda Lakes REVISED TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Table of Contents Introduction.................................................................................................................... ............................... 1 TrafficGeneration .......................................................................................................... ............................... 1 Traffic Distribution and Assignment ............................................................................. ............................... 5 StudyNetwork Identification .......................................................................................... ..............................9 Committed Roadway Improvements ............................................................................. ............................... 9 ExistingConditions ......................................................................................................... ..............................9 Background Traffic Growth Estimate ............................................................................ .............................12 2019 Operating Conditions .......................................................................................... ............................... 13 ProportionateShare Computation .................................................................................. .............................21 List of Figures Figure 1. Hacienda Lakes Site Location and Study Network ........................................ ............................... 2 Figure2. Conceptual Site Plan ........................................................................................ ..............................4 Figure 3a. Proposed Driveway Geometry .................................................................... ............................... 22 Figure 3b. Proposed Driveway Geometry .................................................................... ............................... 23 Figure 4. Improvements Within the Site ........................................................................ .............................24 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 ........................................................................................ ............................... I 1 Table5. Background Growth ....................................................................................... ............................... 14 Table 6. 2019 Total Conditions Generalized Level of Service Analysis ..................... ............................... 15 Tindale- Oliver and Associales, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impact SPUdr i Table 7a. Arterial Level of Service Summary ............................................................. ............................... 17 Table 7b. Signalized Intersection Level of Service Summary ..................................... ............................... 18 Table 7c. Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Summary ................................. ............................... 19 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 . ............................... 21 Table 10. Hacienda Lakes Proportionate Share Computation ..................................... ............................... 24 Table 11. Impact Fee Credit Computation ..................................................................... .............................24 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 I — Site Access Capacity Analysis Worksheets Appendix J — Off -Site Improvements - Proportionate Share Computation Appendix K — Internal Roads — Impact Fee Credit Computation Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impact Studv ii 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 Saba] 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 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 ca ap city 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 (8th 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 Associales, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impact Sludt' -I- 9� HAMMGCKRD GATE BL Legend Significantly Impacted Roadway Network Scheduled Improvements Within Study Area Scheduled Improvements Outside Study Area Approximate Area of Developable Land Parcel Lands w Collier Blvd: oDavis Blvd to Golden Gate Canal L)_ Add Lanes 2011 Davis Blvd: Radio Rd to Collier Blvd 6 Lanes 2011 Davis Blvd: Santa Barbara Blvd to Radio Rd 4 Lanes 2012 f - Hacienda Lakes Project Site 4� N A NEW Miles o RO 0 0.5 1 2 Figure 1 Hacienda Lakes Site Location and Study Network Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impact Study -2- PINE RIDGE R D PINE RIDGE RD EXT GREEN BLVD w � O W J J � m ��. C-) 0 9� HAMMGCKRD GATE BL Legend Significantly Impacted Roadway Network Scheduled Improvements Within Study Area Scheduled Improvements Outside Study Area Approximate Area of Developable Land Parcel Lands w Collier Blvd: oDavis Blvd to Golden Gate Canal L)_ Add Lanes 2011 Davis Blvd: Radio Rd to Collier Blvd 6 Lanes 2011 Davis Blvd: Santa Barbara Blvd to Radio Rd 4 Lanes 2012 f - Hacienda Lakes Project Site 4� N A NEW Miles o RO 0 0.5 1 2 Figure 1 Hacienda Lakes Site Location and Study Network Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impact Study -2- LU 0 i V 0. lC 0 CO W N N O O Cl) O N N N O Oet O Cl) Cl) LO CO N 00 Cl) O O Co M (o N CD ONE t0 �- OQO N C H M N 7 0 ++ 3 r- N It ti O O N� M W ti M V 0- O LO N N O 0 O I- 00 M v N CID -4 O - - LM .1 M r N Y 03 W) d IL M C CD LO OO M O O LO L` "t N Co M f- O M LO � It 00 Co N It sF O °y0 N a— �.- T T T N !0 r N O O O_ O O_ N LO O N O Ln 0 Co O O N N M M r Of Co a F- N r _r 3 O ++ 7 O LO N V O Lo Lo (O M W (O V (fl N (D "t N N M r- (o M N M w I� CD _ 0 e- e- .- .- r- T i O O Y C6 T T T d IL 5 C N LO M — M "t — LO 'Rt N L() LO M 00 (D ':T .- M � Co LO N O M O 0 to a 00 5 OMD •l9 D. •C LO O O (D _ Co M N Co O Co w Nt M CO (D 00 O M N LO N LO M CD CA O N CA O O H O N O (A M Co O Co M 00 N O 00 U7 --f CD n N N N N-li N M CA N f` N c. c. a a) E 7 a 7 s 7 -o 7 a a 7 a 7 a w .� M .� M w w C W 0O N O !0 C l0 C 00 I M v N� 0 M N 0 0 O 0 O o O M LO M LOO O iD W W N M N LOO O W C d 2 CU .O O O H a) m � � H 7 U 7 U 7 U > U > U 7 U :3 U 7 U a 7 U 7 U 7 U a O a O a a) a a) a N a a) a (D a m m -O a) a N a a) Cu �_ i1 it i1 i1 i1 i1 i1 Q tl IL 11 Q 0 0 0 0 _o o _o O o_ o 0 0 0 C) N N N N N N N CC) � ti LO M O O N a) C .2 � o a? w y N � C O m c a) Co Cn O 4 C LD E _ _ _ @ ) O U p a m (D cY6 a) cY0 a) p o (D n O .@ c c m c m 0 0 O a m W F- C La c m a) E LL m N E LL m N E LL a) C 'a w aa) ai W Ln m m m m (T O c a w E O 2' Q lA Q (n Q (n (n U 2 00 W 2 (n Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. -3- N m C .Q O h � k 0 a CV a Q) C d a) IT Co N J C Q cn U Y � � O J iZ m a � vi c O U Z 4i Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impact Studv I North Driveway: Right -In /Right- Out /Left -In Only - Stop Controlled . I I The Lord's Way: Full Connection — Signal Controlled � I � I I Rattlesnake Hammock Road: Full Connection —Signal Controlled — — — �— I South Driveway: Right -In /Right -Out Only - Stop Controlled L II J ( I � o Figure 2 Conceptual Site Plan WS Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impact Study -4- 0 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. As a 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 Study -5- Table 2 -a Internal Capture and Pass -By Capture Estimate Daily Internal Capture Matrix 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 6,800 808 45 0 853 Out 6,800 661 0 0 661 Shopping in 7,342 661 Internal Capture (inbound) 294 158 1,113 Center Out 7,341 808 6175 220 138 1,166 Pass -By Capture = 25% In 2,234 0 220 0 220 Office Out 2,234 45 294 13 352 In 418 0 138 13 151 Hotel Out 417 0 158 0 158 Total In 16,794 Out 16,792 School Internal Capture: 30% of school trips are assumed to come from Hacienda Lakes School External Trips: 1012 Internal Capture: 304 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 Internal Capture = 4,978 Capture Rate = 14.4% Gross External = 29,620 Net External = 27,759 Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impact Studi, -6- Table 2 -b Internal Capture and Pass -By Capture Estimate AM PK Hour Internal Capture Matrix 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 = 1,888 Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impact Studv - 7- Residential Shopping Center Office Hotel Total In Out In Out In Out In Out 234 815 189 121 304 62 36 23 In 234 8 0 0 8 Residential Out 815 9 0 0 9 Shopping Center In 189 9 8 8 25 Out 121 8 4 8 20 In 304 0 4 0 4 Office Out 62 0 8 0 8 In 36 0 8 0 8 Hotel Out 23 0 8 0 8 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 = 1,888 Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impact Studv - 7- Table 2 -c Internal Capture and Pass -By Capture Estimate 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 PM PK Hour Internal Capture Matrix 719 Internal Capture (inbound) 96 Internal Capture (outbound) 121 Shopping 594 External Trips (outbound) 598 External Trips (total) 1192 Pass -By Capture = 25% Residential Center Office Hotel 148 Pass -By Trips (outbound) 148 Net External = 2,546 Gross In Out In Out In Out In Out Total Trips 841 471 690 719 93 296 42 38 In 1 841 86 6 0 92 Residential Out 1 471 62 0 0 62 Shopping In 1 690 62 14 20 96 Center Out 1 7191 86 22 13 121 In 93 0 22 0 22 Office Out 296 6 0 14 13 1 1 21 14 In 42 Hotel Out 38 0 20 0 20 In 1,666 Total 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 Traffic Impact Study -8- LIP] 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 three "committed" road improvement projects (with construction funding scheduled within three years) were identified for study network roads. These improvements are: • Collier Blvd.: Davis Blvd. (S.R.84) to Golden Gate Canal, add lanes, 2011. • Davis Blvd. (S.R.84): Radio Rd. to Collier Blvd., 6- lanes, 2011. • Davis Blvd. (SR 84): Santa Barbara Blvd to Radio Rd, 4- lanes, 2012. 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 Traffic Impact Study -9- Table 3 Study Network Identification Table On Fr - DaNS BMJd U. S.41 Airport Rd. E +O Lanes 6D E +C Segment Length 1.00 LOS Bid D Juris. Stale Road Class MC -2 Area Type Dlrectlonal Service m Volue Motlet Project Trips Project Trac ffi Distribution Project Volume (RE) % of Sary. Cap. Consumed Significant FOOT? Significant County'+ % Source Project Project Outbee ntl In In Out In Urn- 3,420 Collier C-nly AUIR 481 1.7/ 23 20 0.7% 0.6% No No No No Davis BIM. Airport Rd. LakSWODd Blvd. 4D 0.56 D State M C -1 urban 2,080 Colder County AUR 5251 1. 24 22 1.2%1 1.1%1 No No I No No Davis Blvd. Lakewood Blvd . County Barn Rd. 4D 1.69 D Stale M C -1 Urban 2,430 Collier County AUR 1 8791 3.7 42 37 1.7% 1.5% No No No No Davis BNd. County Barn Rd. Santa Barbara Blvd. 4D 0.76 D State M C -1 Urban 2,575 Collier County AUR 1 839 2. 39 35 1.5% 1.4% No No No No Davis Blvd. Santa Barbara Blvd. Radio Rtl, 6D 1.76 D State M C -1 Urban 2,940 2009 O&LOS Handbook 354 12% 16 14 0.5% 0.5% No No No No Golden Gate BNd Collier BNd. Wilson Blvd 4D 5.00 D County MC -1 Urban 21350 Collier County AUR 394 14% 19 17 0.8% 0.7% No No No No Green Blvd Santa Barbara Blvd. Collier Blvd. 2U 2.00 D County Art C -1 Urban 1,040 Collier County AUIR 30 0.1% 1 11 0.1%1 0.1%1 No No I No No Collie Blvd. (C.R.951) filer Blvd (C.R.951) Green Blvd Golden G_ate Pkwy. Vanderbilt Beach Rd 1.75 (N) BD 40 1.00 1.66 D D County County An C -1 M CA Urban Urban 2,450 2.450 Collier County AUIR Collier County AUR 846 3574 2.9% 1;4 o 39 166 351 149 1.6% 6.8% 1A%J 6A% f-b Yes No Yee No Yes No tiler Blvd. (C.R.951) 1-75(S) Davis Blvd. 6D 0.38 D Stale M C -1 Urban 3.000 Collier County AUIR 6951 24. 325 291 10.8% 9.7" Yes Yes Yes tier Blvd. (C.R.951) Davis BNd. Lord's Way Rd, 6O 2.20 E County MCA Urban 3,270 Collier County AUIR 9125 33.8 "i 454 407 13.9% 12.4% Yea Yes Yes Her Btvd. (C.R.951j Lord's Way Rtl. Rattlesnake Hammock Rd. 6D 0.92 E County M C -1 Urban 3270 Collier County AUIR 8163 43.5% (1 556 551 17.0% 16.9-1.1 Yes Yes Yes Yes oilier Blvd, 4C. R.951) Rattlesnake Hananock Rd, U.S.41 6D 3.47 E County An CA Urban 3.330 Collier County AUIR 6244 21.7% 291 261 8.7% 7.81/ Yes Yes Yes Yes S.R.951 U.SA1 Wal-Mart Driveway 6D 0.45 D State MC -1 Urban 2.370 Collier County AUIR 2303 BA% 107 96 4.5% 4.1% No No Yes Yes S.R.951 khinsall Dr. Marco Island Bridge 4D 2.40 D State Unint Urban 2,480 Collier County AUR 1423 5.0% 67 60 2.7% 2.4% No No No No Airport Rd. Davis Blvd. Tamiami Trail East 6D 0.80 E County MC -2 Urban 2,580 Collier County AUR 410 1.4% 19 17 0.7% 0.7% No No No No Uvingston Rd. Golden Gate Pkwy. Radio Rd. 6D 1.40 E County M C -2 Urban 3,760 Collier County AUIR 1481 5.2% 70 63 1.9% 1.7% No No No No Golden Gate Pkwy, Livingston Rd. 475 6D 0.90 E County M C -1 Urban 4,370 Collier County AUIR 777 207% 36 33 0.89/6 0.8% No No No No Golden Gate Pkwy, 1-75 Santa Barbara BNd, 6D 0.97 E County An C-1 Urban 3,730 Collier County AUIR 547 1.9% 25 23 0.7°/, 0.6% t-b No No No Golden Gate Pkwy, Santa Barbara BIW. Collier Blvd. (C.R.951) 4D 2.20 E County M C -2 Urban 1,980 Collier County AUIR 618 2.1% 28 25 144% 1.3 No No No No Green Blvd Santa Barbara BIW. Collier BIM. (C.R.951) 4D 2.00 D County M C -1 Urban 1,040 Collier County AUIR 42 0.1% 1 1 0.1% 0.1% rle No Na No Pine Ridge Rd. Logan Blvd Collier Blvd. (C.R.951) 4D 1.90 D County M C -1 Urban 2,800 Collier County AUIR 571 2.0°/" 27 24 1.0% 0.9% No No No No Radio Rd. Airport Rd. Livingston Rd. 4D 2.01 D County M C -1 Urban 2,180 Collier County AUIR 522 1.8% 24 22 1.1% I.M. No No No No _._._ _. tlasnake Hnxk ftd. 'Charlan 'ne Bivtl. Coup Mn Rd 4D 0.40 D Coun MC -1 Urban 7940 Collier Court AUIR 5328 78.5% 248 223 12.8% 11.5" Y. Yaa Yea Yea Santa Barbara BNd. Cxeen BIM. Golden Gale Pkwy. 6D 1.70 D County M C -1 Urban 1,930 Colter County AUIR 1082 3. 51 46 2.6% 2.4% No No No No Santa Barbara Santa Golden Gate Pkwy. Radio Rd. 6D 1.40 E County M C -1 Urban 3,100 Collier County AUrR 1963 6.8 91 82 2.9% 2.6% No No No No Pne Ridge Road Logan BNd Collier Blvd. OD 1.90 D County M C -1 Urban 2,800 Collier County AUR 571 2.0% 27 24 1.0% 0.9% No No No f4o 75 Pine Ridge Rd. Golden Gate Pkwy. 6F 2.50 D State Freeway Urban 5,580 2009 O&LOS Handbook 2307 8.0% 107 96 I.W. 1.7% No No No No Collier Blvd. East of Collier BNd 4F 1.00 C State Freeway Trans 2,980 2009 O&LOS Handbook 831 2.9% 39 35 1.3% 1.2% No No No No rank Rd. Golden Gate Pkwy. Tamiami Trail East 6D 2.03 E County M C -2 Urban 3,500 Collier County AUR 823 29% 39 35 1.1 % 1.0% No No Ne No ail East Four Canrers I Goodlette Frank Rd. 6D 0.25 E State M C -2 Urban 3,410 Collier County AUIR 1639 5.7% 76 69 2.2% 20% No No No No rail East Goodelebe Frank Rd. Davis Blvd. 8D 0.57 E State M C -2 Urban 3,850 Collier County AUIR 2472 8.6% 115 104 2.99% 2.7% No No No No rail East Rattlesnake hammock Rd. in Blvd 6D 4.13 E State M C -1 Urban 3,500 Collier County AUIR 778 2.7% 36 33 1.0% 0.9% No No No No rail East Triangle BNd. M C - 1 Urban 3,200 rail East San Marco Dr. S.R.29 2U 15.60 C State lknnl Urban 1,075 Collier County AUIR 705 04 5 5 05% 0.5% No No No Rd. Rattlesnake hammock Rd. Davis Blvd. Al 2.03 D Can M C -1 Urban 860 Collier County AUIR 350 1.2% 18 14 1.9% 1.6% No No No No Note 1, This percentage includes internally captured trips using the elderml roadway network. Therefore, the resulting volume is higher that the corresponding to the model eldernal trip assignment. Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impact Shidy -10- Table 4 Existing Conditions Roadway Segment EaC s S egment Length LOS Std June. Road Class Area Type S.' Capacity Existing Traffic Characteristics 2009 AADT K Factor D Factor Source Peak Dir. 2009 Pk Hr Pk Dir Volume Source Pk Hr Dir Vol V:SC T-Way VMT Pk Hr VMSC I Pk Xr Dr VMT s V:SV Pk Hr Dir VNIT On From # Source NSIES SBMIB N BIWB Davis Blvd. Radio Rd. C.R.951 6D 0.71 D State Art C -1 Uban 1,530 Collier County AUIR W. We 0.57 Collier County CS 601 EB 1,113 AUIR 1,113 840 0.73 0.55 1,387 1,086 575 790 Collier BlA. (C.R.951) Golden Gale Bid. Green BNd 40 2.01 D County M C-1 Urban 2,180 Collier County AUIR We We 0.68 Collier County CS 536 NB 1,817 AUR 1,817 855 0.83 0.39 5,371 4,38 3,004 3,65 Collier BIW. (C.R.9511 Green Blvd Golden Gate Pkwy 40 1.03 D County M C -1 Urban 2,360 Collier County AUIR Na We 0.61 Collier County CS 525 NB 1,550 ALIR 1,550 991 0.66 0.42 2,61 2,431 1,04 1,59 Cdlier BW.(C.R.951) Golden Gate Pkwy. F75(N) 4D 1.66 D County MC -1 Urban 2,450 Collier County AUIR Na n/a 0.62 Collier County CS 607 NB 1,313 AUR 1,313 805 0.54 0.33 3,57 4,067 1,168 2,1 Cdlier Blvd.(C.R.951) 475(S) Davis Blvd. 6D 0.38 D State Art C -1 Urban 3,000 Collier County AUIR Na Na 0.57 Collier County CS 573 NB 2,252 AUR 2,252 1,699 0.75 0.57 1,501 1,140 642 8 Cdlier Bkd.(C.R.951) Dayis BIA. Lord's Way Rd. 60 2.20 E County Art C-1 Urban 3,270 Collier County AUIR We n/a 0.57 Collier County CS 502 NB 1,894 AUIR 1,894 1,429 0.58 0.44 7,311 7,194 2,413 4,167 Cdlier BMd.(C.R.951) Lord's Way Rd. Rattlesnake Hammock Rd. 6D 0.92 E County MC -1 Ulrban 3,270 Collier County AUIR n/a Na 0.57 Cellar County CS 602 NB 1,894 AUIR 1,894 1,429 0.58 0.44 3,05 3,008 1,009 1,74 Cdlier Bkd.(C.R.951) Rattlesnake Hammock Rd. U.S.41 6D 3.41 E County MCA Urban 3,330 Collier County AUR n/a Na 0.59 Collier County CS 603 NB 1,658 AUR 1,658 1,152 0.50 0.35 9,58 11,355 2,815 5,654 .R.951 U.S.41 We -Mart Dri -isy 6D 0.45 D Slate MC -1 Urban 2,370 Collier County AUR rh /a Na 0.57 Cdf rCounty CS 532 NB 1,489 AUR 1,489 1,123 0.63 0.47 1,17 1,067 421 67 B.R.951 Wal -Mart Driveway Manalee Rd. 4D 0.63 D State Ad C-1 Urban 1,970 Coital, AUR n/. N. 0.54 Cdlier County CS 557 NB 1,560 AUR 1,560 1,329 0.79 0.67 1,82 1,241 778 983 S.R.951 Manatee Rd. Mainsail Dr. 4D 3.47 D State llninl loan 2,590 Colter County AUR n/a n/a 0.54 Collier County CS 557 SB 1,392 AUIR 1,106 1,392 0.46 0.37 8,94 0,987 2,596 4,830 Radio Rd. Livingston Rd. Santa Barbara Bid. 4D 2.01 D County M C -1 lhban 2,120 Collier County AUIR n/a W. 0.63 Colter county CS 888 EB 1,154 AUIR 1,154 678 0.54 0.32 3,68 4,281 1,263 2.32 Radio Rd. Sent. Barbara BKd. S.R.84(Davis Blvd) 1.34 D County MC -1 Urban 2,100 Collier County AUIR We n/a 0.57 Cdlier County CS 685 WB 502 AUIR 379 502 0.18 0.24 1,181 2,814 161 67 Rattlesnake Fill Rd. U.S.41 Charlemagne Bid. 0.80 D County MC-1 Urban 1,940 Collier County AUIR Na Na 0.63 Collier County CS 516 WB 1,007 AUIR 591 1,007 0.30 0.52 1,278 1,552 418 8 Rattlesnake Hmck Rd. Charlemagne Blvd. County Sam Rd. 0.40 D County MC -1 Urban 1,900 Celtic, County AUIR We We 0.56 Collier County CS 517 EB 705 AUR 705 554 0.36 0.29 504 77 102 28 Rattlesnake Hmck Rd. County Be. Rd. Polly Ave 0.75 D County MC -1 Urban 2,340 Collier County AUIR We We 0.60 Collier County CS 534 EB 715 AUR 715 477 0.31 0.20 894 1,75 164 Eli Rattlesnake Hknck Rd. Polly Ave CA.951 r6D 1.90 D County MC -1 Uban 3,200 Cdlier County AUIR n1. We 051 Cdlier County CS 518 EB 419 AUR 419 403 0.13 0.13 1,56 6, 104 7 Santa Barbara Blyd. Radb Rd. S.R.84 (Davk Blvd) 1.05 E County M C -1 Urban 3,250 Cdlier County AUIR n/a We 0.55 TOA Estimate SB 950 AUR 777 950 0.24 0.29 1,81 3,413 292 9911 Santa Barbara Eldension (1) SAU (Davis BIW) Ratlesnake Hammock Rd. 2 05 We We We We .1. We his Na 055 Na Na We We n/a We We Na We n/a Na H75 Golden Gate Pky. Collier Blvtl. 3.30 D State Freeway Urban 3,720 2009 08LOS Handbook 34,000 0.0940 2.56 FDOT CS 03-2000 WB 1,790 FDOT CS 03 -2000 1,406 1,790 0.38 0.48 10,54 12,276 2,84 5,90 Tamiaml Tod East Davis Blvd. Pirport Rd. 1.26 E State M C -2 lhban 2,750 Cdlier County AUIR n/a Na 0.59 Collier County CS 545 EB 17731 AUR 1,731 1,203 0.63 0.44 3,� 3,46 1,37 2,187 Tamiaml Trail East Airport Rd. Rattlesnake Hammock Rd. 6D 1.69 E State T. Urban 3,200 Cdr rCOUnry AUIR n/a Na 0.59 Cdlier County CS604 EB 2,471 AUR 2,471 1,717 0.77 0.54 7,07 5,408 30225 4,17 Tamiami Trail East Cdlier Blvd. I 2U 8.15 C State MC -1 Urban 1 1,075 1 Cdrr COUn AUR Na Na 0.51 Cdlier COUnly CS 608 EB 588 PLR 588 1 5651 0.551 0.531 9,397 8,761 2,621 4,7 Totals: 41.57 87,915 96,519 29,076 50,586 Will Pk Dir V:SC 0.57 (1) It is understood that the Santa Barbara Bid. EAension construction project is finalized and that this segment is open to the public for circulation; however, at the time that the study was performed, the roadway segment had been open for circulation for a short period of time; therefore, exalting traffic volumes were not indicative of the wlumes to be achieved once residents become familiar with the new road. In sdditlon, no traffic count data was available (AUIR 2009) and the 2010 AUIR did not include e>asbng traffic information either. Finally, this segment was analyzed for future conditions, using traffic volumes obtained from the Collier WO Traffic Demand Forecast Model provided by the County. Tindale- Oliver and Associates, brc. Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impact Study 11_ 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, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impact Study 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 "Kloo" (for SIS roads), and "D" factors, as identified in Table 6. 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 Operating 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 below level of service standard Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impact Study 13 t 3 0 c� a c 0 rn v 00 rn 0 N V d� rn � < w C � n s t� i E LLi q� w U r y8 U H H o $¢$ Q ~ U U N E _¢o° T d 6 � r �I i v a J x 5 O 9 b m53NO °R S28Q Ili m N2 OR Ntyi OC`�i V 1; u ry t0 c'i v� N� n ai ad m m< n m a - ry d d' 1 ^ � � - ` a= $ ac 000ry�'gi '��.. `$�n ri �ivv a o- vin f NEt'� d 6a icon m<�moom -m'o O c U u O Z QQ qq�� o0 4M 9- 96 nn $MN 9 94°499 mmry�oeryn ri 64 �0 m my mncva a ° C �mm€iRSM°�o,� mMry �6N �.� vion �mm< ory�a �S�8o�ee�e�S o H ^ MO cviMv°fiao�`M°nmry �Nmr'16 e `m`Pi v�'im IT o� Emgq o � S�Xi m R� c nR°vi manmvi 0 m 6 2&ooN nNnR�i,61c in�Zon&N N� cc! > ' `egm25N E q &m E r g E E o E �oimm m E E mpsm�.��di U a (� i 0� C� ?i //�1 N U o N U 4i C o a K 41 LL �' E m m m m Era °—�mem °SQ �spn o(/j_ ccy Q c o�s'S g � E E E E ww w ° mm dmm ss and IEEE O D U U U U U U N N 41 K K K K K K 41 V1 i H F H V d� rn � < w C � n s t� i E LLi q� w U r y8 U H H o $¢$ Q ~ U U N E _¢o° T d 6 � r �I i v a J x 5 O 9 b Table 6 2019 Total Conditions Generalized Level of Service Analysis Roadway SeBrtent ESC Lanes wMi EeC 5e9neM Lergal aim LOS Bid . „.. MW Juris. am Road Claea ifim Moe Type ON a." Capaeiry Enislin9 Traffic Cparacteristics Mnual GR- 2019 P4DT 21119 Peak NOw Bxk9round Traffic Poak Hour Proled Traffic 2019 Tdal B.c!, r... 4 protect VIC SlgnifcaM? Sig &Mr Couray PM Peak Hwr Peak 131,. 9n Rer,vinkg CaPatlty 2009 Pk Nr Di, Vd BBIYB.. K Faclm D Factor Peak Drr Swrco Rale From T. 4"A ... 1.. .9a,/4a :..NBIEB Pk Hr NBAEB sBN Peak NBfEa swm Nwaa sivaia NaIEB sarm NNE8 BBMB wi afoul BNd C.R.951 SD 0.71 D Stab MC -1 Ups, 2,910 200908LOSAtrldbeok 1,113 840 Na 0.s- kF ALR 6.9% Na 3.29] 1,8]9 ate EB W M 19]3 1502 0.8]1 0.511 Yes W 967 1061 B..(C.R951) Gnldenc;al�L!_- Geer BNd 4D 2.01 D Count' MC-1 Urban 2,180 Caber Cwdy AIIIR 1.81] 855 Na OBP OUR 3.1% Na 3,509 2,386 '123 SB 81 SO 246] 1213 1.132 0.558 Yes Yen -287 -206 951) BNd Gdd -4O 1.03 D County MC -1 lAps 2,360 Cdf County AUIR 1,550 %I Na 0.61 Rd AUR 28% Ne 3.242 1.978 1.266 SB . 105 20]2 1389 0.878 0.580 Yes Y® t 280 382 abs BNtl. (C.R951) Gdden Gale r`,... 175(N) 4p 1fi6 D Cwdy ML1 Uban 2,450 Cdliar COUn AUIR 1,313 805 Na 0.82 M AUR SAM Ne 3397 2.106 1291 SB 149 166 2255 1457 0.920 0.595 Vag Yce 195 314 allerBW (C.R951) 175(S) Dads BNd 6D 038 D Stale MC 1 Uban 3,000 Cdlier County PLR 2,252 1699 Na OS7 W AUR 4.3% Ne 5,661 3.227 2AM SB 291 325 3518 W59 1.1]3 0920 Yes Ys -518 -227 BNd. (C.R951) Davis Bbd. Lads Way Rtl. 6D 220 E Caery MCI lApan 3,270 Cdf, County AUR 1894 1,429 Na 057 Re PLR 25% Na 4,149 2,365 1]86 SB 407 450 2772 22M 0808 0684 Yea - 4% 905 B..(C.R 951) LOrd'3 Way Rtl. Ratamnaka ybnenock Rtl. SO 092 E Comfy MC -1 l4ben 3270 -1 -Cwdy AUIR 1696 1,429 N. 057 NB AUR 2.5% Na 4.149 2,385 1704 NB 556 551 2921 2335 0893 0.714 Yes Yes 349 905 Caber BNd.(C.R.951) Ralilesn Wk illwk Rd U.S41 SO 341 E Cwdy - 1-n 3,330 C- r -yAUIR 1,658 1,152 Na 0.59 W PLR 3.8% Na 3,891 2.296 15% NB 291 261 258] 1656 0.]77 0557 Yes Ym W W 743 1034 S.R951 U.S.41 Wa1Nbd D-W SD 045 D Stale Mc, UMla 23]0 Cdier Coudy AUIR 1489 1123 1 OS] t'8 PLR 3.1% Na 3415 1.947 1.468 NB 107 96 2o54 1564 0.867 0660 Ves Yas M W 316 423 SR.951 Wa1MM Dritaway Naratee Rd. 40 0.63 D State M- Upon 1,9]0 CAM Coudy AUIR 1,560 1.329 Na 0.54 NB AR 32% Na 3,992 2.156 1636 NB 119 107 2275 1913 1.155 0.986 YM Y® Y® M 305 .1 Sa SR951 h4natee Rd. NAinsaA Or 40 347 D Stale UMt 11Nan 2,590 Cabs Cwdy AUR 1,186 1,392 Na 0.51 M AUR 4.2% Na 3.663 1,685 1 P97 M 103 93 17M 2071 0.890 Veer Yea M W 519 612 Redo Rd. -,- Rd Soda Barba. BNd. 40 2.01 D Canty MC -1 Urban 2,120 Cabs County AUIR 1,154 678 Na 063 EB AUR 5.]% N. 2,867 1,806 1,061 EB 105 W 1911 1155 0.901 Vas Yes W W 2% 314 Ratlo Rtl. Santa Babas BNd. SR 84 (D.- BNd) 40 1.31 D Canty MC -1 IAben 2,100 ... Cwnl PLIR 379 502 Ne 0.57 WB AUR ain Na 1,674 720 951 EB 71 SI 791 1018 0.3]7 Yea Vrm W W 1082 1148 Rattesnake Hnck Rtl. U541 Cbml ,o -ENd. 40 Oa0 D Canty MC -1 prow 1,910 CMer Cwdy AUIR 591 1,OW Ne 0.63 We AUR 2.3% Na 1.960 725 1,235 EB 224 201 949 1438 0489 Y. Y® W W 501 705 Raabsnake Hnck Rd. Cterle N-BNd, Gamy Bam Rd. 4D 0.40 D Cwdy MC -1 Upan 1,910 Cdl'er Cwnty AUIR 705 554 Na 0.55 EB OUR 40% N. 1,]63 987 776 EB 248 223 1235 999 0.637 Vas Y. W W 705 953 Raalesnake Heck Rtl. Cwdy Bam Rtl. Sala Barbara BNd. 4D 075 D Cwdy MC -1 11Nw 2,340 Gawr Cwnty - 715 47] Na 0.80 EB AUR 61% 1.925 1,155 TIO EB 285 255 140 1025 0.615 Veer Yee W W 900 1185 Raalesnake Huck Rtl. Saga BaNara BNd. C 8.951 aD 1.9D D Cwdy M C 1 Upon 3,200 c.. Coudy AIIR 419 403 Na 0.51 EB AUR 9.5% Na 1,602 817 785 588 509 1386 1294 0433 Yee ff-7. Ves W W 1815 2359 B-N BNd. Ratlo Rd S R S4 (Dohs BNd) 6D 105 E Coudy M C -1 J-, 3,250 Crier candy AUIR 7T7 950 a 055 SB N R 42% Na 2,461 1,10] 1 356 125 140 1292 1494 0.3]9 Yes Y. W W 17% 18% Barbara Etlereion S.R84 O.is BNd) Raalesnake Hammack Rd. SD 205 E Cwdy MC 1 lkban 3.250 Assaned same as previous W. nla 0095fi 055 Na nla nla 3],193 3,556 1,fi00 1,956 178 199 17)8 2155 054] Yes Veer W M 1095 1294 175 Gddar Gala Pkwy. Collier BNd 4F 330 D SUte Freeway 3,720 20090 &LOS Handbook 1,406 1]90 0.0940 058 WB FOOT CS n2000 31% 42,675 4.002 1761 2,241 119 107 1880 2308 0.505 1 Yes W W W 1372 1479 rail Easl Dare Bbd. Alpod Rd. SD 1.2fi E Slate MC -2 llrbs, 2.]63 Cdlrer-yAUIR 1731 1,203 Na 0% EB .1R 20% Na 3,521 2,0]1 1,44 109 98 21W 1542 O.M 1 Yes Ves M W 564 673 Tamiami Trail East Mrp. Rd. Ra111esnaka Nmnmwk- SD 169 E Bide - 11Aa, 3,200 Cdf -rlyAUIR 2471 171] Na 059 EB ALR 20% Na 5.025 2,965 2.060 rEB 168 151 3133 2211 0979 1 Yes Veer W M 67 235 Tamiami Trail East Cdf rB1W. San W. Dr. 2U 8.16 C State MC -1 lkban 1,075 ""Coudy AUR Sol 565 051 EB AlR 44% Na 1,663 818 815 a] M 915 875 0.851 160 227 Leltl$Way Rd. Cdlier BNtl. (C R. 951) Celebration BNd. 2U 0.50 E Cwnty -1 Urban 790 20090 &LOS Handbook 6 00900 0.56 EB TOAT- Na 1.69] 153 82 71 4 8 14] 41 0186 0.368 Yea W W W 499 708 S ay Rd. Cebbeaon BNd. Benfi.ltl Rd. 2U 0.50 E Cwnty M C 1 Urban 790 20090 &LOS H.ndbwk 0 0 0.0900 nla Na Na 0 0 0 0 67 1. 67 167 0.- 0211 Yes Yes W W 623 790 IC R 951) Celebaibn BNd. 4D 025 E Cwnny MC 1 lApan 1,760 20090 &LOS Handbook 2 6 00900 052 EB TOAEstimat. n1, 2,34] 211 110 101 1060 935 1170 low 0.665 0.589 Yea Yes M W 590 law Raal.sneke Wmmack Rd. Ciebmaa, Bpd. BedieH Rd. 2U 025 E Cwdy MC i Urban 790 20090 &LOS Handbook 2 6 00900 052 ea TOAE5ama1. 2,36] 211 110 101 349 226 459 3P 0.581 0.414 Yes Yes W W 331 600 -1. Rd. sadM1 Erd Rattlesnake HSnmwkRE. I 2U 0.30 E Cwnty MC -1 Urban 790 2009 O-L Hanm 0 0 Na Na Na Na Na 0 0 0 0 SB 85 153 85 153 0108 0,190 Yea Yea W W 637 790 BeMeb Rd R�b . Namrrgck Rtl. L . W Rtl. 2U 0.60 E Cou A- U,l-, 790 2009 0&LOS Ibx1vA 0 0 Na nla Na nle NA 0 0 0 0 NB 42 63 42 33 0.053 0.002 Y_ Yes W W 748 ]90 Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impact Study -15- conditions are expected. 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 (C.R. 95 1) at Southern Site Access (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: Q • Collier Boulevard (C.R.951) at Golden Gate Parkway • Tamiami Trail East (U.S.41) at Rattlesnake Hammock Road • Tamiami Trail East (U.S.41) at San Marco Road (C.R.92) Finally, pursuant to Collier County request, the following intersection was also analyzed: • Collier Boulevard (C.R.951) at Tamiami Trail East (U.S.41) Intersection turning movement volume forecasts are included in Appendix G. Levels of service were calculated using the following methodologies: Signalized Arterials Synchro (2000 HCMProcedures) Signalized Intersections Synchro (2000 HCMProcedures) 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 0 Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impact Study -16- Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC • Collier Boulevard (C.R.951) at Golden Gate Parkway • Collier Boulevard (S.R.951) at Interstate 75 Ramps (South) 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. 11.4 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 • Construct an additional (for a total of two) northbound -to- westbound left turn lane on Collier Boulevard. • Construct an additional (for a total of two) southbound -to- eastbound left turn lane on Collier Boulevard. • Construct an additional (for a total of two) southbound -to- westbound right turn lane on Collier Boulevard. • Construct an additional (for a total of three) eastbound -to- northbound left turn lane on Pine Ridge Road. • Construct an additional (for a total of two) eastbound through lane on Pine Ridge Road. • Construct an additional (for a total of three) westbound through lane on Pine Ridge Road. • Construct a westbound -to- northbound right turn lane on Pine Ridge Road. • Widen from 4 lanes to 6 lanes Collier Boulevard from Green Boulevard to Golden Gate Boulevard. All these improvements are consistent with the improvements identified by Collier County on Collier Boulevard from Green Boulevard to Golden Gate Boulevard. Collier Boulevard (C.R.951) at Golden Gate Parkway • Construct an additional (for a total of two) northbound -to- westbound left turn lane on Collier Boulevard. Collier Boulevard (S.R.951) at I -75 Ramps (South) • Construct an additional (for a total of three) eastbound -to- southbound right turn lane on I -75 Ramps. Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impact Study -17- Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC Table 7b Signalized Intersections Level of Service Analysis Summary Tindale- Oliver and Associales, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impact Slnch' -18- Hacienda Lakes q1 Naples, LLC Movement Intersection Time Measure Overall EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Period 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 1.30 0.52 1.05 1.05 0.19 n/a at PM Peak Da l 67. 136.4 36.3 63.3 128.4 n/a 114.1 172.2 26.7 172.6 79.8 15.4 103.7 Pin Hour [sec] Ridge Rd LOS E F D E F n/a F F C F E B F 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 17.0 n/a n/a 10.1 1.1 23.0 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 158.7 5.9 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 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 Collier Blvd PM Delay n/a n/a 75.4 n/a 45.7 7.7 2.8 n/a n/a 31.6 15.1 16.5 at Peak I -75 North Hour n/a sec Ramps LOS n/a n/a n/a E n/a D A A n/a n/a C B B Collier Blvd V/C 0.17 n/a 1.22 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.04 0.23 1.30 0.39 n/a n/a at PM Peak Delay 27.8 n/a 147.4 n/a n/a n/a n/a 51.6 23.5 261.5 1.6 n/a 61.6 1 -75 South [sec] Hour LOS C n/a F n/a n/a n/a n/a D C F A n/a E Ramps V/C 0.99 0.41 0.62 0.47 0.67 0.81 0.94 0.77 0.13 0.45 0.99 0.50 n/a Collier Blvd at PM Peak Delay 67.9 38.2 43.2 61.6 68.9 68.0 77.9 35.9 25.1 59.0 37.3 26.3 45.6 Davis Blvd Hour [sec] LOS E D D E E E E D C E D C D V/C 0.74 0.37 0.31 0.48 0.53 0.43 0.87 0.79 0.03 0.74 0.71 0.12 n/a Collier Blvd at PM Peak Delay 53.0 37.3 36.9 54.8 45.4 45.6 51.0 41.0 28.1 53.6 45.3 36.7 44.2 Tamiami trail Hour [sec] LOS D D D D D D D D C D D D D 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 Delay n/a n/a n/a 58.9 n/a 56.2 n/a 2.1 0.1 60.7 2.4 n/a 6.8 Wal-Mart Hour Driveway LOS n/a n/a n/a E n/a E n/a A A E A n/a A V/C n/a n/a n/a 0.80 n/a 0.69 n/a 0.96 0.15 0.95 0.67 n/a n/a Collier Blvd PM Delay n/a n/a n/a 72.4 n/a 63.2 n/a 42.1 15.2 75.9 9.8 n/a 34.4 at Peak Manatee Rd Hour [sec] LOS n/a n/a n/a E n/a E n/a D B E A n/a C Tamiami Trail V/C 0.97 0.98 0.14 0.78 0.94 0.09 0.82 0.70 0.33 0.78 0.97 0.22 n/a at Rattlesnake PM Peak Delay 75.7 49.3 21.3 72.7 54.5 31.4 76.2 58.6 52.1 58.9 78.8 42.8 56.9 [sec] Hammock Hour LOS E D C E D I C I E I E I D I E t E D E Rd Tindale- Oliver and Associales, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impact Slnch' -18- Hacienda Lakes q1 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 Movement Roadway Time Time Measure Measure Intersection Overall Measure EBT EBR Speed WBT Direction NBL [mph] Service SBL SBT SBR On Period To Collier Blvd Vic EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR n/a V/C n/a note 1 note 1 0.02 note 1 n/a 0.44 n/a 0.03 n/a n/a n/a Tamiami Trail 44.9 Peak Pane PM �Sela] n/a note 1 note 1 8.5 note 1 n/a 23.0 n/a 10.6 n/a n/a n/a at Peak San Hour C D Ridge Rd Collier Blvd V/C 0.99 n/a 0.90 n/a n/a n/a Marco Rd 0.59 LOS n/a note 1 note 1 A note 1 n/a I C I n/a B n/a n/a n/a 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 Table 8b Signalized Intersections Level of Service Analysis Summary With Improvements Scenario Movement Roadway Average Time Measure Measure Overall Level of EBT EBR Speed WBT Direction NBL [mph] Service SBL SBT SBR On From To Collier Blvd Vic Collier Blvd 1-75(S) Davis Blvd. 17.1 D NB Table 8b Signalized Intersections Level of Service Analysis Summary With Improvements Scenario Tindale- Oliver and Associales, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Ti-affie Impact Sludp - 19- Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC Movement Intersection Time Measure Measure Overall EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Collier Blvd Vic 0.86 0.71 0.25 0.65 0.47 0.03 0.75 0.82 0.46 0.53 0.52 0.11 n/a PM D[ ela] 54.3 47.3 39.0 61.2 54.6 51.4 60.7 38.5 36.1 62.4 38.6 32.8 44.9 Peak Pane H our LOS D D D E D D E D D E D C D Ridge Rd 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 n/a PM Delay 68.7 n/a 61.7 n/a n/a n/a 64.9 6.0 n/a n/a 48.1 88.1 52.9 at Peak Golden Gate [sec] Hour LOS E n/a E n/a n/a n/a E A n/a n/a D F D Pkwy Collier Blvd V/C 0.22 n/a 1.00 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.96 0.21 0.71 0.34 n/a n/a PM Delay 35.5 n/a 70.1 n/a n/a n/a n/a 26.0 25.2 99.8 33.0 n/a 37.8 at Peak 1 -75 South [sec] Hour LOS D n/a E n/a n/a n/a n/a C C F C n/a D Ramps Tindale- Oliver and Associales, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Ti-affie Impact Sludp - 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 four connections to Collier Blvd. (C.R. 951), as follows: 1. North Project Driveway (right - in/right- out /left -in connection), 2. The Lord's Way (full connection), 3. Rattlesnake Hammock Road (full connection), and 4. South project Driveway (right - in/right -out connection). Traffic signals are anticipated to be required at the second 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 Associales, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impact Study -20- Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC Movement Intersection Time Measure Measure Overall EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR V/C 0.23 0.03 n/a 0.51 0.10 n/a 0.39 0.78 0.07 0.60 0.91 0.02 n/a AM Peak Delay 63.2 61.0 n/a 49.0 40.7 n/a 49.4 16.1 2.2 69.9 32.5 13.9 26.8 Hour [sec] Collier Blvd LOS E E n/a D D n/a D B A E C B C at V/C 0.28 0.04 n/a 0.84 0.10 n/a 0.49 0.99 0.10 0.71 0.71 0.02 n/a Lord's Way PM Peak Delay 62.2 59.8 n/a 78.6 47.8 n/a 44.5 15.5 0.5 79.3 20.0 10.9 21.6 Hour [sec] LOS E E n/a E D n/a D B A E B B C V/C 0.80 0.55 0.23 0.70 0.71 0.42 0.74 0.59 0.07 0.76 0.77 0.33 n/a AM Peak D( ela] 53.1 50.0 62.1 59.6 53.6 63.8 27.3 20.0 76.1 12.1 2.7 33.9 Collier Blvd Hour 62.7 at LOS E D D E E D E C C E B A C Rattlesnake V/C 0.96 0.76 0.19 0.78 0.89 0.51 0.78 0.99 0.12 0.90 0.60 0.48 n/a Hammock Rd PM Delay Peak 77.9 58.0 47.8 65.8 75.5 55.6 62.3 55.7 25.3 77.6 16.1 7.7 49.9 Hour [sec] LOS E E D E E E E E C E B A D Tindale- Oliver and Associales, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impact Study -20- Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC Table 9b Unsignalized Intersections Level of Service Analysis Summary Project Driveway Note 1: unopposed mowment Proportionate Share Computation As noted above, the following off -site improvements were identified as necessary to mitigate Hacienda Lakes project impacts: Collier Boulevard (C.R.951) at Pine Ridge Road • Construct an additional (for a total of two) northbound -to- westbound left turn lane on Collier Boulevard. • Construct an additional (for a total of two) southbound -to- eastbound left turn lane on Collier Boulevard. • Construct an additional (for a total of two) southbound -to- westbound right turn lane on Collier Boulevard. • Construct an additional (for a total of three) eastbound -to- northbound left turn lane on Pine Ridge Road. • Construct an additional (for a total of two) eastbound through lane on Pine Ridge Road. • Construct an additional (for a total of three) westbound through lane on Pine Ridge Road. • Construct a westbound -to- northbound right turn lane on Pine Ridge Road. • Widen from 4 lanes to 6 lanes Collier Boulevard from Green Boulevard to Golden Gate Boulevard. Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impact Studv -21- Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC Movement Time Intersection Measure Measure EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR V/C n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.12 n/a note 1 note 1 0.15 note 1 n/a AM Delay n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 15.6 n/a note 1 note 1 15.2 note 1 n/a Peak Hour [sec] Collier Blvd at LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a C n/a note 1 note 1 C note 1 n/a V/C n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.20 n/a note 1 note 1 0.42 note 1 n/a North Driveway PM Delay n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 21.8 n/a note 1 note 1 30.2 note 1 n/a Peak Hour [sec] LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a C n/a note 1 note 1 D note 1 n/a V/C n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.02 n/a note 1 note 1 n/a note 1 n/a AM Peak Delay n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 12.4 n/a note 1 note 1 n/a note 1 n/a Hour [sec] Collier Blvd at LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a B n/a note 1 note 1 n/a note 1 n/a V/C n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.02 n/a note 1 note 1 n/a note 1 n/a South Driveway PM Delay n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 15.7 n/a note 1 note 1 n/a note 1 n/a Peak [sec] Hour LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a C n/a note 1 note 1 n/a note 1 n/a Note 1: unopposed mowment Proportionate Share Computation As noted above, the following off -site improvements were identified as necessary to mitigate Hacienda Lakes project impacts: Collier Boulevard (C.R.951) at Pine Ridge Road • Construct an additional (for a total of two) northbound -to- westbound left turn lane on Collier Boulevard. • Construct an additional (for a total of two) southbound -to- eastbound left turn lane on Collier Boulevard. • Construct an additional (for a total of two) southbound -to- westbound right turn lane on Collier Boulevard. • Construct an additional (for a total of three) eastbound -to- northbound left turn lane on Pine Ridge Road. • Construct an additional (for a total of two) eastbound through lane on Pine Ridge Road. • Construct an additional (for a total of three) westbound through lane on Pine Ridge Road. • Construct a westbound -to- northbound right turn lane on Pine Ridge Road. • Widen from 4 lanes to 6 lanes Collier Boulevard from Green Boulevard to Golden Gate Boulevard. Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impact Studv -21- Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC El, Figure 3a Project Driveways Geometry Intersection Geometry N North Project Collier Blvd Driveway at North Driveway Collier Blvd N Collier Blvd Lord's Way at Lord's Way Collier Blvd References: Existing Lane New Lane Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impact Study -22- Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC Figure 3b Project Driveways Geometry Intersection Geometry N 11 Rattlesnake Collier Blvd J= Hammock Rd at Rattlesnake Hammock Rd Collier Blvd N South Project Collier Blvd Driveway at South Driveway Collier Blvd References: I=* Existing Lane New Lane Collier Boulevard (C.R.951) at Golden Gate Parkway • Construct an additional (for a total of two) northbound -to- westbound left turn lane on Collier Boulevard. Collier Boulevard (S.R.951) at I -75 Ramps (South) • Construct an additional (for a total of three) eastbound -to- southbound right turn lane on I -75 Ramps. Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impact Study -23- Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC The project's proportionate share percentages of these improvements were calculated and it is summarized in Table 10. The detailed proportionate share computation is included in Appendix J. Table 10 Hacienda Lakes Proportionate Share Computation (1) Source: Collier County Capital Improvement Program ® In addition Hacienda Lakes development will build several roads and dedicate right of wa p � Y for the future construction of Benfield Road within the site that will serve not only the project but also the general public. Therefore, the portion of these roads that will serve the general public will be impact fee creditable. Table 11 summarizes the transportation impact fee credits resulting from the construction of this additional capacity to be available to the general public and these improvements can be observed in Figure 4. The detailed computation of this credit is included in Appendix K. 0 Table 11 Impact Fee Credit Computation Commitment I Roadway Segment r Rattlesnake Hammock Ext. Collier Blvd. FPL Easement Total Roadway Segment Cost $1,369,412 Capacity Impact Fee Cre $0 Prop. Rattlesnake Hammock Ext. FPL Easement Celebration Blvd. prop. Location Proposed Project Share Total Share $2,440,988 IV Rattlesnake Hammock Ext. Celebration Blvd. Benfield Rd. $1,551,412 Improvements 7!-Add Before After Added Trips % Cost VII The Lord's Way Ext. Business Park West Ent. Benfield Rd. total of two) NBL turn lane on Collier Blvd. 82.4% $1,443,890 VIII Benfield Rd. JRattlesnak e Hammock Ext. IThe Lord's Way Ext. $4,544,736 94.8% $4,308,410 IX total of two) SBL turn lane on Collier Blvd. $472,500 100.0% $472,500 X Benfield Rd. ISouth of Sabal Palm Rd. $436,500 100.0% $436,500 • Add (for a total of two) SBR turn lane on Collier Blvd. JBenfiel d Rd. beginning (south) IRattlesnake Hammock Ext. $2,272,118 83.5% $1,897,219 Total Impact Fee Credit: $14,137,207 Collier Blvd. . Add (for a total of three) EBL turn lane on Pine Ridge Rd. 11 from Green Blvd. 6,638 10,177 3,539 178 5.0% $32,115,000 $1,605,750 • Add (for a total of two) EBT lane on Pine Ridge Rd. to Golden Gate Blvd. • Additional (for a total of three) WBT lane on Pine Ridge Rd. • Construct a WBR turn lane on Pine Ridge Rd. • Widen from 4 lanes to 6 lanes Collier Blvd. Collier Blvd. • Add (for a total of two) NBL turn lane on Collier Blvd. at 6,182 6,741 559 255 45.6% $ 1,032,160 $ 470,665 • Signal Modifications Golden Gate Pkwy. Collier Blvd. at . Add (for a total of three) EBR turn lane on 1 -75 Off Ramp 9,057 11,125 2,068 615 29.7% $ 778,337 $ 231,166 'Signal Modifications 1 -75 SB Off Ramps Total $2,307, 581 (1) Source: Collier County Capital Improvement Program ® In addition Hacienda Lakes development will build several roads and dedicate right of wa p � Y for the future construction of Benfield Road within the site that will serve not only the project but also the general public. Therefore, the portion of these roads that will serve the general public will be impact fee creditable. Table 11 summarizes the transportation impact fee credits resulting from the construction of this additional capacity to be available to the general public and these improvements can be observed in Figure 4. The detailed computation of this credit is included in Appendix K. 0 Table 11 Impact Fee Credit Computation Commitment I Roadway Segment r Rattlesnake Hammock Ext. Collier Blvd. FPL Easement Total Roadway Segment Cost $1,369,412 Public Benefit Percentage 0.0% Impact Fee Cre $0 II Rattlesnake Hammock Ext. FPL Easement Celebration Blvd. $1,369,412 0.0% $0 III Rattlesnake Hammock Ext. Collier Blvd. Celebration Blvd. $3,563,486 68.5% $2,440,988 IV Rattlesnake Hammock Ext. Celebration Blvd. Benfield Rd. $1,551,412 60.1% $932,399 VI The Lord's Way Ext. Collier Blvd. Business Park West Ent. $3,286,589 67.1% $2,205,301 VII The Lord's Way Ext. Business Park West Ent. Benfield Rd. $1,752,294 82.4% $1,443,890 VIII Benfield Rd. JRattlesnak e Hammock Ext. IThe Lord's Way Ext. $4,544,736 94.8% $4,308,410 IX Benfield Rd. South of Rattlesnake Hammock Ext. & North of The Lord's Way Ext. $472,500 100.0% $472,500 X Benfield Rd. ISouth of Sabal Palm Rd. $436,500 100.0% $436,500 XI JBenfiel d Rd. beginning (south) IRattlesnake Hammock Ext. $2,272,118 83.5% $1,897,219 Total Impact Fee Credit: $14,137,207 Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impact Study -24- Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LL � I I I I i Commitment V — —�--- — Commitment VII I Commitment VI I I I 0 Commitment IV _ Commitment VIII Commitment IX Commitment III <" Commitment XI I Commitment II i II Commitment I I I 1I FM IL I j — Commitment X I Figure 3 Improvements within the Site Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impact Study -25- Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC Hacienda Lakes aka Toll - Rattlesnake PUD Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner GMP Application EAC Hearing Review Materials EXHIBIT O Areas of Historical /Archelogical Probability DUW', Hacienda Lakes 0 1,000 2,000 Feet DIA T/� 1W, Exhibit O - Archaeological Map `SLjI, I IN` .AL •Planning -Visualization .A - Civil Engineering • Surveying & Mapping N Prepared By: mnjones Printing Date: June 18, 2010 File: T:\ Projects\ 2005 \05_0150.02.03_HaciendaLakes\ GMP \Revo1 \Hacienda_ Archaeological _O. mxd Legend Project Boundary Archaeological Site Clamshell Gove T., Midaen Ha Rattlesnake Hammock Rd a `m d 0 � =LANDS U1 O U Jump Start Hammock White Shell Hammock Silver Hard Hal Deep Marsh Hammock Gts 4� Hacienda Lakes 0 1,000 2,000 Feet DIA T/� 1W, Exhibit O - Archaeological Map `SLjI, I IN` .AL •Planning -Visualization .A - Civil Engineering • Surveying & Mapping N Prepared By: mnjones Printing Date: June 18, 2010 File: T:\ Projects\ 2005 \05_0150.02.03_HaciendaLakes\ GMP \Revo1 \Hacienda_ Archaeological _O. mxd Hacienda Lakes aka Toll- Rattlesnake PUD Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner GMP Apphcation EAC Hearing Review Materials ATTACHMENT P Resumes DAA / A INC. Vtisunli atiOn C' O N S L' LT I N Ci Civil Engineering, i L V T 1 g Surveying, & Mapping Education University of Florida I B S. C.E. r' 1984 Registration t License Civil Engineering FL - #42710. 1986 Civil Engineering NC - #029031, 2003 Professional Societies Florida Engineering Society; 1986 — Present National Society of Professional Engineers, 1986 — Present Professional Engineers in Private Practice, 1986 - Present Experience Summary Exhibit P Resumes Emilio J. Robau, P.E. Director of Water Resources Mr. Emilio Robau is one of the founding partners of the firm with over 25 years of professional experience. His areas of practice include the management of land development and environmental restoration design activities, general civil engineering design, and environmental permitting with an emphasis on the water resource related design elements. Mr. Robau graduated from the University of Florida with a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering. Mr. Robau is experienced in land planning, design and permitting of stormwater management, water supply, and wastewater removal systems and related infrastructure. He is qualified as an expert in the complex federal and state regulatory process necessary for successful completion of estuarine, freshwater wetland and environmental resource related permits projects. Mr. Robau is well versed with local regulatory requirements of the various political jurisdictions, as well as in the preparation of environmental assessments, and environmental impact statements, both key elements in the permitting process. Representative Projects Lely Main Canal Stormwater Improvement Project, Collier County, FL — Engineer of 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 modeling effort addressed onsite stormwater issues and included the Harvey Harper methodology for water quality contaminants. The Lely Main Canal required the design of the 1,600 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. DIX [A Planning Wisualir.ation C O N S U L.1' I N C; Civil Engineering Z t T 7.L 1 Surveying & Mapping Exhibit P Resumes 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 DR/ 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. DIX In INC. Planning Exhibit P Visualization Resumes C' O N S U L"F I N G Civil Engineering Z t ► ►l 1 Surveyin0 & iMapping 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 DIATA INC. CONS131_TING 1t1 IL JL Lake Marion Golf Resort, Phase I and II; 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. Pelican Preserve - Fort Myers; 1,200 -Acre Mixed -Use Master Planned Community; WCI 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. Summit Place; 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. Tuscany Cove; 77 -Acre, 316 -Unit Residential Villa Community; A.R.M. Development Corporation of S. W. Florida, Inc.; Naples, FL - Project Planner Dwight H. Nadeau, AICP Planning Services Manager Education Experience Summary University of Alaska/ es / Mr. Dwight Nadeau is a professional Planner and Planning Services Manager. He is Resource Mgmt responsible for coordination and management of resource allocations for planning tasks w /emphasis on associated with the firm's land planning and development projects. Mr. Nadeau has over Urban Planning - Minor in 23 years of planning and community service experience. He holds a Bachelor of Science Archaeology/ 1984 degree in Resource Management with emphasis on Urban Planning, and a minor in Anthropology from the University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Registration / Mr. Nadeau has significant experience in project planning and management; as well as, License comprehensive planning and land use regulation oversight. He has specific expertise in the successful planning and zoning of monumental including AICP - 024609 projects, the r g 1 p g t regulations, s, public preparation of concept and master plans, drafting land development re ulations, ublic outreach and consensus building, and public advocacy through presentations with citizenry Professional and public officials. Mr. Nadeau played a key role in the planning and zoning, as well as Societies professional support in the resulting legal battle over the rural area residential development A" American Planning clustering" of Twin Eagles Golf and Country Club. After 12 years, the matter successfully Association culminated with the setting of a legal precedent for `clusterin of residential developments g' 1987 - Present in rural areas, and laid the foundation for the future development of Eastern Collier County. Florida Chapter In addition, Mr. Nadeau has vast experience with beachfront and waterfront redevelopment, which includes visioning, conceptual development design, team American Planning Association project coordination, and public involvement through the administrative review and political 1987 - Present processes. Representative Projects Residential Lake Marion Golf Resort, Phase I and II; 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. Pelican Preserve - Fort Myers; 1,200 -Acre Mixed -Use Master Planned Community; WCI 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. Summit Place; 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. Tuscany Cove; 77 -Acre, 316 -Unit Residential Villa Community; A.R.M. Development Corporation of S. W. Florida, Inc.; Naples, FL - Project Planner DA11A INC, CONS l; IAA N(7 Z \ T TL JL Dwight H. Nadeau, AICP. Page 2 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. Lake Marion Golf Resort — Phase lll; 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. 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. Toll- Rattlesnake; 2,252 -Acre Mixed -use Development of Regional Impact (DRI) and PUD; Toll- Rattlesnake, LLC (Toll Brothers, Inc. and Sembler Florida, Inc.) — Project planner /manager responsible for multi - disciplinary consulting team coordination, land use allocation and site design oversight, preparation of the application for development approval for the DRI, preparation of rezoning application, authored unique development standards, and public participation. The development is one of the first, large -scale projects to implement the new transfer of development rights program of Collier County. Summit Lakes; 138 -Acre, 968 -Unit Residential Planned Unit Development; Waterways Joint Venture V, Collier County, FL — Project planner responsible for property assemblage due diligence, site design oversight, public participation and rezoning entitlement representation. This project is unique to Southwest Florida due to its development design to provide for residences for several family income levels ranging from workforce housing to luxury attached single - family homes. Faith Landing; 35 -Acre, 175 -Unit Single and Two - Family Residential Development; Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc. Collier County, FL— Project planner responsible for due diligence, planning and site planning oversight, development zoning , public participation, and preparation of affordable housing density bonus agreement with the local board of county commissioners. Vanderbilt Inn Re- Development; TimeMed, Inc., Naples, FL - Project Planner responsible for redevelopment site analysis, master planning, public advocacy and consensus building for the 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 developed with a 77 -unit luxury condominium project. DA11A INC, (70NSt!IJ -ING 1%.1 IL Z Dwight H. Nadeau, AICP Page 3 Commercial /Industrial 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. White Lake Corporate Park, Phase ll (fka Phase IVJ; 2 -Acre Commercial Out - Parcel within 120 -Acre Master Planned Industrial Park; 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. 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. White Lake Corporate Park Phase I; 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. O/de 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. Facilities 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. 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. 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. DIATA INC. C'ONSUL.TING 1 ♦tl 11 1 Dwight H. Nadeau, AICP Page 4 Other Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Catalyst Project, Naples, FL — Project Planner responsible for conceptual designs and public representation for a site within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Areas. The site represents a Catalyst Redevelopment Projects aimed at attracting development interests to the CRA and implementing a distinct vision that has been articulated for the Bayshore Gateway Triangle area. The site is comprised of approximately 20 acres and is located along the Bayshore corridor. The concept developed is for an art's village anchored by a performance arts center. The design includes a mix of commercial, retail, office, residential, live -work units, and civic uses. This catalyst site articulates the CRA's vision for the cultural arts district and creates a focal point for the arts and cultural community. Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Catalyst Project, Naples, FL — Project Planner responsible for conceptual designs and public representation for a site within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Areas. The site represents a Catalyst Redevelopment Projects aimed at attracting development interests to the CRA and implementing a distinct vision that has been articulated for the Bayshore Gateway Triangle area. The site is located at the intersection of US 41 and Davis Boulevard. The concept design depicts a high intensity mixed office complex that would encompass office space, commercial, retail, entertainment, hotel -and residential uses. The design makes a bold statement and creates a definitive gateway to the City of Naples. Bayshore Gateway Triangle Overlay Revisions; Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA; Collier County, FL — Project Planner assisting in developing updates to the Bayshore and Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Overlays for the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) in Collier County. The proposed land development regulations will improve the review and approval processes, remove existing impediments to redevelopment, provide incentives for new investment, and update design standards. County Attorney Cure Plans and Land Use Analyses; Collier County Government; Collier County, FL — Planner responsible for conducting planning analyses, developing cure plans and providing expert testimony regarding condemnation cases in the County. Individual projects entail close coordination with a multitude of parties including attorneys, engineers, land owners and county staff. DAA[A INC.vl' nalizition C 0 N S L1 t._ "I't ti CJ Civil Engineering 1 \ T T1. JL Surveying & Mapping Exhibit P Resumes Michael A. Ward, P.L.S. Survey Project Manager Education Experience Summary Bachelor of Science. Surveying and Mr. Michael A. Ward, P.L.S. has more than 23 years of experience as a Professional Land mapping- University of Florida. 1989 Surveyor. Mr. Ward has extensive experience with boundary surveys, topographic surveys, hydrographic design, rights -of -way, construction layout, platting, condominium documents and project coordination. Mr. Ward's notable project experience includes surveying for the Southwest Florida International Airport Expansion, Florida Gulf Coast Registrations J Licenses University Phases 1, 11, and the Sports Complex and Arena, as well as numerous Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) survey and construction projects and numerous golf course communities throughout Southwest Florida, Professional Land Surveyor Representative Projects FL1LS 530111994 Grim Road Filter Marsh, Collier County, FL — Survey Project Manager responsible for Professional the surveying and mapping services for the water quality treatment facilities and 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 Florida Swveyirg and 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 Mapping Society control stormwater discharges to the Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve. Collier -Lee Chapter of Florida Surveyh7g and Cape Coral Utility Expansion Project, Lee County, FL — Project Manager for the utility Mapping SocietylPresident 1997 expansion project that involves establishing horizontal and vertical control; preparing a base map containing the platted road rights -of -way, lot lines, and parcel ownerships; and "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 51Director 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. DIX A Visualization Planina C70 N S Ct I_T I \� CY Civil Engineering 1 ♦ T 71. 1 Swveyin�j & Mapping Exhibit P Resumes Michael A. Ward, P.L.S. Page 2 Embarq Fiber Optic Lines (Southwest Florida International Airport); Fort Myers, FL — Project Manager for RWA, Inc. and teaming partner Eatthview LLC to complete contract for EMBARQ to locate and map all of the underground fiber optic lines within the perimeter of the newly constructed Southwest Florida International Airport. This project consisted of locating 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 PC) Rnx 17A7 Mn-- icl -4 ri—,; A., 7G I At 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, 1989 - Present Florida Chapter American Planning Association 1.989 - (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,A1CP µw 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 2001and 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). 2006 — N Magazine and the Education Foundation of Collier County's Man of Distinction 2001 -Award of Excellence- Florida American Planning Association 2000 - Award of Morit- Florida American Planning Association 1997 - Award of Excellence- Florida American Planning Association 1997 - Top 30 Leaders of 2e Century— Marco island Eagle 1997 -Marco island Citizen of the Year Naples Daily News Exhibit P Resumes Collier County RLSA (Rural Stewardship Credit System (RSCS) and Rural Fringe Transferable Development Rights (7 DR) Programs; Board of County Commissioners; Collier County, FL — Principal -in- charge and project manager responsible for the oversight of the development of the RLSA and Rural Fringe TDR 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 included process delineation for obtaining stewardship credits by the property owner through an application process. The scope encompassed overseeing the implementation of the designation process into a user - friendly database system for use by County staff; as well as mechanisms for regular maintenance, updates, data backup, and easy public information access. Appropriate Growth Management Plan (GMP) Goals, Objectives, and Policies (GOPs), and implementing Land Development Code (LDC) amendment were 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 conversion to other uses. Miscellaneous Public Sector Involvement, Collier County, FL — Responsible for administration and interpretation of the Collier County Comprehensive Plan and the Collier County Land Development Code. Staff liaison to the Collier County Planning Commission, the Collier County Environmental Advisory Council, and several other advisory boards, committees and subcommittees. In this capacity, Mr. Mulhere directed the development of numerous zoning overlays and land code amendments, including the Marco Island Zoning Overlay, the Collier County Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Overlay, The Immokalee Zoning Overlay, the development of Commercial Architectural standards in Collier County, as well as comprehensive rewrites of Collier County's sign and landscape codes. 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 Telephone: (561) 575 -3910 Office 5906 Center Street, (561) 744 -7264 Home Jupiter, Florida 33458 (561) 744 -1865 Fax E -mail: Dixieto►n @aol.com Professional Certified Professional Engineer, Florida PE #15233 Education MS, 1973, Florida Institute of Technology Major: Physical Oceanography 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 Exhibit P Resumes 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/hydmgeologic /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 III, 1185 acre Mitigation Area, Broward County. Wetland hydroperiod /hydropattern simulations (S2DMM) for wetland preserve associated with 40 acre development (Tommy Lee Jones Residence), Wellington, A. 2D, H/H and Water Budget (wetland hydroperiod /hydropattem) 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 3-D Hydrodynamic (EFDC) flushing simulations for Sailfish Point Harbor, Martin Co., FL Exhibit F 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 budgeUhydropedod /hydropattern 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. (WH) 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, UNET, 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) evaluation,(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 surreys, 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 H1H 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 Down to Earth. Down to Business: DiSCIPLINEiSPECIALTY • Water 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 Health Administration 40 -hour Hazardous Materials Safety Training and subsequent 8 -hour annual updates, 1992 -2006 • American Society of Testing Materials Workshop Training for Risk -Based Corrective Action, ASTM Standard E1739 -95. 1997 • Princeton Groundwater, Inc., The Remediation Course, 2000 PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS . National Groundwater Association Sames8na�_ Ma51er 20100314[1] Doe Exhibit P Brian K. Barnes Resumes SENIOR MANAGING HYDROGEOLOGIST 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 remediation 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. RELEVANT 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. Page 1 of 2 E N T R I X Down to Earth. Down to Business..- Exhibit P Resumes Brian K. Barnes 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. Bames_Bnan_MasIH 2Ci00119�1j.Doc Page 2 of 2 Exhibit P " "lr 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: arch] gcl(aabelI south. net Web: www.flarchaeology.com Robert S. Carr Education 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 Anthropologisi • 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 1 qf3 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 Exhibit P Resumes 2003 Carr, Robert S., Alison Elgart-Berry, Victor Longo, Jeff Ransom Archaeological Survey of Palm Beach County, Florida. AHC Technical Report #419. 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. AHC Technical Report #124 1991 An Archaeological Survey of Broward County, Florida: Phase I..4HC Technical Report 434 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 No. 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 #346. 1996 Archaeological and Historical Elements for the Management of Snake Warriors Island, Broward County, Florida. AHC Technical Report #139. Page 2 of 3 Robert S. Carr —page ; Exhibit P Resumes 1996 Carr, Robert S., and W.S. Steele Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of Atsena Otie Levy County, Florida. ANC Technical Report 4151. 1995 Carr, Robert S. and W.S. Steele An Archaeological Survey of Brighton Seminole Reservation, Glades County Florida. AHC Technical Report 4116 1995 Carr, Robert S., Linda Jester and James Pepe Phase II Archaeological Excavations of the Riverbend #12 Site, 8P137984, 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 -Beery, 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 IL Bahamas AHC Technical Report #2, May 1993. 1991 An Archaeological Survey of Spanish Wells and North Eleuthera, Bahamas. Bahamas AHC Technical Report #l. 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 Sough Florida Historical Association Florida Archaeological Council Page 3 of 3 Hacienda Lakes aka Toll- Rattlesnake PUD Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner GMP Application EAC Hearing Review Materials ATTACHMENT Q Market and Needs Evaluation 4 ' Ma RESEM N C O N S U L T A N T 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. KLAN t5 I A I t KtStAKCH CONSULTANTS, INC. Hacienda Lakes 0 0.25 05Miles Study Area 2.5 Miles from Intersection NENEE= D \ATA "' SI!LTIN(-, t tl JL N • C'ivil f gi—v • Sum"Ag A Mapping Prepared By rmj- Printing Data: Sept22, 2010 File'. T. \Projecte120M05 0150.02.03 Hac,endaLakeS`. GMP \Re102 \Hacienda_StudyArea ActCb2.5. —d Source: Zoning 8 PUD (Collier County Gov —nt) Hacienda Lakes 0 0.25 0.5 Miles Traffic Analysis Zones D`T IA" CIINSUI TI NG 1 \v V1 J •pleaamg \—hyat- N Civil "gi—mg • S—mg & Mapping Prepared By rmtone, Printing Data: Sept 22, 2010 File: T'. \Projects\2005 \OS 0150.02.03 HaciendAake,� GMP \Rev02 \Hacienda ActCtr2.5 TAZ. —d Source' TAZ & PUD iCollier County Govemmentl 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 ■Seasonal Peak The projected change in permanent or fulltime 500,000 resident population, however, is only the most obvious source of potential demand. Demand 400,000 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 Region market cannot be adequately judged by an ■ Florida analysis of current and projected resident ■Mid Atlantic population alone. ■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 • Foreign • 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- residential development in the Collier County, which generally Commercial matches the Office/ Banks increase observed in Industrial residential activity. At least 1995 -1998 1995 -2008 1999 -2008 1995 -2008 1999 -2008 Average Average 1,743,030 10,986,605 9,243,575 784,758 924,358 627,673 2,667,745 2,040,072 190,553 204,007 1,241.887 4,112,661 2,870.774 293.762 287,077 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. REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, 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 these by size of household, Average annual expenditures, Consumer Expenditure Survey, 2008 employment status, income and other Item $100,000 $100,000 to $120,000 to $150,000 and attributes. The survey effort is and more $119,999 $149,000 more designed to capture different types of consumer expenditures occurring Income after taxes $157,379 $105,048 $127,295 $220,261 over a period of time. It is among the Average annual expenditures $100,065 $77,586 $91,590 $124,678 most detailed reconciliations of 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 Alcoholic beverages $919 $761 $904 $1,083 categories of spending or other information highlighted. Materials not highlighted or referenced rovide Ho use keeping supplies $1,165 $1,147 $1,097 $1,238 p Laundry and cleaning supplies $212 $199 $236 $208 context but are not a part of any Other household products $702 $735 $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 $1,198 $947 $1,138 $1,472 Reading $233 $197 $210 $276 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 $1,278 $1,612 $2277 to be oriented toward the regions' Household expenditures, except cars $41,404 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. REAL 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 table. Commercial accompanying Coommercial RWA Ordinance Total Commercial Footage Square ID NAME Comments Number Acreage Acreage Approved Footage We see only a limited relevance for competing COLLIER REGIONAL Approved for 260K hospital and 80K 1MEDICAL CENTER medical office. 80K office already developed. 04 -28 60.00 60.00 340,000 275,946 lands in the context of this (DRI-99 -1). Neighborhood commercial 12 WINDING CYPRESS not open to the public 0235 1,928.00 15.00 30,000 - analysis. For the most 0 lice and commercial uses allowed. Developed with an Urgent Care and an part, the actual 15 EDISON VILLAGE Amsouth Bank. One parcel left. 00 -83 7.44 5.66 54,000 25,000' implementation of any use Developed with a Publix anchored shopping remains largely 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, speculative at this stage 25 SIERRA MEADOWS (EX) Vacant. Retail /Office allowed 99 -91 90.80 30.20 260,000 - of planning. Because DRI -84 -3q Only listed 30 acres which are the many of these potential C3 uses per PUD (which are in the study area); On Rattlesnake Hammock /Grand Lely projects will never be 27 LELY RESORT Dr and on CR951 /Grand Lely Dr HAMMOCK PARK 07 -72 2,892.50 30,00 300,000" - constructed, the 30 COMMERCE CENTER Retail /Office allowed 0730 20.23 19.05 160,000 project's Retail /Office allowed. Assisted Living also residential uses, which 31 GOOD TURN CENTER allowed instead of commercial. 09 -53 9.50 9.50 100,000 comprise the focus of the Medical& General Office. No retail allowed. 32 MCMULLEN PUD ALF also allowed instead of commercial. 10 -18 19.32 19.32 30,000 "' project, may never have Parcel North of Good Turn access to the facilities or 34/35 PUD(C- 5zoning) Two parcels Parcel (C -3 zoning) North 9.24 9.24 services that could be 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. if these •Estimated at 10,000sf per acre of developable commercial acreage. offered only other .. Based on it being developed as ALF. 3 acres are within 1/4 mile from hospital allowing medical office. Estimated at 30,000sf projects are built as Source PUD Ordinances, Collier County PUD list envisioned. 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 aka Toll - Rattlesnake PUD Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner GMP Application EAC Hearing Review Materials EXHIBIT R Transit Master Plan ir�sr'�:c :rpm 1 \ I Il 1 i�xfl Hacienda Lakes Transit Master Plan Map R 0 500 1,000 Feet N DIATA' C(,)NSLLTIN(� ZIqL ♦ VL JL • Planning • Vituali7ation Civil Engineering • Surveying & Mapping Prepared By: rmjones Printing Date: October 6, 2010 File: T \Projects \2005 \05_0150.02.03 HaciendaLakes \GMP \Rev02 \TransitMP. mxd Hacienda Lakes aka Toll - Rattlesnake PUD Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner GMP Application EAC Hearing Review Materials EXHIBIT S Pedestrian Master Plan Dllf cJL V I '. e Hacienda Lakes Pedestrian Master Plan Exhibit S 0 500 1,000 Feet N DA VAIN ( \ I I I'INC; 1 \ I 1L JL • Planning • vieualization Civil Engineering • Surveying & Mapping Prepared By:rmjones Printing Date: October 6, 2010 File: T: \Projects \2005 \05_0150.02.03_ HaciendaLakeSWDA \Rev02 \Hacienda N PedMP.mxd 1 1 1 1 1 7 1 L0 1 Legend 0) ' Ped_Exist_Fae A% 1 Layar _ 1 Pxisrin9 s— u.e Pan _• Existing sidea.e QPropped /�/ LLB 1 Petlnlnan F-14— � Proposatl Pedestnan FaulitinOaeile 1 Layer ❑Pra �aoaptlary 1 -�(:pnier COUny Malor RCetla 0 1 —Roetla 1 Lay., Resdenlial W1 ® A ac T-1 J1 [:] a1.roegay <aPa prs A<pl Oaria L) 1 �doo 1 � PuMK Facililiea Trxl EMS Hesidanlial /Metli ®I USa 1 Proposed I Access II I 1 Pedestrian Facilities Will Be Extended Along All 1 Internal Roads Even if Not Shown Proposed 1 Access 1 EXISTING 10' 1 THE LORD'S WAY SHARED USE PATH PROPOSED / 1 1 PEDESTRIAN 1 FACILITIES 1 PROPOSED 1 OFFSITE 1 Proposed 6' SIDEWALK & Access 1 4' BIKELANES 1 RATTLESNAKE I PROP. RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK RD HAMMOCK RD. FXT. so MIT II EXISTING SIDEWALK (WIDTH VARIES) 1 Pedestrian a ilities Will Be Extende long All Internal Roads Ev if Not Shown STATE LANDS Hacienda Lakes Pedestrian Master Plan Exhibit S 0 500 1,000 Feet N DA VAIN ( \ I I I'INC; 1 \ I 1L JL • Planning • vieualization Civil Engineering • Surveying & Mapping Prepared By:rmjones Printing Date: October 6, 2010 File: T: \Projects \2005 \05_0150.02.03_ HaciendaLakeSWDA \Rev02 \Hacienda N PedMP.mxd