CP-2006-11 Hacienda Lakes
PETITION
CP-2006-11
HACIENDA LAKES
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
PLAN AMENDMENT
JULY 21,2011
. County Clerks Office
4th Floor Administration Building (F)
Attn: Patricia Morgan
COLLIER COUNTY
DRI - RELATED
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
AMENDMENT
(ADOPTION HEARINGS)
I Rill: I ..I! 1I1'E I I]I! I IIIII! I _.D' '81l I IIIHE 1.:1:11 J liME I
o
, :. ... ... ,..
P" c:::.,. - - --""""--1
~ /" "'-"._A
; .
-~~ ! . c)- -rr "'.' - --, COII'7' ~ountu
1 ..- --1 "'! FQrd.
r 'I
,. \' a_ L
\'io +./------\---
\ { ,I . ."""_....../-~-
, "~"T-_.__. I L .---
,,,..j'~--_. --
1'-,'1 ' n_ .
JI
<OJ
I
-
:
.
---.__.~. .......-. .----...-
~
.
~
::
,
"l
~~-w..~-...-
Petition: CP-2006-11
EAC: June 01,2011
CCPC: July 21,2011
BCC: September 13,2011
c
C ~~~"ty
,-....,
DATE: July 1, 2011
TO: Collier County Planning Commission (and others)
FROM: Comprehensive Planning Section
Land Development Services Department
SUBJECT: CP-2006-11 Hacienda Lakes DRI-Related GMP Adoption Amendment
CCPC Advertising - CCPC Hearing - July 21, 2011
Due to the timing of the Planning Commission meeting advertisement, we are unable to provide
copy of the official affidavit as proof of advertisement at this time.
However, as soon as the official affidavit has been received, it will be provided in the binders
going before the Board of County Commissioners for their hearing of this amendment
scheduled for September 13, 2011.
,--..
--...
Growth Management Division
Planning & Regulation
Land Development Services Department
Comprehensive Planning Section
~
PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Planning Commission will hold a public meeting on Thursday, July 21, 2011
at 9:00 A.M. in the Board of County Commissioner's Chamber, Third Floor, County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami
Trail, Naples, FL
The purpose of the hearing is to consider recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to transmit to the
Florida Department of Community Affairs the Adoption of amendments to the Future Land Use Element and the Future
Land Use Map' and Map Series, and the Conservation & Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan.
The ordinance title is as follows:
ORDINANCE NO. 2011-_
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 89-05, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MAN-
AGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY PROVIDING FOR:
AMENDMENTS TO THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES AND
THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT, SPECIFICALLY TO ADD ACREAGE TO THE UR-
BAN MIXED USE ACTIVIlY CENTER #7; TO ALLOW ACCESS TO A BUSINESS PARK SUBDISTRICT THROUGH
THE LORD'S WAY; TO INCREASE DENSIlY IN THE URBAN RESIDENTIAL FRINGE SUBDISTRICT AND TO AL-
LOW FOR THE TlRANSFER 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 ADOPTION TRANSMITTAL OF THE AMENDMENTS
TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNIlY AFFAIRS, OR ITS SUCCESSOR, THE ECONOMIC OPPORTU.
NITY, PROVIDiNG FOR SEVERABILIlY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
CP-2006-11, a petition requesting amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and Future Land Use Mao and
MaD Series (FLUM) and the Conservation and Coastal Manaaement Element ICCMEl. of the Growth Management Plan,
to reconfigure the boundary and increase the size of the Southeast Quadrant of Mixed Use Activity Center NO.7 (Rattle-
snake 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 ane Future Land Use designation through
enhanced utilization of eligible Transferable Development Rights (TORs); Provide a definitive access provision for a Busi-
ness 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 (DRQ and Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) requests. The property is
located in Sections 11, 12, 13, 14, 23, 24 and 25, Township 50 South; Range 26 East, and Sections 19 and 30; Township
50 South, Range 27 East, consisting of 2,262:t acres. ADOPTION HEARING [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, Principal
Planner] (Companion Petitions DRI-2oo6-AR-10147 and PUDZ-2006-AR-10146)
c;l
~
'-t,
CITY
OF
NAPLES
SR. - 84 1- 75
~
o
'-I>
~
<.'l
8
"".
()
o
All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment
will be made available for inspection at the Land Development Services Dept., Comprehensive Planning Section, 2800 N.
Horseshoe Dr., Naples, between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday. Furthennore the materials
will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's Office, fourth floor, Collier County Government Center,
3299 East Tamiami Trail, Suite 401 , Naples, one week prior to the scheduled hearing. Any questions pertaining to the docu-
ments should be directed to the Comprehensive Planning Section. Written comments filed with the Clerk to the Board's
Office prior to Thursday, July 21, 2011, will be read and considered at the publiC hearing.
If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Collier County Planning Commission with respect to any matter
considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of that proceeding, and for such purpose he may need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which
the appeal is to be based.
If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this prOCeeding, you are
entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management
Department, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380, at least two days prior
to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners
Office.
~
Mark P. Strain, Chainnan
Collier County Planning Commission
No. 678170860
July 1 2011
~
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CCPC - Adoption DRI-Related GMP Amendment
CP-2006-11 Hacienda Lakes
Julv 21, 2011 CCPC Agenda
1 ) TAB: Table of Contents.
DOCOUMENT: CCPC - Table of Contents
2) TAB: Legal Advertisement.
DOCUMENT: CCPC Legal Advertisement
3) TAB: ORC Report
DOCUMENTS: DCA Objections,
Recommendations, & Comments Report with State
Agency comments
4) TAB: Staff Reports.
DOCUMENTS: CCPC Adoption Staff Report; EAC
Adoption Staff Report
5) TAB: Ordinance.
DOCUMENTS: Adoption Ordinance, Exhibit "A"
Text and Exhibit "A" Map changes
6) TAB: Transmittal Staff Reports.
DOCUMENTS: BCC Transmittal Executive
Summary, CCPC Transmittal Staff Report Update,
CCPC Transmittal Staff Report, & EAC Transmittal
Staff Report
~
7) TAB: Petition.
DOCUMENT: CP- 2006-11 Hacienda Lakes
ApplicationlPetition
---.,
~
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 110-1 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 histone
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,
~fi.~~
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
LJ Director's Office
850.245.6300. FAX: 245.6436
LJ Archaeological Research
850.245.6444. FAX: 245.6452
.r Historic Preservation
850.245.6333' FAX: 245.6437
~
a'
-
.Suber. Tracy.
<Tracy .Suber@flcloe.org>
03/2812011 09:43 AM
To <Scott.Rogers@dca.state.tI.us>
ee <Brenda.Winningham@dca.state.tI.us>,
<tayloram@collier.k12.tI.us>
bee
Subject Collier 11-D1
Hi Scott -
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 Uaison
Office of Educational Facilities
Florida Department of Education
325 West Gaines Street, Suite 1014
Tallahassee, Florida 32.399-0400
850-245-9312
tracv.suber/iilfldoe.on:!
htto:/ /www.fldoe.on:!/edfaciV
~
,-.,
RrCK SCOTT
GOVERNOR
Florida Department of Transportation
10041 Daniels Parkway
Fort Myers, FL 33913
OFFICE OF THE
SECRETARY
March 25, 2011
Mr. Ray Eubanks
. Regional Planning Administrator
Department of Community Affairs
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
RE: Collier County UD-1 - Proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment (CP-2006-U) 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 110-1, Proposed Growth
Management Plan (GMP) Amendment CP-2006-11 for the Hacienda Lakes Development of Regional Impact
~ (DR!) 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 (PLUM) 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
. Existine:
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 DR! 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 IlD-l GMP Application). .
~ . Kristine:
.As shown in Exhibit C, the Hacienda Lakes DR! could, without the adoption this GMP amendment,
currently develop 1,662 dwelling units using all eligible TDRs and other available density.
.... Mr. ~y Eubanks . . . .. .
Collier County 110-1. - Foot COmnlelliSaDd Recommendations
March 25, 2011
Page 2 on
r'\
. 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 tIansferable 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 DR! 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
DR!. Table 1 of the Hacienda Lakes Traffic Analysis (revised on July 2,2010) establishes that the DR!
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 GMP amendment are based solely upon the analysis of the DR!, 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 DR!.
FDOT Comment # 2:
The applicant for the Hacienda Lakes DR! 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 DR!, the department requests that GMP
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.f1.us.
Sincerely,
~/.'.
- - ~~/
-"#-- -' :;..--.-
/'/ -- ---- --=-
l ...?--- -
'----2--""'---/ / --
Lawrence Massey
District I Growth Management Coordinator
LLM/gmblllm
~
www.dot.state.f1.us
~
Southwest Florida -Regional-P/anlfing-Council--..
... - . ",,, . p
(239) 338,;.2550 FAX (239) 338-2560 wn.swfrpc.org
March 25,2011
~~ 7gvJ
MAR 3 0 20'(!U
COM..e~QN OF
.......", ry p~
Mr. D. Ray Eubanks
Community Program Administrator
Department of Community Affairs
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
- Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
Re: Collier County I DCA llD-l
Dear Mr. Eubanks:
~
Staff of the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council reviewed the proposed
amendments (DCA 11 D-l) 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 staff's recommendation is
attached. If Council action differs from the staff recommendation, we will notify you.
Sincerely,
Southw t Florida Regional Planning Council
KHlDEC
Attachment
~
Cc: Nick- Casalailgtiida, Deputy Administrator, Growth Management Division - Plarming and
Regulation, CoU!er County
~
LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
COLLIER COUNTY
The Council staff has reviewed proposed amendments to the Collier County
Comprehensive Plan (DCA OlID-I). 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 1. Comments are provided in Attachment II. 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
Amendment
Factors of Regional Significance
Location Magnitude Character Consistent
DCA lID-l
(CP-2006-11)
yes
yes
yes
(1) regionally
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.
04ill
~
~.
Attachment I
LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND LAND
DEVELOPMENT REGULATION ACT
Local G:overnment Comprehensive Plans
The Actrequires each municipal and county government to prepare a comprehensive plan
that must include at least the following nine elements:
1.
2.
3.
~
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Future Land Use Element;
Traffic Circulation Element;
A local government with all or part of its jurisdiction within the urbamzed
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]
General Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, Drainage, and Potable Water and
Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Element;
Conservation Element;
Recreation and Open Space Element;
Housing Element; .
Coastal :Management Element for coastal jurisdictions;
Intergovernmental Coordination Element; and
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
r-"\,
Attachment II
SOUT~STFLORIDA
REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
COl\1PREHENSlVE 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 Complete., 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' Gro\'..1h Management Plan by
changing the Plan's Future Land Use Element (FLUE), Future Land Use Map (pLUM), 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 progranis that promote infiil development in urban
areas to maximize the efficient use of existing infrastructure.
Action 2: Work with local governments to. promote structures and
developments t:b.at 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 oflife 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 oflife.'
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 goverillnental 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 DR! 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
3
/'"""'\,
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 DR! the impacts from the proposed changes will be
mitigated. Council staff finds that the requested amendnients 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 DR! 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 DR! \I..iU
prOVide for the mItigatIOn of this Issue, Council staff finds that the affordable housin.g ~~UC
will be addressed at the time of the approval of the Hacienda Lakes Development Order. ~
l. Protection of natural resources of regionally significance identified in the Strategic
Regional Policy Plan including, but limited to, protection of spring .and grouD~'llter
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 Tne 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 beomitigated through the Hacienda Lakes DR!. 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.
~
5
!
~._..
Maps
~
Collier County
DCA I1D-l
Attachment ill
Proposed Co~prehensive Plan Amendments
Site Locations
~
r'\
R 0
C(
:!~a
XIII:;
~~m
ID
DAVIS BlYD
/"""..
Vi.:.:r:.:.~~. c .~~~t_
. \ RATIlESNAKE ;'.1 _/'ir-. ~~~
'--~~~-:~.::; tuaKK:KRD I !f: r:.
1.;-' l_~' ,:..'1:':":'-
,
/
D
~:
ID
'"
...
::;
'"'
o
u
o
Legend
53-..AcIhot1yCe.." E"H
o _..."llWy PUll
C. RBlliesNIka HIImmock Rei & CR 9511Nersedior. PMI gs P
CJ2.sMiklcButferftom~nlerseclian ~~ R~-'6
PUO'$ nol wilhir\:l We Butrer t~~ RMF-6
- Callier County MaP" Roads ~!.( RMf-$(:ll
Z~~ing within :Z.S Mlle. Buffer ti'!<f' RPUD
l'l!\1, ..
_C-3
. c..
;[_;-uo
RSf.3
RSF-3('1
RSF" II ~
RSF.5
_ TTRVC ,
Hacienda Lakes
Study Area 2.5 Miles from Intersection
U 025 0.5 Miles
i\
~
N
DlXTA'Nr
CONt;t:I:J'I'-;(;
..... '" l '.L ....
.Q\on&~:~~-:"t.~
~
2'\7
2f.3
7:'0
.?2S
154
.,..". ~ '"1t')":" .,.t..""~-.::" "-:'~'~":JrI,::""""'''"''::-~'' ,", ~_ ".,
?55
R
~
C(
~~g;
ZIlI",
~~_m
ID,
~{:o
.1
I
I
t6!,.
't'f.;1
i: ,''(I,''l. "'~',
2.';~
:i.n
.-..-!;'
2t~{.
:044
,.-....
RATTLESNAKE
~OCK.RD
I
1/
1,1 l-"~\"'
Il \~... .,''"_.~.{ \,
.,...~1':..'l; '';,';'''.~.
"
:;(;2
F
r
:<'01
:J61
LJ
3{i::.
:i03
.;:. "~''''
'" ,,,",., ....;]'::..'...~....t.;:. -'.,!," ~"" .'~
'.
:1fiit
:.!,r;
o
311
:;,!'.7
,:.'/
".
~.~
Legend t.
[2J ......... _'y CenIe< I
C~ T...r"AnalyslsZDMS I
~=~~'~CR.'"mau_P~
C]2.5 Mile BufIer born Interseclioo
'1- .CaIlier County Mapr Roads . II
.~.}l
Hacienda Lakes
Traffic Analysis Zones
0.25 a.SMiles
i
lJ\XTA'-.r
('ltN::)t:I:II~1j
...... '"' l.L ....
-('WI' ~e :~~:;:~ ~illp~
~
N
I
I
I
I
1~.._.I'III'
i ~.r i I
~ or' -'. ;, :!
~ I
ii
~ Ii! i
~l!le,.
"'-~8
'. ~.~i";'
~lf-S
~ t...~
:u'~
",:ct.
m
f:: I
; I I
~~tl~1
~ tl
~ ~
~~
....-
B ~.
!OO~
~ ~. t ~
" !
~~~
\
I')
<Xl
.-<'
<Xl
U
<l:
,....
U
<l:
,....
U
<l:
U (J
::i ::J
CD CD
:J :J
. 0.. ~ Q.
U
~<(
lIlCO
0-
ZN
.< N
...J+I
0::......
~~
~f
u"-
I:?
~!i
tiQ
<0::
CJl
CO
....;
(CN
0+1
....~
1Il1ll
OW
~~
...J
...J
0::5
wu
1-0::
Zw
~~
1:8
>1
~z
uO
<z
Zu
-<('
U)....
0",
Z .
:5-
+J
0::......
w)-
1-<:
Z3;:
W'I
Uu-
>-0
1-1
>1-
B~
<co::
1Il
...J.
W
U
0::
<('
u...
~p
--- r "\1"-,
r-'('"'}, . .'\
h IC---
,;:::::-
~;::
"-~
1Il +1
o '-'
ZU)
:5bl
0:::J
w
I-....J
~~
uw
IL.
>-'-
I-w
>u
;::G:.
Uu..
<co
w
~ :~ ~
~ ~G8~ ~
<. o~o- 0-
tntJE ~.~~B?:
~~8 ~ ~: msz
~~~ ~ c:i~~8g
~o~~~~~f5;i
l- I :::t ~o::
8t-~r,Oo~5e
~~~-Il-OU~
~~lr -=~~~~~
wVl15 ~,.!, tt: .~
t5~5 ~ g;~5~
3: < :6 ~ z- ~ ~ ~
i~Ir >- ~f3~~~
~~~~25~2:~~
tn~wOI-Uib-a..
f:3i=U u ~tn<f~O
~~~ffi~~~[IJ~
~15~3~o~~;5
gu ~ u 0 ~ Z I.&.. :> <
<~<U<r<l:D<(o
..:. N
ouu2
,:j. U)<c<c<",
k!:!COlOf'-N a::.
~ ~~Uj~v ~
D ","':ro...: ",-
z t"') (.C ~ v 0::
6.:t!..:t!,~~ a..
CDOOOO ~
I-~<(:S<C >-
~ 0. 6.0 6 ir
a::. . w"
~~~~~ ~
o 0..
o
z
w
<:>
w
...J
c::
W
I-
Z
W
U
>-
I-
>
~
U
<c
~
J:
'. i\
i:
I ~ ~ ~,... I.t.", I
I. ......-.'.:.:... ~~-t..: -
;''''J),',
. ..' '.
, . ~'"..,",.... .
,"..~.. "
r:~':_:' .
/"
(
"
""-
~'--- \
'---, \
) \
_-----1..._ )
----~ ----- --'"
II
I
I
II
o
1"'""\
5
~~
':,
U
<c
!-
! t
s-
i
Ul
....
~
:s
N
I!"l
ci
,.,
o
...;
i~
b~
~o
f~
,:j.
C'5
z
w
U
<c
:c
I-
Z
W
::;
w
try
<(
W
...J
a.
u..
.
x
~
w
~
~
~
r
I I I
I ~ I I
I ~ I~ I
I ~ Ii: I
5 Iw;;;
VI IUSI
f ~ tl:Y~
, S L~
~ l:t
z
~.,I ~ I
~!
I
1-
-j.:
.~ ~
I --9-;~: ~
~
;1 .. ~%_I
<I ~: f ~
i rd, ~I
o
o
CCPC ADOPTION
CP-2006-11 HACIENDA LAKES
DRI-RELATED GMP AMENDMENT
STAFF REPORT
"
~
CP-2006-11 Hacienda Lakes of Naples GMP Amendment - Adoption Hearing
AGENDA ITEM No. 9A
~
<::::,o~-y <::::,ount::y
-. .,.-
STAFF REPORT
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING OF JULY 21,2011
The purpose of this Staff Report is to bring petition CP-2006-11 forward to the Collier County Planning
Commission (CCPC) to consider proposed amendments to the Growth Management Plan. The
CCPC reviewed CP-2006-11 previously for Transmittal on January 20, 2011.
Collier County held its other Transmittal hearings for CP-2006-11, the Hacienda Lakes of Naples GMP
amendment, on December 1, 2010 (EAC, Environmental Advisory Council) and, February 8, 2011
(BCC, Board of County Commissioners). The respective Transmittal recommendations/actions are
presented below.
Within the CCPC binder containing staff documents, you will find the Transmittal EAC staff report and
Transmittal CCPC staff report, 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 Manaaement 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 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.
~
- 1 -
CP-2006-11 Hacienda Lakes of Naples GMP Amendment - Adoption Hearing
AGENDA ITEM No. 9A
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: 3/0).
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 the following requirements/stipulations be to be met before a
recommendation is proffered or action is taken on the Adoption of CP-2006-11. These
requirements/stipulations also appear in the BCC Transmittal Executive Summary.
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. Provisions regarding this aspect are found in
companion materials: Section 16, Leaal Access in proposed Development Order (beg. pg. 43)
and, Section 12, Consistency with the Local Comorehensive Plan (beg. pg. 40), esp. subsection
(F). See also, Sheets 3 through 7 of the MPUDIDRI Master Plan map set for both existing and
proposed access easements. This stipulation is adequately addressed in companion MPUD
Ordinance Exhibits or related Hacienda Lakes materials. It is no lonaer necessary to retain it
throuah Adoption.
..............,
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.
The project team provides the following response: "Please refer to Exhibit C of the MPUD
Ordinance Exhibits that has been modified to reflect the potential future public roadway
corridor. The Lord's Way is located along the mid-line of the West J;2 of Section 14. The
warranty deed recorded in o.R. 1069, Pg. 2187 granted an easement for public access and
the placement of utilities on 30 feet at the north boundary of the North J;2 of the Southwest Y.4 of
Section 14. These are thirty feet south of the midline. With respect to the north side, between
50'-55' was reserved for right-of-way during the last modification to the First Assembly
Ministries PUD."
Based on the documents submitted by the project team, Hacienda Lakes has a 30 ft. road
easement for The Lord's Way. The dedication over Tracts A and G in The Lord's Way PUD have
not been made to the County. In addition, there is a 170 ft. gap at the FPL easement (Tract B)
between Tracts A and G of the PUD. There is no dedication requirement over Tract B in the PUD.
It has not yet been determined whether a 30-foot road easement meets County standards for a
County-approved public street. There could be another 30-foot easement on the north part of The
Lord's Way but this has not been demonstrated to date.
~
-2-
CP-2006-11 Hacienda Lakes of Naples GMP Amendment - Adoption Hearing
~
AGENDA ITEM No. 9A
Cross-sections and other design information presented thus far propose a roadway design
intended to match existing conditions on the westerly portion of The Lord's Way [from its existing
terminus on the east side of Celebration Blvd. to the east into Hacienda Lakes]. Preliminary plans
did not provide the types of improvements needed to ensure accessibility to the business park by
business, semi-industrial and industrial vehicles and traffic [or to the potential travel trailer and
recreational vehicle park]. But certain land uses could not be developed in the project without
these assurances.
The Hacienda Lakes project team approaches this impediment by keeping their options open and
adding the subsection entitled The Lord's Way Access Improvements to Companion MPUD,
Exhibit B, Development Standards (beg. pg. 29). Staff recognizes the subsection, but finds it
deficient as currently written to cover all proposed development scenarios. Staff recommends
remedial modifications to correct this problem in the evaluation of Exhibit B in companion review
materials. Bv adoption of these recommendations. it would no lonaer be necessary to
retain this stipulation throuah Adoption.
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. Provisions regarding this aspect
are found in companion materials: Section 16, Leaal Access in proposed Development Order
(beg. pg. 43) and, Section 12, Consistencv with the Local Comorehensive Plan (beg. pg. 40), esp.
subsection (F). See also, Sheets 3 through 7 of the MPUDIDRI Master Plan map set for both
existing and proposed access easements. This stipulation is adequately addressed in companion
~ MPUD Ordinance Exhibits or related Hacienda Lakes materials. It is no lonaer necessary to
retain it throuah Adoption.
The BCC further directed that 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.
Provisions regarding this aspect are found in Section VIII, Plannina, in MPUD Ordinance Exhibits
(beg. pg.47 of 48) and in companion materials: Section 17, Plannina. in proposed Development
Order (beg. pg. 44) and, Section 12, Consistencv with the Local Comorehensive Plan (beg. pg.
40). This condition is adequately addressed in companion MPUD Ordinance Exhibits or related
Hacienda Lakes materials. It is no lonaer necessary to retain it throuah Adoption.
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. Provisions regarding this aspect are found in Section VIII, Planning, in MPUD
Ordinance Exhibits (beg. pg.47 of 48) and in companion materials: Section 17, Planning, in
proposed Development Order (beg. pg. 44) and, Section 12, Consistencv with the Local
Comorehensive Plan (beg. pg. 40); look for consistent use of correct conservation "mechanism"
terminology. This condition is adequately addressed in companion MPUD Ordinance Exhibits or
related Hacienda Lakes materials. It is no lonaer necessary to retain it throuah Adoption.
~
-3-
CP-2006-11 Hacienda Lakes of Naples GMP Amendment - Adoption Hearing
AGENDA ITEM No. 9A
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 may be 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 occup:mcy permits being issued
for habitable buildings located within range or trajectory of said target range. Provisions regarding
this aspect are found in companion materials: FINDINGS OF FACT Section, in proposed
Development Order (beg. pg. 4). [Stricken statement is recommended to be withdrawn from this
requirement - staff] This stipulation is adequately addressed in companion MPUD Ordinance
Exhibits or related Hacienda Lakes materials. It is no lonaer necessary to retain it throuah
Adoption.
,~
All six (6) of the above stipulations were [are] appropriate to include during CCPC Adoption
consideration [of CP-2006-11] and subsequent PUDZ, DRI and development order approval. They
were [are] not intended to appear within the GMP as part of this proposed amendment, but have been
incorporated into companion Hacienda Lakes materials, as noted by the individual entries above.
BCC ACTION: Transmit to DCA (vote: 5/0), per CCPC recommendation, including the 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 (aRC) Report. Only Objections can form
the basis of a non-compliance determination, unless the adopted amendments vary significantly from
those Transmitted.
DCA raises no Obiections in their April 21. 2011 aRC 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 CCPC binder containing staff documents.
FOOT comments:
· Since the impacts of the GMP amendments 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. [emphasis added]
· Since the GMP amendments are based solely upon the analysis of the DRI, the department
requests that the GMP [amendment] approval be contingent upon the applicant establishing
an approved mitigation plan for all affected state roadway facilities. [emphasis added]
r'\
-4-
CP-2006-11 Hacienda Lakes of Naples GMP Amendment - Adoption Hearing
AGENDA ITEM No. 9A
Staff ResDonse to FOOT Comments:
~
With regard to the first FOOT Comment - Suggesting a GMP Policy be part of these amendments to
limit development to levels found in Facilities' Analysis - It is uncommon to insert this type of provision
in the GMP. Primarily, since the CP-2006-11 group of amendments does not produce a new
Subdistrict into which such policy would be inserted, it is difficult to determine just where such Policy
should best appear. Secondarily, PUD materials are a more appropriate destination for inserting such
policy or provision.
Through adoption of a number of conditions recommended with the companion PUDZ, development
will be limited to a level based upon the facility analysis that was conducted for the DRI.
With regard to the second FOOT Comment - Suggesting that GMPA approval be contingent on a
mitigation plan approved by FOOT for affected State roadway facilities - It has been explained how
the extent of such affect or such mitigation is not vast. The effects appear to be insubstantial or
cosmetic in nature, and the mitigation activities are correspondingly minor and surficial. Actual
changes may amount to no more than extending certain pavement markings (paint) that delineate turn
lanes where FOOT jurisdiction applies. If it can be shown that the regional impact of this project rises
to a level that dictates certain roadway improvements - such as materially increasing the length of
turn lanes - then contributing to such improvements would be expected as part of mitigation plans.
Here again, PUD materials are a more appropriate destination for inserting such policy or provision.
County Transportation Planners continue to work with the Hacienda Lakes project team to resolve
transportation issues. All aspects of mitigation are being resolved in the PUD, and all MPUD
Ordinance Exhibits illustrating such mitigation will be in place and part of the record as adopted by the
~ Board of County Commissioners (BCC). Transportation commitments are also to be reflected in the
DRI [and its accompanying Development Order documents], except in those instances where the DRI
monitoring schedule might govern the timing of completion of those commitments differently. These
items will cover FOOT concerns and conditions.
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.
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 CCPC binder
containing staff documents.
ADOPTION ACTIVITIES
Subsequent to Transmittal hearings, the review of companion petitions for the MPUD, DRI and its
associated Development Order raised an additional issue, as follows:
This issue concerns the ability to receive TOR density in Business Park acreage in the Urban
Designated Area of the project, and 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 rdouble-underlinedl in the FLUE excerpt, already shown as modified in Transmittal [by stAke-
through/underlinel, below.
~
-5-
CP-2006-11 Hacienda Lakes of Naples GMP Amendment - Adoption Hearing
AGENDA ITEM No. 9A
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 anv densitv bonus that may be achieved via CCME Policv 6.2.5 (6) b.1.. -GF- and either "a"
or "b" below:
a. Up to ~ 1.0 unit per gross acre via the transfer of up to one .!.1.:.Ql dwelling unit (transferable
development riaht) 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 Frinae and the Rural Frinae Mixed Use Sending Lands
desianations. and meet the other Density Blendina criteria provided for in subsection 5.2 of the
Density Ratina System. which may achieve an additional maximum density of UP to 1.3 units per
aross acre for all lands desianated as Urban Residential Frinae via the transfer of UP to 1.3
dwellina units (transferable development riahts) per acre from lands located within one mile of the
Urban Boundary and desianated as Rural Frinae Mixed Use District Sendina Lands: or,
~
[REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
/"'"""\
-6-
CP-2006-11 Hacienda Lakes of Naples GMP Amendment - Adoption Hearing
AGENDA ITEM No. 9A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt as modified by the rdouble-underlinedl post-transmittal text
~ changes appearing above regarding the provisions that address receiving TOR density in Business
Park acreage in the URF, except for Activity Center expansion. More specifically, staff's
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
2.8 DU/acre . 432.4 in WITH MODIFICATION
Maximum 2.5 DU/acre - eligible to receive residential tracts Providing Additional
Residential Density - eligible to receive in URF with . 36.6 MUAC Clarity for Receiving
(utilizing TDRs) in 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 60% NV in Rural 100% NV- ac. of 286.8 NV To ADOPT
Retention / portion Undeveloped Rural . 60% of Rural as Transmitted
Preservation - Required portion - Preserve is
FLUE Preservation Area 848.4 ac. of
Preservation Area with "shift" 1 ,414 NV
1.0 DUfTDR per 1.3 DUsfTDRs per
acre
acre - eligible to transfer
-eligible to transfer into URF from Overall Density To ADOPT
Maximum Use of into URF from Sending Lands would be 0.78 as Transmitted
TDRs Sending Lands
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 27.5 acres 36.6 acres Market factor of NOT TO ADOPT
Quadrant of MUAC 6.18
No.7 (Supply = 618 % of
Demand)
Provides additional
The Lord's Way The Lord's Way benefits for access
Direct Access for to both Collier To ADOPT
Business Park onto does not provide would provide such Boulevard and the as Transmitted
Arterial Roadway such access by access with new future Benfield
FLUE provisions provision Road
Native Vegetation/ 25% NV in Urban 25% - X = Urban . Urban Preserve
NV would be 40.8
Habitat portion 60% + 2X =Rural To ADOPT
Retention / 60% NV in Rural ac. as Transmitted
NV . Rural Preserve
Preservation portion - Preserved with would be 1 ,395
CCME - Preserved
"shift" ac.
~
- 7-
CP-2006-11 Hacienda Lakes of Naples GMP Amendment - Adoption Hearing
,.......,
DATE:
COR8Y SCHMI T, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
Comprehensive lanning Section
land Developm nt Services Department
Growth Manage ent Division - Planning & Regulation
APPROVED BY:
~~~ DATE:
MIKE 80SI, AICP, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING MANAGER
Comprehensive Planning Section
land Development Services Department
Growth Management Division - Planning & Regulation
~
APPROVED BY:~ AL--
W~NZ, PE, DIRECTOR
land Development Services Department
Growth Management Division - Planning & Regulation
AGENDA ITEM No. 9A
5 \)~ \\
-\j
7-0"- If
DATE: 7"'6 -/j
DATE:
INISTRATOR
lanning & Regulation
DCA Ref. No. - Collier County 110-1
..-..
- 8 -
7-6-)/
Patricia L. Morgan
From: KendallMarcia [MarciaKendall @colliergov.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 7:59 AM
To: Barry M. Klein (bmk @bmkre.com); Schiffer, Brad; Ebert, Diane; ReedCaron, Donna; Homiak,
Karen; Strain, Mark; Ahern, Melissa; Paul Midney (pmidney @collier.org); Murray, Robert;
Thomas Eastman (eastmath @collier.kl2.fl.us)
Cc: Puig, Judy; Schmidt, Corby; Weeks, David; Bosi, Michael; Mosca, Michele; Ashton, Heidi;
Klatzkow, Jeff; Patricia L. Morgan; Brock, Mary Jo; Marcella, Jeanne
Subject: RE: Staff Report-DRI-2006-AR-10147 Hacienda Lakes.pdf-Adobe Acrobat Professional
Attachments: DCA No. 11D1 ORC Report_Hacienda Lakes.pdf
Importance: High
Please accept our sincere apology! It appears all the"Hacienda Lakes DRI-Related GMP Adoption Amendment"
binders are missing pages from the ORC Report(for unknown reasons),that did not scan properly!
Therefore, please find attached,the complete ORC as received and dated April 21, 2011, as provided by the Florida
Department of Community Affairs for the August 04, 2011 CCPC meeting, continued from July 21, 2011.
Cordially,
Marcia
Marcia R. Kendall, Senior Planner
Growth Management Division
Land Development Services Department
Comprehensive Planning Section
Phone: 239.252.2387
EFax: 239.252.6675
Email: marciakendall@colliergov.net
Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records
request,do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing.
From: PuigJudy
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 4:40 PM
To: KendallMarcia; SchmidtCorby
Cc: HomiakKaren
Subject: FW: Staff Report-DRI-2006-AR-10147 Hacienda Lakes.pdf- Adobe Acrobat Professional
FYI, please respond to Karen.
7
' / //- , i:
,t.,. ,,, _ .
Judy Puig
Judy Puig
Operations Analyst
Growth Management Division/Planning&Regulation
Operations& Regulatory Management Department
2800 N. Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
(239)252-2370
(239) 252-6348 Fax
From: HomiakKaren
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 4:30 PM
To: PuigJudy
Subject: RE: Staff Report-DRI-2006-AR-10147 Hacienda Lakes.pdf- Adobe Acrobat Professional
Hi Judy,
I am also missing a couple of pages in the CP-2006-11 Hacienda binder. Under the ORC report tab,
with the letter from SWFRPC, in Attachement II pages 2 & 4 are missing.
Thanks,
Karen Homiak
From: PuigJudy
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 10:08 AM
To: AhernMelissa; Barry Klein; BellowsRay; Ebert Diane; HomiakKaren; MurrayRobert; Paul Midney; ReedCaronDonna;
SchifferBrad; StrainMark; Thomas Eastman
Cc: BellowsRay; CasalanguidaNick; KlatzkowJeff; FrenchJames; DeselemKay
Subject: Staff Report-DRI-2006-AR-10147 Hacienda Lakes.pdf- Adobe Acrobat Professional
Hi everyone,
It has been brought to my attention that the staff report in your books was missing pages and had some duplicates on
the "DRY' Hacienda Lakes. Please replace the "Staff Report" only in your books with the attached "corrected" version.
ce7471," oil 4
C.
Judy Puig
Judy Puig
Operations Analyst
Growth Management Division/Planning& Regulation
Operations&Regulatory Management Department
2800 N. Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
(239)252-2370
(239)252-6348 Fax
a\ e, 1;.)c rf .An A tt iota slr.; } t.e in yeti:r: m<a ottl i€. nt tn rt'fApe 1,o to i p Iblic r€COras request (in not send
ett P it, ' .. at .q+ _ t k. ti),`K',lt}t}Sror `fl .
STATE OF FLORIDA
•
DEPARTMENT OF . COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
`Dedicated to making Florida a better place to call home"
BILLY BUZZETT
RICK SCOTT Secretary Govema
•
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-D1),which was received on February 18,2011.
We reviewed the amendment for consistency with Chapter 163,Part II,-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,
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
850-488-8465 (p) • 850-921-0781 (f) ♦ Website: www.dca.state.fl.us
• COMMUNITY PLANNING 8SD 488-2356(p) B5D 488-3309(1) 4 FLORIDA COMMUNITIES TRUST BM922 2207(p) 850-821-1747(1)
• MOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 856488-7955(p) 850-9:2-5623(O
TRANSMITTAL PROCEDURES
The process for adoption of local comprehensive plan amendments is outlined in
Section 163.3184,F.S.,and Rule 93-11.011,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;
A copy of the adoption ordinance;
A listing of additional changes not previously reviewed;
A 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).
•
•
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 11D-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,
d .
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.eom
O Directofs Office 0 Archaeological Research ./Historic Preservation
850.245.6300•FAX:245.6436 650.245.6444•FAX 245.6452 850245.6333•FAX:245.6437
_. . .. . ..
• 'Sober,Tracy' To <Scott Rogers @dca.state.fl.us>
<1 racy.Suber@fldoe'org> cc <Brenda.Winningham @dca.state.fl.us>,
03/28/2011 09:43 AM <tayiorarn@collier.k12.fl.us>
bcc
Subject Collier 11-D1
Hi Scott—
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
tra cv.suberPfldoe.org
http://www.fldoe..orejedfacil/
•
•
•
Florida Department of Transportation
RICK SCOTT 10041 Daniels Parkway OFFICE OF THE
GOVERNOR Fort Myers,FL 33913 SECRETARY
March 25,2011
Mr.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 11D-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 91-11 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(PLUM)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 stale 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 11D-I GMP Application).
• Existing
111/ As shown in Exhibit C,the Hacienda Lakes DRI could,without the adoption this GMP amendment,
currently develop 1,662 dwelling units using all eligible TDRs and other available density.
r -
•
Mr,Ray Eubanks
Collier County I i D-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
DRL 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 GMP 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 DRL
FOOT Comment#2:
The applicant for the Hacienda Lakes DRI is currently in the process of responding to local agency
sufficiency review comments.
Since the GMT'amendment is based solely upon the analysis of the DRI,the department requests that GMP
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
l awrence.massey @dot-state.fl.us.
Sincerely,
`—��"__
Lawrence Massey
District 1 Growth Management Coordinator
LL1Wgmb/Ilm
S •
www-dot.state.fLus
•
Southwest Florida Regional-Planning Council- -
J C W FR P C- Serving Charlotte,Collie r,Glades;Hendry,.lee and Sarasota Counties
1926 Victoria An,Fort Myers,Fiorida 339014414 (289)S31 2550 FAX(239)338-2560 rnrr.swIrpc.ary
Pseesct
•
C1074 e,W
March 25,2011 AR 3 0 207
Mr.D.Ray Eubanks CMS/L OFGF
Community Program Administrator
Department of Community Affairs
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
- Tallahassee,Florida 32399-2100
Re: Collier County/DCA 11D-1
Dear Mr.Eubanks:
Staff of the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council reviewed the proposed
amendments(DCA 1.1D-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 staff's recommendation is
attached. If Council action differs from the staff recommendation,we will notify you.
. Sincerely,
Southw--t Florida Regional Planning Council
1
'10 ,�� •
Ke.u eth H-atherington
Executive Director
KHIDEC
Attachment
Cc: Nick Casalangtiida, 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 II. 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 Magnnitude . 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
4110
•
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. Intergovernmental 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
• Comprehensive Plan Amendments Attachment I
A local government may amend its plan twice a year. (Amendments related to
developments of regional impact, certain small developments, compliance agreements,
and the Job Siting Act are not restricted by this limitation.) Six copies of the amendment
are sent to the Department of Community Affairs for review. A copy is also sent to the
regional planning council, the water management district, the Florida Department of
Transportation, and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
[s. 163.3184(3)(a)]
The proposed amendment will be reviewed by DCA in two situations. In the first, there
must be a written request to DCA. The request for review must be received within forty-
five days after transmittal of the proposed amendment. [s. 163.3184(6)(a)] Review can be
requested by one of the following:
• the local government that transmits the amendment,
• the regional planning council,or
• an affected person.
In the second situation, DCA can decide to review the proposed amendment without a
request. In that case,DCA must give notice within thirty days of transmittal.
[(s. 163.3184(6)(b)]
• Within five working days after deciding to conduct a review, DCA must forward copies
to various reviewing agencies,including the regional planning council. [s. 163.3184(4)]
Regional Planning Council Review
The regional planning council must submit its comments in writing within thirty days of
receipt of the proposed amendment from DCA. It must specify any objections and may
make recommendations for changes. The review of the proposed amendment by the
regional planning council must be limited to "effects on regional resources or facilities
identified in the strategic regional policy plan and extra-jurisdictional impacts which
would be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan of the affected local government."
[s. 163.3184(5)]
After receipt of comments from the regional planning council and other reviewing
agencies, DCA has thirty days to conduct its own review and determine compliance with
state law. Within that thirty-day period,DCA transmits its written comments to the local
government.
NOTE: THE ABOVE IS A SIMPLIFIED VERSION OF THE LAW. REFER TO
THE STATUTE (CH. 163, FS) AND THE RULE (9J-11, FAC) FOR
DETAILS.
•
Page 12
Attachment II
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA
REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REVIEW
1. Local Government Name:
Collier County
2. Amendment Number:
DCA 11D-1
3. Did the RPC prepare the Plan Amendment: (YES) (NO)
No
4. Date DCA Notified RPC that Amendment Package was Complete,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
(PLUM), 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 Activity Center by 9.16 acres in order to increase the
• intensity of commercial uses within Activity Center No. 7;
Page 13
• b. Increase the maximum allowable density that may be achieved within the
Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict(URF) portion of the project lying in
more than one Future Land Use designation through enhanced utilization
of eligible Transferable Development Rights (TDRs). The amendment
would allow an increase in the maximum transferred TDR density from
1.0 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. The change would allow an additional 187
residential units to be placed on the developable portion of the project;
c. Provide a definitive access provision for a Business Park located in the
URF portion of the development. This change would allow The Lord's
Way roadway to serve as access to a Business Park as well as to various
residential areas in the Hacienda Lakes project; and
d. Allow for native vegetation preservation in the URF portion of a 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. This amendment shifts a portion of the FLUE native vegetation
preservation from Urban Lands to RFMUD Sending Lands to protect the
highest quality wetlands and habitat within the Hacienda Lakes project.
e. Is the Amendment consistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan:
Council staff has reviewed the proposed amendments and find that the requested
changes are conditionally consistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan (SRPP).
Council staff finds that they proposed amendments are consistent with the SRPP with
the condition that the amendments are only approved at such time as the final
Hacienda Lakes DRI Development Order is approved and that the impacts from the
Hacienda Lakes development have been properly mitigated.
f. Applicable Strategic Regional Policy Plan Goals,Strategies and Actions:
Council staff finds that the proposed amendments are consistent with the following
SRPP Goals, Strategies and Actions if the Hacienda Lakes DRI Development Order
is approved:
Economic Infrastructure
Goal 1: A well-maintained social, health, and educational infrastructure to
support business and industry.
Strategy: Ensure the adequacy of lands for commercial and industrial
centers,with suitable services provided.
Action 2: Identify existing urban lands and transportation corridors for
development or redevelopment, and ensure adequate access
and services are provided.
S
Page 14
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 publiclprivate 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
Page I 5
• 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 determined to be
regional resources. Because a portion of the subject site is also part of the Hacienda
Lakes DRI that is currently being processed, significant portions of the impacts from
the proposed amendments will be mitigated. Council staff finds that the proposed
development's impacts to the Picayune Strand National Forest and CR 951 will be
mitigated through the DRI and therefore does not object to the reconfiguration to the
boundary and the increase the size of the southeast quadrant of the Mixed Use
Activity Center No. 7; the increase in the maximum allowable density that may be
achieved within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict(URF)portion of the project
lying in more than one Future Land Use designation through enhanced utilization of
eligible Transferable Development.Rights (TDRs); the improved access provided by
The Lord's Way roadway to serve as access to a Business Park as well as to various
residential areas in the Hacienda Lakes project; and to native vegetation preservation
in the URF portion of a 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.
h. Extra-Jurisdictional Impacts that would be Inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan of the Affected Local Government:
•
Council staff finds that based on the information provided in the amendment
application and the County staff and CCPC comments, the new development that
would result in the amended Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 will not have extra-
jurisdictional impacts because the project's estra jurisdictional/regional impacts will
be mitigated through the Hacienda Lakes DRI. In addition,the proposed amendments
will not have extra-jurisdictional impacts that would be inconsistent with the
County's Comprehensive Plan if the development is approved by Collier County as
provided in the application material and the future Hacienda Lakes DRI.
Analysis of the effects on the proposed amendments on the following issues to the
extent they are addressed in the Strategic Regional Policy Plan on:
i. Compatibility among local plans including, but not limited to, land use and
compatibility with military bases:
If approved, this amendment will result in commercial and residential development
that will be consistent with the local plans if the conditions set by the County are
satisfied. The proposed amendment will provide for commercial and residential
development at a location where commercial development is already approved. The
addition of the 187 new residential units provided through the TDR program is not
regional in nature due to its limited magnitude. The impacts of the proposed
• development changes will be mitigated through the DRI. Council staff has review the
Page I 6
proposed land use and site plans for the proposed development and finds that the
subject development that will be allowed if the proposed amendments are approved
are compatible with the adjacent land uses. The proposed amendments will not
impact any military bases.
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 will provide for the mitigation of this issue, Council staff finds
that the affordable housing issue 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:
S
Page I 7
•
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 Takes 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.
n. Adequacy and compatibility with emergency preparedness plans and local
mitigation strategies including,but not limited to,the impacts on and availability
of hurricane shelters, maintenance of county hurricane clearance times, and
hazard mitigation:
The commercial and residential development that would result from the proposed
amendment will not significantly impact the adequacy or compatibility with
emergency preparedness plans and local mitigation strategies. The proposed
commercial project will not significantly impact the availability of hurricane shelters,
maintenance of county hurricane clearance times, or hazard mitigation. These issues
as they relate to the portion of Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 will be addressed and
mitigated in the Hacienda Lakes DRI.
o. Analysis of the effects of extra-jurisdiction impacts which may be created by the
amendment:
Because the southeastern portion of Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 is located in the
Hacienda Lakes DRI, the development that would result from the requested
amendment, there are regionally significant and thereby will have extra jurisdictional
impacts by definition and due to the fact that the proposed development will impact
Collier Boulevard (CR 951) and the Picayune Strand National Forest which are
regional resources. These impacts however will be mitigated through the DRI review
process and the Hacienda Lakes DRI Development Order.
Page 18
•
Attachment III
Maps
Collier County
DCA 11D-1
Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Site Locations
zsq !'
-,ate,.,.«..,gym v vs>4-.,:,...144111 .��'
•
730
•
25+7 2r3 } { 22$
mac. ..
z is y
a
nQm.
3CU •
165 .I∎1 t
I • 125 WILE BUFFER
J FROM INTERSECTION
i
r SC.
k '
,,.
if
L.
t
are r
d ,
r.
.• SQ1 / G1 y,
a i
.• t +• .
r i `
`v. :t j • . .. l 9
t ! ii
.'L p
:41,;
i
f• • ✓<1
,',r is
r 9 -1.
. 4_
1 4` '
• Legend
• ®Proposed n 9 y Con.
OPmec,Boundary
r. r.'---=Trnplc P.Nyns Una.
Ra111.emake Nammm:Rd&CR 951 I.aysetl'nn PoO
i 'M1O D 25 kick Balks from 4ls.acgion
�' -Co&e Couny Map,Ronda
•
0 0.25 0.5 Mks
Hacienda Lakes Nil � 1XXTA
Traffic Analysis Zones /� c.,,F,sL:,.„I,I,
/� i t t Tl
Mamie;•Vracaisairn
N (, a s
EnpanF .+qi.,k W,p:sq
ellilltee
•
•
I
•
I G
CO\. C) 'C.:) < (.) ,.., a
a a a v rz 40N .�� Z4 ZU 4 B
waaC Q a- 2.,.. Npw Np� Ca N w _
.
4LIH n°o WF4 Q�� ,. N II,in J? d i"=N� •,I nMst Q J c•-mZ z L W O�v�Iv W O d`uop •Z to a Zm 1C Z q 4 w O�O O 4 W w Ca,1 wC 0 V 1Z- >> OO Ug oYY a'�o W ¢O.a� O rO•.-D �z ':1 W 3- cr w• I- u 5 o 3 1.i> i a 5 I gy p Qg Ww Q a • • U7 O t- z iriIs .' ! C QZ�oaFZ'I�bWs" f I •�° ou u ;. .T.,i:t8t7-F.:?-E •• _:,;:,, '''-:1 IL.:1
OI�OGC 1 �I N f"Fi r� = n r e r �� ! a ii 1 r � `^ VY d W A `� i 0 ��1 ! e, 5 � u � : 4z ,, Y44-'t.. tz - C'-,, W
y: s
:#
:V\ t:l''. .i '2' i '
. ..\
\ ''': :.P, „.1 \tklikSl'i . . -
ft
:;!:::: 1 11 ii,111 I
. 14111111:11111 \. . .\.k .
i x c f',*- ,.t 7s ..arm e14. :tA- n,i � r 5 �xr°
• i h'7 . .ttx t;l;;r.t" .5,,, -:- 7, r. 'NrWrsd - u �43'�•J^bw.'t1.r-�+L r+`-i °' 1
+ 1 /'�� ,uy\�`� ♦ 3 "�. .JrF�''k� n C '_ur mot_ -:'i zddr q-�
l a
$iev.:eee, ,••eeeeeeeeee�►eeeee� >'; :` ` c
eeeeee►eee "r„```
�.� ►eieie�eieiePieiee' °,°` ♦� \ + \��
►eeeeeieeee \� �\ ��
N.
eeeeee►eeee
�r r J ►.ee eeee e.1•�e ee• • F[_; .
lr�_.! �.�.eeieeeeeeei`e. Y.
I
.! I i
eet�eeeee.i _ ` NX,'t �eiiiieiiei !�iei�i`�•. + .��': �� u� eeeeeeee ee...�... _ Y �9 •� eeeee.,-►eeeeeeee./' `e eiieieieiei�i*eO•e0000•eiei ,1 ., �� - "�z! e••••eeee-eeeeee.eee \ieeiieieeieiei.�aiei�ieiieieieiis�i ►`�'y
•
ieeceeeeee►eeeeeeeeee. \ n e.�eeeeeseeeeeeeeeee. . k ee.eeeee ►eeeeeeeeee1 .ee:Ziee .eeeeeeeee.e♦ - \ _''
a ,' ►eieieiei`.!eeieieieiei�ieieieiei�ieieieie-ee ee0eee-- 1 1
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeZPi.sieieiiieieieiei��\�; \�\\ ♦ �e ��e.pis.,-• :., Pei
\ r i►•.......t.•_4...!•%•.•e■��l�e a e�►�e�e::; \___1`►eeee.�eeee et.;*i1!e141. ee�et 3
I 1.
I a,F I- . ::,
I I 0
•
� `- i I t.F
e
I I I n fl ,i.
i
i
..
a
•
•
•
•
•
•
RADIO ED . - .- _, ® • ,••
a '
IT;
ash •
ma
m
•
4/ �
v DAMS BLVD
25 MILL'BUFFER •FRO NRSE 1O1- •l: ..l iF▪ W. x
• a` t— r y aJ ,,• I _ .. -----
"sq, 6__. ,tai ? %j �'t"
E t .a f I 'f i c r▪ F om: '
•7 }k ,` L! 44--••• ••;"-
Y" --2,..4,-..--r ri+f 1 S; A• T
. ryh• co.,-- 1 r z � ' , �_,, r H ,RL�s�"�!-1� F r .ti i,,: . PI/44'0W' EY � _ r �,.• 4 F 9 ,,. 3 „,-,,,.. ,,- 6 '• } >>�� ` 3 C ApS i_ 3� - 1 � ` a" "Y.14"6: 1,�r-- �-` �1 t� '�K - 'aaic9 '. Err vc {r @Pk� � } • '' �`> , jS N N�._ 6 � • e• 7 *� r c
• .
ilF n is ...1140'44.4,,:: m 4+�am„ aJt r
a y 4 g t� .ts , i f T .
r f N ,. a` ti
1- k�P h 1. � -i' . .� � t} J ` � .I.
` HAL Rif s' F '?4 � �o•
'�t F. Y IM �� wy � a # �x_ ' — __ - F ti ,,gi• eE sG47' 2 '. * ,n: aLL q � z sif i w . RATTLESNAKE ( '} / ,+a tV�-'ti4r' � Xv . l a�
� 1cYi � Iy i•� , ! ��6trl �• -§ '% r o* ._e: ,,,„,r:5. 2.,.p c. f _
•3.Y• ?. Pi.. .1 r 4L'. r7 r L
to I } ;
--� W. g J'^ 2 1i
M • Jy ] '41n t' ` L.
_._.__... ,.C ��.
9 r-
m � it ...- ; Legend am
i NOW.]AR CAW. H'
MY
ner NH
•
Plains(Boundary KM
t
c RalllaaNMa Hammer.Re t CR 93I Nnlattis..Poe,M.P
2.5 Mlle Buller eon Inlersaoli,n FA;RMF-16
PUUt na within 3 Mae Bulls Y t R F•6
--..-•Collier Cooly Major Roars `•RMF•,i)
Zoning within 2.5 Mile Buffer Ml'-,RAM')'
in A RSF•
I ME C.3 RSF•3(1)
RE C-5 RSFt
' ®CPU° R5F•5 I I
• E MK Trees
Hacienda Lakes T % JAINr
Study Area 2.5 Miles from Intersection
('I IMic•It IN.
_L't t it 1•N r a:Tyaw in. 9. it t.iLm
c
EAC ADOPTION STAFF REPORT
I"
I
~
J".....
.....
CP-2006-11 Hacienda Lakes of Naples GMP Amendment - Adoption Hearing
AGENDA ITEM No, VI A.
<:::A>t8tr <:::A>u:nt:;.y
- ~-
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 Manaaement Element, Future
Land Use Element and Future Land Use MaD and MaD 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.
- 1 -
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: 3/0).
ccpe 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: g/O) - 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 (aRC) 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 aRC 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 aRC 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 ADril 21. 2011 aRC ReDort for GMP amendment CP-2006-11. One
State agency, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), provides two (2) comments. The
entire aRC 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 DRI 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
rdouble-underlinedl in the FLUE excerpt, shown as modified [by strike through/underlinel 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 6.2.5 (6) b.1., -Gf- and either "an
or "b" below:
a. Up to U JJ! unit per gross acre via the transfer of up to one f1.Jll dwelling unit (transferable
development riohO 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 Frinoe and the Rural Frinoe Mixed Use Sendino Lands
desionations, and meet the other Density Blendino criteria provided for in subsection 5.2 of the
Density Ratinq System. which may achieve an additional maximum density of UP to 1.3 units per
gross acre for all lands desianated as Urban Residential Frinae via the transfer of UP to 1.3
dwellina units (transferable development riahts) per acre from lands located within one mile of the
Urban Boundary and desianated as Rural Frinae Mixed Use District Sendina Lands; or,
r"'\
-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-underlined1 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, staff's
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
2.8 DUlacre . 432.4 in WITH MODIFICATION
Maximum 2.5 DU/acre - eligible to receive residential tracts Providing Additional
Residential Density - eligible to receive in URF with . 36.6 MUAC Clarity for Receiving
(utilizing TDRs) in URF receiving "lift" residential TDR Density in the
. 38.8 in Urban Designated Area
residentiaV
medical uses
tract
25% NV in Urban Under 25% NV - . 25% of Urban
Native Vegetationl portion Urban portion Preserve is 71.7
Habitat 60% NV in Rural 100% NV- ac. of 286.8 NV To ADOPT
Retention I portion Undeveloped Rural . 60% of Rural as Transmitted
Preservation - Required portion - Preserve is
FLUE Preservation Area Preservation Area 848.4 ac. of
with "shift" 1,414 NV
1.0 DUfTDR per 1.3 DUsfTDRs per
acre
acre - eligible to transfer
-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. I Demand for
Acreage Allowed 143,645 sq. ft. =
for Southeast 27.5 acres 36.6 acres Market factor of NOT TO ADOPT
Quadrant of MUAC 6.18
No.7 (Supply = 618 % of
Demand)
Provides additional
The Lord's Way The Lord's Way benefits for access To ADOPT
Direct Access for to both Collier As Transmitted-
Business Park onto does not provide would provide such Boulevard and the Conditional
Arterial Roadway such access by access with new future Benfield Recommendation
FLUE provisions provision Road
Native Vegetationl 25% NV in Urban 25% - X = Urban . Urban Preserve
NV would be 40.8
Habitat portion 60% + 2X =Rural To ADOPT
Retention I 60% NV in Rural ac. as Transmitted
Preservation portion NV . Rural Preserve
CCME - 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:
DATE: j(12 ~ 11
CORBY SC lOT, Alep, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
Comprehensiv Planning Section
Land Develop ent Services Department
Growth Manag ment Division - Planning & Regulation
APPROVED BY:
~J ~.eJ~
L;rtf" MIKE BOSI, AIC?, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING MANAGER
Comprehensive Planning Section
Land Development Services Department
Growth Management Division - Planning & Regulation
DATE:
5 -I t - / /
,,-.......
DATE:
OS-It. - 'loll
A~PL~O~ED.I,~..::~ n /.R-.
~le~1__~J
..~ NICK CASALAOOUIDA, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR
G - '-Growth Management Division - Planning & Regulation
DATE: e,.<;"i(...ZC{
G:\CDES Planning Services\Comprehensive\COMP PlANNING GMP DATA\Comp Plan Arnendments\2006 Cycle Petitions\CP-2006-11
FLUE-CCME Hacienda Lakes of Naples\Adoption Staff Reports\CP-D6-11 Adptn Stff Rprt USED for June 01 EAC.docx
,-........
-5-
~
ORDINANCE NO. 2011-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 89-05, AS AMENDED,
THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE
UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY
PROVIDING FOR: AMENDMENTS TO THE FUTURE LAND USE
ELEMENT, AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES AND THE
CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
SPECIFICALL Y TO ADD ACREAGE TO THE URBAN MIXED USE
ACTIVITY CENTER #7; TO ALLOW ACCESS TO A BUSINESS PARK
SUBDISTRICT THROUGH THE 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 ADOPTION TRANSMITTAL OF THE AMENDMENTS
TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, OR ITS
SUCCESSOR, ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
~
WHEREAS, Collier Cou:p.
Florida Local Government Com
161, et. seq., Florida Statutes, the
d 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, David Torres, of Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC, Dwight Nadeau, of
RWA, Incorporated, and Rich Yovanovich, of Coleman, Yovanovich, and Koester, P.A.
requested amendments to the Future Land Use Element and the Future Land Use Map and Map
Series, and the Conservation and Coastal Management Element 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) to increase the maximum allowable
~ density that may be achieved within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict (URF) portion of a
Words struck through are deletions; words underlined are additions;
* * * * indicate page breaks * * * *
Petition No. CP-2006-11
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 to allow for native vegetation
preservation in the URF portion of a project to be shifted to the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District
(RFMUD) Sending lands portion of the project when the required amount of native vegetation
preservation proportionally increased in the Sending lands portion of the project as they relate to
proposed Hacienda Lakes Development of Regional Impact (DR!) and Mixed Use project
Planned Unit Development (MPUD) requests. The property is located in Sections
11,12,13,14,23,24,and 25, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, and Sections 19 and 30,
Township 50 South, Range 27 East, consisting of 2,262::1: acres; and
WHEREAS, Collier County did submit these Growth Management Plan amendments to
the Department of Community Affairs for preliminary review on March 31, 2011; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Community Affairs did review the amendments to the
Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Maps and Map Series, and the Conservation and
Coastal Management Element tQ!!l~ t",~l~ and transmitted its findings in
writing to Collier County withinPte to" and ,.-.."
WHEREAS, Collier Cdtlfity receipt of the Objections,
Recommendations, and Comments Report from the Department of Community Affairs to adopt,
adopt with changes or not adopt the proposed amendments to the Growth Management Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County did take action in the
manner prescribed by law and did hold public hearings concerning the adoption of the Future
Land Use Element and, the Conservation and Coastal Management Element to the Growth
Management Plan on September 13,2011; and
WHEREAS, Collier County has gathered and considered additional information, data and
analysis supporting adoption of these amendments, including the following: the Collier County
Staff Report; the documents entitled Collier County Growth Management Plan Amendments,
and other documents, testimony and information presented and made a part of the record at the
meetings ofthe Collier County Planning Commission held on July 21,2011, and August 4,2011,
and the Collier County Board of County Commissioners held on September 13, 2011; and
WHEREAS, all applicable substantive and procedural requirements of law have been
r""\
met.
Words struck through are deletions; words underlined are additions;
* * * * indicate page breaks * * * *
Petition No. CP-2006-11
2
~
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
SECTION ONE: ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO mE GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PLAN
The Board of County Commissioners hereby adopts these amendments to the Future
Land Use Element and the Conservation and Coastal Management Plan Element, in accordance
with Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. The text and maps of the amendments are attached
hereto as Exhibit" A" and are incorporated by reference herein.
SECTION TWO:
SEVERABILITY.
If any phrase or portion of this Ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court
of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent
provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion.
/"""..
SECTION THREE: E
The effective date of th be the ate a final order is issued by the
Department of Community Affairs or Administration Commission finding the amendments in
compliance in accordance with Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes, whichever occurs earlier. No
development orders, development permits, or land uses dependent on these amendments may be
issued or commence before it has become effective. If a final order of noncompliance is issued
by the Administration Commission, these amendments may nevertheless be made effective by
adoption of a Resolution affirming its effective status, a copy of which Resolution shall be sent
to the Department of Community Affairs, Bureau of Local Planning, 2555 Shumard Oaks Blvd.,
3rd Floor, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100.
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County, Florida this day of ,2011.
/""'..
Words struok throl:lgh are deletions; words underlined are additions;
* * * * indicate page breaks * * * *
Petition No. CP-2006-11
3
~
A TrEST:
D~GHTE.BROCK,CLERK
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
, Deputy Clerk
BY:
FRED W. COYLE, Chairman
Approved as to form and
legal sufficiency:
(~c. .
o ' \\\.
\1\19
Heidi Ashton-Cicko
Assistant County Attorney
Section Chief, Land Use/Transportation
CP\lO-CMP-00788\40
Words sHaak thro1:lgR are deletions; words underlined are additions;
* * * * indicate page breaks * * * *
Petition No. CP-2006-11
4
I
CP-2006-11
~
Exhibit A
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 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.1., Gf and either "a" or
"b" below:
a.
Up to ~ 1,0 units per gross acre via the transfer of up to one f1.Q} dwelling unit (transferable
development rioht) 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 Frinoe and the Rural Frinoe Mixed Use Sendino Lands
desionations. and meet the other Density Blendino criteria provided for in subsection 5.2 of the
Density Ratino System. which may achieve an additional maximum density of UP to 1.3 units
per oross acre via the transfer of UP to 1.3 dwellino units (transferable development riohts) per
acre from lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary and desionated as Rural Frinoe
Mixed Use District Sendino Lands: or, ffi
~
b. !n 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 p3r3gr3ph "c" below. 'Nithin the Urb3n Residenti31 Fringe, rezone requests 3re
not subject to the density rating system, except 3S specifically pro'.'ided in c. below, but are
subject to the following conditions:
Within the Urban Residential Frinoe. rezone requests are not subiect to the density ratino system.
except as specifically provided below for the Affordable-workforce Housino Density Bonus. All
rezones are encouraoed to be in the form of a planned unit development. Proposed development in
the Subdistrict shall be fully responsible for all necessary water manaoement improvements. includino
the routino of all on-site and appropriate off-site water throuoh the proiect's water manaoement
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.
3. All rezones 3re encour3ged to be in the form of a planned unit development;
- 1 -
~
Words underlined are added, words struck through are deleted,
Row of asterisks (** *** **** *** **) denotes breaks in text,
CP-2006-11
b. Proposed development in the area shall be fully responsible f-or all necessary wator management r'\
improvements, including the routing of all on site and appropriate off site water through the project's
'.vater 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; and,
&- 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 lWO 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 sewef wastewater treatment
facilities (from the urban designated portion of the project) to serve the entire project,
- 2-
~
Words underlined are added, words struck through are deleted,
Row of asterisks (** *** **** *** **) denotes breaks in text,
~
(d)
(e)
,-....
~
CP-2006-11
(f)
unless alternative interim sa'oVer ::md water and wastewater treatment provisions are
authorized by Collier County;
The Project is currently zoned or will be zoned PUD;
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;
Native veoetation shall be preserved as follows:
ill
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
veoetation requirement for the Sendino Lands portion of the proiect is the
maximum required 60 percent of the total Sendino Land area. in order to
promote oreater preservation of the hiohest quality wetlands and listed species
habitat. the required native veoetation for the Urban portion of the project may
be shifted by providino native veoetation preservation in the Sendino Lands
portion of the proiect exceedino the 60% maximum preservation requirement as
set forth in subsection (2) below. The ratio for such native veoetation
preservation shall be two acres of Sendino Lands (exceedino the 60%
maximum preservation requirement) for each acre below the required amount
of native veoetation for the Urban portion of the project. In no instance shall
less than 10 percent of the required amount of native veoetation be retained in
the Urban portion of the project. Sionificant Archeolooical Sites identified by the
State of Florida Division of Historic Resources shall be preserved and cannot
be mitioated for. For those lands '....ithin 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.
'Netland areas that are impacted through the development process, but .....hich
result in enhanced 'Hetland function, including habitat and/or fIO'.\''lIays, 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 flmw/ays may be used for 'lIater storage provided that the 'Nater
discharged in thase areas is pre treated.
ill For those lands within the project desionated as Sendino. the native veoetation
preservation requirement shall be 90% of the native veoetation. not to exceed
60% of the total proiect area desionated as Sendino. unless the provisions
found in subsection (1) above are met.
Q1 Wetland areas that are impacted throuoh the development process. but which
result in enhanced wetland function. includino habitat and/or flowways. shall be
considered as part of the native veoetation 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 storaoe provided that the water
discharoed in these areas is pre-treated.
- 3-
Words underlined are added, words struck through 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.
r'\
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.
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 Frinoe and the /"""..
Rural Frinoe Mixed Use Sendino Lands desionations. and meet the other Densitv
Blendino criteria provided for in subsection 5.2 of the Densitv Ratino System. which
may transfer TDRs from Sendino Lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary
into lands desionated Urban Residential Frinoe. at a maximum density increase of 1,3
units per oross acre.
PART FOUR of SIX:
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
-4-
~
Words underlined are added, words struck 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 -:t-79 188.2 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:
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. RanQe 26 East may have access to an arterial
road via The Lords Wav.
- 5-
~
Words underlined are added, words struck through are deleted.
Row of asterisks (** *** **** *** **) denotes breaks in text.
CP-2006-11
PART SIX of SIX:
r"\
Conservation and Coastal Manaoement 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.
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.
* ** *** **** *** ***** *** **** *** ** *
.!.H} In order to promote oreater preservation of the hiohest Quality wetlands and listed species
habitat the required native veoetation for the Urban portion of the project may be shifted bv
providino native veoetation preservation in the Sendino Lands portion of the project exceedino
the 60% maximum preservation requirement found in Density Blendino provisions of the FLUE
for projects that:
- 6-
r'\
Words underlined are added, words struck through are deleted,
Row of asterisks (** *** **** *** **) denotes breaks in text,
CP-2006-11
~
(a)
(b)
Are under unified control.
Straddle the Urban Residential Frinoe and the Rural Frinoe Mixed Use Sendino Lands
desionations. and.
Meet the maximum required 60 percent preservation requirement for the Sendino
Lands portion of the proiect.
(c)
The preservation ratio shall be two acres of Sendino Lands (exceedinq the 60% maximum
preservation requirement) for each acre below the required amount of native veoetation for the Urban
portion of the proiect. In no instance shall less than 10 percent of the required amount of native
veoetation be retained in the Urban portion of the proiect. Siqnificant Archeoloqical Sites identified bv
the State of Florida Division of Historic Resources shall be preserved and cannot be mitioated for,
~
G:\CDES Planning Services\Comprehensive\COMP PLANNING GMP DATA\Comp Plan Amendments\2006 Cycle Petitions\CP-2006-11 FLUE-CCME Hacienda Lakes of
Naples\Exhibit A's\CP-06-11 BCC Transmittal Exhibit A.docx
- 7-
~
Words underlined are added, words struck through are deleted,
Row of asterisks (** *** **** *** **) denotes breaks in text.
- I ...
'"
J:, ;g 0 ~
0
0 .. '" ~
0
N '" tJ 0 ~
a. >-
0 ... ~'" '"
-.... i n::'" <: t' ~~
z "
II: z ,I:
0 .. ~ wi Q => z~~
;:: UI g 00'" 0
I- ! 2'0 Z co O'N
;:: ~~~
W Z " I wO \II '" "
< 1-'" i" z
0- UI g J 0- lD z w ~ ~ ~,~
U w 0 \II i'5 0 ~. q
8 '-' N 17i
UlZ ..J ~h
>- I ~ " r-
:0 1-0 z '-' ~~~
I- ~ 5 F "
> 00 F Ul en ~~*
'-' 5 17:
~ w <:
j: 0 ., ~ ~~~
~ z z I
ill w u. 8:::E&
2' Ol
~ <( '" n~
"
<(
<(
<(
~~
~~
w
!::;:
"'..
1-0
00
WN
~Ii.
:>0
"'
e
"
.
o~
:;). l
a..g
.
I
'''',/".01,011
~
. .
~ R
<( ffi " !
I- ~I
iD <') Ul Ul c~
I <( 0 0 0 ~~ a...
x ~g ~
..-.. w
<(
ffi
~
~
c~
~Il
.
~
.
C~
~~l
.
()
>
a:
l-
I-
IA/tJ "'NV:I
~
Oe
:;)g
a...
~
..;~ .....N'r.l .001
~Ol:l 1lldY.).iO:ns1
~
,^""""",
~
g~
a..~
~
I
~
~
~
~~
0.,
"
~
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
______1
~.
;;:~
"
~
~.....
\...
,.
\....
Bce TRANSMITTAL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
r"
'-....
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, F8., 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, F.A.C., exempt from the twice per calendar year Plan amendment limitation.
. The CCPC, sitting as the "local planning agency" under Chapter 163.3174, F8., 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 ofCP-2006-11lifts 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;
,,-...,
- 1 -
. 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 IM:PACT:
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 fmal 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 II, Florida Statutes, The
Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, and by local ~.
-2-
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 ofTDRs 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofthese 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 [mal 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 NRPA Sending lands as proposed by the
applicant.
mSTORICAL/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 "0". 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 mitigatedfor.
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 ofCP-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.
r'\
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 CC.ME language should not identify or include reference
to the Hacienda Lakes Development of Regional Impact (DR!) 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 TransmitlNot 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 ofthis 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 frrst 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
ofthe 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 Gwwth 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.
~
-5-
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION:
The Collier County Planning Commission held their required Transmittal public hearing on January ~
20,2011.
The CCPC recommended that the BCC approve each ofthe 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 ofCP-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 confmn 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 confmn 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 POO rezone and/or in the eventual and subsequent
companion DRl, whichever is deemed more appropriate:
1. Prior to the issuance of the fIrst residential Development Order in the Hacienda Lakes :MPOO,
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 fmal 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 POO 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.
,,-......
- 6-
~
Although all six (6) of the above stipulations are appropriate to include during CCPC Adoption
consideration or subsequent development order approval, and not within the GMP as part of this
proposed amendment, they are helpful in making the petitioner aware of the County's concerns and
position.
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.
1. 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-
A Inn
T hI h
if
k
d
p
ttac ent: a es owmg roposa s, Remar san Sta 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
residentiaV
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. of289.7 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 DUsfTDRs 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.
/"""\
/"""..
G:ICDES Planning ServiceslComprehensivelCOMP PLANNING GMP DATAIComp Plan Amendmenlsl2006 Cycle PetitionsICP-2006-11 FLUE-CCME Hacienda Lakes of
NapleslCP-06-11 Hacienda Lakes EX SUM TransmittaUev2.docx /"""..
-8-
I' ..
'-'"
I
\.. ..
CCPC TRANSM ITT AL
STAFF REPORT UPDATE
c
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, P.A
4001 North Tamiami Trail, Suite 300
Naples, FL 34103
"-...,,
Applicant:
David Torres
for Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC
12600 Biscayne Court
Naples, FL 34105
Owners:
Wilton Land Company, LLC
206 Dudley Road
Wilton, CT 06897
Swamp Buggy Days, Inc.
PO Box 990010
Naples, FL 34116
Collier County Junior Deputy League, Inc.
PO Box 1833
Naples, FL 34106
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
CP-2006-11 pertains to a particular subject property, consisting of approximately 2,262 acres located
east of Collier Boulevard (CR 951), with frontages on Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock
Road Extension (a.k.a., entrance to Swamp Buggy Days PUD's Florida Sports Park), in Sections 11,
12, 13, 14,23,24, and 25, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, and Sections 19 and 30, Township 50
South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. The property lies within the Royal Fakapalm Planning
Community.
"-...,,
-1-
Agenda Item 9A
REQUESTED ACTION:
~
This petition seeks to amend the Conservation and Coastal ManaQement 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 (TORs); 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 I 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 develDp 27.5 acres Df MUAC ND. 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-t.
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.
. WithDut adoptiDn of this part of the GMPA, the Hacienda Lakes Df Naples project is currently
unable tD develop a business park situated adjacent tD a street providing next-to-immediate
egress tD and ingress from both Collier BDulevard (CR 951) and the future Benfield Road.
The specific revisions proposed by this part of the GMP amendment appear as Part Rve in Attachment ".........."
HL-l.
-2-
Agenda Item 9A
.--...
PROVISION EXISTING PROPOSED
Direct Access for Business Park onto The Lord's Way does not provide The Lord's Way would provide such
Arterial Roadway such access by FLUE provisions 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 TORs 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-l.
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
I receiving "life
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 RFMUO Sending Lands. With
the adoption of this part of the GMPA, the Hacienda Lakes of Naples project would preserve
~.
-3-
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-l.
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
"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 DUlac.] achieved by transferring
development rights from adjacent RFMUD Sending Lands by a greater amount [of 1.3 DUlac.].
. 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-l.
PROVISION EXISTING PROPOSED
Maximum Use of TDRs 1.0 DUfTDR per acre 1.3 DUsfTDRs 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"
.r--...
-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 othelWise required in RFMUD Sending Lands and
preserve less native vegetation than is othelWise 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 Parle 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 halVconvention 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 (TOR) 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: /""""\
-6-
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.
Surroundino 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 DR!. 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 Chanoes:
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 r'\
the subject property. Residential development is currently planned and limited to certain transitional
-8-
Agenda Item 9A
densities, achievable with TORs transferred into the Urban Fringe. The appropriateness of changing
~ the FLUE and CCME for allowing additional TORS 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 [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:
..--..
- 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 Tum 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 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 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 i?Y the Collier County Transportation Planning Section) and the Collier County Interactive Growth Model
(GGM).
Residential Demand Analvsis:
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 dulac. 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 DRIIPUD 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.
1. 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].
-11-
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 Analvsis Reauirement
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 GOVERNMENTS
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.
~
-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 ~ch
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 Industria[
uses.
The needs analysis is a useful planning tool to ascertain whether a proposed plan
amendment will result in a loca[ 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 [[and 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 la-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 lO-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."
r"..
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
I"""".
- 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 eastem 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
percentfrom 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
U[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
,.-..
-15 -
Agenda Item 9A
1"""'\
. 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):
. Existino 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 arelwill be: 2010 -14,069 persons; ~
2015 -17,416 persons; and, 2030 -19,204 persons.
. Square Footaoe 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 Footaoe Demand for a Reoional 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 OCM analYsis Jar this petition utilized: (1) the 2007 Commercial Inventory prepared by the Collier County
Comprehensive Planning Department; (2) present CMP designations that allow commercial zoning; (3) population projections
prepared by the applicants consultant. There is a minor discrepancy between the OCM 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 1"""'\
surveys and habitat mapping were done in 2003, 2005, 2007 and 2009. The substantive review of
- 16-
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 Plannino 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 CaoacitvlTraffic Circulation Analvsis: .
The traffic study submitted by lindale-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 ArchaeoloQicallmoacts:
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 "0". 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 ImDact:
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 CI E, 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. r--...
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,
occupancylvacancy 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 LeQislation - 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.
r'\
- 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 Iivelwork 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 (DR!) 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;
· Ajobs-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.
.-....
-19-
Agenda Item 9A
Acquiescing to this idea would compensate the petitioner for MUAC acreage used for land uses other .r"\.
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 TORs. The part
of this GMPA relating to the TDR program would allow more TORs 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 TOR program, these preserve lands are conveyed to a public agency
responsible for restoration and maintenance.
o
- 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, AICp, Principal Planner]
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
Approximately 493.2 acres [with the potential to produce 394.5 TORs] lie east, beyond 1 mile of the
URF boundary, and are identified as an "Area not qualified for Sending" TOR credits into the URF.
[This acreage however, is qualified for sending TOR 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 TORs 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
AgriculturaVRural 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 DUlacre Just 507.8 ac would be
Density (utilizing TDRs) - eligible to receive in URF . eligible to receive in URF developed residentially
with receiving "lift" . 432.4 in rsdntl tracts
· 36.6 MUAC residential
. 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 - 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 TORs within the Hacienda Lakes project
PROVISION EXISTING PROPOSED REMARKS
Maximum Use of TORs 1.0 OU/TOR per acre 1.3 OUs/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 of URF within 1 mile of URF
boundary boundary, with "lift"
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
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 "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 "shiff'].
,.-.
EAC members discussed the nature of the 187 additional TORs 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 TOR use that would inhibit full participation in the TDR program. ~
Speakers present agreed with the idea to make full use of TOR program.
Members discussed the proposal to relax preservationlretention 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
TORs 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 al/ Transferable Development Rights be severed from a/l
Sending Lands to be preserved - whether the TORs are utilized in the development of the Hacienda
Lakes of Naples project or they are held until used elsewhere in the County through the TOR
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 DUlacre 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 DUrrDR per 1.3 DUsffDRs 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 FLU E 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, or something similar, be placed in the companion PUD rezone:
- 25-
Agenda Item 9A
· The B3&e TDR Credite, E3rly Entry TOR Bonus Credite, Environmenbl Rm::tor3tion 3nd
Maintcnance Bonue TDR Crcdits, 3nd Con'lcY3nce TOR Bonus Crcdits sh311 be severed and
redecmcd from 311 Scnding L3nds to bo prcscrvcd within ono milo of the Urb3n Residential
Fringc prior to iseu3ncc of the firet rceidcntial Dcvelopmcnt Ordcr in tho H3cicnd3 L3kce
Mixcd Use Planned Unit Devclopmcnt (MPUD). [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 TOR 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
(SOP) 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.
Closino 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) r"
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:
1(0 DC' fO
Date
VH
Corby Schmi ,AICP, Principal Planner
eomprehensr Planning Section
\
REVIEWED BY:
~w~
1
David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager
Comprehensive Planning Section
If'2-. ~()-rp
Date
~....c:?~
Michael Bosi, AICP, Director
Comprehensive Planning Section
~.
'"' J!
~ [;\ .._f----"
/ ~~,,~
. m D. Lorenz, J '., P.E., irector
Land Development Services Department
1<.- (c...:-(0
Date
fZ./7~ZOf()
Date
~
APPROVED BY:
{L..-LO ..-10
Nick Casalanguida, Depu t r Date
Growth Management Services 0" Ision - 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 Februarv 2!.2, 2011 BCC Meeting.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION:
Mark P. Strain, Chairman
"'"""'"
Agenda Item 9A
ATIACHMENT Hl-l
~
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 hioher throuah the
use of the followino:
~
Up to 2.5 units per gross acre via the transfer of up to one MLdwelling unit (transferable
development riaht) 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 aross acre via
the transfer of UP to 1.30 dwellina units (transferable development rjohts) per acre from lands
desianated as Rural Frinoe Mixed Use District Sendina: and.
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:
~
8.
PART 1WO 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:
-1-
,-...
"-....,,
~
2.
Agenda Item 9A
Density Blending Conditions and Limitations for Properties Straddling the Urban Residential
Fringe Sub-District and Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending lands:
(a)
(b)
(c)
The project must straddle the Urban Residential Fringe Sub-District and the Rural
Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands;
The project in aggregate must be a minimum of 400 acres;
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;
The Project is currently zoned or will be zoned PUD;
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;
Native veQetation 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 lJrban designated lands), or in the case of proiects where the native
veoetation requirement for the Sendinq Lands portion of the proiect is the
maximum required 60 percent of the Sendinq Land area, in order to promote
oreater preservation of the hiQhest quality wetlands and listed species habitat.
the required native veqetation for the Urban portion of the proiect mav be
shifted by providinq native veqetation preservation in the Sendinq Lands portion
of the proiect exceedina the 60% maximum preservation requirement as set
forth in b. below. The ratio for such native veqetation preservation shall be two
acres of Sendinq Lands (exceedinq the 60% maximum preservation
requirement) for each acre below the required amount of native veQetation for
the Urban portion of the proiect. Sianificant Archeolooical Sites identified by the
State of Florida Division of Historic Resources shall be preserved and cannot
be mitiqated for.
(d)
(e)
(f)
!:h 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 f1owways, 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 f10wways may be used for water storage provided that the water
discharged in these areas is pre-treated.
(9) 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.
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 PUDIDRI. which may transfer TORs
from Sendinq Lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary into lands
desiQnated Urban Residential Frinqe, at a maximum density increase of 1.30 units per
qross acre.
PART FOUR of SIX:
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 mav have
a total of 50, for a total of +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.
~
-3-
Agenda Item 9A
PART FIVE of SIX:
"'"""""
URBAN DESIGNATION
A. Urban Mixed Use District
[insert new language - FLUE Pages 31-32]
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.
[AltemaUve amendment language 1] The Lords Way shall be considered direct access to Collier
Boulevard (CR 951) for Business Parks within the Urban Residential Frinqe Subdistrict.
[AltemaUve amendment language 2J Direct access is defined as a driveway and lor local roadwav
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 neiahborhood and does not service a
~ predominantly residential area.
PART SIX of SIX:
Conservation and Coastal Manaqement Element
GOAL 6:
[insert new language - CCME Pages 18-21]
OBJECTIVE 6.1:
Policy 6.1.1:
For the County's Urban Designated Area, Estates Designated Area, ConservaUon 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
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 Qreater preservation of the hiQhest Quality wetlands and listed species
habitat the required native veQetation for the Urban portion of the project may be shifted by
providina native veQetation preservation in the Sendina Lands portion of the proiect exceedina
the 60% maximum preservation requirement for proiects that:
(a) Are under unified control:
(b) Straddle the Urban Residential FrinQe and the Rural FrinQe Mixed Use SendinQ
desiQnations:
(c) Meet the maximum required 60 percent preservation requirement for the Sendina
Lands portion of the proiect.
~
The preservation ratio shall be two acres of Sendina Lands (exceedina the 60% maximum
preservation requirement) for each acre below the required amount of native veaetation for the Urban
portion of the proiect. Significant Archeoloaical Sites identified by the State of Florida Division of
Historic Resources shall be preserved and cannot be mitiaated for.
[END OF HL-l GMP AMENDMENT ENTRIES]
/'"""\,
- 5-
Agenda Item 9A
AITACHMENT 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 strike th."Vugh text is deleted. as
proposed by petitioner; double underline text is added. and double :t1'.:'ie tM€Jag.1 text is deleted. as
proposed by .>taft)
PART ONE of SIX:
Future Land Use Element
I. URBAN DESIGNATION
A. Urban Mixed Use District
[Insert new language - FLUE Page 29]
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 hioher throuah the
use of the following:
a. Up to 2.5 units per gross acre via the transfer of up to one ~dwelling unit (transferable
development rioht) 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 ~
HagiBneGI Lakes P'_'Q!DRI properties that straddle the Urban Residential Frince and the Rural
Frince Mixed Use Sendinc Lands desianations. and meet the other Density Blendina criteria
Drovided for in subsection 5.2 of the Density Ratina Svstem. which mav achieve a maximum
density of UP to 2.80 units per cross acre via the transfer of UP to 1.30 dwellinc units
(transferable development riahts) per acre from lands located within one mile of the Urban
Boundarv and desianated as Rural Frinoe Mixed Use District Sendinc Lands: GIrl€!. or, ffi
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 lWO 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 appIicant(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)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
The project must straddle the Urban Residential Fringe Sub-District and the Rural
Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands;
The project in aggregate must be a minimum of 400 acres;
At least 25% of the project must be located within the Urban Residential Fringe Sub-
District. The project must extend central water and ~ wastewater treatment
facilities (from the urban designated portion of the project) to serve the entire project,
unless alternative interim €JB'NBr arts water and wastewater treatment provisions are
authorized by Collier County;
The Project is currently zoned or will be zoned PUD;
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 andlor habitat on-site and to maximize the connectivity of such native
vegetation and/or wildlife habitat with adjacent preservation and/or habitat areas;
Native veQetation 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
veaetation reauirement for the Sendina Lands portion of the proiect is the
maximum reauired 60 percent of the total Sendino Land area, in order to
promote oreater preservation of the hiahest auality wetlands and listed species
habitat. the required native veoetation for the Urban portion of the proiect may
be shifted by providina native veoetation preservation in the Sendina Lands
portion of the proiect exceedina the 60% maximum preservation reauirement as
set forth in subsection "b".. below. The ratio for such native veaetation
preservation shall be two acres of Sendina Lands (exceedino the 60%
maximum preservation reauirement) for each acre below the reauired amount
of native veaetation for the Urban portion of the proiect. In no instance shall the
amount of native veaetation for the Urban portion of the proiect be fully
removed. or shifted entirelv to Sendina Lands. Sianificant Archeolooical Sites
identified bv the State of Florida Division of Historic Resources shall be
preserved and cannot be mitiaated for. FBr thB€JB laRB8 witRiA tRg I3mjest
8BsiSFlatBB a€J SBRBiRS, tRB F1ativo \'Bggtati9R ~f98Br/ati9R fe€tlsliremeRt GRell 99
(f)
-2-
~
,.-.....
.~
Agenda Item 9A
,..-..,
gg% sf t!;;J; Rati':; ':e~etatisR, Rst te EH(B€lS8 89% €If t!;;J15 t@tal prejes-t area
sesigFHateel al;; ~eRsiRg. V\~tIGlFls aFB:as tRat are impagtss t!;;Jr@!;IgR t!;;Js
se\'slepFReF!t preBSSl;;, Syt 'NRigf::t f@sylt iF! BFlRGlF!15eel weUaRs ftrlRetieR, iRSlySiRg
!;;Jasitat m~e1J@r ~@'/:'I:ars, sRall 8S eORsisers€f as par>t @f tt.ls Rativ8 'J@getati@R
rs~YifemsRt set fer>tR iF! tf::tis pr@':isi@FI ems sRal! FI@t S€l B@F!si€fsre€l as impeet@s
areas. TAese '::etlaReI aFB€lS GIR€f.'sr f1e\w:a)!6 may 88 !;Ises fer v:ater stefags
J3fsvieleel that tAB '/later BisGAar-g9€f iR tRBse areas is pre tf8atBB.
b.
For those lands within the oroiect desianated as Sendina. the native veaetation
o reservati on reauirement shall be 90% of the native veaetation. not to exceed
60% of the total oroiect area desianated as SendinG. unless the orovisions
found in subsection "a" above are met.
c.
Wetland areas that are imoacted throuGh the develooment orocess. but which
result in enhanced wetland function. includina habitat and/or f1owwavs. shall be
considered as Dart of the native veaetation reauirement set forth in this
orovision and shall not be considered as imoacted areas These wetland areas
and/or f10wwavs mav be used for water storaae orovided that the water
discharGed in these areas is ore-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 Pages47-50]
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.
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 tAB PiesiBF!€fe Lalmfi: PUD/QRI orooerties that straddle the
Urban Residential Frinae and the Rural Frinae Mixed Use Sendina Lands desianations.
and meet the other Density Blendina criteria orovided for in subsection 5.2 of the
Density Ratina Svstem. which may transfer TORs from Sendina Lands located within
one mile of the Urban Boundary into lands desianated Urban Residential Frinae. at a
maximum density increase of 1.30 units per cross acre.
,..-..,
-3-
Agenda Item 9A
PART FOUR of SIX:
~
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 ana tAB scmthgast EilUaelraRt may Ra'/B
a t81al sf s9, for a total of -+79 ~ 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 eo 49.2, for a total of .:t+9 ~ 188.2 acres maximum in the entire Activity
Center;
[alternate language, if .MUAC expansion approved for Transmittal}
.",lgW: TRfiJ .A.c;;fdtr Ceflte,~ it? ,:flSf!?t map '::jtf:1.:R ihs FLIlIi is tg Bf!? amsfloori 16 rof!s@t tnfiJ
p:'ofJf!Jseri BfJl1f100rr &R&mge. !t ,:s Ret thg m16Rt sf th!s amsRrim6mt re6ftJf;?st if;? meri.:fj' tne
F-bltblro b.61ml US6J Map t€J fJeph;t the Be/JRfifU}' fJ-naflgg.
F'JTUR~ bP.t>JQ U~E MI'.P ~ERI~S
(amBAB iFl @rdgr]
.^.gti':ity CeFlter t>J@.: Rattle~mal'Ce FlammBgl" RBad GAB C@mer ~€1Mle!{ar-€f MixeB Use .!\6ti\'ity CeFlter
- ElmeR€! iRsct map aeJ3i0tins Re'!! MUI',C 88bfnElarf, iAstea€! sf rO'/isi@A 18 tRB FbftMro Lens UlJO
1i1€l(9:l0At COMAt'jv:iele FLUr.1.
PART FIVE of SIX:
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 *** **** *** ** *
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. exceot that a
Business Park in Section 14. Townshio 50 South. Rance 26 East mav have access to an arterial
road via The Lords Wav if the desicn and construction of new roadwavs and imorovements or
extensions to existinc roadwavs orovidina said access are commensurate with standards for
accommodatinc industrial and non-industrial traffic. and consistent with other aoolicable Policies of
the Transoortation Element.
[.1I..'temat.;'.'8 am€f.1fiJmmt .(af.1fjbJage 1} T!;Je leF€ls 'Ale v s!;Jall tle s€lRsiEiBrsEi EiirBet assess t€l C@l!iBr
!aBbllevar€f (CR 951) fer !al;lsiRSGS Pari,s 'lIitAiFl tt.Je lJrtl:aR RBsiggr;:Jtial FFiR€lB ~bltlgi!;tri@t.
f.I\.'tsmath'8 Qff-)fimdmef.1t !af.1fjbJQfje 2} QiFEl6t aBBeS!; is gefiAeEi as i3 EiR':ev:a~' aREi .fer lesal maEi'N"rl
sSAFleetisR t@ tRB artBRal rBra€f. 13r@viEiBEi tAB 13m1iem of tRB IBBal Ferae'l:a\' iFlteFlssEi t€l 13rm:ise
aSB€lSS t€l tRB !aYSiFlBSS Parl( is R€lt witt.JiFl a rEl8iElElFItial Flsi€lRB€lfRBeS aReI SSElS FIst sBP:iBe ra
sro€le~iFlaRtlv resiElsFltial area.
"'"""""
PART SIX of SIX:
Conservation and Coastal ManaQement Element
GOAL 6:
[Insert new language - CCME Pages 18-21]
OBJECTIVE 6.1:
Policy 6.1.1 :
For the County's Urban Designated Area, Estates Designated Area, Conservation Designated Area,
and AgriculturaVRural 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.
"'"""""
-5-
Agenda Item 9A
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 on Iv)
~
The following standards and criteria shall apply to the vegetation retention requirements referenced
above.
* ** *** **** *** UNAFFECTED PROVISIONS ARE SKIPPED *** **** *** ** *
{141 In order to promote qreater preservation of the hiqhest quality wetlands and listed species
habitat the required native veqetation for the Urban portion of the project mav be shifted bv
providinq native veqetation preservation in the Sendino Lands portion of the proiect exceedino
the 60% maximum preservation requirement found in Density Blendinq provisions of the FLUE
for proiects that:
(a) Are under unified control~..
(b) Straddle the Urban Residential Frinoe and the Rural Frinqe Mixed Use Sendinq Lands
desio nationSf.JIDd..
(c) Meet the maximum required 60 percent preservation requirement for the Sendino
Lands portion of the proiect.
~
The preservation ratio shall be two acres of Sendinq Lands (exceedinq the 60% maximum
preservation requirement) for each acre below the required amount of native veoetation for the Urban
portion of the proiect. In no instance shall the amount of native veoetation for the Urban portion of the
oroiect be fullv removed. or shifted entirelv to Sendinq Lands. Sionificant Archeolooical Sites
identified bv the State of Florida Division of Historic Resources shall be preserved and cannot be
mitioated for.
[END OF HL-2 GMP AMENDMENT ENTRIES]
r"\
-6-
~
~
~
Agenda Item 9A
ATTACHMENT Hl-3
Transportation Planninq 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 7/2110 in the PUD and GMPA, is not consistent with the Question
21 responses dated 7/23/10 in the DR!. 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 footagelUses)
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 intemal capture
and pass-by rate~ 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 FOOT'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 PUO
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 ORI applications (as amended).
~
Hacienda Lakes DRI Review Comments
1. 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
."'"""""
1. With respect to the 2019 proportionate share analyses of intersections such as SR-951 @ US-41,
the County reminds the applicant that State roadways are not allowed to adopt a minimum LOS of
"E". Table 2 of the applicant's response indicated that three movements at this intersection reach
LOS "E" in 2019 (inclusive of the project). However, the analysis does not clarify the extent to
which the development causes these degradations in LOS. Staff recommends demonstrating the
2019 buildout with, and without, the project for instances where the County is seeking
proportionate share commitments from the Developer for any improvements (such as the example
given above).
2. No other significant rejection comments are noted by staff at this time regarding the Traffic Impact
Study/Q21 response. However, staff reserves the right to add future commentary based on any
changes effected by forthcoming negotiations and discussions intended to finalize mitigation
provisions. Some of these improvements, as they become further defined and as the
proportionate share is assigned, may necessitate revisions within the TIS analyses.
~
~
-4-
c
c
CCPC TRANSMITTAL
STAFF REPORT
c
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 IAPPLlCANT/OWNERS:
Agent:
Dwight H. Nadeau
for Emilio Robau, PE
RWA Consultants, Inc.
6610 Willow Park Drive, Suite 200
Naples, FL 34109
Attomey:
Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq.
Goodlette, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A
4001 North Tamiami Trail, Suite 300
Naples, FL 34103
,.-..,
Applicant:
David Torres
for Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC
12600 Biscayne Court
Naples, FL 34105
Owners:
Wilton Land Company, LLC
206 Dudley Road
Wilton, CT 06897
Swamp Buggy Days, Inc.
PO Box 990010
Naples, FL 34116
Collier County Junior Deputy League, Inc.
PO Box 1833
Naples, FL 34106
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
CP-2006-11 pertains to a particular subject property, consisting of approximately 2,262 acres located
east of Collier Boulevard (CR 951), with frontages on Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock
Road Extension (a.k.a., entrance to Swamp Buggy Days PUD's Florida Sports Park), in Sections 11,
12, 13, 14,23,24, and 25, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, and Sections 19 and 30, Township 50
South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. The property lies within the Royal Fakapalm Planning
Community.
,.-..,
-1-
Agenda Item 9C
REQUESTED ACTION:
,~
This petition seeks to amend the Conservation and Coastal ManaQement Element, Future Land Use
Element and Future Land Use MaD and MaD 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 (TORs); 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-l.
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-ta-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-l.
-2-
Agenda Item 9C
"'"""""
PROVISION EXISTING PROPOSED
Direct Access for Business Park onto The Lord's Way does not provide The Lord's Way would provide ruch
Arterial Roadway such access by FLUE provisions 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 TORs - for a 187 unit gain - and make use of all available TORs 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 TORs 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 "transitionaln nature, nor will it affect
its surrounding lands.
"'"""""
The applicant explains further that by allowing the use of these additional TORs 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 TORs.
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
receivin~ "lift"
The 06-11 application seeks to amend Native Vegetation Preservation provisions of the Density
Rating System, Density Blending section under the FLUE Urban Designation to preserve less native
vegetation than is otherwise required in the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict portion of the project
if more native vegetation is preserved in adjacent RFMUD Sending Lands. This arrangement would
preserve two (2) acres of vegetation in areas designated as RFMUD Sending Lands [above the 60%
maximum preservation requirement] for every one (1) acre cleared in the Urban Residential Fringe.
This text change, if approved, would affect lands designated in both the Urban Residential Fringe
Subdistrict and RFMUD Sending Lands developed as projects under unified control.
· Without adoption of the GMPA, the Hacienda Lakes of Naples project would preserve 25% of
native vegetation in the URF, and 60% of native vegetation in RFMUD Sending Lands. With
the adoption of this part of the GMPA, the Hacienda Lakes of Naples project would preserve
"'"""""
-3-
Agenda Item 9C
less than the required amount of native vegetation and habitat in the URF, and proportionally ~
more of RFMUD Sending Lands acreage.
Under current GMP provisions, the Rural designated portion of the project would demonstrate
compliance with the preservation standard of Rural Fringe Sending Lands - preserving ninety
percent (90%) of native vegetation present, not to exceed sixty percent (60%) of the total
project area designated Sending. However, more preserve is offered than the required 60% of
the total project area designated Sending - in return for permission to preserve less native
vegetation present in the Urban portion of the project.
The applicant explains, the proposal to protect higher quality native vegetative communities in
the Rural lands portion of the project [provides these vegetative communities] a greater
opportunity to function naturally as opposed to protecting Urban native vegetative areas that
would be of lesser functional value.
Application materials have previously explained how "the density blending provision in the GMP was,
in part, specifically developed to apply to this property". One specific blending provision presently
provides the density boost from 1.5 du/ac. to 2.5 du/ac. The current provisions were adopted by the
County with density capped, or limited, to 2.5 du/ac. to satisfy the need for an acceptable transition
balanced between the dense Urban and sparse Rural areas.
The specific revisions proposed by this part of the GMP amendment appear as Part Two in Attachment
HL-1.
PROVISION EXISTING PROPOSED
Native Vegetation/ Habitat 25% NV in Urban portion Under 25% NV - Urban portion
Retention / Preservation 60% NV in Rural portion 100% NV - Rural portion
FLUE - Required Preservation Area - Preservation Area with "shift"
~
This petition seeks to amend Transfer of Development Rights Bonus provisions of the Density Rating
System, Density Bonuses section under the FLUE Urban Designation. This part of the proposed
amendment would "lift" the maximum density increase [of 1.0 DUlac.] achieved by transferring
development rights from adjacent RFMUD Sending Lands by a greater amount [of 1.3 DUlac.].
. The applicant explains, the proposal [does not ask to increase] the overall number of units
presently allowed, [but to] utilize the additional TOR 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 ofTDRs 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
((ME - 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 the Swamp Buggy Days PUD are:
~ · Swamp Buggy Race Track and related facilities.
· . Stock Car Race Track and related facilities.
· Motocross Race Track and related facilities (including bicycle and motorcycle).
· Target Ranges, including archery.
· Fairgrounds Area for expositions similar to the County Fair, including circuses, carnivals, and
other recreation/entertainment activities.
· Multi-purpose Use Areas (Picnic, Sports Fields, Unpaved Parking, etc.) including picnicking
and playground areas; amateur soccer, softball, and similar outdoor recreational sports and
activities; stadium, training and practice facilities for professional baseball.
· Onsite Roadways.
· Related Structures to house offices (including administrative offices and supportive service
facilities as Permitted Principal Uses and Structures), ticketing (including concessions,
ticketing, bleachers, and other spectator-related facilities as Permitted Accessory Uses and
Structures), exhibition activities (including exhibition hall/convention center), spectator and
user conveniences and facilities management.
The Future Land Use Map designates [approximately 1,637 acres] of the subject site as Rural Fringe
Mixed Use District (RFMUD) Sending Lands, Belle Meade Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA)
Overlay.
The present RFMUD Sending Lands designation currently allows: participation in the Transfer of
Development Rights (TDR) program; agricultural uses consistent with the Florida Right to Farm Act;
habitat preservation and conservation; single-family residences at a 1 dwelling unit per 40 acres or
legally nonconforming parcel density; non-residential uses (e.g. passive recreation, essential services,
sports and recreation camps, oil and gas exploration, development and production); and limited
~ accessory commercial uses.
-5-
Agenda Item 9C
~.
Another [approximately 588 acre] portion of the subject site is designated as the Urban Residential
Fringe Subdistrict.
The land uses that are generally allowed by the Urban Residential Fringe (URF) Subdistrict
designation include a variety of residential and non-residential land uses, including mixed-use
development via PUDs. Residential development in the URF is typified by a "transitional" density
between the County's Urban designated area and the Agricultural/Rural area of a maximum of up to
1.5 units per gross acre, or up to 2.5 units per gross acre via the transfer of one dwelling unit per acre
from lands designated Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) Sending Lands. Certain industrial
and commercial uses may also be allowed, including:
· Essential services;
· Parks, open space and recreational uses;
· Water-dependent and water-related uses;
· Child care centers;
· Community facilities, and their co-Iocation 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;
· I nstitutional 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' ActMty Center-accumulated dens;ty); 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.
Surroundina 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 Gi/ba 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 fie 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 Saba I 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 DR!. 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 Tum 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 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 TORs in manners exclusive to
the subject property. Residential development is currently planned and limited to certain transitional
densities, achievable with TORs transferred into the Urban Fringe. The appropriateness of changing
the FLUE and CCME for allowing additional TORS to be used for residential development is
addressed herein.
".-..".
-8-
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
pattems 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. Ts 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. Ts 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
(GGM).
Residential Demand Analvsis:
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.
1. 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 Analvsis 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.
~
I n 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 GOVERNMENTS
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 TO
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
r'\.
-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 governmenfs 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 lO-year planning horizon.
Below are fictitious examples of commercial market factors for three different GMP
amendments within three different geographic areas. all at the lO-year planning
horizon:
-"'"""'"
1) supply of 1.25 million SF/demand for 1 million SF = market factor of 1.25 (supply
= 125% of demand)
2) supply of 950.000 SF/demand for 800.000 SF = market factor of 1.19 (supply
-13 -
Agenda Item 9C
= 119% of demand)
3) supply of 1.5 million SF/demand for 1 million SF = market factor of 1.50 (supply
= 150% of demand)
~
In the above examples, based on market factor considerations only, there is a
demonstrated need for the first two amendments as the market factor is at or below
1.25, but there is no demonstrated need for the third amendment as the market factor
exceeds the recommended 1.25.
The Interim Report also notes that the numerical needs assessment (market factor),
while a significant factor in determining need. is not the only consideration. Case law
indicates commercial or industrial land use need may also be demonstrated by other
factors such as suitability of the property for change, locational criteria, and community
desires. In the Report's Findings and/or Conclusions section, it states:
The needs assessment is a fundamental part of land use planning. Specifically, the
numerical needs assessment is a useful tool to determine whether the amendment will
cause an area to become over-allocated or exacerbate existing over-allocation. It is also
a key indicator of urban sprawl. However, the numerical needs assessment is only one
factor to consider when conducting a needs assessment. It is also important to consider
other policy factors such as job creation potential. urban infill, form of development, or
the promotion of development in areas where it is most efficient for the local
government to promote growth."
When the numerical needs assessment exceeds the 1.25 market fador, the above
additional fadors. 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 Analvsis:
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 eastemmost 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 - 1""""'\
an increase of approximately 4,550 persons, according to June, 2010 estimates provided by
-14 -
Agenda Item 9C
---
the County's Comprehensive Planning Section. [An ambitious development schedule
indicates about 4,000 of these 4,550 persons will have the opportunity to reside in the
Hacienda Lakes of Naples project by 2020.] It is questionable whether there will be 4,000
persons in this development, even at buildout, based on the persons per household, and
occupancylvacancy 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
"[wJe 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):
. Existina 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.
. PODulation
Based on the CIGM, the total population in the Study Area arelwill be: 2010 -14,069 persons;
2015 -17,416 persons; and, 2030 -19,204 persons.
. Square FootaQe Demand for a Community Center
The total existinglprojected population within the Study Area translates into an
existinglprojected 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 FootaQe Demand for a ReQional 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 OCM anafysis ]or this petition utilized: (1) the 2007 Commercial Inventory prepared by the Collier County
Comprehensive Planning Department; (2) present CMF designations that alhw commercial zoning; (3) population projections
prepared by the applicant's consultant There is a minor discrepanry between the OCM population projections and those
prepared!?J the Bureau of Economic and Business Research at the University of Fhrida (BEBR).
Environmentallmoacts:
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 Plannina 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 CapacitvlTraffic Circulation Analvsis:
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 Archaeoloaicallmoacts:
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 "0". 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 ImDact:
~
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 LeQislation - HB 697:
r--..
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 altemative 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 Iive/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 (DR!) 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;
· Ajobs-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 TORs. The part
of this GMPA relating to the TOR program would allow more TORs to be shifted to the urban part of
the property for increased density there.
Questions generated during the subsequent discussion focused on the nature of the proposed
development, traffic and localized road conditions. One person asked about the Swamp Buggy facility
and the potential for compatibility issues with nearby residential land uses. The applicant's team
explained how the proposed Business Park would serve as a transition to buffer noise and other
impacts between the facility and residential land uses. Land uses allowed at the Swamp Buggy
facility will remain the same, where redevelopment into a business park or school site is not planned.
Another attendee asked for clarification regarding main vehicular access to the new development. ,~
The team explained that The Lord's Way and Rattlesnake Hammock Road would be
extended/improved to serve as the main access points with CR 951. A right-of-way corridor is being
reserved at this time for the eventual development of, and connection to, Benfield Road. Their
development plans do not include the actual construction of Benfield Road.
An attendee asked about the nature of the residential development. The applicant indicated a variety
of single-family and multi-family housing options are planned, without age or income restrictions.
Another attendee asked for clarification regarding plans for the area located east of the Verona Walk
community. The team explained that this area is to be part of the larger preserve acreage. Except for
the Benfield Road corridor, these lands are protected from development in perpetuity. In order to
derive certain benefits from the TDR program, these preserve lands are conveyed to a public agency
responsible for restoration and maintenance.
No one in attendance expressed opposition to the project. No major issues or contentions were
raised or discussed. No statements of commitment were made by the agent, applicant or developer.
The meeting was completed by 6:15 p.m.
[Synopsis prepared by C. Schmidt, AICp, Principal Planner]
,.-..."
- 20-
Agenda Item 9C
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
,--.,
Approximately 493.2 acres [with the potential to produce 394.5 TDRs] lie east, beyond 1 mile of the
URF boundary, and are identified as an "Area not qualified for Sending" TDR credits into the URF.
[This acreage however, is qualified for sending TDR credits into other receiving areas of the County.]
PART ONE of SIX: This part of CP-2006-11 lifts the FLUE's 2.5 unit-per-acre maximum achievable
density to 2.8 units per acre to use all qualifying TORs within the Hacienda Lakes project.
The property's present designation as Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict currently
al10ws 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 DUlacre Just 507.8 ac would be
Density (utilizing TORs) - eligible to receive in URF - eligible to receive in URF developed residentially
with receiving "lift" · 432.4 in rsdntJ tracts
· 36.6 MUAC residential
. 38.8 in residential!
medical uses tract
PART TWO of SIX: This part of CP-2006-11 shifts a portion of the FLUE's native vegetation
preservation from Urban lands to RFMUD Sending Lands to protect the highest quality wetlands and
habitat within the Hacienda Lakes project.
PROVISION EXISTING PROPOSED REMARKS
Native Vegetation/ 25% NV in Urban portion Under 25% NV - Urban · 25% of Urban Preserve
Habitat 60% NV in Rural portion portion is 72.4 ac. of 289.7 NV
Retention / Preservation - Required Preservation 100% NV - Rural portion · 60% of Rural Preserve
FLUE Area - Preservation Area with is 847.2 ac. of 1,412 NV
"shift"
PART THREE of SIX: This part of CP-2006-11 lifts the FLUE's 1.0 unit-per-acre maximum transferred
TDR density to 1.3 units per acre to use all qualifying TORs 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
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)
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
(CME 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 TORs
generated from adjacent RFMUD Sending Lands to be used in the Urban portion of the project for a
greater maximum density [the "Iiftj; 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 TOR 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 TOR 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 TORs are utilized in the development of the Hacienda
Lakes of Naples project or they are held until used elsewhere in the County through the TOR
program.
The EAC also provided direction for modifying the GMP provisions, as proposed by CP-2006-11.
Members recommended that the FLUE and CCME language should not identify or include reference
to the Hacienda Lakes Development of Regional Impact (DRI) and Mixed Use Planned Unit
Development (MPUD) by name. Staff concurred, and explained that FLUE and CCME provisions
~
- 23-
Agenda Item 9C
being prepared for recommendation to the CCPC were drafted with the same idea for removing or ~
modifying the applicant's proposed provisions in this manner.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:
The Office of the County Attorney review of this Staff Report is underway. No observations or
comments on legal aspects of CP-2006-11 were provided at the time of this printing that would
preclude the CCPC from making a recommendation the BCC on the proposed GMP amendments.
[REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
r"\
r"\
- 24-
~
~
~
Agenda Item 9C
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
In consideration of the reviews and analyses provided within this Report, staff recommends that the
Planning Commission forward Petition CP-2006-11 to the Board of County Commissioners
corresponding with the individual parts of the proposal as shown in the figure below.
PROVISION EXISTING PROPOSED REMARKS RECOMMENDATION
Just 507.8 ac
Maximum 2.5 DUlacre 2.8 DU/acre would be To Transmit
Residential Density - eligible to receive - eligible to receive developed with Modification
(utilizing TORs) in URF in URF with residentially
receiving "lift" . 432.4 in
residential tracts
. 36.6 MUAC
residential
. 38.8 in residentiaV
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
TORs -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% NY 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 TOR Credits, Early Entry TOR Bonus Credits, Environmental Restoration and
Maintenance Bonus .TOR Credits, and Conveyance TOR 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 FLU E
and CCME language proposed in six parts, as shown in ATTACHMENT HL-2.
Closinq 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:
~
Date
\
REVIEWED B\r:
~w~
David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager
Comprehensive Planning Section
lr:z.. ~( )-(P
Date
~~~
Michael Bosi, AICP, Director
Comprehensive Planning Section
/7.... t~-{0
Date
fZ./7~Zoro
Date
-.....-
~ 'Vam D. Lorenz, J~P.E., 1 rector
Land Development Services Department
..-...
APPROVED BY:
[1..-2..0 -10
Nick Casalanguida, Deput r Date
Growth Management Services 0 Ision - 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
AITACHMENT Hl-l
~
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 mav be achieved via CCME Policy 6.2.5 (6) b.1., or hiqher throuah the
use of the followina:
b.
Up to 2.5 units per gross acre via the transfer of up to one ~dwelling unit (transferable
development riqht) 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 qross acre via
the transfer of UP to 1.30 dwellina units (transferable development riqhts) per acre from lands
desianated as Rural Frinae Mixed Use District Sendina: and.
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:
~
a.
PART lWO 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:
-1-
"'"""""
~
.~
2.
Agenda Item 9C
Density Blending Conditions and Limitations for Properties Straddling the Urban Residential
Fringe Sub-District and Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending lands:
(a)
(b)
(c)
The project must straddle the Urban Residential Fringe Sub-District and the Rural
Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands;
The project in aggregate must be a minimum of 400 acres;
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;
The Project is currently zoned or will be zoned PUD;
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 andlor habitat areas;
Native veaetation 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
veaetation requirement for the Sendina Lands portion of the proiect is the
maximum required 60 percent of the SendinQ Land area. in order to promote
areater preservation of the hiahest Quality wetlands and listed species habitat.
the required native veaetation for the Urban portion of the proiect may be
shifted by providina native veaetation preservation in the Sendina Lands portion
of the project exceedinQ the 60% maximum oreservation requirement as set
forth in b. below. The ratio for such native veaetation preservation shall be two
acres of Sendina Lands (exceedinQ the 60% maximum preservation
requirement) for each acre below the required amount of native veaetation for
the Urban portion of the proiect. Sianificant Archeoloaical Sites identified by the
State of Florida Division of Historic Resources shall be preserved and cannot be
mitiaated for.
(d)
(e)
(f)
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 f1owways, 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 fJowways 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:
r'\
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 PUDIDRI. which may transfer TORs
from Sendino Lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary into lands
desiQnated Urban Residential FrinQe. at a maximum density increase of 1.30 units per
Qross acre.
PART FOUR of SIX:
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 47S 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.
r'\
-3-
Agenda Item 9C
PART FIVE of SIX:
~
URBAN DESIGNATION
[insert new language - FLUE Pages 31-32]
A. Urban Mixed Use District
4. Business Park Subdistrict
The Business Park Subdistrict is intended to provide for a mix of industrial uses and non-industrial
uses, designed in an attractive park-like environment with low structural density where building
coverage ranges between 25% to 45% and where landscaped areas provide for buffering and
enjoyment by the employees and patrons of the park. Business Parks shall be allowed as a
Subdistrict in the Urban-Mixed Use District, Urban Commercial District and Urban Industrial District
and may include the general uses allowed within each District, the specific uses set forth below, and
shall comply with the following general conditions:
* ** *** **** *** UNAFFECTED PROVISIONS ARE SKIPPED *** **** *** ** *
h. When located in a District other than the Urban Industrial District, the Business Park must have
direct access to a road classified as an arterial in the Transportation Element.
[Alternative amendment language 1] The Lords Way shall be considered direct access to Collier
Boulevard (CR 951) for Business Parks within the Urban Residential Frinae Subdistrict.
~
[Alternative amendment language 2] Direct access is defined as a driveway and lor local roadway
connection to the arterial road. provided the portion of the local roadwav intended to provide
access to the Business Park is not within a residential neiahborhood and does not service a
predominantly residential area.
PART SIX of SIX:
Conservation and Coastal Manaaement 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, ConseNation Designated Area,
and Agricultural/Rural Mixed Use District, Rural-Industrial District and Rural-Settlement Area District
as designated on the FLUM, native vegetation shall be preserved through the application of the
following preservation and vegetation retention standards and criteria, unless the development occurs
within the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) where the ACSC standards referenced in the Future
Land Use Element shall apply. Notwithstanding the ACSC requirements, this policy shall apply to all
non-agricultural development except for single-family dwelling units situated on individual parcels that
are not located within a watershed management conservation area identified in a Watershed
Management Plan developed pursuant to policies supporting Objective 2.1 of this Element.
.--..,
-4-
Agenda Item 9C
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 onlv)
~,
The following standards and criteria shall apply to the vegetation retention requirements referenced
above.
* ** *** **** *** UNAFFECTED PROVISIONS ARE SKIPPED *** **** *** ** *
14.
In order to promote Qreater preservation of the hiQhest Quality wetlands and listed species
habitat the required native veoetation for the Urban portion of the proiect may be shifted bv
providinq native veQetation preservation in the SendinQ Lands portion of the project exceedinq
the 60% maximum preservation requirement for proiects that:
(a) Are under unified control:
(b) Straddle the Urban Residential Frinqe and the Rural Frinqe Mixed Use Sendinq
desiqnations:
(c) Meet the maximum required 60 percent preservation requirement for the Sendinq
Lands portion of the proiect.
,.-.."
The preservation ratio shall be two acres of SendinQ Lands (exceedinq the 60% maximum
preservation requirement) for each acre below the required amount of native veQetation for the Urban
portion of the proiect. Siqnificant Archeolooical Sites identified bv the State of Florida Division of
Historic Resources shall be preserved and cannot be mitioated for.
[END OF HL-l GMP AMENDMENT ENTRIES]
,.-.."
-5-
Agenda Item 9C
AlTACHMENT 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 strike throl:Jgh text is deleted. as
proposed by petitioner; double underline text is added, and double sii-.'kc t.~."'VJJtJgh text is deleted, as
proposed by staft)
PART ON E 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 mav be achieved via CCME Policv 6.2.5 (6) b.1., or hioher throuoh the
use of the followino:
a. Up to 2.5 units per gross acre via the transfer of up to one .L1QLdwelling unit (transferable
development rioht) 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 tR@
F1ra@iofl8a lrakos PUD.'DRI properties that straddle the Urban Residential Frinae and the Rural
Frinae Mixed Use Sendina Lands desianations. and meet the other Density Blendina criteria
provided for in subsection 5.2 of the Density Ratina Svstem. which may achieve a maximum
density of UP to 2.00 units per oross acre via the transfer of UP to 1.3G dwellino units
(transferable development riQhts) per acre from lands desianated as Rural Frinoe Mixed Use
District Sendino Lands: 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:
---
-1-
Agenda Item 9C
PART TWO of SIX:
.r'\
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 ~ wastewater treatment
facilities (from the urban designated portion of the project) to serve the entire project,
unless altemative interim EiQwer GHHiI 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 andlor habitat on-site and to maximize the connectivity of such native
vegetation andlor wildlife habitat with adjacent preservation andlor habitat areas;
(f) Native veaetation 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
veaetation requirement for the SendinQ Lands portion of the proiect is the
maximum required 60 percent of the total Sendino Land area, in order to
promote Qreater preservation of the hiahest Quality wetlands and listed species
habitat. the required native veQetation for the Urban portion of the proiect may
be shifted by providinQ native veQetation preservation in the Sendino Lands
portion of the project exceedino the 60% maximum preservation requirement as
set forth in subsection lib"", below. The ratio for such native veQetation
preservation shall be two acres of Sendina Lands (exceedino the 60%
maximum preservation requirement) for each acre below the required amount
of native veoetation for the Urban portion of the proiect. Sianificant
ArcheoloQical Sites identified by the State of Florida Division of Historic
Resources shall be preserved and cannot be mitioated for.
r""\
-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 f1owways, 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
andlor f10wways may be used for water storage provided that the water
discharged in these areas is pre-treated.
(g) Permitted uses for density blending under this provision include residential
development and associated amenities, including golf courses meeting the criteria for
golf courses within the Neutral area. This provision is not intended to eliminate any
uses permitted within the applicable underlying land use designation.
PART THREE of SIX:
B. DENSITY RATING SYSTEM:
[Insert new language - FLUE Pages 47-50]
2. Density Bonuses
Consistency with the following characteristics may add to the base density. Density bonuses
are discretionary, not entitlements, and are dependent upon meeting the criteria for each
bonus provision and compatibility with surrounding properties, as well as the rezone criteria in
"'""""" the Land Development Code.
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 tAB Hal5isR€la lal~Gls PL'D,rDRI properties that straddle the
Urban Residential Frinoe and the Rural Frinoe Mixed Use Sendino Lands desionations.
and meet the other Density Blandino criteria provided for in subsection 5.2 of the
Density Ratino Svstem. which may transfer TORs from Sending Lands located within
one mile of the Urban Boundary into lands desianated Urban Residential Frinae. at a
maximum density increase of 1.3G units per gross acre.
PART FOUR of SIX:
URBAN DESIGNATION
C. Urban Commercial Subdistrict
[amend language - FLUE Pages 56-57]
1. Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict
2.
The allowable land uses for a Master Planned Activity Center shall be the same as for
other designated Activity Centers; however, a Master Planned Activity Center
encompassing the majority of the property in two or more quadrants shall be afforded
~
-3-
Agenda Item 9C
the flexibility to redistribute a part or all of the allocation from one quadrant to another,
to the extent of the unified control. The maximum amount of commercial uses allowed
at Activity Center # 3 (Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard) is 40 acres per quadrant
for a total of 160 acres maximum in the entire Activity Center; the balance of the land
area shall be limited to non-commercial uses as allowed in Mixed Use Activity Centers.
The maximum amount of commercial uses allowed at Activity Center #7 (Rattlesnake
Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard) is 40 acres per quadrant, except that the
northeast quadrant may have a total of 59 acres aR8 tl::j@ S9yt!;;lQlil8t €lY88raRt msy RSV@
Cl tgtal of 59, for a total of::H:9 ~ 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.
~
.'"'Jete: The Ast!~'!tr C6mte." f:t7 .:flset map n'!th.:fl iRe .C::LfJii is te Be amemje€l t@ Feflest the
p."@(iJeseff BebJFUilarr fJhBflg6J. !t!s net the !Fiteflt ef th!s amsmimeflt FeEfbJ6Jst te meff.:.f)' the
,q;tfJre Umff Use f.1f1p t@ €I@(iJ.:f5t the liJebJflfklrr eJuimge.
FUT'JR~ LANg YSIi M:\P S!iRIIiS
[amElR8 iF! 8F8€lr]
/\€itivit'J CBRter ~Jg. 7 RattI9€Ral~El Wamm8@k R9a8 eR8 C€llIier ~eylovaFd MbH38 Use/'.@tivity CBRter
r C1FflBR8 im;et Ffl8f'l €lBl3i@tiR~ Fie'/! MU/\C 8€1YFlBiiH"/, iFlstBeB €If FB'!isiQFI te tRB FytlilFe LeR8 U€9
EloFflBAt CelilnP.l::i8o Fb...YM.
PART FIVE of SIX;
r'\
URBAN DESIGNATION
[Insert new language - FLUE Pages 31-32]
A. Urban Mixed Use District
4. Business Park Subdistrict
The Business Park Subdistrict is intended to provide for a mix of industrial uses and non-industrial
uses, designed in an attractive park-like environment with low structural density where building
coverage ranges between 25% to 45% and where landscaped areas provide for buffering and
enjoyment by the employees and patrons of the park. . Business Parks shall be allowed as a
Subdistrict in the Urban-Mixed Use District, Urban Commercial District and Urban Industrial District
and may include the general uses allowed within each District, the specific uses set forth below, and
shall comply with the following general conditions:
* ** *** **** *** UNAFFECTED PROVISIONS ARE SKIPPED *** **** *** ** *
h. When located in a District other than the Urban Industrial District, the Business Park must have
direct access to a road classified as an arterial in the Transportation Element.
[Alternative amendment language 1] TAB b...BF8S '.r...'av snail 8e 6BAsi€lereel €IireBt aees€s ts Cellior
~ebllevapel CCR 981) fFor Business Parks within the Urban Residential Frinqe Subdistrict. access
to Collier Boulevard (CR 951) via The Lords Wav shall be considered direct access to an arterial
road.
V'..'temat!..<€ iSlmsflffmsnt .!angbJage 2} Qire€Jt a€Jeess is Bef.iFleB as a €lrivo'/:S'I aRel fer le€lel rea€lwav
eSRREletioFl tB tAe arterial r@aet I3r8\'i€les tne l3erti@F1 €If t!;;le IB€lal reael'oVa'l iFltEm€le€l te arB'liso ~
-4-
Agenda Item 9C
"'"""'"
aBBess te tAB aersiRess PaFl( is Aet '.vitniR G fesiBsRtial ReiaRBsrReeef aRe BeEls Rst sorviss a
I9rBB9miRaAtlv fElsiefcmtial GlfEla.
PART SIX of SIX:
Conservation and Coastal Manaoement 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, ConseNation Designated Area,
and AgriculturaVRural 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.
~
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 onlv)
The following standards and criteria shall apply to the vegetation retention requirements referenced
above.
* ** -* **** *** UNAFFECTED PROVISIONS ARE SKIPPED *** **** *** ** *
!11:.k In order to promote oreater preservation of the hiqhest quality wetlands and listed species
habitat the required native veqetation for the Urban portion of the proiect may be shifted bv
providino native veqetation preservation in the Sendinq Lands portion of the proiect exceedino
the 60% maximum preservation requirement for proiects that:
(a) Are under unified control: .
(b) Straddle the Urban Residential Frinoe and the Rural Frinoe Mixed Use Sendinq Lands
desiqnations:
"'""""',
-5-
Agenda Item 9C
(c)
Meet the maximum required 60 percent preservation requirement for the Sendina
Lands portion of the proiect.
The preservation ratio shall be two acres of Sendina Lands (exceedinQ the 60% maximum
preservation requirement) for each acre below the required amount of native veQetation for the Urban
portion of the proiect. Sianificant Archeological Sites identified bv the State of Florida Division of
Historic Resources shall be preserved and cannot be mitiQated for.
[END OF HL-2 GMP AMENDMENT ENTRIES]
- 6-,
~,
~
~
.-...
,.-...
,.-...
Agenda Item 9C
ATfACHMENT Hl-3
Transportation Plannina 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 7/2110 in the PUD and GMPA, is not consistent with the Question
21 responses dated 7/23/10 in the DR!. 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 footagelUses)
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 intemal 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 [interna~
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 build out date on a less aggressive schedule.
This revision necessitates direct comparison to the actual buildout rates experienced by
nearby comparable developments such as Lely, Fiddlers Creek, and possibly Verona Walk.
L. Table 6- Show two additional columns demonstrating the [PM Peak Hr, peak direction]
remaining capacity both with- and without- the project. Calculation should focus on the
revised build-out year as per the previous comment (K).
M. Page 16 and Tables 7a,7b, 7c; Tables 8a, 8b; Tables 9a and 9b- Staff recommends at this
time that all detailed synchro analyses for intersection capacity be omitted from
-1-
Agenda Item 9C
resubmittals until the future roadway network that is analyzed complies with both the LRTP
and the County's or FOOT'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 DR! 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
1. 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.
r"\
-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 intemal design and site planning
of this development creates unnecessary segregation of land uses, such that the residential area
is not considered to be a reasonable distance from commercial areas in order to promote
pedestrian movement.
~,
Furthermore, proposed transit amenities are wholly inadequate to serve a development of this size
and make-up. The introduction of a single proposed bus stop that is greater than one mile from
the nearest residential area cannot be considered a reasonable attempt at employing the Transit
network in this area.
3. With comments 1 and 2 stated, Transportation Planning Section review staff do not feel that this
development attempts to address the requirements of House Bill 697 adequately.
Staff recommends the following in an effort to address the reduction of VMT's that are
necessitated by HB 697:
A. Relocation of the Benfield corridor top a westerly alignment as previously suggested. The
arrangement of this roadway further to the West will result in fewer VMT within the
development.
B. Revision of the development layout to reduce segregation of land uses within the
development; with the intent to create demand for non-vehicular movement of the population
throughout the development.
C. Creation of comprehensive pedestrian infrastructure facilitating non-vehicular modes of
transportation.
D. Expansion of the transit facilities to better integrate with the different nodes of this
development.
".-..,
-3-
Agenda Item 9C
TIS Review Comments
."
1. With respect to the 2019 proportionate share analyses of intersections such as SR-951 @ US-41,
the County reminds the applicant that State roadways are not allowed to adopt a minimum LOS of
"E". Table 2 of the applicanfs response indicated that three movements at this intersection reach
LOS "En in 2019 (inclusive of the project). However, the analysis does not clarify the extent to
which the development causes these degradations in LOS. Staff recommends demonstrating the
2019 buildout with, and without, the project for instances where the County is seeking.
proportionate share commitments from the Developer for any improvements (such as the example
given above).
2. No other significant rejection comments are noted by staff at this time regarding the Traffic Impact
Study/Q21 response. However, staff reserves the right to add future commentary based on any
changes effected by forthcoming negotiations and discussions intended to finalize mitigation
provisions. Some of these improvements. as they become further defined and as the
proportionate share is assigned, may necessitate revisions within the TIS analyses.
~
~
-4-
"
.
\...
EAC TRANSMITTAL
STAFF REPORT
(~
,..
o
o
o
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.:
Petition. Name:
CP-2006-11
Amendments to the Conservation and Coastal Manaqement 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)
Requesffi [TransmiffaIHearing]
David Torres, for Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC
.'
Petitioner:
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 ii, 12, 13, 14,23,24, and 25, Township
50 South, Range 26 East, and Sections 19 and 30, Township 50 Soutll, Range 27 East, Collier County,
Florida. The property lies within the Royal Fakapalm Planning Community.
II. DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING PROPERTIES:
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.
- 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 Relds, 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.
o
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 (TOR) 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, A.
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 AgriculturaVRural 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 seNices;
. 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-
o
o
o
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 Districffi 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,
Residentiql 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 uniffi 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.
SurroundinCl 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).
-4-
o
o
o
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 IsJandia 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).
III. 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 air 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
o
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 "liff', or increase, from 2.5 dwelling units per acre to 2.8 per
acre with this text amendment.
Companion FUD 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 TORs
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 TORs
- 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 TORs
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 "liff 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 TOR 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 TORs.
.
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 0
- 6-
o
o
o
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 dulac. to 2.5 dulac. 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" TOR 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 TOR 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 ~n
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 Leqislation - 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;
-8-
o
o
o
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:
BackQround and Considerations:
The following is a summary of the background of the "Rural Fringe Mixed Use Districf'.
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 (TOR), 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
-9-
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.
o
. 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 TOR 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 (TORs used), allowable land uses
are further restricted - agricultural uses are allowed to continue but cannot be intensified.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Data and Analvsis 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 DR!
application and do not fit into the order of 06-11 GMPA exhibits.]
.
- 10-
EAC Meeting: December 1, 2010
o
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"
EnvironmentallmDacts:
~ 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 P, 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:
o 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
Storm water and Environmental Planning Section]
o
- 11 -
EAC Meeting: December 1, 2010
NeiQhborhood Information MeetinQ Synopsis:
o
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 8-101, 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 TORs 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-
c
()
o
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
requiremenffi 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" TOR credits into the U RF. [This acreage however, is qualified for sending
TOR credits into other receiving areas of the County.J 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 TOR 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 providinq lift to
the URF receivina caoacity should however. be required to (1) meet the same preservation standards
as lands qualitvinq for the TDR proqram - 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 providinq lift to the URF receivina caoacity should however, be
required to (2) surrender further participation in the TDR proqram insofar as severinq 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 d( AICP, Prirlcipal Planner
Comprehen ive Planning Section
REVIEWED lv:
~ lvv-,~
David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager
Comprehensive Planning Section
d1A .
Stepnen Lenberger, Senior Environmental Specialist
Stormwater and Environmental Planning Section
" '1' ('!; /' }:'
1.-\ ,;'. / ;
~;../J~~{ r17. ~~, '.::J
Gerald Kurtz, P.E., Stormwater Manager
Stormwater and Environmental Planning Section
~() -;~. y
. j~ JI)~/.,___~ ~ .
-",' ., .....tt..t::.~.... .".-__- _
,::'WJjlliam D. Loreni,-<Jr., P.E.;Director
Land Development Services Department
APPROVED BY:
~{:\~) ~"~"~n?):t1( ~~~()
Nick Casalanguida, Deputy Ad~ntstrator .
Growth Management Services Division'Yt,\,i\......
- Planning and Regulation "\
I:\SCHMIDT Corby\14 November 10 DRAFT 06-11 EAC Staff Report - Transmittal.docx
- 14-
o
Is Jo\r 10
Date
if -/ r-- (:)
Date
11;/5/20/0
, Date
11-/5 -ID
Date
o
if-I<:,--GO{O
Date
o
D'XTA1NC.
.-cONSUL TING
, '\.,,' , ..L ~
J
"
- :"~'~W~~i:
~
~ COLEMAN
~ YOVANOVICH
KOESTER
MULHERE &
ASSOCIATES
W Tindale-Oliver
&
Associates, Inc.
Pl8nnlng 8nd Engineering
PASSARELLA
--~~~ &ASSOCIATES ~
IIIEllIE1II RESEARCH
CONSULTANTS
Hacienda Lakes aka Toll-Rattlesnake PUD
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
G MP Application
CCPC Review Materials
GMP Amendment
Application Form
'--
j
",
D\Xlf=..
CO\SLLTi\G __
J.\l f! J.~~'
o
o
o
APPLICATION FOR A REQUEST TO AMEND
THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPLICATION NUMBER CP -;)rJ:j(, wi \ DATE RECEIVED Jul\.j.,,:).)) ;;'OO{P
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
Phone Number: 904-762-4454
B. Name of Agent * DwiQht Nadeau, AICP
· THIS WILL BE THE PERSON CONTACTED FOR ALL BUSINESS RELATED TO THE PETITION.
State Florida Zip Code 34105
Fax Number 877 -357 -8271
Company RWA, INC
Address 6610 Willow Park Drive, Suite 200
City Naples
Phone Number 239-597-0575
State Florida Zip Code 34109
Fax Number 239-597-0578
Name of Agent Mr. Richard Yovanovich
· THIS WILL BE THE PERSON CONTACTED FOR ALL BUSINESS RELATED TO THE PETITION.
Company Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A
Address 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300
City Naples
Phone Number 239-435-3535 Ext 256
State Florida Zip Code 34103
Fax Number 239-435-1218
C. Name of Owner (s) of Record Wilton Land Company. LLC.
Address 206 Dudley Road
City: Wilton
Phone Number
State: Connecticut
Fax Number
Zip Code 06897
o
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@omail.com
City: Marco Island state: Florida Zip Code 06897
Phone Number 239-825-9373 Fax Number
Name of Lawyer: Mr. Richard Yovanovich, Esouire
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
Phone Number 813-224-8862 Fax Number 813-226-2106
Zip Code 33602
o
Name of Environmental Consultant: Ken Passarella & Cheryl Rolph
Company: Passarella and Associates, Inc.
Mailing Address 9110 Colleoe 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: Cope 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.
Moiling Address 14 East Washinoton 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: Archaeolooical and Historical Conservancy, Inc.
Mailing Address 4800 SW 64th A venue, Suite 107
City: Davie State: Florida )ip Code 33314
o
Phone Number: 954-792-9776 Fax Number: 954-792-9954
2
o
o
o
Name of Flood-Plain Consultant: Mr. Dick Tomasello
Company: Tomasello Consultino Enoineers, 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: RW A. 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: RW A. 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
II.
Disclosure of Interest Information:
A. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, Tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in
common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage
of such interest. (Use additional sheets if necessary).
Name and Address
Percentage of Ownership
N/A
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 BUQQY Days Inc.
Kim Charles Hornback, President
Tom Cannon, Robert Swift, Randy Johns
Chuck McMahon (Members of the Board of Director)
100~ of 00417240000
Collier County Junior Deputy LeaQue Inc.
Wayne Arnold, President
John R. Wood, Vice President
William Poteet, Petra Jones, Victoria Freeman
Paul Lindabury (Directors)
100% of 00418400409
C. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the
percentage of interest.
3
o
Name and Address
Percentage of Interest
N/A
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.
Georoe P. Bauer Revocable Trust -
Carol Bauer is the beneficiary of such trust
99%
Carol B Bauer Revocable Trust -
Georoe Bauer is the beneficiary of such trust
1%
E. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee,
or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, including the officers,
stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners.
o
Name and Address
Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC
Jennifer Toll
Duncan Toll Revocable Trust
Jennifer Toll is the beneficiary of such trust
Officers
David E. Torres, ManaQer & President
Percentage of Ownership
99%
1%
Date of Contract: 01 /26/1 0
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 LeaQue
12/27/95, Swamp BUQQY Days 10/14/82) leased (): _Term of lease_yrs./mos.
If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate date of option:_01 /26/1 0 and date
option terminates: 01/26/15 , or anticipated closing: 11/15/2012
o
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.
4
()
o
o
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 II 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.89010'42"W.
ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION FOR 2835.68 FEET TO THE SOUTH QUARTER
CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE S.890II'14"W. ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE FOR
2906.24 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 25; THENCE S.89009'39"W.
ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION FOR 2693.18 FEET TO THE SOUTH QUARTER
CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE S.890II'01 "W. ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE FOR
2693.80 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE N.00oI3'35"W.
ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION FOR 2636.34 FEET TO THE WEST QUARTER
CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE N.00oI4'15"W. ALONG SAID WEST LINE FOR 2637.01
FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE N.8r07'13"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.Olo08'02"E.
ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 684.58 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.87012'28"E. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID
FRACTION FOR 340.0 I 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.OI 004'11 "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.87028'21 "W. ALONG
SAID NORTH LINE FOR 2025.64 FEET TO THE QUARTER CORNER COMMON TO SAID
SECTIONS 23 AND 24; THENCE S.89001'58"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.0I018'52"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.89022'00"W. ALONG
THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 663.28 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.OloI4'38"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.89001'58"W. ALONG SAID NORTH LINE FOR 664.25 FEET; THENCE CONTINUE
S.89001'58"W. ALONG SAID LINE FOR 627.16 FEET; THENCE N.OI001'15"E. FOR 1699.99
FEET; THENCE S.89001'58"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.01001'15"W. ALONG SAID EAST LINE FOR 68.31 FEET; THENCE S.89001'58"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.00051'54"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.87037'31 "E. ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE FOR 1237.00 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION
5
o
o
o
WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY EASEMENT;
THENCE N.OI00I'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.87037'3I "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.00048'00"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.87031'38"W. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 334.19 FEET TO THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.00048'11 "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.87028'42"W.
ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE FOR I 002.41 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.00048'45"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.87027'58"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.00049'30"E. ALONG SAID EAST LINE FOR
I 004.62 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 11;
THENCE N.00050'27"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.87028'56"E. ALONG SAID NORTH
LINE FOR 1235.95 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE
S.00049'13"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.87025'45"E. ALONG SAID NORTH LINE FOR 1336.32
FEET TO THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE CONTINUE
N.87025'45"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.00047'37"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.87027'14"E. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 668.22 FEET TO THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE S.00047'I4"W. ALONG THE EAST
LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 671.39 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID
FRACTION; THENCE N.87028'42"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.87030'06"E. ALONG THE
SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 1328.72 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.00038'50"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.0004I '44"E. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 2707.07 FEET TO
THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.87040'34"E. ALONG THE
NORTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 1321.29 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
SAID FRACTION; THENCE S.00036'23"W. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR
6
o
o
o
2701.30 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION SAID POINT BEING THE
NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 13; THENCE S.87026'11 "W. ALONG THE
NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION FOR 662.90 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE
WEST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID
SECTION; THENCE S.00035'02"W. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 1345.93
FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE S.87030'06"W. ALONG
THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 664.36 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
SAID FRACTION AND SAID SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
THE NORTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE S.00038'50"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.87032'03"E. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 665.09 FEET TO THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE S.00035'02"W. ALONG THE EAST
LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER FOR 672.97 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID
FRACTION; THENCE S.87033'59"W. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR
665.81 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE S.00038'51 "W.
ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER
FOR 1345.10 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE
S.87037'27"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.00042'40"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.87040'54"E.
ALONG SAID NORTH LINE FOR 2006.20 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE S.00056'29"W. ALONG
THE WEST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 1368.25 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.87034'58"E. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION
FOR 1343.68 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE
N.00041'32"E. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 1365.31 FEET TO THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.8704I'38"E. ALONG THE NORTH
LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER FOR 1337.58 FEET
TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE S.00026'32"W. ALONG THE
EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION FOR 1703.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE
NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE S.87033'18"W. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID
FRACTION FOR 672.60 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST
HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE
S.00034'02"W. ALONG SAID WEST LINE FOR I 022.89 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER
OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.87028'21 "E. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION
FOR 674.89 FEET TO THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 19; THENCE
S.88012'42"E. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER FOR 3093.52 FEET
TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE S.03039'20"W. ALONG THE
EAST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 2676.74 FEET TO THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF
SAID SECTION; THENCE N.88056'10"W. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR
2940.59 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE S.87007'20"W.
ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 25 FOR
2726.50 FEET TO THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE
S.87007'13"W. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER FOR 807.16 FEET;
THENCE S.030I8'31"E. FOR 1451.00 FEET; THENCE N.88056'54"E. FOR 1582.00 FEET;
7
o
o
THENCE S.Oo03I'35"E. FOR 1130.61 FEET; THENCE S.S9015'59"E. FOR IS23.IS FEET TO THE
EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE N.S9057'5S"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.00037'14"W. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR
1344.51 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.S9034'43"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.00041'4S"W. ALONG THE
WEST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 671.03 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID
FRACTION; THENCE N.S9023'OO"E. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR
364.14 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.S9022'35"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.00052'45"E. FOR 1334.7S 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.S9046'12"W. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID
FRACTION FOR 356.23 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE
N.00049'34"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 66S.60 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE
N.S9057'5S"E. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SAID SECTION 30 FOR
2497.S2 FEET TO THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE S.01012'OS"W.
ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION FOR 2640.60
FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
101,OS4,043 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.00059'10"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.S9022'35"W. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE
OF SAID FRACTION FOR 355.05 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION;
THENCE N.00055'57"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.S9046'12"E. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID
FRACTION FOR 356.23 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
473,270 SQUARE FEET OR I 0.9 ACRES +/-
PARCEL "B"
o BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTEROF SAID SECTION 24; THENCE N.S702S'21 "E. ALONG THE NORTH
LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 1349.77 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID
8
o
o
o
FRACTION; THENCE S.00040'10"W. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR
1361.17 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE S.87017'48"W.
ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 1356.51 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.00056'29"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.87023'02"W. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 338.41 FEET TO
THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.OI000'20"E. ALONG THE WEST
LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 683.43 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID
FRACTION; THENCE N.87028'21 "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 AQricultural
District, PUD, Swamp BUQQY Days ,A, ST Rural AQricultural District with Special Treatment
overlay
G. SURROUNDING LAND USE PATTERN Commercial excavation, institutional rehabilitation and
church, hospital and medical offices, aQricultural and residential land uses, State and private
undeveloped lands.
H. FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION(S) " Urban DesiQnation, Mixed Use District, Urban
Residential FrinQe Subdistrict: Urban DesiQnation, Commercial District, Mixed Use Activity
Center #7 Subdistrict: and AQricultural/Rural DesiQnation, Rural FrinQe Mixed-Use District.
IV. TYPE OF REQUEST:
A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN ELEMENT (S) TO BE AMENDED:
Housing Element
Traffic Circulation Sub-Element
A viation 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
NGW AR 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 n
OF THE Conservation and Coastal ManagementELEMENT AS FOLLOWS: (Use Strike through to
9
o
o
o
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 1"=400'. At least one copy reduced to 8-
112 x 11 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 mOT-FLORIDA LAND USE, COVER AND FORMS
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (FLUCCS CODE). NOTE: THIS MAYBE 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 0 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:
]0
I
I
I
'0
'0
I
I
I
o
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.
Is the proposed amendment directly related to a proposed
Development of Regional Impact pursuant to Chapter 380 F.S. ?
(Reference 9J-11.006(1 )(a)7.a, F.A.C.)
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.)
y
N
N Does the proposed amendment
create a significant impact in population which is defined as a potential
increase in County-wide population by more than 5% of population
projections? (Reference Capital Improvement Element Policy 1.1.2). If
yes, indicate mitigation measures being proposed in conjunction with the
proposed amendment.
Y Does the proposed land use cause an increase in density and/or intensity
to the uses permitted in a specific land use designation and district
identified (commercial, industrial, etc.) or is the proposed land use a
new land use designation or district? (Reference Rule 9J-5.006(5) F.A.C.).
If so, provide data and analysis to support the suitability of land for the
proposed use, and of environmentally sensitive land, ground water and
natural resources. (Reference Rule 9 J-11.007, 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:
Potable Water
Sanitary Sewer
Arterial & Collector Roads; Name specific road and LOS
Drainage
Solid Waste
Parks: Community and Regional
Exhibit L
Exhibit L
Exhibit N
Exhibit L
Exhibit L
Exhibit L
If the proposed amendment involves an increase in residential density, or an
increase in intensity for commercial and/or industrial development that would
cause the LOS for public facilities to fall below the adopted LOS, indicate mitigation
measures being proposed in conjunction with the proposed amendment.
(Reference Capital Improvement Element Objective 1 and Policies)
2. Exhibit I Provide a map showing the location of existing services and public
facilities that will serve the subject property (i.e. water, sewer, fire
protection, police protection, schools and emergency medical services.
3. Exhibit I & J Document proposed services and public facilities, identify provider, and
describe the effect the proposed change will have on schools, fire
protection and emergency medical services.
F. OTHER
Identify the following areas relating to the subject property:
Zone X Flood zone based on Flood Insurance Rate Map data (FIRM).
N/A Location of well fields and cones of influence, if applicable. (Identified on
11
I
iO
I
'0
I
,0
I
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
'-
Hacienda Lakes aka Toll-Rattlesnake PUD
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
GMP Application
CCPC Review Materials
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description
"
DurA K~:1m
rO\SLlTI\f) ~
J.\IlllSor>oi!
o
o
o
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF
COLLIER, LYING IN SECTION II 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.89010'42"W. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION FOR 2835.68 FEET TO THE
SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE S.890II'14"W. ALONG SAID
SOUTH LINE FOR 2906.24 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 25;
THENCE S.89009'39"W. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION FOR 2693.18
FEET TO THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE S.890II'OI "W.
ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE FOR 2693.80 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
SAID SECTION; THENCE N.00oI3'35"W. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION
FOR 2636.34 FEET TO THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE
N.00oI4'15"W. ALONG SAID WEST LINE FOR 2637.01 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE N.87007'13"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.Olo08'02"E. ALONG THE
EAST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 684.58 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.87012'28"E. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID
FRACTION FOR 340.0 I 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.OI 004'11 "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.87028'21 "W. ALONG SAID NORTH LINE FOR 2025.64 FEET TO THE
QUARTER CORNER COMMON TO SAID SECTIONS 23 AND 24; THENCE S.8900I'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.OIoI8'52"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.89022'00"W. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION
FOR 663.28 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE
N.OI 014'38"E. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 675.75 FEET TO THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION AND AN INTERSECTION WITH THE
NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 23; THENCE
S.8900I'58"W. ALONG SAID NORTH LINE FOR 664.25 FEET; THENCE CONTINUE
S.8900I'58"W. ALONG SAID LINE FOR 627.16 FEET; THENCE N.OI 001'15"E. FOR 1699.99
FEET; THENCE S.89001 '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.0100I'15"W. ALONG SAID EAST LINE FOR 68.31 FEET;
o
o
o
THENCE S.89001 '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.00051 '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.87037'3I "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.OIoOl'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.87037'3I "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.00048'OO"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.8703I'38"W.
ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 334.19 FEET TO THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.00048'11 "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.87028'42"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.00048'45"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.87027'58"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.00049'30"E. ALONG SAID EAST LINE
FOR I 004.62 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION
I I; THENCE N.00050'27"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.87028'56"E. ALONG SAID NORTH LINE FOR 1235.95 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE S.00049'13"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.87025'45"E. ALONG SAID NORTH LINE FOR 1336.32 FEET TO THE NORTH
QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE CONTINUE N.87025'45"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.00047'37"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.87027'14"E. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 668.22 FEET TO THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE S.00047'14"W. ALONG THE
o
o
o
EAST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 671.39 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.87028'42"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.87030'06"E. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 1328.72
FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.00038'50"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.0004I'44"E. ALONG
THE WEST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 2707.07 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.87040'34"E. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF
SAID FRACTION FOR 1321.29 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID
FRACTION; THENCE S.00036'23"W. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR
2701.30 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION SAID POINT BEING
THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 13; THENCE S.87026'11 "W.
ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION FOR 662.90 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE S.Oo035'02"W. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF
SAID FRACTION FOR 1345.93 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID
FRACTION; THENCE S.87030'06"W. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION
FOR 664.36 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION AND SAID
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER; THENCE S.00038'50"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.87032'03"E. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 665.09 FEET TO THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE S.00035'02"W. ALONG THE EAST
LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER FOR 672.97 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID
FRACTION; THENCE S.87033'59"W. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION
FOR 665.81 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE
S.00038'51 "W. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER FOR 1345.10 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID
FRACTION; THENCE S.87037'27"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.00042'40"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.87040'54"E. ALONG SAID NORTH LINE FOR 2006.20
FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE S.00056'29"W. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID
FRACTION FOR 1368.25 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION;
THENCE N.87034'58"E. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 1343.68
FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.0004I'32"E.
ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 1365.31 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST
o
o
o
CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.87041'38"E. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF
THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER FOR 1337.58 FEET TO
THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE S.00026'32''W. ALONG THE
EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION FOR 1703.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER
OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE S.87033'18"W. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF
SAID FRACTION FOR 672.60 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE WEST LINE OF
THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER;
THENCE S.00034'02''W. ALONG SAID WEST LINE FOR 1022.89 FEET TO THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.87028'21 "E. ALONG THE
SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 674.89 FEET TO THE WEST QUARTER
CORNER OF SAID SECTION 19; THENCE S.88012'42"E. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF
THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER FOR 3093.52 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
SAID FRACTION; THENCE S.03039'20"W. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID FRACTION
FOR 2676.74 FEET TO THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE
N.88056'10"W. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 2940.59 FEET TO
THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE S.87007'20"W. ALONG THE
NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 25 FOR 2726.50
FEET TO THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE S.87007'13"W.
ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER FOR 807.16 FEET;
THENCE S.03018'31 "E. FOR 1451.00 FEET; THENCE N.88056'54"E. FOR 1582.00 FEET;
THENCE S.00031'35''E. FOR 1130.61 FEET; THENCE S.890I5'59"E. FOR 1823.18 FEET TO
THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE N.89057'58"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.00037'14''W. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF
SAID FRACTION FOR 1344.51 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID
FRACTION; THENCE N.89034'43"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.00041'48''W. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID FRACTION
FOR 671.03 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE
N.89023'OO"E. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 364.14 FEET TO THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.89022'35"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.00052'45''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.89046'12"W. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF
SAID FRACTION FOR 356.23 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID
FRACTION; THENCE N.00049'34''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.89057'58"E. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH HALF
OF SAID SECTION 30 FOR 2497.82 FEET TO THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID
o
o
o
SECTION; THENCE S.0I012'08"W. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST
QUARTER OF SAID SECTION FOR 2640.60 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
1 0 1 ,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.00059'10''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.89022'35"W. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 355.05 FEET TO
THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.00055'57''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.89046'12"E. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR
356.23 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
473,270 SQUARE FEET OR 1 0.9 ACRES +/-
PARCEL "B"
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTEROF SAID SECTION 24; THENCE N.87028'21 "E. ALONG THE
NORTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 1349.77 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER
OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE S.00040'10''W. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID
FRACTION FOR 1361.17 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION;
THENCE S.870 17'48"W. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 1356.51
FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.00056'29''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.87023'02"W. ALONG THE
SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 338.41 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
SAID FRACTION; THENCE N.01 oOO'20"E. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID FRACTION
FOR 683.43 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE
N.87028'21 "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
CCPC Review Materials
EXHIBIT B
Legal Documents
\,
...
I
'"
D\Xlf=..
CO\_~I;UI\r; ~
J. \, II 1 ~"
10
I
I
Hacienda Lakes
of Naples
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 sub1ect 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.
o
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.
s;n",nritj:1
David~~'
Manager, Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC
Agreed to:
0-~P~".~-_
George . Bauer, Manager
Wilton Land Company, LlC.
State of C\
County of :r:-n \. (~ e.\ A
George P. Bauer, Manager of Wilton land Company, LLC, being subscribed and sworn to before me
this l~ day of \Yv....r "'- ---'2010
'-ffy~~ fl. ~~
Notary Public
o
Notary Public ("'-r
State of '--' ~
My commission Expires:' IJ..D I t..f
MARTHA B. MEEHAN
NOTARY PUBLIC
MY COMMISSiON EXPIRES MAR. 31. 20j,:
6610 Willow fark Dl-o, 2"" Floor I Naples, FL )+109 I TeL 877-)57-8271 I Fax: 877-)57-8271
10
AFFIDA VIT
I David Torres. (Manager of Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC) being first duly sworn,
depose and say that Wilton Land Company. LLC is the owner of the property described
herein and which is the subject matter of the proposed hearing; that all the answers to
the questions in this application, including the disclosure of interest information, all
sketches, data, and other supplementmy matter attached to and made a part of this
application, are honest and true to the best of our knowledge and belief Well understand
that the information requested on this application must be complete and accurate and
that the content of this form, whether computer generated, or County printed shall not be
altered. Public hearings will not be advertised until this application is deemed complete,
and all required information has been submitted.
As property owner I further authorize RWA, Inc.. Mulhere & Associates, Coleman,
Yovana . K este' P.A to a t aJj my representative in any matters regarding this
Petiti n. 'l
o
Signature of Property Owner
. DAVIt) c. TO~ tV'e~e.-r
Typed or Printed Name of Owner I (Typed or Printed Name of Owner
f1a0.0v.Jc.. &",-er i 0cyleSl Lu:. .
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this I ~y of P. \U ^.. ,
2011, by .who is personally known to me or has produced ~s
identification.
.~r;;,""", ANNA VICTORIA ROSA
,~ ~i MY COMMISSION' EE 000221
. - EXPIRES: October 13,2014
Bonded Tluu Notary Public UndffWl'~ers
~Q~
(Signature of Notmy Public - State of Florida)
State of Florida
County of Collier
Notary Stamp:
o
I
[0
o
o
AFFIDA VIT
I D. Wayne Arnold (President of Collier County Junior Deputies League, lnc.) being first
duly sworn, depose and say that Collier County Junior Devuties Leaf!ue, lnc 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 Well understand that the iriformation 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 Q. Gradv Minor and Associates, P.A. to act as my
representative in any matters regarding this Petition.
(\)~Ij~~
<:.signature of Property Owner
U
\
Signature of Property Owner
D. Wavne Arnold, President
Typed or Printed Name of 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 versonallv known to me or has produced
as idc:ltification.
State of Florida
County of Lee
at W@acl
(Signature of Notary Public - State of Florida)
Notary Stamp:
;"$..:::;.~:r~. SHARON UMPENHOUR
s.: "A~ :.. MY COMMISSION # DO 939534
~:.~.~ EXPIRES: December 4. 2013
'1.:f.iif.,i~lt-.. Bonded Thill Notary Public Underwriters
o
AFFIDA VlT
STA TE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF COLLIER
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared KIM CHARLES
HORNBACH, who, beingfirst duly sworn by me, deposes and states that:
SwamD BugflJl. Inc is the owner of a Dortion of'the property described herein and
which is the subject malleI' of the proposed hearing; that all the answers to the questions
in this application, including the disclosure of interest h?j(mnation, 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 I understand that the
informatio/1 requested on this application must be complete and accurate and that the
content of this form, ';I'hether 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.
o
As property owner, Swamp Buggy, Inc., further authorizes R W A, Inc.. Mulhere &
Associates. and Coleman. Yovanovieh and KoesLer La aeL as its representative in any
matters regarding this Petilion.
SWAMP BUGGY, I~J
By: ~-.t
Kim Charles Hornbaeh
As Its: President
SWORN TO (or affirmed) and subsc:~bed before me thisE day of JanuGlY,
2011. by KIM CHARLES HORNBACH. as President of Swamp Buggy, Inc., who is
personally knO\vn to me.
-""
l#'.. "rPi;;: DIANE I. Ll:HMAN
i*i 'j-\ MY COMMISSION N 00841571
~"" , :1 EXPIRES: Ap~130. 2011
~Rr.lll " SDIlded Thru Nolll.'Y Putlk; Undsl'M!)oo
(Si.~ alw"e of Notary Public - State of Florida)
Notary Stamp:
o
~
Hacienda Lakes aka Toll-Rattlesnake PUD
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
G MP Application
CCPC Review Materials
EXHIBIT C
Narrative Statement
,
DUlf=..
lO\.\UTI\G ~
J.\'1l1~"
.
Hacienda Lakes, LLC
GMP Amendment
EXHIBIT C: NARRATIVE STATEMENT
This amendment is submitted in conjunction with the Hacienda Lakes DRI application ("Projecf').
The Project is located east of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 95 I) near the intersection of Rattlesnake
Hammock Road, within Sections I I, 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:
o
. A maximum 1,760 residential dwelling units;
. A 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 pennanent 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 Map (FLUM) Chanl!e:
The amendment proposes to reconfigure the boundary and size of the southeast quadrant of mixed
Activity Center Number 7 by adding +/- 9.16 acres ofland 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:\20051050150.02.03I1acienda lakes MPUD-DRI-ERPI0004 GMI' AmendmentlSubtask 4.2 GMP Amendment Application SUPPOltlAdoption
Ilearings\20 11-05-06_ Revised_Nan-ative _Exhibit_ C Jjm_ 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]:
o
The maximum amount of commercial uses allowed at Activitv
Center #7 (Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier
Boulevard) is 40 acres per Quadrant. except that the northeast
Quadrant mav 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 acrea2e
Ivin2 adiacent to the east of the Hammock Park Commerce
Center pun. 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 followin2 uses: personal
indoor self-stora2e facilities - this use shall occupy no 2reater
than 50% of the total (185.000) buildin2 square feet; offices for
various contractor/builder construction trade specialists
inclusive of the offices of related professional disciplines and
services that tvpicallv serve those construction businesses or
otherwise assist in facilitatin2 elements of a buildin2 and
related infrastructure. includin2 but not limited to architects.
en2ineers. land survevors and attorneys - these offices of
related professional disciplines and services shall occupy no
2reater than 50% of the total (185.000) buildin2 square feet;
warehouse space for various contractor/builder construction
trades occupants; mort2a2e and land title companies; related
businesses includin2 but not limited to lumber and other
buildin2 materials dealers. paint. 2Iass. and wallpaper stores.
2arden supply stores - all as accessory uses only. accessory to
offices for various contractor/builder construction trade
.
Q:\20051050150.02.03 Hacienrul Lakes MPUD-DRI-ERPI0004 GMP All1endll1entlSlIbtask 4.2 GMP Amendment Application SlIpportlAdoption
J Icarings\20 11-05-06 _Revised_Narrative _ Exhibit_ C Jjll1_ 2.docx
2
.
o
o
specialists or accessorv to warehouse space for various
contractor/builder construction trades occupants; manal!ement
associations of various types of buildinl!s or provision of
services to buildinl!s/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 tenns of both use and size,
for mixed use activity centers set forth in the FLUE, and will serve the projecfs 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 stilI addressing the maximum allowable overall
density and intensity.
Q:\20051050150.02.03 Hacienda Lakes MPUD-DRI-ERPI0004 GMP AmendmentlSubtask 4.2 GMP Amendment Application SupportlAdoption
Ilearings\20 11-05-06 _Revised_Narrative _Exhibit_ C Jjm_ 2.docx
3
o
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 TORs (TORS 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 DRIIPUD 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 ofland designated URF.
o
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 TOR 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 GMP A_of 1663.85 units (See Dwelling
Unit Entitlement Summary and TOR Sending Exhibit below). When TORs (limited to the Early
Entry and Base TORs) 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 b'TOSS 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.
o
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:\20051050150.02.03 Ilacienda lakes MPUD-DRI-ERPI0004 GMP AmcndmentlSuhtask 4.2 mvlP Amendment Application SupportlAdoption
Hearings\20 11-05-06 _Revised_Narrative _ Exhihit_ C Jjll1_2.docx
4
o
o
Hacienda Lakes DRI/MPUD
Dwelling Unit Entitlement Summary
Acres Calculation Ratio
Density Calculation with no GMP Amendments
Base Density Calculation (FLUE)
Urban Residential Fringe (URF) Density
excluding
business park acreage
Urban Residential Fringe TOR lift (receiving
capacity)
Activity Center Density
Activity Center TOR lift (receiving capacity)
Business Park
Business Park TOR lift (receiving capacity)
Total Density in Urban Residential Fringe
(Base Density only computed on lands other
than business park)
o
Sending Lands (FLUE)
Total Sending Area
Sending Area to be Developed or within
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
Activities
Total Units Without GMP Amendment
553.02
1.5 per acre
829.53
553.02
1 per acre
553.02
36.67
36.67
35.38
35.38
1.5 per acre
1 per acre
o per acre
1 per acre
55.01
36.67
0.00
35.38
589.69
1509.61
1637.07
120.82
1 per 40 acres
3.02
3.02
10% bonus to residential
density
151.26
1663.89
Q:\20051050150.02.03 Hacienda Lakes MPU[)-[)RI-ERPI0004 GMP AmcndmentlSubtask 4.2 GMP Amendmcnt Application SuppOltlAdoption
f Icarings\20 11-05-06_ Reviscd _Narrative _ Exhibit_ C _rjm_ 2.docx
5
o
.
III
<>
,o.
,2
'C'~
2.:~
~:~
E:\'j
;1:0
~:~
~Ig
2'D::
i!i'~
:;,:~
'Ii!
:a?'
",./
',r.:r
'I
"'
'"
III
."
"'
II
"
"
II
11
........."1
~ III
:
, ,
. ,
. ,
"
Q: t II : :
BI"------J~~=::==
o M--"--- I I
~ III : I
~iii if
=> III I:
0111 II
:111 ! i
Will II
::;jlll : I
au I J:
"
, I,
I ~ '
01
)0:.
.co
)00
d) [) 0
('P;.~"::1 000 f
(~d ?~2~9~
::.',1 t
"-'J t....
""'./":'-.r..~..r.
,~r.r~~ _-;::>x
j~m\
::~f@~~t2a~~'S\
'~W.&~~\
:..;;:Di?~a[
:W~~\
:_~r
o
I
"
"
II
11.
'"
III
'"
'"
III
'"
i ~~======~~=!:~~==~?:~=======_:
, ,
, ,
"
"
"
~ ~
"'
'"
III
'"
"'
III
5280'
11
^~
'r
tJ
~f
~.
,i
.~
r
D
D
D
r::::?:'7J
~
D
,
,
.
.
I
I
,
I
,
,
I
.
I
I
I
,
I
,
,
d~
'1'
',f
ik
:J'
,~r
:~~
LEGEND: ~
QUALIFIED SENDING
AREA = 1022.04 ACRES
AREA NOT QUAUFlED FOR
SENDING = 493.23 ACRES
DEVELOPMENT IN RFMUD
= 121.79 ACRES
URf PRESERVE =
53.06 ACRES
RFMUD PRESERVE =
1491.08 ACRES
o
.1
I
)""!t-
Way 10,2071 12;50 PM Q;\2005\DSOI5Q02.OJ Hacienoa {a".' 1IIPUD-!JRl-(RP\OOOI w".roI Con'uitolicm\OOOA - SlIblaP 1.1 Wnwo' C,,"'-'lotion _ PJo~""\[.DI\D50J$OO10JPXJS.o.."
D'lT ^ mC'~=!won
CONSUL TING Civil Engineering
~ '" , .I.. ..... Swveying & Mapping
MAY, 2011
XA:..(
1" = 2500'
"l~,l,f;' 8,
M.S.J.
6610 Wolow ParI< DrIYe. SuiI8 200
Napes. Florida 34109
~(~~~~5
:.-tc._tD B"
D.H.N.
S!:.C. lwP RCE:
ell ENT:
HACIENDA LAKES OF NAPLES, LLC.
TITLE: HACIENDA LAKES
TDR SENDING EXHIBIT
~j~tEC; 050 150.02.031 ~~S~'ER 1 0' 1 I ~U~'BLR: 0501500203PX35
Q:\2005\050150.02.03 Hacienda Lakes MPUD-DRI-ERP\0004 GMP Amendmenl\Sublask 4.2 GMP Amendment Application Support\Adoption
lIearings\20 11-05-06 _Revised _Nan'alive _ Exhibit_ C Jjm_2.doex
6
o
o
Hacienda Lakes DRIIMPUD
Dwelling Unit Entitlement Summary (Continued)
Densit Additions with GMP Amendments
Use of Eligible TORs 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
Benfield ROW
Developed Sending Areas past 1 mile
Undeveloped Sending Areas within 1 mile
Undeveloped Sending Areas past 1 mile
Total RFMU Sending Lands
o
Calculation of Eligible TOR Sending Area
Generation (within 1 mile)
Base TOR (undeveloped lands within one
mile only)
1 st TOR Bonus (undeveloped lands within
one mile only)
2nd TOR Bonus (Restoration and
Maintenance for undeveloped lands within one
mile only)
3rd TOR Bonus (Conveyance for
undeveloped lands within one mile only)
TORs used under current GMP rules
Remaining Qualified TORs to be used
Project Maximum Amount of Units at 2.8
units per URF acre as requested by GMP
amendment and including URF land density
and bonuses allowed
Applicant Requested Density
120.82
o
1023.02
493.00
1636.84
1023.02
1023.02
1023.02
1023.02
625.07
1 per 5 acres
1 per 5 acres
1 per 5 acres
1 per 5 acres
Total
1 per acre of URF
excluding business park
1,663.89 units without
GMP
plus 193.35 eligible TORs
unused
589.69 ac x 1.5 base
density (base density for
URF minus business park)
+ 625.07 ac x 1.3 tdr
receiving capacity (entire
URF acreage) + rural
lands density (3.02 units)
+ bonus units (151.26)
204.60
204.60
204.60
204.60
818.42
625.07
193.35
1857.23
1851.41
1760
Q:\20051050150.02.03 Hacienda Lakes MPUD-DRI-ERP\0004 GMP AmendmentlSubtask 4.2 GMP Amendment Application SupportlAdoption
Hearings\20 11-05-06_ Revised_Narrative _Exhibit_ C Jjm_2.docx
7
o
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 NRP A Sending Lands designations. NRP A 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 NRP A 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 proj ect.
Compatibilitv with Surroundinl! Land Uses:
o
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, Stonnwater 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.
o
The Collier County Sheriffs 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:\20051050150.02.03 Hacienda lakcs MPUD-DRI-ERPI0004 GMP AmendmcntlSuhtask 4.2 GMP Amcndment Application SuppoI1IAdoption
Ilcarings\20 11-05-06 _Reviscd _Narrativc_Exhibit_ C _rjm_2.docx
8
o
"
o
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 !,rreater 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. FA1CP. Mu1here and Associates. LLC. Revision Date: 04/20/1 I
Q:\20051050 150.02.03 Hacienda Lakes MPUD-DRI-ERPI0004 GMP AmendmentlSubtask 4.2 GMP Amendment Application Support \Adoption
Hearings\20 11-05-06 _Revised_Narrative _ Exhibit_ C _Ijm_ 2.docx
9
I
'"
Hacienda Lakes aka Toll-Rattlesnake PUD
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
GMP Application
CCPC Review Materials
ATTACHMENT A
GMP Language
'-
D\Xlf =..
rO'iStl H\G ~
J. \ , II 1 ~'l
o
o
o
Attachment "A"
Proposed GMP Amendment Language
Future Land Use Element
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. Residentialland 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., eF and either "a" or "b" below:
11.
Up to M .LO units per gross acre via the transfer of up to one f..LQLdwelling 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 prope11ies 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 Frinl!e 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, ffi
b. In the case of prope11ies 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 ffi--e. below, but are subject to the following conditions: 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 proiect's water management system, and a fair share cost of necessarv
improvements to the CR 951 canal/out-fall system made necessary by new development in the
area Subdistrict.
Struck through and underlined language represents deletions and additions proposed by the
Applicant and is consistent with the ecpe recommendation and Staff's changes and Bee
Transmittal. Double underlined language represents additions proposed by Staff and found to be
appropriate by the Applicant.
o
o
o
Hacienda Lakes GMP A
CP-2006-11 - Attachment A (rev 5)
Page 2 of9
a. .^.ll rezones are encouraged to be in the form of a planned unit development; [provision
relocated only, to above paragraph]
b. Proposed development in the area shall be fully responsible for all necessary '.vater
management improvements, including the routing of all on site and appropriate off site ,vater
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; and,
[provision relocated to above paragraph, and the term "area" replaced with "Subdistrict"]
&.-Prope11ies 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 f0l1h 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 Depm1ment of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD), shall be at least thi11y percent (30%).
The following propel1ies are eligible for an Affordable-workforce Housing Density Bonus (home
ownership only) of up to 6.0 additional dwelling units per acre.
I. Propel1y located on the East side of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), approximately...
.........................................................................
Struc1c throl:lbh and underlined language represents deletions and additions proposed by the
Applicant and is consistent with the cepe recommendation and Staffs changes and additions to
the ecpe recommended language.
o
Hacienda Lakes GMP A
CP-2006-11 - Attachment A (rev 5)
Page30f9
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 propel1ies 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 propel1ies, 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 propel1ies in aggregate may be distributed throughout the project, regardless of
whether or not the density allowable for a p0l1ion of the project exceeds that which is
otherwise pennitted, 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:
o
(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 5eWef
wastewater treatment facilities (from the urban designated portion of the
project) to serve the entire project, unless alternative interim se\yor and
water and wastewater treatment facilities provisions are authorized by
Collier County;
(d) The Project is cU11'ently 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 ve2etation shall be preserved as follows:
o
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
Strode throBgh and underlined language represents deletions and additions proposed by the
Applicant and is consistent with the eepe recommendation and Staffs changes and additions to
the eepe recommended language.
ill
o
Hacienda Lakes GMP A
CP-2006-11 - Attachment A (rev 5)
Page 4 of9
Sending Lands pOI1ion of the project is the maximum required 60
percent of the total Sending Land area, in order to promote greater
preservation of the highest quality wetlands and listed species
habitat, the required native vegetation for the Urban portion of the
project may be shifted by providing native vegetation preservation
in the Sending Lands pOI1ion of the project exceeding the 60%
maximum preservation requirement as set f0l1h 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 p0l1ion of the project.
Significant Archeological Sites identified by the State of Florida
Division of Historic Resource shall be preserved and cannot be
mitigated for.
ill
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.
o
ill 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 f0l1h 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) PeImitted 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 penuitted within the
applicable underlying land use designation.
...................................................................
o
Struck through and underlined language represents deletions and additions proposed by the
Applicant and is consistent with the cepe recommendation and Staffs changes and additions to
the ccpe recommended language.
o
Hacienda Lakes GMP A
CP-2006-11 - Attachment A (rev 5)
Page 5 of9
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 critelia for each bonus provision and compatibility with surrounding
propel1ies, as well as the rezone criteria in the Land Development Code.
o
f. Transfer of Development Rights Bonus
To encourage preservation/conservation of natural resources, density transfers
are pellnitted 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.
....................................................................
o
Strl:lclc through and underlined language represents deletions and additions proposed by the
Applicant and is consistent with the eepe recommendation and Staffs changes and additions to
the eepe recommended language.
o
Hacienda Lakes GMP A
CP-2006-11 - Attachment A (rev 5)
Page 6 of9
FLUE Page 56-57
I URBAN DESIGNATION
C. Urban Commercial Subdistrict
o
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 pm1 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
n0l1heast quadrant may have a total of 59 acres and the southeast quadrant
may have a total of 49.2 acres, for a total of ++9 188.2 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.
.........................................................................
o
Struck through and underlined language represents deletions and additions proposed by the
Applicant and is consistent with the cepe recommendation and Staffs changes and additions to
the ecpe recommended language.
o
Hacienda Lakes GMP A
CP-2006-11 - Attachment A (rev 5)
Page 7 of9
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 f0l1h below, and shall comply with the
following general conditions:
* ** *** **** *** ***** *** **** *** ** *
o
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 311erial in the Transp0l1ation
Element, except that a Business Park in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26
East may have access to an 311erial road via The Lords Way.
.........................................................................
CCME Pages 18-21
Conservation and Coastal Mana2ement Element
o
GOAL 6:
Struck through and underlined language represents deletions and additions proposed by the
Applicant and is consistent with the eepe recommendation and Staffs changes and additions to
the eepe recommended language.
o
Hacienda Lakes GMP A
CP-2006-11 - Attachment A (rev 5)
Page 8 of9
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.
o
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.
* ** *** **** *** ***** *** **** *** ** *
o
il.12 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 the 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 designations. and
(c) Meet the maximum required 60 percent preservation requirement for the
Sending Lands p0l1ion of the proiect.
Struck through and underlined language represents deletions and additions proposed by the
Applicant and is consistent with the cepe recommendation and Staff's changes and additions to
the ecpe recommended language.
o
Hacienda Lakes GMP A
CP-2006-11 - Attachment A (rev 5)
Page 9 of9
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 p011ion of the proiect. In no instance shall less than 10 percent
of the required amount of native vegetation be retained in the Urban p0l1ion of the
proiect. Significant Archeological Sites identified bv the State of Florida Division of
Historic Resource shall be preserved and cannot be mitigated for,
o
o
Struck 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 aka Toll-Rattlesnake PUD
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
GMP Application
CCPC Review Materials
EXHIBIT D
Warranty Deeds
"-
DUlf=..
CO\Sllfi\G Em:rett
J. \, 1lll';~,,'
o
o
o
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
Exhibit D
Copy of Deed
This Instrument Prepared By:
Harold J. Webre, Esquire
HAROLD J. WEBRE, P.A.
1804 S. Florida Avenue
LlIkelnnd, FL 33803
(~
QUIT CLAIM DEED
BY THIS QUIT CLAIM DEED, dated this .;21 day of January, 2010.
GEORGE P. BAUER ("Grantor"), for and in consideration of tbe sum ofTen and
No/IOO U.S. Dollars ($10.00) and other good !lnd valuable consideration, hereby
remises, releases and quitclaims all of Grantors' right, title, interest, claim and demand
in the following described l't~al property located in Collier County, Florida to WILTON
LAND COMPANY, LLC, a F;ori _ a-limUe~bmty company ("Grantee"), whose
post office address is 20~6U ~9atf~L~:F-O.?897;
o .;;-- ."-.2V},',
The Southeast Qunrtc ~) of the Nort~cit 'Q,llurter (NW 1/4) of the
Nortbeast Quarter (l'jEt41}1M.~o-n-14,..:r~WUSbi~ Sl\Sollth, Range 26 Enst,
Collier Connty, Flori'da. _ L.....~ '\' A \
( i 01 \ '\ I"'D" \/1. \
Parcel IdentifiCatiOJ\NI~_,I~@{}b~ ~ r ) r _)
n~'~~_ ci-S ,,--
-THE SUBJECT PROP~1XIS NOTTHEHO~~E~l~ERTY OF
GRANTOR ~ _ ~ ~t~ 1..-/ /' 0,
-- ~~,," ' /-< /' /'
IN WITNESS W '".'9F~~tor l:!!ts..ex~~~d delivered this Quit Claim
Deed the day and year first abO'v~nCn~.S/
---
Signed, sealed and delivered in
OZX;CiJ, ~
Witness I - Signature
~I) /t a/c;~7'
Witness 1 - Printed Name
:6~
Witness 2 - Signature
3
~~4--
George P. lIer
o
o
o
*** OR 4536 PG 733 ***
STATEOFCONNECTI~UT I
COUNTY OF ~o.:,"f1- C. \. 'C..\ 0..
The foregoing Quit Claim Deed was acknowledged before me on this ;}..l day of
January, 2010, by George P. Bauer, who --=:::::. is personally known to me or _
produced as identification.
(SEAL)
'.',
:/~':;~"> :" ':"'" . ,'--
". '. ~. : ~. ,- .'
h ....
0'
~OV
otflry ublic - Signature
G~ \. \ ~ \)O\'-.lo...:;0- ~
~~gIy~Public - Printed Name
7t;~.J\-;~ '--.z U1\;---,-,
/0~ "~\
II l.a-"",,-__ -----J""\ '\ \
- h \ :1 CommIssion ExpIm
i rr4~ \, '1\ \ Januory 31. 2014
\Cl\~~/ It cU )f-.J'
\\ \ ~~' '0:;,
.\....,.. . 1 / '...../
,-' \ \ lk. J: "-o..J
\~\ ~1TJ" J (". /
'\1~'~ "'--t 9''''~/
"-.0 ^ '-... /~,<;"
"-.:!." .,.., ---- \.) '>
"--!-!J E Cl R C~
----~
2
o
o
o
INSTR 4388118 OR 4531 PG 2872 RECOROED 1/26/2010 4:17 PM
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
o,i'
PAGES 9
Exhibit D
Copy of Deed
It
e
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,
Case No. 08-2136-CA-HDH
vs.
TOLL FL VII LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
a Florida limited partnership, TOLL BROS.,
INC., a Pennsylvania corporation, .CS>~--=-.----
II LLC, a Florida limited liabil! vfl;~Y:r\-'Q.P~"
VISION & FAITH, INC., a Flop ,-::DtPor.atlon, ~)_~
GEORGE P. BAUER, and.MICWAEL A. '\\
TAYLOR, I I )c.--=<-",--~\ \
Defendanls( (rr(mU~\ 1t 1
\n 1\..Y\1L) 1..1 1 s i r-j
~ \ , \- / ~
I'.... '\ If......}
GEORGE P. BAUER and ~i.'>~ ~& FAITH.INcf.;~ Il6;
a Florida corporation, ~O.. :tfY~ <. ~';
,'P )~ -------:. 0>
Counter--claimants, ....~zC
vs.
TOLL-RATTLESNAKE, LLC, a Florida limited
liability company, SEMBLER FAMILY PARTNERSHIP
#42, LTD., a Florida limited partnership and TOLL
FL II. LLC, a Florida limited liability company,
......
<=
1- r"";
AIIIo. j .. .~__
. 7( ,t( :. ; :. :
~~~e,t ;~;
. ..,.~~~c-l
(."~~"
:' -~
~':i ~J
Counter-defendants.
I
'-'
CJ
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
-.J
I, DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk and Comptroller of the above-entitled Court, do
hereby certify that I executed and filed a Certificate of Sale in this action on
.J&\n l.J 0.. r 1 J L/ I 2010, for the real property described herein, and that no objections
o
o
o
OR 4531 PG 2873
/171 }~
J fJ. J
Y .j
J
e
e
to the sale have been filed within the time allowed for filing objections. The real
property as described in Exhibit UN 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 .:JA" v" r...; 'Lfl. 2010.
I
DWICfi1~~QCK, Clerk & ~,~ptrO!Ier;,.
/r(\be'tl'r-GOi~6nt.t::: ..' .' . .11. "','
/fO~)Y-?"" ,''VA. ~. ....... "'I '/
"/ .( - "..- '.1..... I
C, Y '........... .'", : ". ,-, I,
I /By: " ',. 4. I~' _~.". . ._ 'y" I,,,. .-
/ / ~ ty.€terk; '\:', :', :: ,,-:! ci~:~':? ~ :.'
i I ~ ' .""'.r tI. ~ .': u ..., ,
. ~\ " .J::) . 0'" '. 0:.-'
f I /7:.- 117~jqf: e;........~ \. rj. J-- U - o. _. ,.
I I( T \l r\ \j}Jf) . \I/~" ':.. u ;; (/),:" -.!: ":..(J :
I f\J1 l t . ... II \j . . / L - -, t ~
Copies furnished to: \ II 1\ ~A \.) ) 1 \ \) '( ! ~ .J. ....-: .:::" ;' :..... ~)'.f
.touisD.D'Agostino Esq.\....:.., .-:;::/ ......~ \ ~ !;..J'r ..!...........t'?,I../
. . '\ ~ "f. I / '-j" .' e\' ."
Sa 1 J H II E'~ ~ f / ........ ", '" . .~,.
m~e. . e,er, sq. \'-\.,\ <J:1:r I ~...il ',,,.;.,,,,...,......
Ira Wilham SpIvey, II {PL.' \, t.\...j .:y0 I , -:
946301~511 1435 ,:r- ~ %^ L:
~O;' '::::---_----:/\\:-
~.}'J-{E C\\zcW
----=-:.-.--.:..-----'
2
o
o
o
OR 4531 PG 2874
e
e
EXHIBIT "A"
PARCEL 1:
THE S 112 OF THE S 1/2 OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH.
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS THE WEST 100 FEET.
PARCEL 2:
THE E 1/2 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 3:
THE SW 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 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, FLOR~___
PARCEL5:~ /Z-\~~~,
THE W 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THi;,r(W,))~15F SECTION 13;-.-t~SHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLOR}OA':---' "\ . \
PARCEL 6: I I ~4 "\ \
THE SW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 QI= S~r~;~S~tR5e'SOr"}H. ~NGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY. FLORIDA. I I~ \ \JJ)r'J~\l !rl> \ ~ I
PARCEL 7: \Q\ ~ J t~.
THE NW 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF,\~~~TION 13. TOWNS ~\ 50 ~ouj~. NGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY. FLORIDA. ~~ \. <?/;r J 10"-'
f /,.'- ./ \. I Ie j
PARCEL 8: r "- ~. '/
THE S 1/2 OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE sJ';)i~.F..:r1:iE-5W-tfi{.Qf,SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY:~L'O~ c~
PARCEL 9:
THE N 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 10:
THE N 1/2 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 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 1/4 OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 12:
THE N 1/2 OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 14. TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH. RANGE 26
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS THE WEST 100 FEET.
PARCEL 13:
THE N 1/2 OF THE 5 1/2 OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4. SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA, LESS THE WEST 100 FEET.
3
OR 4531 PG 2875
o
It
e
o
PARCEL 16:
THE E 1/2 OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50
SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 17:
THE SW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4, SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA.
PARCEL 18:
THE SE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 19:
THE NE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4, 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 OPS~~N::t41..:1:..0WNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST.
COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA. ~y\~~ (lrA >"
o ~ -,...,v l' "
PARCEL 21: 07 ".J...."-
THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OFJrHEtNE4I4;-SECTJON 14. TOW~S~P 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
COLL1ER COUNTY, FLORIDA. Ii, k.."'"\7...J'\ \ \
PARCEL 22: { ,f?\Jf7'0~~ ~~L \
THE NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 O~ T .~ S\E 1/~ OF ~E~+I~~ 4,\ 0' Np,Hl11' 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FL<DRlO~ \~Jil J" /-...1
\;.- \ \ IV I
\ ' ."r i ~ :::-'j
PARCEL 23: \ '\.~\ Jk J .....J /
THE N 1/2 OF THE SE 1/4 OF TI4~E~1/4 OF SECTION f4~OW . SFuP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. ,\1-r " ~~, l..j
"!...J . ~\\- /
PARCEL 24: ~}f- ._. ~ c~y
THE E 1/2 OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 Oitl-IJESf!J}<<iF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 26:
THE W 1/2 OF SW 1/4 OF NE 1/4 OF SE 1/4 OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 27:
THE E 1/2 OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 28:
ALL THAT PART OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE WEST 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 14;
THENCE ALONG THE EAST AND WEST 1/4 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 1/4 SECTION LINE NORTH 00.50'21" EAST 1341.85
FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION
14;
THENCE ALONG SAID LINE NORTH 87030'50" EAST 1336.55 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE
o
4
OR 4531 PG 2876
o
e
e
o
OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 14;
THENCE ALONG SAID LINE SOUTH 00"49'36" WEST 1342.78 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST AND
WEST 1/4 SECTION LINE;
THENCE LEAVING SAID LINE SOUTH 89044'17" WEST 134.30 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 04042'13" EAST 210.85 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 43012'Q4"WEST 178.18 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 71031'36" WEST 145.23 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 77018'36' WEST 175.92 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 63027'15" WEST 288.67 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 53031'25" WEST 74.43 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 41057'31" WEST 65.80 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 16001'06" WEST 80.79 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 11026'01" EAST 73.45 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 41005'47" EAST 146.55 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 21016'17" EAST 8B.09 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 07051'12" EAST 154.74 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 00046'36" WEST 794.9B FEET;
THENCE NORTH 45046'05" EAST 94.58 FI;ET~-=;-~
THENCE NORTH 87"22'18" EAST 342~FE~iE:-~9u}~
THENCE NORTH 59013'22" EAST 19({t~\P.EET: ~~.
THENCE NORTH 69"05'26" EAST/1~EET; .......,.
THENCE SOUTH 82053'39" EASJ" 10)t3?-FE-~qo TH~ EAST L1~0 \NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE
SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID S Ecfl 01'1 14'= -.1\
THENCE ALONG SAID LINE SCDUi' ~04 '3' E~25..t5~h \,
THENCE LEAVING SAID L1NEiNO ,;fJ 8 '~WE 'ml7:$~cr PEtT~) \
THENCE SOUTH 69005'26" ~ST 1 .64 ffE~T:J )! It--" ~) I
THENCE SOUTH 59"13'22" WE~ ~5&F~V dJ:, , , f-...:)
THENCE SOUTH 87"22'22" ~ ie.53 FEET; ~ i i 8!
THENCE SOUTH 45046'02" WEsrr4 9.76 FEET: ~ ~ I ~ I
THENCE SOUTH 68050'21" WES11i~ 24 FEET; ~~ /'OL
THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY 129:-QtFEEJ ALONG THE A. RC))J ~J'lON-TANGENTIAL CIRCULAR
CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH~~ft~NG A R~OJl:JSQ.~,A'10.00 FEET THROUGH A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 67013'47" AND B61tl~.I;J.~., filOEl(~~.KCHORD WHICH BEARS SOUTH
35"13'27" WEST 121.79 FEET; ~g~'.:.:.-/
THENCE SOUTH 01036'34" WEST 779.16 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 14;
THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE SOUTH 87039'37" WEST 74.85 FEET TO THE POINT ON THE
NORTH AND SOUTH 1/4 SECTION LINE;
THENCE ALONG SAID LINE NORTH 00050'21" EAST 2683.10 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL 29:
THE N 1/2 OF THE NW 1/4 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 1/4 OF THE NW 114 OF SECTION 23. TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS THE WEST 100 FEET.
ALSO LESS THAT PORTION DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 3241, PAGE 3460, PUBLIC
RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 31:
THE NE 1/4 OFTHE 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:
o
5
OR 4531 PG 2877
o
tit
e
o
THE NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 33:
THE NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 34:
THE E 1/2 OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NE 1(4, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 35:
THE W 1/2 OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 36:
THE SW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA. ~-::--...."
.; \-~-- ~V"
PARCEL 37: "..0":/ ~/';':\
THE S 1/2 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SE,' TlOfr'23, TOWNSHIP 50 SO~TH>RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS THE WESl ~Oe-FEEI, '\ \
(' I ~ ------J'I \ \
ALSO LESS THAT PORTION D~S~' 1B~1~~FLREto~95.B06,K 2192, PAGE 2057, AND
LESS THAT PORTION DESCRIBE IN 0 dill RE <lJ<ilil-\,\<jK~2 4.), PAGE 3460, PUBLIC
RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTYl FL,bRU. A~ ) ).- r (I
\ 0 \ "_'01 \~ I . l. I [-.
PARCEL 38: \ ('"' \ ~' /.~ I
THE NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF\TB:1?~. E 1/4 OF SECTIO " ~OW!jSIilIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLOR~T'_'" ! Y:CO/
PARCEL 39: . O~___ .~~/
THE N 1/2 OF THE S 1/2 OF THE SE 1 l}:OI1:~fi.t'r~.:U1~6'$~ION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIE>~ 1-... ~,;...;.-/
PARCEL 40:
THE NE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, flORIDA.
PARCEL 41:
THE S 1/2 OF THE S 1/2 OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 42:
THE S 1/2 OF THE N 1/2 OF THE E 1/2 OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP
50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 43:
THE NW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50
SOUTH. RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 44:
THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 45:
o
6
o
o
o
OR 4531 PG 2878
e
e
THE SE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 46:
THE E 1/2 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST. COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 47:
THE SW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, AND THE W
1/2 OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 24. TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 48:
THE SW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 49:
THE N 1/2 OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF:'1f(SWJ104-0F SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY~~~i'ti~ ';~
PARCEL 50: /00/'.,"/ ~J-~
THE S 1/2 OF THE SE 1/4 OF TI;JE Ni-1/4-QF-T1:IE SW 1/4 OF S'ECTlb\N 24, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER C07UNT;Y, F\;GRU;lA:-----J""\ \ \
I \..-/""~ \ \.
~~~~E1~;gFTHE NE 1/4 OF ~H. J~@!l~\s'f~O.)Q4, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER CG>~;o~./ . I 11 f-.I
'-I . ~I
\ ,\ "l,. \ !~I
PARCEL 52: '(:\\ ~b. I ; .......11
THE W 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF TN~~ 1/4 OF THE SW 1~~cW~~l}ON 24, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COU~'6~~~ ~~ /
PARCEL 53: ~ I'f-r ---c0-'
THE N 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4'6f-.T~f~F SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 54:
THE NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 AND THE N 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4, SECTION
24, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 55:
THE NE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 24. TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 56:
THE SW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 57:
THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 50
SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 58:
THE W 1/2 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.
7
OR 4531 PG 2879
o
e
e
o
PARCEL 59:
THE E 1/2 OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 60:
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 00013'20" E, 2722.27 FEET TO A CONCRETE
MONUMENT MARKING THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 25; THENCE N 89016'34"
W 1822.92 FEET; THENCE N 00033'02" W 1130.79 FEET; THENCE S 88056'47" W 1582.03 FEET;
THENCE N 03018'24" 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 00013'07" E 2636.89 FEET TO A CONCRETE MONUMENT
MARKING THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 25; THENCE S 00013'07" E 2636.89
FEET TO A CONCRETE MONUMENT MARKING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 25;
THENCE N 89012'25" E 2693.13 FEET TO A CONCRETE MONUMENT MARKING THE SOUTH
QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 25; THENCE N 89012'25" E 2693.13 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING. ~~
TOGETHER WITH AN EASEMENT w~~J5~~-p=GR~'i-1'O DEED RECORDED IN OFFICIAL
RECORDS BOOK 759, PAGE 16i~ ~~UC RECORDS OF CO~E~OUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 61: ' / ~ '-~_ __ \ \
THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 19, iOWNlScl:UBno e.p~~~~. 27..~Sl\ COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA. i t(/ (\ \ I "D .~ \7/\ \
,I \ ) } I \) ( I I
\n\\.Y~/ ! Q. cLs If-,i
PARCEL 62: \ '(" \ ~) J cd
THE S 1/2 OF SECTION 3D, TO~..8~.P 50 SOUTH, RArWE 27) EP,.@~OLLlER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
. -,; '1,~ { /",0 r
LESS AND EXCEPT: \!.~ A Y
THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NW 1/4 OF ~Wl~F;r. ;F;f~ '{,A~ OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF SECTION
3D, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 27. EA~J.l;Jet.botJNTY, FLORIDA.
ALSO LESS AND EXCEPT:
THE WEST 1/2 OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF SECTION
30, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
ALSO LESS AND EXCEPT:
THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE tm 1/4 OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF SECTION
3D, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
ALSO LESS AND EXCEPT:
o
THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF SECTION
30, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
ALSO LESS AND EXCEPT:
THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF SECTION
30, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
ALSO LESS AND EXCEPT:
8
o
o
o
-
*** OR 4531 PG 2880 ***
e
e
THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF SECTION
3D, 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 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF SECTION
30, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
ALSO LESS AND EXCEPT:
THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF SECTION
30, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
ALSO LESS AND EXCEPT:
THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF SECTION
3D, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE~7 EA J~.{8F~-Ql)NTY,. FLORIDA.
\. ~\-'~ ~.u UA>
ALSO LESS AND EXCEPT: / ~O~-~~J.."
THE E 1/2 OF THE SE 1/4 OF T~€ NV,(' ;lJ4-OF-=r.HE EAST 1/2 OP'fH~'$OUTH 1/2 OF SECTION 30,
TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGI127 eA&'pi..gQLL1E~, FLQRID~.
II \..~\ ~\
ALSO LESS AND EXCEPT: i I(?\l (/?f\l"P ~\\\f \ \
THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NE 1I4\~ ~~~ (1~ttk.~STMoJ fFH~ SOUTH 1/2 OF SECTION
3D, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANG. ~27 EAST, COLLIER vOUNTY, /~~IDA.
\ff;,\ .1~~ I "-oJ /
ALSO LESS AND EXCEPT: ~7f \. "1~ I .~~}
.;,~'~ ...,. U
THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF ;i{E:NE--1I~. F TH. E . 1\:..~' F THE SOUTH 1/2 OF SECTION
3D, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 21~~~~ ~ty, FLORIDA.
9
I
,
Hacienda Lakes aka Toll-Rattlesnake PUD
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
GMP Application
CCPC Review Materials
EXHIBIT E
Vicinity Map
~
DUIA&~
C0\StlTl\G ~
.1\1 'l.1~"
C>
o
II ~ I ,
I I
--1 1
~! -1
I I
"I
z
o
~0
~~;
:J I
...,
,I! 1-'
, I
1
o
.
-.
L.j
Ii 1
..-,
~ ~
I 0
GOLDEN
GATE
II 1
1_"
~I
\\
'1 I:
r 1
PINE RIDGE RD
r
-1
f>
I
J
I r
~
1 G, j I'
\. 1
i 'j
1
I II .'
{I \'
--.
,
j
T
.j,
I'
11
L
1_.
1
~-];
-~
, , 'I
Ii!
I"
"<j
~!:i1d
zm
<~
~~
.'
IJ l.fllL---
r
Ii
Ii
n
- ~ .;. '-ril
i
i" -"'-"-~ "---"--! r f" ~ .;
I !I L j
r l
L I
III
- ]
\
I
\
--.
\ J
1,~
~,
I
II
I,
"
II
~ ! ~.'l ." I
~ g I' l;J'
I 1.~
...~~.,l(..'...f.'.. ..' ':~. ..,:f.'
,;; .','-'{;6~"!'i,
--' --
-'--.- ...........
.........)~
0 0.5 1 Miles
I
D
N
Hacienda Lakes
Exhibit E - Vicinity Map
~' I
u
i4~ ..
~~;
j,
r
L
l!
II 1
-
.
... -- -. -
,.
l'
Q
>i .
. -
r
Legend
Layer _ RMF-12(7)
c::::J Project Boundary _ RMF-12(8.9)
- Collier County Major Roads _ RMF-12(10)
iiiiiii
Collier County Zoning
_A
_ A-MHO
_ A-PU-b
_ A-PU-c/J
_A-ST
[.__--'l C-1
.C-2
.C-3
.C-4
.C-5
.CF
_ CFPUD
_ CPUD
DCON
D CON-ST
'....j E
_GC
1;-0"'1'''1 I
_MH
~2.:.::}=1 PUD
I..:...."J P
.PE
_ RMF-12
~1
-::
~;)
::L,
I,
I I.
. j,t
I . !
~~.. L
4;:
_ RMF-12-GGDCCO
_ RMF-12-SBCO
_ RMF-16
_ RMF-16(8)
_ RMF-6
_ RMF-6(3)
_ RMF-6 (4)
_ RMF-6-GGDCCO
_ RMF-6GH
_ RMF-6-SBCO
_ RPUD
_ RPUD and CFPUD
~~ RSF-1
"':,'~",~~. ~'"
1!0!~,~ RSF-2
III RSF-3
11:-1 RSF-3(1)
_ RSF-3-GGDCCO
11II RSF-4
IE ':::!I RSF-4(3)
~ RSF 5
~ -
_ RSF-5(0.4)
_RT
. TTRVC
_VR
D'XTA1NC.
CONSULTING
..... "" , ..... .JL
. Plnnning . Vi,unli1a1ion
. Civil Engineering. Surveying & Mapping
Prepared By: rmjones
Printing Date: June 18,2010
File: T:IProjeclsI2005105_0150.02.03_HaciendaLakesl
GMPIRevO 1lHacienda_ VicinitLE.mxd
...
Hacienda Lakes aka Toll-Rattlesnake PUD
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
G MP Application
CCPC Review Materials
EXHIBIT G~ 1
\
Existing Future Land
Use Map
DurA K ~
LO\SLUI\!j ~
J. \l II J. "'~"
o
o
Q
Mixed Use Activity Center
Subdistrict #9
RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK
Edison
College ,
J:. ,,'
...'
Transit Stop
...--
,
Lely Elementary
School
-...
,
.
,
Hacienda Lakes
Exhibit G-1 - Existing Future Land Use Map
0 1,000 2,000 Feet
I
D
N
D'lTAINC.
CONSULTING
..... '" ,..... ~
. Planning . Visualizalion
. Civil Engineering' Surveying & Mapping
Prepared By: rmjones
Printing Dale: June 18. 2010
File: T:IProjects\2005105 0150.02.03 HaciendaLakesl
GMPIRevOl\ExistingJCUM_Gl.mxd
"
Hacienda Lakes aka Toll-Rattlesnake PUD
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
GMP Application
CCPC Review Materials
EXHIBIT G~ 2
"
Proposed Future Land
Use Map
DUrA";.
C0\~tlTi\1j ~
J.\I 11 J.~,,'
G
Existing Haceinda Lakes
+/-27.51 Acres
~
....
LI'l
m
l:i
~
o
0::
~
W
...J
~
o
CO
a::
w
:i
...J
o
U
RATTLESNAKE
HAMMOCK EXT.
~ Proposed Hacienda Lakes
Additional 9.16 Acres
~
Collier Regional
Medical Center
+/- 9.16 Acres
o
STATE
LANDS
Legend
D 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
I
~
N
a
o
D'\TA'NC.
CONSULTING
.A. ....., , ..L ...
. I'lannin~ . Visualization
. Civil Engineerillg . Surveying & Mapping
Prepared By: rmjones
Printing Dale: June 18, 2010
File: T:\ProjeclsI2005105_0150.02.03_HaciendaLakesl
GMPIRev01IProposed_FLUM_ G2.mxd
Hacienda Lakes aka Toll-Rattlesnake PUD
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
G MP Application
CCPC Review Materials
EXHIBIT H
Zoning and Land Use Map
DUlA" ~
i..(1\$CLII\G ~
J.\.' II 1So';~'l'
Q
o
o
J
- -- ~!
I
1
,~ l
" Tl'1
\'1:1 r L,
I 1,L
r
j
...
1.75
\
\.
RADIO RD-
T
i
J~
o
Existing Zoning within
500' of Project Boundary
A
CPUD
MPUD
PUD
RPUD
Existing Land Uses within 500' of Project Boundary
USE CODE LAND USE
c
~
[Q
c::
w
:::ii
...I,
81
.~. I'.
J.'
,J~ ~----------~:
00 RESIDENTIAL
01 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
02 MOBILE HOME
04 CONDOMINIUM
07 MISe. RESIDENTIAL
10 VACANT COMMERCIAL
16 COMMUNITY SHOPPING CENTER
18 OFFICE, ONE STORY
21 RESTAURANTS
23 FINANCIAL INSTITIUTIONS
38 GOLF COURSE
40 VACANT INDUSTRIAL
47 MINERAL PROCESSING
48 WAREHOUSING, DISTRIBUTION TERMINALS
60 GRA21NG LANDS I
66 ORCHARD GROVES
67 POULTRY, BEES, TROPICAL FISH, RABBITS
69 ORNAMENTALS, MISC AGRICULTURE
71 CHRUCHES, TEMPLES
73 PRIVATELY OWNED HOSPITALS
82 FOREST, PARKS, RECREATIONAL
86 COUNTIES - OTHER
87 STATE - OTHER
91 UTI LlTY
94 RIGHT-OF-WAY
9S RIVERS, LAKE, SUBMERGED LANDS
96 SEWEAGE DISPOSAL, WASTE LANDS
97 OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL
99 ACREAGE NOT AGRICULTURE CLASSIFIED
-------~-
I-
I
'[Li i
~I
l -
r-I
f[
I,'
~ --- ------,
1-
I.
Ir--'
'r l
,'-,
I
J _
1'1
L1
Legend
~ Layer D CON-ST _ RMF-6-GGDCCO
o Project Boundary L _J E _ RMF-6GH
D 500' Buffer outside Project Boundary _ GC _ RMF-6-SBCO
- Collier County Major Roads n I _ RPUD
ZONES _ MH _ RPUD and CFPUD
_ A 0 PUD 1If'&''ii) RSF-1
_ A-MHO [~~, P L\l'~R~ RSF-2
...... _ A-PU-b _ PE _ RSF-3
_ A-PU-c/J _ RMF-12 n RSF-3(1)
_ A-ST _ RMF-12(7) _ RSF-3-GGDCCO
'-- D C-1 _ RMF-12(8,9) .. RSF-4
_ C-2 _ RMF-12(10) n RSF-4(3)
_ C-3 _ RMF-12-GGDCCO _ RSF-5
_ C-4 _ RMF-12-SBCO _ RSF-5(OA)
_ C-5 _ RMF-16 _ RT
_ CF _ RMF-16(8) _ TTRVC
_ CFPUD _ RMF-6 _ VR
_ CPUD _ RMF-6(3)
D CON _ RMF-6 (4)
',7,;.
o
2,000
4,000 Feet
I
D'XTAINC.
CONSULTING
~ '-, '.L .1
. Planning . Vi~uali7.ation
. Civil Engineering' Surveying & Mapping
Hacienda Lakes
Exhibit H - Zoning and Land Use Map
~
N
Prepared By: rmjones
Printing Date: June 18, 2010
File: T:IProjectsI2005105_0150.02.03_HaciendaLakesl
GM PIRevO 1 IHacienda _Zoning_Land Use _ H ,mxd
Hacienda Lakes aka Toll-Rattlesnake PUD
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
GMP Application
CCPC Review Materials
EXHIBIT I
Public Facilities Map
~
DUlr~
lO\Stl Ti\G &Dcu
.1 \ I Ii .l;..~,,'
c
o
Big Cypress
Elementary School
..
CCEMS Station 17
GOLDEN GATE BLVD W
PINE RIDGE RD
o
Q
~
=
~
"
g
Golden Gate
Elementary School
.. (preK-2)
.
Golden Gate" Golden. Gate
Elementary School p Community Park
~(3-5) D
<) Golden Gate Subs ation
CCEM Station 5-50
EN GATE P
rGolden Terrace North
· Elementary!lschOOI
Golden Gate
Mlddle.Sfhool r Golden Terrace South
\ . Elementary School
Golden Gate MikL Davis
High School .. Elementary School
..
Golden Gate @
Aquatic'and Fitness Complex
R , RO
Calusa Park
Elementary School
CCEMS ALS Eng 20
AVIS V
~
z
z
<
=
~
~
~
Q
~
~
<
=
z
<
1.15
.. East Naples FD 20
~
Existing 20" water main and approximate
/ location of future 35" water main.
Approximate location of
existing 12" force main
o
RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK RD
East Naples Substation ~ ..
Lely Elementary
School
Approximate location of existing ~
8" force main to be replaced
with a 12" force main.
.. Lely High
School
.. Parkside
Elementary School
Q
~
=
ffi
3
8
Water Treatment Facility ~
CCEMS Station 14
Manatee
Elementary SChOOl.. ..
Q
~
z
w
:3
8
o
0.5
1 Miles
I
Hacienda Lakes
Exhibit I - Public Facilities Map
D
N
~
z
~
=
z
~
'"
WilSON BOULEVARD CENTER
Legend
D Project Boundary
Public Facilities
~ Sheriff Substation
IIIIIIIII Fire Station
o EMS Stations
@ Parks
~
. Schools
I!!i.I Water Treatment Facility
- Collier County Major Roads
D'XTA'NC.
CONSULTING
..&. ......, , .L ..a.
. Planning . Vi~uali7.ation
. Civil Engineeri';g . Surveying & Mapping
Prepared By: rmjones
Printing Date: June 18. 2010
File: T:IProjeclsI2005105_0150.02.03_HaciendaLakesl
GMPIRevO 1 IPublic _F acililies _I.mxd
,.
I
Hacienda Lakes aka Toll-Rattlesnake PUD
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
G MP Application
CCPC Review Materials
EXHIBIT J
Future Schools Location Map
..
DUrA" ~.
CO\SllTI\/j ~
J.\' U l~'l
/
C'\ fl_
- -.....,,'
'\
FUTURE SCHOOLS LOCA TI ON MAP ~
COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS ~
N,T-S,
t--
-- -- --- - ----- ---- --- ------ -- ---~
HENDRY COUNTY
COLLIER COUNTY
&,,0
-ct l',Q
co\Jtl
Sl:4n
7!? /i'r~
<0:'8<
.
~:~
.5
o
O,U
U '"
Ul
Ul ::l
.J .J
o
U
STATE RD 29
SITE
TBD
~.
1
I
.
I
.
LEE COUNTY
r-----coLLiERCOuNrY - - - - -'
.
bk_
rratron1
\I)
~
iil
~
iil
WESTCLOX III
STREEr-- MMOKALEE
LAKE TRAFFORD ~
ROAD r
COUNTY RD 846
~~,
't
CORKSC~W ROAD
~I~
0'8
Vie.:::
Ul Ul
UJI:::i
~~...J
10
U
I
I
ELEMENTARY"N"
\~ HIGH PARKLAND PUD : \ELEMENTARY'L
SCHOOL "GGG" COMMITMENT SCHOOL "U"
TBD 2025: 2026
- - -- - ~ .)::
. ,
.
~ ;; ~ CO~E-~~~ - -- -- 1 - - - -- - - - ~:.- ~ - - - -- J
~ ~ C ~ 1&. ;Ek!'I1?'~~Yl\
\~~~~ ~, e · HIGH
\f\ ~ &~.--~ - ~tf\ ~~ l. ~ SCHOOL "EEE"
\\ ~ ~411~ ~ O:!}.T.ijl I 2022 1\
ijl ~. . 6 !12::':;;-t:""~ 84'6 - 1M. iAOKALEE ROAD \
~ ~ ~
J t::= .~ li., ~ .
~, ~. : IELEMENTARY
." ~_~"ND~~ 1= SCH?i1f"
~~) ~ '._,;
/' F:9"Bf- I~C1r....1I '"
- Ir~-.' ~ .-.fa-
/
IMMOKALEE ROAD
\
-~
~
ro
~
C\
~
o
ro
:,:)
o
~
~
~ll
~
s:::
.~
1111T
~I "
~
I::l
'"
AVA MARIA
ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL "Q"
20\9
MIDDLE
SCHOOL "II"
2019
~lXJ- T
01. WELLIROA7'J
RANl AL-L-& eVo.::.
/
....
\E~ -SJ;l~.d UiBi
-
f8th-Awr.NE -
gJ
-;:0.
lZl
c:
-;;;
-0
'"
Cl
~
SJ
c...
Cl
c...
:3
~
~~ ~-.s, I'Jji PIN.
~n1C)i:ll- _
~~~II
~" .,~ f'~)U~ _ ~
1J1.! ~ t=: -
(~irCC'"
~. ~ Ir'~
~~, , ~dJ / ~ 0
= all: ,~~
a'l: L r.:::::?" r
~ I..r ~ c::J r
~ ' , ~ ~c,j f- I~:;:.
( ~ M~~R~D~
R\ -"j '7 F~.TI'lI f.
MIDDLE ..jj.. ,L) ~~!=! ."
SAI3AL I3A Y PUDV'-WlO :: ~..":
COMMITMENT 'I?
TBD
~~~.j. ~
\' - .,....,' - BD-Y"" Hi if
\ ~~. '_ !..u_I ~
~ ~ . : -, , \ t r.ec
\~~-i . --
~ '-. ~.Q?
. ~r~"'~J J
~~rk~J~ ~~
TRACTK ~.~
TBO ~~t- ~
, . ''sf .:;:- .,. ~ S~tlQOL IYPE
~ Q;' ELEMENTARY"H"
"" @ 0 (J' ELEMENTARY "V"
. '<:>";~
. "\.\i.~ ELEMENTARY "0"
S:\ a' :.... ~ \\ '" ( MIDDLE "GG"
.. ~~IJI ~. HIGH "HHH"
It ;<~~~ '/~
~ ~ lJ~~~. :~Op~'~L"'b.~
~~~ 0 ~~ ~~r"
~/) ~ I"'>jru tr~"
*TRO = TO RF OFTFRMTNRD INDICATES SCHOOL SITE IS NOT IN THE CAPITAL IMPRO~T PLAN: 2010-2029
~~-~
ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL "P"
202\ MIDDLE , I
HIGH 1/ = = SCHOOL "OD"
SCHOOL "DDD" - - 2023
2027 I
~ I
'\.
.""".11.';.11.,,_
INTERSTA TE RT.75 (ALLlGA TOR ALLEY)
.,.. ~.71
- fp~
~
I ..... I
. u . I .-in-r-iii-ii"'il-."-;-r-.~ f I "It f
r-.i.i-r-.-ii.-r-...i I
~l
is'
':sr.
v~----f~ PLANNING COMMUNITIES
1\ ~~I COlliER COUNTY
.--J - ~ I FLORIDA
__T :Drr-' '1 : ._::::."~~~c.'
~ a;~ ~l ....... ..-........
'41l ~'Z ....J1~(tf ::~- -.- --
1 ~I~i~ '
$i;- ~J.\i~i
['\.: m~bf1
1= 'v 1 f:~?i~~
~~
~... . ..~,I..._~._~.. ..... .... . .n' . .... ...
11
1
:i
~~ l
1.~. r
- -----"
UNSITED SCHOOLS
P.L6NNJ NctcOM.MU NITY APPROXIMATE YEAR
ROYAL FAKAPALM (7 2020
ROYAL FAKAPALM (7) 2023
SOUTH NAPLES 5) 2028
RURAL ESTATES (8) 2027
CORKSCREW (9) 2027
-
--.......
Exhibit J
April 200J~
Hacienda Lakes aka Toll-Rattlesnake PUD
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
G MP Application
CCPC Review Materials
EXHIBIT K
Aerial Photo of Subject Property
D'Xlr ~
l'0\Stl f1\(j f:traq
1\1 Ill~"
G
o
Q
Hacienda Lakes
Exhibit K - Aerial Photograph Map
0 0.25 0.5 Miles
I
D
N
D'XTA'NC.
CONSULTING
..... '" , .L .....
. Planning . Visualizatinn
. Civil Engint:ering . Surveying &. Mapping
Prepared By: rmjones
Printing Date: June 18,2010
File: T:IProjects12005105 _0150.02.03_ HaciendaLakesl
GMPIRevO 1 IHacienda _AeriaL K. mxd
Source: Collier County PA (Aerial Flown Jan. 2009)
"
Hacienda Lakes aka Toll-Rattlesnake PUD
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
GMP Application
CCPC Review Materials
EXHIBIT L
Public Facilities Impact Analysis
D\llf =..
CO\~LlTIV; ~
J.\llll~"
:i
o
~
3"
-0
~
m
g:
Q
5'
~
m
<1>
:,:..
l):
cu
0.
o
-0
CD
0.
0-
'<
(")
g
~.
(")
o
C
:J
-:<
~
cu
0.
0.
(i)
g:
cu
:J
'<
cu
0.
g
o.
:J
!!!.
3'
-0
cu
1ir
o
:J
-0
C
2:
o'
g
~.
o
(i)
cu
CD
0.
0-
'<
5'
<1>
cu
0.
g
o.
:J
!!!.
0.
<1>
:J
!!l.
-<
cu
:J
0.
0;-
CD
~.
-<
(i)
.0
C
g:
CD
0.
0;-
5'
in'
Gl
;::
"0
cu
3
<1>
:J
0.
3
<1>
fl
enoz
III 00
O[~C;;
~;;?€:~
~3f?~
oencu
~ 8..3
g
N
~
<D
~
o
...
N
o
o
enoz
Q) 00
n[~U;
U;-"Uii)'Q.l
Q)~Qlg
n3n=lj
Oencu
~ 8..3
z
);
N
o
o
o
o
N
~
co
N
....
0>
0>
0>
o
o
enoz
III 00
n[~C;;
€:;;?@:~
Q)-Q:lQl
n3n::o
Oencu
~ 8..3
z
);
N
o
o
o
o
N
~
N
....
0>
0>
0>
o
o
enoz
Q) 00
[~C;;
~~€:~
QI-Q)Q)
o;~~
~ 9...3
z
);
N
o
o
o
o
~~~~z~~a"Uz~ooa"UZ900
~g~~9..~g~~9..~g~~9..~g
('")-0. (no-n. (/)0-0. (/)0-
~~~~~~~oo~~~~~g~~~
n39..m~n39..m~o39..m~o3
z
);
z
);
N
~
en
N
....
0>
0>
0>
o
o
enoz
Q.l 00
n[~C;;
~~~g
n 3.,"! :0
Oencu
~ 8..3
z
);
N
o
o
o
o
N
~
0>
N
....
0>
0>
0>
o
o
enoz
Q) 00
n[~;;;
~~@:~
~ 3" ~ ~
Oencu
28..3
z
);
N
o
o
o
o
N
~
...
N
o
o
...
o
o
o
enoz
Q) 00
n[~C;;
~~~g
n3.,"! ::0
Oencu
003
... ~.
z
);
<D
o
o
o
o
N
~
'"
N
o
o
...
o
o
o
z
);
~
0>
o
o
o
o
enoz
Ql 00
n[~;;;
@:~€:g}
III -(U Q)
n3n:u
Oencu
28..3
o
N
~
N
~ ~
'" "0 <
~~5
m~'~
...::!- a
0>
o
o
c:<
2. ~
urs=
<0
~
o
o
o
-0_
<1> )>
~~ci'~
:J 31? 0:::::
~ 5" or "U
~~g'~
ECf
o.enr
~ ,,~
oen::;;;~
CDOS:O
(1)""'0-
<.0" 3 N (j)
2. ~ :t ~.
a~~
z
);
~5:3
5a9:-g
(J)~g~
:::le!.-
N
....
'"
o
o
(ilag~~
.p~~a:::a
;::O!:Q.,< g C ()
..:.--<" ~ ~ 0 ~
3
<1>
n
[
z
);
~~cn
a~:Eg>~
o~ ~ :2 Cii a;
~. fq ~ ~. 9: ;
2.3<f ~.
..
..
."
..
;.
~~~g~~~~g~~~~g~~~~g~~~~
~?;;;~~~?;;;~~~?;;;~~~?;;;~[~?;;;
cng~~~cng~~~cng~~~cng~~~cng~
9..m~o39..m~~39..m~~39..m~~39..m~
z
);
g~~~~g~~~~g~~~~g~
~~~?U;~~~?;;;~~~?;;;~~
~~m~~~~m~~~~m~~~~
o3am~o3am~o3am~03
z
);
z
);
z
);
z
);
N
0>
o
o
o
z
);
N
0>
o
o
o
z
);
N
o
o
o
o
~~;~~~~;~~~~;~~~~;~~~~;
m3-~mm3-~mm3-~mm3-~mm3_
o. (nO-O. (nO-O. (nO-O. (nO-O. (n
m~~~~m~~~~m~~~~m~~~~m~~
a~~~3a~~~3a~~~3a~~~3a~~
z
);
z
);
z
);
~
<D
z
);
z
);
5~Q6:3
(n:J:Ja.-o
-Ch<.::+m
~~.~ g' U
gg~~a
5"
~Q6:0
~~~~
tn'< g C
.ocomo
?o._
m~-
~Cf~m'
;~ ~ ~ * ~
~ (J)oo.a fJ'
-. 0" N co_
23<f
z
);
5~Q6:3
(J) :J :J a.-o
~~~ g ~
gg~~a
-tNNNJ\.)J\.)J\.)J\.)N
000000000
![<oC;;~cr;~:t:w~
~~~~~~~~g;
00CJ1 01 0'1 CJ100
;0
co
..
c:
<1>
a
~
w
C.1l~0'I010'1CJ1~~-'"
~~g;g;g;g;ggg
o
en
C
0.
<1>
~
i!:
~
."
cu
3
~
00000000
00000000
~-~~~~~.~.~~
~88888888
,l:rr.J\.)J\.)I\JJ\.)I\J..........N
~!='!='!='!='.o~g;.-.J
gggggg88g
o 00
~ :?
'" "0 <
~~~
~~.~
~ ;a.
o
c:<
~. ~
(;)"5'
<0
-0-
~ ~
ChCh-UO
g 3 ~ ~
-g S. Q) -u
..,(0 ::-.C
~!"go
co
. 0>
Gl )>
~~~~
a1 ~. ~ ~
..,CO,)>
()(J)coc
~. ~ ~ ;u
,g. 9..
50)>-
en <1> 0.3
:J 0.-0
C3~~~
gg~9..
(i)~g~~
-?~~~=ij
~ ~:'< g C (")
-'< ~ ~ 0 ~
3
~
n
~
G5 ~;:?)>
oooooooo-U6g.0~r.? _
:....:....:....:....:....:....:....:....~~~~5..~tD
~ r!iif}a1~;
- ~.., :r
<1>
..
..
."
..
;.
g;!"!"!".J\.)!" <0 <:;;.J\.)
:....ggg8goo~
goooooggo
~ I I
or 1
01 1
I I
I I
1 1
I 1
~~f51
0001
gggl
t I I 1000 I
! ! ! ! ~~~ J
01
",I
01
01
I I I
I I I
I I I
I r r
wwwl
:""':""'01
gggl
(Q I I I I
<0 I II I
~ I I I
<0 I I I
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;~~
~~~?~~~~?~~~~?~~~
~~cn~~~~cn~~~~cn~~~~
o3am~o3am~039..m~o3
~
III
5'
u-uzocnu-uzoenu-uzoenu-uzo(J)u-uz ~ en ~
~~a~g~~9..~g~~9..~g~~a~g~~9..:?~~~~~~m
n~~~~~~~~~n~~~~n~~~~n~~~'m~~~.~g
~og~~~og~~~og~~~og~~~og~~~~coa~
_m-03_m-o3_m_o3_m_o3_m_ ;a. ~
z
);
z
);
z
);
z
);
z
);
z
);
'"
0>
z
);
~~~~;g~~~;g~~~;g~~~;g~~~;g~~~;g~~~;g~€~;
~~~?~~~~?~~~~?~~~~?~~~~?~~~~?~~~~?~~~~?~
~~mg~~~~g~~~mg~~~en~~~~en~~~~en~~~~en~~~~m~~
o3am~o3am~o3am~o3ag~~3ag~~3ag~~39..g~~3a~~
Q~~
a~.~
'<:Jr
;0<1>0
<1> 0. en
~~. ~~
3 (i; ii).o
3 ro s.
mro....(i;
<:Jen(f)
co(;)""TI-u
~ ~ ~.2.
~ ~~
wQo
0. ='0-
cu <1> <1>
'< ~
z
);
Q~z
c:: (f) j;:
2. cO. ..
'< :J r
;0<1>0
<1> 0. en
~~.~~
3(i;m.o
3 co s.
!J12C;;~
~~~a
0> ;::_.
~ ~~
wQo
0. ='0-
cu <1> <1>
'< ~
z
);
-<
g:
z
);
z
);
Q~~
a~'~
'<:Jr
;0<1>0
<1> 0. en
~~. ~~
3roCO.o
3 m s.
!J12U;~
~~~a
0> ;::_.
, 0<1>
~__U
~~~
cu <1> <1>
'< ~
z
);
-<
g:
z
);
z
);
b':?~
~t5. ~
'<:Jr
~~g
en-g 0" ::0
~~. ~~
3 m s.
mm.....(i;
< :J en Ch
A(j)"-u
-~ ~~.
~ ~~
~~~
cu <1> <1>
'< ~
z
);
-<
g:
z
);
z
);
Q~~
~t5. ~
'< :J r
;0<1>0
<1> 0. en
~~. ~~
3(i;m.o
3 m s.
!J1aC;;~
~~~~
~~~.
~~o
0. ='0-
cu <1> <1>
'< ~
z
);
-<
g:
z
);
z
);
Q~~
a~' ~
'<:Jr
;0<1>0
<1> 0. en
~-g 0 ::u
~ ~. ~~
3 <1> -.
!J12U;~
~~~a
<f ~m.
"i ~ ~
~~~
cu <1> <1>
'< ~
z
);
~
z
);
z
);
b':?~
~~. ~
'<:Jr
;0<1>0
<1> 0. en
~-g 0" ::0
~~. ~~
3 m s.
mm.....a;
<:JenCh
ro(j)"TI-u
~ ~ ~.2.
~ ~~
wf{o
0. ='0-
cu <1> <1>
'< ~
z
);
z
);
z
);
z
);
z
);
~;?~
5 ~. )>
...... (Q ..
'<:Jr
;0<1>0
<1> 0. en
~~. ~~
3(i;m.o
3 Cl> 5.
mm......a;
<:J(nCh
a~~~
-~~~.
~__U
wQo
0. ='0-
cu <1> <1>
'< ~
z
);
z
);
z
);
-<
g:
z
);
z
);
5~Q~3
~~~g-g
~~~ g'U
gg~~g
;0
o
o
3
'"
!J1~Ui
~~:gg>:; :t
o~ s::: :< ~ 0
~ enoo.a [
cO'Q~m-
23-
z
);
5~f{~3
~ ~ ~ g-g
c>q' ~ o' U
gg~~9..
z
~
5"
GlQ
;:::R
~rD
~~
:J c
0.",
35'
<1><0
:J
-(3
3
5'
<1>
m
x
Q~: ~ ~
o:Jmo
m(Q:J(O
-o"TIo)>
~~-<c
q. ~ 9..;U
g:
)> :?-i~
;~~~.~~
a-g ao~.g
3(f)cS:"m
~ ~ a re ~. ro
...J m..... =:
~ -<
z
);
1 I 1 1
I I I I
I I I I
I I I
~ I I I
I r I
",I
",I
",I
",I
I I I ~
I I 10')
I I 1m
I I I I I
~ I I I I I
I I I I 1
I I I I 101 !
1I1110li
EI
01
01
1 1
I I
I I
I I
I I wit
I I 0, I I
I 101 I
I 101 I
z
~
o
co
3
..
:J
Co
go
~
Ig
..
;;
n
~
!2,
e~O'IO'1CJ1-.J-.J01"'"
C.1l.~.""'-J:.J.""'-J~!J"l.?'.1\J
~gg8g~ggg
~~~~.s::..s::.0'I0'1
OM:'::"o,:""'CoO:""
W01I\J-.J.....m.....O')
5~b'6:3
en~~a.-o
- Ch < ;:;: m
C)~~ o' u
gg~~a
:J
~f{~0
;::::;: ~ a. ~
'<~~=u
$~~~
?'
en
Oen"TIo
g~~Cl>~
_. ~ 3 <0 0
C3 g ~"' ~'o :l:
-um~o.m 0'
O~o.-o=iS)
~r;nr ~'<
en5~Q~3
:J :J 0.-0
-Ch<.::+m
C)~~ o'U
gg~~9..
en
C
0.
<1>
:J
(;;
fGJ fr:"o)>
t5~g~~~~
(j)gg(n~05
Etoom.....a.mo
:J ~o.-o=_
p r;nr~'<
1 I I
I I I
I I I
5~b'6:3
(n:J:Jo.-o
-Ch<.::+m
C)~~ o'U
gg~~9..
- I I
'" r 1
0> 1 I
;0
o
o
~
C> g>;~)>
-umg. 3~:t
~oo0m. 0
g~~~~~[
~ r;nr~'<
en 5~b'6:3
:J ~ 0.-0
- Ch < ;:.: m
C)~~ o'!!
gg~~a
Z
<1>
Gl=
;::~
"O~
<1>
)>cu
3 '"
<1> <1>
:J ;0
0.<1>
3 '"
<1> E
:J ::::::!".
_:J
_<0
Gl~
"0(3
.93
5'
<1>
z
~
o
<1>
3
..
:J
0.
go
m ~
x co
-~g:~g c
~m(Q:J(o Q,I
C)'O"TIo)>c;
g~~-<c (")
~~a:u ~
v' ~,
)> :?-i~
3-U3ro.-g)>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(f)ChCh(f)ChCh(f)Ch3ChCS:::"~
a ~ a re ~. ro
...J m..... ~
~ '<
3"
P;~~~mm~~~
......wmmmm<O<O-.J
~y.>~""'.""'_""'~5050.~
. <0............... -" 0 O-.J
gg~~~~ggg;
..
!l
."
<1>
<1>
~~~~~~~~~
~~rn~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~?'
WI\JJ\.)I\JJ\.)~~~~
~~.....~
~ <. Ch
a1 ~~. ~ ~.
?- ~. ~ Jj ~
~~@?~ 3
~Qoao "C
<1> ~..
!l
12 ~~ 5 "T1
. 0 Ch:J ~
_t5~ 3:b
!~~~.~
-o.oroCl>
~*~~
n
o
3
3
en"TIO ~
~mn~3~B'
000000oot5oo'0m~ ::
:....:....:....:....~:....:....:....;:r~~~5.a?cn
~ ~~~~~~,
co
..
..
"V
..
;.
-c
o
iii
c-
eo
Gi fr:"o)> :E
111t5~g~~~~~
:t:' I I (Ilgg. ~o:T~
I I I Etoom~o.Cll g
~ ~r~~-
-tJ\.)J\.)NJ\.)J\.)J\.)NJ\.)
000000000
![<oC;;""'-JO')u;~w~
c;~~~~~ggg;
o
;0
co
..
c:
<1>
a
~
~~~~~~~~o
000000000
i!:
c
2-:
."
..
3
~
-.J'-J-.J'-J-.J'-J-.J'-J
00000000
~-j~~~~~~-~
~~g;gg;g8g8
000000000
~f5~f5~~tO~~
:"'Iooooo!='!='.
ggggggggg
~_N.J\.)!".I\J.J\.) to ~.J\.)
~ggggg~~g
~ I I I I ~~g I
o I I I 1000 I
01 t I 1000 I
I I 1
I I 1
I I 1
I r 1
lpppl
! tTlO10'11
o I I I
In I I I
o I I I
o I I I
l~~~l
I tTltTlol
10001
en <0
III -
'" <0
;:;:
III
~
en
~
=:
~
I II I ~
II II <D
I I I I
I I III
I I 1
",I
",I
",I
",I
1 I I
1 I I
I I I
~ I I I
m I I I
m I I I
I I I 1 1 I r
UJ I t I I I w I I
'" I I I I I 0> I I
I I r I I r 1
r I I 1 1 1 1
l 1 I I I g I I
wi
",I
01
01
I I I I ~ I I
I I I I g I I
~~~~~~~~50
. .s::. 01 0'101. . 0 '-J
~g8gg~ggg;
O..........J\.)ww.s::.tTl
W~<'OCnMCO(.n~
O')ooooONm.....CJ1
~ :?
'" "0 <
o :J <1>
~ ~..g
m ~ ;
~ ;a.
o
c:<
~. ~
(;)"5'
<0
-0_
<1> )>
(ilCh-UO
g ~.g ::0
-g ~. ~ =ij
?-~g6
~ ?
Gl )>
~g>~~
a1 ~. ~ ~
..,m,)>
()(J)Cl>C
~. ~ ~ ;u
E' 9..
en rO~6:3
:J 0.-0
_Ch ;:;,'m
G)~ o' U
-uo~o
g:J--
tn~g~~
-?~~~:a
~~:'< g C
-'< ~ ~ 0
5~f{~3
en:J:Ja.'O
-Ch<.::+m
G)~~ g'U
gg~~a
:J
~b'~0
~~~~
Ul'< g C
-?~~o
?'
en
gg>;:?)>
~g0~r.? ~
t5~~~~ g'
~r;nr ~'<
r-
g~g~~
-Ch<.::+m
~~.~~ru
gg~~a
1 1 r
I I 1
I I I
en
C
0.
<1>
~
5en~b'6:3
:J :J a.-o
~~~g~
gg~~a
;0
o
o
~
fGJ fr:"O)>
-omg..;J>~~ :t
S2oo0m.o
g~~~~~~
2. r;nr~'<
r -
o;a.())>-
encooa.3
:J :J a.-o
~~.~ g:~
gg~~a
Z
<1>
Gl=
;::~
"O~
<1>
)>cu
3 ~
~ ;0
0.<1>
3 '"
<1> E
:J ::::::!".
_:J
_<0
Gl~
"00
.93
z
~
o
<1>
3
..
:J
0.
go
~ ~
-Q~~~ g
~ a;><5 ~ g i
~~ ~ ~ ~ (")
q'~g,;u ?
m ~,
5'
<1>
)> ~-i~
; ~ ~ ~. ~ ~
~~~~~~~~5.-gao~~
ChVlVlChVl(f)ChVl~rD~~~~
;a. a. a. m ~. m
...J m -- ~
- '<
~~~~~~~~~
NCJ1oooooooo-".....-.J
~P5N~0.W!J1!J1.?'
. ............ -"..... .....00 '-J
g~~~~~~~~
gggggggg8
~~~~~~~~~
....,.....-.............<0000000
CD. . . . 0'1..... <0.
-......2222:.....:...N~
CD<o(O<o<o~tTlO'ltTl
:--":.::..:.::..~:.::..~~~:.::..
3:..........-".....~~::t.s::.
~=.....~
-0 ~<o5. ~ ~3
Cl> ..... _.
?- ~. .g; ,g; <5
~~~?~
iDQog.
co 9.. AI
!l
3"
~ *~ g ~
_~~~:b II)
!~~~.[
~t~ ~.
....(f):J'"~
Q
;0
co
..
c:
co
a
~
i!:
~
."
..
3
~
-0
c
Q:
o'
TI
OJ
g
;:;:m
(ii' x
en ::T
3g
-gr
~
)>
:::l
OJ
~
iii'
G
o
"
a
'"
g
<1>
0.
m
iF
3
<1>
:J
0;
-<
C/l
n
~
o
Q.
"Tl
Ol
g
~
~
<0
C/l
C
0.
<1>
g
- 0
~"U~
~~~~~~~~~[~
CD OJ -.J m ~ .J::>,. W I\..) m~' ~
2- 2.
m"
:J ,
a ..2.
=<1>
3 n
<1> <1>
~:Jo.
WNNN..... ....
.....""-JWOO1N'&::O'W
.J::>,.-.J(()Nm.J::>,.(().J::>,.
r!!!
0"
() C/l 3
~ :!J ~~
~. ~ tf.~
~~~~~r:0f'Vf'V~ ~cn
ggggg~~~ ~g.
()o
C/l!2.
>r
~~~~~~~~~rci~
g;fg~~~~~~91~-~
tf. tf.?fl. tf.?f? 'if? tf. if. g" -- ~
'<
'"
or
............... .....
-.JO'1F'VO-.J.l:>.F\.)
N.....010~OOO>O'I
>
0.
C/lo.
[5
<1> :J
:J !!!.
eno
~
r
OlO>O>OlO'l<o<ocoS!2g
~~~6~6~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~
~
()
Ol
'"
o.Ol
-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<<1>g
m m m m m m m m ~ ~
0.3
<1>
~
m"
:J ,
a ..2.
=<1>
3 n
<1> <1>
f\.)I\.)I'0I\,)NNNN:Ja.
<O-.JO>01~.l:>oWN"'"
.....000'1 -.J......Q)<D
.J::>,r-vO-.JC,..l.t>.......O
r!:
00:
() C/lo.
~"Tl<Oco
~~~g'
NNNNNNNI'VR :!JS
*~*~~~~~ ~~
()O
C/lC/l
<o(()oo(X)(Xloooo-.Jf;; ?'~
O:>.J::>,.COO1w.....o.......=r3:Q)
~~~~~~~~~g~~
tf. tf. tf. tf. eft. tf. tf. tf. g -- (ii'
>
0.
C/lo.
[5
<1> :J
:J !!!.
eno
COcn.......01J::>.f\J...... ~
O>.J::>.OOlf\JCD01W
r
OCOCOCD()JCO():)-.J~g
~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~
~
()
Ol
'"
o.Ol
ZZ~~~~~~~~.
o 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0
0.3
<1>
~
m"
:J ,
a .2.
=<1>
3 n
<1> <1>
-.J......-.J-...J-.JO>O>O>::Ja.
m.J:::o.NOO<OO>W.....
O"'+:-.O>O>W<OW
O>O:IO>O>......OOOOw
5g.
() C/l~
~"Tl ~(Il
u - 0(")
QJ(J)o=r
-.J-.J-.J-.J-.J-.J-.J-.....l~I~~
~~~~~~~~ ~5
.. C/l
()>
C/l:J
~f~8fg~~~~r?'~
~~~~~~~~91g~;.
eft. tf. rfl. tf. tf.tf. tf. tf. g" -- ~
~
.....<D()Jo>.t>.w-o.
N<D/'\.)01<DNOOW
>
0.
C/lo.
[5
<1> :J
:J !!!.
eno
~
r
(0(0 (0 (0<0 00 co co f::!2g
E~~~~~~~~!
~~~~~~~~~~
~
()
Ol
'"
o.Ol
-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<mg
m rn rn m m rn rn rn ~5
0.3
<1>
~
P'VP'VNf\.)f\.)NNN
00000000
-lU;o;~a;o;:;;:~N
o
--i
>
r
~
oOOOOOOOON
.J::>,.J::>,0000000
N
N(..)WWWNN
......OlOlOlOlOloom
'"
.J::>,O.J::>,.J::>,.J::>,.J::>,OOOON
0l......000000.J::>,
Nwmmmmmmw
Cn~oooooor-v
.J::>,.t:-OOOOOOO
....
NOl""'-J""'-J""'-J""'-J.J::>,.J::>,......
r-vooooooor-v
000000000
mNNNNN............O
<ooo,o,o,o,CnCn~
ONOOOOOOOO
~
""'-JNNNNNNN
......00l0l0l0l.............t:-
:.....~o'o'o'o'CnCno'
.J::>,moooooooo
""'-J""'-JOlNO""'-J.t:-N
NN......OlO.J::>,oomOl
~
oOOOOOOOON
~~ooooobo
000000000
mNNNNN............O
o,oo,Coo,ooCnCn~
00000000000
00...... ......000
~o~~~~oooor-v
Ol......oooooo.t:-
<0 ~~
Ol.......J::>,.J::>,.t:-.t:-NNN
:.....~Nr-vr-vr-v~~:.....
W......OOOOOON
<DCDOO-..JOl.t:-N
mm.t:-omNOOOlW
'" ~
.t:-ONNNNNNN
~ooooooo~
00000000000
OONWWWW............O
~~~~~~~~~
00...... ......000
~O~~~~o,oor-v
0l......000000.J::>,
......wmmmm:;;:.t:-w
~~~~~~~~;;;
...... ...... <D (Xl en .t:- w
NN<DNOl<DN(XlW
~~~~~:~~~ ~
~8~~~~~~~ ~~
~:"'~~~~~~i:; ~~
",'t~~~~~-", ==
m~oooooor-v
.t:-.J::>,OOOOOOO
'"
~r~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~g
Cow~~~~www
No.t:-.J::>,.J::>,.J::>,mm......
mw.t:-~~~(Xl(XlO
oCnoooooo~
())())OOOOOoo
'"
~~~~~~~
~"""~"""~"""."""~"""~"""~"""E:R
wmmmm.J::>,~w
ONmmmmoo......
N~OOOO<D<DOl
:....:....mmmmcoco-~
WOl())())OO())OO......
.J::>,())OlOlOlc.nCO<D())
:""':"""ooooooCn
NNOOOOOOO
~
- 0
it"1J~
~~~
re~' ~
2- a
C/l
00 S'
"Tllf<.
_<1>
C"Tl
:J Ol
~: ~.
'"
"lJ
o
"8
'"
<1>
0.
;Jll
~>;:: 51
,,'O!:.. 0.:
~ ~ ~ ~
c 3 Q) ;;.
~ a~ ~
<1>
<
co
0"
"
3
co
a
~;::
:J c:
ca.~
:J 0 "
~~3
"Tl _.
..9-<
OC/l
:"'"Tl
O>C/l
",-
~ ~
C/l:J
~oo
0;::
"'"Tl
0>
"'C/l
<1> _
, c:
;::~
"Tl:J
>-
-'"
m
co
3
..
"
~
(Il
n
:r
o
!2.
~
c
C/l 0.
n ..
~ m :J
~[-lUi
(j)CD2-
ca~
o.Ol
~~
0;::
0"Tl
N()
'" C/l
<1> _
, c:
;::~
"Tl:J
-000
g>
5"!:TIQ
Q. ~ 3
(j)CD!:..
-:JOl
5. 5i' ~.
<1> ' <
:J '< <1>
en
OC/l
:","Tl
OC/l
",-
~ ~
C/l:J
"Tl-
-'"
0;::
0"Tl
"'>
"'C/l
<1> -
, c:
;::~
"Tl:J
>-
-'"
."
c:
!2:
!: n'
O:(fl
~g.
C/lo
g.Q..
[fJI
(Il
C-
o.
co
a
'"
0;::
0"Tl
~()
"'C/l
<1> _
, C
;::0.
"Tl~
()-
-'"
C/l
~~
Q.~
!!';::
5.0:
<1> Q,
:J <1>
en
(j)~~
[~~
~~?I
Vi ~ ~.
OC/l
:","Tl
NC/l
~ ~
<1>
C/l:J
~Vi
0;::
0"Tl
<0>
"'C/l
<1> -
, c
;::~
"Tl:J
>-
-'"
;.
:r
(Il
n
~
o
!2.
~
c
0.
<1>
a
'"
0;::
0"Tl
~()
"'C/l
<1> _
, C
;::0.
"Tl~
()-
-'"
C/l
n
~--i
g 2-
-Ol
C/l-
cI
~~
en
(j)~Q
C'::r3
0. C/l c:
CD () Q)
~ 6" ;r.
Q.<1>
'"
'" w
~w
;::t
"Tl'"
'"
3"
"
..
!l
"Tl
..
..
--i
o
IiI
.
z
o
~
3"
"0
Ql
g.
CD'
CD
ofJl
Ql
fJl
Ql
0..
o
"0
ro
0..
0-
'<
o
g
ro'
...,
o
o
e
:J
-?
~
Ql
0..
0..
...,
CD
fJl
fJl
Ql
:J
'<
Ql
0..
g:
O'
:J
9:1..
3'
"0
Ql
n
Ui
o
:J
"0
e
2:
o'
OJ'
~
;::;:
ro'
fJl
n
...,
CD
Ql
ro
0..
0-
'<
:T
CD
Ql
0..
~
O'
:J
9:1..
0..
co
:J
fJl
~
Ql
:J
0..
5'
ro
:J
fJl
~.
...,
CD
.0
e
CD
fJl
ro
0..
:J
:T
Cii"
(j)
s::
""0
Ql
3
CD
:J
0..
3
CD
~
G
-1NNNNNNNN
000000000
........Jrr.~.....)"....Jrr.....Jrr.-Jrr.--1o.....Jrr.
!!!.<OO>"O'lCJ1.j::>.v.>N
.....
:"'~~~~~~~CJ1
~0CJ1CJ1CJ1CJ1000
~IN .j::>. CJ1 CJ1 CJ1 CJ1 .j::>. .j::>. .....
~NCJ1CJ1CJ1CJ1000
000000000
c;-.1t...........--1.-l......-Jrr.O
i-lNmmmm...........N
.....NOOOOO'lO'l<O
~ ~/H:fHfl ~fHfl ffi ffi ffi
(."Nv.>v.>v.>v.>NNO'l
.j::>.~8585858585850'l
;-J ...... 0, Cx>CXl 0, 0, 0, ~
~~~~~~88~
?oooooooo
o
O'lNNNN..................N
"'0000""""
" . . CJ1CJ10.
U'lOOOO'O'O'OCJ1
000000000
000000000
zzzzzzzz
~--------------
)>)>)>)>)>)>)>)>
zzzzzzzz
j;j;j;j;j;j;j;j;
c;.....--1o.--1o.-l.....Jr..........Jr,.O
i-lNmmmm............N
.....NOOOOO'lO'l<O
0'l0'lCJ1CJ1CJ10'lCJ1-=:
v.>CJ1.j::>."<ONO>"
~~?'~?'''''''~m
0>0'l.j::>.0'l.j::>.0>v.>~
-<-<-<-<-<-<-<z
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0
1Zffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
.. . CJ1 O'l O'l O'l O'l .j::>. .j::>. ......
~OO'lO'lO'lO'lO>O>N
(5 ~ ;.n ;.n ;.n ;.n .j::>. .j::>. .......
- v.> O'l O'l O'l O'l ...... ...... 0
S!o.j::>..j::>..j::>..j::>.OON
::::i"~~~~!'V!'VCJ1
. ......NNNNOOCJ1
~0CJ1CJ1CJ1CJ1000
~
.....
.j::>.
o
"N
.....
'"
IN
U'I
ffi
......
.j::>.
o
N
......
N
W
CJ1
~ 0
~""O~
n :J" CD
QlQl-
-fJlo
-< -. "0
CD :J 3
Ql (Q CD
..., :J
~ -
o
C:E
:J co
~s:
(Q
"0 ~
CD )>
ijlfJl""OO
o~o:;u
:J31?:::::
15 5' OJ ""0
...,(Q e.C
p-!'Vgo
e 0
.:...... '
~N
N~8
"0. -<0
0<00.....
"OQl-.....
enenc
![coCD;U
O' ~ S. )>
:J......no..
fJlOCDo
~oen"O
actm
!Jl 0..
o
~"TIm
NQl_
v.>no
0-0 ...,
. =:;u
o~CD
o CD n
OfJl...,
j;rCD
n 0 ~
co en O'
~ :J
9:1..
o
o
:J
< )>
~CDo..O
fJl '< 0.. :;u
.0 ~ _. :::::
. ~-""O
? :J g' C
~ro9:1..0
:J
~.
-<
rN
CD 0
< 0
~<O
8,)>
enC
CD ;U
S. )>
n 0..
CD 0
en "0
Cia;
!Jl 0..
:JO)>-
roO 0..3
r :J :J 0.."0
OfJl < a;Ql
en~~gg.
o CD Ql 0
:Jo..--
z
m.
)>a~
3 3 co
co_Ql
:J :J" fJl
0.. CD CD
3(j):;U
~ s:: CD
-""O~
;::;"
5'
(Q
~ N
en 0
emo
..., x <0
"Q.. (ii' )>
fjj g. s
;:::: (Q :;u
00-
CD Ql :J
=if"O ~
-. Ql :J
CD n _
:) ;:::;: 0
~'<-<
::::::: 0
-
o
C-Ql
0"0
)>:Js::Ql
3 g- CD Q. )>
CD""CD-<o..
:J ""0 - =r; CD
o..""OQl.o
3 0 co n e
~-g3~*
f""+(lJm,<
.~ ~ 5. :j
co
fJl
3' .gj 0...... )>
"oQl~fJl
~ 2 ...... ~
- fJl 3
- Qo.o _.
CD ffi ;:p :J
CD N' (Q
15"".!>.8,~
..., N_(Q
0.. ~ <' .
c ~~. 8,
......
~~
...,'0::0
o v.> 0
00>0
3 m 3
~......
"OI
CD 0
..., ~
(")
o
3
3
(I)
n \J
~~
,..
1/1
Z
1Il
..
o
1Il
3
\II
::l
0..
Qo
~
Q.
~
e
\II
..
1Il
(")
~
\II
n
~
.
3"
'tl
\II
n
..
"
1Il
(I)
-1NNNNNNNN
000000000
[<ooo::jm~~w~
.....
:"'~~~~~~~CJ1
~0CJ1CJ1CJ1CJ1000
_IN .j::>. CJ1 CJ1 CJ1 CJ1 .j::>. .j::>. ......
~NCJ1CJ1CJ1CJ1000
000000000
::0
1Il
1/1
a:
1Il
::l
..
~
3:
c
2!
.j::>.00000000
i-lo,mmmm~~......
"'OO'lO'lO'lO'lO>O>N
"
\II
3
~
~ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
~~~~~~~~~
....Ii.01--1o.--lo.....Jr.....Jr..OO
U'I<oo,o,o,o,"".!>."".!>.8
~~888888~
000000000
mNNNJ\.)-Jrr.-l.-"1\.)
"'0000""""
" . . CJ1CJ10.
u,OOOO'O'OoCJ1
000000000
000000000
zzzzzzzz
j;j;j;j;j;);j;j;
:::0
CD
CO
o
::l
Ql
zzzzzzzz
j;j;j;j;j;j;j;j;
.j::>.00000000
i-lo,mmmm~~......
"'OO'lO'lO'lO'lO>O>N
cr;~~t;3fd~~~
.j::>.<Owco......~<ow
~.j::>..j::>..j::>..j::>..j::>..j::>..j::>.
z-<-<-<-<-<-<-<
O CD co CD co CD co CD
fJl fJl fJl fJl fJl fJl fJl
~ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
("'~~~~~~~O'l
......O'>....Jr......Jr.-Jr......wwO'1
9'wO'O'O'O'................U3
~v.>0'l0'l0'l0'l"".j::>.
Q)0'l <0 <0 <0 <0 0> 0>.
.~ <0 ~ " ~ ~ 0 0 ~
C;0CJ1CJ1CJ1CJ100
~
Q)
"
<0
IN
~
:..,
ffi
O'l
"
<0
v.>
.j::>.
"
o
o
~ 0
~""O~
n :J" CD
QlQl-
- fJl 0
-< _. "0
CD :J 3
Ql (Q CD
~ a
o
C:E
:J co
~s:
(Q
'tl ~
CD )>
ijlfJl""OO
0~0:;u
:J31?:::::
15 5' OJ ""0
-,co=-.C
p-!'Vgo
e 0
~ '
~N
~<O
......CDO
"ONO<O
.gQl-)>
enenC
-""co-
~~<:;u
g ::. o' 5:
fJl 0 CD 0
~Oen"O
actro
fJl 0..
o
~"TIm
t;3~o
0-. ...,
o =:;u
o :::-. CD
OCDn
OfJl...,
j;rCD
n 0 ~
co en O'
~ :J
Ql
o
o
:J
< )>
~CDo..O
fJl '< 0.. :;u
.0 ~ _. :::::
. ~-""O
? :J g' C
~ro9:1..0
:J
fJl
~
rN
CD 0
< 0
~<O
8,)>
enC
CD ;U
S. )>
n 0..
CD 0
en "0
a.m
!Jl 0..
;:a.~5:3"
r~:Jo.."O
o fJl < ;::;: Ql
en ~ ~ g' g.
o co Ql 0
:Jo..--
z
)> m.
3_-
CD ..., :J
:J 0 n
0.. 3 co
3 - Ql
CD :J" fJl
:J CD CD
-(j):;U
); s:: CD
Q""O~
CD =
~ :J
(Q
N
en 0
emo
..., x <0
"Q.. (ii' )>
fjj g. S
..:=:::: co ;U
00-
~Ql~
n"Oco
ro' ~ ;:a.
:J -. 0
~-<-<
::::::: 0
-
o
C-Ql
0"0
)>:Js::Ql
3 g- CD Q. )>
CD""CD-<o..
:J""O-=r;CD
o..""OQl.o
~ .g co Q. ~
:J03~ro
-fJlQl,<
.~ ~ 5. :j
CD
fJl
-. CJ') -Jr.
3"00 )>
"oQl~fJl
Ql n ...... fJl
n CD e
- fJl 3
- Qo.o _.
~ ~?cE
"O.OQl
CDv.>_<
~~;f"~
0> 5' 0
e <O(Q _
.....
~ v.>
ffiU'l
CJ1'
...,o:;U
o v.> 0
o. 0
2. ~ 3
"OI
CD 0
..., -
~
Z
1Il
..
o
1Il
3
\II
::l
Q.
Qo
~
Q.
~
C
\II
..
1Il
(")
~
\II
n
~
.
3"
'tl
\II
n
..
"
1Il
1Il
-1NNNNNNNN
000000000
........Jrr......-.lr...........-.Jo.-Jr.....Jr.
!!!.<OO>"O'lCJ1.j::>.v.>N
.....
:"'~~~~~~~CJ1
~0CJ1CJ1CJ1CJ1000
~.j::>.CJ1CJ1CJ1CJ1.j::>..j::>."""
~NCJ1CJ1CJ1CJ1000
000000000
::0
1Il
1/1
a:
1Il
::l
..
~
3:
c
2!
00000000
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,
<0<0<0<0<0<0<0<0
"
\II
~.
-<
-'" N v.> v.> v.> v.> N N CJ1
~~~~~~~~~
g:Coo,o,o,o,ooo
Q)NNNN..................N
"'0000""""
".0 . CJ1CJ10.
U'lOOOO'O'O'OCJ1
000000000
000000000
(")
o
3
3
1Il \J
n Ql
~*
1/1
zzzzzzzz
j;j;j;j;j;j;j;j;
(')
o
3
3
s:::
::l
;:;:
'<
zzzzzzzz
j;j;j;j;j;j;j;j;
'"
bNv.>v.>v.>v.>NNCJ1
".j::>.NNNNv.>v.><o
Q)".j::>..j::>..j::>..j::>.0'l0'l.
eoCoCJ10,CJ1CJ1000
v.>v.>v.>.j::>..j::>..j::>.CJ1CJ1
NCn<ONCnO'......"".!>.
CJ10>......v.>.j::>.0'l0'l0'l
O'lO'lNv.><oOO'l"
......O'Cnww"".!>.Ol"".!>.
o N.j::>..j::>. 0 0>""""""
......NO'lO>NNO<O
-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<
CD co CD CD co CD co CD
fJl fJl fJl fJl fJl fJl fJl fJl
zzzzzzzz
j;j;j;j;j;j;j;j;
zzzzzzzz
);j;j;j;j;j;j;j;
~ 0
~""O~
n :J" co
QlQl-
-fJlO
-< _. "0
CD :J 3
Ql (Q CD
..., :J
~ -
o
C:E
:J co
~~
(Q
"0 ~
CD )>
ijlfJl""OO
o~o:;u
:J31?:::::
15 5' OJ ""0
...,(Q:::-.C
P-NgO
e 0
.:...... '
~N
~<o
-I co 0
""0-<0
-<8,)>
"OenC
CDCD-
..., < :;u
0_. )>
Ql n 0..
"2. co 0
-en"O
~Q.m
!Jl 0..
0-5
CD Ql
:J n
fJl -
- -. 0
-;~-,
""0 0 )>
-<:Jo..
~ 0..
r _.
Oe.
eng
9:1..
o
o
:J
< )>
~CDo..O
fJl ct5 0.. ~
.p C. ;:::;: ::a
? :J g' C
~ro9:1..0
:J
~.
.:<
~N
~<o
-I CD 0
""0-<0
-<8,)>
"OenC
CDCD-
..., < :;u
0_. )>
Ql n 0..
"2. CD 0
-en"O
~c:m
!Jl 0..
:JO)>-
-00..3
r~:Jo.."O
OfJl<;::;:Ql
en ~ ~ g' g.
o co Ql 0
:Jo..--
z
)> m.
3_-
CD ..., :J
:J 0 n
0.. 3 co
3 - Ql
CD :J" fJl
:J CD CD
;::(j):;U
-IS:: CD
g""O~
en ~
~ :J
(Q
N
mO
x 0
0-. <0
Ql fJl .....
-oe:..v
Ql:JC
n (Q -
;::;:"TI:;U
'<Ql-
~n:J
-I -. <
o ~ CD
:J ro" ;:a.
fJl fJl 0
~o-<
..., 0
-
o
C-Ql
0"0
)>:Js::Ql
3 g- CD Q. )>
CD""CD-<o..
:J ""0 - =r; co
o..""OQl.o
3 0 co n E
co"03=~
:JO ;::;:CD
-fJlQl,<
'V ~ 5. :j
CD
fJl
z
j;
z
j;
Z
1Il
..
o
1Il
3
\II
::l
Q.
Qo
~
Q.
~
C
\II
..
1Il
(")
~
\II
n
~
.
3"
'tl
\II
n
..
;r
1Il
Q
::0
1Il
1/1
a:
1Il
::l
..
~
3:
c
2!
"
\II
~.
r<
(")
o
3
3
1Il
.,
n
~cn
o
a.
:E
Ql
1/1
-
CD
"U
c
0-
(')
"
Ol
Q.
2:m
CD x
C/l :r
Q:
......
:3
"Or
Ol
(')
......
)>
:J
Ol
'<
C/l
C/l
'"
Hacienda Lakes aka Toll-Rattlesnake PUD
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
GMP Application
CCPC Review Materials
EXHIBIT M
Environmental Report
"
,
D\llf ~
CO\SlUI\G ~
J.~' 11 J.~,,!'
o
o
o
-
Exhibit M
Vegetation mapping of the Project site was first conducted by Passarella & Associates,
Inc. (P AI) between January and August 2002 and in March 2003 utilizing the Florida
Land Use, Cover and FOlms Classification System (FLUCFCS) (Florida Department of
Transp0l1ation 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 ferebinfh[{olius) and melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenerl'ia)).
In August 2009, PAl conducted fieldwork to update the FLUCFCS map for the Hacienda
Lakes DRI to reflect current conditions due to wildfires that OCCUlTed 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 Pelmit (ERP) application (SFWMD Application No. 100126-5).
AutoCAD Map 3D 2009 software was used to detennine the acreage of each mapping
area, produce summaries, and generate the final FLUCFCS and Wetlands maps (Maps F,
F-I, 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 westem and central portion of the propel1y. The
melaleuca infestation generally decreases towards the eastem 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 Description Acreage Percent
Code 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, Hydric 54.43 2.4
3219 E 1 Palmetto Prairie, Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics) 27.81 1.2
3219 E2 Palmetto Prairie, Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics) 12.60 0.6
3219 E3 Palmetto Prairie, Disturbed (50 - 75% Exotics) 3.71 0.2
Passarella & Associates, Inc.
Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 1
o
o
FLUCFCS Description Acreage Percent
Code of Total
3219 E4 Palmetto Prairie, Disturbed (76 - 100% Exotics) 5.75 0.3
4119 EI 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 I Tropical Hardwood Hammock, Disturbed 0.40 <0.1
(0 - 24% Exotics)
4269 E2 Tropical Hardwood Hammock, Disturbed 2.25 0.1
(25 - 49% Exotics)
4279 E1 Live Oak, Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics) 3.89 0.2
4279 E2 Live Oak, Disturbed (50 - 75% Exotics) 0.29 <0.1
4289 E 1 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 EI Hardwood-Conifer, Mixed, Disturbed 1.47 0.1
(0 - 24% Exotics)
514 Ditch 3.38 0.1
6189 E 1 Willow, Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics) 10.97 0.5
6189 E2 Willow, Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics) 2.48 0.1
6219 E I Cypress, Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics) 157.74 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 1.32 0.1
(25 - 49% Exotics)
62459 E3 Pine/Cypress, Drained, Disturbed 2.36 0.1
(50 - 75% Exotics)
6249 E 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, BUll1ed (25-49% Exotics) 22.90 1.0
624B E3 Pine/Cypress, BUll1ed (50-75% Exotics) 9.56 0.4
6259 E I 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
o
Passarella & Associates, Inc.
Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 2
o
o
FLUCFCS Description Acreage Percent
Code of Total
6259 E4 Hydric Pine, Disturbed (76 - 100% Exotics) 12.00 0.5
625B E3 Hydric Pine, BUll1ed (50 - 75% Exotics) 1.22 0.1
6289 EI Hydric Cabbage Palm, Disturbed 2.64 0.1
(0 - 24% Exotics)
6289 E2 Hydric Cabbage Palm, Disturbed 6.94 0.3
(25 - 49% Exotics)
6289 E3 Hydric Cabbage Palm, Disturbed 2.09 0.1
(50 - 75% Exotics)
6309 E I Wetland Forested Mixed, Disturbed 19.90 0.9
(0 - 24% Exotics)
6309 E2 Wetland Forested Mixed, Disturbed 7.21 0.3
(25 - 49% Exotics)
6319 E3 Wetland ShlUb, Disturbed (50 - 75% Exotics) 5.83 0.3
641 9 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 BOITOW Area 5.38 0.2
743 Spoil 0.16 <0.1
747 Bell11 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 Sp0l1S Park with associated parking areas and
facilities.
o
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 ellioftii), cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), and young melaleuca (Melaleuca
quinquenerl'ia). The ground cover is dominated by bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum), and
smutgrass (Sporobolus indicus) with dog fennel (Eupatorium capill[folium), St.
Augustine grass (Stenotaphrum secundatum), carpetgrass (Axonopus spp.), blackroot
(Pterocaulon virgatum), broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), caesarweed (Urena
lobata), ShlUbby false buttonweed (Spermacoce verticillata), and love grass (Eragrostis
spp.)
Passarella & Associates, Inc.
Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 3
o
o
o
Rural Open Land (FLUCFCS Code 260)
This upland land type identifies an old agricultural area that includes two old fann
buildings. The canopy vegetation includes slash pine and cabbage palm. Sub-canopy
vegetation is mostly absent with OCCUlTences of cabbage palm, Brazilian pepper (Schinus
terebinth[folius), 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 pm1 of an abandoned agricultural field.
The canopy and sub-canopy of are mostly open with scattered slash pine, cabbage palm,
melaleuca, and cypress (Taxodium spp.). The ground cover is dominated by torpedograss
(Panicum repens), and includes a variety of upland, wetland, and transitional herbaceous
species which vary by season.
Palmetto Prairie. Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 3219 El)
The canopy of this upland habitat is absent or may contain scattered slash pine, cabbage
palm, em'leaf acacia (Acacia auricul[formis), and less than 25 percent melaleuca. The
sub-canopy contains saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), wax myrtle (Myrica cer[fera), and
Brazilian pepper. The ground cover is dominated by saw palmetto and contains varying
combinations of beautybelTY (Callicarpa americana), saltbush (Baccharis halimifolia),
staggerbush (Lyonia fruiticosa), hog plum (Prunus umbellata), gallbelTY (llex glabra),
bracken fell1 (Pteridiul11 aquilinum), wiregrass (Aristida stricta), pennyroyal (Piloblephis
rigida), muscadine grapevine (Vi tis rOfund[folia), greenbrier (Smilax spp.), poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans), love vine (Cassytha fil!formis), and Virginia creeper
(Parfhenocissus quinquefolia).
Palmetto Prairie. Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 3219 E2)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 3219 E I 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 E 1 with 50 to 75 percent
melaleuca and/or Brazilian pepper in the canopy and/or sub-canopy.
Palmetto Prairie. Disturbed (76 - 100% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 3219 E4)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 3219 E 1 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 E J)
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 mY111e, with occasional dahoon holly (llex 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
o
o
o
Pine Flatwoods. Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4119 E2)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 4119 E 1 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 E I with 50 to 75 percent
melaleuca and/or Brazilian pepper in the canopy.
Pine Flatwoods. Disturbed (76 - 100% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4119 E4)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 4119 El with greater than 75
percent melaleuca and/or Brazilian pepper in the canopy.
Pine. Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4159 E2)
The canopy of this upland habitat contains slash pine with scattered cabbage palm,
earleaf acacia, and melaleuca. The sub-canopy contains slash pine, cabbage palm,
melaleuca, and Brazilian pepper. Typical ground cover includes cabbage palm,
bahiagrass, wax mY111e, ragweed (Ambrosia arfemisiifolia), pennyroyal, wild coffee
(Psychofria sp.), greenbrier, muscadine grapevine, love vine, and widely scattered saw
palmetto.
Pine. Disturbed (50 - 75% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4159 E3)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 4159 E2 with 50 to 75 percent
melaleuca and/or Brazilian pepper in the canopy.
Pine. Disturbed (76-100% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4159 E4)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 4159 E2 with greater than 75
percent melaleuca and/or Brazilian pepper in the canopy.
Brazilian Pepper. Hydric (FLUCFCS Code 4221)
The canopy of this highly disturbed wetland area is dominated by Brazilian pepper and
may contain occasional melaleuca, slash pine and cypress. The sub-canopy is dominated
by Brazilian pepper with wax mYl1le and/or saltbush. The ground cover is absent or may
include sparse asiatic pennyw0l1 (Cenfella asiatica), frog-flUit (Phyla nodiflora), dog
fennel, water pennYW0l1 (Hydrocofyle umbellata), buttonweed (Diodia virginiana),
and/or mock bishop's weed (pfili1l1nium capfillaceum).
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 puncfafa), creeping oxeye (Sphagneficola frilobafa), and/or poison
IVY.
Passarella & Associates, Inc.
Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 5
o
o
o
Melaleuca. Hydric (FLU CFCS 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 mY111e, 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), lUsh fuirena (Fuirena
sciJpoidea), sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense), blue maidencane (Amphicmpum
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 El)
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 (Clllysobalanus
icaco), cabbage palm, red mulbelTY (Morus rubra), and Brazilian pepper. The ground
cover includes wild coffee, Boston fern (Nephrolepis exalfata), swamp fell1 (Blechnum
serrulafum), 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 E I 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 EI)
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 mY111e, 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
o
o
o
Cabbage Palm. Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4289 E2)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 4289 E I 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 EI 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 EI)
This upland community has a canopy consisting of slash pine, live oak, laurel oak, and
cabbage palm. The sub-canopy contains dahoon holly, wax mY111e, myrsine, Brazilian
pepper, and cabbage palm. The ground cover includes saw palmetto, dog fennel,
caesarweed, and wild coffee.
Ditch (FLUCFCS Code 514)
The canopy is typically open. The sub-canopy may contain Brazilian pepper, Carolina
willow (Salix caroliniana), and primrose willow (Ludwigia peruviana). The ground
cover typically consists of paragrass (Urochloa mufica), dotted smat1weed (Polygonll1n
pUnCfafl(111), pickerelweed (Ponfederia corda fa ), aITowhead (Sagitta ria lanc[folia), and
cattail (Typha spp.).
Willow. Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6189 EI)
The canopy and sub-canopy of this wetland habitat is dominated by Carolina willow and
may include buttonbush (Cephalanflllls occidenfalis), primrose willow, and Brazilian
pepper. The ground cover typically consists of sawgrass, fireflag (Thalia geniculafa),
aITowhead, pickerelweed, peppervine, paragrass, saltbush, and/or asiatic pennYW0l1.
Willow. Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6189 E2)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 6189 E I with 25 to 49 percent
exotics in the canopy and sub-canopy.
Cypress. Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6219 EI)
The canopy of this wetland habitat is dominated by cypress and may also include red
maple (Acer rubrum), swamp bay (Persea palusfris), 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 (Panicllm
hemifomon), wax mY111e, lUsh fuirena, corkwood (Sfillingia aquafica), swamp fern,
beaklUsh (Rhyncho::,pora spp.), and giant leather fern (Acrosfichium danae[folillm).
Passarella & Associates, Inc.
Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 7
o
o
o
Cypress. Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6219 E2)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 6219 E I 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 EI 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 mYl11e (R/lOdomyrfus fomenfosa), 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 El)
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, lUsh fuirena, corkwood, water pennYW0l1, rosy camphorweed (Plllchea
rosea), and cabbage palm.
Pine/Cypress. Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6249 E2)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 6249 E I 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 EI 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 E 1 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 reclUiting vegetation);
Passarella & Associates, Inc.
Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 8
o
o
o
~
therefore, the area was assigned the code and exotic level of the habitat prior to the
wi Idfire 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 reclUiting vegetation);
therefore, the area was assigned the code and exotic level of the habitat prior to the
wildfire and denoted with a 'B'.
Pine. Hydric. Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6259 E1)
The canopy of this wetland habitat consists of slash pine and melaleuca with scattered
cabbage palm and eat'leaf 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 monosfachyum), and/or lUsh fuirena.
Pine. Hydric. Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6259 E2)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 6259 EI 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 EI 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 E I with greater than 75
percent melaleuca in the canopy.
Hydric Pine. Burned (50 -75% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 625B E3)
This code identifies areas burned by a wildfire in May 2009. Prior to the wildfire, the
community type was identified as FLUCFCS Code 6259 E3. At the time the FLUCFCS
map was updated, the living vegetative community was not evident due to the recent
damage by the wildfire (i.e., dead pine and cypress trees, no reclUiting vegetation);
therefore, the area was assigned the code and exotic level of the habitat prior to the
wildfire and denoted with a 'B'.
Hydric Cabbage Palm. Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6289 E1)
The canopy of this wetland habitat contains cabbage palm, scattered slash pine, myrsine,
and less than 25 percent melaleuca and/or Brazilian pepper. The sub-canopy consists of
cabbage palm, slash pine, and melaleuca. The ground cover includes cabbage palm,
swamp fern, dog fennel, asiatic pennYW0l1, rush fuirena, yellow-eyed grass, and
occasional saw palmetto.
Passarella & Associates, Inc.
Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 9
o
o
o
Hydric Cabbage Palm. Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6289 E2)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 6289 E 1 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 EI 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 EI)
The canopy consists of cypress, laurel oak, red maple, cabbage palm, and melaleuca. The
sub-canopy contains pop ash (Fraxinlls caroliniana), cabbage palm, myrsine, wax mY111e,
and Brazilian pepper. The ground cover includes swamp fern, sawgrass, greenbrier, and
asiatic pennYW0l1.
Wetland Forested Mixed. Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6309 E2)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 6309 El with 25 to 49 percent
melaleuca and/or Brazilian pepper in the canopy and sub-canopy.
Wetland ShlUb. 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 m'borea), swamp fell1, sawgrass,
pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata), aITowhead (Saggitaria lanc[folia), fireflag,
maidencane, and asiatic pennYW0l1.
Freshwater Marsh, Disturbed (0 - 24% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6419 E I)
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, spikelUsh (Eleocharis interstincta), smat1weed,
maidencane, and torpedo grass.
Freshwater Marsh. Disturbed (25 - 49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6419 E2)
The vegetation associations are similar to FLUCFCS Code 6419 E 1 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 du/cis), white beggat1icks (Bidem pilosa), sandspur (Cenchrlls spp.),
smutgrass, saw palmetto, smutgrass, and bahiagrass.
Passarella & Associates, Inc.
Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 10
o
o
o
Disturbed Land. Hydric (FLUCFCS Code 7401)
The canopy and sub-canopy strata are typically open and may contain scattered wax
mY111e, melaleuca and/or Brazilian pepper. Ground cover vegetation is generally absent,
or may contain torpedograss, blue maidencane, frog-flUit, rosy camphorweed, yellow-
eyed grass, bushy broomsedge (Andropogon glomeratus), and asiatic pennywort.
BOITOW Area (FLUCFCS Code 742)
These open water habitats include areas of emergent and littoral vegetation including
cattail and spikelUsh.
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.
Benn (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 torpedo grass,
bahiagrass, carpetgrass, beaksedge, frog-flUit, 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 ofbahiagrass, smutgrass, and/or carpetgrass.
Passarella & Associates, Inc.
Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 11
o
o
o
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-flUit, bushy broomsedge, and/or rosy camphOlweed.
The Project includes 1,550:1: 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 ShlUb 0.5
641 Freshwater Marsh 50.5
740 Disturbed Land 0.9
7401 Disturbed Land, Hydric 4.5
742 BOITOW 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. (PAl). Listed species surveys
Passarella & Associates, Inc.
Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 12
-
o
were conducted on the following dates: September 10, II, 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, II, 17, 19,25, and 26, 2006; and November 14,2006.
On August II, 12, 13, 18, 19, and 25, 2009, PAl conducted an updated listed species
survey for the Project. The 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2009 surveys were perfOlmed 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 eff0l1 expended, and qualitative descriptions of weather
conditions experienced during the survey periods are listed below.
Listed Species Survey Dates, Times, and Weather Conditions
o
Date Man Hours Weather Conditions
On-Site
September 10,2002 24.0 Partly cloudy, light winds, temperatures in mid
to upper 80s.
September II, 2002 8.0 Cloudy with light rain showers, calm,
temperatures in mid 80s.
Mostly sunny with an afternoon rain shower,
September 18, 2002 28.0 light winds, temperatures in upper 80s to low
90s.
September 19,2002 24.0 Mostly sunny, light winds, temperatures in
upper 80s to low 90s.
October 16, 2002 9.0 Mostly sunny, light winds, temperature in upper
80s.
October 17, 2002 21.0 Clear, mostly calm, temperatures in low 80s.
October 18, 2002 20.0 Mostly sunny, light winds, temperatures in low
to mid 80s.
November 12, 2002 16.0 Partly cloudy, light winds, temperature in upper
80s.
November 13, 2002 16.0 Clear skies, windy, temperatures in low 70s.
November 14, 2002 20.0 Partly cloudy, light winds, temperatures in the
lower 80s.
June 4, 2003 24.0 Mostly cloudy with scattered showers, no wind,
temperatures in mid 80s.
June 5, 2003 12.0 Mostly cloudy with rain, no wind, temperatures
in mid 80s.
June 24, 2003 24.0 Mostly cloudy, light winds, temperatures in low
90s.
June 25, 2003 18.0 Mostly sunny, light winds, temperatures in mid
90s.
o
Passarella & Associates, Inc.
Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 13
o
October 10, 2006 25.5 Temperatures in upper 70s to lower 80s, winds
0-5 mph, clear, sunny
October II, 2006 25.5 Temperatures in upper 70s to lower 80s, winds
0-5 mph, pm11y 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, pm11y cloudy skies
August 11, 2009 20.5 Temperatures from the low 80s to low 90s,
winds 0-5 mph, clear to pm11y 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, pm11y cloudy
August 18, 2009 18.0 Temperatures from low 80s to mid 90s, winds
3-8 mph, pm11y cloudy, humid
August 19,2009 18.0 Temperatures from low 80s to low 90s, winds
0-5 mph, partly to mostly cloudy
August 25, 2009 12.0 Temperatures in the 80s, winds 3-5 mph, partly
cloudy
o
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 Concell1; 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.
o
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-l 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
o
o
o
survey transects walked for the 2009 updated listed species survey are shown on Map G-
2. Surveys were conducted during daylight hours, typically stm1ing 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 lOx
power binoculars.
The September through November 2002 and June 2003 listed species survey methods
were consistent with FWCC guidelines for completing Section 18.0 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 p0l1ion 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 (Eumopsfloridanus) 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 OCCUlTences of listed species. Also, the
presence of suitable habitat and consideration of the probability of listed species
OCCUlTing within the Project area was investigated. The recommended procedures for
addressing listed species concell1S 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 -I). A list of
potential listed species for mapped areas was then generated based on the habitat types
present (Table 12.C-I).
Passarella & Associates, Inc.
Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 15
o
o
o
List of Potential Listed Species That Could Occur on the Project Site
Group Common Name Scientific Name
Wood Stork Mycteria american a
Florida Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis pratensis
Roseate Spoonbill Ajaia ajaja
Wading Bird Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea
Snowy Egret Egretta thula
Tli-Colored Heron Egretta tricolor
White Ibis Eudocimus albus
Limpkin Aramus gllarallTla
Large Raptors Snail Kite Rostrhamus sociabilis
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocep/wlus
Aquatic American Alligator Alligator mississippiensis
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis
Pine Flatwoods Cavity Southeastern American Falco ::,pan1erius paulus
Nesting Kestrel
Florida bonneted bat Eumops floridanus
Big Cypress Fox SquiITel Sciurus niger slzermani
Mammals Florida Black Bear Ursus americanus
floridanus
Florida Panther Puma concolor c01:yi
Ten-estrial Reptiles and Eastell1 Indigo Snake Dlymarchon corais couperi
Gopher Frog Rana capito
Amphibians Gopher T0110ise Goplzerus po(yphemus
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
o
potential nesting sites. The locations of existing bald eagle nests and telTitories 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 fOUl1een days.
Transects, observation stations, and observed wildlife were recorded on a map.
o
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. Detelmination 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 prefelTed 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 stlUctures. Surveys were conducted for a period of approximately one hour near the
buildingistlUcture 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
buildinglstlUcture location, the observation station was relocated to areas that might
provide potential foraging habitat.
o
Mammal Group
The locations of documented OCCUITences 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 squiITel 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
o
o
o
TeITestrial Reptiles and Amphibians
Suitable habitats were surveyed by pedestrian transects conducted between early and
mid-afternoon. Within potential gopher t0l10ise habitats and when a gopher t0110ise
bUlTOW or other sign (i.e" scat) was observed, the transect spacing was naITowed 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.C-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-I. Locations of listed wildlife species observed during the 2009
listed species survey, and other fieldwork conducted on the Project site from August 2009
through December 2009, are shown on Map G-2.
Listed Wildlife Species Observed on the Hacienda Lakes Property
Common Name Scientific Name Status
FWCC USFWS
Reptiles
American Alligator Alligator mississippiensis SSC T(S/A)
Gopher Tortoise (buITow) Gopherus polyphemus T --
Birds
Snowy Egret Egretta thula SSC --
Little Blue Heron Egretta caerula SSC n
Tri-colored Heron Egreffa tricolor SSC n
Roseate Spoonbill Aiaia (!iaja SSC n
White Ibis Eudocimus albus SSC n
Wood Stork Mycteria americana E E
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis T E
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus n *
Mammals
Big Cypress Fox SquilTel Sciurus niger avicennia T n
Florida Black Bear Ursus americanusfloridanus T --
Florida Panther (sign) Puma con color cOl:yi E E
FWCC - Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
USFWS - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
E - Endangered
T - Threatened
T(St 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
o
o
o
American Alligator (Allirmtor mississinniellsis)
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 p011ion of the propel1y.
One American alligator was observed in a freshwater marsh habitat in the southem
pOI1ion of the site. A juvenile American alligator was observed on a flooded trail in
hydric melaleuca habitat in the central p0l1ion of the Project site.
Gopher T0l10ise (Gonlzerus polvnlzemus)
One inactive gopher t0110ise bUll'OW was observed on the Project site during the 2006
listed species survey. The gopher t0l10ise bUll'OW 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 t0l10ise
bUITOWS were identified in palmetto prairie habitat located nOl1h of Sabal Palm Road and
just south of the state-owned outparcel. At the time of the survey, both bUITOWS were
inundated with water. The gopher t0110ise bUITOW located during the 2006 survey was
not observed during the 2009 survey and no other bUlTOWS were identified in the
northeastem p011ion of the Project.
Snowy Egret (Ee.retta 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 (Ee.retfa 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 (Egrefta 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
o
o
o
Wood Stork (Mvcteria 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 n011heast of
the Project.
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetlls lellcocepllallls)
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 fa1111 field along the nOl1h side of Sabal Palm Road; east of
the Willow Run Quany; 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-O 15) is located 1.5:1: miles northeast of the
Project boundary in Section 6, Township 50 South, Range 27 East. Bald eagle nest co-
O 15 was rep011ed 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 rep011ed 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 easte111
p011ion of the Project site just n0l1h of Sabal Palm Road. It was noted that the cavity
trees did not have resin wells. One RCW was observed on the northeaste111 p011ion of the
property during the RCW nesting season foraging survey in May 2004. DUling 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 SqUilTel (ScillruS nieer avicennia)
Big cypress fox squin-els have been observed on-site in aSSOCIatIOn with hydric
melaleuca, pine-cypress, and pine habitats, as well as in pine trees in the abandoned fann
field on the north side of Sabal Palm Road.
Florida Black Bear (Ursus americanllS floridanlls)
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
o
Florida Panther (Pllma con color corvi)
The Project site is located within the Primmy 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 dil1 trail on the east side of the Project site (east of the
Sports Park); on a trail east of Willow Run Quany; 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 Potentiallv Occur On The Site
o
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
OCCUlTence of these species included Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida Volume 1.
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
o
Common Name Scientific Name Desi2nated Status Potential Locations
FWCC USFWS (FLUCFCS Code)
Amphibians and Reo tiles
Gopher Frog Rana capito SSC 211/260/32191
- 4119/4279
Eastem Indigo D,ymarchon corais T T 260/3219/41191
Snake couperl 4269/427942891
Eastern Indigo D'Yllwrchon corais 42891/4349/62191
Snake T T 424916259163091
(Continued) couperi 6419/743/832
Birds
Limpkin Aramus guarauna SSC - 514/6419/742
Southeastern Falco ::,parverius T 4119/4159/6259
American Kestrel paulus -
Florida Sandhill Grus canadensis T 211/260/262/32191
Crane pratensis - 6419/740/7401
BUl1'owing Owl Athene cunicularia SSC 211/260
f!oridana -
Mammals
Florida Bonneted Eumops .f!ori danus E 4119/4289/434915251
Bat - 5301624916259162891
Passarella & Associates, Inc.
Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 21
o
o
o
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 t0l10ise. Gopher t0l10ise habitat on-site is limited.
Pre felTed 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 (DrvlIlardlOn corais cOl/Peri)
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 Eastem indigo snake is
typically found in association with populations of gopher t0l10ise. Gopher t0110ise habitat
is limited and no eastem indigo snakes were found on-site.
Limpkin (Aralllus !!uarall1w)
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 rep011ed occupied by brown pelicans in 1989. No limpkins
were found on-site.
Southeastem American Kestrel (Falco sparverius vaulus)
Potential habitat for Southeastem 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 Southeastem 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 (Grus canadensis pratensis)
Potential foraging habitat for Florida sandhill crane may exist within the Disturbed Land
(FLUCFCS Code 740); Pasture (FLUCFCS Code 212); Open Rural Land (FLUCFCS
Code 260) Low Pasture, Hydric (FLUCFCS Code 262); and Freshwater Marshes,
Disturbed (FLUCFCS Code 6419) on the Project. PrefelTed 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
o
o
o
--
Burrowing Owl (Atlzene cllniclllaria floridana)
Potential bUlTowing owl habitat exists along the benns in the Pasture (FLUCFCS Code
212) and Rural Open Land (FLUCFCS Code 260) habitat on the Project site. No
bUITowing owls were observed on-site.
Florida bonneted bat (E1ll110PS floridanus). fOlmerly known as the Florida mastiff bat
(E1ll110TJS f!laucinlls (loridanus)
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
Desi2;nated Status Habitat
Common Name Scientific Name FDACS USFWS (FLUCFCS
Code)
Butterfly Orchid Encyclia tal11pensis C - 6249
Stiff-Leaved Wild Tillandsia fasciculata E 6219/6249/
Pine - 6259/6289
Giant Airplant Tillandsia lltriclllata E 6219/6249/
- 6259/6289
Cow horn Orchid Cyrtopodiul11 E - 6249
TJuncta tum
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 Potentiallv 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
OCCUl1'ence of these species included personal experience and knowledge of the
geographic region.
Passarella & Associates, Inc.
Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 23
o
o
o
Listed Plant Species That Could Potentially Occur on the Hacienda Lakes Property
Deshmated Status Potential
Common Name Scientific Name Location
FDACS USFWS (FLUCFCS
Code)
Bird's nest spleenwort; Asplenium serratum E - 4281
wild birdnest fe1l1
Long strap fe1l1 Ca mpyl oneu rum E - 6219
phyllitidus
Whi te-squiITel- banana; Deeringothamnlls E E 4119
beautiful pawpaw pulchellus
Catesby's lily Lilium catesbaei T - 6259
Hand adder's tongue Ophioglossum E - 4289
fe1l1 palmatum
Inflated wild pine Tillandsia balbisiana T - 4289
Florida coon tie Zamia floridana C - 4119
Simpson's zephyr lily Zephyranthes T - 6259
simpsonii
FDACS - Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
USFWS - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
C - Commercially Exploited
E - Endangered
T - Threatened
The site plan has been designed to minimize impacts to the listed species that have been
identified on the property. The site plan minimizes impacts to the higher quality wetland
and upland habitat on the eastern p0l1ion 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 p0l1ions 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 propel1y. The site
plan design preserves the higher quality wetlands located on the eastern p0l1ion 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 pennitted conservation
area along Willow Run Quarry's easte1l1 boundary.
The wetland mitigation plan for the Project includes the enhancement and preservation
of 1,281:1: acres of on-site wetlands and 260:1: acres of on-site uplands. In addition, 46:1:
acres (31:1: acres of wetlands, 9:1: acres of uplands, and 5:1: acres of OSWs), located
Passarella & Associates, Inc.
Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 24
o
o
o
within existing easements on the Project site, will be preserved. These 46::1: 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 p011ions 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 Depm1ment of Transp011ation. 1999. Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification
System. Procedure No. 550-0 I 0-00 I-a. Third Edition.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2009. Florida's Endangered Species,
Threatened Species, and Species of Special Concem; 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 I. 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 I,
Pages 118-133.
Passarella & Associates, Inc.
Hacienda Lakes GMP Amendment
Exhibit M
Page 25
o
o
o
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, lA, 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., lA., 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 Rep011 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
FLUCFCS %OF
CODE DESCRIPTION TOTAL
180 RECREATIONAL 79.89 Ac. 3.5%
212 UNIMPROVED PASTURE 9.14Ac. 0.4%
260 RURAL OPEN LAND 10.54 Ac. 0.5%
262 LOW PASTURE, HYDRIC 54.43 Ac. 2.4%
3219El PALMETTO PRAIRIE, DISTUR8ED (0-24% EXOTICS) 27.81 Ac. 1.2%
3219E2 PALMETTO PRAIRIE, DISTURBED (25-49% EXOTICS) 12.80 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%
4119El PINE FLATWOODS, DISTURBED (0-24% EXOTICS) 90.01 Ac. 4.0%
4119E2 PINE FLATWOODS, DISTURBED (25-49",1, EXOTICS) 143.78 Ac. 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.nAc.::t 0.3%
4159E3 PINE. DISTURBED (50-75% EXOTICS) 10.78 Ac.'" 0.5%
4159E4 PINE, DISTURBED (76-100% EXOTICS) 6.47 Ac.'" 0.3%
4221 BRAZILIAN PEPPER, HYDRIC 1.81 Ac.:!:. 0.1%
424 MELALEUCA 13.70 Ac.'" 0.6%
4241 MELALEUCA, HYDRIC 345.07 Ac. '" 15.3%
4269E 1 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%
4279E 1 LIVE OAK, DISTURBED (0-24% EXOTICS) 3.89 Ac.'" 0.2%
4279E2 LIVE OAK, DISTURBED (25-49% EXOTICS) 0.29 Ac. '" 0.0%
4289El CABBAGE PALM, DISTURBED (0-24% EXOTICS) 1.20 Ac.'" 0.1%
4289E2 CABBAGE PALM, DISTURBED (25-49",1, EXOTICS) 19.08 Ac,,,, 0.8%
4289E3 CABBAGE PALM, DISTURBED (50-75% EXOTICS) 3.25 Ac, '" 0.1%
4349El HARDWOOD/CONIFER MIXED, DISTURBED (0-24% EXOTICS) 1.47 Ac.'" 0.1%
514 DITCH 3.38 AC.:t 0.1%
6189El WILLOW, DISTURBED (0-24% EXOTICS) 10.97 Ac.'" 0.5%
6189E2 WILLOW, DISTURBED (25-49",1, EXOTICS) 2.48 Ac.:!: 0.1%
6219El 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%
6249El 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",1, EXOTICS) 22.90 AC.:t 1.0%
r 624BE3 PINE/CYPRESS, BURNED (50-75% EXOTICS) 9.56 Ac. '" 0.4%
6259E 1 HYDRIC PINE, DISTURBED (0-24% EXOTICS) 31.52 Ac.'" 1.4%
6259E2 HYDRIC PINE, DISTURBED (25-49",1, 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%
6289El HYDRIC CABBAGE PALM, DISTURBED (0-24% EXOTICS) 2.64 Ac.:!:. 0.1%
6289E2 HYDRIC CABBAGE PALM, DISTURBED (25-49",1, EXOTICS) 6.94 AC.::t 0.3%
6289E3 HYDRIC CABBAGE PALM, DISTURBED (50-75% EXOTICS) 2.09 AC.::t 0.1%
6309E 1 WETLAND FORESTED MIXED, DISTURBED (0-24% EXOTICS) 19.90 Ac. '" 0.9%
6309E2 WETLAND FORESTED MIXED, DISTURBED (25-49",1, EXOTICS) 7.21 Ac.'" 0.3%
6319E3 WETLAND SHRUB, DISTURBED (50-75% EXOTICS) 5.83 Ac.'" 0.3%
6419El FRESHWATER MARSH, DISTURBED (0-24% EXOTICS) 6.82 Ac.'" 0.3%
6419E2 FRESHWATER MARSH, DISTURBED (25-49% EXOTICS) 10.63 Ac.'" 0.5%
740 DISTURBED LAND 3.21 Ac.'" 0.1%
7401 DISTURBED LAND, HYDRIC 18.16 Ac.'" 0.8%
742 BORROW AREA 5.38 Ac.'" 0.2%
743 SPOIL 0.16 Ac.'" 0.0%
747 BERM 0.93 Ac. '" 0.0%
814 ROAD 0.32 Ac.'" 0.0%
8146 UNPAVED ROAD 4.33 AC.:t 0.2%
830 UTI L1TI ES 1.08 Ac.'" 0.0%
8301 UTILITIES, HYDRIC 4.82 AC. '" 0.2%
832 POWERLlNE EASEMENT 1.24 Ac.'" 0.1%
8321 POWERLlNE EASEMENT, HYDRIC 4.27 Ac. + 0.2%
TOTAL 2262.14 Ac.'" 100.0%
LEGEND:
:i
~
~
~
LANDS NOT INCLUDED
IN PROJECT AREA
~
c
~
9
..
r
.
'"
..
..
NOTES:
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED
THROUGH THE COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY
APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE
OF JANUARY 2009,
o
~
~
~
.
>:
~
~
PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER RWA, INC,
DRAWING NO,2010-01-07 BNDY_DWG
DATED JANUARY 7. 2010.
;r
~
~
~
>:
SURVEYED WETLAND LINES PER BANKS
ENGINEERING. INC, DRAWING NO.PODS
FOR APPROVAL 1-1I-2010-PN-MOD.DWG DATED
JANUARY II. 2010,
u
.
u
"
...
FLUCFCS LINES ESTIMATED FROM 1"=200'
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS AND LOCATIONS
APPROXIMATED.
~
"'
6
~
.
-'
~
a DRA'\v.'Il8Y
~ W.e.
~ REVIEWED BY
~ C.G.R.
g REVISED
FLUCFCS PER FLORIDA LAND USE, COVER
AND FORMS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
(FLUCFCS) (FDOT 1999).
DATE
13620 Metropolis Avenue
Suite 200
Fort Myers, Florida 33912
Phone (239) 274-0067
2/4/10
PASSARELLA
,-l""F;~~~ & ASSOCIATES ~
DATE
2/4/10
DATE
DRAWI~G ~o.
HACIENDA lAKES
AERIAL WITH FLUCFCS
0lMTI737
SHEET :-.lo.
MAPF.l
?':~
n~
. "
"1:l",
. -<
~~-t::ot:o
~;;j~~~~
0(50
"'~ ~
." :r r-t N
~ g ~ 0
~<t"'" ~
~N ~ ~rt
~ ~ :.n Fi' a
N-::::-'N"O
--.J N::; gO
'6--.J5:. ~
1?~~ ~
\O~~ ~
- '"
N <t
\~
n.
f211~
>(>
(f)(J)
(f)(J)
0>
0:;0
-tTi
~e-
me-
~>
::r:
>
>- 0
tTl tT1
~ Z
r- U
~ >
:2 ~
"TI tT1
E en
o
"TI
o
(f)
'"
~
!l
~ 0 ~
~ '"
i!; p
71 j
~ -J
""
--.J
RRgg;;f,t.~ss::~gg~nn~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;;;~QQQ~~~~~~B;;;;;;;~~~~~~rl~~E
- - ~ - ~~~~~~RR~~R~R~~~~~~~~RRR~R ~~R~R~RR- -R~~RR~~RRRR ~Q
1'~~I)~~I)~a.UI)~an."I)~ft~~I)~')~ ~"I)~I)~I)~ +"I)+"I)~+UI)~ ~
..."
,
z
o
~
::r:
...
g
..
'"
!;
..
..
)"
N
'"
~
....
:.
.;
:>0
~;:;
,...
~~~~~~22~~~~~~~~~~~~~!!!!!!!!~~~~~~~e~~~~~~=~;!!!!!!!~~~~
~~~~g~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;~~FF~~:=:""QQcr,~~~~n"""~~~~
ri " ... ~ :>0 :>0 .' .- f f ~ ;:; ;:; ;:; ;:; ;:; ;:; ;:; ;:; r r ~ r r r r r ~ ~ ~ ~ g :",)." f ~ ~ ('0 J; J; [; ::: ::: ::: .. .. .. .. ~ ~ ~ ~
.." 9 .-:: R R )~ ~~ '=' 10 lClI ('I ('I ("I ! ! ! :! :! "G "G "ClI " " " ~ '" ,.. .... .... . ~ . 0 A A A. .""''' C c: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ li .!.t !t -I -I -4 -4
~ ~~~~~~",~~:::==~~~~~~~~~~~~~ e",,,~~o~ze~,,ecc:~:~~~~~~~
o '" r r ::III =- :z: ~ r. ICII IClI 't'I !" !" !" !" !" .... "'I .... .... .., .., ,.. " ~ ;i - ~ ~ ~- :; J; ;:, ;:; " .. .' . '" :::II :II :'I 0 0 0 0 ;II! =- =- ,
~ )~ ~ .:.: c: .r::: ~ F: F: ). ~ ~.,. ICl' Cl' 'CI 0 '" '" ,.. .., ,'I .... .... .... 2. C ~ c c: 0 c: c c ... ... ~ ~:.: :& ::: ::: ~ 8 8 8 8 ). "., ), )~
-- a c----~~~~~Q~O c~~~... CC~_O n~~~ ~~~~
~o~~.~~~ft ~~~~~cc------~~~~~ -~~~,,~:= ~ "~""----
~ ~~o"n~~~~c~c~~~~~~~~~~~=~~ ~~~~~~ooa ~~~n~~~~~~~~
-, :z:z-....~~~..illillillill::c:c:c:c:c:c:...... "'<!<!<!....ee~ ..,1'9...____........
~ oo~~~~~~~""""~~~~~~~~~n~~~ c~~~n~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~
- --~i\.\b' .~oooo ""nnnnO""......!e! ~'tlt'tlt....y. ~q..CCCCCc.cc.
~ ~~~....-22~~~n~~~............~i~~. ~~~~tj~~~ ~~~~~~~~illillillill
'" '" ..' . ~ ~ ~ . I' 9 ... ~ :.I :t: ~ "t\ n ~ " " ": ". . .. . c: c: ." 0 0 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
==~~~~~~n~~~~~~~~~~~;~~~~~ ~~~~~~oo ~~~oooooooo
....~~~~~~X,~~..~~~~':....aa~g~ ~~.,~g~~ ~aa~:~~~~,.
n ~ ~ '" '" " " " 9 ~ X :~ ;; l!i o' ~.. ~ ~ ~ ::1::1 ('0 a ~..,,:I ~ 2 2 ~ l! ~ tj ~ _ ., + ~
...1,l.::::~n~~...QQ:!:i:l../H\i"i!!:!!:33fl., ~~~XB~''l'l ~.. nil';'"
~~~oo?V-~~1g__~~S~:i:i:3~~~~ ~~~~;; ~~~>:~n~~
~~~~~~~~ asa naBll~, ~BBll 99 gggfig~9~
9 ~ ... ~ ~ ~ g <4 ~ , n ~ a B II B S a~'
~.. ~~~~n ~~ ~ ~~
~o~~ ~~ ~ N"
~~ no S XX
u ~~ ~9
all
C::>O
:..
I!!g
:!In
o ~
iH
~~
~
ill
n
...
,.
Ch
Ch
'ii
n
,.
-<
o
z
CJl
-<
CJl
-<
m
:I
" CJl z-" 0 z D
,. !ii 0'" " 0
iiI '0 " -<
< ~ri: n m
0 m m !"
-< 0'"
(.. m b-< :Ii
,. " --<
z boo ~
c :Ii
,. m ~o ,.
'" ;:l ~~
-< "
!Z ~g ...
N 0 ' '" c;
0 !: ~-< :J:
~ ",-" -<
z ~~ 0
m ,.
CJl iiI
ril ii1'"
,,~ 0
'" "
oo (... (..
,. ~~ !Z
z
'" "" C
'" ,.
m "'''' '"
-<,. -<
z ~:Ii
'" ~z g
Z
m 0'" 'f'
m ~
'"
Z
!"
"
..
~
'Ill
::I
Q
~
n
!!!
~
o
-<
:0
'"
$
~ .. ... .. ... .. 0 <0 <0 ~ _ l"t ~ ~ 00 ~I ~ I' 010 I' ~ ~ 8 !l ~.,. It !l 2 ~ Y I' ... ... !l ~ I) e ". ... ". :$ ~ <0 ". I" 0 & t1 ... ~ ~ (\0 0 U ~ 8 00 ... 11 ~l : e .,. ~
~ !l ~ R ~ ~l k ~ toe ~ toe !.l !'l R a !.l ~ ~ f ~ n g " k ~ ~ ~ k l.l k toe ~ k & l: ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ g B ij S II ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :1 ~ ; ~ ~ ~ :.J S ~ t ~ ~ s
rW~rrwArrrArrrArrrrrrrrArrrAr~rAlrr~rrrrlrrlllrrlrwrlArrllrrrlrrr
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
goo 0 .0 .0 .0 0 .0 00 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 I) .. ... .0 .... ... ~ ~ ~ .0 .0 .0 ....1 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 .0 .0 ~ .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 ... ('II +- 0 .0 .0... I" <0 .0 ~ Q ..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~444_~4~~_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~_~~~~~.~~.~~~~~~..~~~~.~~~~.~Q
J,IZOOIIOIHTT737IHAel..DA L...QRIIF-I FLucres MAP.OWG Tu 17XII.C SOUTH MAR 18, ZOIO - 8,33AH PLOTT.D BY: WIlLe
'" "
?':~()~
n~o~
. '='. 0
:-o~?='~
NONONO
"->"->"->
~;;j~;;j~;;j
(50(5
.." -
'"7J ~ ~
"T1 ::r ,..,. N
~ g ~ 0
N~ ~ U) ~
~ ~ -~ E. q
~\O.."lto
N - 0- N"O
--.J N'" gO
'6--.J5:. ~
1?~; ~
\O~~ ~
N <t
I)'ml~.
' ~~
n;-=-
5.1
f211 :u
)>\>
CJ)(J)
CJ)(f)
0>
0:;0
-tTi
~e-
me-
~>
::r:
)>
>- ()
tT1 [Ti
~ Z
r- t:J
~ )>
:2 ~
'Tl tT1
E (/)
()
'Tl
()
(fJ
o
~
~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~666~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ffl~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@R~
~~~5~~~WNgO~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~$$~~~~~~~~~~~~~~N N ~c
mmmmmmmmmmmmm~mmmmm~~mmmmm mmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmm mO
N~~~-WN-w~WN~WN~WN-rn~WN-N- -WN-N-N- ~WN~WN-AWN- ~
~~~~C~~~~QQ~~~~~;;;;;;;;~~~~~~~~~O~~~Q~QQQr~~~IiiIii~~~~~~~~~~~~5~C~
~~rr~>~O~~~~~~~~aaaaaaaa~~~Z~~~~ ~ ~r~$mrom~~~~'~>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Q
mm33~o~r~cc~~lj;lj;lj;~~~~~~~~---~-n-n ~ ooQ~~~~oo~~~ ~ooo~~~~Iii~~~~~~~
~~mmm ~~~~zzzoooooooo~~~~~~~~oooooo~~ <QQQ>>OOm c___rrrr~~~~>o~>
cc~ooo ~1ll1ll>>oooQ~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~.. Ommm~~~~cc>~~~>>>>~~~~~~ ~
~~; ~ ~oo~~~oo~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~gQQ~~ ~~~~~~~~9Q~ccc~~~~~~~~czo~
~~a ~ ~ii:ii:~~~~~~~~rooooo~~~~~~~~~~~cc 8~~~~~~~I ~~~~oooO$$$$~lj;~~
~~~ ~a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ggQQQQ~~~~~ ~ooo~~~~~ ~ooo~~~~~~~~~zo~
~Iii ;l!;l! mm~~~Zcccc ~~~~~~~~ltImm ~---rorooo;!l ....-<Ji~.... mmmmo C
m ~ ~~Qoo>>>~~~~~~~ccccccooooo ~~~~~~ooo I~~!~~~~OOOO;!l ~
~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~!o ~~~~2~2~2~~~c~~~~0
~~w ---~~-~-~~oooooo~~~~* mltlltlltl~~7 0 mm ~~~~
ccm.O.OCJ)CJ)CJ)",all,!Jl)l~ ':::.J~1':l...>>"'.l:!l~~ 0000..... m><>< rorororo
~;!l ~~ooo~~~~~~~~~~~~~yzz~"mm!);! o<Ji1':l~"m~ ~~~oooommmm
nO i'i'iltl<Ji2-iii~~~m5<~d:.'il~~~~~...~00mm><><o -~"''''!!)><oo ~__~<Ji~""oooo
-=l ~ ~rororo><~O<" Q"'~' ><><oo~ ~~...""~o);); -OOal'?lJi....~~~-
> oo~ c~~~g..mm~~!);!~~~O<~~~~~~o c~~~8~oo ~$$~ ~~~l,!Jl)l~
r ~~*mm<Ji1':lao~~~ggg~~~~zzOO~~$ ~m~~6~ooiii ~~~~8~~~
\D om 9'l'h>.!!J-t~:::t0()O><OO-tmmJ!l~- jt'Xxxo,!9 -1-1 ~mmm o~~m
*..~o~~~~ -~~$$$g~~ooo o~g~ cc ~><><~~~~><
~~~~~**m 16~~ o~~$~~ ~6016 ~~ oggg~oog
oO~......mm>< $ ~$$ 00 =000~~~O
~@~~~~~g ~~ ~ ~~ ~0$ ~1h1h0
16- ~~~~o ~~ ~ ~~ - --
o~~16$ x>< 0 ::0"
~-~~ 88 ~ o<~
~~ ~~ ~ ~o
-- ~B
16$
o
~
~
o
Z
cno" r-;"'Tl L,owen 00" '-OO:l>:l> Z D
~O' o It r :l>=Al:l>C :l>AlAl ~"oom 0
cn<c ONC ~~~~~ -I:l>0 "COAl -I
-ImO :l>OO m=:" C-ZC- m
mAl" --1~" .t>_-cnm o-m ~~~;o~ ~
':':l>~ - 0 ;;ooZ -< ,-ZAl
O:l>cn -<I(j)mm :l>G'l-l ~~"gJ~
"Z" zm =~z~c
cn:!!c ZZ~
rOm - 0 0 - =: cow g~~~~ -, ,
C"Al :l>:l>Z
~o" "rm N3:.2m :l>' 0 :O:t>~~g Z:l> m
V> t7 " cn o o""'C m--l AlNC "Z G'l
J: ~ oAl, ;;O~m aog~r -<~Z ~~~~ AlO m
~ cn3:o . ccn_l> ~OO Ocn Z
~ ~cnAl Oocn ~"'TIZZ ~ b.t> '-z 9
~ '" -:npa ~-I-I (;')0(;')0 ~b~ c:;-<:z:~ mo
~ 0 0 3:03: o::U~r :I:~-Icn ~-I
- '" g/;;~ :l>G'l:l> :l>l>Z- O"""'"lJ -1,,:1:
2; ~ . -IAl-l --I-UnZ wm oAlm=: liiz
:j -Ien:l> m:l>m ~ ~. rn Z;U :l>!::om
-:;;z ~~o mO
71 <>_0 < " OAl ~~~~ :l>~
--.J ;g~&3 en" l> m :<=:
;;;; w Al r Al ~)> o~C 0
--.J """::Jm :l>o "cnm m
0- a3: Gl - Al 0
Z
Z ,.
~
"
~~
0~
~ ~-AOOO~OO om~~~NmN-N~~~~~~~~~N--~~NOW-W~-OwNo~~-momo~~~~w~~~o ~
~ ~@~~~~ffi~ ~~~~B~~~~8~~~~B~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@~~~~6~~~~~~~~~g~~8~~~ ~
> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
~ ~ ~ ~ r r ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ p ~ r p p p ~ p p p p p p p p p pop non ~ n ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ 0 n 0 n n n n n n p n p n n n n n n n
~ * ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ It ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ H H H H H H H H H H It H H H H H H 1+ H 1+ 1+ 1+ H It H H 1+ 1+ 1+ 1+ H 1+ H It ,+ It H It It ,t It It H H It ~
8 ~~~ ~ b~
, ~ooo~oooooooooOOOOOOON~-O---~N~OO-~oooo0909099~oooooo-~~OOO-NOOW~o
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(/)
o
c
....,
::r:
t' ,7'~"'''f~'~~'''~''
- t',
I
l ".
,"'\\.~ '.,,: "
_0 "'.."c, .
;l~>" ~.:.;.~
!; , ~t )..?~ "'H'+ \e, j
": .. '. ''h''\~', j,-'
~. ".~\. r .lr '~~~ ~4 ,_"..
J" ,,' .., .: ' :,)Ji~ ~:it.: ~;. y,
,,"-' tj ""j. ~,.. ~ ",1' , .,.
~:f' i. ":i'~ !t;~"l ,t}\"
:1'~'.:T'f5:';t:~ .... ~~' ;i~~':'!~""fB~~II!!!::, ~ ..,.:--~ l~ ..
. ~ ,i ,~! . . ,,~
,"/l'~: 0,' 'l: ........:r J ~ > W. .
,': '~~I!. '. . ',."{.. '\ " i ..... ''t.
~"\;r~ . ,,.-.p .:'
_?t .. II' .~.."~....'i. f~. ':r>~ . ~:--~I::::~'/
l iI~;~,:r~',' ;...\11'~ _>.1." '.:",
II,} . 'OJ. . ". ""
-:~.. . ...~y:":.
. . . . . . 1; . .
l!'ll.........:-... _. IL
~........ ,"~.. !:.. -. '!OiiII
....... .......+...
-4'-. .~n...... ....P
,.. . ~-f.J:. . .'.
.~ ...;~~~~. ..........,.
'I' ~::: :.::::::: ::Gi";
~....~... ...li. .. ,. .J" -- .' r ~---"-, ~-~--Wot~
'.'I'J' .D1:;.~: )~\., ,.' ~~. ' ....'..' ,',::. ", . ,\,.,~,.,;;..~.~.~~6t.t~.j
1lJIIH. '110..o r::"~:':':-'." l' -Jl~'\. , ~.:.;
". ~. .'~' :.. . . . II :'. ... II " 12 .,. .>~~~{
"11-'. Qj ~.. -.., - IIII! 11- -II '" 'I fi:: '
e' I!I!IIII!M.........' .. ,":._' . ~.):
II!! ~', ~"r' '._ a"'".. ..... ~~~
I', L.. II, 1]'..:. ...;~; , I "!...,,.. it.1III ~..'.....' 11I".-11'" ... .~,..27;
" II - ~ .... ..; !!'.lI. :~
."'. '" .." -'..... :&i'.;::-. :.' :.::::~:::: '...;; 'j \ .' j - IiONII I '\',.~ :~~
.. ~. .r,;::', ~. '.;,;,.' ...... ll"I... '~.'" .. , ,
.' ~. .t"'~ , .,,AJ.. ..... '.. .... ",\~'-(111 " . .' ._ . <~i.
.~.""'~g .-.-..".~ '...,,"'....::.. ", - ... ~ - ' "'~.
. 1~..".........: .-.... ..:-:<..-:.:-: '. ~"""'..' ~ - IIIi """ . ..,' "~-'T
-- ::1..~. ...1.1..... .-""... ....,..., , .. .- ..",'.-..:.~,. I
.. ~f' I). ..........l.............~.... . ill ..... f ....:.~" ..... - . ..._ .r:... -~.~~;:t~:...::.
" ; .'~". ,':':-:-:':-:':';'0-:':';'1:"'.' .. '-' " .' _ III ..1. ',;'1J';;' '. I
..'r ~ ~............~..........~...... . _ ""-.", .., _
~~ . - .:':-:.:':'.:-:.:<.:<"::':~:.:..~.., .' _. ': "" .... Ill.. _.. .,~,~.
.. '-:.;.:q.:.:~:-:-:.'.'.:.:-:+ ' " . - .._ '..' III,; '. \. I:J
~ '-G..................;.~. ....~.~;: II' ..' . II '-', 1111' "
'~., ~:.:.:.:<'<4:.:.:.:.:.:":~~~:.' ....... II I ". ~..~.~
mJ. . ~:'.:.;..:.;.:<..:-:.:.:~:.:.:'.:;:. ,It.l.~ III .' ,
~ : . ..y.'".:-:<;:.~.:.:.:.>. .. ,,- ...11 . - _ .- "<\~~:..+,i~J
.......~...........~...... '. .. II ... . '~~
:;:::~:::::::::::::::::::::::!l!;liriL . . -~'. .\' Ii'..-'., .- -,.,:.- .. )
r~. ~.,-:D!'~:-:.>:.:-:.:-:":.:~:-:.: ,>" - . . . ','. ,
. M.;..................~......~....~ lIB III . .' .. ~........... '.
. . . ~ ...,;..........................., .'-,'. .11-. ' '. '( .
r,:, ,4'- 4 - .:"'..' ~~"i~~:.:..:-:-:~:...-:;:~:.::.:J:.: . .. . .. .. .. . .................... _.' ,I'" \ "~-.....,.
.:.:.:.:~:.:.:.:.:~:.~.~.:.:..~:.:.:.:..:..:';~.;~:.1.:::.:.:.:.:.:.: __ .:.:.:-:.:.:.:.:.:.~. ~.' ~~ .. t-.
.IUol:. . . ..." .........."............................ .~. .. . .. .. .. ... __. . .. .. .. .. . .. .. . ,.. 0').'.'
. -.' ....". ............................ . . .' ~ t " . . . . . .~. . . . . -.
.' ...~......o:.'!........................................................... ................ ,,~ ...........~. .'" .. ... ' J
. . .. .:.I..,..:.ID"'".:~:::~:~ ~.~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:I... .:~ff::):~:~:~:~:~: ,'; .' ~::::::;~:::iit:. _, _ " .,' I I
~,"il"'~.' .:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::f.l -::~:::::::::::' ." ~. ~~. ....: ., t'''' ",:.: . "'.'\:.!':.:~;~~t~l.
,,~ ......................................I.......~ ..;:!.J:...............i:5!.. "0' ..~....~._1!,.. l.::. ' ,'.' .'-1'
..,...~.....................~.............................. ....... ............................... ....... ....... .t."". 10; ':.,~ , ",'
!j . . . .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. . . . .. . .. .. . . .. . .. ... . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .... .. .. .. "'1. ' D": :,:-""'\f:" '* ,,';;'l . .. . .
'.......................................... .....................................
.. .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . . . .. .. . .. ..... .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .
..:.:.:.:.:.:.:'.:..:..:.:..:.:..:.:.:.:.:.:.:-:-:.:.:.- . : .:.:.:-:.:-:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:-:.: .' ...:-K;: .,' '~\...~:""', ~ ,;.' "~
.:.:.:..:-:.:.:.. :.: .:. :.: .:.:.:..:. :..:.:.:.:.:. :.:.." ./ .......0- to.:.:. :"0:. :.:.~:.:-:.: -:.:. :.:.:.: _.' . .'. \
!!II ...............,............. ...~....... "'II~' 'i:' \ i
~~, "~?FI1~ ...-' , :.~. -, .:..:.:.:-:-:~:.:..:j:.:~~.:.:7~~:.:.:.:.:.(:i. ..:-:.:.:_..... :-~-\-t':-:.:-:.~:...:-:.:-:-:..iIt".~.3 ..:.. - -. : ,-" ;\: .' '.'
~,.,..-~~ ~~.... 'f' . ',' ..........................."".~................ ........:1........ .... .. ..... ..... .. .. . . .. .. "". .;.~ . .. . ..' ........ ~ ""'j
~i-::' ~''- G. -... . . . . . ~ . .. '. .... . -.'. . . . .. .... . ................'.... ~.. . .Ii!!. .. ~.. '116--' 'JI!j . '!L""'~' . . . . . . . ,,,, ". '.
~", ~ ~ :~'.a-;. ,...... .... ....il..,..~~~::: ~Jf?" '~~ -~,: .~. -"";"".,, I ~:::r.: .:/:'::::::<::-:::::::::::::,:- -: . ""tI!-. .,:.::...;:.:.::.:. ~..'.:.:-..'.r:aSI!:'. ....:-.:...::.~;.~.~.:::~..c:r:.:.::::.: - ; . ....., "'.
rri:j~~,),,,,, (~r-;' M" '^ ..... ,", J ~ ................,' .~."..... ......,....... .. ... ^'. ..~\:^~;'~,.........,...~.~........_'.:
.... ...,..~;.'''*,,, \ 1;7.- .~ IU. ..... ~:J..' ,', .. '::::::.:::.::::::.:.'. .. ~"~~~,~~;i''ll\.,,:,... ................~."'........ . .. .
~t/1"" ~!lit _L. ":'" '1 ..... .:'.' j .... ',._j~.. ~.. ~ ................. ......~l',}.,,,... ...0"'....... .. ... ~ '.._
.%. ::J. j" :."",r.~I' ~ .. -.. ~;"...jl.,+<: -~ . i_:', , " .._ .11.:.: ':::::::.':'::::::. :;.)^~~~....~:~:.. :.:.:..-:-:-:..:.>:..:....s:. ..-....-:-:. "
," ~ 1./? ) ......... I IEII ,4JUC " ~ f'" ' - , rM...... " '''''1:.. . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . ;; ",S"..) '.to' . .. .......... ......; '" ,_. .. '" . ~. ; , .! -"1"', <I.
"Lt'E~"":'~~' .YIII, , .' ....'. 513,' _v,:: "',1 ..i;J-' ._':-"l~' . ~I~' .'.~ .'.','...',...,'........:.....' "')"" .. .... ........... ....~.. ......,...~... _../..... .
- ..,. . -1 '. <' ( '" . ~ . I "!'lf~ . . .'. ....",.."..". .....It. '~ .. . . .. . . ~... . ..... '11' '\
1ft .......;.. ,'.', ':'1:";::1&'" '_-';;:'V}~:~. ;' "'..'....:. ''''''''~'''':'':..-:...':::~..', .;.'\. :-:. ':.;<':---:.>: . . ,.i"l" .
-.....r.. ..:...rt.... ' ...... '~~1""""" i,: ,!;: ",-, I--J _- - ~ . ......... .. ~...-'... ~ .... .......... ."
, ..,..,.. -;: ..~-=.#' ~;I'",.. .... ......... 4 ::.. .....; ~ 1.' :,1<&1 '" '^.' . ........ ...... .. .............. - .......... .....+:..,......, .'
",,;t,.\.."J"M;~ '.,' ~..cr" "t 'v l I ';r.,<< \;.,... ....C..... ....,..... ,. .....t..... . . " l
~",",,,. .r'.."~.:;.~e_~""!'il ,.,....,..~t: r;~.~~\.l#iJ. -I':"? ~~~ ~(~ '.~!, ,.:::'Y~,~,,+;, ...11IIII.......:-:.:-:. - -:-:--:.:.:.~>>.-..:Ir"M!!rI'IGII:.."'.'~:... ...... :..:.:<..~:.:.:.):'~ ~
,"'- lr:' f' '!:fl... . ,'" ~ ~ "1Il11.~"'" .. .~.... '11".. ......~. . 'Jeo:! ... ,..-.... -, g.
',;.,'- . '.1'7.~' , .. ,,-' ",'.~ "fl.. ,It. , '/,,\'"' t~'""" " ............ . .' ...~"i..,.... _'III'. . '..,' :....' '. .. ....;....f.-.....!.~.. ..
..... - '.. -1"" Ie!. ~~ ~,? . t" , .. .Id. . . . . .. . . .. . . . . #....rc ''''''.~.. . .. . · . .... . .' ......11. '.'_' " .:.'
f,:' ",.>:.:-" I,; ~ :, l ,:. :1\~( :.. :t'~:";-., .~: ,,:::::::~~:::::::::::::;:::. :::I!l~~:~::;.::': ::~ r ,--.-^...,', ~:.rW'.J:~rc;. ..:::;:,::::.::::;:..~::1: ._ .' :-... '!.~~_ ..
'. 4; "~'I:, I';: . .i':~, ,i.; ~~.~. a, ......... ........ .;,.:,.:.~, 'II U',ui' 1_.-' . . ... .11. .'C. ..~'
- . .I,2\, t'.- ~ ,.u- .....................:-:..: I '1t r" ~ ::; ....1.1 J: "_ "'.. I
.' ~..#"l ' ~. .-: .~,<:~:;~~;~.:~:~:~:~:~:~:: !~t, I' i~)~ '::J~; '.~ .. " '. ;
" . .' ..'. ...f,. . .. ..... ~tr.-.~_. ~:J-;. .. : ,. .,
....,:r'.................. " 'I '~.'. ;II .' :
:i'J ~.' ..~,..."..~................_.... {. ~ I ..... _ .,
~, . -'............ ....::-:-: ' -'L ~ t ~, . 11II
,~-_.'::!~::::: .. :~:~::::" ::::::::::.':~.~..::I:I~ ' .~~.. ~, ~, '. :I -=. .''; I --'
.~ ::::::::::~::~ '::::::-:::"~i," ~ "lB' . i~ ;' ....... ,. I
..~-" .. "':B;: :.:. , ';':-:~':';'.-:.. f. ' '..~ :-:...' J
I .'. .... .. ................ tl'l ,.J 1 . . II, ......... -
.- ,~. -- . . . . . . . . . : -: . :-: :':0: -: . : -: . :- ,4 A . 1 .. . ' '. '.: ..
.': ..... :-:.:.:. -:.....~....~::~ '-:'[R":-:'.f)j'-:l:':-:':':-:':';':.;':-:-:il~.' 1IlIP'.. 1II1l.l~:.:':':.:~~:. :~:.~;..~.:-:t~~..
. . . . . . . ...... . ~.__ . . . . . . . . .. .. . 1............ .~. . . . oJiI!. . . . . . . . . ~ . . . ...... .,
.. . . ".. . . . .. ...- ----. .. " . -< ...... . . .... ........... .. . . . . .. . .. . .. .. .. . .. .. . . .. .. . .... . .. ~. .
..- ....1.. ..... . .....".. .. .... ,'11....... ..............................~.....~*...o................. ....!.,............~................,.:.~ i
.. '.. 6 .. .. .. .. ... ..........;..... . .. . . . . of . .. . . . .. .. . .. v.. . . .. . . . .. ...1(; - _. . .. .. .=. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. . "
. ............. ...... .....Gt....... ... ."..... .......... ....... ....... .~.l.....".... ....". ..... ..... ...... - ..... . ....... ....... .......
. . .. . .. .. . ... .. . . . . .. .. . . . .. .. .. .. . . . .. .. ..~ .. . .. It... .. .. .. . .. .. ~I!I -ii' .:.~ ...........~
................. .... .................. J .....................t ...~.,.......lIo<................. - .. .. ~..,. ...<1.............
.. :::::::-:~:: .:~.:..-:::::::::.:.. ".. ::::::::::::::::::::~...:::::::::::::::_:.::6:. ... ... ~~~~ ;;&I~:~. m.@.:..." ~::. ,.
....v.... .~.. ....... .. j ...........~.............-L'l..~..jj . ~~ t,~." ..
:.:.:.:.;.~<.. :fif..:-:.....:..+'.....~ ~., ...:.:,:.:.:.:.:-:.:~~ ~:-i._;....... . I\i;l.".!: . .... to _ ::'.!1l:'..~ ~,:.:...:o. . :..:.:.:-
. . .. . .. .. ......~..... I. .. . . .. .. ... . A'" U. .(:.... -; '. . . t:J. .. .. . . "".~. .. . ... .. . . .. "'
^' . . . . .~. . . . . . . . . . · · . . . . ~ '..:-.,' ,.. ',' ,o' . -.6."~' . ... -.. ... ... ......
v:.:-:.:.:. : .:-:.:.:-:. :!:!:.:.~~:.:^:...:~t:.:~..,..:~!;.~, . ....;-:~.~~~~~:.>:.. , - ..:4 >:-:- :..:~.:.:..:~~...~:..:
........ ...... .........~..../.,...;..r.........,.......-:.....~..... '"_''' ...~..Q..
" ...........~., ......... 'I. :.all:lII.. ..... .,...."-"4......""..,,~.-~...,.....,,'.~..~:. ~.,...i..~.~y f;.......;.~.... .,... 1=->ol' '11~."~. . ..<f..~
.. . . . . . .~. ,.II".-J. ... . It <II' . ";';:1:- . .. ."'~ . .1..,. .. ~f" j .. .tl .. . ,"to,.., .41 . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . .. .'.
"'0" ~. ..... ~. ill ~~.n1 .' ~............~t:l':,t...~v-:r.~....~!..... ."....,..!.~.......;;....."~...:);........o.... ...... .... ....... 1
'.oi:: ... ...: .0:.1...:.. .,.,. !Ji~. . . ....:.:.:<.:~:.:......+.z !'C..:.:,.:-:.:.:...!~:.:.:.~#:.:~:~:.:.:.:""..t{...:.:. :..:. ~ :-:-:-..:.::~,
. ... .... .. . .'. .". .. .. .. . .. ... rr~~. .". . ., ., . . . 1oiIII" . . . . . .~. . . .;p;1. . . . ... J . . d. .,' III
. ........ .."....... .......... '.. ... -. ;..,. 4 . . . . . . .. .... ~ .. .. .. .. . .. . . ... . .. f~ ,
. _11III . "',
.............:
.111II
mil" .-..:--",~.
~
......,~.
... ;-->
'~\S' '~:-,; '.';~7C.'.,~., '.'''.' ,.\:1' ~',;:--: It
. >...~.. '''. '>v., ....,.
," -'." .--
.. ',.. ~~~"'~~'1I.li
, .' ?",." !
.. :'''''.,.-g
. .
, \
I
";':1:
= .....(,
.~r~~t
"'~:,,~;
l':'~:.f:{~\'
. .' ...~;t).;';
j-t..J.
'"'
iiI
f~
..>
,.
....
~
.t
,..
"'-.
I~;'II :'.11"
./ IXi" .
~ _ . ' JI" ....
HI .'
~- . '.. ,~:',: '.
~. ... - I ~"
,
,.. 'J
~~;... ~
": I'
--I' ~ ;:'
r . ,::-
'..
,~'"
'_.'~ -..1X... ~
....
J
~~"
}
~.(
\
....
'r .,
'.~
:]
\
1
I
(
. ~
I
.: ~
,....,~
.~.;~)
, ^j
, ;\> ..' "'q'~
, "~
"
'.
.I,
,I
..,1
"
.
I':~~
~' . .1
>kd
. ,
10(..
r ."
'II'
FE~.
f~~
~'~~I
'.
..,.1'
.,
-
~i.
",-
P.'"
-. .
-... - ~ .; ---~_.
L~ ~______,;J'!,
L-
..... '.
t
;
_.
}~,
]"
i .~~~ r
,,"~; ;/Vtl!'i.
w;: "': ~~I!lI!'. J...j- i.'"
~ ;i"
;; ~,.." 'Or ~:~;"III_ ,""
.... I . -
~?~( .~:~, I.:. 'i]' ;~
..... ~:I
. ... .~~.~
1'':':-. .;
.~ . . :.. . . :,. . .
'0{1'
:...:.:~::- .~::
~...'I.., ::.ii.'
...~. ..,
']I
,,~ ':
, ,
"
,
,
".. ., ~~: ~~
,. ,.i
b',
,,".-.
~.i
,!'
-'
~.
...I,..~ ,.
I....::
, >.'
· ".l;.
~,.,:
ft!.-
~~~.~
,.....::::.:' :~~~~:_':... ;- ,. ,. .'
:. .ell.. .~: . ~-:.:6:... ~
'~"R'::L ~...~ ..:.;'~:-'.,
.:~~.....' ~.... .........
: f.III.~~~,:.. ~. '''IL~.'''!1..;.:' ..
'" '::'f
. t~ '~
-+- ~ '~
~,;(
tl/i'i
~
,if,
...
,
if. i~.
..
, ~~}
....; ':
;... .t.
, ..
_-~~.i j
.
:;.,...
. -,..,t..;i..;
-........ ..
.' ' .
~..
~~~ '",~
I'
'-. :::::*
- iJl.......
'f" ........
. . . .. ....
. fI .-...
.'
./
.
,.
,
~
~~./
.~
~
i
(j'
I
-'
'"
~
II
. .
'..
: I
1\
~.
"
;.t
"~"
.: ~ " ." , .;
..... .' . "..
. ",- " -:.'~-':,.
~
'11 ~
~
!.i
tf
? ~"
~1 ~;.!\..:. -"..."~
-'.1'N!, '.. ,.
.
....
.~
..,
,,~.~. .,\." " . :
~, . - .-~-~~ . .::.)*t ..,~,~_! .; 4",~~':.;( If" -~..~. ~
.':~lf:n,' ~' "::1~'. ~,~~f~~,~~~1 .i~r~:'<&~, ~'~v ~ ~ ~ "
\,'.-.,"
t....
J..
,:r:'- ~ --1'"
/t,J
',:
'1r. ,v ~"
\jo,.......
..~:
""'=~'_..
'..;1
13620 Metropolis Avenue
Suite ZOO
Fort Myers, Florida 33912
Phone (239) 27 4-006 7
2/4/10
_r1{~~~~~~~
DATI:.
2/4/10
DATE
LEGEND:
D SFWMD WETLANDS
~ SFWMD 'OTHER SURFACE WATERS'
EJ LANDS NOT INCLUDED IN PROJECT AREA
@ SFWMD WETLAND AND 'OTHER SURFACE
WATERS' NUMBER (TYP)
~ SURVEYED WETLAND LINE
NOTES:
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED
THROUGH THE COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY
APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE
OF JANUARY 2009.
PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER RWA. INC.
DRAWING NO,2010.01-07 BNDY.DWG
DATED JANUARY 7, 2010.
.-
..
SURVEYED WETLAND LINES PER
BANKS ENGINEERING, INC.
DRAWING NO.PODS FOR APPROVAL
1-11-2010.PN-MOD.DWG DATED
JANUARY II, 2010.
".
"P'I
....
.1.1.
~ -,:, ..
';11'I"/,\.( .:. ..
_ill
III, ..
1
.,
r
\
.,,'1';'-
\~..:
''"''."1f
:. ',' '~-^ ~ r- j.;:
f'.""t,O#......,,;,'
.... !_L '.
.J
PHA \VI NO Nu.
HACIENDA LAKES
AERIAL WITH WETLANDS
0lMTI737
SHEET No.
~A A P 1:,7
C)
.~
LEGEND
~
~ HACIENDA LAKES
'"
T
'"
- - ApPROXIMATE LOCATION OF WALKED SURVEY TRANSECTS
. AA, AMERICAN ALLIGATOR
o BBS, FLORIDA BLACK BEAR (SIGN)
~ BCFS, BIG CYPRESS Fox SQUIRREL
o BE, BALD EAGLE
o GT, GOPHER TORTOISE (BURROW)
e LBH, liTTLE BLUE HERON
~
'"
I
~
'"
9
o
:;:
o
i
...J
;l
ffi
u
'"
~ DRA\\'i'l" BY
~
E
>:
~
DATE
2/9/10
13620 Metropolis Avenue
Suite 200
Fort Myers, Florida 33912
Phone (239) 274,0067
Fax (239) 274-0069
W.e.. F.L.
HE\lEWEIl BY
DATE
C.G.R.
2/9/10
g RE\'ISED
~
DATE
o RCW, RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER
e CT, RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER (CAVITY TREE)
o ROSP, ROSEATE SPOONBILL
o SE, SNOWY EGRET
o TCH, TRI-COLORED HERON
o WI, WHITE IBIS
o WS, WOOD STORK
PASSARELLA
__Q~~I'::~~r~ & ASSOCIATES ~
N
W+E
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 ACOUIRED FROM THE
FLORIDA GEOGRAPHIC DATA LIBRARY
WEBSITE.
s
o
SPECIES OBSERVED OURING L1STEO
SPECIES SURVEYS AND OTHER FIELDWORK
CONDUCTEO FOR THE FEATHERS PROJECT
AND TOLL-RATTLESNAKE DRI BETWEEN
SEPTEMBER 2002 AND NOVEMBER 2006,
1,000 2,000
Feet
3,000
HACIENDA LAKES
AERIAL WITH SURVEY TRANSECTS AND
LISTED SPECIES LOCATIONS
(SEPTEMBER 2002 TO NOVEMBER 2006)
Dlv\\\l~G~{l.
OlMTT737
SIIH-l:-.l".
MAP G-l
'"
....
i
~
..
~
..
N
..0
..
..
'I
~
~
9
o
o
~
~
~
..
-'
i
iJ
..
:s DHA\\~ BY
~
.,
~
::
>:
~
~
-'j
HACIENDA LAKES
8 FPS, FLORIDA PANTHER (SIGN)
o GT, GOPHER TORTOISE (BURROW)
8 LBH, LITTLE BLUE HERON
o SE, SNOWY EGRET
o TCH, TRI-COLORED HERON
o WI, WHITE IBIS
. WS, WOOD STORK
N
W+E
NOTES:
LEGEND
- - ApPROXIMATE LOCATION OF WALKED SURVEY TRANSECTS
Gl AA, AMERICAN ALLIGATOR
o BB, FLORIDA BLACK BEAR
<:> BBS, FLORIDA BLACK BEAR (SIGN)
@ BCFS, BIG CYPRESS Fox SQUIRREL
o BCFSN, BIG CYPRESS Fox SQUIRREL NEST
o BE, BALD EAGLE
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED
THROUGH THE COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY
APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE
OF JANUARY 2009.
5
COUNTY INFORMATION AND ROADWAY
NETWORKS WERE ACQUIREO FROM THE
FLORIDA GEOGRAPHIC DATA LIBRARY
WEBSITE.
o
1,000 2,000 3,000
Feet
SPECIES OBSERVED DURING LISTED SPECIES
SURVEY AND OTHER FIELDWORK CONDUCTED
BETWEEN AUGUST AND DECEMBER 2009.
DATE
13620 Mctropolis Avcnuc
Suite 200
Fort Myers, Florida 33912
Phone (239) 274,0067
Fax (239) 274-0069
HACIENDA LAKES
AERIAL WITH SURVEY TRANSECTS AND
LISTED SPECIES LOCATIONS
(2009)
DRA\\l;,,\(;No.
Rl::\'Il:WED BY
DATE
PASSARELLA
_ _~O~I:::J~t~ & ASSOCIATES ~
01MTI737
W.C., F.L.
2/9/10
c.c.R.
2/9/10
StlEl:'.T:'-ln.
HE\'ISED
DATE
MAPG.2
Hacienda Lakes aka Toll-Rattlesnake PUD
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
G MP Application
CCPC Review Materials
EXHIBIT N
Tranportation Report
"
,
DUlr~
C0\$tLTl\G ~
J. \ , 11 1 So"..,
o
Hacienda Lakes
Revised Traffic Impact Analysis
o
Prepared for:
Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC
Prepared by:
Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc.
o
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
o
o
o
Hacienda Lakes
REVISED TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
Table of Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................... ............................. I
Traffic Generation...................................................................................................................... ................... I
Traffic Distribution and Assigllll1ent ............................................................................................................ 5
Study Network Identification................................................................................................................... ..... 9
Commi tted Roadway Improvements............................................................................................................ 9
Existing Conditions...................................................................................................................... ................. 9
Background Traffic Growth Estill1ate.........................................................................................................12
2019 Operating Conditions .........................................................................................................................13
Proportionate Share eOll1putation............................................................................................................... 21
List of Filwres
Figure I. Hacienda Lakes Site Location and Study Network .......................................................................2
Figure 2. eonceptuaI 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 I. Trip Generation Estill1ate ................................................................................................................ 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
Table 4. Existing Conditions...................................................................................................................... . ] I
Table 5. Background Growth...................................................................................................................... 14
Table 6. 2019 Total Conditions Generalized Level of Service Analysis .................................................... 15
Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc,
!facienda Lakes T,'{!f!ic Impact Study
o
o
o
Table 7a. Arterial Level ofServiee 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 Serviee 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 lntersection Level of Service Summary - project Driveway................................ 21
Table 10. Hacienda Lakes Prop0l1ionate Share Computation ....................................................................24
Table II. lmpact Fee Credit eomputation.................................................................................................. 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 - eapacity Analysis Worksheets
Appendix I - Site Access eapacity Analysis Worksheets
Appendix J - Off-Site Improvements - Proportionate Share Computation
Appendix K -Internal Roads - Impact Fee Credit Computation
Tindale-Oliver and Associales. Inc.
Hacienda Lakes T!y!f!ic IlI/pacl Swdy
ii
o
Hacienda Lakes
Revised Traffic Impact Study
Introduction
Hacienda Lakes is a DRI-magnitude mixed-use development proposed for a 2,200+/- acre site on
the east side of C.R. 951 /Collier Boulevard that extends from south of Sabal Palm Road to north
of Lord's Way in Collier County, Florida (Figure I). Of the 2,200 acres, only 700 to 750 acres
are considered developable uplands. The development is estimated to build out in approximately
20 I 9, with the major land use components indicated in Table I. 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.
o 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 detemlined by the review agencies at this meeting. A
summary of the transportation methodology correspondence is provided in Appendix A.
Throughout this report, the term service capacity has been used to indicate the traffic volume a
road may carry before exceeding an adopted level of service. This term has been used to avoid
the confusion nonnally encountered in discussing traffic volumes and service volumes.
Traffic Generation
Traffic generated by Hacienda Lakes is estimated in Table I. 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 I.
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, I 56 a.m. and 3,328 p.m. peak hour trips. The
higher p.m. peak hour trips reflect the inclusion ofretailland uses which typically are not active
during the a.m. peak hour.
o
Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc.
lIacienda Lakes Traffic Impact Sll/dy
- I -
o
o
GOLDEN GATE BLVD W
Legend
PINE RIDGE
PINE RIDGE RD EXT
- Significantly Impacted Roadway Network
- Scheduled Improvements Within Study Area
- Scheduled Improvements Outside Study Area
tjJ Approximate Area of Developable land
11II Parcel lands
en
o
Cl:
~
W
...J
o
o
o
(9
~
m
Cl:
W
:J
...J
o
U
en
o
z
o
...
Ul
(9
z
:>
:J
OLDEN GATE PKY
Collier Blvd:
Davis Blvd to Golden Gate Canal
Add lanes 2011
o
Davis Blvd:
Radio Rd to Collier Blvd
6 lanes 2011
Hacienda Lakes
Project Site
N
A
o 0.5
Miles
2
o
w
Figure 1
Hacienda Lakes Site Location and Study Network
Tindale-Oliver and Associales. Inc,
Hacienda Lakes T,"{!f/ic IlI/pacl Sludy
- 2-
0
- ......
(ij C"l N ~ ~ '<t 0') N 0') 0 C"l CD CO 0 ClO CD N CD CO
U) '0 CO N CD 0') C"l '<t CO 0 C"l U") 0 C"l CO N CO ~ 0') ;:jl;
0. N N N '<t_ ~ N ~ M '<t ~
";: ?- M I N N
I-
...
:l 'S r-- '<t 0 N r-- r-- '<t 0') U") N 0') 0 co '<t N N ClO '<t
0 N r-- CD C"l co co 0 ~ N ~ U") r-- C"l 0) '<t It) '<t Cl
J: 0 ~ r-- ~ ~ ~ ~ M. ~ N.
~ I
ell
CIl
a.. CD co ~ 0') r-- N co 0 U") r-- co N '<t ~ Cl co N
:E .E U") C"l 0 U") '<t CD r-- 0') ~ '<t CD '<t M 0) '<t '<t
a.. ~ ~ ~ ~ CD r--. '<to '7 C"l
..... ..... .....
(ij ~ r-- N 0') ~ 0 0') 0 N U") 0') N 0') co N ;:jl; CD ClO
U) - r-- r-- N CD co ~ ~ ~ U") ~ 0') r-- U") LO 0 19 ClO
0. 0 ~ ~ N N C"l ~ ~ C"l ..... ~ ~ ~
";: l- N .....
I-
...
:l 'S 0') N ~ U") CD co '<t ~ CD '<t N r-- C"l ClO ~ r-- C"l ;:jl;
0 U") '<t 0') U") C"l CD CD N N C"l CD N ClO 0 ClO C'(
J: 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ...... ~ C!. C!.
~ ..... I ..... .....
ell
CIl
a.. N U") ~ '<t U") N U") 0') CD Ci r-- U") CD ClO ~ r-- C"l '<t
~ .E ~ C"l ~ '<t '<t U") co '<t CD 0 C"l co 0 co C'( M
~ ~ N 0) ..... ClO ClO
I
~ U) U") 0') ~ CD N 0') co C"l CD 0 N N U") ClO co Cl ~ 0)
Q) 0. 0 CD ~ C"l CD CD '<t co co C"l U") 0_ C"l 0) r-- N CD It)
- "iij ';: 0') N CD_ 0') C"l CD co CD C"l cq, N co It) 0') co co_ r--
ctl C l- N N N N -.i N ..,f "f- a) '7 r-:
E: M N N
'- c::
- U) U) U) Ql
an (/) OJ
C 0. 0. 0. c .g.
(/) ";: ";: ';:
0 OJ E l- I- I- 0 ~
"0 ~
,.. r::: :J :J :J :J :J :J 0 U) (ij (ij )(
:J :J "- "- "- "- U; e U) 'S
Q) 0 "0 "0 "0 "0 "0 "0 "0 (/) (/) (/) (/) 0 c r:: a. C\i
- '- ... ... ... 0 CI)
.Q - co '<t ~ ~ '<t 0 0') 0 0 0 0 0') U") ~ CIl CIl a. Ql
~ '<t U") CD '<t N 0') 0 0 0 0 ~ C"l >< >< :c
~ ~ C"l ~ N '<t N U") 0 0 0 0') (ij c
r...: ci ci ci w w OJ ~
Q) N N U") '<t '0 U) 3: "0 V)
r::: C"l ~ I- U) CIl :J
0 U; 0
Q) ... z :::!.
(!) ~ (ij ii: -s,
(ij - 0 g-
o
.s. ID ID - l- (/) ()
ID ID ID ID ID ~ 0 OJ
OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ iti iti I-
~ 2: 2: 2: 2: 2: 2: 2: 2: 2: 2: ~ t
0:: 0:: CIl
:J :J :J :J :J :J :J :J :J :J :J ...J 0
U U U U U U U U OJ U U U OJ CIl Ii}
OJ OJ
"0 "0 "0 "0 "0 "0 "0 "0 CIl "0 "0 "0 CIl "0 a::
OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ Qj OJ OJ OJ Qj c V)
:::: :::: :::: :::: :::: :::: :::: :::: :::: :::: :::: OJ j:::
~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~ ! '(3
CIl Iii
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :r: <.:>
0
C"l N ~ N ..- N ~ N ~ N r-- N ..- ex:) ... :9
N N N N N N N co r-- r-- r-- U") C"l 0 .E a:
0 "0 a
N OJ
C U; CI)
Ql
0 :J -'C
OJ :;:; :0 Cll
(/) jl '6 CIl -'
:J
0 W OJ {g
ell .I::. OJ OJ OJ .I::. iti c::
c ,5 .5 ,5 co E Ql
"!::! 3: (/) (/) (/) '(3
en 0 :J :J :J C ~ ~
t: OJ
"C 0 0 0 ,~~ 0 OJ d,
c E :r: :r: :r: ~ c 0
ell :J "0 "0 "0 ~i Qj 0 c:i
ai :s; OJ OJ OJ ~ ~
.I::. .I::. .I::. C
"C E c..> c..> c..> OJ Qj 0
0 0 CIl CIl CIl "0 OJ <.9 c 0
ID ID ID ... ~I
() "0 ... 0 :J a. OJ Ol
C 0 0 0 OJ .I::. ~ ~ OJ ;0
ai 0 C OJ OJ ~ c..> ~I a. 0;
U) u ~ ~ ~ c..> ro (f) CIl
::> OJ lE c..> U w E Ol
co E E E u lE 0... 2:- ~ C: <0
"C ~ C CIl C CIl C CIl OJ 0 0 (/) CIl co co "0
c OJ u. OJ u. OJ u. c co (/) c c U, 0 0
ell OJ E cD E I E I '5.. co OJ Qj (/) OJ .I::. 0
...J :2 OJ OJ Qj c..> .5 OJ CIl c..> c..> <0
t:: C> t:: C> t:: C> a. E a; j;; (f)
0 w (/) CIl CIl CIl 0 c '6 (/) 0... :J 't
OJ ~ c ~ c ~ C .I::. OJ ~ :J OJ '5 0 Ql
!::: 0:: i:i.i i:i.i i:i.i (f) <.9 co W :r: -- - (f) OJ (3
'5 J..
z .:.;
Tindale-Oliver and Associales, Inc. Hacienda Lakes Traffic 11l1pacI SllIdy
- 3 -
o
o
o
1.l.i-4-
I I
I I
North Driveway: Right-In/Right-Out/Left-In Only - Stop Controlled
--
--
J 10 (
[ ~ ~ _fl'
-.J
-----
-----
I
I
I
+-
I)
I
I
I
o
[;:)
Figure 2
Conceptual Site Plan
r_
I
I
I
I
+
I
I
I
I
I
+
I
I
I
I
4>
- 4 -
NTS
Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc,
Hacienda Lakes TI"C!(fic Impact Study
o
o
o
Traffic Distribution and Assienment
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 staffs 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 T AZ's were coded with appropriate land use data to reflect ITE-based traffic
generation for the development.
As indicated in Table I, 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 intemal
capture between on-site land uses. In addition, during the methodology discussions, application of
intemal 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, intemal 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 intemal capture estimates resulted in PM peak hour extemal trips being reduced to
approximately 85 percent of the total vehicle trip-end generation reported in Table I.
During the traffic assignment step, capture of trips from Collier Boulevard (C.R, 951) 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 intemal capture and pass-by capture estimates indicates that Hacienda Lakes is
estimated to generate 27,759 net extemal daily, and 2,546 (1,342 inbound, 1,204 outbound) net
extemal p.m. peak hour trip-ends. Tables 2a through 2c summarize the intemal 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 .
o
o
o
Table 2-a
Internal Capture and Pass-By Capture Estimate
Daily Internal Capture Matrix
Residential In 6,800
Out 6,800
Shopping In 7,342
Center Out 7,341
Office In 2,234
Out 2,234
Hotel In 418
Out 417
Total In 16,794
Out 16,792
Hotel
In Out
418 417
o
School Internal Capture: 30% of school trips are assumed to come from Hacienda Lakes
School Exlernal Trips:
Internal Capture:
1012
304
Total
853
661
1,113
1,166
220
352
151
158
Internal Capture = 4,978
Capture Rate = 14.4%
Gross Exlernal = 29,620
Pass-by Trips Estimate
Shopping Center
Gross Trips (inbound) 7342
Gross Trips (outbound) 7341
Internal Capture (inbound) 1113
Internal Capture (outbound) 1166
Exlernal Trips (inbound) 6229
Exlernal Trips (outbound) 6175
Exlernal Trips (total) 12404
Pass-By Capture = 25%
Pass-By Trips
Pass-By Trips (inbound)
Pass-By Trips (outbound)
1861
931
931
Net Exlernal = 27,759
- 6-
Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc.
Hacienda Lakes Tr({{fic Impact Stll(~)'
o
o
o
Table 2-b
Internal Capture and Pass-By Capture Estimate
Residential In 234
Out 815
Shopping In 189
Center Out 121
Office In 304
Out 62
Hotel In 36
Out 23
Total In 763
Out 1,021
AM PK Hour Internal Capture Matrix
Shopping
Center
In Out
189 121
8
Office
In Out
304 62
o
Hotel
In Out
36 23
o
School Internal Capture: 30% of school trips are assumed to come from Hacienda Lakes
School External Trips:
Internal Capture:
Pass-by Trips Estimate
Shopping Center
372
112
Total
8
9
25
20
4
8
8
8
Internal Capture = 202
Capture Rate = 9.4%
Gross External = 1,954
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
Pass-By Trips (inbound)
Pass-By Trips (outbound)
66
33
33
Net External = 1 ,888
Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc.
- 7 -
Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impact Study
o
o
o
Table 2-c
Internal Capture and Pass-By Capture Estimate
PM PK Hour Internal Capture Matrix
Gross Total
Tri s
Residential In 841
OJt 471
Shopping In 690
Center OJt 719
Office In 93
OJt 296
Hotel In 42
OJt 38
Total In 1,666
OJt 1,524
School Internal Capture: 30% of school trips are assumed to come from Hacienda Lakes
School External Trips:
Worst Case Scenario Assumtions:
Student-ta-staff ratio:
Staff Memebers:
Staff Memebers Present (leaving) during the PM Peak Hour:
Staff Memebers Present (leaving) during the PM Peak Hour:
Student Related Trips:
In: 68
OJ!: 61 (70 trips - 9 staff trips)
138
10,62 (obtained from Hillsborough County School Board)
87
10%
9 (outbound tri ps)
30% Students from Hacienda Lakes
In: 20 (school inbound trips coming from inside Hacienda Lakes)
OJ!: 18 (school outbound trips staying inside Hacienda Lakes)
Internal Capture =
Capture Rate =
Gross External =
486
14,6%
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
Pass-By Trips (inbound)
Pass-By Trips (outbound)
296
148
148
Net External = 2,546
Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc.
Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impact Slll(~l'
- 8-
.
Study Network Identification
The transportation study network for Hacienda Lakes was identified based on policies adopted
by Collier County. These policies require that all regionally significant roads where traffic from
the development consumes two percent or three percent of the adopted service capacity of the
"existing and committed" road should be included in the study network. The two percent
significant impact threshold applies for the first two road segments as traffic leaves or
approachcs 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 I, Road segments denoted by
gray shading in Table 3 are on the study network.
Committed Roadwav Improvements
Adopted capital programs of Collier County and the FOOT, current at the time of this analysis,
were reviewed and three "committed" road improvement projects (with construction funding
o 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, 20 II.
. Davis Blvd. (S.R.84): Radio Rd. to Collier Blvd., 6-lanes, 20 II.
. 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 FOOT 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.
Existin2 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 K 100 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 SOUl'ce and derivation of study network volumes
and all assumptions used to derive these values are also documented in Appendix E.
o
Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc.
Hacienda Lakes TIY!f(ic Impact Study
- 9 -
o
o
o
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, can)'ing 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 n and substantial capacity is available in
the network to accommodate additional travel.
Back2round 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, 20 I O. 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) detennining the annual traffic growth rate from 2009 to 2019 based on the model
volumes above for a "Method A" estimate,
(d) detemlining 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 20 19 AADT,
(f) cxamining thc diffcrenecs bctwccn thc Method A and Method B estimates and usually
averaging the two to develop a 2019 background AADT estimate. Averaging was
chosen in most cascs because the two methods produced vcry similar volumes.
For statc 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 arc provided in
Appendix F.
Tindale-Olil'er and Associates, Inc.
I/acienda Lakes Trq/Jic Impact Study
12
o
o
o
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 indieates 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 infom1ation 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 AAOT volumes were converted to PM peak-hour, peak season
background traffic volumes using the appropriate "KIOO" (for SIS roads), and "0" factors, as
identified in Table 6. The peak direction of background traffic on each segment was based on
existing traffic flow pattems.
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 T AZ's in
which the Hacienda Lakes was isolated. The resulting distribution of extemal 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 Operatine 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 pattems. 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 oflocations 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
o
o
o
Table 5
2019 Background Growth
Raw Model 2009 Resulting MoOeI-o-d WT NlDTiESllnWh! baud
Sllgmem VoI~ R_ "'~. "'...... 2009-2019 2009 2Cl19ANJT ......rage Historical Uw' ........ t"PP1ledMOCFof INT
Modo' G,..... "'..... "'T NlDT(r./IJ -.... GrO'Mh -.... ".... C~ ...- ....,
""""'" G,..... "'..... "'T ....
Inte.. RM' Rautl1l "'.....00 ~.., M..... ""hod "''''h ..... RM. '''''
00 F,~ To ""'" ,." AlI'.r." ..... 200ll ,.,. 2009 ,."
-, R~ ."
..'" RadioRd CR951 8,780 39,76!> 23,457 ",. ''"' 13,862 2C.340 .)4,<Ull .)4,202 34,342 '9% ''"' .'" 30:,342 0.71 5.299 23.99 14.4.41 "'"
BM:l(CR951) Golden Gate Btvd ......... 21,952 40.421 30,700 32% 32% '.263 26,649 35.081 34.912 ".000 3,1% .. 3.1% ".000 2.01 37,505 69,05 53.56' ro.3
Colier BW.(CR951) GroonBW Golden Gale Pkwy 2(l,181 36.335 28,149 '''' '9% 6.950 26.649 3<.399 33.607 34.003 28% 2.8% 3<.003 103 18.194 31 .81 ~ 27.44.8 35.02
8lvd.{CR,9511 GoX1en Gate Pkwy ~751Nl 10,511 39,005 24,roe 6.2% 6.2% 12.747 21,868 35.528 .34,615 35,072 6.,", 6.,", 35.072 1.66 14,831 55.0 36,301 "'2
Collie.BlYd,(CR951l H5(S) DalltiBIvd 32,438 73.986 52,119 '2% '2% 16,587 41,6!>5 59,132 60,242 59.687 0%* 0% 59.681 036 lOAn 23.89 15,829 22.681
ColIIllfBIvd.lCR.9511 Davis Blvd Lofd'sWay 25,621 42.913 33.'" 2.1% 2.1% 1.613 33.201 ':2,030 40.874 41,452 2,5% 2.5% 41.452 '20 ".2B5 60.36 13.042 91.194
CoIIefBIvd lC.R.9511 Lords Way Ralllesna~e Hammoc~ Rd 25,821 42,973 33'" ,,% "" 7.673 33.201 ':2.030 40.874 41,452 25'l<. 2.5% 41,452 0.92 20,192 33.66 30.545 38.1J(
XlIierBIvd(C,R,951j RatllesMke H<wnmoc~ Rd U,541 23,207 48,032 3<.666 3,7% 3.1% 11.106 28.033 ".BOa 39.139 38.824 38% 3.8% 38,824 3.41 67.265 139.221 95.593 132.3
R951 U541 Wal-M1" Onveway 32,527 54,587 42,976 27% 27% 9.869 28.617 36.349 38,486 37,416 3,1% 1.9% 3.1% 37,416 0.45 12.442 20." 12,676 16.8
Ro;, Wal-MMt DriYeway ","",eeRd 32,339 60,445 45,652 3.2% 32% 12.514 28.611 31.890 41.191 39.541 3,6% 1,9% 38% 39,541 063 11.318 32,36 18,029 24.911
S,R,951 "bnaleeRd M>iosa~Of 29,166 55,321 41,~7 3.3% 33% 11,691 22.676 "'" 3<"'" 32.509 ,,.. ,,.. '2% 32,509 347 ".090 163,16 79.387 112,8
adioRd UvingstonRd Santa Barbara Blvd 13,164 39,143 26.070 52% 52% 11,622 19.176 29,236 ".BOO 30,016 '''' ~- 5.1% 30,016 2.01 23.516 61,901 ".... 66.3
adlORd Sanla Barbara Blvd S,R,84 (Oavis Blvd) 2,411 21,445 11":27 66% 6.6% 6,515 9.217 17.298 11.132 17,515 ''"' ''"' 11,515 1.3< 2,746 24,4 12,351 23.47
atllesMkeHmckRd U.541 Ct'.arlemaryoeBIvd 16.195 26,935 23,262 2,4% 24% '.805 "." 26,379 27,640 26.010 2.3% 2,3% 26.010 060 12.373 19,67 16.266 22.'
anlesnal<eHmckRd CharlemaryoeBlW County Barn Rd 12,277 25.096 16.350 3,1% 3,1% 5.136 13.261 16,136 18,991 16,566 ''"' ''"' 16,566 0" 4.114 '.53 5." 7.427
anlesnal<eHmckRd Comly Barn Rd SantaBarbaraBM:l 7.547 25,4~ 16.030 59% 5.9% 8,012 12.481 19,830 20,499 20,165 6.1% 6,1% 20,165 0.75 4,611 16,22 9,365 15.12"
atllesnalo,eHmc~Rd Santa BarharaBM:l C.R,951 2,669 22,643 12,341 6,5% 6.5% 6,921 6,529 15,781 11,456 16.622 95% 9,5% 16,622 1.00 '.666 36,891 16,205 ".
Santa BarbaraBM:l RadioRd S,R,64 (Davis BM:l) 19,672 48,970 33.666 4,6% 46% 13,018 32.997 48,013 46,015 47.014 ,.,.. 4,2% 47,014 1.05 17,736 43,7 34,647 "
Santa BarharaEXI S.R64(OavisBM:l) Ratllesfli:tk.eH<wnmoc~Rd "'" 43.151 "'" "'. n'a "'" "'" "'" 37,193 31.193 "'" "'" 31.193 ","6 '05 0 16.24 0 76,2
"5 GokjenGalePkwy CoIierBM:l 60,794 67,600 64.016 06% ''"' 3,045 32.500 39.000 35,545 35,545 09% 3,1% 3,1% 42,575 3." 170,527 189,61 101.250 140.49l'!
amiall1iTrllilEasl OavisBM:l """"'Rd 40,681 53,976 47.064 1,5% ''"' 5,656 30,694 36,633 36,552 36.693 ''"' , 2% ''"' 36,693 1.26 43.184 51,80 38,674 4623:'
amiamiTrailEast IWportRd Raltlesna~e Hammoc~ Rd 52,867 "066 56.164 ''"' ''"' 5.003 44.146 52,975 49,149 51.062 16% 14% ,.'"' 52,975 1,69 75.943 92,00 74,607 69.52
TamiamiTrailEilSt CollierBM:l San MtrcoOr 9.801 22300 15.125 ,,.. '2% 5"'" 11,916 16,966 11,~7 17.277 44% , 2% 44% 11,277 6.15 67.938 154,46 91,621 140,600
766.1111,'60,930 909,897 1,329.955
"'"
(1)2 pen:;ent Average.A.nnualGrOYllth Rate Mnirmrn. Used lor ~A2019AADT Estimate
(2)2009-2019..vDT Growth.. (2019 RW- 2009RMV) x M:lCF -- Colier County t.OCF" 0.65 - Used lor ~thod B 2019..vDTEsllmale
(3)PAlIhodA2019..vDT"2009..vDTxi1. [.AdjusledAnnualGrowlhRatex(2019.2OO9)]}
(4) Method B 2019..vDT .. 2009 AADT. (2009-2019) MDT GrCM1tl
(5) Average "(MJIhodA2019 MDT. Mllhod22019 ..vDT)/2
(6) Obtaned as 2019 RMv'x M:lCF
ArnuaIlncrease in VMT' 36,569
Ra~o of VMT (2009 D 2019)' 1.477
"'006~
1.462.,
1.15 . .
0.99
Est/Model Annuallncr8ase Comparison
Est/~el Ra~o ~rlsof"r
Model foreCilsts 36,569 vmt IncreilSt! per yeilr, we're using 42,006. . ConSt!lViltivel
Modelfore-CilSts 2019 vmt will be 1.477 times 2009 vmt (2009 volumes ilre base-d on Interpolate-d 2009
b~n 2000 ilnd 20191. We-'re matching thilt filtiol
Overillt growth in trilvel on the study netwotir.ls 3,9% per veilr.
Tindak--Olh.:randAs'o(X'ial':S.ln\'
Hacicml.a LaJ...:s Trafl1e Impael SInd)
-]4-
o
-,~
_,CR.!;!")
""<IleR!!!>')
_IGllllS"
_.IC.R.lIS"
-;oIoo,B"dICRw..'1
8Ml(CI't9!>\)
_ICR!I!>\I
_.~
_G<oloS"",
.~
-~~
'.15 ~s'
O_Bo..l
"...r.w. R<I
ll..__...."moc.""
us~,
';R!li!>l
')RlI5'
-~
"",-..Rd
~~
fl.o ~Il&rn.r._
l1Ie:~~~~"' '" :,
" ~
CTo.m""'TWE.'
am ~Ad
m -..e"",
s """B"-S.leR!!!>1)
...:_-:::...",:::: -=:~.~"
f"*lll<l DLCI>Eod
'lIo._Rd ROI'''''......,.....,'''''''.".
CRll5'
_.~
Gol<lcoGolcP"'y
'-7S(N'
~--
u""..W..,Ro
_"..,Hommoc.Rd
US.,
"""""""~ o.-..Ily
",_"-0
~\w>o..o.
s..lAe.."....B...d
5 R.&4 10.._8"")
~-
CounI)'8lomRd
SanIaB_.BW
CRlISl
SRM,o....B""'1
___Hammoc.Rd
--
-~
_-"_ockR<l
SenIoWooO,
~~-
--~
c.,,,,__
-~
_......HiOm"""".Rd
It>,,HW'''Ro1
t.c I.C LD6
~ =: .... .wm. em- T_
~.
<-
T.ble6
2019 Toral Conditions Generalized Level of Setvice Analysis
ro
<0
<0
<0
ro
m
m
ro
00
<0
<0
<0
<0
<0
<0
<0
ro
ro
00
.,
ro
m
"
"
N
<0
"
N
N
0.1'
~m
'00
,~
,~
..
'"
O.fi3
'"
'"
,.
'00
'"
,~
,~
,~
,~
,~
,~
."
,~
om
025
'"
o~
"~
o C""...y Me.,
D C"""y Me-'
[} Counl Me_,
[} s.... .....c.,
,
,
,
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
,
,
o
,
,
<
,
,
,
,
,
,
Me-'
eo.... Me-'
Coonl, Me.l
s...@ .....e.'
SlOIc MC-'
S"". U<WIl
c...", Me_'
c.....Y.....c-,
CW<O:y....c-\
Coo'" MC-l
I'OO9Q&LOS
~eo..nl.AUR
-~~
~'CW<>...AlJ/fI.
--~
-~~
C<>Ie<C"",I)'Il<.IR
--~
-~~
~Coun"'.IR
Urt>Ion 2!>Q(l Cole"c..."l)'_
LotJon 2'20 ~CwOlyAl.ll'l
ur:.n 2'00 CoIoo<c.- HJIl
~ ~~ ~.~
Urban U<'ll :/OOlIOl,-OS_ 1406
Urt>on V!lJ ~CouOIy"'" ln1
I..lrbon 3200 CoIoc<Counl)'.ou<l 2.71
Urboon 107~ ~CounlyolUl't !l&
lJrban 790 20090&,-OS_ 6
Urboon T1iO 2OlI90&lOSI-lo_ 0
1.760 2OOll0ll0Sfio_ .
700 20090ll0SHo_ .
Urtan 2OlI90&lOSMr._ 0
Urboon 2t6<O&lOSI-lo_ 0
, ~.
F...- ,...",. Dir
1113 n'. e~
~ 0.& "6
1500 9\>1 061 "6
1313 8Cl\ 062 NB
...r.2 "'. 0.57
\ ftfo4 14<9 "'. 0 ~7 "8
1ll<l4 1.c29 "'. 051 NB
n'. a.St 'Ill
1 a6fl 1 12~ nl. 0 ~7 "8
1.5eO 1.329 "'" 050 >;B
1.,86 1.3B2 0.50 56
1154 n'. 01>3 E6
379 502 .... 0.57 1'0'6
!o91 1007 nl. O.I!J 1'0'6
70!0 5f>l nl. O.~ EB
715 .n n'. 01lO eB
.1S "'33 "'. 0.51 E6
f'5(l 0.!;5 S6
... O~ O.~ "'0
17l1O 00940 056 we
1.203 "" 0!09 E6
1717 .... 0.5S EB
!o65 N. 051 E6
00900 050 E6
o 0.0900 "'.
6 00ll(ll 05<' E6
6 OOll(ll 0_5< EB
o "" "', "'.
o "" "'.
a;:" =~
>>1......1olo...
1Ia<_.,.-1._
~.-
......011<1.'''''
>>111_
-.-
'...-'
..:.:. IIl11El ___ ";: "_I SIIWB "_I ..._ ...-EII ___ 118.'l1 ~ _I __ ~
...-
<-,
1'tI"""_
P."~-
--
<-
-
~
~
~
~
-
~
~
-
~
~
.~
~
~
-
~
3.10,.
'"
."
."
'"
'"
3.6'"
'"
.r. "'.
57'" .."
~oo., _
'"
.(J';, ...
61'" nlO.
."
.2... ...
37193
31'" '2.575
'"
'" "
..." <>.
.,
..
1.69.
,
,~,
V.a;
,
,
J;,>fol 1611l 10\6 E8
3508 2:18(; "23 58
3~.- 1.1l76 1260l 56
3191 21Qt; '...., 56
~ 661 3227 2')4 56
..... 2:165 !7M S~
....G ;1_ '7M
31191 22'l6 '595
3.15 18041 10606 >;B
JII9;1 16Y; 'l6
,~
.1867 1806 1061 E6
1670 7:10 E6
Iii!> 12:J.'i E6
1763 !lfil 716 E6
19:;>5 11!.'!
617 765 E6
2061 1107 13!>O S6
3.556 1600 ,_ S6
.002 1761 22., EB
3~1 20n 10440 EB
502~ 2!l65 2_ E6
Me 615 E6
153 &; 71 1'0'6
, ,
211 110 '01 E6
211 110 ,01 E6
, ~
o ,
\01 11li3 15()'; 0611 05\\ Y... "'"
9:l 200137 12131132 05!o& Veo ...... Y...
901 105 2072 1369 n676
1.9 166 2:1SS ...57 0910 O~ V'"
....\ 325 215& 11730920 v...
.0(11 '!>O 2772 2236 0&48 Of>llol
!66 551 m. 2335 053 071. V...
....\ 258/ 1656 07/7 0551 V..
WI "" i'05O 1560
111l 101 2215 '!i043 11550_
103 9.'J 17B1l 2071 0690 0.600 V...
11)5 54 1911 nOO10.505
"'" 79' 1016 0317 00ll'> V...
22' 2(1' 1')6 0a8<J 07<10 Y...
206 .Xl 1235 n1lJ70.515
285 Z55 '4.4(1 1025 06\5 0'36 v...
!I6e 509 1365 lZ'l4 0'33 OaOol V..
125 tac 1232 03790460
H6 19!' 177e 2'~ O!>O7 0663 v...
ltS 101 lB1!(l 2306 O~ 0&31 Yeo
,OIl 96 21M l!ioO< OM 051;1 Y..
1M 1~1 3113 22" OS7S 06<1' Y...
67 eo 915 6n; 08.~1 0.61' Y..
6 191 0186 0.366 v..
,el 67 167 OM~ 0211 Y..
1050 935 1170 103ll 0~5 O~ V..
3(9 226 .5\1 327 O.sel 0'" Y.
6~ 15.3 65 '5.3 01011 O'!Ol
~ '2 33 (1)53 0.042 v".
,- ~
,~ ~
'"
y.,. "",
,. ~
,.
,. ~
,.
,- ~
'-
~
,- ~
'- ~
,. ~
~ ~
,. ~
.~ ~
,. ~
'- ~
,~ ~
"" \167 ltl.l
-2Il1 -2(0)
& w
11lS J.w
516 .<21
.% ~
~
3'6 .23
n .1.
5\~ M,
209 314
lOll2 1106
M
"" 7Cl5 953
llOO 1165
1615 2:163
175ll 11196
"" \1)Qo') ll'101
1312 1079
"'" 5604 673
",", fi7 231l
~ m
.99 71;fl
~,
"" ,-
n, ""
"" &31 71lO
"'" 7ae 1~
Tindak-OIi\'CTandAssllcial'-'",lnc
o
u-t>an 2160
()man 23W
2.'50
- ,~
__ 3<70
~n 3.270
- ,~
()man 2370
Coo,. MC-'
Ccluf<y Me-I
eo..... MC.1
Coolty MC-'
S..."F_
S...o MC-2
SlIIIo MC-'
S...n MC.'
C",,",y MC.'
C"""'y Me-,
Count MCl
Cwnty MC_l
C",,'" MC-'
-15-
FOOT CS 03-2OO(l
-
-
~
TOAT~
TOAh_
TQAhlo'nalo
Hacienda Liles Traffic Impact Slud)'
o
o
o
conditions are expected. On these three segments, and at site aceess 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,95l) at Interstate 75 Ramps (North)
. Collier Boulevard (S.R.95l) at Interstate 75 Ramps (South)
. Collier Boulevard (S.R.95l) at Davis Boulevard
. Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951) at Northern Site Aceess (A.M. and P.M. peak hour analysis)
. Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951) at The Lord's Way (A.M. and P.M. peak hour analysis)
. Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951) at Rattlesnake Hammock Road (A.M. and P.M. peak hour
analysis)
. Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951) at Southern Site Aeeess (A,M. and P.M. peak hour analysis)
. Collier Boulevard (S.R.95l) at Wal-Mart Supercenter Driveway
. Collier Boulevard (S.R.95l) at Manatee Road
In addition to these intersections and pursuant to FDOT request, the following intersections were
also analyzed:
. Collier Boulevard (C.R.951 ) at Golden Gate Parkway
. Tamiami Trail East (U .S.4l) at Rattlesnake Hammock Road
. Tamiami Trail East (U.S.4I) 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.4I)
Intersection turning movement volume forecasts are included in Appendix G.
Levels of service were calculated using the following methodologies:
. Signalized Arterials
. Signalized Intersections
. Unsignalized Intersections
Procedures)
Synchro (2000 HCM Procedures)
Synchro (2000 HCM Procedures)
Highway Capacity Software (2000 HCM
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 perforn1ance standards:
. Collier Boulevard (C.R.951 ) at Pine Ridge Road
Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc.
llacienda Lakes Trcif.fic Impact Study
Hacienda Lakes o.lNaples, LLC
- 16 -
o
o
o
. Collier Boulevard (C.R.95I ) 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 Service Direction
[ll1'h]
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.95J) at Pine Ridge Road
. Construct an additional (for a total of two) northbound-to-westbound left tum lane on Collier
Boulevard.
. Construct an additional (for a total of two) southbound-to-eastbound left tum lane on Collier
Boulevard.
. Construct an additional (for a total of two) southbound-to-westbound right tum lane on Collier
Boulevard.
. Construct an additional (for a total of three) eastbound-to-northbound left tum 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 tum 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.95J) at Golden Gate Park""l'ay
. Construct an additional (for a total of two) northbound-to-westbound left tum lane on Collier
Boulevard.
Collier Boulevard (S.R.95J) at 1-75 Ramps (South)
· Construct an additional (for a total of three) eastbound-to-southbound right tum lane on 1-75
Ramps.
Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc.
Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impact Study
Hacienda Lakes o.fNaples, LLC
- 17-
o
Table 7b
Signalized Intersections Level of Service Analysis Summary
o
Time Movement
Intersection Measure Overall
Period EBl EBT EBR vel veT veR NBl NBT NBR SBl SBT SBR
Collier Blvd V/C n/a n/a n/a 0.93 n/a 0,26 n/a 0.77 0.89 0.95 0.30 n/a n/a
PM
at 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 [see]
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 Delay 67,1 136.4 36,3 63.3 128.4 n/a 114.1 172,2 26,7 172,6 79,8 15.4 103,7
Pine Hour [see]
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 PM Delay
at Peak 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 [see]
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
PM
at 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 [see]
Pkwy LOS F n/a F n/a n/a n/a F A n/a n/a F F F
Collier Blvd V/C n/a n/a n/a 0.89 n/a 0,28 0.93 0.46 n/a n/a 0.86 0,11 n/a
PM
at Peak Delay n/a n/a n/a 75.4 n/a 45.7 7,7 2,8 n/a n/a 31.6 15,1 16.5
1-75 North Hour [see]
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
PM
at 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 Hour [see]
Ramps LOS C n/a F n/a n/a n/a n/a D C F A n/a E
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 PM
at 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 [see]
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 PM
at 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 [see]
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
at Peak Delay n/a n/a n/a 58,9 n/a 56.2 n/a 2.1 0.1
Wal-Tvlart [see] 60.7 2.4 n/a 6.8
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
at Peak 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
Tvlanatee Rd Hour [see]
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 PM
Rattlesnake 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
Hammock Hour [see)
Rd LOS E D C E D C E E D E E D E
o
Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc,
- 18-
Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impact Study
Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC
o
o
o
Table 7c
Unsignalized Intersections Level of Service Analysis Summary
Time Movement
Intersection Measure
Period II
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Tamiami Trail 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
PM
at Peak Delay n/a note 1 note 1 8,5 note 1 n/a 23.0 n/a 10.6 n/a n/a n/a
San Hour [see]
rv1arco Rd LOS n/a note 1 note 1 A note 1 n/a C n/a B n/a n/a n/a
Note 1: unopposed mOl.ement
Table 8 summarizes the results of the "with improvements" capacity analysis.
Table 8a
Arterial Level of Service Analysis Summary
With Improvements Scenario
Roadway Average Level of
Speed Service Direction
[~h]
On From To
Collier Blvd 1-75(S) Davis Blvd. 17.1 D NB
Table Bb
Signalized Intersections Level of Service Analysis Summary
With Improvements Scenario
Time Movement
Intersection Period Measure Overall
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Collier Blvd V/C 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
at Peak Delay 54,3 47.3 39,0 61.2 54.6 51.4 60.7 38.5 36.1 62.4 38,6
Pine [see] 32,8 44,9
Hour
Ridge Rd LOS D D D E D D E D D E D C 0
Collier Blvd V/C 0,99 n/a 0,90 n/a n/a nla 0.98 0,59 n/a n/a 0.86 0.68 n/a
PM
at Peak Delay 68,7 n/a 61,7 n/a n/a n/a 64,9 6,0
Golden Gate [see] n/a n/a 48,1 88,1 52,9
Hour
Pkwy LOS E n/a E n/a n/a n/a E A nla n/a 0 F D
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 nla n/a
PM
at Peak Delay 35.5 n/a 70.1 n/a n/a nla n/a
1-75 South [see] 26,0 25,2 99.8 33.0 n/a 37,8
Hour
Ramps LOS D n/a E n/a n/a n/a n/a C C F C n/a D
Tindale-Olil'er and Associates, Inc,
Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impact Study
Hacienda Lakes o.fNaples, LLe
- 19 -
o
o
o
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:
I. 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
Time Movement
Intersection Measure Overall
Period 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 [see]
Collier Blvd LOS E E n/a D D n/a D B A E C B C
at
Lord's Way 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
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 [see]
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 Delay 62.7 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 [see]
at LOS E D D E E D E C C E B A C
Rattlesnake
Hammock 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
Rd PM
Peak Delay 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 [see]
LOS E E D E E E E E C E B A D
Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc.
lIacienda Lakes Tn!{fic Impact Swd,l'
Hacienda Lakes o.fNaples, LLe
- 20-
o
o
o
Table 9b
Unsignalized Intersections Level of Service Analysis Summary
Project Driveway
Time Movement
Intersection Period 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
Peak n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 15.6 n/a note 1 note 1 15.2 note 1 n/a
Collier Blvd Hour [sec]
at LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a C n/a note 1 note 1 C note 1 n/a
North 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
Driveway PM Delay
Peak n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 21.8 n/a note 1 note 1 30.2 note 1 n/a
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 Delay
Peak n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 12.4 n/a note 1 note 1 n/a note 1 n/a
Collier Blvd Hour [sec]
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
South 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
Driveway PM Delay
Peak n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 15.7 n/a note 1 note 1 n/a note 1 n/a
Hour [sec]
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 mo-.ement
Proportionate Share Computation
As noted above, the foIlowing off-site improvements were identified as necessary to mitigate
Hacienda Lakes project impacts:
Collier Boulevard (CR. 95/) at Pine Ridge Road
· Construct an additional (for a total of two) northbound-to-westbound left tum lane on CoIlier
Boulevard.
· Construct an additional (for a total of two) southbound-to-eastbound left tum lane on CoIlier
Boulevard.
· Construct an additional (for a total of two) southbound-to-westbound right tum lane on CoIlier
Boulevard.
· Construct an additional (for a total of three) eastbound-to-northbound left tum 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 tum lane on Pine Ridge Road.
· Widen from 4 lanes to 6 lanes Collier Boulevard from Green Boulevard to Golden Gate
Boulevard.
Til1dale-Oliver al1d Associates, Il1c,
Haciel1da Lakes Tr(!/Jic Impact Study
Haciel1da Lakes a/Naples. LLe
- 21 -
o
o
o
Figure 3a
Project Driveways Geometry
Intersection Geometry
-.
Jt!! ~ N
"- North Project
Collier Blvd Driveway
at
North
Driveway
1t 1f 1J ,.
Collier Blvd
~!!!~ -.
N
~
Lord's Way
Collier Blvd r
at JJ
Lord's ~
Way
~ ttt f
Collier Blvd
References: ~ Existing Lane
... New Lane
Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc,
- 22-
lIacienda Lakes Tr(!{!ic Impact Study
Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC
o
o
o
Figure 3b
Project Driveways Geometry
Intersection Geometry
J 1..11. J. ~'+ .-
N
"-
"J ...
~ Rattlesnake
Collier Blvd JJ .tr Hammock Rd
at ~ r
Rattlesnake
Hammock Rd :;
~
~~ ttt f
Collier Blvd
.-
tIt N
~ South Project
Collier Blvd Driveway
at
South
Driveway
ttt ,.
Collier Blvd
References: _ 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 tum lane on Collier
Boulevard.
Collier Boulevard (S.R.951) at 1-75 Ramps (South)
· Construct an additional (for a total of three) eastbound-to-southbound right tum lane on 1-75
Ramps,
Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc.
Ilacienda Lakes Trl!{!ic Impact Study
Hacienda Lakes a/Naples, LLC
- 23-
o
o
o
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 1.
Table 10
Hacienda Lakes Proportionate Share Computation
Capacity Prop. Prop.
Proposed Project Total
Location Share Share
Improvements Before After Added Trips % Cost $
. Add (for a total of two) NBL turn lane on Collier Blvd,
. Add (for a total of two) SBL turn lane on Collier 81vd,
Collier Blvd, . Add (for a total of two) SBR turn lane on Collier Blvd,
from Green Blvd. . Add (for a total of three) EBL turn lane on Pine Ridge Rd, 6,638 10,177 3,S39 178 S.O% $32,115,000 (1) $1,605,750
. Add (for a total of two) EBT lane on Pine Ridge Rd,
to Golden Gate 8lvd. . 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) N8L turn lane on Collier Blvd,
at 6,182 6,741 559 255 45,6% $ 1,032,160 $ 470,665
Golden Gate Pkwy, . Signal Modifications
Collier 8lvd. . Add (for a total of three) EBR turn lane on 1-75 Off Ramp
at 9,057 11,125 2,068 615 29,7% $ 778,337 $ 231,166
1-75 SB Off Ramps . Signal Modifications
Total $2,307,581
(1) Source: Collier County Capital Improvement Program
In addition, Hacienda Lakes development will build several roads and dedicate right of way 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
impaet fee creditable. Table II 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.
Table 11
Impact Fee Credit Computation
Total Public
Roadway Segment Roadway Impact
Commitment Segment Benefit Fee Credit
Cost Percentage
On From To'
I Rattlesnake Hammock Ext, Collier Blvd, FPL Easement $1,369,412 0.0% $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, Rattlesnake Hammock Ext. The 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. South of Sabal Palm Rd, $436,500 100.0% $436,500
XI Benfield Rd, beginning (south) Rattlesnake Hammock Ext. $2,272,118 83,5% $1,897,219
Total Impact Fee Credit: $14,137,207
Tindale-Oliver and Associales, Inc,
Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impacl SllId,1'
Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC
- 24-
o
o
o
--
I
I
I
-t-
I
I
I
[-<-
-.J
I
I
I
+-----
I)
I
I
I
Commitment X
t:;::l
Figure 3
Improvements within the Site
---
------
I
I
I
I
+
I
I
I
I
I
+
I
I
I
I
1-Y-4-
I I
I I
r__
4>
- 25 -
N1S
Tindale-Oliver and Associales, Inc.
Hacienda Lakes Traffic Impacl Sludy
Hacienda Lakes o/Naples, LLe
Hacienda Lakes aka Toll-Rattlesnake PUD
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
G MP Application
CCPC Review Materials
EXHIBIT 0
Areas of Historical/ Archelogical
Probability
-.,.
DUrA"=.
co\snTl\G ~
.1\1 Il .l~"
c
Rattlesnake Hammock Rd
"0
(;;
>
'"
:;
o
lD
~
o
()
Clamshell Cove
Midden .
Hacienda Lakes
Exhibit 0 - Archaeological Map
.
Jump Start Hammock
.
White Shell Hammock
o
1,000
~
N
o
(J
Legend
D Project Boundary
_ Archaeological Site
STATE
LANDS
Deep Marsh Hammock
...
2,000 Feet
I
B .,.,~"""
D'XTA'NC.
CONSULTING
..... "" , ..L ....
. Planning . Visualil.ltion
. Civil Engineering' Surveying & Mapping
Prepared By: rmjones
Printing Date: June 18, 2010
File: T;\Projects\2005\05 _0150.02.03_ HaciendaLakes\
GMP\Rev01 \Hacienda _ Archaeological_ Q.mxd
Hacienda Lakes aka Toll-Rattlesnake PUD
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
GMP Application
CCPC Review Materials
Consultant T earn
ll.
DUrA"=.
l'(l\Stlfi\f) f:Jirm:
.1 \ III .1 ;,;~,,'
o
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
o
Mr. Richard D. Y ovanovich, Esq.
Coleman, Y ovanovich & 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
o
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
c
Water Resource Solutions, a Division ofENTRIX, 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
o
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
Steams, Weaver, Miller, Weissler, Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A.
401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2200
Tampa, Florida 33602
(813) 223-4800 Office
(813) 222-5089 Fax
.
Hacienda Lakes aka Toll-Rattlesnake PUD
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
GMP Application
CCPC Review Materials
ATTACHMENTP
Resurnes
'-
DUrA"~.
to\StLTI\G ~
.1\1 Il.l~,,'
o
o
o
D\X~^INC.
Planning
Visualization
CONSULTING Civil Engineering
.A.. '-, , .L .JL Surveying & Mapping
Education
University of Florida /
BS.CE/1984
Registration I
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 Engineels
in Private Practice,
1986 - Present
Exhibit P
Resumes
Emilio J. Robau, P.E.
Director of Water Resources
Experience Summary
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 storm water 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.
o
o
o
D\l~^'NC.
Planning
Visualization
CON S U L TIN G Civil Engineering
.JL ....., , .L .1 SlIlveying & 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 Umerock Mine Collier County, FL - RWA is leading the effort to
secure land use entitlements and obtain state, federal and local environmental permits for
a large limerock mine in Collier County. Mr. Robau provided expert testimony at the
environmental advisory council meeting and planning council meeting outlining the
operational sequencing of the mining operation. Mr. Robau is responsible for the
coordination, design and permitting of the processing plant, turn lanes on Immokalee Road
and the overall mining area. Mr. Robau is the engineer of record for all permitting and local
development order activities.
Marco Island Right Of Way and Drainage Master Plan, Marco Island, FL - RWA was
hired to assist in the development of a master right of way and drainage plan, working with
design consultants to prepare a plan that fully considered private property impacts,
aesthetics, engineering design, safety, and utility elements associated with some 24 miles
of City owned Rights-of-Way. The Master Plan included a full inventory of all water
management system components and the regulatory requirements in place that could be
supplemented to improve water quality and quantity management of stormwater runoff.
The major work components of the Drainage Master Plan included inventory of all drainage
structures and pipes within public rights-of-way and easements; the creation of a hydraulic
model for use in sizing improvements; a public participation program to identify areas of
concern for street flooding, safety hazards, or related pavement deficiencies; and the
development of a 5-year CIP.
Toll Brothers-Rattlesnake DRI Master Planning & Design - Engineer of Record
responsible for a 2,250-acre property consisting of 910 acres to be developed. The water
management system is composed of four major basins, three of these basins will discharge
into the wetlands and one basin will discharge into Henderson Creek Canal. RWA utilized
XP-SWMM software to design the stormwater management plan and incorporated regional
sub watershed models
Forest Glen Master-Planned Community; The Ranta 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.
c
o
c
D\XZA1NC.
Plannin~
Visualization
CO N S U L'T IN G Civil Engineering
.A. '-, , .L .Jl.. Surveying & Mapping
Exhibit P
Resumes
Emilio J. Robau, P.E.
Page 3
Sabal Bay Master Planned Community - Engineer of Record responsible for the design
of a 2,300-acre mixed-use community. The property includes wetland and upland
conservation areas that cover more than 70 percent of the project area and requires the
construction of a portion of the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Plan (LASIP). The
largest component of this plan is the relocation and widening of the Lely Main Canal, which
is the outfall for a very large upstream watershed area. This regional stormwater
management facility also included the design of a 1,600 ft. long broad crested weir to
improve upstream drainage in the highly developed areas of the watershed and more
importantly prevent downstream saltwater intrusion and dewatering of the local
groundwater aquifer. The design also included complex regional, federal, state and local
environmental permitting. Coordination with Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research
Reserve, an adjacent property owner and other non-governmental environmental
organizations was a critical element of the successful permitting of the facility and
associated development. RWA performed the final design utilizing XP SWIMM software.
Vasari Country Club; 375-Acre Master Planned Single and Multi-Family Residential
Community; Taylor Woodrow Communities, Inc.; Bonita Springs, FL - Engineer-of-
record responsible for overseeing the master planning, environmental permitting,
transportation consulting, land development civil design, construction document
preparation, and contract administration services. Included were design and document
preparation for the potable water and sanitary sewer systems, and drainage master
planning. Traffic operation services included design and construction document
preparation for signing, pavement marking, and channelization. Permitting services
included SFWMD, 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
o
o
o
D'lTA'NC.
CONSULTING
.&. "-, , ..... .1
Education
University of
Alaskal as 1
Resource Mgmt
wlemphasis on
Urban Planning -
Minor in
Archaeology /1984
Registration I
License
AICP -024609
Professional
Societies
American Planning
Association
1987 - Present
Florida Chapter
American Planning
Association
1987 - Present
Dwight H. Nadeau, AICP
Planning Services Manager
Experience Summary
Mr. Dwight Nadeau is a professional Planner and Planning Services Manager. He is
responsible for coordination and management of resource allocations for planning tasks
associated with the firm's land planning and development projects. Mr. Nadeau has over
23 years of planning and community service experience. He holds a Bachelor of Science
degree in Resource Management with emphasis on Urban Planning, and a minor in
Anthropology from the University of Alaska, Fairbanks.
Mr. Nadeau has significant experience in project planning and management; as well as,
comprehensive planning and land use regulation oversight. He has specific expertise in
the successful planning and zoning of monumental projects, including "visioning", directing
the preparation of concept and master plans, drafting land development regulations, public
outreach and consensus building, and public advocacy through presentations with citizenry
and public officials. Mr. Nadeau played a key role in the planning and zoning, as well as
professional support in the resulting legal battle over the rural area residential development
"clustering" of Twin Eagles Golf and Country Club. After 12 years, the matter successfully
culminated with the setting of a legal precedent for 'clustering' of residential developments
in rural areas, and laid the foundation for the future development of Eastern Collier County.
In addition, Mr. Nadeau has vast experience with beachfront and waterfront
redevelopment, which includes visioning, conceptual development design, project team
coordination, and public involvement through the administrative review and political
processes.
Representative Projects
Residential
Lake Marion Golf Resort, Phase I and 1/; 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
D'XTA'NC.
O. CONSULTING
..... "" , .L .....
o
o
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 11/; 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
CaE 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, 9G8-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.
o
o
o
D'lTA1NC.
CONSUL TING
~ "" ,..... .1
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 /I (fka Phase IV); 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.
Olde Marco Inn; Marco Cat, LLC, Marco Island, FL - Project Planner responsible for site
analysis, master planning, and planned unit development rezoning. Established a local
historic designation, resulting in the refurbishment of this historic 1896 structure, as well as
the addition of a 62-room boutique hotel. Facilitated an archeological survey that resulted
in an archeological dig that found significant tools and debris that further illustrated the day-
to-day life of the lost Caloosa Tribe.
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.
D'lTA'NC.
O CONSULTING
-&. "" , ..L ..a.
Dwight H. Nadeau, AICP
Page 4
Other
o
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.
o
o
o
o
D'lZA1NC.
Planning
Visualization
CON S U L'r [N G Civil Engineering
.JL ....., , A. .1 Surveying & Mapping
Education
Bachelor of Science.
Surveying and
Mapping,
University of Flon'cla.
1989
Registrations I
Licenses
Professional Land
Surveyor
FULS 5301/1994
Professional
Societies
Flodc/a Swveying and
Mapping Society
Collier-Lee Chapter of
Florida Surveying and
Mapping
SocietylPresident
1997-1998
Board of Directors.
D/sldet SIDireclor
2000-2001
Exhibit P
Resumes
Michael A. Ward, P.L.S.
Survey Project Manager
Experience Summary
Mr. Michael A. Ward, P.L.S. has more than 23 years of experience as a Professional Land
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
University Phases I, II, and the Sports Complex and Arena, as well as numerous Florida
Department of Transportation (FOOT) survey and construction projects and numerous golf
course communities throughout Southwest Florida.
Representative Projects
Griffin Road Filter Marsh, Collier County, FL - Survey Project Manager responsible for
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
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.
Cape Coral Utility Expansion Project, Lee County, FL - Project Manager for the utility
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
collecting data of the existing improvements and features located inside of and within 10
feet of the right-of-way's (approximately 117,600 lineal feet) to be used for utility expansion
design purposes.
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 Storm water 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, Col/ier 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.
o
o
o
D'XZArNC.
Planning
Visualization
CON S l! L TIN G Civil Engineering
~ '-., , .L ..... Surveying & 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 Earthview 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.
!
i ',,)' i! }-1r-RY & ASSOCIATES LLC Exhibit P
d~-_~__J~:~~02i~~~IO'~"-~_________________~~:es____
E:duczt~{}n
Saint Michaels
College, VT / BA /
Political Science /
1977
Florida Gulf Coast
University, FL /
Masters / Public
Administration /
2001
\qe~Iistra.tion f
Lkense
Amelican Institl/te
of Certified
Planners (AICP)
American
Planners
Association
(APA), #077255
o
f.'tr-'ofE:SSfon i=?,1
Soci€,:t~{::s
American Institute
of Cerlified
Planners
1994 - Present
American Planning
Association,
1989 - Present
Florida Chapter
American Planning
Association
1989 - (Elected
Secretary 2005 -
2006)
FAPA Promised
Lands Section
President 2001-
2002
American Society
of Public
Administrators
1994 - Present
Urban Land
Institute
o
Robert J. Mulhere,AICP
r~ ~ . ~ . f pJ".... ~<OW... $"..........
!,..~" roe 5 ~ (j f~ r1 II t...e' t: \;,...)
Experience Summary
Mr. Robert J. MUlhere, President and CEO of Mulhere & Associates, has more than 20
years of professional planning and land development experience. His general areas of
practice include urban planning and design, zoning regulations, ordinance writing, conflict
resolution and public facilitation.
Providing planning expertise to clients in both private and public markets, Mr. Mulhere has
honed his skill in the writing and interpretation of local, state and federal zoning regulations,
ordinances and codes. Recognized by the Florida American Planning Association (FAPA)
as a leader in the planning field, particularly in the field of growth management, he received
the FAPA Award of Excellence in 1997 and 2001 and the Award of Merit in 2000. He also
was serving as Collier County's planning consultant during development of the county's
award wining Rural Lands Stewardship Areas program (RLSA), which received many
honors including the 2003 FAPA Award of Excellence.
Mr. Mulhere attended Saint Michaels College in Vermont where he obtained his bachelor's
degree in political science. He also holds a master's degree in public administration from
Florida Gulf Coast University.
Representative Projects
Rural and Agricultural Lands Study, Hendry County, Florida - Principal in Charge for a
study related to rural lands and the agricultural industry in Hendry County. The Plan
included an analysis of existing conditions and the creation of new comprehensive plan
goals, objectives, and policies, as well as a framework for the development of rural areas,
while protecting agriculture and important natural resources.
Rural Area Plans, Highlands and Hendry Counties, Florida - Principal in Charge for a
study that addresses protection of rural character in both Highlands and Hendry Counties.
RWA provided an analysis of existing mechanisms to protect rural lands, creation of an
easily implemented transfer of development rights program, and comprehensive standards
for new developments.
Immokalee Area Master Plan Update/LDC Rewrite and Overlay, Collier County,
Florida - Principal in Charge for an update to the Immokalee Area Master Plan, an LDC
Rewrite, and a Zoning Overlay specific designed for Immokalee. This work was conducted
on behalf of the Immokalee Community Redevelopment Agency in eastern Collier County.
Collier County Professional Planning Services, Collier County Attorney's Office,
Collier County, FL - Planning consultant for the Collier County Department of
Transportation and County Attorney's Office providing services related to Eminent Domain
issues as well as preparing conceptual site plans for curing sites after taking. Projects
included the Right-of-Way taking and curing analysis of Immokalee, Santa Barbara,
Goodlette-Frank and Pine Ridge Roads.
Bonita Beach Road RPD, Bonita Springs, FL - Principal in Charge of preparation,
submitting, and providing supporting professional planning consultation services for a City
of Bonita Springs Comprehensive Plan amendment, with a designation of Moderate
Density Mixed Use Planned Development (Mod. Den. MU/PD).
o
o
o
)~\ ~~l.t;~ f' fJ. s
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 Merit-
Florida American
Planning Association
1997 -Award of
Excellence-Florida
American Planning
Association
1997 - Top 30
Leaders of 2cf'
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 (TDR) 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 TOR
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, Colfier 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, Goff 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
beach front 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.
-
o
Richartl Scott Tomasello
5906 Center Street,
.Jupiter, Florida 33458
Telephone: (561) 575-3910 Office
(561)744-7264 Home
(56]) 744-]865 Fax
E-mail: Dixietom@lIol.com
Professional
Education
Experience
July 1989 to
Present
o
o
Certified Professional Engineer, Florida PE#15233
MS, 1973, Florida Institute ofTechnology
Major: Physical Oceanography
BS, 1970, Florida Allantic University
Major: Ocean Engineering
Exhibit P
Resumes
Tomasello Consulting Engineers, Inc. Jupiter, Florida
President
Flood study of Mulloch Creek (S2DMM, HEC RAS), Lee County
Flood study of Estero River (S2DMM, HEC RAS) Lee County
FEMA Velocity Zone LOMR Analyses (CHAMP), for several residential and commercial projects in Lee,
Chartotte, 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 hydroperiodlhydropattern analyses for Cloud Grove RLSA project (S2DMM) SI.
Lucie I Indian River County, Florida.
Hydroperiodlhydropattern and water budget modeling (S2DMM) for Lemon Grove Mitigation Bank, Martin
County, FI.
Welland water management system for Taylor Creek Restoration at Eckerd Youth Ranch (S2DMM),
Okeechobee,F1.
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, FI.
Water Budget hydroperiodlhydropattern analysis model study for Mirasol Project, Collier and Lee County,
Florida
Regional Hydrologiclhydrogeologiclhydrodynamic 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, FI.
20, H/H and Water Budget (wetland hydroperiod/hydropattern) Modeling Study (S2DMM) of Pal-Mal/Cypress
Creek/Groves Basin, Loxahalchee River watershed, Palm Beach and Martin Counties.
Coastal fiood restudy for City of Naples and Collier County (CHAMPS).
Reviewed FEIvlA Coastal Flood Study Update for Collier County and City of Naples and Marco Island, Appeal
of Proposed FEIvlA FIRMs
o
Exhibit P
3-D Hydrodynamic (EFDC) ftushing simulations for Sailfish Point Harbor, Martin Co., FL Resumes
20, 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, FI.
H/H analyses of Bedman Creek Watershed and diversion ftowway plans (SHEET2D), for East County Water
Control District, Lee County, FL
20, Hydrologic/ Hydrodynamic Model (SHEET2D) and water budgetlhydroperiod/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 MASS MOD model (Combination of Surface and
Groundwater Routing Model), for WCI Properties and Taylor Woodrow, Palm Beach, Co., FL.
20, H/H model (SHEET2D) analysis of Pelican Marsh East, WCI Properties, Collier Co., FL
20, H/H model (SHEET2D) Flood study of Six Mile Cypress Slough, Colonial Interstate Properties, Lee Co.,
FL
o
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, 20 Hydraulic Model (SHEET2D) Study for SFWMD, Palm Beach
County, FL
T omoka 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.
(HlH) 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 ALlCO, Lee County,FL.
HlH 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.
20, 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 budgetlhydroperiod/hydropattern model (MASSBAL) analysis for Six Mile Cypress Watershed, for
Board of County Commissioners, Lee County, FL.
20, H/H model analysis (SHEET2D) of Red Barn/Snake Pens Watershed, for Lykes Brothers, Glades County,
FL.
o
H/H model (HEC1, HEC2) analysis for Yellow Fever Creek, East Branch, Daughtrey Creek, and Six Mile
Cypress Slough, for Lee County Stormwater Management Master Plan, Lee County, FL.
H/H model (DWOPER) analysis of Airport Road drainage basin, Collier County, FL.
Hydrographic surveys, permitting, and design for several tidal projects in Palm Beach, Martin and Brevard
o
o
o
Counties, FL.
Exhibit P
Resumes
January 1981 to
July 1989
South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, Florida,
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 H/H 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, SI. Lucie, and
Caloosahatchee. Supervised permit review and criteria development projects.
AB2MT Consultants, Inc., West Palm Beach, Florida
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.
Area Planning Board of Palm Beach County, West Palm Beach,
Florida Environmental Engineer
Prepared technical outputs for the Palm Beach County 208 Plan.
Gee & Jenson Consulting, Ine, West Palm Beach, Florida
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 unde/Water structures. (Certified NAUI diver).
Professional American Society of Civil Engineers (Past President - Palm Beach Branch)
Activities
October 1978 to
December 1980
April 1976 to
October 1978
March 1972 to
April 1976
Served on ASCE Task Committee on Drainage Design Problems in Coastal Areas
American Water Resources Association
Palm Beach County Water Resources Task Force
o
Down to Earth. Down to Business:'
ENTR IX
DISCIPLINE/SPECIALTY
. 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 orresting
Materials Workshop Training for
Risk-Bascd Corrective Action,
ASTM Standard E1739-95,
1997
. Princcton Groundwater, Inc.,
The Remediation Course, 2000
o
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
. National Groundwater
Association
o
Exhibit P
Resumes
Brian K. Barnes
SENIOR MANAGING HYDROGEOLOGIST
SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS
Mr. Barnes has managed hydrogeologic investigations in Florida, Delaware and
Maryland for the past IS 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, F/orida
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
SOO-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 MOD FLOW. 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 pUlllpage
and recharge impacts.
Barnes_Bna"_M8.s1ec20100319[1} Doe
Page 1 of 2
o
o
o
ENTRIX
Exhibit P
Resumes
Brian K. Barnes
Down to Earth. Down to Business.'-
Project Manager- Master Dewatering Permit, Florida Gulf Coast University, Lee County, Florida
Mr. Barnes was the project manager for a master dewatering pennit 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, intennediate, 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_Brian_Master_201 OD31911J. Doc
Page 2 of 2
o
o
o
.
Exhibit P
Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Inc. Resumes
4800 S.W 64th Ave, Suite 107 Davie, FL 33314
Phone: 954-792-9776 Fax: 954-792-9954
Email: archlgc1@bellsouth.net Web: www.flarchaeology.com
Robert S. Carr
Education
August] 976
August] 972
]970-1971
June 1968
F]orida State University. Tallahassee, Florida.
. M.S. Degree in Anthropology
Florida State University. Tallahassee, Florida.
. B.A. Degree in Anthropology
University of Miami. Coral Gables, Florida.
. Course Work
Miami-Dade Junior College. Miami, Florida.
. A.A. Degree
Professional Experience
1999 - Present
1996 - 1999
1994 - 1995
1978 - J 999
1980 - 198]
]980 - 1983
March 1977
]973 - 1976
Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Inc.
. Executive Director
Dade County Historic Preservation Division
. Director
Dade County Division of Historic Preservation
. Acting Director
Dade County Division of Historic Preservation
. County Archaeologist
Florida Archaeological Council
. President
The Florida Anthropologist
. Editor
U.S. Park Service, SE Archaeological Center, Tallahassee, Florida.
. Archaeologist
Division of Archives History and Records Mgmt, Tallahassee, Florida.
. Contract Archaeologist
1999 - 2003
Representative Projects (p,"incipal Investigator)
Archaeological assessment and data analysis of M iam i Circle (8DA 12)
2000 - 200 I
Archaeological investigation of Okeechobee Battlefield. Boundary
Page I of 3
o
o
o
Exhibit P
Resumes
Robert S. Carr-page 2
1992 and 2006
Preachers Cave, E]euthera, Bahamas
1991 - 2002
Oltona Canal and Earthworks, Glades County
2000 - 200 I
Long Lakes (Broward County) archaeological investigations
1985 - 1991
Archaeological Survcy of Broward County
1979 - 1981
Archaeological Survey ofMiami-Dadc County
1974
Archaeological Survey of Lake Okeechobee
Selected Reports and Publications
Regional Archaeological Surveys
2003 Carr, Robert S., Alison Elgart-Belry, Victor Longo, Jeff Ransom Archaeological Survey of Palm
Beach County, Florida. AHC Technical Report #419.
1998 Carr, Robelt S., David Allerton and Ivan Rodriguez An Assessment of the Archaeological and
Historic Resources of the Florida Keys, Monroe County. AHC Technical Report #4.
1995 Carr, Robert S., James Pepe, W.S. Steele and Linda Jester Archaeological Survey of Martin
County, F]orida. AHC Technical Report #124
]99]
An Archaeo]ogica[ Survey of Broward County, Florida: Phase I. AHC Technical Report #34
1990 CatT, Robert S. and Patricia Fay An Archaeological Survey of the Lower Keys, Monroe County,
Florida. AHC Technical Report #19.
] 98] Dade Co'unty Historic Survey Final Report: The Archaeological Survey. Historic Preservation
Division. Metro-Dade Office of Community and Economic Development.
[978 An Archaeologica] Survey of the Big Cypress National Preserve, Preliminary RepOlt. National
Park Service, Southeastem Archaeological Center, Tallahassee Florida. (Co-author).
1975 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of the City of Apalachicola. Rep0l1 on file with Division
of Archives, History and Records Management, Tallahassee, Florida.
] 974 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, Robeli S., Lance, M., Steele, W.S. An Archaeological Assessment and Boundary
Determination of the Okeechobee Battlefield, Okeechobee County, Florida (Grant No. GA2255-00-00]).
A HC Technical Report #346.
] 996 Archaeological and Historical Elements for the Management of Snake Warriors
Island, Broward County, Florida. AHC Technical Report #/39.
Page 2 of3
c
o
o
Robert S. Carr-page 3
Exhibit P
Resumes
] 996 Carr, Robert S., and W.S. Steele Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of Atsena Otie
Levy County, Florida. AHC Technical Report #151.
1995 Carr, Robert S. and W.S. Steele An Archaeological Survey of Brightol1 Seminole
Reservation, Glades County Florida. AHC Technical Report #116
1995 Carr, Robert S., Linda Jester and James Pepe Phase II Archaeological Excavations of the
Riverbend # 12 Site, 8PB7984, Palm Beach County, Florida. AHC Technical Report # 112.
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 Del' Valko
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)
] 974 "Aerial Photos Aid Archaeologists." Popular Archaeology, Vol. 3, No. 6-7, p. 45.
Bahamian Archaeological and Historical Assessments
2006 Carr, Robert S., Jane Day, Jeff Ransom, William Schaffer, and John Beriault An Archaeological
and Historical Assessment of Preacher's Cave, Eleuthera, Bahamas. AHC Bahamas Technical Report #4.
2003 Carr, Robert S., Alison Elgart-Berry, Victor Longo, Jeff Ransom Archaeological Survey of Palm
Beach County, Florida. AHC Technical Report #419.
2003 Lance, Mark and Robert CaIT
Interim Report on Archaeological Investigations at New Plymouth Green Turtle Cay, Abaco, The
Bahamas. AHC Bahamas Technical Report #3.
1993 Carr, Robert S., Jane Day, and Sandra Norman Archaeological Investigations at Preacher's Cave
North Eleuthera, Bahamas Phase II. Bahamas AHC Technical Report #2, May 1993.
1991 An Archaeological Survey of Spanish Wells and N0I1h Eleuthera, Bahamas. Bahamas AHC
Technical Report #1.
1982 An Effigy Ceramic Bottle From Green Turtle Cay Abaco. The Florida
Anthropologist. 35:200-202. (Co-author/Senior Author).
Professional Affiliations
Society for American Archaeology
Society for Historic Archaeology
Florida Anthropological Society
South Florida Historical Association
Florida Archaeological Council
Page 3 of3
Hacienda Lakes aka Toll-Rattlesnake PUD
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
GMP Application
CCPC Review Materials
ATTACHMENT Q
Market and Needs Evaluation
'-
,-
Durr~
cO\511flVl ~
J.\I Il .l~"
o
mnmII RESEARCH
CONSULTANTS
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/DR I 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.
o 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.
o
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. 5UITE 500 . ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32801 . P 407-843-5635 . 800-767-5635 . F 407-839-6197. WWW.RERONC.COM
o
o
o
Market and Needs Evaluation for Hacienda Lakes
Page 2 of 16
Nonetheless, the on site residents are an important source of initial and ongoing support for any
of the physical uses that will occur as part of the larger development program.
The decision to include non-residential uses in the project stems from a combination of
regulatory, market, financial, and practical considerations that together speak to their need. In
the current environment, it is advantageous to integrate multiple uses to create a more
satisfying built environment and enhance community sustainability by reducing transportation
demands, balancing work with housing, and managing overall physical growth. As these social
objectives are achieved, the project is itself more desirable to prospective residents such that its
market potential and financial performance are enhanced. In effect, the ultimate mix of uses
draws upon a variety of considerations which together sustain a market position and encourage
demand. Need then includes influences or factors broader than determinations about
incremental space or lands required, or otherwise available, in the local market area.
Specific to demand as one dimension of need, it is not practical to model all possible outcomes
at this stage of planning. As a result, it makes sense to think of demand in terms of a range.
This range sets parameters within which actual performance might rationally be expected by the
developer or others with interests in the proposed program.
Consequently, we have evaluated demand for the commercial, office, business park, and
lodging aspects of this project from a number of different perspectives including project based
demand, share of market, and historical performance, all within the context of locations or
properties that could compete over the proposed planning and development period. Presumably
these different approaches should coalesce around reasonably similar answers before a final
conclusion is reached. Most likely, the answers will not result in single number but will yield a
tight range suggestive of targeted end point Though not identified as such, the different
perspectives or methods of analysis might be viewed collectively as a sensitivity test that
gauges the reasonableness of the overall analysis.
Market analysis needs to be distinguished from needs analysis. The former describes how a
project will respond to specific users while the latter addresses the quantity of underlying land or
the gross inventory of physical space required to serve broad market segments. Need is
invariably higher than demand simply because there must be adequate lands, units, or buildings
to provide locational options, design features, size, and amenities which together will affect cost.
Some businesses will own multiple facilities. There must be adequate lands or inventory to
accommodate mobility and movement. Some housing will be transitional. Some facilities will
age or become obsolescent or possibly non-conforming. Some will simply be removed. This
specific study addressed potential demand. The need for the facilities, such as those described
in this report, will by definition be in excess of any demand that can be documented.
GENERAL MARKET OR SERVICE AREA
Hacienda Lakes, as it is now planned, envisions a variety of uses and activities but the primary
focus remains its mix of multi and single family housing, comprised of an estimated 1,760 units
implemented in several phases. These units are a mix of multi and single family product
directed at the county's growing and affluent population base.
REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, INC.
o
Market and Needs Evaluation for Hacienda Lakes
Page 3 of 16
The residential aspects of the project, as described below, will draw from a region far larger than
Collier County itself although the county's own population growth offers some benchmarks for
planning and market testing. Any hotel or lodging components, while benefiting from other
activities nearby, is not necessarily correlated with the particulars of the location or the project.
Similarly, other parts of the planned venture will draw from varied geography or be driven by
conditions or circumstances particular only to the resident population. Retail or commercial uses
proposed for Hacienda Lakes may be among those activities with the most discrete service area
but the analysis, as it is laid out in subsequent sections, is sufficiently conservative that the
population of the project itself demonstrates adequate spending potential to posit need or
demand for such facilities as part of the general land development scheme. Ultimately, the
analysis focuses on its own residential population, not that of any surrounding or competing
areas, to generate support or demand adequate to substantiate the project's non-residential
elements.
This same area was matched generally
to CLARIT AS to estimate incomes of
the population in place. While the
CLARITA data does not match the time frame of the TAZ data, it does offer insight into the
earnings and spending potential of this part of Collier County. According to CLARITAS, the area
now has an average household income of about $82,000, growing to more than $90,000 in 20i5.
It is not altogether if the TAZ data prepared by Collier County includes the estimated dwelling
unit counts associated with Hacienda Lakes which, as described later in this memo, will have
incomes much higher than those for the larger area. The four T AZ's most closely associated
with Hacienda L indicate about 1800 units in place by 2030, comparable to the number actually
o
-..;,
...
..
..
-..-.
tJO
...
/"
-"
-.------
...
-:r
-
c-_
8_-
--
1___..__
~:::=:~
;tW:WdlLAbt
nd:......l... n-.
~.-
P\v\
o
...
To establish context we have assumed
that the geographical area most
affected by or that will interact with
Hacienda Lakes is comprised of a
radial distance about 2.5 miles from
the intersection of CR951 and
Rattlesnake Hammock Road. This
area is consistent with direction
received from staff and acknowledges
certain external factors should be
considered for their possible
implications.
Within that area, T AZ data prepared by
the MPO suggests there were
approximately 12, 447 people present
in 2010, growing to 15,409 people in
2015. At the 2030 benchmark, these
people will be comprised of about
17,000 households for planning
purposes. The radial analysis includes
each T AZ fully encapsulated in the 2.5
mile distance while excluding those
which are included only marginally.
Altogether, we considered thirteen
T AZ's for inclusion within this discrete
area.
REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, INC.
o
..
:!~o
zm~
~~m
al
r
~I
~~~
o
RADIO RD
f t.". (,~ r ~~. : 0<
"Ii'.'-,.r'
,
"
'--
l...-
'--
"'1
"i~;:~'iJ," ~ l-.i
RATTLESNAKE
HAMMOCK RD
o
o
~ Proposed Activity Center .. MH
D Project Boundary r--" PUD
Ralllesnake Hammock Rd & CR 9511nlerseclion Point" P
D 2.5 Mile Butrerfrom Intersection .. RMF.16
PUD's nol within 2 Mile Buffer .. RMF-6
- Collier County Major Roads .. RMF-6(3)
Zoning within 2,5 Mile Buffer _ RPVD
_ A r-- RSF,3
_ C-3 I RSF,3(1)
_ C-5 r:- RSF-4
_ CPVD L":' RSF,5
E _ TTRVe
Hacienda Lakes
Study Area 2.5 Miles from Intersection
0.25 0.5 Miles
----.J
DlXTAINC
Ct>NSLJLTINt;
... '-, ,.... ....
'P!anning-Vj\ualiJ.:lIiol1
. Cj\-il [n~ir"lC\'rinE . Sll"(''yin~ A MaJ'PinE
6
N
Prepared By: rmjones
Printing Dale: Sep122, 2010
File: T:\PrOJ6CIS\2005\05 _ 0 150 .02.03_ Haciendalakes\
GM P\ReV02\Hacif!rlda _ SludyArea _ AcICtr2.5.mxd
Source: Zoning & PUO (Collier County Government)
o
o
o
256
257
302
311
313
Hacienda Lakes
Traffic Analysis Zones
254
228
---'l,;,,_.~. .
253
360
246
244
o
RATTLESNAKE
HAMMOCKRD
361
LJ
305
303
357
309
Legend
~ Proposed Activity Center
D Project Boundary
c::J Traffic Analysis Zones
. Ralllesnake Hammock Rd & CR 951 Intersection Point
D 2.5 Mile Buffer from Intersection
Collier County Major Roads
0.25
0.5 Miles
I
D'lTA'NC'
('UNSULTINU
.L ....., '.L .&.
'~;lnni~~ .\iiwali/.aliun
.Cj\-il [n~lllC.'enng .Suoeying.l: "tarrin~
6.
N
Prepared By: rmjorl8s
PrintIng Dale: Sep122. 2010
File: T:\Projects\2005\05 _ 0150.02.03_ Hacienda lakes\
GMPlRev02\Haclenda_AcIClr2.5 TAZ.mxd
Source: TAl & PUD (Collier County Government)
o
o
o
Market and Needs Evaluation for Hacienda Lakes
Page 4 of 16
planned for the project. Whether or not the T AZ 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 e~) 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.
o
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.
o
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
demands that occur exclusively from new 700,000
household formations generated as the result of II Permanent
divorces, new marriages, and returning children.
Estimated Population Growth Naples
600,000
o Seasonal Peak
o
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
reponed permanent population and will drive @TomDoyle 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.
o
o
o
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
altogether correct, the inference, in the context
of other factors, clearly is that the scale of the
market cannot be adequately judged by an
analysis of current and projected resident
population alone.
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.
Where Naples Residents Live
Region
. Florida
. Mid Atlantic
. Midwest
. 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.
o
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
o
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 matches the
increase observed in
residential activity. At least
since 1995, about 1,700,000 Total
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.
1995.1998
1995-2008 1999-2008 1995.2008 1999.2008
Average Average
Commercial
Officel Banks
Industrial
1,743,030
627,673
1.241.887
10,986,605 9,243,575
2,667,745 2,040,072
4.112,661 2,870.774
784,758
190,553
293.762
924,358
204,007
287.077
3,612,590
17,767,011 14,154.421 1,776,701
1.415.442
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.
o
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.
o
o
o
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 .. .
. (SF) d II' Total office Inventory In
service per we Ing. .
't (DU) fOb service (SF) per dwelling
Un! as 0 ecem er, .
2000. Includes DOR (land unit (DU)as of December,
) d 11 14 2000. Includes DOR (land
use co es - ,
162930 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
Charlotte
Clay
Collier
Dade
DeSoto
Gadsen
Glades
Hardee
Highlands
Lake
Liberty
Okaloosa
Okeechobee
Orange
Polk
Seminole
Sl. Lucie
136.96
91.80
211.22
107.23
131.65
83.01
86.83
43.97
78.08
82.22
106.80
65.49
149.62
136.32
167.65
112.71
151.98
99.67
76.11
18.49
40.68
28.58
96.32
32.85
54.80
7.09
35.40
30.30
42.49
21.54
73.53
33.67
142.01
47.92
91.22
31.54
123.01
49.87
109.44
69.35
235.54
63.81
267.03
40.30
52.33
62.18
120.42
26.00
117.39
18.86
240.68
217.94
170.08
97.87
336.09
160.16
361.35
205.16
463.51
179.67
408.65
91.35
165.81
174.69
269.70
113.03
340.54
188.85
550.33
378.56
413.28
229.08
Average
Low
High
113.51
43.97
211.22
50.25
7.09
142.01
115.67
18.86
267.03
279.43
91.35
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.
o
o
o
Market and Needs Evaluation for Hacienda Lakes
Page 9 of 16
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,
employment status, income and other
attributes. The survey effort is
designed to capture different types of
consumer expenditures occurring Incomeafterlaxes
over a period of time. It is among the Average annual expendilures
most detailed reconciliations of
American consumer habits. A part of Food al home
that survey is reproduced here in Food away from home
summary form with the relevant Alcoholic beverages
categories of spending or other
information highlighted. Materials not
highlighted or referenced provide
context but are not a part of any
calculations as discussed.
Future Retail and Commercial Demands
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.
Average annual expenditures, Consumer Expenditure Survey, 2008
Item
Housekeeping supplies
Laundry and cleaning supplies
Other household products
Postage and stationel)'
Household furnishings and equipment
Household textiles
Furniture
Floor coverings
Major appliances
Small appliances
Miscellaneous household equipment
Apparel and services
Transportation
Vehicle purchases (net outlay)
Gasoline and motor oil
Healthcare
Drugs
Medical supplies
Entertainment
Personal care products and services
Reading
Tobacco products and smoking supplies
Miscellaneous
$100.000
and more
$100,000 to
$119,999
$120,000 to
$149,000
$150,000 and
more
$157,379
5220,261
$100,065
51,165
$212
5702
$251
$3,531
$303
$863
$104
$394
5232
$1,634
5105,048
577,586
$5,690
55,390
$4,383
5127,295
$91,590
55,755
55,214
$761
51,097
5236
$600
5260
53,091
$239
$727
$82
5362
$208
51,474
53,643 $2,734 $3,122
$15,674 $13,424 515,720
55,450 54,546 55,764
$4,2S8 $3,954 54,237
$4,471 $4,037 $4,316
5651 $615 $644
$198 $171 $167
55,869 $4,306 $6,363
$1,198 $947 $1,138
$233 $197 $210
$1,767
55,611
5919
$1,147
5199
$735
$213
52,642
$206
$573
$93
5274
$156
51,341
$258
$322
5244
$1,612
Household expenditures, except cars
Household expenditures, including cars
51,278
$124,678
55,940
57,071
5904
51,083
Given the nature of the residential
program and the apparent demand
segments, the larger project is likely
to be oriented toward the regions'
highest income families. In 2008, the
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
$1,238
$208
$747
$282
$4,631
5443
$1,191
5128
5515
$325
$2,029
54,886
55,984
54,396
54,931
$686
$244
56,835
$1,472
$278
5217
52,277
541,404
$47,238
REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, INC.
o
o
o
-...
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.
o
o
o
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 OOR 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 components are justified in the proposed project
based on the scale of other elements in the plan. Even recognizing, current vacancies in the
market which are above 10%, the planned development program is not unreasonable in the
time frame presented.
Future Office Demands
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.
o
o
o
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.
o
o
o
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.
o
o
o
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 CR9S1/Rattlesnake Hammock
the accompanying table.
We see only a limited
relevance for competing
lands in the context of this
analysis. For the most
part, the actual
implementation of any use
remains largely
speculative at this stage
of planning. Because
many of these potential
projects will never be
constructed, the project's
residential uses, which
comprise the focus of the
project, may never have
access to the facilities or
services that could be
offered only if these other
projects are built as
envisioned.
OW.
10
Commercial
Square
Footage
Approved
Developed
Commercial
Square
Footage
Ordinance
Number
Total
Acreage
Commercial
Acreage
NAME
Comments
COlLIER REGIONAL
1 MEDICAL CENTER
Approved for 260K hospital and 80K
medical office. 80K office already developed. 04-28
(DRI-99-1). Neighborhood commercial
not open to the public 02-35
Office and commercial uses allowed.
Developed with an Urgent Care and an
Amsouth Bank. One parcel left. 00-83
60.00
60.00
340,000
275,946
12 WINDING CYPRESS
1,928.00
15.00
30,000
15 EDISON VILLAGE
7.44
5.66
54,000
25,000.
Developed with a Publix anchored shopping
NAPLES LAKES COUNTRY center, Fifth Third Bank, Radiation Therapy
21 ClUB Office & Southtrust Bank. One parcel left 03-33 485.02 15,00 110,000 80,000.
25 SIERRA MEADOWS (EX) Vacant. Retail/Office allowed 99-91 90.80 30.20 260,000
DRl-84-3C; Only listed 30 acres which are the
C3 uses per PUD (which are in the study
area); On Rattlesnake Hammock/Grand Lely
27 LEl Y RESORT Dr and on CR951/Grand Lely Dr 07.72 2,892.50 30,00 300,000. .
HAMMOCK PARK
30 COMMERCE CENTER Retail/Office allowed. 07-30 20.23 19.05 160,000
Retail/Office allowed. Assisted Living also
31 GOOD TURN CENTER allowed instead of commercial. 09-53 9.50 9.50 100,000
Medical & General Office. No retail allowed.
32 MCMULLEN PUD ALF also allowed instead of commercial. 1a-18 19.32 19.32 30,000'"
Parcel North of Good Turn
34/35 PUD ((-5 zoning) Two parcels 9.24 9.24
Parcel (C-3 zoning) North
33 of C-5 zoning 9.24 9.24
. Approllimate amount. Did not use county numbers as there has been construction since last County Update.
.. Estimated at 1O,OOOsf per acre of developable commercial acreage.
.U Based on it being developed as ALF. 3 acres are within 1/4 mile from hospital allowing medical office. Estimated at 30,OOOsf
Source: PUD Ordinances, Collier County PUO list
Of the 1,756,000 SF shown in the table, very little has already been built, adding to the
speculative nature of the plans. Of that which is built, almost two-thirds has a distinct medical
orientation which has not been directly considered in the demand estimates outlined for the
project. For the most part, there are no obvious opportunities that might satisfy a lodging
demand such as proposed in the proposed plan. Locations that might be deemed competitive
for hospitality uses are constrained in their value because of the larger mixed use concept that
supports this particular activity. There are no known or identifiable industrial or business park
uses being contemplated in the area of primary concern.
REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, INC.
o
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
exceptions, the information found in this
additional level of analysis appears
reasonably consistent with the planning
team's own field inventory of the area's
most relevant or potentially competitive
holdings.
Planning Community
Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ's) 2000
Zoning
A
C-3
C-4
CF
I
PUD
RMF-12(10)
Total
Bldg.
Square Feet
2,866
o
1,575
2,504
1,708
317,553
o
326,206
Land
Area (acres)
0.0
1.0
1.5
12.5
0.8
231.0
1.5
248.3
As to these other projects or properties
identified by the planning team or others
generally it remains entirely conjectural
that the approvals attached to these other
sites, their supporting infrastructure, price,
general availability, physical suitability,
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.
o
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.
o
REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, INC.
c
o
o
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
G MP Application
CCPC Hearing Review Materials
EXHIBIT R
Transit Master Plan
\..
DUlr~
CO\SUflVi ~
.1 \ 111.1 "'"'I'
o
o
-
....
It')
en
0:=
~
c
~
~
W
...J
::>
o
m
~
w
:J
...J
o
U
Legend
1:]' CAT STOP/SHELTER
--- Proposed CAT Route 4A '.x 4B Extension
- Existing CAT Route 4,11, & 4B
,~I Existing CAT Facility 4A
111 Existing CAT Facil; ty 4B
- Existing CAT ROIJte 7
- Proposed Pede3trian Facilities
- Proposed Bike: and Pedestrian Facilities - Offsite
- Future Bike a "d Pedestrian Facilities
- Future Pede:;trian Facilities
~ Project Bour Idary
CJ D~velopmeflt Boundary
EXISTING GAT
ROUTE 7
(TO MARCO ISLAND)
Proposed
Access
Proposed
Access
THE LORD'S WAY
Proposed
Access
POTENTIAL
CAT STOP/SHELTER
PROPOSED
4A&48 CAT
ROUTE EXTENSION
DEVELOPER
PROPOSED
CAT STOP/SHELTER
PROP. RATTLESNAKE
HAMMOCK RD. EXT.
RATTLESNAKE
HAMMOCK R _
.&;i)
EXISTING
CAT
ROUTE4A
EXISTING
CAT
ROUTE 4A
&48
~1~
EXiliNG EXISTING
CAT CAT
FACILITY FACILITY
4A (TYP) 48 (TYP)
Hacienda Lakes
Transit Master Plan
Map R
o
500 1,000
IFeet
D.
N
a
Land Use
~ Attraction Tract
~ Business Park or School
~ Commercial
~ Preserve Tract
l I Public Facilities Tract (EMS)
.. Junior Deputy
~ School
I Residential Tract
~ Residential/ Medical Use
~ Public ROW Reservation
- Roads
- Collier County Major Roads
POTENTIAL
CAT STOP/SHELTER
STATE
LANDS
D'XTAINC.
CONSUL TING
..L "-, U.. ....
. Planning . Vi~ualilalion
. Civil Engineering. Surveying & Mapping
Prepared By: rmjones
Printing Date: October 6.2010
File: T:IProjectsI2005105_0150,02,03_
HaciendaLakeslGM PIRev021T ransitMP, mxd
,
Hacienda Lakes aka Toll-Rattlesnake PUD
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
GMP Application
CCPC Hearing Review Materials
t..;:
EXHIBIT S
Pedestrian Master Plan
(
"
D'\lr~
CO\SlLHVi ~
.l\llll~"
o
o
o
I
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
- .
.... Legend
II)
0') I Ped_Exist_Fac
Ii . Layer
--- EXlsl'ng Shafed Use p""
U . --- Exisl1ng SOdewa~
-
C -ProPOSll<lPedeslrianF'aciI4>(ls
0::: . _~dPedesIMnF8ClbMs_Ofl_SII"
~ . Layer
CJPrqectBoVfldary
W . [~]rPl
...J - Co"-Counly MaJO.Roads
:J .
0 Layer
al . DRew&nha,
0::: -. . Pres.er\le Tract
W . AttractiooTmcl
::i . D.).)l'lior~pulY
..J . Susj/>eSS P8r1o:01 School
0 . .5<:lIool
U
. D,PUbhCFBCilll'''ST'aclIEMS)
.R'l$idenl;alll.4&d,CSIUS6
.
I
Proposed
Access
EXISTING 10' THE LORD'S WAY
SHARED USE
PATH
. PROPOSED
. PEDESTRIAN
. FACILITIES
. PROPOSED
. OFFSITE
Proposed . 6' SIDEWALK &
Access . 4' BIKELANES
.
RATTLESNAKE . PROP. RATTLESNAKE
HAMMOCK RD HAMMOCK RD. EXT.
___----In
EXISTING
SIDEWALK
(WIDTH
VARIES) ,
.
.
.~
.
Pedestrian Facilities Will
Be Extended Along All
Internal Roads Even if Not Shown
Proposed
Access
Pedestrian a i1ities Will
Be Extende ! long All
Internal Roads Ev if Not Shown
STATE
LANDS
Hacienda Lakes
Pedestrian Master Plan
Exhibit S
o
500 1,000
IFeet
D'lTA1NC.
CONSUL TING
..... '-, , .L .....
. Planning . Vi~ualilalion
. Civil Engineering. SUlveying & M'pping
D
N
Prepared By: rmjones
Printing Date: October 6. 2010
File: T:IProjectsI2005105_0150.02.03_
HaciendaLakeslADA IRev02lHacienda_N _Ped MP.mxd